Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Byron Mallott

For approximately the past two years, a number of editors have edited numerous articles and other pages to the effect of contending that Byron Mallott is serving as lieutenant governor of Alaska as a Democrat (page links). This has extended to the point of these editors engaging in slow-motion edit warring with myself over this point and largely not bothering to offer a sufficient rationale for their actions. I have offered a rationale for my actions, this being but one example, which I'll detail below. Most of these problems have occurred at Alaska and Template:Current Alaska statewide political officials, but there are plenty of other places on the encyclopedia where this misinformation is being spread.

The few times anyone has actually communicated with me, they've tended to offer explanations which don't hold water. In the first instance, right after Bill Walker and Mallott were sworn in, Count Awesome left a message on my talk page (see here) about the following edits to Alaska: adding Walker and Mallott after they were sworn in, my reversion of Mallott being referred to as a Democrat and Count Awesome's reversion of that edit. As you can see from the talk page thread, Count Awesome explained to me what a "unity ticket" is (as if I didn't know or something) and offered a link to another Wikipedia article as a reference. Of course, we've heard the explanation countless times that a Wikipedia article can't suffice as a reliable source. Here's what other sources have to say about the matter. The Alaska Dispatch News began their story on the formation of the "unity ticket", dated September 1, 2014, with the following paragraph: "The Alaska Democratic Party broke with long tradition Monday when its central committee voted 89-2 to not field a gubernatorial ticket and instead put its weight behind the independent campaign of Bill Walker and Byron Mallott". On the Alaska Division of Elections website, you can find several references to Mallott's general election campaign, all of which refer to him as "Non-Affiliated" (which has been their pet term for "independent" for about the past decade or so) and not as a Democrat. Here is the supplemental election pamphlet for 2014 gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial candidates, which features Mallott on page 11 and refers to him as "Non-Affiliated". Here's a sample ballot (sample ballot index page here), which again refers to Mallott as "Non-Affiliated". The official results again shows "NA" in reference to Walker and Mallott.

In the other communication to me regarding this (see here), Mpen320 left an unsigned message on my talk page, confusingly worded, but offers the same link to the ADN story I mentioned above. Mpen320's rationale appears to cherry-pick the statement that Mallott remained registered to vote as a Democrat, all the while ignoring the reference to the Walker/Mallott "independent campaign" and ignoring the fact that the ADP only sought for Walker to change his voter registration in order for the party to offer their support to the ticket, not Mallott (as mentioned in his official biography, there's also the fact that Mallott is registered to vote in Yakutat despite actually living in Juneau for many years, but those sort of shenanigans are halfway common in Alaska). Mpen320 also provided a link to a page on the ADP's website. I never bothered to look at it before because it's hardly anything neutral. The ADN archive search appears to no longer offer preview links for individual articles. However, if one searches for Mallott's name from October 2013, you can see that the party's central committee declared Mallott their nominee by fiat three days after he launched his candidacy, without bothering to wait for the primary election and what voters may have had to say. Even though that particular "source" sorely lacks neutrality or any specific mention of Mallott or his party affiliation, it does offer more clues. One is a link to the Office of the Governor's homepage, which very prominently contains the statement "In December of 2014 Governor Walker and Lt. Governor Byron Mallott were sworn in as the first non-partisan administration in Alaska’s history". Right next to it is a link to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor's homepage, which prominently contains a simliar statement: "Governor Bill Walker and Lt. Governor Byron Mallott took office in December of 2014 as the first non-partisan administration in Alaska history". Mallott's official biography also contains pretty much the same statement.

The bottom line of all this is that both Walker and Mallott were on the ballot as independents and were elected as independents in 2014 and trying to claim otherwise flies in the face of NPOV. All I've asked for since they've taken office is for someone to provide a reliable, neutral source stating that Mallott is recognized as holding the office as a Democrat. To this day, no one has provided that source. Meanwhile, these same editors regularly alter the encyclopedia, continuing to attempt to pawn this off as fact regardless of the above evidence. There's also no "consistency" when in the case of other politicians, we give more weight to what happens on election night than we do to when they're actually sworn in, whereas here we're appearing to pay no attention to what actually happened in the election and giving more weight to who knows what else. This notice was prompted by the latest example of this courtesy of Therequiembellishere, as seen here. As is normally the case with this editor, this was done with no rationale offered whatsoever in the edit summary and with complete indifference to the rationale I offered in my prior edit summary on that page. There's also the matter of a frivolous party designation added to the attorney general's entry, as the holder of that office has never been identified by any particular party label in the course of their official duties, but that's a whole other matter. This same editor added the same information to this template in the form of a hidden comment in this edit before they even took office! The closest that any of these editors have come in validating these edits have been in the vague media references to Mallott as a Democrat and equally as vague references to the concept of a fusion ticket. If you care to look through Title 15 of the Alaska Statutes, which is the state's election law, you will see that the law specifically prohibits a write-in ticket for governor and lieutenant governor from having separate affiliations, but it doesn't prohibit that in the case of a ticket who made it onto the ballot via a nominating petition, as was the case here. Considering that, how come the Division of Elections links above don't refer to Mallott as a Democrat if the law allowed for such? In reality, it's because Mallott replaced a candidate (Craig Fleener) who got onto the ballot with Walker via a nominating petition as a nonpartisan ticket after the deadline for submitting signatures had passed, but before the deadline to substitute members of nominated tickets on the general election ballot had passed. That, combined with the first sentence of this last paragraph, is the key to this and key to dispelling the validity of these edits. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS:This is a big wall of text, any way maybe we could get a smaller executive summary here, perhaps? Sagecandor (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering that this specific POV has been pushed for over two years and has gone unchecked apart from my efforts, I felt it important to present all the relevant facts. In short, Mallott campaigned for and was elected to this office as an independent, this being expressly mentioned in a variety of sources, including twice on the official website of the lieutenant governor's office. Various editors are choosing to ignore all this, cherry-picking the fact that he has remained registered to vote as a Democrat and using this fact to contend that he is serving in the office as a Democrat. There is a difference. Wally Hickel was elected governor of Alaska in 1990 under the banner of the Alaskan Independence Party. Carl Moses was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives in 1992 under that same party label. Both changed their party registration prior to the expiration of their terms (Hickel to Republican, Moses to Democratic), which was recognized as such by sources. OTOH, there are no sources which state that Mallott is serving in this office as a Democrat, only faint indications in sources that he is registered to vote as a Democrat while serving in the office as an independent. At the present time, we have other editors blatantly violating WP:CRYSTAL by making a slew of edits claiming that members of the upcoming legislature and its leadership are already in office, seven or eight weeks before they are to sworn in to those offices. They are using the mere existence of reliable sources, mainly election night news coverage, to make these claims. We can't say that were "being consistent" by allowing this sort of activity to stand because some editors believe that what happens during the election is all that matters, all the while refusing to apply such a standard to Mallott's election two years ago and instead applying a standard based upon the flimsiest of evidence. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: I believe Radio KAOS is absolutely right on this issue. I understand this editor is feeling very frustrated by other editors changing Brian Mallott's party affiliation as an officeholder to "Democrat." In order for both Bill Walker and Mallott to be listed on the general election ballot, it was necessary for Brian to vacate his candidacy as the Democratic nominee for governor. In fact, state Senator Hollis French, who won the Democratic nomination for Lt. Governor in 2014, also had to withdraw, leaving that party with no nominee for either office. Also, the Alaska Attorney General position is non-partisan, an appointive position, much like the U.S. Cabinet where i.e., Republicans served as appointees of a Democratic President, viz., Ray LaHood or Chuck Hagel. Governor Walter Hickel, who became governor in 1990 by running as an Alaskan Independent Party candidate appointed, Bruce Botelho to that post, and Hickel's successor, Tony Knowles, retained Bothelo for his two terms. The Alaska A.G. needs confirmation by the state legislature. The current officeholder, Jahna Lindemuth, was appointed in June 2016. Her confirmation was not acted upon in a special session in July, and needs to be confirmed by the legislators when their session reconvenes next year. In the infobox in her article, she is listed as "Democrat," and I'm not sure that's accurate. RadioKAOS is very knowledgeable about Alaskana, is extremely particular about accuracy, and I believe should be vigorously supported in those efforts. Activist (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about potential influx of Russian propaganda users

