Talk:Taliban

Coalition Attack Section

This section is somewhat flawed. I will correct the footnote citation to what the author tried to cite to, but as far as I can tell the article does not support this paraphrasing. The paragraph adds to the article though, so I am hesistant to eliminate it altogether.

"The Washington Post stated in an editorial by John Lehman in 2006:

What made the Afghan campaign a landmark in the U.S. Military's history is that it was prosecuted by Special Operations forces from all the services, along with Navy and Air Force tactical power, operations by the Afghan Northern Alliance and the CIA were equally important and fully integrated. No large Army or Marine force was employed.[131]" ThomasHodgkissLilly (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How is this relevant information in an already very long article about the Taliban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.205.30 (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Taliban's treatment of women

Canadian soldiers should be changed to NATO troops because Canada is in no way the only force fighting in Afghanistan or sometimes seen in a negative light by the Afghan people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.247.6 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a disclaimer attached to anythccccccing from RAWA. They are not a neutral, non-biased humanitarian group. They are a political group with political leanings. This should be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.174.242 (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Taliban's version of Islam

While in power, the Taliban implemented the "strictest interpretation of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world,"[11]"

That's just sensationalist hogwash. The Taliban are Sunnis, and Deobandis at that, they implemented a very strictly enforced version of the Hanafi law (or fiqh) which is the most liberal in Islam (out of the four schools of law, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, Shafi'i).

The strictest interpretation of Shariah law itself is instituted by Saudi-Arabia which is Salafi. Not just Salafi even, but Wahabi (an even more extreme sub-branch of Salafis). However, "reform" for the Saudis has taken the form of looser enforcement which does not change the fact that the law "on the books" so to speak, is much stricter in Saudi-Arabia than it was for the Taliban. Is taboo to mention because the Saudis are our allies?

Al-Qaeda are also Salafi, being mostly comprised of extremist Arabs and Saudis. So it's important to note that Al-Qaeda would sometimes institute its own brand of Shariah in Afghanistan, distinct from the Taliban, even up to the point of foreign policy. Al-Qaeda's influence on the Taliban is very similar to the situation in Lebanon with Hizbullah acting like a "state within a state", and the nightmare scenario for the West has been Hizbullah becoming powerful enough to derail Lebanon. It was the same case in Afghanistan, albeit the Taliban weren't too far off the mark to begin with. The Israel-Lebanon war of 2006 was very similar to the Afghanistan war and 9/11... the non-government state actors (Hizbullah, Al-Qaeda) attacked a foreign power and drew its host country (Lebanon, Afghanistan) into a war. The host country showed solidarity with the organization because of how deep it was embedded into the culture and populace, though it likely had little say or even knowledge of the original attack (Lebanon's government didn't know Hizbullah tried to conduct a cross-border raid, the Taliban and most of Al-Qaeda had no clue that 9/11 was even in the works). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.174.242 (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Taliban and A-Qaeda with Hezbollah is not only funny but ridiculous. Hezbollah is democratically elected by people and is a political party with large number of supporters!88.97.164.254 (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

the taliban r said to be wahabi in the main article but infact they r deobandis and many of them graduated from the deobandi seminary jamiah huqqanyah in pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.219.176 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

al qeda and osama bin laden are definitely not salaafi. For example, osama bin laden decalerd publicly after 9/11 "we say fatiha for the souls of the hijackers" and saying a fatiha for a dead soul is a sufi concept. Just because osama bin laden came from saudi arabia, that doesn't instantly make him salaafi. In fact, salaafi islam is the state religion and osama bin laden is at war with the state of saudi arabia so therefore he is declaring salaafi islam to be his enemy. In salaafi islam, teh theme is pure islam, back to the origins of Islam. Osama bin laden lets anyone join al qeda, even if they are mushrikeen or such like, implying a very different policy to the salaafi who say that we must all follow one version of Islam. Finally I will make the point that if you go into any salaafi mosque (for example masjid as salaafya in birmingham; UK) and ask about jihad they will tell you there is no jihad to fight at the moment and they will belittle all of the "extremist" groups such as al qeda, taliban, al shabab etc. The taliban are wlel known deobando (sufi) muslims and it should be understand that sufism is in direct opposition to sufism. I suggest reading http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/ its a great book called the wahhabi myth and it will open peoples minds to who the salaafi are and who the terrorists are (two very different types of muslims)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.16 (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting the previous user: "The taliban are wlel known deobando (sufi) muslims". Deobandis and sufis are not the same thing, although they are both Sunnis. In Pakistan, the majority of the population of Sindh and Pakistani Punjab were sufi, and came into conflict with the incoming refugee Muslims from northern India (mostly Deobandi) after Partition in 1947. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.176.71 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Are the Taliban "Hanafis"? Or even "Deobandis"? I find these accusations akin to those who try and say that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was a Sufi. Yes, he once was, but if you read up, he clearly came to reject their position. Can the same be said of Taliban members who graduated from the Deobandi school? I think it is very likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Buddhas of Bamiyan

Why do "the intentions of the destruction remain unclear"? It seems pretty clear why the statues were destroyed by reading the New York Times article referenced in the section. 124.171.164.160 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Opponents

The United Kingdom is not stated in the opponents list. This suprises me, as they are currently leading the fight against the Taliban in afghanistan. 14/12/08

Also, Canada has a large contingent of soldiers in country... Why are the U.S. and U.K the only NATO forces represented in the side bar?Mikeonatrike (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is also bias to make a statement "the UK is leading the fight against the taliban". I am currently serving OEF09 as a combat medic and I have seen the following forces- French, UK, Australian, Afghan Army, US, and a few others. I am US and I believe we are all contributing in this country. I must say however that I have been to BAF (Bagram Air Force Base), FOB Airborne, and COP Carwile in the wardak provence. In all my experience the US populates most of the small bases away from the bigger FOB's with niceities such as showers, hot chow, and communication to the soldier's home country. So in my experience the US does without more and is closer to the front lines of this conflict, not to say that is how it is everywhere but something to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.91.217 (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

um?

why is Pakistan listed as a Ally last time i check they were fighting them.

In response: Pakistan has had an extremely close nexus with Taliban thru JUI. And the last time I checked Pakistan was turning into Afghanistan. Hint Hint --> TALIBAN HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT (considering they are sunni islamists and finally Paskistan is regretting their close alliance with them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.46.136.178 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing a school project on the Taliban and how they governed Afghanistan. I find no mention of their achievements on this page. This is a little disappointing and says something about the neutrality of the article.

What achievements? Can you post your school project here when you done it so that we see what achievements you are talking about? 88.97.164.254 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is one achievement: (Taliban) declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan#Rise_of_the_Taliban_.281994.E2.80.932001.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.93.13.41 (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Pashtuns

Can we add some of the information found in the following USA Today article about ethnic Pashtuns being ethnic cleansed by ethnic Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, into this article?

"CHESHMEH-YE SHIR, Afghanistan — From the road, this hamlet looks wrecked and deserted. Doors and windows have been ripped from the dried-mud dwellings. There are no sheep or other signs of life.

But as Mohammed Azim, 46, leads the way, heads peer out from around corners. Soon there's a crowd of men and a handful of women and children watching from a distance as Azim explains their caution.

These people, many of them his relatives, are in hiding. "No Pashtun can just journey out of his house," he says.

Human Rights Watch agrees. It says Pashtuns, the dominant ethnic group in most of Afghanistan — except in the north — are being beaten, raped and robbed here by armed gangs of ethnic Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. The human rights group, based in New York City, says it has no figure on the number of victims, but its investigators have collected anecdotal evidence that indicates dozens of Pashtuns have been killed in the assaults. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/05/13/pashtuns.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litrboxr (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are many reports saying that Iran is providing weapons to Taliban so why is Iran placed as opponent? George |Bush, the White House and senior US Military personell all say that Iran is helping the Taliban. Someone needs to check into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litrboxr (talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, exactly! "Bush, the White House and senior US Military personell" are saying that Iran is helping Taliban. Someone have to check into this and try to veryfy the claim using more reliable sources. Until someone does, we can safely assume that to be a lie and stick with the opposite: that Iran is against Taliban (which is BTW rather obvious to anyone familiar with the subject). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.249.143 (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Man you don't know how to search for something online? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Quds Force, the elite unit of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, provides "lethal support" to the Sunni-dominated Taliban for use against U.S. and NATO forces, according to information in the new U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran. How many more sources you want to see here?--119.30.71.83 (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Initally, when the war on terror started, the then moderate Iranian government actually supported NATO in ousting the Taliban. This is all well documented in the series "Bush's War", but here's a blurb supporting it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/slapface.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.32.91.79 (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two good reasons to doubt those reports, Litrboxr. I will hand you the third: no trustworthy organisation has yet supported these accusations of Iran helping Taliban, and leave the others as an exercise for you. 82.95.146.33 (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I didn't place the tag on the top of this article, but I would agree that the article is not neutral in tone. Claims of a Taleban resurgence are presented without challenge to their authenticity and without acknowledgement of the apparent decline in that resurgence in 2008. (The timeline itself has just one major incident in 2008, so either it needs a huge update, or the preceding section is wrong or out of date.) 96.237.243.124 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Taliban Vs Afghanistan

What is this crock of bs....The new puppet government in Afghanistan is intalled by invaders...how can it be thought of as legitimate government...you guys must have a heavy POV that is same as US government right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellibeing (talk • contribs) 03:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE as to why this is. Only a fringe would share your opinion of the current Afghanistan government being illegitimate. -- Atama^chat 15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the free and fair elections, for both women and men, have given the current government legitimacy. Rather than goverment by force of arms and a power clique. Robauz (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Fr

"Free and fair" elections which had only US approved candidates. Spare me your propaganda. Do you think that if given the chance the afghans wouldn't vote for someone who would kick the yankees out of afghanistan. Why are there no candidates who demand that the USA will leave afghanistan? Do you really believe that among millions of afghans nobody wants the yankees to leave? The Taliban proposed to have a court in which the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, if proven guilty they would hand him over. The USA didn't accept and started the war, killing a million civilians. If the yankees felt they had enough proof why didn't they accept the offer. What proof did they really have that it was Osama? Osama denied it himself [1]

"Free and fair" election. You have got to be kidding.

[2]. Normally terrorists (sometimes even falsely) claim these attacks since it gives them prestige. Someone who has already declared war on the USA wouldn't deny this particular attack (9-11) if he was responsible. They still haven't found Osama by the way. Should the afghans suffer eternally for what foreigners (Al Qaeda) supposedly did? When will the occpuation stop and Afghans can have real democratic elections? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious stupidity you have just spited out...Invaders who invaded Afghanistan from far away land are fighting with Afghanistan....They have nothing in common. I guess gas pipeline is probably the only thing we can say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellibeing (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no oil in Afghanistan. This.machinery (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally get side tracked by that sort of dumb comment, but just incase anyone thought there really is no oil in Afghanistan, there is shitloads of both oil and gas (although obviously not Iraqi levels) plus Cheney always wanted to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, but I don't wanna get into american foriegn policy. Just see San Francisco Chronicle, Asia Times, BBC or pretty much any good newspaper to be honest. Pidz (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Taliban deaths

Is there any reliable count of how many talibans have been killed by U.S. coalition forces since the war in Afghanistan began? The article lists some counts of civilian deaths, but I didn't see any mention of Taliban member deaths. — Loadmaster (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so, considering that Taliban usually collect their wounded, there's no real way of knowing other than a rough estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.200.223 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Extremely Biased

The article seems to be extremely one-sided and anti-Taliban, seemingly painting the organisation as evil (or at very least misguided) at every oppotunity. A "Criticism of Ideology" section exists, which is of course fair...yet the closest thing I found to a "Defence of Ideology" section (which this article should have), is an "Explanation of Ideology", which basically merely states that the Taliban are idiots who don't know any better. This article needs to be neutral, we shouldn't be painting the Taliban in a negative light. --86.158.187.75 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In the muslim faith the Koran preaches to never kill another muslim for he is your brother, and anyone else is an infidel. The Koran teaches muslims to talk to the infidels and try to preach about the muslim religion, not kill them. While on patrol i am close friends with my interpreter who is muslim (Pashtun) and he talks to me and teaches me of his ways. Apparently the muslim people do not like the taliban for they do not follow the Koran as it was meant, and mistreat them. I have worked on numerous Afghan Army personnel who were shot and even killed by taliban, while I was handing out meds and giving medical treatment to a village in the Wardak provence. If the taliban does not want to be labeled as ignorant and "evil" then they should not indulge in mindless bloodshed, especially on a mission in which free medical care (MEDCAP) is being given to the local nationals.

No no the bias is good, think about it, would you give the Nazis just as much positive light as negative? Talibans -are- idiots who can't do better. They get the light they deserve, because there's no really "good" side to their faith. 83.115.211.71 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The articles on the Nazis do no contain the same jingoistic bias as this article. Soldiers fighting on the opposite side are hardly neutral commentators. The whole "Criticism of Ideology" section should be removed. There should be maybe a paragraph about women's rights in the article. There should be more mention of the widespread atrocities by the warlords AKA "Northern Alliance" that led to the creation of the Taliban. 70.114.217.117 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly Biased

Might as well change the name of the article to "The Taliban according to the US government." The article is filled with opinion, false accusations, and flat out name calling. And please, there's no reason to call the Salafis "Wahabbis." The term is not only inaccurate, but also derogatory. All instances of "Wahabbi" must be changed to "Salafi." In addition, as the Taliban were very clearly influenced by the Deobandi school, claims of it being influenced by the Salafis are ludicrous, as the Deobandi stance towards Salafi ideology is thoroughly explained by Mufti Ebrahim Desai, a prominent Deobandi scholar, on his website, www.askimam.org. Please make this a real article, not a baseless set of lies against a government that was not only quite popular, but continues to increase in support to this day.Wasabi salafi koonkati (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you any idea at all what the Taliban do to their enemies?Prussian725 (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Or to their own people (especially women ^{[3] [4] [5]})? — Loadmaster (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I supect he does, but please argue his point (that the article inacuratly reflects both the influences and influence) of the Taliban. He did not raise any issues about civil rights.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Wow. I'm going to be honest--did not read beyond the first few lines. I was looking for a basic definition to describe the current status of the Taliban...but as soon as I got to the word "terrorist movement", my eyes boogled and I went elsewhere for a less shallow depiction--after all, the Taliban WAS the legitimate government in its time. I was relieved when I nav'd to the discussion page and found that there are some people who realise that this site is meant to be a factfile, not a journal of opinion. I hope someone puts in an effort to update the page soon. Until then, I encourage people to seek out alternative sources of information on this subject. Night_w 19:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by Taliban WAS the legitimate government in its time? Where did they get their legitimacy from? Did people elect them? The fact that not a single civilised country ever recognised them is a good indication of how legitimate they were! Only their paymasters and partners in crime (i.e. Saudi, UAE and Pakistan) recognised the Taliban! 88.97.164.254 (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

these kinds of comments show huge bias and either intentionally misleading people to further your own cause or gross ignorance. You attribute the talibans main funding to be the muslim countries, what about the fact that they were originally the mujahideen, funded by america to fight back russian forces. If america backed them in order to allow them to take over the country then america has ruled them to be legitimate (ironically also being the ones to overthrow them). And no, the ammount of other countries that recognise them as a legitimate government is irrelevant. If we wish to over throw a countries government, we cant simply declare them illegimate and then go wading in then guns blazing to "liberate" the people. If the world decideds to declare the american government to be illigitimate can we legitimately wage war on america? Also I aggree, the taliban were not a good government IN MY OPPINION but oppinions are welcome at wikipedia. They are sufi, not salaafi and this article is far too POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.16 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some technical problems with the article? It's all well and good making sweeping statements, but to change the article you must find technical points and list them. So to anyone considering these potential errors and viewpoints, list in point form what should be changed. DavidHuo (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Too much content in intro

Much of the info in the intro is also covered in the article in more detail. By selectively moving some info to the intro, it implicitly makes it more important than other info, and also necessarily deprives it of some context. I think deleting much of the repetitive info, it would address some of the POV concerns.Vontrotta (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Biased is right -- *for* the Taliban

"On September 21, 2001, the Taliban quite reasonably responded that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty they would hand him over, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking him to the September 11 attacks."

Unclear on the concept, people. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Whether the Taliban's response was "quite reasonable" is for the reader to decide. Editorializing isn't appropriate.

I hope an editor will get around to fixing such faults in this article. --Andersonedits (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I made a pass on some of the article, but there is always room for improvement.Vontrotta (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair comment - I put in this particular edit, and you're right; though what I was trying to get at was the fact no other government would have acted any differently by requesting evidence before extraditing someone. Any suggestions on how to better phrase this? Nuwewsco (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the important thing is the "fact", that is the response to the request for extradition. Whether or not it was "reasonable" is a subjective determination that every reader of the "encyclopedia" can make based on his or her knowledge of the circumstances, only a small sketch of which is included in the article. I think if you want to add something like this, it ought to be something along these lines: "various commentators have assessed the reasonableness of the Taliban government actions and have concluded...." with a cite to the article(s) that have a full discussion of the topic. In the absence of that, it is better to just stick with the facts.Vontrotta (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe if "quite reasonably" was removed, and an explanation of WHY was added it would be less biased and make more sense. Also, other than that paragraph, i think the whole article is very anti-taliban. It also might be useful to less informed readers why the taliban are fighting NATO? Junhalestone (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Taliban resurgence

Canadian soldiers should be changed to NATO troops because Canada is in no way the only force fighting in Afghanistan and Afghans' opinions of other nations troops have also changed. 72.242.247.6 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest reducing this section to a very short summary and leaving all the details for the main article Taliban insurgency, which needs work to improve its cites.

Comments?Vontrotta (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening para grammar

"Committed fundamentalist insurgents, often described as "Taliban" in the media, originating, and currently based in the Frontier Tribal Areas of Pakistan, [3] are engaged in a protracted guerrilla war against the current government of Afghanistan, allied NATO forces participating in Operation Enduring Freedom, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF),[4] and an effort to expand their operations and influence in Pakistan."

The above sentence reads horrendously. It should, IMO, be broken in two. Or something.

I'll try to fix it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Taliban is misspelled in Arabic. The word ends in a fatHa tanween, not an alif noon.

It's not arabic its pashtun.

Pashtun has a great many loan words from Arabic, which came into the language with the introduction of Islam. Taliban is one of them, and the person who mentioned fatHa tanween is correct. It should be: طَلِباً

Taliban is from the word "Tali", meaning "Students", of which Taliban is the plural.

Neither of you are correct. The word is طالبان. It is comprised of the Arabic word طالب, meaning "student" with the Persian/Pashto plural suffix ان. The use of tanween would change this word to an adverb: "studently", which is, of course, not really a word at all. Jemiljan (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

None of you are correct! طالبان in Arabic means "two students" as the alef nun ending is the 'dual' suffix. Making edit as the current use of Arabic for plural students is incorrect. No idea why they would call themselves that though. Although I wouldn't put two students beyond defeating the Western...umm...colonialists. Mikesta178

Um, can someone else make the edit? I'm not very active and don't really understand the format used when it says "students". Just to confirm, "students" should be "two students." Mikesta178

The word Taliban has a Arabic origin, but we need to translate it in Pashtun context which is just a plural form of Talib, and means Students.

I think either leave llike I did or put origin arabic and meaning in pashtun is studentsBabak2000ir (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What has Taliban got to do with Pashtun Nationalism ?