Concerns about influx of Russian propaganda accounts at article: Fake news website.

Background reading:

• The Guardian
• The New York Times
• Business Insider

Examples of recent questionable edits:

1. Removal of source saying propaganda was "a threat to democracy itself".
2. Changed previous wording from "democratic values" to: ---> "Western institutions"
3. Possibly playing against each other to foment chaos = one account cite tags everything in the lead, another removes citations from the lead.

More eyes would be helpful here.

Thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You just covertly implied User:SashiRolls and User:Crossswords are "Russian propagandists" without pinging them as required when you open a discussion about someone. Simply pointing out their edits without mentioning them by name is not a work around. Given you've only been here a month and your twelfth lifetime edit was to leave a 3RR notice on someone's page, it seems more likely you're the nefarious influence who needs to be checked. LavaBaron (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Didn't mean to imply that. Do mean to imply more eyes on the page would be helpful. As would more eyes on the particular edits cited, above. Sagecandor (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

You obviously did imply it. Did you have another account before this one and are you now, or have you ever been, an American propagandist? LavaBaron (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about these accusations LavaBaron. For the record, no, I'm not a "Russian propaganda user", just someone having their reputation smeared by a newbie who seems to know their way around Wikipedia very well after only three weeks of (admittedly constant) connection. SashiRolls (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome. Do not hesitate to let me know if you find yourself subject to any more of these outrageous personal attacks and McCarthyist scaremongering and need assistance. Prochnost! LavaBaron (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

He actually did harassed me in Wikimedia Commons. Just because i uploaded the Google Search Statistics for the term Fake News in a picture, he immediately went and flagged many of my other uploaded pictures for other articles as copyright violations. Pictures who dont even have anything to do with things he/shes interested in like a picture of a videogame disc or a map showing where HIV/Aids is mostly widespread in Russia.--Crossswords (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not see that this problem has occurred here. Wikipedia is hard to infiltrate because there are procedures to block editors who collaborate off-site. TFD (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello user:Sagecandor. Could you please answer User:LavaBaron's question about your previous Wikipedia identities? In under a month you've racked up over 3,000 edits in some controversial areas. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Generation Snowflake - trashy article cited and used as justification for "see also" link

I have major concerns about the neutrality of the entire Generation Snowflake article, but I'll focus on one specific example here, this article by a junior writer at GQ magazine named Eleanor Halls, which is cited three times within the article and has been used by two editors as justification for a "see also" link. The article is very poor on many levels, and I have detailed this on the article Talk page. I think it's absurd that such a poor article is used as justification for including a wikilink to the sitcom The Great Indoors in the "See also" section. As I pointed out on the article talk page, it's hardly a normal practice on wikipedia to include sitcoms in the "see also" section of articles, however two editors, DynaGirl and Keri are very insistant that it remain ([1] [2]) and discussion appears to be fruitless.
Editors have also resisted all attempts to include the fact that it is a derogatory term in the article's opening sentence despite it being described as such in numerous reliable sources, notably Collins Dictionary. The whole article needs a big NPOV overhaul. More eyes are needed. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, even after I read the talk page thread on this, I don't understand why such a crappy opinion piece is considered a good source of information, and why it's even included as an external link. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

MaxBrowne linked the wrong page above. The see also actually links to The Great Indoors (TV series).--DynaGirl (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

thanks, fixed. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, but I think it's customary to strike it above and add correction instead of changing after others have responded to it, just so later readers can follow exchange, but at this point, it seems fine to leave it. Also, I think it should be clarified this is an internal see also link not an external link. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

To note that this had been also discussed at RN/S [3]. There, while it is not an RS problem (GQ is reliable), there is definitely a good question of what this writer's expertise is to the topic to justify their opinion's inclusion. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The article looks ok to me. If one See also link to a TV show is the biggest issue you have with the article that's pretty minor. —DIY Editor (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The article has a problem with poor quality of sources, and the GQ article is one egregious example. Another is the link to a Michelle Malkin polemical piece, which makes only passing mention of "snowflakes". It all adds up to a slant towards passing the term "snowflake" off as a part of legitimate political discourse rather than an insult. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The lede reads to me as if "generation snowflake" is an insult. If the term merits an article at all, the article has to discuss how people use it. —DIY Editor (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've improved the article somewhat on that. The article is still highly POV, I think. MHP Huck (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole article relies almost exclusively on opinion pieces for its sourcing, many of them highly polemical. Whether or not the article should even exist is indeed a valid question, however it survived the last Afd discussion. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process... Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." Keri (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of Request for Comment on WP:WEIGHT of Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in multiple articles and templates

Below is a Request for Comment I am posting here because it deals with multiple articles and templates. The issue is WP:Weight. This is an attempt to centralize discussion and drive at an overall consensus that can guide content.

In particular, this is to get feedback and gain overall consensus on what should be the WP:Weight of information in Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election throughout various articles that relate to United States presidential election, 2016. If Wikipedia could come to a general consensus, it will guide content inputs into several articles.

To state my position clearly, I am of the belief that Russian interference or the belief of Russian interference by US intelligence in the 2016 election is one the most historically significant aspects of the election. That being said, I am of the belief that it should be mentioned in the opening of articles that also reference the election. For example, in the current article United States presidential election, 2016 it currently reads:

Trump is projected to win the Electoral College by 74 votes, with 30 states and Maine's 2nd congressional district going to him, and 20 states and the District of Columbia going to Clinton. Clinton received about 2.8 million more votes nationwide (2.1% of the total cast). This is the fifth time after the 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 elections that the president-elect lost the popular vote. Third-party candidates Gary Johnson (Libertarian) and Jill Stein (Greens) scored respectively 3.3% and 1.1% of the national vote.

It is my belief that Wikipedia should add a sentence similar to:

Seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies represented by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 United States presidential election and the Central Intelligence Agency concluded Russia influenced the election to help elect Donald Trump as President of the United States.

I believe something similar should be added to the opening of several articles, including Donald Trump. In my opinion, a foreign government's influence in another nation's election an essential fact to know in any article that relates strongly to that election. As a general rule, if another article mentions the 2016 election of Trump in its lede, it should also mention the CIA conclusions that Russia attempted influence the election in favor of Trump. I also believe it should be in several templates, such as Template:US 2016 presidential elections series and Template:Trump presidency, discussion currently here and here respectively.

Note: There are multiple ongoing discussions that somewhat relate to the question below. Many of the same editors are involved in each. I think it is important to come to an overall guiding consensus on this so it can guide inputs into multiple articles and templates. That said, I will link to this discussion on Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election, Donald Trump, and United States presidential election, 2016. I believe most editors that are currently involved will see it and post here. However, I think it is also important to get uninvolved editors to give their opinion.Casprings (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

1. Should Wikipedia generally accept that in articles that are strongly related to the 2016 US presidential election and mention the election in the lede, it should also contain information regarding Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election?

2. Should the article Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election be included in templates related to the US's 2016 election? Casprings (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support at least one sentence in WP:LEAD of related articles, per WP:WEIGHT in thousands of reliable sources. Support inclusion in the templates, per same coverage in those thousands of sources in multiple languages. Sagecandor (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose for forcing a Russian influence article plug-in sentence into the leads of related articles; as the proper place is the "See also" section. As for templates, sure. ^Falling_Gravity 02:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support some inclusion of this info in the lede of 2016 Presidential election related articles. If this story changes later, the amount in the ledes can also change later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. By "interfere" they mean someone leaked emails showing the DNC's very real collusion with the media to manipulate public opinion in favor of its candidate, so we might as well blame Russia. A vague reference to Russian "interference" or "influence" conceals more than it reveals.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose both – No need to "advertise" this article everywhere. Just mention the allegations and link to it where appropriate, to be discussed on a case by case basis. The story is too recent and shaky at this point to consider it a central part of the 2016 election, which has seen a lot of controversies already… — JFG ^talk 06:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose both - There is a strong case to be made for the inclusion of this issue in templates; the place for that discussion, however, is on the template's talk page. There is no deadline on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The proposed articles to be affected are high visibility and are deserving of our individual attention. If this issue is of such historic importance that it must be thrust to the forefront of every article related to it, it deserves our individual attention on an article-by-article basis, without handling it with a shotgun scatter shot one-size-fits-all hamfisted approach crafted during the heat of the moment while the issue is still very much in play. This is, in sum, a solution in search of a problem... the issue is being debated in our talk pages, and it is already receiving prominent coverage in related articles. Marteau (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose both per WP:NOTNEWS - these allegations are thus far based on anonymous persons reporting in one outlet. We can't make encyclopedia-wide changes. BlueSalix (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - OP has admitted strong bias above and should be topic banned from political articles. --68.228.149.115 (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose both per comments above, esp. WP:NOTNEWS. And I'd happily bet a year's wages that the agency will change its mind very soon after the installation of the new director. The ultimate net effect of the (ephemeral) proposed addition would most likely be to embarrass the encyclopedia, not to help the reader. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support inclusion I think it should be in the lede, written very carefully to state that there is current bipartisan support for an investigation, and that the accuracy of the contentions of interference, that the Russians via hacking did influence the election, is a subject of debate and dispute, with no conclusion as yet arrived at as to their accuracy. Activist (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly the notion that we should attempt to categorically decide what information belongs in articles of an arbitrary type. The scope of articles that could be construed as being related to the 2016 US election is potentially monstrous. This is asking for leave to push a POV, and for myriad pointless discussions on "whether this article is related to the election" as a thin guise for "does this Russian content actually belong on the article". Article content should be decided on a case-by-case basis. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• I Oppose strongly', and encourage everyone to become more involved in this article Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election, and other, related articles. -Darouet (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose based on three fronts. First, we don't have proof, that the Russians were actually trying to influence I don't think it's clear what level of influence really occurred. To say influence occurred is not proven (that isn't to say the Russians didn't try). Second, without knowing the motivations of voters we can't say the election was influenced. I've heard at least one commentator claim that Hillary's characterization of Trump supporters as "deplorable" may have had the biggest impact beyond any basic message either side was pushing. We don't have the historical hindsight to know how this really played out and how it actually impacted the results. Third, (and this is the biggest one) as others have said, this information should be added on a case by case basis. We just shouldn't say such material should be universally added. Springee (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose of the first question. These decisions are best made at each article. Support inclusion in the sidebar. Sidebars are for navigation and the article in question is very relevant to the 2016 election. - MrX 18:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in the US Presidential Election 2016 article (duh) and in the Trump article (a bit more borderline but at this point I think justified). Support adding the Russian influence article to the template (duh).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose inclusion in the ledes of articles. Except for possibly the Election article, it would be grossly undue weight and a BLP violation in the lede of, say, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton (which the nominator has specifically mentioned as being included). Such blatant POV pushing in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the election would be embarrassing to the encyclopedia. I will, however, support usage in the template. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Given that this is an accusation made by the nations security service, it seems to be more the reasonable to include it in the lead. It does not matter if it had an influence, what matters is the nation intelligence services said they tried (and may have succeeded, they certainly got the candidate they wanted).Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support mentions in the leads of the articles said to have been influenced. Support inclusion in the template.