The Taliban was created by Pakistan after the backdrop of the proxy war led by CIA in Pakistan against the Soviet influenced government later to become the Northern Alliance. The NA were backed by Iran and Russia to combat the fundamentalist doctrine installed by Pakistan which itself is now having to deal with albeit reluctantly according to US officials.

The infobox has Iran in the Opponents, isn't that suppose to be Pakistan instead? Pakistan has 80,000 of their soldiers fighting the Taliban on daily bases and yet Pakistan is no even mentioned in the infobox..."Pakistan's army is battling militants in at least three areas of the northwest. The most intense fighting has been in the Bajur tribal region, where the military claims to have killed 1,000 rebels for the loss of about 60 troops. [6] I don't see any reports about Iran fighting with Taliban, and the Taliban are not on the border with Iran, they are on the border with Pakistan. Somebody needs to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irozee (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I can assure you Iran is any-Taliban, though they may not be engaged in combat with them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Per this Iran cannot be considered opponent.--LloydKame (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But this says: Observing that Iran has long opposed the regime of the Taliban in Afghanistan on the grounds that it oppressed Shiite Muslim and other Persian-speaking minorities, it said Iran nearly launched a military attack against the Taliban in September 1998 after Taliban fighters captured and killed nine Iranian diplomats based in northern Afghanistan.

Sounds like the Taliban and Iran are opponents, alliances of convenience notwithstanding. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I's unessary to add Iran in the list, it's understood that Iran is anti-Taliban. The infobox is for opponents who are currently engaged in battles with Taliban fighters. India is more anti-Taliban than Iran but we don't need India listed in the infobox also.--LloydKame (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If the question on the heading is being posed, it was my understanding that the much of what would be the Taliban was educated in Pakistan. However the Pashtun element is the result of the Soviet-Afghan War, because the majority of those who fled to Pakistan were Pashtun. This resulted in a change in the entire ethnic dynamic of Afghanistan, in which Taijiks and Uzbeks were demanding greater representation in national affairs, and the Hazaras were pushing for regional autonomy. Some Taijiks and Uzbeks supported the Taliban I would guess out of necessity, however the Hazara were ruthlessly persecuted- oftentimes simply executed in the street. I would not dare speak for Pashtuns but the few that I know who came from Afghanistan or have been there tell me that many of them make fun of Hazaras, calling them "flat nose" etc. In other words, the Taliban did represent a predominantly Pashtun movement that was indeed supported heavily by ISI and Pakistani entrepreneurs who wanted an overland trade route to Central Asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.151.246 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editsemiprotected}}

there is a section in this article labelled "life under the taliban" in which some of the behaviorally restrictive methods of enforcement by the group are listed. one section is trasnposed from a preior section in the article itself, so we, in effect, read "no clapping at sporting events or kite flying, or sports for women" twice in this article. i'm wondering if one of the two iterations can't be removed for the sake of redundency.

 Done I've consolidated the two lists. Cheers! --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the inclusion of the truth that the Taliban went to Texas in 1997 in December as reported by the BBC. They were guests on Unocal. When the Taliban refused what looked like a permission for a pipeline to Halliburton investments in the Caspian Sea, this rejection gave US big oil motive to seek a "new Pearl Harbor", ie 911, as pined for on the PNAC website in 2000. In other words, the Taliban going to Texas was a watershed moment that cannot be left out of any true understanding of the US relationship to these people. I am no fan of the Taliban, but I am no fan of US foreign policy right now and for good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgamall (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous uncited references to rape

There is not a single shred of evidence that the Taliban ever "raped" anyone for theft! That's just plain ridiculous. Please remove it.

Oh is it ? They did not rape anybody ?

Second, let's not abuse HRW by dropping their name to support false information. Their documentation of the Massacres of Hazaras does not cite a SINGLE rape. Please remove this as well.

We all know of the Taliban's shortcomings, errors and crimes. Yet, let us remain objective and factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.52 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The War Briefing

Perhaps this link may be included: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warbriefing/

This documentary also discusses the reasons why the ISI helps the taliban (because they think the USA might still lose the war and the fear of Afghanistan becoming part of India, and why Paskistan has failed in the past vs the taliban (stationary, WW2 war tactics that are useless against single taliban; usually outfitted with sniper rifles and blending into the landscape)

and prevention methods currently in use and which are proving effective (small US bases/outposts being stationed at the smuggle routes in Waziristan)

Please include in article, Thanks, 81.246.154.35 (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reagan armed Taliban?

{{editsemiprotected}} This article says the taliban org came about in 1994 but it also says that reagan armed them during the 80's,how is this possible, perhaps individuals belonging to other groups were armed by reagan and then joined the taliban but this still should not count

 Note: That edit was vandalism. Can you state where thepassage is? Thanks. Leujohn ^(talk) 13:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration delivered several hundred FIM-92 Stinger missiles to Afghan resistance groups, including the Taliban, to aid the defeat of the Soviets.[79] 220.253.86.202 (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Somehow Reagan armed the Taliban 14 years before they were formed.

This have to stay in the articel, because mujaheedin, that was formed in february of 1979 and supported by Reagan and other US presidents, was splitted up in Tale and the Northern Alliance. The Taliban was the main part of the group. The NA didn't wanted to be as brutal as the mujaheedin was. --62.16.168.251 (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out before the taliban did not exist back then.

Ahmad Shah Massoud

There are at least two variations of the spelling of his name in this article. It is possible to have a standardised spelling that is used consistently throughout?

Sharia in Pakistan

Can someone please edit the last paragraph in the intro? It makes it sound like the girls are banned from school because of Sharia law, which is not true. Not only that, but the two references given do not mention anything about girls being banned in the first place.--Logosod (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no update regarding the Pakistani military offensive in the Swat valley? This whole article needs to further elaborate on the relationships between Aghanistan and Pakistan.70.23.231.65 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Taliban as terrorrists

I strongly object to the introductory sentence designating the Taliban as an Pashtun Islamic terrorist movement. This is especially problematic regarding the Taliban's formative stages in 1994 and 1995, besides clearly violating wikipedia policy not to describe groups as terrorrist. I would suggest to describe the Taliban as an Islamic fundamentalist movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikluus (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though I have nothing but contempt for the group: this is not a neutral presentation. Oddly, for such a clear issue, though has little discussion on the talk page. That said, we might state in the lead that it is called a terrorist group by *place relevant entities here, including US, EU, UN, China, etc.*. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That could be considered to be an implicit statement declaring that the Taliban are terrorists. Indeed, given the tone of the Wikipedia article on Afghanistan concerning the Taliban - if one expects Wikipedia to be consistent across articles - then it would be unwise to even imply that the Taliban are terrorists: the Wikipedia article on Afghanistan (currently) clearly states that the US overthrew the Taliban *Government* due to their failure to hand over Bin Laden. It would be incredibly easy to spin th earticle in the opposite direction and portray the Taliban as a legitimate government, overthrown by an overzealous US, and struggling to regain control. Therefore I agree that the article should aim for neutrality and avoid inflammatory words such as 'terrorist' altogether. Bagofants (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As Taleban is on the Terrorist lists of almost every country, I think mentioning it is warranted. 88.97.164.254 (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is in reference with Roy, Olivier, Globalized Islam, Columbia University Press, 2004, p.239

They did not destroy the graves of pirs (holy men) and emphasized dreams as a means of revelation.[28]

Sufi Shrine 'blown up by Taleban'

Sufi Islam and the Taleban Suspected Taleban militants in north-west Pakistan have blown up the shrine of a 17th Century Sufi poet of the Pashtun language, police say

link title

taliban crimes

The Taliban is a big terror group (Named by West Media) and them crimes against humanity should be said ,like as what they do in Parachinar,Pakistan. Actually Taliban are the creation of the Dwarves and Hobbits—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.223.130 (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to add bullshit, make sure it makes sense Junhalestone (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pashtun Islamic "Terrorist" movement

Why does the primary description include the qualification "terrorist" in it? I was only aware that the Taliban was an Afghani political/religious party. Can you please explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twainmane (talk • contribs) 05:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

List of terrorist organizations: Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) www.state.gov Taliban is not on the list. - Steve3849 ^talk 06:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

test

Insert non-formatted text here

CIA helped create Taliban?

The article states that there is "no evidence" that the USA helped create Pakistan. There are a number of statements and articles that suggest otherwise. For example, in a recent statement by Secretary of State, Clinton stated "...the problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for, having contributed to it ... the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union"

She then goes on a long discourse about how the US created Taliban and abandoned Pakistan to deal with the aftermath. The full article is here: http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/12-us-created-taliban-and-abandoned-pakistan-clinton--bi-06

I can point to other articles as well if required, but I suggest that this be acknowledged in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasarp.mail (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Created, or helped train anyone who fought the soviet union, some who later formed the Taliban? Doesn't seem the same thing.ChillyMD (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Taliban was created in 1994, well after the Soviet-Afghan War was over. They were Afghan students attending religious schools in Pakistan. The ISI gave them weapons and sent them back to Afghanistan. Clinton has confused them with the Mujahideen, which fought the Soviets and later became the Northern Alliance. Kauffner (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, not quite a neutral article

The opening paragraph says the Taliban was overthrown by "invading US military crusaders". Is Al Qaeda editting this page?

Janithor (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, this is very far from neutral. Please, anyone with an account, remove the word "crusaders". 85.124.169.8 (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Al Qaeda, Taliban and Nanawatai

People seem not to be able to differentiate between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation which attacks military and civilian targets around the world. The Taliban was the dictatorial fundamentalist government of Afghanistan which didn't make such terrorist attacks although it was an opressive regime. The Taliban (was) supported (by) Al Qaeda but so did the USA. Al Qaeda (together with american support) had a big part in the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Soviet–Afghan War. Things later went bad between Al Qaeda and the USA. Al Qaeda supposedly was responsible for the 9-11 attack and the USA demanded from the Taliban that they delivered Osama to them.

If you know Pashtun culture (Pashtunwali) then you know that someone who is a guest can't be harmed or allowed to be harmed by others (Nanawatai code). Even if an enemy asks for Nanawatai you have to give them hospitality, food and protection [7] [8]. The Taliban proposed to have a court in which the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, if proven guilty they would hand him over. This way they were not breaking hospitality rules because a criminal forfeits his right of protection since Melmasti and Nanawatai work both ways. The guest also has an obligation to behave properly and do nothing to harm (the honor of) the hospitality giving party. The Taliban also covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan refused the offer.

The USA didn't accept either proposition and attacked afghanistan. I don't know why anyone who wants to catch Osama wouldn't accept these offers. Maybe the idea of getting hold of Osama through Islamic or pashtunwali law was not acceptable to them. It would have allowed the Taliban to save face. They would not have bowed to US threats but would have convicted Osama themselves. If the Taliban had just handed over Osama and bowed to US threats, there would have been no war against Afghainstan by the way. So it is not a question of holding the Taliban responsible for 9-11 and punishing the Taliban/Afghanistan. It is a question of showing dominance. Apparently showing USA dominance was more important than actually catching the perpetrators and saving a million innocent afghan civilian lives which would later die in the war. Even U.S. military casualties would have been prevented by avoiding the war. All these casualties greatly exceed the 2900 deaths of 9-11 and could have been prevented. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro

The intro has a section that reads 'its leaders were removed from power by NATO peacekeeping forces.' In the interests of neutrality shouldn't this read 'its leaders were removed from power by NATO forces.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.74.107 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. All of the intro sections need refining. I'm too busy at the moment to do it myself though. Ottre 21:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Taliban

Is it 100 years old or what?

from THE STORY OF THE MALAKAND FIELD FORCE by Winston S. Churchill (1897)

All are held in the grip of miserable superstition. The power of the ziarat, or sacred tomb, is wonderful. Sick children are carried on the backs of buffaloes, sometimes sixty or seventy miles, to be deposited in front of such a shrine, after which they are carried back—if they survive the journey—in the same way. It is painful even to think of what the wretched child suffers in being thus jolted over the cattle tracks. But the tribesmen consider the treatment much more efficacious than any infidel prescription. To go to a ziarat and put a stick in the ground is sufficient to ensure the fulfillment of a wish. To sit swinging a stone or coloured glass ball, suspended by a string from a tree, and tied there by some fakir, is a sure method of securing a fine male heir. To make a cow give good milk, a little should be plastered on some favorite stone near the tomb of a holy man. These are but a few instances; but they may suffice to reveal a state of mental development at which civilisation hardly knows whether to laugh or weep.

Their superstition exposes them to the rapacity and tyranny of a numerous priesthood—"Mullahs," "Sahibzadas," "Akhundzadas," "Fakirs,"—and a host of wandering Talib-ul-ilms, who correspond with the theological students in Turkey, and live free at the expense of the people. More than this, they enjoy a sort of "droit du seigneur," and no man's wife or daughter is safe from them. Of some of their manners and morals it is impossible to write. As Macaulay has said of Wycherley's plays, "they are protected against the critics as a skunk is protected against the hunters." They are "safe, because they are too filthy to handle, and too noisome even to approach."

Also see

OPINION: Moolah for the mullah —Nasir Abbas Mirza from the Daily Times

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\20\story_20-4-2009_pg3_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeofVA (talk • contribs) 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Taliban's website

{{edit-semiprotected}}

Please add under External links:

* [http://www.alemarah.info/english/ Taliban's website (English)]

(source: [9]) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to the controversial nature of this request, I am forced to decline it pending discussion. Intelligentsium^review 01:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You can find said discussion here. Intelligentsium^review 02:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll just put it here, then.

{{helpme}}

See above (and yes, this template is supposed to be used on article talk pages, per User:Hersfold). What should be done in this situation? Intelligentsium^review 02:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, idk, I would think this link would be OK per Wikipedia:EL#Official_links. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that per WP:ELOFFICIAL a link would be appropriate. However, can this be reliably confirmed as the official site, rather than something run by a fringe group claiming to speak for the whole? I am unable to find conclusive sources, not least because most news agencies citing the "Official Taliban Website" do not actually give a URL. DoktorMandrake 03:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If it can be verified as their official site, then it appears to be within the guidelines to include it, any controversy over the content notwithstanding. But verification may be difficult. --RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• My gut instinct is to include the link. Nobody in the media has ever linked to the official al-Qaeda websites like Al-Ansar either. Ottre 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, let me again call attention to the RS posted above: Beam, Christopher (2009-10-06). "How Do I Get in Touch With a Terrorist? Call his cell". Slate.

"The Taliban usually post their messages and videos to their own Web site. (Check it out the latest press releases here.)"

-- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we've all read the article. Slate is not considered a RS on the Middle East. Ottre 02:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. It's owned by WaPo. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

{{edit-semiprotected}} The matter seems to be settled. Please add under External links:

* [http://www.alemarah.info/english/ Taliban's website (English)]

(source: [10]) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Due to Ottre's claim that this is not a reliable source, I don't think you can call this settled, just dropped. (Had you refuted his statement with "Puh-lease...", things might have been different.) I'll pass this to the RS noticeboard to confirm it is a valid RS for this info, then we can add it. Celestra (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, then, how about Wired Magazine?[11] To quote, leaving out superfluous links:

With the addition of online video, the Taliban’s website now has a complete multimedia package of voice, video and text, marking a trend of increasing sophistication for the Afghan insurgent group’s propaganda efforts. Visitors to the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” website can now read through Taliban news updates in Arabic, English, Urdu, Pashto and Farsi, peruse official magazines like Al-Somood and listen to Radio Shariat, the Taliban’s old FM radio station now available to stream online.

While likewise not renowned for expertise on the Middle East (which I think is a silly requirement for sourcing this info, not reflected in WP:RS), Wired is renowned for their expertise on the Internet. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done No other sourcing is needed; I just wanted to confirm that Slate was a reliable source. Since there was so much discussion about it, I've added the source as a reference to allow the reader to verify the site as well. Celestra (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Taliban's Relations With The U.S.A.

In late October,2009,U.S. President Barack Obama signed a bill,his signature authorized the bill's passage into law,the bill was the budget for the U.S. Department Of Defense for the fiscal year 2010. Part of the bill provided money for the Taliban,in the form of direct payments to the Taliban. News media reports at the time said the U.S. was paying the Taliban to lay down their arms and stop fighting,while other stories said that the U.S. would pay the Taliban to 'protect villages'. I'd like to put that on the main page,but because of Wikipedia's pro-Obama bias,a fact like that would last about five minutes before someone deleted it. The page about the Taliban should become a locked page,so nobody could delete the fact that Obama signed a bill that authorizes direct funding to the Taliban terrorists. Signed-Anthony Ratkov November 16,2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.155.167 (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

I just looked at the main page,and I saw that the page already was locked,so it's impossible to edit the page!Sorry about that! Signed,-Anthony Ratkov November 16,2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.155.167 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

Remove NPOV break early in article, "Reflecting its persistent power to intimidate the populace". This quoted sentence is emotive and implies a political point of view. Taliban court system is like any other legal system: A system of laws. The statement suggests the writer must consider all law systems to be "persistent powers to intimidate" populaces. Or the writer of it suggests that he is applying it exclusively and choicely to the Taliban system of government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHuo (talk • contribs)

• Could you please say (verbatim) how you think that sentence should be written? Then re-apply the {{editsemiprotected}} tag. Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Taliban has implemented one of the "strictest interpretation[s] of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world", yet still occasionally updates its code of conduct.[14]" DavidHuo (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Potentially another separate issue with the line: Does "code of conduct" here mean, "reform"? If they are "reformist" or "progressive" (however slightly) they should be described how other legislatures are described when they make changes to law. DavidHuo (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some cases in which it is not possible not to be biased. Yes, it may be "NPOV" but simply put, the Taliban is evil, there is no other way to say or put it. Who or what else would blow up a school for children (girls)? Taliban blow up girls' school in Pakistan Bdelisle (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Bdelisle: "simply put, the Taliban is evil, there is no other way to say or put it...Who or what else would blow up a school for children (girls)"

You put an object over lives? How about the children inside the school? One US-Nato strike KILLED 60 CHILDREN, including men and women, and all you care about is a school:

From the BBC: "There is convincing evidence that 60 children and 30 adults were killed in a US air strike in western Afghanistan"-http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7582170.stm

By your own definition of evil, the US-Nato is at the extreme of 'evil', ie 'evil incarnate'

To others here: Bedelisle shows the need for these changes to be made across the article. DavidHuo (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

I'm going to decline this for the time being, since it seems that the issue is not clear-cut, unsupported by sources, and (to me eyes) driven by a point of view that appears to be political. Arguing merits of one side to a dispute over another is unhelpful and an edit change should only be supported by the clearest exposition of (a) the contention in the article which is sought to be changed; (b) the proposed new wording to remedy this and (c) a reliable source to support the change. I don't see that here. If you can put it in clearer terms below, please do so. Rodhullandemu 02:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(a) Already done

(b) Already done

(c) I want to refer you to your own Talk page that quotes one, "Jimmy Wales". The original assertion I'm objecting to has no citation, it is an opinion. And a political one, as no other political systems are described in that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHuo (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed this by request, and take your word that the cited source, to which I do not have access, does not support the contention "Reflecting its persistent power to intimidate the populace...". The use of extraneous material to support such a contention without an explicit citation would be original research or a synthesis of that material, and I think little is lost by removing those words. Rodhullandemu 13:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Swat mines

The Swat mines part doesn't belong here. This article is about the Afghan Taliban, while the entire Swat issue belongs to the Pakistani Taliban article (if you would want it in the first place that is).87.84.248.99 (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Taliban is a bad word for a fanatic and wicked person

In the majority of the world, the name taliban became a bad word. If someone is a wicked, violent, fanatic and useless person, this person is called such as a taliban, even if this person isn't an Islamic.Agre22 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

I've never heard that before. "Nazi" is till used in most of the western world at least. Tommkin (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Some corrections requested please

This is a highly biased information that has been compiled and many facts seem to have been deliberately ignored. Its my appeal to the stakeholders of Wikipedia, including Mr. Jimmy Wales, to ensure that information quoted in Wikipedia remains credible. I dont want to, neither I am the authority to get into a discussion of who created "Taliban", but by reading this document reader feels that Pakistan is solely resposnible for Taliban. As per the statement given by Ms. Hilary Clinton, US secretary of States, she owes that US was atleast partially responsible for creating, supporting Taliban through Pakistan. I am enclosing the youtube link of her speech, and would request authorised users to please update/correct the information contain herein.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2CE0fyz4ys

Here is what she says in the above link Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday said that the US was also partly responsible for the present mess as it virtually abandoned Pakistan after the Soviets left Afghanistan.