(Pinged by bot.) As per policy, the alleged Russian interference clearly belongs in the template on the elections, and in the leads of those articles whose subjects are said to be have been influenced. WP:NPOV means we report what the sources say, not that we decide for ourselves! (However, I can't see why it should be mentioned in every article on the election.)

I was surprised to see that the word "alleged" does not appear in the article title. There are still claims and denials flying around, and no consensus is visible.

However, the allegations are highly significant coming from the Director of National Intelligence and so on. These are not random accusations by involved parties. WP:NPOV says we should cover them and MOS:LEAD says they should be in the lead. This is a no-brainer to me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I could probably accept that it fits well in the lede of the election article. However, do you really think it is due weight for the main biographies of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? In their decades in the public eye, is the allegation of Russian interference in the 2016 election one of the most notable things about them as living people? I don't think a negative, highly contentious statement like that should be one of the first thing a person reads about the President-elect of the United States. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith:, yes, it should be part of the description of the election result. For any election, anywhere in the world, if we have information that it was less than free and fair, it should be mentioned. That is Democracy 101. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

So if there is some evidence (even non-public evidence!) that at least one vote was cast by a deceased person, we must henceforth say in EVERY article that mentions a particular election result, "Candidate XYZ allegedly 'won' the election, but there is evidence zombies interfered with the result"... that is the logical conclusion of your "less than" linguistic mandate. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the sources say, and if in six months we see some state-level election officials in the federal electric chair for treason, THEN methinks we shall have cause to say "Trump won but the KGB tampered". Not the case, given what we know right now, however. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose mention in article leads and the template for now. This Russian interference is so far unsubstantiated. What was it exactly? What impact did it have on the 2016 US election exactly? Did Trump win solely because of it? Have previous US elections been similarly affected? Until those questions have been answered, inserting mention of this everywhere is reckless and sensationalist (would we give accusations by Vladimir Putin that the US had interfered with a Russian election the same weight as this?). This could very easily fizzle out like the recounts did and end up amounting to nothing. Joshbunk (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Pretty strong oppose, to the overall treatment of this topic, as retroactively being the Most Important Thing™ of the 2016 election cycle. By contrast, although Nigel Farage was pretty active in the 2016 election, we don't wikilink to Brexit from the intro-paragraphs of every single article and template, and there is no vast and urgent push by wikipedians to have every United States politics article give a sentence about how "seventeen news agencies agree that the United Kingdom influenced the election in favor of Trump." There is also no attempt to use this fairly-impeccably sourced list to say that Tony Blair was running a conspiracy to help the United Kingdom influence the election in favor of Hillary Clinton. I have a 'personal' axe to grind, with the 2016 election cycle, which is that the pollsters massively fucked up.[4] (Twice actually, counting this.[5]) They were off by *eight percentage points* in each of the key swing-states of PA + WI + MN + NH. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are what swung the election.[6][7] These statewide mispredictions, WAY outside the margin of error, caused super PACs to reallocate hundreds of millions of dollars,[8] and likely 'influenced' the Senate races,[9] as well as plausibly influencing the presidential outcome.[10] If the "dern KGB-funded commies" were computer-cracking the pollster data of dozens of firms to alter the swing-state figures, or if they were computer-cracking the voting-machines used in the general election, then we will soon have court convictions and executions for espionage/treason, at which point I would support inclusion of such a sentence. But weasel-worded handwavy "some agencies currently staffed by people who work for Trump's partisan opponent's former boss claim that secret evidence indicates Russia was 'influencing' the election in some unspecified manner by spreading propaganda" is pure and simple an attempt to retroactively justify what happened. Wikipedia *is* supposed to educate the readership, but until we know a LOT more, adding a sentence about vague 'interference' is far too point-of-view. Suggest asking again in six months, at which point either this will turn out to be like Lois Lerner, or it will turn out to be like Herbert Hans Haupt. Or most likely, it will turn out to be a small subsection of propaganda, right next to the oh-so-coincidentally-timed release of the infamous 2005 recording eleven years later in October 2016. (*That* was also forcibly inserted into the intro-paragraphs of every post-1932-election-related-article, usually as a pull-quote.) On a more general note, not speaking in any way about the support-voters nor to the wikipedian who opened this RfC in good faith, I do see this RfC as a small step in the wrong direction... I do *not* want to see every article on politics in the USA start to become a battleground like Israeli-Palestine conflict or the Balkan conflict topic areas, so I ask that folks please try and remember that wikipedia is aiming for eternity, not for righting great wrongs. This is a fairly important substory of the 2016 post-election news cycle, but it is not the most important thing of 2016 politics, given the data we have right now. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Each article should craft its own lead. It will be relevant to many and should be added to many. But it should be discussed at each article. Discuss adding it to the template on the template talk page. I'm not too experienced with the tradition of what gets added or not. Seems plausible. Chris vLS (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Mandating that this appear in the lede of an article is quite possibly a NPOV issue. It's better to mention it in a subsection or See Also. Editors should be able to make a lede without being mandated by a checklist of things to add into it, that may or may not appear as NPOV. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Summoned by bot. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV. This is far too early for any kind of mass inclusion and a waiting period is necessary. At best, I would support a mention in the see also section.