"There is a very strong argument, which is: It wasn't a bad investment to end the Soviet Union, but let's be careful what we sow, because we will harvest. So we then left Pakistan. We said, okay, fine, you deal with the Stingers that we've left all over your country. You deal with the mines that are along the border. And by the way, we don't want to have anything to do with you," Clinton said testifying before a Congressional committee.

After the downfall of the Soviet Union, Clinton said the US stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with the ISI.

"We can point fingers at the Pakistanis, which is -- you know, I did some yesterday, frankly. And it's merited, because we're wondering why they don't just get out there and deal with these people. But the problems we face now, to some extent, we have to take responsibility for having contributed to," she said.

Clinton said the US has a history of moving in and out of Pakistan. "I mean, let's remember here, the people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago. We did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan, and we did not want to see them control Central Asia, and we went to work," she said.

"It was President (Ronald) Reagan, in partnership with the Congress, led by Democrats, who said, you know what? Sounds like a pretty good idea. Let's deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military, and let's go recruit these mujahidin. And great, let's get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam, so that we can go beat the Soviet Union. And guess what? They retreated. They lost billions of dollars, and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union," Clinton said. And what is happening in Pakistan today is a result of that policy, she acknowledged, so the US should also take a part of the responsibility.

Hina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinashah101 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Iran -- all citations are same and false

I have been trying to find out what's what, way too much to learn quickly -- but I had to stop right at the beginning of this. Why on earth would Iran help their enemies the Taliban?

Iran helped the Hazara, opponents of the Taliban according to Rory Stewart, author The Places In Between someone much more conservative than I am but who seems to realize that Shiite Iran would have no reason to support the Taliban.

I'm sorry I can't give more specifics at the moment -- I"m sure someone can. See Juan Cole, http://www.juancole.com/ or "Dave's Middle East Study Group" which, thought out of date as Dave has had to put on hold temporarily, has useful references. Dave has read everything he can, on all sides, to see who we are bombing.

I agree with others here that this is not an article but a propaganda piece. I urge someone with knowledge to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.207.195 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting you: “Why on earth would Iran help their enemies the Taliban?” I don’t pretend to fully understand the prejudices and hatreds of people over there. But there is the old adage “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Iranian support for the Taliban is “limited” according to Robert Gates. Trying to put myself into the Iranian’s shoes for a moment and think strategically, I can imagine they would want to provide the Taliban with sufficient short-term material support to make America’s task in Afghanistan difficult without appreciably strengthening the Taliban’s long-term strategic influence on the country. Greg L (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit for proper internal linking

{{editsemiprotected}} The first paragraph contains a red link caused by improper formatting. The source reads: [[Pakistani Punjabi people]]|Punjabis]] It should be: [[Punjabi people|Punjabis]] to produce a proper link. This produces the following: Punjabis Please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.153.98 (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2010

 Done Set Sail For The Seven Seas 28° 7' 30" NET 01:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Was "taliban" a name chosen by the group themselves, being students of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, or attributed to them by others? Hexmaster (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This name was attributed to them by other people because they belonged to different madrassas in Kandahar. Kindly post such questions on WP:RD. Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam is a completely different organization. You are perhaps confusing them with Deoband school of Islam. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 09:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

I was very disappointed by this article and even more so by the discussion where many comments are poorly written and unsigned. Now I too may be culpable because I don't know where I should ask this question!

In the very first section, the article states, "...revived as a strong insurgency movement governing mainly local Pashtun areas during night and fighting a guerrilla war against the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan,..." What does it mean by "during night"? Is it that when dusk falls, they move in with courts and attempt to settle disputes, etc, only to disperse again when daylight appears?

I was hoping for some enlightenment on this complicated topic - Wikipedia usually scores well for me - but I leave the page more confused than when I came. I am not trying to be critical, heaven knows I couldn't do anything even half as well, but I do think some objectivity would go down well here with less personal antipathy. Dawright12 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Taliban "propaganda"

I've reverted a recently added section on "Taliban propaganda", as it was only supported by a single reference which was written by the UK's Ministry of Defence - which is currently at war with the Taliban. As the only reference is diametrically opposed to the Taliban by definition, they can hardly be counted on for being objective in this subject. (Ironically, this refernece could reasonably be regarded as anti-Taliban propaganda!) Nuwewsco (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dreadful to read

I have read a great many things in my time but generally avoid all things about war. Today I came here to break that tradition. I can say this is probably the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It has obviously undergone ridiculous amounts of North American editing that has turned it into an expressive and passionate account of "BLAH".

This is why I probably stayed away in the first place. These accounts are not reasonable, rather impossible to draw any decent facts from because the editors have tried to synthesise a variety of different views that add very little to the subject. Obviously this is such a sensitive area to North Americans that it is impossible for any independent bystander such as myself to make any sense out of. I thought coming here would perhaps be less biased but I guess that everyone is just so blind to it now that you don't see it. Moving elsewhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.14.236 (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.193.130 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. It is curious that the "Emmergence" section of the article starts directly after the Soviet-Afghan war, ignoring the fact that it was the United States that in face trained and supplied the Taliban to combat the soviet invasion. This article is one of the most biased I have read on Wikipedia. Another aspect I find particularly disturbing is the addition of several links to torture/execution videos. This is the only article that I have come across that features such controversial and sensational information. I ask if the videos are indeed needed to have a clear view of the subject. This article just screams propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.211.198.39 (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Numbers of death victims under islamic emirate

I think that we should have had the numbers of executions and other state-caused deaths (like torture, suicide and ideology(liberalist)-cause deaths, like hunger, not able to get health care, murder because of weapon law, as in all other capitalist states). I would imagine that the death toll is about 1,8 million, but I don't know anything about it. Want that people that know it shall write it in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.168.251 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate? Are you referring to the Taliban or not? Since when did they constitute an Emirate?Jemiljan (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Taliban /Arabic

Dudes, Taliban isn't arabic because if it was it would be Dual thus Taliban would mean two Students. It's the Farsi Plural. Ok? Ich change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.241.133 (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "talib" comes from Arabic. In Persian the word for student is daneshjoo (دانشجو) and even if "talib" is being understood there, the root is somewhere else. Emesik (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Funds from opium

Regarding the edit I just made (In the Opium section), I just read the cited NYT article and I think that simply saying that it says, the Taliban get funding from opium, is telling only part of the truth. The article is about *all* funding sources including opium, and quotes both Richard Holbroke and Gen. McCrystal as saying other funding sources are more important than opium. It presents no others disputing that. Given (as the article also points out) popular perception is thatopium is their primary funding source, I think it important to not to leave these details out. 65.183.81.120 (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Arabic/Persian

Since the word طالبان in Arabic means 'two students' as pointed out above, should the etymology in the introduction not be changed to something like 'from the Arabic طالب 'student' + the Persian plural suffix ان-' (reformatted according to house style, I guess)? Doesn't seem much more cumbersome to me, and at least it's correct, unlike the present definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.207.192 (talk)

A discussion needs to be had with regular or interested editors about the best form for this and then a specific edit request posted here. Thanks, Woody (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the new address for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan English website is http://www.shahamat-english.com/

http://www.shahamat-english.com/Geo8rge (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.182.136.46, 7 May 2011

There is the quote:

"We don't like to be involved with them, as we have rejected all affiliation with Pakistani Taliban fighters ... We have sympathy for them as Muslims, but beside that, there is nothing else between us"

I clicked footnote 25, and it lead me to a New York Times Article that says the exact opposite of this quote and does not even have the quote in it. In 2009 Pakistan and Afghanistan Taliban forces formed an alliance. They are allies.

67.182.136.46 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Are you sure you clicked on the right article? I found the exact quote on that New York Times article (here). Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I'm really not sure why this is even in here:

"John P. O'Neill was a counter-terrorism expert and the Assistant Director of the FBI until late 2001. He retired from the FBI and was offered the position of director of security at the World Trade Center (WTC). He took the job at the WTC two weeks before 9/11. On September 10, 2001, O'Neill told two of his friends, "We're due. And we're due for something big.... Some things have happened in Afghanistan. [referring to the assassination of Massoud] I don't like the way things are lining up in Afghanistan.... I sense a shift, and I think things are going to happen ... soon."[62] O'Neill died on September 11, 2001, when the South Tower collapsed.[62]"

What does this have to do with the article?Sedna1000 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Sedna1000

Edit request

I'm really not sure why this is even in here:

"John P. O'Neill was a counter-terrorism expert and the Assistant Director of the FBI until late 2001. He retired from the FBI and was offered the position of director of security at the World Trade Center (WTC). He took the job at the WTC two weeks before 9/11. On September 10, 2001, O'Neill told two of his friends, "We're due. And we're due for something big.... Some things have happened in Afghanistan. [referring to the assassination of Massoud] I don't like the way things are lining up in Afghanistan.... I sense a shift, and I think things are going to happen ... soon."[62] O'Neill died on September 11, 2001, when the South Tower collapsed.[62]"

What does this have to do with the article?Sedna1000 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Sedna1000

 Not done: It is in the history part, because the Taliban during that period harbored Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is said to be responsible for the assassination of the anti-Taliban leader Massoud (which experts in the U.S. such as John O'Neill then saw as a sign something was shifting in Afghanistan and something was going to happen in the U.S. also). That is part of joint Taliban-Al Qaeda history. JCAla (talk) 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Taliban Claims Responsibility for Attacks

CNN is reporting the Taliban is claiming responsibility for two suicide bombers attacking a paramilitary academy in the Pakistan, killing eighty and injuring over a hundred. The Taliban stated they did this in response to the killing of Bin Laden and this is just the first in a series of retaliation attacks. I'm at work and can't update the article here, I have found links (CNN, BBC, MSNBC)for those who have the time and ability. Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL FAIL

A PROTECTED PAGE AND YET SOMEONE UPDATED IT WITH GAY PORN. WHAT NONSENSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.101.36 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed lead that was way too long

As discussed above, the lead was way too long. I have been WP:BOLD and cut it back to a more reasonable length. There are probably things that have been deleted from the lead that could be reinserted latter in the article, and if so, please do so. But please try too keep the lead from again growing too long. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dp412, 6 August 2011

"The Taliban, alternative spelling Taleban,[4] (ṭālibān, meaning "students" in Arabic)" Taliban means students in Pashto, not Arabic. It is the dual form in Arabic ("two students") but Arabic is not the relevant language when speaking of this group. The correct etymology is already explained in the article. The first sentence should be changed to match. Dp412 (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Since the word is a loan word from Arabic, wouldn't it then also be Arabic for students as well making the first sentence technically correct? Since I am not a speaker of Arabic, I would need some clarification on that before agreeing that it needed to be changed. Topher385 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

'Taliban engage in terrorism against the civilian population' if refering to IED's is biased.

I feel the claim that the in the article that the 'Taliban engage in terrorism against the civilian population' is a gross simplification attributed to one party during an ongoing guerrilla war and should be reconsidered. If the statement means the use by the Taliban of IED's (as is implied) then the claim of 'terrorism' is POV as the counterpoint is that this is not terrorism at all but the use of an effective if ruthless guerrilla tactic intended against ISAF/NATO forces that does however often cause 'collateral' civilian casulties. The aim of the IED attacks is to create ongoing ISAF/NATO casulties and erode long-term political support of what are seen as foreign occupation forces, even if this is at the expense of civilian casulties, nothing more- dss2mtm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.46.176 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Taliban acid attacks on schoolgirls and terrorism against women who seek education
• Taliban attack on busy supermarket in Kabul killing a human rights activist and her four children and husband
• Taliban gunmen randomly execute 38 civilians at a Jalalabad bank
• Taliban kill medical students at a Kabul hospital

= TERRORISM against the civilian population

A guerilla war against military forces is something else.

The Taliban are responsible for 82 % of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan. JCAla (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request from AndrewMcN

Under "Ideology" -> "Criticisms" there's a para alleging bestiality. It should be removed unless it can be substantiated with a more reliable reference. The reference given is to a magazine article which does not itself cite sources, and which contains little discussion other than the indication that these recordings supposedly exist. There are a few youtube videos around of such things, many of which surface repeatedly in different years and supposed locations.

 Question: Where is it alleging this? I do not see it in that section. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I can't read. Removed now --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request September 22, 2011

Please insert in External links between Aljazeera and The Guardian (alphabetical order):

• Taliban Conflict collected news and commentary at BBC News

Thanks. 75.59.229.4 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Content removed & POV tag?

Were is the section for the POV tag? And as to the content being removed, if Pakistan refutes the claims that they have aided the Taliban then instead of removing the content you need to balance it with a rebuttal from a RS. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the previous version did not even attribute the allegation to the US gvt, and infact presented it as encyclopedic content, which is definitely POV. If you want to mention it then you need to use a sentence like "US gvt. alleges Pakistan of aiding..." etc and not the way it was. And in anycase adding it to infobox is completely biased. The POV tag is added because I only reverted the obvious instances, while the article tone still implies Pakistan's historic ties as being current one while it fails to credit that US had the same during the cold war. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall various agencies other than the US mention that Pakistian had aided the Taliban, It is hardly POV to state what a great many sources have said, you need to add a reliable source which says that the Pakistan government denies these allegations for balance, that is how it works. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Try Fundamentalism reborn?: Afghanistan and the Taliban By William Maley as a source for what you need. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have a problem with other a:gencies saying that. The article didn't attribute those facts to any, that's the problem including the article tone (without refutation) and the infobox inclusion. I'll edit accordingly. If you want to add the allegation on the Pakistan army, you have to add the refuation along with it. You can't just instate a POV and expect other editors to balance it for POV. Such content is to be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes I can, if you dispute that which is a widely reported fact then it is you who needs to find sources which refute this fact. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the POV tag is to alert editors that there is a discussion regarding a specific POV issue. It is not to be used to object to "article tone." If there are no further specific POV issues then the tag should be removed.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Article tone is a POV issue and being discussed here too. So the tag is completely valid untill those parts are rewritten. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are strong refutations from Pakistan: [12] [13] [14] [15]. You can find 100s of more I'm sure. You also need to review this article War in North-West Pakistan. Now I hope it's clear that you can't add that content without attribution and refutation as per WP:NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not think you understand, all those sources say the government denies the claims, this is hardly surprising. It is a widely reported fact that they do in fact offer support to the Taliban. The source I recently added is from the academic press and is an obvious high quality source for these matters. Do you have any sources other than government press releases which refute the claims? By all means add to the article that the Pakistan government denies these allegations, but it is widely accepted that they do, there is no neutrality issue here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, you have not attributed that the 'wide' allegations are by the US govt. Not attributing that compromises the article's neutrality. It will only be neutral to say that "the US (and if any other mention that too) govt. alleges Pakistan to be supporting taliban and Pakistan strongly denies it" and even with all this stated, the infobox inclusion is not justifiable. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Again you are wrong, it is the mainstream view as evidenced by academic sources that they supported the Taliban, your only sources which refute this are press releases from the government. It is not "just a US govt" view at all as you keep saying, it is a widely accepted fact. Now please add a source to the article which says they refute the allegations and we can be done with this. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you need to stop throwing the burden of correcting the issue on me. It is your responsibility to add the material in a neutral way since you are reinstating it as per WP:NPOV and WP:VOLUNTEER. Then, news articles are reliable sources. The 'academic' sources you have given are also based on POV of US officials. Your term 'widely accepted fact' is a WP:Weasel. Here is another reliable source which is not a press release from Pakistani govt. [16]. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(out)+(ec)I have not said your sources were not reliable, I said they were government press release. You may not say that the academic sources are based on US pov at all, if you disagree take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. It is not my responsibility to add balancing content, it is yours, you are the one saying the article is not neutral. I have presented sources from the academic press which shows it is mainstream thinking that they have supported the Taliban, it is for you to prove per WP:BURDEN that this is not the case. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue is not of reliability and I just gave you a contradiction from the mainstream, If you don't think its your responsibility to add a neutral POV when you add content, you need to read WP:NPOV. The WP:BURDEN on me is only to prove that the content is disputed, which I did. I just reviewed your added academic source, it does not seem to be so neutral itself while judging ISI. In the very next sentence after alleging ISI for taliban support, it says "On the basis of such stereotyping it is assumed...". I think that is enough to present an openly proclaimed prejudice by your source. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to review it again, it does not say that which you think it does. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have, [17] here you go. You are clearly adding non neutral content as per WP:NPOV. You should self revert or add attribution and refutation along with removal of infobox inclusion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you have not. I am not going to continue to argue this with you, if you feel the source is not reliable then please post on the reliable sources noticeboard. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I just quoted you a phrase from the book you cited. Are you even reviewing your own citation? This is clearly a POV dispute and not an RSN dispute. I've given you contradicting news sources as well as mainstream evidence. Since there are contradictions this becomes a controversy and should be treated as one with neutral entries. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No you took a phrase from the book out of context, that phrase has nothing to do with what is being discussed, it is about the hill people of Pakistan, so no, you did not read it properly at all. There is no POV dispute at all, mainstream sources explicitly state that Pakistan security services aided the Taliban (as does another source I added) Your sources are mainstream yes, mainstream media. All your sources are doing is reiterating what the Pakistan government has said. Again, if you think the source does not support the edit take it to the RSN board. If you think it is not neutral to write that Pakistan has aided the Taliban go to the neutral point of view noticeboard. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not out of the context, if you read the whole paragraph, it is a continuation (infact a judgement) of the said statement. While some of my sources are reiterating Pakistan refutation, the last source I gave is independently telling the same (if you reviewed it at all). You're really hard at hearing. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are reading it out of context, by the way, "say that the Pakistani intelligence agencies have long used threats, arrests and killings to control the Taliban and that they could be doing so again to maintain their influence over the insurgents." This is from your previous source, it clearly says the Pakistani intel agencies have controlled and helped the Taliban. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, controlling someone and having influence over them is opposite of alliance. And did you miss the arrests? And a dedicated article written on 10 year war with their allies in Pakistan? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You can be allied with someone and still exert influence over them, please post to the noticeboards a I have suggested as this is obviously going no-were. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Inter Services Intelligence (Pakistan's intelligence agency) is included in the infobox as an ally of Taliban (and opponent of USA) while Pakistan and USA call each other allies (though strained). Further more, the article tone and some instances imply the same. On which side should ISI be listed as an ally (Taliban or USA) in infobox and how to go about making the article tone and mentioned allegations/refutations neutral? Refer to below transcluded discussion and the talk page discussion in the main section for more details pointed out by involved editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC

A transclusion of the main section's discussion continued at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban is given in a subsection below. You might want to refer to that so that the discussion does not go into circles. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Senior US officials called Pakistan an ally of the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network (Taliban's most destructive element) a "veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency." TopGun forgot to mention that in the initial question.JCAla (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The ISI act as a state within a state, just because the government of Pakistan say they do not help the Afgan Taliban does not mean that the ISI do not. There have been quite a few sources which state that the ISI are allied to the Taliban and there are no neutrality issues that I can see with this being in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

ISI by all means comes under the jurisdiction of government of Pakistan. The issue is whether Pakistan is an ally of USA or Taliban. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Come on, TopGun, don't start fooling yourself. The Pakistani army is running Pakistan not the civilian government, and the ISI officers are drawn from the army.JCAla (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Lets not go into that debate and first solve the issue at hand. And lets remain WP:CIVIL. I think the bot has not yet listed the RFC (here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law) , so we'll have to wait for some time. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As I told you before, Pakistan and the US are allies regarding issues surrounding Pakistan's stability and the safety of its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan and the US are no allies (anymore) regarding Afghanistan, because Pakistan is allied to the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan and the US changed its policy towards the Afghan Taliban in 2001, starting to fight them.JCAla (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that. We can read that from above since I transcluded the discussion so as not to flood this subsection with the same comments again. This will now continue as per RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How many sources need be presented before TopGun admits that the ISI are allied with the Taliban? We have MSM sources, we have academic sources and we have political ones. Enough is enough. I have removed the POV and the very pointy factual accuracy tag that he added. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop rushing to a conclusion. Things work by discussion here. And I am by the rules to call an RFC on this. If you don't want, don't participate. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop dragging things out, the ISI are allied with the Taliban, all sources say so and you are being disruptive. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking here without sources. Lets stay on topic. Stop trying to silence the dispute on your own accord. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm with The Last Angry Man here. We can't drag it out until unknown just because the input that came so far isn't liked by you. I'd say we wait two more days. If there is no change in the opinion of the majority of editors on this issue, then the tags need to be removed and the ISI stays in the infobox. And, one tag until then is enough. JCAla (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I am disputing the factual accuracy here, whether ISI's ally of one or the other is a fact being disputed while the rest of the issues are POV disputes. I hope you know the difference. You should self revert the tag. And read WP:DEADLINE & WP:VOLUNTEER. There is no deadline that I have to follow. RFC will continue, only after that can tags be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No you are disputing the factual accuracy of the MSM and the academic press, all of which say the ISI are allied with the Taliban. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

This section is being transcluded from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban, edit on that page if you want to add comments here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

fa:ویکی‌پدیا:تابلوی اعلانات منابع معتبر

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

The "prophet Muhammad" (lowercase 'p')

UrielAcosta seems to be on a mission, systematically searching through Wikipedia to find "[p]rophet Muhammad" and remove the word "prophet" (even if it's in lowercase), with the edit summary: Removed religious bias per MOS:PBUH because he's not Wikipedia's prophet.