Threaded discussion

This is a vague pair of questions. Just how strongly related to the election are you talking about? Maybe you could provide a list or some good examples of what sort of articles and templates you think this information should be in. This somewhat comes off as POV-pushing, I'd like to see input from editors with no dog in the race before I offer an opinion. —DIY Editor (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2016, Donald Trump, Hilary Clinton, Template:US 2016 presidential elections series. This is not meant to be WP:POV pushing. I just think an overall opinion would help guide content inclusion.Casprings (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This eminently passes high importance in the WP:10 year test. Major reporting about demands for further investigation from the President-Elect's own party. Statements from Republicans and Democrats alike joining together in a rare show of bipartisanship over this issue. - (Examples: The Wall Street Journal Fox News The New York Times The Washington Post National Public Radio Los Angeles Times). Sagecandor (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Need further study and also more defined proposal on what will appear in the article. The Russian involvement is currently unclear. There are indications that Russian hacking of the RNC (Republicans) was somewhat unsuccessful except the emails of a few people. There are editorials that the Russians might have been trying to pretend they support Trump in the hopes that Hillary would be elected. Hillary would be less likely to retaliate in a fit of rage. Furthermore, Hillary reset relations with Russia when she was Secretary of State so the Russians might really want her. This saga is very unclear at the moment. Usernamen1 (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Usernamen1: The article title currently implies that involvement is unambiguous. I think this is a major problem per WP:POVTITLE, and should be rectified ASAP. -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The article title reflects reliable sources. You don't like what the reliable sources say, take it up with them. It would be POV to NOT accurately represent reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

And oh yeah, note that "Usernamen1"'s comment basically amount to "some people say this" kind of stuff. There isn't a single source provided for the claims some of which are plausible and some pretty ridiculous. And again, sources disagree.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Casprings: By your own admission, you think that Russian interference or the belief of Russian interference by US intelligence in the 2016 election is one the most historically significant aspects of the election. Some editors agree with you more or less strongly. Other editors, me included, think this story is merely hyperventilation by the Democrats and some elements of US intelligence community and military-industrial apparatus, amplified by journalists who need to feed their publications. Both points of view are interesting, and none should influence what Wikipedia reports. In this context, I disapprove of pushing this information to numerous articles, as you suggest, because this is advocacy of your POV on the story. I recommend noting the allegations and hypotheses, both sourced, and letting readers make up their mind. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @JFG: If another article is mentioned in an article's lede, it is often in one to three sentences that tell the reader the key facts of the ariticle. I think the key facts of the election are. 1. Trump won EC, Clinton got more votes. 2. US Intel believes Russia influenced the election. We disagree about the second, but I reject claims of POV pushing. and I find it divisive to claim that again. The correct forum for user conduct is not this one.Casprings (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Both JFG and I worry that you may be pushing your POV here, Casprings. Also, I'm a bit troubled by your use of the loaded term "divisive" in your riposte. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
      • You are right. My apologies to user:JFG.
    • JFG, thanks for your opinion but, again, sources tend to agree with Casprings here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I would like to see sources that give a ranking of the most important political events of 2016, which put Russian attempts to influence USA elections *above* wikileaks itself, and *above* Brexit. Nobody is arguing that the Russian-'interference' article is not important, just that it is not so important that we need to retroactively insert it everywhearrr. I don't think Casprings is pushing a POV, because they asked in an RfC. They asked in good faith, and I expect the answer they will receive is that, no in fact, the sources do NOT say that Russkie-propaganda-tactics were one of the top ten political events of 2016. Or perhaps I'm wrong, and such sources do exist; if so, please educate me by listing the ten most-reliably-sources URLs which explicitly say such things. I'm not asking for sources which say "Russia stuff is important" here because that is not the dispute, I'm asking for sources that say 'Russia stuff is way more important than Brexit in terms of worldwide political events in 2016' or the like. I know of exactly zero. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I've been for inclusion in text and against inclusion in leads at this time. It appears that this story will have long legs and I'll change my mind. Just think the RfC is a bit premature. Objective3000 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I can see the "related to the US election" being a bit problematic and possibly game-able, but in the case of articles currently enummerated the info surely belongs in there (and in the lede).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• strong oppose as embarrassing to Wikipedia and to the United States. Speaking as someone with an information security background, the entire allegation is cringeworthy. Of course Russian hackers exist. They have always existed and they are not going to "cut it out," although I admire Obama's loyalty for saying they should. What is newsworthy is that the Democratic party dismissed the need for adequate security in this election, and now we have all this pearl-clutching over their discovery that yes, email security Is A Thing and maybe HRC should listened to the State Department's IT people. Imagine an aide sharing a laptop with Anthony Weiner, omg. Add, if you must, a selection of the reporting, but in god's name please don't endorse this in the voice of Wikipedia. Please make sure anything about this is clearly attributed. Personally, I think it is too soon to adequately assess these events. The same government that begs for recruits at information security conferences wants me to believe that "very sophisticated" hackers would leave a username and metadata in Cyrillic behind? Perhaps they are right -- we don't know what they are not making public -- and perhaps, as these agencies tell us at DEFCON, they lack technical expertise. It all smells like WMD to me, and I keep waiting for the discovery of a convenient set of ID documents. Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Korean ethnic nationalism

There is an RfC at Korean ethnic nationalism concerning whether certain paragraphs in the article are POV and/or undue weight. Scolaire (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

SPLC

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says, "We monitor hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and expose their activities to the public, the media and law enforcement."[11]

Not surprisingly, groups and individuals reported by the SPLC object to the coverage they receive. There are continuous requests to add these replies to the SPLC article as "controversy." The problem is avoiding undue weight. I would appreciate any comments in how to handle this.

For example, Frank Gaffney was included in the recent SPLC "A Journalist's Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists". And editorial in The Jewish Week says, "Sharp criticism of Gaffney comes from a variety of respected sources. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls him “one of America’s most notorious Islamophobes.” The ADL says he “has promulgated a number of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories over the years.” Those include charges that President Obama is a Muslim, Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood and Gen. David Petraeus follows Sharia law./Republican U.S. Sens. John McCain, Marco Rubio and Scott Brown have spoken out against Gaffney, as has former House Speaker John Boehner, calling such allegations “dangerous.”"

The mainstream assessent agrees with the SPLC and only a tiny minority of people disagree. Mostly if not entirely these people hold views that mainstream sources would describe as extremist. Quoting these views in the article gives false equivalency.

TFD (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Handling this is simple: revert them, and ask for protection if necessary. Ask people to watchlist the article. Explaining to extremists that they are extremists is often a waste of time. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Except that that's a contentious label, and so should be treated as a claim, and for proper neutrality, we should include any counter-argument to that claim. Clearly the number of groups that consider them extremists is very large, and their opinions will far outweigh any opinion otherwise, but no way should we factually state that a person/group is a contentious label (without gov't or court decisions) just because opinion weights against them, nor ignore, even if it is just a sentence, a rebuttal claim by the affected person/group. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: Please re-read what I wrote, and what the OP wrote. It seems you misunderstand me. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. BTW have you guys seen Ben_Carson#Controversies? That section is very weird.