The latter link points to NPOV policy.

I and other editors have queried these edits on UrielAcosta's talk page, but UrielAcosta disagreed and soon after, s/he deleted the talk page entries, and continued to make these mass edits.

My mild objection, as a non-Muslim, is that "prophet" (lowercase 'p') is descriptive and informative, and is in accordance with MOS, so when the word "prophet" has been removed, I've instead re-added it as "Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity). To me, this is no different than referring to "the novelist Doris Lessing", or "the British politician Rishi Sunak".

MOS:MUHAMMAD actually says this: recommended action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary.

I'd appreciate the input of other editors here, please. Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Pertinent discussions held on this subject with UrielAcosta] arehere and here. I addressed the rationale "because he's not Wikipedia's prophet" by observing Pablo Escobar is not Wikipedia's drug lord, but it wouldn't be wrong to write of somebody, "It was on his trip to Panama that he became acquainted with drug lord Pablo Escobar.". Their bizarre response: ... you are 100% incorrect: Pablo Escobar IS Wikipedia's drug lord, because "drug lord" has a specific definition in English and Escobar qualifies under that definition. I mean, huh? (Have you ever heard Escobar described as "Wikipedia's drug lord"?) Then I pointed out that WP:PBUH explicitly provides for the usage that they've been obliterating, distinguishing honoring someone from merely identifying them in context on first mention, and it fell on deaf ears. When I saw that UrielAcosta had taken this campaign up again with vigor after having been reproved by at least three people, I was ready to report them to WP:ANI or somewhere, so I thank User:Esowteric for raising it here. Largoplazo (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" Some1 (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• I've instead re-added it as "Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity). Did UrielAcosta revert these edits (by removing "Islamic prophet")? If they did, then that would be against what MOS:PBUH recommends (i.e. adding "the Islamic prophet" if necessary for clarity purposes). If they didn't revert, then they're just following what MOS:PBUH recommends. Some1 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, they changed "prophet Muhammed" to "Muhammed", but left alone my later changes to "Islamic prophet Muhammed". However, they did this to the first (or only) mention of the name Muhammed in the two articles that were on my watchlist that were affected. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  The only reason I bring this up is that these are mass edits, so a whole lot of people may either not notice the changes or choose to change the entries to "the prophet Muhammad", when they could either be left alone or the passionate editor could make the changes themselves and avoid work for others. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don’t agree with the removal of “prophet” for the first usage of Muhammad in an article because the MOS clearly allows for the usage in that case. That being said, I don’t think it’s necessary to go back and add it to articles where it was removed. I don’t agree that “Muhammad” (with the wikilink) would cause confusion to the reader. Mokadoshi (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, but how many Wikipedia articles would simply name Rishi Sunak because users could easily click on the link to find out who he is or what he is, when it is far simpler and more informative to refer to them in the first instance as (say) British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think specifying “British Prime Minister” is necessary every time. In some cases it is helpful, like the usage of “Senator Obama” verses “President Obama” can clarify the period of his career when an event occurred. I don’t think it’s an appropriate comparison to this case. Probably a better comparison would be “author J.K. Rowling” verses just “J.K. Rowling” and the former seems to be rare. Mokadoshi (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've been asked to give my two pennies worth on this matter as I was made aware of Uriel Costa's editing on Bust of Abd al-Rahman III, Cadrete, a page I had created. I did not know, but I was barely surprised, that Uriel Costa then went on to make the same edit on a variety of other pages. This is my view on the matter:
  The page I saw related to a Muslim monarch. Monarchs are known by their given name. Removing "prophet" before Muhammad could be confusing as many monarchs, including in Islamic Spain where I was writing about, were also called Muhammad.
  I just put "prophet" as a disambiguator. I think it's quite clear in the context we were not talking about a prophet of the Mormons. Uriel Costa removed this completely, he did not even negotiate by saying "Islamic prophet".
  You could say that the majority of the world does not see Muhammad as a prophet, nor has any human been peer-reviewed to be a prophet. But at the same time, we have the page at Guru Nanak when the majority of the world has probably not even heard of him, and no independent study has proven that he had more spiritual wisdom than anyone else in the world. The term Pope comes from "father" and the majority of the world does not see him that way, but we still title the page Pope Francis.
  My previous edit was not endorsing Islam, a religion I do not follow, and instead of making it more specific, getting rid of "prophet" completely made it less specific. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  "Pope" clearly means that he has a particular role in the Catholic church. Similarly for other examples given. Simply "prophet" is an assertion in the voice of Wikipedia which a majority of people would disagree with. "Islamic prophet" implicitly says that Islam considers him to have that status/role/capability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• The problem we are having here is that in those cases when it is necessary or even simply better to clarify (this often depends on context and background knowledge of subject matter), UrielAcosta is still systematically removing it based on a literal reading of MOS:PBUH, to the point of edit warring over it, without engaging in substantial discussion.
  An example of where mentioning "prophet" was better because of subject matter context is here, an example of where it was necessary to disambiguate from other Muhammads named in the article here (cf. [18]).
  In my mind, because the problem is an overly literal reading, the solution to this is to update MOS:PBUH and have it explicitly allow "the prophet Muhammad" in cases where it is needed for disambiguation or clarification. My own proposal to simply always allow it (because all relevant RS are in fact using it constantly and casually) was perhaps too ambitious, but simply instating Some1's counterproposal here would already solve a lot of the issues (Some1's proposal, but adjusted to lowercase 'prophet'):

  (The) Holy Prophet in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad" — recommended action is to use just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary. In cases where ambiguity or confusion exists, the "prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" may be used as a variation on "Muhammad".

  Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Re "overly literal reading"—except for the part about continuing to ignore except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary even when it's pointed out to them point-blank. The reason Muhammad gets his own provision in the first place is because of a matter very specific to him: the practice of some people of writing "PBUH" after every use of his name, and referring to him as "the Prophet Muhammad" or even just "the Prophet" on every occasion. There's nothing about the provision that suggests that Muhammad is less deserving than anyone else in history of being introduced in a text in the way that people are very commonly introduced, by the use of context. If anyone's being non-neutral, it's UrielAcosta, for deeming Muhammad not to deserve to be identified in such a manner. Largoplazo (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that they are deliberately ignoring the part of the MOS that they don't seem to agree with. Their he's not Wikipedia's prophet breaks the very policy that they are citing as an excuse to expunge the word from every article. M.Bitton (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• The changes en masse by UrielAcosta are unhelpful at best as they needlessly create a lot of work for others. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm in agreement with the responses expressed by @M.Bitton, @Largoplazo, and @Apaugasma. It's evident that there's an issue of overzealous editing on the part of UrielAcosta. As others have noted, even in cases where, for purely practical reasons as MOS allows, it was better to leave a term rather than removing it. I would encourage @UrielAcosta to take a breather and once again go through WP:5P5, if it might provide a newfound sense of direction and clarity. StarkReport (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• We had this one at Regency of Algiers also. I am not certain if UrielAcosta realizes just how many people can be named Mohammed in an article that covers 400 years of North African history, but this was righteously reverted by the article's primary author. I urge UrielAcosta to get a grip and find another mission. Elinruby (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the place where we refer to the Islamic prophet Mohammed. I believe that before Uriel Acosta came along it possibly said the Prophet Mohammed, This may be slightly better but seems like a really silly thing to spend time on, like arguing about whether Joan of Arc's visions were real. The thing to do is report the claim without endorsing, it, yes? [19] The sharifs were a religious nobility who claimed descent from the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and often members of the Naqib al-ashraf institution of the Ottoman Empire.[405] I spent a LOT of time on this section and made zero claims about Mohammed in wikivoice. I am not real upset about this either way but I consider myself an interested party and I oppose a mandatory naked Mohammed. Please ping me if this escalates. Going on a rampage about the word prophet is bigotry to my mind, just like it would be to insist on a disclaimer in an article about the visions of Joan of Arc or the incarnations of Vishnu.

This is merely what some people believe or believed at some point, period, end of story, and I submit that it is neither possible nor desirable to explain a religious dynasty whose power stemmed from its claim of descent from the prophet Mohammed without mentioning the prophet Mohammed. If some people feel that we need to specify that he was an Islamic prophet rather than a Hindu or an Buddhist or a Catholic prophet, ok fine, whatever.

Btw, ctl-f finds 21 instances of "Mohammed" in that article, a few of whom are mentioned more than once, and at least one of whom is the author of a reference. I think a serious count would give use ten or eleven men named Mohammed plus some honorific. Elinruby (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see why uses of the word prophet [Name] should be considered improper or require editing out when talking about a figure (notwithstanding their historicity) identified by a sufficiently significant amount of people as a prophet of their religion, creed, or belief system — especially, if it serves purposes of disambiguation. And I disagree with @North8000′s assessment of a distinct treatment of the epithets pope and prophet, since both are similar religious positions, claiming to form a bridge between the divine and humankind. The position of pope is as limited and debated among Christian creeds as the question of “Who is the real, final, ultimate prophet?” is in various branches of Islam. Konanen (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Shooks, I did not intend this to be a reply to @Elinruby, sorry. Konanen (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, IMO your argument against my point has flaws. The widespread meaning of "Pope" is a particular position in the catholic church. Saying "Pope" in the voice of Wikipedia means that they hold that role in the Catholic church. The claim in the voice of Wikipedia does not go any further than that. An atheist can take it to mean only that. An unattributed statement in the voice of Wikipeda that someone is a prophet is a statement in the voice of Wikipedia goes far beyond just saying that they have a particular role in a a particular religion. Simple attribution of the statement to Islam solves all of that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

For statements like "Joshua was a prophet who [...]" or "when the prophet Muhammad came to Mecca [...]", if the implication of the statement is 'hey, this is the prophet of God, so better listen to him', then it's obviously religiously non-neutral and problematic. If the implication of the statement is 'this figure is considered a prophet in the religion(s) we are talking about in this context', then it's perfectly fine. Not only perfectly fine, but also often necessary, because the status of these figures as prophets is often an important part of the encyclopedic information we are trying to convey. The current restrictions in MOS:MUHAMMAD often make this difficult or impossible. Readers are intelligent enough to pick out the intended implication, they don't need the current censorship to get that we are not declaring these figures to be actual prophets in wiki-voice, nor are the relevant RS who are all of them (the challenge made here to find an exception still stands) routinely referring to Muhammad as "the prophet" or "the prophet Muhammad". ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Apaugasma:You made a good point there which I think is that these are often obviously (just) statements by Islam rather than statements by / in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Both of those examples seem to imply that the individual is an actual prophet of an actual god. I find both of them inappropriate. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Removing "The Prophet" in this way appears to be agenda driven. I am not a Muslim and I see no issue with the phrase being "The Prophet Muhammed" being used when it is referencing the founder of Islam Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, I'm in agreement with inclusion of the word but, used in this way, "prophet" is a common noun and shouldn't be capitalized. Largoplazo (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. "The prophet Mohammed" is ok but "The Prophet Mohammed" runs afoul of MOS:MUHAMMAD specifically and more broadly MOS:HONORIFIC. In fact it would be better to say "the Islamic prophet Mohammed" and that is what the guidance says: except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary. If this were equivalent to "The Pope" it would be phrased just as "The Prophet" when obviously Mohammed doesn't occupy the proper noun of "The Prophet" in English. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

So is anyone going to get upset if at Regency of Algiers, many sections down in the article where we mention the prophet Mohammed after much discussion of sultans and Muhammeds and Amirs and Hassans and Husseins, I remove the word Islamic? The article has many images that indicate that Islam may well have been the prevalent religion and it seems blindingly obvious what religion he would have been a prophet of. He isn't even the subject of the completely secular statement involved. (quoted above) I am hearing maybe not? Elinruby (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. The context is already well established. For comparison, France has the sentence "The French perfume industry is the world leader in its sector and is centred on the town of Grasse." Chanel No. 5, in contrast, has "... obtained exclusively from the fields of the valley of Siagne above the French town of Grasse." The latter could perhaps have dispensed with "French" but at that point, especially since the immediate topic is operations in the US. In the former the addition of "French" would seem belabored. Similar considerations apply to identifying prophets, priests, nuns, popes, rabbis: no need to say he's the Islamic prophet Muhammad in a place where its explicit statement would lead many to say "Duh". Largoplazo (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Belated, but I agree with many above: of course "Islamic prophet Muhammad", "prophet Muhammad", and "Muhammad" should all all appropriate options per common sense, and most editors working on an article are able to judge which of these is appropriate for clarity in a given context. Of course "Muhammad" on its own (linked or not) is insufficient in many, many contexts to avoid confusion, regardless of whether "Islamic prophet Muhammad" is mentioned somewhere above; while "Islamic prophet Muhammad" is needlessly inconcise and redundant in a large proportion of contexts, and can be shortened to "prophet Muhammad" where some disambiguating is still needed. As Apaugasma suggested above, MOS:MUHAMMAD should be amended if it's being understood otherwise.

We should also note that it is absolutely commonplace among English-language academic and scholarly references, including those written by non-Muslim authors aimed at a general audience, to refer to Muhammad as "the Prophet" (in uppercase), the "Prophet Muhammad" etc. As Wikipedia is meant to reflect reliable sources, it is rather counter-intuitive to take a dogmatic view against this, and inserts an unusual hoop for editors writing on the topic to jump through. Lowercase "prophet", as mentioned, should be plenty sufficient for our purposes here. R Prazeres (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Its also commonplace to refer to the central figure of Christianity as "The Christ" but we don't because its weidly worshipful and we don't engage in worship (even accidentally). I would also note that in this use its an honorific like "Doctor" and we don't use honorifics widely in body (for example you will often find Jack Kevorkian called Doctor Kevorkian, but we don't use the honorific... Same for if someone is "Sir Something" we just say Something). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Except that Muhammad is a very common name, sometimes repeated multiple times in a single article to refer to different people including the prophet. M.Bitton (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You say that like we don't alrady have procedures for when multiple people have a similar name... The only time we would run into a problem here would be when there are multiple people with a mononym (but I believe that in the scholarly discourse every single notable Muhammad who isn't Muhammad has a scholarly name to avoid the ambiguity) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not say we should use "the Prophet" in Wikipedia usage, I clearly stated which options are appropriate in the first sentence of my comment. My point is that there is no basis in Wikipedia's core principles to simply avoid "prophet Muhammad". It's not a POV issue or an honorific, it's what clear professional English writing requires. R Prazeres (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Prophet in this context is an honorific, like Doctor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No, in this context (lowercase and used as a descriptor), it literally isn't. That's how English works. R Prazeres (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, it seems to fulfill the same role... islamic prophet is a descriptor but prophet alone feels like a backdoor honorific and theres no way around that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If the word "prophet" is an honorific in "the prophet Muhammad" then it is equally an honorific in "the Islamic prophet Muhammad", because those two phrases are grammatically identical except for the addition of a extra information ("Islamic") in the latter. No different than "the (American) president George Bush" or "the (Catholic) pope John Paul II", etc. (To be clear, the inclusion of the article "the" is necessary here, otherwise the preceding noun modifier would read as part of the following proper name and would thus be an honorific; which by English writing convention is capitalized, unlike the other case.) There is no such thing as a "backdoor honorific", and if we are reduced to making such marginal and out-of-the-way grammatical/stylistic claims to support this interpretation of MOS:MUHAMMAD, then we are not standing on solid ground. R Prazeres (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that isn't actually what I was going for and as it seems we've lost the plot and I've caused you frustration I will bow out with apologies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries, apologies if I misunderstood you as well. R Prazeres (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Rent control in the United States and Rent regulation pages

There is a long-standing dispute over pages [20] and [21].

The dispute concerns the following statement: ‘There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of rental housing units’.

The statement was added by Snooganssnoogans on 24 December 2020 at 14:54, without prior discussion on the talk page.[22]

Several editors have shown opposition and/or raised concerns about the veracity and/or neutrality of such statement and/or the sources provided, as can be seen in the talk pages [23] and [24], evidencing that there is no consensus among editors on the content of the page.

Several users act as custodians of this page, systematically deleting references to indexed scientific articles, or reverting edits by users contrary to their views (e.g. this scientific reference [25], was deleted here [26]).

Several users have been targeted and banned by editors who oversee the site, accused of vandalism by those who uphold an statement that was unexpectedly added to the article without previous discussion in the talk page.

It appears that the sentence lacks the required consensus and does not seem to adhere to a neutral point of view.

139.47.66.252 (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy links:

• Rent regulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rent control in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2021 NPOVN discussion with formal closure about both articles at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 89 § Rent control: "on consensus among economists"
• 2019 RfC at Talk:Rent regulation/Archive 1 § RfC about describing extent of disagreement
• After that RfC, most discussion about "Rent regulation" is on its talk page proper.
• "Rent control in the United States" discussions begin at Talk:Rent control in the United States/Archive 1 § A Philosophical Reminder.
• The discussion on Talk:Rent control in the United States itself is from 2022 with the exception of one comment.

Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The 2021 NPOVN closure does not appear to reflect any consensus. It explicitly states that the statement in question should be replaced or rephrased, and no such correction has been made or allowed since. 139.47.66.252 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not so much 'a long-standing dispute' as a single IP-hopping editor who periodically shows up to attempt to blank parts of the article and make repetitive arguments and/or personal attacks on the talk pages. Talk:Rent regulation had to be semi protected because of this a few months ago. They have gotten many, many responses on the relevant talk pages, but the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT continues nonetheless. MrOllie (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

PS: This IP is almost certainly Pedrote112 (talk · contribs) evading their block again. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this yet another attack by this user on anyone who does not think like him/her in order to prevent the article from being reviewed? 139.47.66.252 (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see problems here. This removal seems justified, if it's an individual study it should be added to the body of the article and not to the lede, unless it's super-transformational and has overturned the scientific consensus, which I doubt. Alaexis_¿question? 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

What scientific consensus? There is neither scientific consensus nor consensus among editors. Why do you consider it legitimate to withdraw this scientific article and other articles that have been cited on the talk page?88.12.251.41 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The consensus documented in the cited sources. Pretending that those sources don't exist isn't going to work. Nor will you be able to undermine them by citing minority viewpoints or individual data points. MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The statement as presented is implicit OR. It implies that the purpose of rent control was to increase the quality and quantity of rental units, and therefore the policy was a failure.

To provide an example, the average cost of a one bedroom apartment in Toronto, where new buildings are not subject to rent control, is CAD2,513. But many tenants are paying half that or less because of rent control for the same or greater square footage. Not many of them are moving to new units that offer newer stoves and refrigerators. TFD (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I wonder if you could comment on this. TFD (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The statement is yours, you added it without prior discussion in the talk page. You are the one that has to gain a consensus that doesn't exist. 2A02:9130:9435:1805:DDDA:5696:E2AD:B4F7 (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The statement was added by Snooganssnoogans without any previous discussion in the talk page. 88.12.251.41 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Need some patient people at Jordan Peterson

I have just spent a couple of hours I will never get back at this page explaining:

• What is a revert
• What is a one-revert restriction on a page
• What it means to have a personal one-revert restriction
• What is another editor's talk page comment
• What is Wikivoice and why we do not use it to say "politically correct"
• Why we don't randomly name drop politicians in an article about a YouTube misogynist
• Why this is even more so when the politician in question is the once and likely future premier of Alberta, who is female.
• Why it really doesn't matter how we as Wikipedia editors think she should feel about the mention
• Why the alleged billions of times the misogynist Youtuber's videos have been played matters not at all
• Why his alleged ranking at some download site doesn't matter either
• What is precedent in a common law legal system

The following remain to be addressed:

• use of student newspaper in an evaluation of his research
• Article variously says he resigned, was no longer on the faculty, was asked to resign or put teaching on hold temporarily due to other project.
• What is ONUS and who has it
• Whatever this is: Peterson's work has generated billions of views from all over the world. Meanwhile, Rachel Notley is some minor politician in Canada. How many people outside of Canada knows about her or cares about her? Remove her from the article if you want. Obscure people shouldn't be allowed to parasite on the success of famous people. Trakking (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2024
• whatever this is also: Some people are trying hard to make this encyclopedic article be much more sensational and provocative than it ought to be. Trakking (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

and much more. I am sure I am forgetting stuff. Did I mention that a lot of the sources seem to fail verification? I have not yet run Wikiblame though. Please send whisky and psychiatrists. The editor mentioned a above is swedish and rather new. The other is @Springee:. Elinruby (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Trakking: Elinruby (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the comment about Notley had me entirely confused. I'm already there but more hands make light work. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Re "an article about a YouTube misogynist" -- in fact it's an article about Jordan Peterson. Re Rachel Notley: the mention has existed in the article since at least May 2017, but I didn't interpret the talk page comments as firmly opposing removal. I won't post there since I know that people can be tbanned for doing so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2024

Yes. that is the YouTube misogynist in question. Elinruby (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure we should be sending additional psychological professionals, seeing what carnage has been wrought by just one of them. 🤔 jp×g🗯️ 08:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean the College of Psychologists of Ontario are deeply embarrassed by him. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

update:Various shiny objects have distracted me from this. Possibly the one-revert question has been addressed; I at least have had an answer that satisfied *my* questions about this for now. I do not know if the other editors on the talk page agree. I remain preoccupied and busy RL. Some of those editors have said that they don't see why mentioning Notley is a PoV problem, but on the other hand they do not object to the mention being removed. Removing it would resolve that matter in my eyes. If that has not happened I may do that sometime soon. As far as I know the rest of this remains unaddressed. Elinruby (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: You really ought keep your (potentially defamatory) personal opinions about BLPs to yourself. "Misogyny" and "misogynist" appear only twice in the article currently and not in a way that would lend to them being listed in the lead along with "psychologist, author, and media commentator". I daresay maybe you ought not edit articles you have such strong opinions on if you feel compelled to use the slurs when discussing the person. This is no reflection on my personal opinion of Jordan Peterson. I don't like misogyny or misogynists, and I don't know much about Peterson other than that it is definitely not someone I would take advice from. I just think you are pushing the limits of WP:BLP and might be edging into having your comments refactored:

• Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.
• Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: 2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources
• WP:LIBEL

—DIYeditor (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: can you restate that please? I think I must be misunderstanding you. Elinruby (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

At the least it looks biased to me to be bad-mouthing a living person beyond what the article describes the person as being. Maybe it's true (or not), but to me "misogynist" is a strong and potentially defamatory label to use, and it doesn't seem to be widely applied to him from what his article says. Is it necessary, useful and appropriate to express distaste for the subjects of articles? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that you have posted a legal threat and a personal attack from what his article says. You do understand that I posted here because I was questioning the article's neutrality? It does indeed say, based on the subject's YouTube posts and some hagiography in student newspapers, that he is essentially the second coming of Carl Jung, to the point of including the Carl Jung navbar in the article. I thought the above was a decent start on the article's problems, but we can discuss misogyny if people want. I would have thought that this was obvious from the use of the word on RS, the description of women in his own voice as "witches" and forces of chaos, and his contention that they are responsible for murders by incels, a situation to be remedied by what he calls "mandatory monogamy." I will be happy to provide sources for these statements, and yes, I agree, actually, that they are not in the article. Or weren't the last time I looked.Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, here, let me by all means introduce some sources into this conversation. Sources include but are not limited to:

• Grant Maxwell (February 20, 2018). "Why Are So Many Young Men Drawn to Jordan Peterson's Intellectual Misogyny?". American Philosophical Association.
• Nellie Bowles (May 18, 2018). "Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy: He says there's a crisis in masculinity. Why won't women — all these wives and witches — just behave?". New York Times. "He was angry at God because women were rejecting him," Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. "The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That's actually why monogamy emerges. Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn't make either gender happy in the end.
• Burgis, Ben; Bongard Hamilton, Conrad; McManus, Matthew; Trejo, Marion (2020). Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson. John Hunt Publishing. ISBN 1789045541. His willingness to say misogynistic and transphobic things, and support patriarchal institutions is damning
• Nesbitt-Larking, Paul (July 2022). "Constructing narratives of masculinity: Online followers of Jordan B. Peterson". Psychology of Men & Masculinities. 23 (3): 309–320.
• Hadley Freeman (23 May 2018). "Jordan Peterson may be a 'public intellectual', but his latest theory isn't very clever: The academic believes violent men can be cured by the love of a good woman through enforced monogamy. And he can't understand why people are laughing at him?". The Guardian. Peterson felt compelled to blog about it, explaining in his usual "Look, you may not like it, but I'm just stating the scientific truth, guys" tone, that he wasn't advocating the "arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels", just that scientific facts show that "socially enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence". How any of this explains his theory that feminine is chaos and masculine is order was left unexplored
• Bethan Iley. "From Andrew Tate to Jordan Peterson, a phoney zero-sum-game argument sits at the heart of anti-feminist backlash". The Conversattion UK. Take Peterson's conceptualisation of order and chaos as reflecting masculinity and femininity...to raise these issues as an argument against more freedom for women is to feed the false idea that men and women are battling for power
• Revesz, Rachael (21 January 2018). "Misogynistic abuse against Cathy Newman is a symbol of the backlash against the MeToo movement: When white men feel they are losing power, any level of nastiness is possible – and much power has been ceded of late". The Independent. No matter what she would have asked, a woman daring to question his expertise was bound to have ramifications. Especially in 2018.
• SANNEH, KELEFA (March 5, 2018). "SORT YOURSELF OUT, BUCKO". Vol. 94, no. 3. New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X. When he does battle as a culture warrior, especially on television, Peterson sometimes assumes the role of a strident anti-feminist, intent on ending the oppression of males by destroying the myth of male oppression. (He once referred to his critics as "rabid harpies.")
• Charlotte Lydia Riley, ed. (20 November 2020). "Jordan Peterson, the alt-right and neo-fascism". The free speech wars. doi:10.7765/9781526152558.00027. ISBN 9781526152558. women of colour calling out racism are routinely 'shut down' for 'incivility'. A guide to free speech politics in the age of Peterson, this chapter shows how inescapably raced, classed and gendered the exclusionary practice of 'free speech' really is, and what this tells us about liberalism's inadequacy in responding to neo-fascism.
• Southey, Tabatha (November 17, 2017). "Is Jordan Peterson the stupid man's smart person? Tabatha Southey delves into University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson's work and finds his secret sauce—and what makes his work unnerving". Maclean's. What he's telling you is that certain people—most of them women and minorities—are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself. He's telling you that when someone tells you racism is still a problem and that something should be done about it, they are, at best, a dupe and, at worst, part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy your way of life. Peterson says he only thinks of it as a "non-violent war." But when you insist the stakes are that high, the opposition that pernicious, who's to say where the chips will fall?
• Annabelle Dufourcq; Annemie Halsema; Katrine Smiet; Karen Vintges, eds. (2024). "Power, Sex, and Myth: Beauvoir, Paglia, and Peterson". Purple Brains: Feminisms at the Limits of Philosophy. Radboud University Press. p. 67. doi:10.54195/HSOV8373. ISBN 978 94 9329 639 8. The known stands for order, form, and culture, symbolically linked to the masculine. The unknown is chaos, substance, and nature, symbolically associated with the feminine. Chaos is origin, source, mother, matter, and order must restrain and shape that chaos.
• Mannella, Francesco (2020). "General Insights From: "The Intellectual Dark-Web": A Case Study of Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro". Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology, and Society. 14 (3). Stanford University. they can be watched for hours espousing conservative doctrine to their predominantly male, adolescent audience in hopes of maintaining the status quo, and eschewing activism (Weiss & Winter, 2018). There are quite a number of figures in this group; however, this paper will be focusing primarily on the two most notable members: Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where I think the issue here is that you have posted a legal threat and a personal attack came from but what you've listed looks like good groundwork for inclusion in the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not particularly interested in pursuing the matter, but "maybe you ought not edit articles you have such strong opinions on if you feel compelled to use the slurs" does assume I said this with no basis, and you did say I was committing libel. But fine; apparently you now think otherwise. Glad to hear it, and glad we got that cleared up. I am still preoccupied with a different problem, but my primary concern, above and beyond all this background, is that the article devoted a great deal of real estate to quoting his very fringe statements about Bill C-16 and most likely still does Elinruby (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:LABEL is quite clear that “misogynist” is a value-laden label to be avoided unless widely used by reliable sources. If the source evidence is insufficient to state it in wikivoice in a BLP, then it should be avoided on Talk too, per WP:BLPTALK. A personal attack against the subject of the article, even if you think it is justified, is WP:BATTLEGROUND noise that doesn’t help make content decisions. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, apparently you have not noticed the dozen sources above. The article still extensively quotes the subject making extremely hyperbolic statements, in addition to his advocacy of involuntary sexual servitude for women. But by all means, let's debate whether it is polite to include some secondary sources in the article that say so. Elinruby (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Do those reliable sources widely state, in their own voice, that the subject is a misogynist? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

feel free to click handily provided links. I would start with the New York Times. They are also afaict all extremely RS, certainly better in any event that the student newspapers currently in the article. More sources exist to say that the subject's claims about Canadian constitutional law are to put it politely only tenously related to fact, which is actually the primary concern. The stuff about women is opinion, no matter how alarming it is that somebody with his reach has been saying this stuff. Elinruby (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I checked a couple, and have now checked the NYT source too. It doesn’t call him a misogynist. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Only three of those sources explicitly mention the term misogyny—one is some random blog, another is a polemic book called ”A leftist critique,” and the third does not even apply the term to Jordan Peterson specifically; it just simply states that ”well, there’s misogyny on the internet.” This post is a clear example of WP:OR and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Trakking (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

(ec) I see this escalated while I was typing. That "random blog" has an editorial policy and a submissions process and is published by a professional organization. And yeah, the NYT times only quotes him saying that the solution to a guy running over random pedestrians is "mandatory monogamy" for women with men who might do such things. Speaking of polemic. The book is a published source that beats a student newspaper any day, and the source you are dismissing as "there's misogyny on the internet" has his name in the title, so.... not so much. But I am always happy to hear from an editor who thinks that a former provincial premier is somehow "parasiting" the subject by being mentioned in his Wikipedia article. Have you removed that mention yet, Trakking? Surely if I want it gone and you think it's parasitic, a meeting of the minds is possible somewhere? But Macleans, the Guardian and the other sources all talk about hateful statements about women and pretty much everyone who is not an incel white male, so... OR is a pretty ridiculous dismissal, given that all of these sources are better than 90% of what's in the article now, ie mostly YouTube and student newspapers. But without getting into the article's current content, if it's reliably sourced, it ain't OR. As opposed for example to quoting the subject on what his expertise is, even though he doesn't seem to be the lead author of many of those articles at all. So how about we talk about what he says about the law, hmm? Elinruby (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Trying to log in but keep kicking to other places 2600:100A:B03C:8E18:0:34:799D:E901 (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Irgun

See [27]. I reverted a similar edit a few days ago. The issue I see is do we describe the Irgun in articles the way their article does or does Wikipedia call then terrorists. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

See King David Hotel bombing which is what the Irgun is notorious for, obviously terrorism, and the attack is described in the lead as a "terrorist attack". In the section Terrorism, it says "The bombing has been discussed in literature about the practice and history of terrorism. It has been called one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century." When a preponderance of sources are all unequivocal about calling it terrorism, it's terrorism.

I see an editor objected on the grounds that we don't do that for Hamas but there is no unanimity of sourcing for that (the BBC being one notable example of a refusal to call them that). Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The way Irgun describes them is, imo, fine. This was (to my knowledge) way before proscription was a thing, so it's probably the best we're going to get if we're never going to be able to say "described by A, B, and C as a terrorist org". Extending that, however, to Ze'ev Jabotinsky is a bit weird to me. Although al-Qaeda's designation is mentioned on Osama Bin Laden. Yr Enw (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The same editor who adds mentions of terrorism to Irgun-related articles also removes mentions of terrorism related to Palestinian factions [28]. However, when reverted, they label the revert as "vandalism" [29]. This could indicate a possible conduct issue. ABHammad (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a similar view to Yr Enw in cases like this. Also, I'm a fan of aligning contentious labels to the labeling used in main articles about the thing being given a contentious label in another article. And if you are going to avoid the use of Wiki-voice via words like "proscribed", it seems better to say who is doing the proscribing. I'm not a big fan of the fuzzy wording "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" in WP:TERRORIST as a decision procedure because, in practice, editors can't/don't do enough sampling. Not using contentious labels in wiki-voice or without some kind of attribution is a simple solution. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

“not using contentious labels in wikivoice or without some kind of attribution is a simple solution”. This is my preferred interpretation of MOS:TERRORIST, and imo the only possibly impartial way of dealing with terrorist designations. But the guidance is, as you note, quite reliant on editors making editorial judgements. It’s unlikely to get resolved anytime soon either, as when I tried to get consensus on the VP for a more explicit guideline that would align with this, it wasn’t very forthcoming. Yr Enw (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

In practice, in Wikipedia, for understandable reasons, editorial judgement can be difficult to distinguish from convenience sampling. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps but the rule as it stands (I don't agree with it either but there it is) says that if there is a preponderance of sourcing, we go by that. If there is alleged insufficient sampling, editors will have to work out a consensus on that, same as anything else. Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This is true. I think we have made some progress towards neutrality though. When people in my family would tell stories about their time in Palestine in 1947-48, any mention of Irgun might be accompanied by slightly confusing statements like 'scum of the Balkans'. Of course, this was back in the days when making sweeping and/or offensive and/or inaccurate statements about 'foreigners' was fine. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't Irgun self-described as terrorists? They were formed as "restraint breakers" specifically to carry out unprovoked violent attacks against Palestinians and British as part of a campaign of political violence. They promoted terrorism, were self-described terrorists. They publicly celebrated their terrorist identity. They had a goal and their chosen path was the path of violent unconstrained terrorism, and they were proud advocates of this. Fanccr (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Fanccr, your comment is inconsistent with the WP:ARBECR rule. A quick look at your contributions suggests that you might need to (re)read that and the information on your talk page. If you have sourcing that supports the "self-described terrorists" statement, you can submit it with an edit request at the Irgun article's talk page using WP:EDITXY as a guide. Even if true, I would still favor attributing the label to them rather than using wiki-voice. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, same. The problem with their suggestion is that it assumes readers will understand what the Irgun itself meant by the term, which I don’t think they will. Yr Enw (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Yr Enw here. In an article about a different topic, appending a contentious qualifier like terrorist can be done only if that's what RS do. The onus is on the editor who adds this. Alaexis_¿question? 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I would be cautious with the label in this case, and ascribe it to them were it's due, with the onus being on those who want to include it; as stated by others, this is a case of editorial discretion with all the issues usually associated with that.

Regarding @ABHammads diffs, while I'm generally not inclined to advocate for action being taken due to a singular bad edit, it's probably something to look into or at least keep an eye on, particularly if this is or becomes a pattern. FortunateSons (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Including death parameters in the infobox for BLPs

I tried removing the "death date" and "death place" parameters from the infoboxes on BLPs (e.g. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]), but the removals have been reverted. The vast majority of BLPs do not include such parameters. The infobox for the Joe Biden article, to cite a high-profile example, does not include parameters for death. Neither does the Taylor Swift article, to cite another high-profile example. Why should some BLPs include death parameters and others not? Seems morbid and downright prejudicial. Ieonine (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The unused parameters aren't seen by the reader..... we consider this a cosmetic edit pls review WP:COSMETICBOT. Moxy🍁 23:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

But they are seen by the editors, and the implication is shady. Ieonine (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Every subject of a BLP will die someday. I would argue that there is no good reason to remove empty death parameters from articles that have them or to add empty death parameters to articles that don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Then why isn't there an across-the-board policy addressing this? To cite some more high-profile examples, look at the infoboxes for Donald Trump, Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Madonna. Nowhere does it list "death date" or "death place". So why should some BLP infoboxes include death parameters and others not include death parameters? There's no equality in that. Ieonine (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

What matters is that for all of these BLPs, the death fields are empty and don't show in the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is prejudicial. Who decides which BLPs should have death fields and which shouldn't? Ieonine (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

They are irrelevant if they are not seen. I suggest you find something productive to do. Moxy🍁 00:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

In what way are they “prejudicial”? Who exactly is harmed by the fact that some BLP infoboxes have this (empty and hidden) parameter while others do not? And what is that harm? Blueboar (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not really hidden. Anyone who clicks the edit button can see it. If there was a BLP page about me that had a "death date" field I'd take offense. The harm is implication of imminent death. To insist certain BLPs must contain this stigmatic mark while other BLPs get off scot-free, is unbalanced, unfair, and prejudicial; a double standard. Does this answer your question? Because none of you have answered mine: Why are some BLPs exempt from containing this awful text and others aren't? Ieonine (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Meh… having a field for date of death that is empty does not imply an imminent death… just an eventual one. We will all die at some point (hopefully a long time from now). No need to change. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it Cambalachero (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

These unused parameters are appropriate and will be useful for reference when the person does die. The infoboxes are not only for living persons AFAIK, but a variety that might be used for living or dead people. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Use of contentious labels in lead of an article

There has been NPOV controversy on-going about the Reiki article on its Talk Page, which is nothing new (I have read through all archives of the talk page to get a better picture, and it has been an on-going debate for nearly 20 years).