I suspect that TFD goes on and on about Frank Gaffney here and in the Southern Poverty Law Center article Talk page because he thinks that Gaffney is a more compelling villain than the people who are actually mentioned in the "Contoversy . . . " section of the article, Maajid Nawaz and Aayan Hirsi Ali. Moreover, the only "requests for replies" that appear on the Talk page (at least from what I've seen so far) come when reliable sources actually bring up the controversies over certain individuals or groups being listed as haters by the SPLC. Motsebboh (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I chose Gaffney because he is the most recent person to be brought up at the talk page. (See Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#More criticism towards the SPLC. Reliable sources have in fact brought up controversies over all three people and in fact many other people and groups mentioned. However no reliable sources have criticized the SPLC for its listings. Either they have been criticized in opinion pieces or news media have reported criticism from the groups or people. Rather than voice your suspicions, stick with facts and reasoned arguments. MASEM, if the article provided details about who and why the SPLC considers extremist, then it would be correct to report the replies. But in this case some editors want to add criticism of the use of the labels about people who otherwise would not be mentioned. The Quixotic Potato, interaction with supporters of groups and people the SPLC calls extremists has increased my understanding of the subject. But you are right, at some point we need to end the dialog and ensure the article is written in a neutral manner. TFD (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think what is important here is that for opinions (which criticism of the SPLC clearly would be), those opinions don't need reliable sources, but sources that are appropriately "expert" for their opinion being important. And this is where one might have to dig into farther-right sources which will likely be the ones that hold that criticism. EG: we routinely reject Breitbart for anything factual, but they do have people that are known to be leading spokespersons for the right, and several articles jump out from theim in a google search (though I can't say which are more expert than others at the moment). And of course those that have been labeled with their opinions reported in reliable sources (eg [12]) should also be included for their counterclaims. The weight is clearly in favor of those that agree with SPLC's labeling and the majority of the article will be in that favor, but there's appropriate ways under policy to include these expert opinions in criticism of them without disrupting UNDUE/WEIGHT. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I love this one, TFD: "However no reliable sources have criticized the SPLC for its listings. Either they have been criticized in opinion pieces or news media have reported criticism from the groups or people." Really?? . . where else can an organization be criticized except in statements of opinion?? Quite a number of prominent folks have criticized the SPLC over the years but if one presumes, such as you apparently do, that only the SPLC itself is an expert on hate groups, then that would automatically preclude it from criticism by an outside reliable entity. How convenient! Motsebboh (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

They can be criticized by experts particularly in peer-reviewed writing. They can be criticized in fact-checking sites, such as FactCheck.org. FactCheck.org actually mentions the SPLC twice, but only as a source. One of its mentions is "Frank Gaffney, is identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-Muslim extremist."[13] I do not presume the SPLC is an expert on hate groups, I recognize that it is considered one in reliable sources, including news media and academic literature. TFD (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Attributed opinions or criticism ("X claims that...") does not need to originate from reliable sources or peer-review sources. It should come from people and agencies that are established as appropriate authorities in the area, even if their statements are published only in sources we would normally not consider reliable (as we are stating opinion, not fact, so the RS factor doesn't matter here); this would include in this case groups that have been called out as a hate group by the SPLC since they clearly would have a say in the matter. Opinions from people or agencies that do not appear to be experts in this area or have otherwise no association to the situation should not be used - we don't include the published opinion of every random person that has talked about it. (This applies to BOTH criticism for and against the SPLC). Careful attention must be made not to include anything that would otherwise violate any other policy (for example, if a response about the SPLC was made that accuses a named member in the SPLC of being a criminal, that can't be included per BLP). Now if you are talking fact-based criticism (say, contesting the SPLC's financials with actual numbers), that requires an RS for the factual nature to be valid. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Without weighing in on the debate itself, I just want to nitpick something: does not need to originate from reliable sources -- this seems better framed as something like "what's considered reliable varies according to context..." (i.e. if we're citing them, they always need to be reliable, but sometimes biasd, primary, etc. sources can be considered reliable). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem in a case like this is that the sources that are the most reliable (on that scale) that will be critical of SPLC and that are of sufficient authority will likely be those that prior WP:RS/N discussion has deemed "unreliable", such as Breitbart, due to otherwise sensationalism reporting and thus for good reason. Now, RS/N's "unreliable" only applies to factual content, and it is repeated at RS/N discussions that opinions cited to Breitbart are completely acceptable as attributed opinions, but I have seen editors completely reject opinions from Breitbart, et al. becuase of the "unreliable" label. That's why I'm not a big fan of "reliable in scope" because that "unreliable" label will be seen as "never reliable" not "not reliable for facts but reliable for opinions." --MASEM (t) 17:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Responding to this below to combine subthreads. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The existence of a criticism or response does not mean we need to include it. SPLC's labels are claims attributed to SPLC, not Wikipedia. The subject is the SPLC, what it does, its claims, etc. and it would be a false balance to insist on including responses to them just for the sake of something like "right of response". The SPLC's claims are included not because their claims exist but because the claims received coverage in secondary sources that justify WP:WEIGHT. If responses from the various groups/individuals SPLC classifies likewise receive such coverage in reliable sources, or if independent reliable sources provide such criticism (i.e. not the group/individual themselves) only then should we be thinking about how to include them. That said, in the main article about the organization, there's so much coverage that there's a fairly high bar for WP:WEIGHT, I think. The discussion should probably more concern the separate list of SPLC-designated hate groups. Or perhaps I'm just coming to the point of this disagreement :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

At least a spot check shows that there are RSes that repeat the complaints against the SPLC (by groups they are labelled as) such as [14]. So certainly there's appropriate criticism alongside the support, but as you say, WEIGHT does apply, and the current section in the article (2 para when I last checked) might be able to be expanded a notch, but the balance per WEIGHT seems appropriately close at this point. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

(responding to the comment in the subthread above first, moved here for simplicity) -- The problem ... is that the sources that are the most reliable (on that scale) that will be critical of SPLC... I don't think I follow the point you're making with this, as the way I read it is something I don't think you would actually be arguing. i.e. That we should go out looking for criticism to bring in and create a separate measure of reliability in order to admit some. Sources like Breitbart can be reliable sources for their own opinion, but the fact that they have an opinion doesn't mean it should be included (as with any opinion piece). If weight for an argument is established by other sources, there's a stronger case to bring it in, I suppose, but then the reliable source is the other one reporting on it, not Breitbart. I don't doubt at all that there's mainstream rs coverage of criticism of the splc (the particular example of that Fox News piece is probably better for a smaller-scale discussion -- it's not ideal, but it's many steps in the right direction, away from the primary sources and e.g. Breitbart). In any event, on the topic of weight, to elaborate on something I tacked on to my last comment, I think that coverage of SPLC is substantial enough that a criticism section here (as opposed to more detail in the separate list), should be for non-news -- rather than responses to this or that announcement/classification/publication, it should be about the organization broadly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