I specifically find the use of the word quackery in the lead objectionable, which seems unduly loaded and wilfully placed in such a prominent position, as well as further uses of WP:WTW throughout the article. Taken into consideration in its entirety, the article reads as though it had been written by someone with a personal vendetta against the topic.

Input from other editors would be appreciated. Thank you! –Konanen (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it could be more specific as to labeled quackery by whom (scientists? journalists? quacks?) but I don't see the problem with it. If it is medical pseudoscience, it is quackery, isn't it? Anyway, we aren't saying it in Wikipedia's voice, we're pointing out that it has been characterized as such by presumably relevant persons to the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed the question of labeled quackery by whom in the Talk page, where I pointed out that one of the two references attached to quackery did not even use that term, and that the other reference was of questionable reliability:

The other reference tagged to the word quackery, however, does attribute said word to Reiki. Yet that source amounts to nothing more than a WP:QUESTIONABLE rant opinion piece whose inclusion in the lead definitely skews the balance of the article unduly.

–Konanen (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@DIYeditor; agree. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

See below about "parity of sources". SBM is an excellent source for this subject -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "quackery" is falling a bit into slang even if it is commonly used. It's already labeled as pseudoscience, and to me, the context to be added is why it is called that. All that is there, and can be achieved with a rewrite as: Reiki is a pseudoscience. It is based on qi ("chi"), which practitioners say is a universal life force, although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists. Clinical research does not show reiki to be effective as a treatment for any medical condition, including cancer, diabetic neuropathy, anxiety or depression. There is no proof of the effectiveness of reiki therapy compared to placebo. Studies reporting positive effects have had methodological flaws. Reiki is used as an illustrative example of pseudoscience in scholarly texts and academic journal articles. Masem (t) 01:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a personal vendetta against the topic. Even had a friend that was into it years ago. However I consider it to be "quackery" as it is pseduoscience. However as mentioned probably best to use the term pseudoscient unless there is a WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS calling it "quackery" in which case it would not be a WP:NPOV probablem to do likewise in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 02:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems easier to take it as a writing quality problem than a NPOV problem. "Reiki is a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery" is a pointless tautology. Also not sure why pseudoscience/pseudoscientific needs to appear 3 times in the lead in quick succession. CMD (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"Its practice has been characterized as quackery" must be cited to a source that says its practice has been characterized as quackery, not just sources that call it quackery. Otherwise if violates WEASEL and NOR. TFD (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Nearly every definition of "quackery" includes things like deliberate misleading, deliberate pretending and fraud. IMO this should not be in the article much less in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, and there is nothing about such aspects in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I can see a very strong consensus here. I agree with you all. Thanks so much for the helpful comments:

@Konanen, “quackery ... objectionable”

@TarnishedPath, “probably best to use the term pseudoscient unless there is a WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS calling it "quackery" in which case it would not be a WP:NPOV probablem”

@CMD, “ "Reiki is a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery" is a pointless tautology. Also not sure why pseudoscience/pseudoscientific needs to appear 3 times in the lead in quick succession”

@TFD, “..”quackery" must be cited to a source that says its practice has been characterized as quackery, not just sources that call it quackery. Otherwise if violates WEASEL and NOR”

@North8000, “Nearly every definition of "quackery" includes things like deliberate misleading, deliberate pretending and fraud. IMO this should not be in the article much less in the lead.”

. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Add back ping...

@Konanen, @TarnishedPath, @Chipmunkdavis, @The Four Deuces, @North8000 --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

SBM is an excellent RS for this type of topic. Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources, opinions and writings of mainstream authors have more due weight than the writings of promoters of fringe practices, and that includes all of alternative medicine. See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Due and undue weight. Beyond that, when in doubt, use attribution. More due weight means, among other things, the amount of content and the prominence of mention. Criticisms belong in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe our article should state clearly that Reiki is not a replacement of conventional medical treatment, and that it can involve non-standard financial costs. However,

Imagine, if, I say if, you were one of the good-faith Reiki practitioners who has never intended to deceive (you genuinely believe that you are helping others). One day you come home from work, and your children ask you,

“Dad (/Mum), my classmates said what you are doing is quackery and pseudoscience. You are bad and you are deceiving people. You aren’t doing good work as you’ve told me, is it? They said it’s what Wikipedia said!”

Is that OK? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia should avoid reporting the facts. Quacks need not be deliberate frauds - sometimes they are just well meaning but ignorant folks who have avoided educating themselves. That doesn't mean we should avoid doing so on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. -

Quacks need not be deliberate frauds - sometimes they are just well meaning but ignorant folks who have avoided educating themselves.

I don’t think so. That’s your personal opinion.

From our own definition:

Quackery, often synonymous with health fraud, is the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices. A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess; a charlatan or snake oil salesman"

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"ignorant medical practices"—from the definition just given. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

“Quackery, often synonymous with health fraud --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ignorant is right there in what you quoted. MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

“Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Quoted from PMID: 15208545. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s a “Comment” published in 2004 (apparently written by an advocate), not a review, not a meta-analysis, and not a MEDRS / MEDDATE-compliant source at all. Further, “Reiki” was not mentioned in that “comment”. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear, are you denying that it is pseudoscience and not shown in any way to be effective? We can go from there. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Not really relevant here, since that's not a medical claim. Also see WP:PARITY, we do not hold debunkers to a higher evidentiary standard than what they're debunking. And finally, WP:MEDDATE does not say what you seem to think it says - it doesn't rule out older sources, it advises looking to see if they have been superseded. Often (particularly in the case of fringey stuff where publications are limited) they have not been superseded. MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact remains, though, that the reference in question is not a secondary source, but merely a comment about something, which makes this a very low quality source. It does not prove quackery or even prove that it is the generally-held view; it merely states an opinion held by the author in a single comment about a topic by one person that is, additionally, unduly disparaging and WP:UNDUE in the lead, if it even belongs in the article at all. It is questionable that it meets notability standards, and rather than being a scientific criticism of the subject matter as required by WP:PARITY, it reads like a rant, see this excerpt:

To be honest, I really didn’t think that could go much lower in terms of promoting quackery, but, damn, did they prove me wrong! Reiki? Seriously? If there are two quackeries battling it out for the title of The One Quackery To Rule Them All, based on their sheer ridiculousness and disconnect from reality, homeopathy is obviously a contender, but so is reiki.

The article ends with:

As for The Atlantic, stop publishing utterly credulous paeans to quackery like this article.

Not at all objective, or calm and collected. I reiterate my opinion in that it has no business in the lead, and its placement within the article at large is debatable, though I could see a point for it.

-Konanen (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources are allowed to be biased per WP:RSBIAS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Sceince-Based Medicine has been discussed quite a few times on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Although it's not liked by many the consensus has been that it's a reliable source, see WP:SBM for details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This is (or at least, claims to be) an online encyclopaedia. As such, it is intended to promote knowledge, If that upsets the ignorant, that's their problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

When, sources support it we absolutely should call stuff like this as pseudoscience and explain it's faults. But we are still meant to take a neutral, impartial tone to articles, and words like quackery are unnecessary once you establish it's pseudoscience, and non neutral, as they give rise to a non impartial view in Wiki voice. — Masem (t) 13:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should explain the need for Wikipedia to state that Reiki is pseudoscience to Dustfreeworld. [38] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Given their activities on that article only occurred over two days and since then they have been participating here, rather than edit warring or making persistent changes, I would AFG in their actions and that they are learning the ropes of how we work on pseudoscience topics — Masem (t) 15:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think Masem is correct. Quackery tends towards name-calling. Pseudoscience (when we use it in the strictly-speaking sense instead of the smear-word sense) imparts information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld has been topic banned. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Comment: For a better overview of the situation, here is a tally of the current voices that agree with the opinion that there is an issue with the content of the article as it stands (hereunder noted as Agree) vs. those that do not or do not specifically state they agree (which I have counted as dissent, hereunder as Disagree).
If my understanding of your opinion is wrong, please let me know so I can change accordingly! Hence the pings, apologies for the annoyance.

Agree:

• @Masem: [39] [40] ([41])

"quackery" is falling a bit into slang even if it is commonly used.

we are still meant to take a neutral, impartial tone to articles, and words like quackery are unnecessary once you establish it's pseudoscience, and non neutral, as they give rise to a non impartial view in Wiki voice.

• @North8000: [42]

Nearly every definition of "quackery" includes things like deliberate misleading, deliberate pretending and fraud. IMO this should not be in the article much less in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, and there is nothing about such aspects in the article.

• @Chipmunkdavis: [43]

"Reiki is a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery" is a pointless tautology. Also not sure why pseudoscience/pseudoscientific needs to appear 3 times in the lead in quick succession.

• @The Four Deuces: [44]

"Its practice has been characterized as quackery" must be cited to a source that says its practice has been characterized as quackery, not just sources that call it quackery. Otherwise if violates WEASEL and NOR.

• @WhatamIdoing: [45] ([46])

I think Masem is correct. Quackery tends towards name-calling. Pseudoscience (when we use it in the strictly-speaking sense instead of the smear-word sense) imparts information.

• + Dustfreeworld (topic banned)
• + myself

Disagree:

• @TarnishedPath: [47]

However I consider it to be "quackery" as it is pseduoscience. However as mentioned probably best to use the term pseudoscient unless there is a WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS calling it "quackery" in which case it would not be a WP:NPOV probablem to do likewise in the article.

• @Valjean: [48]

SBM is an excellent RS for this type of topic. Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources, opinions and writings of mainstream authors have more due weight than the writings of promoters of fringe practices, and that includes all of alternative medicine. See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Due and undue weight. Beyond that, when in doubt, use attribution. More due weight means, among other things, the amount of content and the prominence of mention. Criticisms belong in the lead.

• @MrOllie: [49] [50] [51]

NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia should avoid reporting the facts. Quacks need not be deliberate frauds - sometimes they are just well meaning but ignorant folks who have avoided educating themselves. That doesn't mean we should avoid doing so on Wikipedia.

• @Tgeorgescu: [52] [53]

“Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Quoted from PMID: 15208545.

• @AndyTheGrump: [54] [55]

This is (or at least, claims to be) an online encyclopaedia. As such, it is intended to promote knowledge, If that upsets the ignorant, that's their problem, not ours.

Perhaps you should explain the need for Wikipedia to state that Reiki is pseudoscience to Dustfreeworld.

Unclear or Neutral:

• @ActivelyDisinterested: [56]

Sceince-Based Medicine has been discussed quite a few times on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Although it's not liked by many the consensus has been that it's a reliable source, see WP:SBM for details.

• @DIYeditor: [57] ([58] [59])

Maybe it could be more specific as to labeled quackery by whom (scientists? journalists? quacks?) but I don't see the problem with it. If it is medical pseudoscience, it is quackery, isn't it? Anyway, we aren't saying it in Wikipedia's voice, we're pointing out that it has been characterized as such by presumably relevant persons to the topic.

Summary of Agreeing Positions:

• “quackery” may be unwarranted in this context and especially in the lead
• “pseudoscience” being mentioned as often as it is in the article is gratuitous
• the existence of both terms in quick succession are superfluous and skew POV
• the article may be guilty of WP:WEASEL in some points

As I see it, there is no consensus, but there is lively-enough debate about the points of the matter that it warrants further pursuit. What are editors’ opinions as to the next steps to be taken? Cheers, –Konanen (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The sentence in question now reads David Gorski has characterized Reiki as a quackery that is disconnected from reality.[60] The main issue I had with using 'quackery' was that it sounded flippant. As this is now an attributed statement, rather than wikivoice I don't see a problem with it. Recent editing has also solved the repetition of 'pseudoscience'. As both issues are now solved they can't be said to skew POV.
If you have concerns that anything in the article is weaselly I suggest detailing those concerns at the articles talk page, I don't see anything detailed here or the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! I am not sure the lead is the right place to be mentioning David Gorski, Jann Bellamy, Stephen Barrett, or the Catholic Church. None of these individuals or entities have anything to do with Reiki per se. As an example, I’d like to point to the last paragraph of the article about Homeopathy:

In the 21st century, a series of meta-analyses have shown that the therapeutic claims of homeopathy lack scientific justification. As a result, national and international bodies have recommended the withdrawal of government funding for homeopathy in healthcare. National bodies from Australia, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and France, as well as the European Academies' Science Advisory Council and the Russian Academy of Sciences have all concluded that homeopathy is ineffective, and recommended against the practice receiving any further funding. The National Health Service in England no longer provides funding for homeopathic remedies and asked the Department of Health to add homeopathic remedies to the list of forbidden prescription items. France removed funding in 2021, while Spain has also announced moves to ban homeopathy and other pseudotherapies from health centers.

Except for the person who invented the concept, Samuel Hahnemann, no other individual is mentioned in the lead, because it would be WP:UNDUE to do so. A look at other articles in the category of Fringe medicine and science shows similarly well-worded NPOV articles, and I am hard-pressed to find mentions within the lead of any names of individualsnunrelated to the subject matter. I do not think the edits do justice to WP:NPOV, but rather to hide a non-neutral POV behind the shield of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I think the lead, as it is, has not improved, but traded off some problems for others. –Konanen (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead of homeopathy is full of attributed statements, they may not be individuals but that isn't a big difference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a big fan anywhere of using attributed statements in the lede unless the speaker is an immediately recognized authority (like WHO or CDC), otherwise while you can attribute such things this can play to favoritism, or RGW-ing. Masem (t) 13:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: IMHO, it is a big difference, since the entities linked in the article about Homeopathy are Academies of Science, National Health Services, and the Department of Health & Social Care, which are primarily tasked with weighing in on topics that relate to medical science in conjunction with (public) health (policies). Individuals and the Catholic Church usually are not. –Konanen (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The Catholic Church runs hospitals and is mentioned in the article directly relating to the articles subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with AD, and add that Reiki isn't really "medical science". This book says "Reiki traditionalists simply claim to channel their god’s divine energy". That's religion, and therefore a fair subject for other religious groups to comment on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Konanen, I don’t think your separation of agree/disagree is entirely useful insofar as it doesn’t consider if there is consensus based on nuances. TarnishedPath^talk 13:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• In general, labels (especially contentious labels) should be attributed in text, unless multiple reliable sources use it. Care should be taken not to give UNDUE weight to any single source’s viewpoint. Avoid using contentious labels in the lead (as they often require further context). Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  At the moment, I think the main unresolved point is whether "David Gorski called in quackery" needs to be in the lead plus the body, or whether it's sufficient to put it in the body alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  These are considerations that can easily be dealt with at the article's talk page. I think it is counterproductive to continue this thread away from those who watch the article. Can we close this now? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Although I do not agree with the objections, I have removed the mention of Gorski and quackery from the lead. The coverage in the body may be enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Those are great edits! As the article and its lead stand at the moment, I have no substantial objections. I am happy this has found a resolution, thank you for your efforts. –Konanen (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You are very welcome.

Let's move the discussion to Talk:Reiki#Lead again and close this thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Great Barrington Declaration

Article: Great Barrington Declaration

I'd like to bring the forementioned article to the attention of the noticeboard.

Issues:

• The article content seems to have a clear bias of criticism against the declaration.
• The article has multiple paragraphs where sentences read more like an editorial, not a factual wikipedia article
• The editing history on the article shows a continuous reversal of seemingly factual edits made by other editors

Examples:

A few examples (pasted from the article verbatim, problematic sections bolded):