...Just to add some examples of what I mean. Here are some sources I would imagine make sense to include: Harper's Magazine "The church of Morris Dees" (already in the article but in "history", not "criticism"; Nieman Reports "Adapting Investigating Reporting Skills to Policy Advocacy" (maybe), the sum criticism in the Montgomery Advertiser's 1994 series (also in "history" rather than "criticism"), maybe Washington Post's op-ed by Dana Millbank (based on the amount of attention it received), maybe Christian Science Monitor's "Annual report cites rise in hate groups, but some ask: What is hate?", The Nation's "The Conscience Industry".... these are all pretty reliable, non-partisan organizations with broad criticisms rather than just a reaction to this or that listing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that the criticism section should be based on a broad critical view of the SPLC, and not necessarily just isolated responsed (barring anything that may be a lawsuit or the like), on the SPLC article. On the article about any person/group they label as a hate group, the isolated response is completely appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Variation on a theme

@Masem:Masem makes the point above that if we include an SPLC claim about a group then some sort of rebuttal by the group may be in order, even if it's just a sentence. However, this should work in the other direction also. At present there is a criticism section in the article (see Southern Poverty Law Center#Controversy over hate group and extremist listings). The last paragraph in that section concerns Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Nawaz is quoted as calling his listing as a Muslim extremist a "smear" but nowhere in the section, or anywhere else in the article, does it say why the SPLC listed him.

At present the article is locked from editing for the rest of the year over the attempt to add the following:

"In December 2016, Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer condemned the SPLC for listing Maajid Nawaz, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as anti-Muslim extremists. Dermer describing the SPLC's actions as an 'Orwellian inversion of reality" and accused them of trying to "stifle debate.'"

Again, the same problem -- there is no explanation anywhere in the article of why these people were listed by the SPLC. Editors trying to add it argue that NPOV does not apply since only the criticism, not the SPLC position, belong in a criticism section. Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tom. Funny, I don't recall any editor saying that the SPLC's position could not appear in the Controversy over . . . listings section. Could you point that one out to me? I remember saying the pretty much the opposite, however. Motsebboh (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

These are the most recent comments made [15] and [16] by one of your crew. For your own part, I am referring to the fact that you added a version of the contested language (see [17]) and it says nothing about why the SPLC had them on their list. I called you on it with this edit [18]; you responded with this edit [19] which ignores my point. If I misjudged your position and you actually agree with me, then perhaps you can suggest some language to add to the material already in the article on the same subject. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

First, knock off the "one of your crew" bullshit, if you want to converse. Second, though in [20] I didn't include the SPLC's rationale for putting those people on the list, I did include the retort to Dermer offered by the SPLC and Haaretz in the sourced article. Third, your comment here [21] seems more like the introduction of a poison pill to prevent any criticism of the SPLC's list in the first place, since it would require including the SPLC's rationale and "this type of exercise is why criticism sections get out of control."

No, at this point I think we should give it a two week rest. Come back in early 2017 and go from there. Since you are the one most concerned about including the SPLC's reasons for labeling those folks extremists, I would suggest that you first formulate the language, very concise language one hopes, to do so. If readers want detail they can find it in the sources. Motsebboh (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually the point of the freeze was to encourage discussion w/o edit warring. Complying with NPOV is not a poison pill. I'm here to get opinions from folks other than those on the article page, so your refusal to discuss it any further here is a plus as far as I'm concerned. Arguing that "if readers want detail they can find it in the sources" is nowhere in wikipedia policy, but I guess it would be an effective argument to exclude virtually anything you don't like. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Here are your exact words regarding my addition of Dermer's criticism of the SPLC: By introducing a new issue to the paragraph (i.e. the Center for Security Policy) you open the door for requiring an explanation of why that group (not to mention Pipes and Gaffney) is targeted by the SPLC. As others have said above, this type of exercise is why criticism sections get out of control. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC) It is quite clear from this that you are using a supposed requirement to include the SPLC's reasons for listing people as a way of discouraging the inclusion of Dermer's criticism, not as sincere advice as to how it should be included Motsebboh (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

As for BRIEFLY, rather than in detail, including the SPLC's reasons for naming people and/or groups to their lists it has to do with due weight. We don't want a statement such as: In a speech to the Center for Security Policy Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer criticized the SPLC for placing the CSP on its hate group list and for calling CSP president Frank Gaffney along with Daniel Pipes Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali "extremists" followed or preceded by two or three paragraphs taken from the SPLC website explaining their rationale. Motsebboh (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're not to busy reading my mind in order to question my sincerity, how about reading something that is actually written (and which I've directed you to before). From WP:UNDUE:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

In this case we have the work of a handbook for journalists prepared by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Media Matters for America, the Center for New Community and ReThink Media versus the personal opinion of one person. Rather than a supposed requirement, it seems beyond dispute that SOMETHING about the SPLC position has to be included. Even if you could make the impossible (IMO) argument that both POVs are equally supported, WP:BALANCE comes into play when it says:

"Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem that if we have broad criticisms about the SPLC (not narrow on a single group), then the SPLC's reply on the broad level should also be included. If we are talking about the SPLC calling out a single group, then that does not belong on the SPLC page but on that group's page, and there should be the SPLCs reasoning and counterpoints to the group's own reaction to the SPLC. It's a scope issue that was a point in the bit prior to this section break by Rhodendrites. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Masem:The current controversy section starts with the sentence "The SPLC's identifications and listings of hate groups have been the subject of controversy, with critics, including journalist Ken Silverstein and analyst of political fringe movements Laird Wilcox arguing that the SPLC has taken an incautious approach to assigning the label." Sourcing aside, this seems to meet the criteria for a broad criticism.