• "It claimed harmful COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the fringe notion of "focused protection", by which those most at risk of dying from an infection could purportedly be kept safe while society otherwise took no steps to prevent infections" - Negative bias in framing the content. Multiple reverts in the edit history regarding different editors attempting to remove the "fringe" claim in its current phrasing.
• "By October 2020, many of these things had already happened in some parts of the world, but likewise were being restricted elsewhere; for instance the UK saw quarantines of students, travel advisories, restrictions on meeting other people, and partial closures of schools, pubs and restaurants." - An editorial-like sentence that appears under the "Background and content" section. The content section should focus on the content of the declaration, not editors adding their own interpretations of the context.
• "The declaration does not provide practical details about who should be protected or how they can be protected. For instance, it does not mention testing any people outside of nursing homes, contact tracing, wearing masks, or social distancing. It mentions multi-generational households but does not provide any information about how, for example, low-risk people can get infected without putting high-risk members of their household at risk of dying." - Again, the whole paragraph is an editorial and WP:OR
• "The declaration does not provide any references to published data that support the declaration's strategy." - Again, with the phrasing used, this is WP:OR. A single source provided as reference to the claim is a newspaper article. At the very least, this should be phrased as "Critics have claimed that the declaration does not provide any references to published data that support the declaration's strategy. I will attempt to correct this and will see how long the correction will remain.

~~~~

Saltsjöbaden (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is too misleadingly framed to result in well-informed outside opinions. Much of what is described as editorial opinion or original research is pulled directly from reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Another example of non-NPOV behavior by editors can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Barrington_Declaration#Signatories Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

After reading the content and checking the cited sources, the article looks neutral to me—in that it neutrally summarizes what reliable, secondary sources say, and it gives prominence to available mainstream viewpoints over fringe viewpoints. I'll also say that highlighting a list of signatories that aren't highlighted in secondary sources is a great example of an edit that should be reverted on sight, not only for NPOV reasons but BLP as well. Woodroar (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a case of Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content.

@Saltsjöbaden, when nearly all of the reliable sources say that this proposal is vague, unworkable, will result in hospitals collapsing, increase the total number of deaths, etc., then the Wikipedia article is required by policy to reflect this dominant view as being the dominant view. It is not "neutral" to pretend that both views are equally plausible.

About your claim that editors adding their own interpretations of the context: It is a fact that you can't have the schools open for in-person instruction of all kids and still keep all high-risk adults (aka their teachers, almost half of whom qualified as high-risk) at home. It is a fact that you can't have all kids in school and keep their high-risk family members from being exposed to the germs that the kids will share at school. In the US, about 20% of kids live in multi-generational homes. "Go to school" and "Nobody living with Grandma (or the baby) should go anywhere" are mutually exclusive options. These are not "my interpretations"; these are things that come from reliable sources. They are also facts, not opinions. It is not "editorializing"; it is "explaining".

We could go further: I understand that there are sources saying that the reason GBD doesn't provide any details is because they knew (or ought to know) that this was not workable in practice, but they wanted to make a political splash despite knowing that their whole idea was bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Really hard to see anything failing NPOV here. The letter was strongly criticized by experts in medicine and virology, among other sciences. It's ideas may have some possible credibility but there stances were unproven and went against the prevailing scientific thought. As such it is presented in the correct tone to reflect that it's claims are dubious, rather that yet proven

Masem (t) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel an edit war simmering

Dadude sandstorm keeps changing Ursula Andress' longstanding infobox photo to an unrecognizable photo taken in her teens [61] [62] (around a decade before she even became famous, by the way).

Everyone knows that BLP infoboxes should use modern photos. I can already tell from the vocabulary in the second edit summary that the odds of this user being reasonable are slim. Any of you willing to take the reigns? Ieonine (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, @Ieonine. Thanks for the report. Have you ever started any Wikipedia:Requests for comment? It's not difficult. Try a question like "Which image should be used in the infobox?" You might give people a link to c:Category:Ursula Andress and to whichever guidelines you think are relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that a little premature? It hasn't even been discussed on the talk page yet. It's only between two editors, so Wikipedia:Third opinion would also work. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The top of Talk:Ursula Andress has an older discussion on the same subject. This apparently has been a bone of contention for a long time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Everyone knows that BLP infoboxes should use modern photos. I'm not sure that's a rule. BLP image selection should consider many factors, and one of those is whether the image represents the subject in a way that is concordant in weight with the rest of the article. This is why we use a picture of Bill Gates as a businessman, not his mugshot, and why we use a picture of Harrison Ford from during his acting career rather than a picture of him as a shirtless carpenter, and why we include a picture of Pope Francis as an old pope rather than as a young priest.

Ursula Andress's notability stems from her work in the 1960s and 1970s, and that's the centre of gravity of the article, so ideally we'd have a photo from that era. The current photo that @Ieonine wants to keep is problematic (too late) and so is the replacement proposed by @Dadude sandstorm (too early). We used to use this one which seems just right. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

old and emaciated are 'unreasonable'?

'I feel an edit war simmering' what an absurd thing to start a NPOV discussion over. I made one edit and one revert. that is all daruda (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Last time I checked 1950 was neither in the 1960's or 1970's. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

what is this a reference to? daruda (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Well the edit warring seemed to be over one from the 50's. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Everyone knows that BLP infoboxes should use modern photos, I disagree. For historical figures (i.e. those dead or retired) we should be using the best quality photo that is most representative of the subject, preferably at a time of peak fame. Curbon7 (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

THANK YOU daruda (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Gaza Health Ministry

Some non-involved editors would be welcome at Gaza Health Ministry.

The context is essentially

• Israel and the US expressed unspecific doubts about GHM's casualty data.
• Organizations like the UN say the GHM's data has historically been reliable.
• Two peer-reviewed articles published in The Lancet did not find evidence of inflated or fabricated data. (Edit: turns out the articles are "correspondence" and not peer reviewed, see here and here.)
• Later, statistics professor Abraham Wyner wrote in Tablet (magazine) that the data contained irregularities, such as a strong negative correlation between male and female deaths.
• Later still, Michael Spagat wrote about GHM's "declining data quality", explained by a shift to user-submitted reports as hospitals have closed.

The current lede is unbalanced, emphasizing the sources that say the data is reliable, while not mentioning opposing viewpoints at all. My various attempts to include brief mentions of the latter (even just "received significant attention and scrutiny") have been reverted.

The argument seems to be that the two peer-reviewed Lancet articles trump non-peer-reviewed sources, making opposing viewpoints somewhat fringe. However, the two Lancet articles are older, and focused on very different aspects of the data. In some sense they support opposing narratives, but they absolutely don't contradict one another.

The current article also quotes a blog comment by "Ken M", with speculation about how the irregularities noted by Wyner might be explained. My attempt to remove that was reverted as well. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you might want to reflect on the concept of Materiality (auditing). No source I've seen thinks the GHM data is dramatically wrong. It's even possible that it's an undercount (e.g., bodies that haven't been found in the rubble yet). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree an undercount is plausible. No reliable sources really claim that the total is clearly inflated, just that it shouldn't be considered very reliable, especially recent data from the current war.

Some milder versions of this viewpoint are very mainstream, even uncontroversial. E.g. The Telegraph factually notes that (at the time) ~54% of the data was from hospital sources, with the rest coming from a combination of media sources and a Google form.

I suppose reasonable editors can disagree about materiality, but I think there are also very objective problems here, such as

• Framing Roberts' article as a refutation of Wyner's, when it doesn't discuss Wyner's arguments at all, only mentions it once in passing
• Using two blog comments to counter some of Wyner's arguments, one from an anonymous "Ken M" with unknown credibility

There has been significant resistance to fixing even the most clear issues like these. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Those blogs are by professors, the first by Lior Pachter, a professor of statistics who dismissed the first argument. The Ken M comment is not in because of whoever they are but because James Joyner, a professor of security studies, said it showed insight. Professor Les Roberts, who is an expert in such matters, has like you say just one comment on Wyner's article - right in the lead: "Israel’s U.N. ambassador and online pundits have purported that the numbers are exaggerated or, as a recent article in Tablet alleged, simply faked. Actually, the numbers are likely conservative. The science is extremely clear." Professor Wyners article was the one in Tablet (magazine) and if that is okay then they're okay too in the article. None of this should be in the lead. NadVolum (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As we discussed on the talk page, Joyner included the "Ken M" blog comment in a compilation of quotes and referred to it as an "insight", but didn't engage with it at all beyond that. It still seems like a pretty clear WP:USERGENERATED violation, since the argument is still from "Ken M", not from Joyner.

Right, Roberts mentioned Wyner's article once, and in some broad sense he's arguing in a different direction, but he doesn't respond to any of the specific points Wyner made. I think that makes "Wyner [...] wrote [...] to which [...] Roberts responded" rather misleading.

Not to mention that Pachter's blog post is framed as a refutation of Wyner's "main point", when it really only applies to a single figure. (The text of Wyner's first argument refers to variance in daily deaths, not the cumulative sum that Pachter argues is misleading.) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Lior Pachter, Les Roberts (epidemiologist), and James Joyner all have their own articles and I would hope that they have some idea of what they're doing when they bother to write things. Just seen Wyner also had something from Joshua Loftus, professor of statistics and data science at LSE, saying "One of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen" and "shockingly irresponsible" about the article NadVolum (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't negate the problems I mentioned. Of those three authors, only one actually engages the content of Wyner's article at all, namely Pachter's criticism of one particular visual that Wyner used. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

See the convo I linked below, Wyner's article is a minority view and critiqued. Time to drop this. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Four with Joshua Loftus. NadVolum (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And quoting professor Michael Spagat about the data quality declining doesn't justify anything Wyner did. NadVolum (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see why Abraham Wyner's article should be given any special prominence over any other sources. It's just an article in a magazine. To make it any more prominent than that seems like a violation of WP:DUE. Silverseren^C 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that the Gaza Health Ministry#Other analysis section (where Wyner's magazine article is mentioned) should be in the article at all. The article feels a bit more like a deep-dive into details and he said/she said bickering, instead of an encyclopedic summary of the subject. Also, the article is wildly unbalanced; there are ~1300 words on casualty counts and ~200 words total on everything else. Don't they have, like hospitals and budgets and employees and things like that? We're treating them as if their sole purpose is to count deaths. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  +1 Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I suspect the vast majority of coverage of them is in relation to their casualty counts. BilledMammal (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you only look at coverage during the last six months and in the popular press, you might be right. But in the 17 years before that, I think there was other coverage. The 2007 doctor's strike gets a few sentences; perhaps someday this, too, will get just a few sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're right, there should be a lot more about it like how many hospitals and doctors it has/had and it's record in looking after health issues. Do you know of some sort of tag for that kind of issue? NadVolum (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Remember this convo? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Tablet_(magazine)_and_article_by_Wharton_statistician Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I remember that okay. There's been responses by academics now so perhaps the business can end. NadVolum (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  One would hope so. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would be in favor of a WP:SPINOUT article called "Reliability of Gaza Health Ministry casualty data" to correct the balancing issue.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Might be a good idea, put a stop to all this "Hamas run" discussion every ten minutes. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Gaza Health Ministry is fairly short and is a natural place to look about that if a person is bothered. I'm not keen on such a split, at least not without a lot more development of the article. NadVolum (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The map in Anatolia

We seem to have a problem in Anatolia with this map [63]. Only one modern source uses this limited definition of Anatolia (Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary) as far as I'm aware. Most sources define Anatolia as the entire Asian area of Turkey. The sources can be found in the article. This map [64] seems more appropriate. Can we get a few comments on this? There was a previous RfC which wasn't closed Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?. It's currently being discussed here: Talk:Anatolia#The_map_issue_again Bogazicili (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The RfC has been requested to be closed [65] yesterday. It's not constructive to open a new discussion on the talk and another one in here when the RfC hasn't been formally closed. Vanezi (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know you requested closure, you didn't say on the talk page. Bogazicili (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Excessive? pushback on Disney CEO's comment at The Marvels

The movie and therefore the article has become a small battleground in the woke vs anti-woke discourse so I think it's appropriate to bring it to this board. Disney's CEO made comments about why The Marvels movie failed, one of which was poor supervision by executives. The supervision part of those comments and the criticism of it is currently taking up a third of the box office section: The_Marvels#Box_office. Here's me initiating the discussion about that Talk:The_Marvels#Do_we_need_so_much_pushback_back_against_Iger's_comment?. It goes on for a very long time so TLDR is that I thought it was excessive, and pointed out how parts of it was actually not in the sources being cited. I kept being told by like 5 editors that it was in the sources, but when I asked where (like half a dozen times), was never told. Eventually it's acknowledged it's not in the sources so the content is changed and additional sources are added.

The issue is that the pushback is even more excessive now, and specifically This came amid a wider narrative in the Hollywood media, which some attributed to Disney, in which DaCosta appeared to be unfairly targeted. is also inappropriate given only one commentator is alleging the director has been unfairly targeted Disney, and only one is alleging the director has been unfairly targeted by the media (the CBR article is saying the "fandom" believes it so I don't think that applies either). The media angle is also wrong to include because this is about Iger's comment and people attacking him for it, shoe-horning another commentator saying there's a media narrative against the director is wrongfully padding the attacks on Iger. Also wrong to state as a fact that DaCosta appeared to be unfairly targeted.

So I believe it's undue weight to give this minor story a third of the box office section, and undue weight for Iger's 16 words insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame for the film's failure. to be attacked with 129 words.

These are some options I propose: Disney CEO Bob Iger also attributed the film's failure to the large amount of MCU content that Disney had produced for its streaming service, but he added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame as well. Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully blaming DaCosta, noting that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office.

Disney CEO Bob Iger also attributed the film's failure to the large amount of MCU content that Disney had produced for its streaming service, but he added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame as well. Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully blaming DaCosta, noting that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office and characterized his statement as throwing the director "under the bus". Tikaboo (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You're not going to like this answer, but after looking over the talk page discussion, my suggestion would be to move on to something else. 10,000 words have been spilt, most of them your own, over a few sentences of reception that will inevitably be rewritten anyway once the MCU editors get started on making Phase 5 a Good Topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm basically in the sunken cost fallacy at this point :) Tikaboo (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

When can titles contain "massacre"?

From my reading of policy, the word "massacre" is inherently a non-neutral term that can only be used in the titles under one condition: if it used by a "a significant majority of English-language sources" (WP:POVNAME). In all other circumstances it must not be used. Am I reading the policy wrong?

Recently, I have proposed neutral alternatives for Nir Oz massacre, Tel al-Sultan massacre, Nuseirat refugee camp massacre. One of those involve Palestinians killing Israeli civilians and two involve Israelis killing Palestinian civilians. In each case I get incredible pushback from users saying "massacre can be a neutral term to describe what some sources describe as an intentional large scale killing of defenseless civilians." I agree that a strong case can be made in each case that the perpetrators deliberately and cruelly killed innocents. Yet it is also a fact that the perpetrators (and their supporters) denied doing so. The essence of WP:NPOV is "Articles must not take sides". So calling an event massacre, when a majority of RS don't do so, is taking sides and violates NPOV.

Tagging those making such arguments so they can present contrarian views here Number 57, The Great Mule of Eupatoria, Jebiguess, FortunateSons, Nishidani etc. I would like there to be a single standard on when we call an event a "massacre", regardless of whether the victims are Israelis or Palestinians.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what the WP:COMMONNAME is in reliable sources. The My Lai massacre and the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre are widely known by those names, so those are the names that should be used for those events. The same would apply to these events in Gaza; is the term massacre used widely in sources or is it in certain media only or is it not used at all and is an editorial invention, etc. Curbon7 (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Your reading is correct. If someone is trying to define "massacre" and decide themselves whether it's applicable instead of just going with what the sources call it, then they should probably edit in a different area until they have better familiarity with core content policies. This is not a topic area for editors who are still learning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I base this on the fact several Arabic sources refer to the events I am proposing being named “massacres” as such. The problem is that Wikipedia editors only want to refer to English RS, which I have pointed out have a systematic bias, in many cases not being able to pin the blame on Israel let alone refer to a massacre as such. With many Arabic sources referring to dropping 6 tons of bombs over the heads of 195 civilians as a “massacre”, that does not mean it has to be euphemised because an English western “RS” that does not acknowledge Israel as a perpetrator and refers to Palestinians being killed in the passive sense doesn’t call it as such The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(ec) What about sources that are neither English nor Arabic, e.g., El País, Le Monde, La Jornada, Der Spiegel? Do they use the term massacre? NightHeron (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

They should be used too especially if the situation surrounds an area speaking these language. I only specified Arabic because Gaza is mostly Arabic speaking and because it’s my first language so I usually refer to sources from there The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This simply isn't workable as policy. Even if we ignore recognizability as a criterion, terms do not neatly translate across languages. WP:NC specifies that we limit ourselves to English-language RS for naming conventions largely due to this, I imagine. Remsense诉 13:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I mentioned the other languages. English sources have a repulsive bias in this war and there should be an exception made: for example this sky news article just yesterday

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/eight-israeli-soldiers-killed-inside-gaza-as-palestinian-death-toll-tops-37-000-13153582

Note that it uses active tense (killed) for Israeli soldiers while using passive tense (death) for Palestinian casualties in the same headline. This is juts one example, and with such bias are you really going to expect English sources to call a massacre as such and expect us to use them exclusively? Not to mention that Arabic is one of the main languages in the locale of this war so it is better to use it (alongside Hebrew for balance) in some cases than English The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the concerns I brought up. Remsense诉 14:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I am explaining the problem with limiting ourselves to English RS, especially surrounding a place where English isn’t the main language The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You're ignoring that the fundamental concern is specifically with naming and titling. We use non-English RS happily when characterizing events in prose. Remsense诉 15:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand translation concerns but we do Help:Interlanguage links all the time. There are excellent translation dictionaries available to assist us. Opening up non-English RS could be the easiest way to solve the issue of WP:Systemic Bias.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between linking between different language articles on something and choosing wording. Sorry, but non-English sources do not, cannot, and should not count for anything in determining what the English name for something is. This is NOT systemic bias, this is just how languages work. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any Wikipedia policy that says that "non-English sources do not, cannot, and should not count for anything in determining what the English name for something is"? Certainly some cognates in different languages have different meanings. But not always. I believe that massacre in French and masacre in Spanish have meanings and connotations very close to massacre in English. And RS in French- and Spanish-speaking countries would tend to be less biased on Israel/Palestine issues than in English-speaking countries. NightHeron (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It does specifically state this in WP:COMMONNAME like I've said, yes. Remsense诉 11:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says only that Wikipedia "generally prefers" English-language sources for determining names. It doesn't say "always", and in this case coverage in non-English sources is often more neutral and balanced than in English-language sources. NightHeron (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

At the top of the first body section of NC: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. The listed recognizability and naturalness criteria are key issues here. Remsense诉 13:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says: "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". That is not the same as your statement that "Wikipedia "generally prefers" English-language sources for determining names". It quite clearly says that names are determined from English-language sources and that generally the most common names in such sources will be used. I can see no way to read it the way you are trying to. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

For the specific case of massacre the question is whether or not the rules should be followed. Perhaps this discussion needs to take place elsewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

In the sentence Khajidha quotes the words "generally prefers" refers to the rest of the sentence. It means that the rule that follows usually applies, but not always. That is, in certain situations there might be a reason to take other factors into account. In this case other considerations are that (1) some other languages have a word for "massacre" that has the same meaning and the same connotations as the English word, (2) the massacres in Israel and Gaza have been extensively covered in the international press, and (3) foreign-language sources are often much less biased than English-language sources. NightHeron (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it says that the most common name is generally preferred. It then states that common names are determned from English language usage. The "generally" doesn't apply to the material in parentheses. This is basic reading comprehension.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It then says is the operative here. Look, with all due respect, long time editors are well aware of how WP works and if we think that the question being asked was a request to state what the rules say, then one should disabuse oneself of that notion. Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The Intercept Re the systemic bias problem "Highly emotive terms for the killing of civilians like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” were reserved almost exclusively for Israelis who were killed by Palestinians, rather than the other way around. (When the terms appeared in quotes rather than the editorial voice of the publication, they were omitted from the analysis.)" Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

And the core issue with naming and titling based on non-English sources hasn't been acknowledged at all yet. Remsense诉 17:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for an editor to notice that most of the sources are biased the same way, and then fight to correct the bias. This is called "righting great wrongs", and people rightly get banned for it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty much an aspersion, and wrong headed to boot. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The RGW cliché is as usual meaningless in its lack of cogency. Calling a spade a spade when some clunky consensus asserts it is spoon is just pointing out the obvious that most refuse to admit to. It's not about righting a wrong, but of not making the wrong call. History doesn't make things right. It strives to get things right, not least by refusing to use double standards in evaluating the behaviour of both parties to a conflict.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but calling a spade a spade is the real useless cliché here. We don't get to decide what spades are, even when it hurts. Remsense诉 13:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't get to decide what spades are That's quite comical, linguistically. A spade is a spade because the object accords precisely with its accepted definition, which we ignore to our illiterate peril. To suggest otherwise is to underwrite Humpty Dumpty's theory of semantics, i.e. that any word means just what anyone chooses it to mean — neither more nor less. A massacre is 'the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of human beings' (O.E.D (1989) vol.9 p.436, col.1) To not apply the word to a situation where multiple deaths of up to 270 people in precisely targeted strikes recur endlessly means that the mass slaughter of bystanders in each of a hundred cases was both 'necessary' and 'discriminating'. A canker in a rose by any other name would still blight and reek. What is anomalous in wiki usage is that we do get to decide what is a massacre (52 Israeli civilians killed in an assault) and what is not a massacre (52 Palestinians killed in a missile strike). The semantic discriminations (in all senses) on wiki here are grounded in ethnic empathy/insouciance, an ethnosemantics, because our rules privilege RS that reflect this bias. Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm acutely aware of the unsolved problems in the philosophy of language as I was just speaking about. Remsense诉 16:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning me.

I’m assuming you are referring to due to the nature of the event (targeting civilians directly and 'interpersonally') and the coverage, where there is sufficient RS coverage. It's important to note that two of the listed sources (AP, TOI,) use massacre in direct quotes. Other uses (from sources in the article) include:

I listed 18 English-language sources (in total, not just the cited ones) that used the word (and there were 9 listed that didn’t, of which 2 did in direct quotes); could you elaborate on how my reasoning differs from yours?

The first sentence (mentioning the nature of the event) is generally a common argument in such cases, showing that the title fits the content of the article.

In my opinion, my argument showed that the title was used by at the very least the large majority of mentioned English-language RS, a claim that was IMO not sufficiently disproven (though I didn’t have time to file a MR yet, so it’s unclear if I’m right).

I would consider the single standard to be the clear majority of presented English-language RS (with an interesting question being how we count multiple articles from the same source, particularly when the use is inconsistent). FortunateSons (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: I commend you for citing sources, that's great. My objection is to "due to the nature of the event (targeting civilians directly and 'interpersonally')". I don't think its a valid line of argument, and lets see if consensus says otherwise.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Just for the sake of clarity, you don’t mean that my subsumption is implausible, but are asking if such arguments are in general permitted? FortunateSons (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I'm trying to argue that whether to use "massacre" should only be decided based on how common it is on sources (which you did indeed do) not based on whether users think the event's nature matches the definition of massacre (which I felt you implied when you wrote "due to the nature of the event (targeting civilians directly").VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. I believe it should be a secondary factor in edge cases, but obviously not primary. FortunateSons (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between sources naming/calling something a massacre and their usage of the term, often in quotes/described by. Personally, I would rather not use this word at all but if we do, then we need to acknowledge the reality of systemic bias, whereby media sources are themselves not neutrally using the word.

If we look at Massacre, the first line reads "A massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless." Now WP is not itself a source but that line is sourced to a well known dictionary. By that definition, lots of things that we might describe as "killings" or something else are in fact massacres. The second line reads "It is generally used to describe a targeted killing of civilians en masse by an armed group or person." which is a bit different because "targeted" implies intention; but that line is unsourced afaics.

If we are to use it, and I would rather discourage its use, what I would prefer is some sort of definition that cannot be easily gamed like the first line of the massacre article and the source requirement be that the word is used in the sense of the definition by at least some sources. Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether media sources aren’t neutrally using the term isn’t for us to decide; to do so would in fact violate WP:NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is an essay, Wikipedia:Systemic bias. If it exists, we can address it. Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NCENPOV is very clear about when we should use massacre; we just need to follow that guideline, and closers need to dismiss !votes that are not aligned with it.

Additionally, editors who consistently apply different standards based on whether the victims were Israeli or Palestinian should be sanctioned for POV pushing. BilledMammal (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That is a guideline, this discussion is about whether things should change, not just whether things should stay the same. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'm curious on what grounds we'd change this? Neutral point of view does not mean no point of view. Remsense诉 13:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to treat "massacre" the same way as "terrorist", WP:TERRORIST? Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually do there there is a reason: people are different than events. Anyway, WP:TERRORIST says "only when in a preponderance of RS", not "never", which is correct in both cases here. Remsense诉 13:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Still a "contentious label" for all practical purposes. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You won't catch me disputing that. Remsense诉 13:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the empirical evidence available via Category:Massacres_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict suggests that an answer to the question 'When can titles contain "massacre"?' is when one (for new articles) or enough editors want the word in the title. The reasons seem to vary - actually following policy, bias, source sampling problems, reasoning from first principals rather than policy etc. The same practice appears to apply to categorization. The answer to the question 'When should titles contain "massacre"?' seems pretty well covered by policy and is straightforward. So, surprise!, there's often a misalignment between policy and behavior in the PIA topic area when it comes to the word massacre. What tends to happen unfortunately, as far as I can tell, is that editors may notice the word 'massacre' but then often only focus on half of the issue, the half that reflects negatively on their preferred side in the conflict. This is one of the many instances where you see inconsistencies with the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct that prohibits 'manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify "when one [editor] (for new articles)", there are no barriers for editors putting the word massacre in the title of a new article they create. Article titles acquire the wiki-equivalent of inertial mass once the editor hits save. So, there is a kind of asymmetry for this word in terms of the amount of work needed to add it vs change it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with categorization is broader than this; editors add categories that are contentious or even unsupported by sources based on their own assessments in almost every topic area. We're already advised against doing this per WP:CATPOV, but I'm not sure how it can be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It can be addressed by consistently warning editors who violate it, and applying tbans whenever it becomes tendentious. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I see categorizations that seem questionable pretty often. Questionable for me because I assume categories use wiki-voice. But the statement "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to pages in Wikipedia within a hierarchy of categories." has a sort of paralyzing effect for me because it emphasizes their functional role in navigation. So, when I see contentious categorizations, it's often not clear how to balance content policy with helping people to navigate. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• What would be nice is if this issue could be addressed in a more global manner to ensure consistency across the topic area, and not just for recent events. I guess there is a near zero chance of that happening. Maybe another approach that could be tried is to address it with pairs of articles, one about A killing B and the other about B killing A where editors need to participate in both RfCs. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking this discussion ought to be about the usage globally not just in the AI/IP topic area, although it seems to be more of an issue there. Selfstudier (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Probably, but I think the thread might be asking the wrong question. A different question with the potential to solve multiple issues like this might be, why is it seemingly not possible in practice to enforce or get people to comply with section 3.3 of the Universal Code of Conduct, that prohibits 'impeding or otherwise hampering the creation (and/or maintenance) of content', 'repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content without appropriate discussion or providing explanation' and 'manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view'? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That may happen in the short term but less so over time. Things that are out of whack with policy tend to get corrected eventually. Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I used to think that things that are out of whack with policy tend to get corrected eventually. Now I think that might be a faith-based belief rather than an evidence-based belief. I guess it depends on whether 'eventually' includes geological time. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Another factor to consider - do the sources use “Massacre” as part of a name for the event (example: “The Boston Massacre was one of the events that sparked the Revolution”), or merely as a description of the event (example: “The battle of Agincourt was a massacre for the French nobility”.) We need to avoid coining names based on descriptions. Doing so bumps up against WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I really agree with this in the broadest sense, but one quickly runs into unsolved problems in the philosophy of language. What is a name, versus a mere descriptor? It generally seems to be acceptable for articles to exist based on phrasal descriptor (History of IBM), even ones that don't have RS dedicated primarily to them, as long as they clear WP:N and WP:SPINOFF. I fear we might poke at the core contradictions of "what even is an encyclopedia" going down this path of inquiry. Remsense诉 14:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  In this case, it’s quite simple… ask, do sources use “massacre” as a noun or an adjective. To avoid the NOR trap of having Wikipedia “coin” a neoligistic name for the event, we need the sources to use it as a noun. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Example articles to test whether this approach would work in practice are Ma'alot massacre and Lod Airport massacre where editors have cited sources next to the titles. A practical issue seems to be that editors don't assign equal weight to the presence and absence of terms, maybe because search works so well as a confirmation bias tool for presence-of-a-term focused searches. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NCENPOV tells us that we can use "massacre" when it is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, even when it isn't part of the WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal: how do you define "word" in that context? For example, do "attack", "attacked" and "attacking" all point to the article being titled with the word "attack"? Or only the noun counts? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Given that the intent is to tell us whether a word is generally accepted, I would interpret it as any word used by the source in their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"Massacre" is an inherently emotive word, and is often used as such whether or not it might also apply neutrally. It can be very tricky to disentangle such cases. Manual opinion about whether or not an event meets X or Y definition should not be a determinant, unless explicitly arguing for a descriptive title. I'm not familiar with the sources in question, but agree with Curbon7 that it has to be a very strong common name, such as their examples, for which the commonness of the name extends widely beyond sources of a particular view (in other words, providing lists of sources that do use a term is not by itself too helpful, as it can be done even with minority terms, or even plurality terms). CMD (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to add to the discussion that sometimes the consensus on an articles name changes over time. Tulsa Race Massacre was Tulsa Race Riot for years before the WP:COMMONNAME changed outside of Wikipedia. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's well-documented that Western, Israeli, and Arab media all have major biases in their phrasing of the deaths and actions of Israelis and Palestinians. This makes WP:COMMONNAME the most reliable, but could also be inherently euphemistic. This excerpt from an AP article, despite being renowned for it's neutrality in US and world politics, treats the intentional targeting of civilians as collateral and incidental, absolving the IDF of responsibility with "appears to have killed" versus the active voice of "Palestinian militants ... opened fire on the rescuers." The excerpt also doesn't distinguish between Palestinian civilians and Hamas by using the word Palestinian twice.

"Palestinian militants armed with machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades opened fire on the rescuers, as Israel called in heavy strikes from land and air to cover their evacuation to the coast. “A lot of fire was around us,” Hagari said. It was this bombardment that appears to have killed and wounded so many Palestinians."

Compare it to this article by AP about an ADF massacre in Kivu, which describes the killing of civilians in active voice. Titling the Kivu massacres as such on a Wikipedia article wouldn't be NPOV despite not following common name while the Nuseirat AP article glosses over the civilians killed in that event. In these situations, I think deciding whether the situation fits the definition of massacre and WP:SPADE should be considered if language from traditional RS relating to a possible common name is euphemistic. I am in favor of changing more article titles especially in the I-P conflict to massacre, and that the word should be generally be considered NPOV when civilians are killed en masse, although there are and will be situations where other titles fit an event like that best. Jebiguess (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree, I think "massacre" should generally be considered a non-neutral term regardless of the civilian death count. "Massacre" implies intent, which is generally unknowable. There are cases where intent is quite obvious, such as the Re'im music festival massacre, but in most cases there isn't strong evidence of intent. One can often find certain sources which make assumptions or insinuations about intent, but more neutral sources generally refrain from speculating about intent, as should we.

I think WP:SPADE also isn't very applicable since there are generally more neutral terms we can pick, such as "attack", with roughly equal accuracy and clarity. In any case, it can't override WP:NPOVTITLE. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that we should account for the sources' bias and declare for ourselves that it meets the definition? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thats not an inherently non-neutral term... It all depends on the context. For example if I was to make a page for the Massacre Rim Dark Sky Sanctuary the name is neutral whether or not the event the geographic feature was named for actually was a massacre or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd suggest its use in Zong massacre is perfectly appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, I was just trying to give the next levels up with the Dark Sky Sanctuary example... Its two steps removed from any actual event, first there was some sort of mass killing... Then a geographic feature was named after that event... Then a political feature was named after that geographic feature... So even if its not approriate to refer to that first mass killing as a massacre there wouldn't be any wiki NPOV issues at all with the name of the park. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  But in that case "Massacre Rim" would be the WP:COMMONNAME right?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  No it would be the official name, or do you mean just Massacre Rim alone? Because alone it refers to the geographic feature, not the associated park. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is it also not the commonname, in addition to being an official name? Both of the park and the dark sanctuary.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  One and the same, the type of park is dark sky sanctuary. Massacre Rim is the name of a geographic feature (see for example Mogollon Rim). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem posed is, why can massacre be used liberally with mass Israeli deaths, but is strongly opposed in titles dealing with mass Palestinian (civilian) deaths, which are extremely common. The answer is, RS have no problem with using it for the former, but exercise extreme caution in employing the term for the latter. The RS illustrate WP:Systemic bias, so that WP:Commonname will ensure that the ethnic distinction remains on wikipedia. There is no remedy. Titles in any case should take a back seat because what is important is writing quality content, which is lacking in both the Israeli massacre articles and the corresponding articles on mass Palestinian deaths.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Well put. Like elsewhere, Wikipedia has to follow and not lead—it's not our place to change the media landscape, only to make it more accessible. Far be it from me to point to the rules in face of obvious miscarriage of justice, but Wikipedia's are rules I genuinely do believe pan out in the end. Remsense诉 19:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You put this distinction way better than I could have. Jebiguess (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani: And this article documents some of this as pointed out by WikiFouf. But what exactly do we about this bias? Should we propose that more non-English sources be considered (assuming it doesn't create translation issues)? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thats one of the questions which has been asked... But there is another (or two more if you want to look at it another way) "When can titles contain "massacre"?" / "Am I reading the policy wrong?." I have no answer for the specific Israel-Palestine conflict question... But for "Am I reading the policy wrong?" the answer is a clear and unambiguous "Yes you are." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: so assuming massacre is not used in a WP:COMMONNAME related to the article, nor is it a commonly used term as per WP:NCENPOV, then when else can it be appropriate to use it? And most importantly, based on what criteria? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

When its the official or formal name for something, like in the given example of the Massacre Rim Dark Sky Sanctuary. Based on the existing criteria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• This seems like a case where we ought to wait for dustbto have since settled to see what the RSes say. Trying to define anything happen in Gaza as a massacre would be a mess knowing the issues of nationalistic siding that has taken place. Maybe 10, 20 years down the road, well after the current conflict is over and a more rigorous analysis of the events, can we turn the RSes for the best term. But on the short term, we should use a less extreme term like "killings" or "attack". Masem (t) 00:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Rather optimistic to think that waiting a decade or two will resolve this. If you line up 119 young men against a wall and mow them down with machine guns, IP history will eventually call that a massacre after several decades, as we do at 1956 Rafah massacre. If you kill 42 cadets, on parade, because they are, as was said at the time, potential future Hamas terrorists, then it is not deliberate slaughter of civilians, perhaps because it happened only 16 years ago.

A proposal to recognize what happened at Kafr Qasim in 1956 as a massacre was knocked back in the Knesset after 65 years had elapsed. Most obvious massacres there, in anyone's language, aren't even remembered (except by Palestinians), let alone covered by RS except in tiptoey snippets of reportage. A decade ago, I thought of writing an Arafat Police Academy massacre article, but dropped it, not finding any significant body of Western mainstream RS mentioning it as such, despite the fact that this first airstrike in Operation Cast Lead, at 11:25 am on December 2008 targeted a group of civilian police whom, by all definitions in international law (Goldstone report 2009 pp.100ff.), are not considered militants in so far as they constitute the law and order arm of a civil administration . 42 cadets, all lined up on for their graduation ceremony, as their families and relatives looked on, were 'taken out' by three missiles fired from a comfortable distance, along with another 57 in a few minutes (240 altogether in the ensuing days of airstrikes on police stations). None had ever engaged in combat with Israeli forces, and the surviving members were instructed to restrict their duties to policing Gazans even when Israeli ground troops subsequently invaded.

The undoubted mass killings of 7 October were immediately recognized as massacres by the mainstream media, rightly so, though hundreds were on active duty in the IDF. The point is, coverage of Israeli/Jewish victims is so intense, that we could easily write wiki bio stubs, with photos, of almost all of the 1139 casualties. Israeli casualties are individuals, known through service and family photo albums: their dramas are part of a (inter)national trauma, the grievings of their families are given voice to form part of our historical memory. Many of us have friends and relatives there. The 47,000 dead/missing in Gaza are not treated as individuals generally, but elements in an endless succession of mass 'Arab' deaths, 'collateral' damage in a hunt for putative murderers among them, hiding behind 'human shields'. Unlike Israeli troops, seen as decent people with normal suburban lives much like our own, defending the front line of Western civilization against a toxically lethal Islam (a meme that goes back to the Crusades, whose historical tenacity even to our times was documented by Norman Daniel in his classic Islam and the West: The Making of an Image, 1960), 'Arabs' are an essentially anonymous alien mass threat pullulating in the hovels of the barbarous fringe, and therefore, whatever the striking similarities in these incidents on both sides of the line, they must be described differently. As our rules state, we can't right the spectacular wrong of this profound cognitive prejudice in our sources, for RS language reflects it. What we can do is write articles with rigorous attention to the details buried in reportage to ascertain what does happen, and, occasionally, put a human face to these other victims, and leave it to readers to make up their own minds.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Why would denial negate a title of massacre? The crux of this argument seems to have come out of left field. 2605:B100:1132:6702:D037:A3E1:3305:55E7 (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Cargo cult

Due to a Twitter/X post, there has been an influx of new/IP users onto the talk page of the Cargo cult article contesting various aspects of it. I don't think the article has ever been great, but the topic is very difficult to write about properly because it refers to a very heterogeneous set of social political and religious movements. The opinions of experienced Wikipedia editors would be welcomed. For an introduction to the topic, I would recommend the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology entry by cargo cult expert Lamont Lindstrom, and What Happened to Cargo Cults? Material Religions in Melanesia and the West by Ton Otto. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Laken Riley Murder

I feel that there is heavy bias in the Killing of Laken Riley article which I and at least one other editor tried addressing, but were predictably ignored. Just move down to the "aftermath" section and read the main points in order:

"Riley's killing became a "national political case" during what Forbes' Sara Dorn called a "historic surge in border crossings during Biden's tenure"

"Former U.S. President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social: "Border INVASION is destroying our country and killing our citizens! The horrible murder of 22-year-old Laken Riley at the University of Georgia should have NEVER happened!" He later met with Riley's mother and stepfather before his campaign rally in Rome, Georgia on March 9, 2024." (awww)

"President Joe Biden mentioned the killing of Riley during the 2024 State of the Union address, mistakenly calling her "Lincoln Riley". The unprepared remarks came after Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene shouted Riley's name at the president" (what a hero)

Where to begin unwinding this disaster..

First, sources were produced that characterize this homicide as an episode of politicization by anti-immigration activists[66]. The reason why this tragic murder became a national story and other tragic killings that happened around the same time did not (see first link) had less to do with concern over violence against young women, which is a noble cause, and was more about demonizing migrants, which is not[67]. This speaks right to the notability of the subject, yet all calls to add this context to the article have so far been ignored in talk.

Secondly, NPR is one of several sources that's discussed Laken Riley's killing in the context of crime rates among the undocumented population.[68] Pretty much every objective researcher who's analyzed this subject is aware that undocumented migrants (ie "illegals") are significantly less likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens (both American-born and legal immigrants), so what we are dealing with here is a situation where activists are cherry-picking anecdotes to sway public opinion, quite literally the only reason Riley's case met notability criteria.

CNN talked to criminologists about this in the wake of Riley's homicide, and here's what they said.[69]

First, here's what the general public thinks:

"In a recent Pew Research Center report about the situation at the US-Mexico border, 57% of Americans say the large number of migrants seeking to enter the country leads to more crime. 'In other words, most people in the US are now tying crime to recent increases in immigration."

Versus mainstream experts:

• "When I heard about the New York incident, the first thing when I hear about this on the news is like, “Oh, God, here we go.” Because these anecdotal instances — not to minimize the seriousness ever — but the rare occurrences where individuals who are foreign-born, let alone undocumented, are engaging in crime, and it makes the news, I worry about the cascade effect of these incidents overshadowing what we know in the broader context about immigration and crime."

• "Human beings commit crime in pretty much all societies across the globe. But the bottom line is what gets lost in those anecdotal stories — those lead you to a flashpoint of negativity in which you ignore all the potentially good things that immigrants bring to our society. And it’s frustrating to try to bring evidence to the table and try to contextualize things and put it statistically when you’re arguing against this flashpoint that allows people to more or less kind of ignore everything else." (I know the feeling)

• "Across a variety of studies that use different years of data that focus on different areas of the United States — with some exceptions, there’s some nuance there. I don’t want to deny the nuance — in general, on average, we do not find a connection between immigration and crime, as is so often claimed. The most common finding across all these different kinds of studies is that immigration to an area is either not associated with crime in that area, or is negatively associated with crime in that area. Meaning more immigration equals less crime."

This is the context in which the notability of Riley's killing is to be understood. By omission, the article takes what was an exploitation of a girl's homicide for political propaganda and turns it into a natural, reasonable reaction to an "illegal" committing a murder against the backdrop of a "border invasion." Or, am I missing something here? Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I don't see what relevance social media comments have, especially ones that aren't germane to the actual topic. Bickering between political talking heads has even less reason to be included. I think that entire section can be removed. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

But also, and maybe more importantly, the subject is only notable because the suspect in her murder is an illegal immigrant, and that was exploited politically. No mention of this was made, even though sources were provided. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, what you are missing is the fact that the article in question isn’t about crime by immigrants, it’s about a specific murder and it’s impact … and in this case, the political impact of the murder is the key part of the story. What various politicians say about it is what makes this particular murder so notable. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so had the suspect been a local boy from Georgia, what are the odds this murder would've made national news headlines let alone become an issue during the State of the Union address? The reason why reliable sources are discussing the crime rates of illegal immigrants in the context of this case is because the case was politically exploited by anti-immigration activists, and that has everything to do with the subject's notability. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This section is being transcluded from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban, edit on that page if you want to add comments here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)