The balance of the section, however, is three sentences in the first paragraph relating to a single group, the Family Research Council. The second paragraph is two sentences about Ben Carson with the take home message that the SPLC admits he was targeted in error. The third paragraph is about two people mentioned in a document by the SPLC that lists a total of 15 people. A proposed fourth paragraph repeats two names and adds two more. None of these seem to represent broad criticisms of the SPLC which would leave us with a one sentence section. Do you agree with me or am I missing something? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that the present version needs reworking to use more broad-based criticism rather than specific instances, though my spot check does show those broad-based criticism does exist, though you might have to pull opinion from less-reliable but authoritative sources (right-leaning) to get that. The only exception to me seems to be the Ben Carson case since that was very much publicized and they eventually retracted his name off the list due to volumes of criticism. Other cases seem much more isolated and thus not the broad situation, and the individuals responses should be left on those respective articles. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@North Shoreman Thanks, but it's not hard work, your written expression conveys your thinking clearly enough. I'm sure lots of journalists are going around with that handbook prepared by the SPLC (and the other pretty much identical groups) in their pockets. However, your point about drawing on respected outside sources is well taken. While I haven't done much more than scan a couple of the articles, I notice that sources such as the "Atlantic Monthly, The Wall Street Journal, and The Spectator are already cited in the Controversy section and it might be a good idea to see in more detail what they and other respected outside sources have to say. Of course, that will mean a pretty damned big Controversy section rather than a small one. Motsebboh (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Masem. Keep in mind that the subtopic in question is titled "Controversy over hate group and extremist listings", not "Criticism" over those listings. "Criticism" would fall more in line with generic, broad-broad based criticism of what the SPLC does in its listings. "Controversy", applies more to well-publicized incidents of sharp disagreement. By the same token "controversy" implies at least two sides, so the SPLC side of the issue needs to be mentioned. Motsebboh (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Immigration and crime in Germany

A number of editors have stated on the talk page that Immigration and crime in Germany, even by its name, does not present a neutral point of view. There is one editor who is edit warring on the mere suggestion that the article has some POV issues, repeatedly removing the POV tag, despite a clear consensus on the talk page that it should remain. Issues of WP:OWNership appear to be present too. I haven't made any substantial contributions to the article and at this point, probably won't but additional eyes requested on the article, please. Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot

The Schneerson page is fervently protected by a group of editors. I have discussed this on the talk page, and placed an item on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. However given the past behavior of the editors Bus Stop, Debresser, and Kamel Tebaast, and their present intransigence to even provide an alternative entry, or placement, and recurrent raising of strawmen arguments, I have no optimism, zero optimism that this can be a consensus decision. The riots in 1991 occurred between two communities who rarely interacted. Most reviews of the events note how they almost do not see themselves. The events were convulsive for the history of New York City.

My goal is simple. The main reviews of the history of the time, or biographies of Schneerson, by third person authors, cite this event as important in his life, as linked to the leader of one of the two main communities involved in the riots. Again, we can focus on a single but important source: the obituary of Schneerson in the New York Times. Nearly 5-6 paragraphs of some thirty comment on this event or the repercussions. That alone should be a citable notion in the biography of the man.

My aim is that the biography link the fact that it was an accident in the motorcade of Schneerson that served as a trigger of the riots. After much discussion, I think we should also use the sources to say that Schneerson had nothing to say about the incident. Both these points have myriad sources. Given the controversial nature of the information according to editors, given the controversy that has ranged since, the most apt location is in the controversy section of Schneerson, which includes a discussion of whether the Rabbi dissuaded his followers from considering him the Messiah. I add this, because it does give some indication of why the article is so difficult to edit. I think other arguments about why the riots occurred, why this pedestrian accident led to a riot, the detailed responses of various communities, and community leaders and politicians, and Schneerson himself, can be discussed in the Crown Heights article. But the link exists, not because I want it, but because it is present in the neutral authoritative historical sources. To avoid it, is to belittle the role of an encyclopedia. Here was my suggested entry for the article (a subsection in controversies section):

• Crown Heights Riot

The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991 were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots. Schneerson had no public comment on the death of the child or the riots.

I am looking for guidance on how to resolve this.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I have supported addition of this paragraph on the talkpage, but as the history of the article shows, other editors remain opposed. They claim the information about the riot is not relevant to the article about the rabbi. A previous discussion on this subject, which can now be found on the talkpage, also ends noting that a something short and balanced would be acceptable.

On the other hand, Rococo1700 is explaining WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, posting at 4 venues at the same time (here, the talkpage, WT:JUDAISM, and WP:DR which is now closed). His posts on the talkpage are unreasonably long and passionate, on WT:JUDAISM he lies about me and on WP:DR he called this article a hagiography. All these things do little to endear himself or his point of view to me. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

And WT:BIOG. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The reason I am here is because it is exasperating to argue with people like Debresser, who change the argument all the time. In the talk page, he stated: This was discussed before, at Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson/Archive_4#Didn.27t_he_run_over_somebody.3F. I stand by my opinion from then, that there is no connection to the rabbi. He tried to end the debate by saying it had been decided that there was no connection. Now he says he agrees with a paragraph. The discussion did not come to a consensus.

My point is simple: Reliable published sources make the point that this event is major event in his life. The present article does not mention it at all. The term hagiography has been used by numerous other editors in describing this article. It is tough not to use the term, when one of the controversies regarding Schneerson is whether he is the Messiah or not. Again, I successfully argued before after the dedicated efforts of many editors to remove a false statement from the article. This time, I do not have the patience with individuals who do not follow the guidelines of an encyclopedia. I am not interested in litigating legalities of the Crown Height riot in this article. The only point is that a major neutral and authoritative biography of Schneerson dedicates almost ten percent of the entry to this event. All the historical retrospectives of the event, discuss Schneerson's link to the events. This article includes zero. This is not going to be solved by mediation. It will require arbitration to keep the article encyclopedic.Rococo1700 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I am quite fed up with your untruths. I did say that there was agreement not to have a mention of the car accident alone, but I also added that if a paragraph would include something about the riot and the rabbi's reaction as well, then all of that together would be different story. Since that is what you wrote , I support as promised. It seems as though you are complaining about my support!

In addition, you write overly long posts, with the result that nobody wants to take part in the discussion. You include comments about editors, instead of restricting yourself to the subject at hand. You are forum shopping: this is already the fourth venue you posted at, and now you are already mentioning arbitration!? Why not call in the army? If you continue in this way, you will soon enough simply be ignored and referred to WP:DEADHORSE. Believe me, I have seen it before, and it is a perfect way to deal with annoying WP:BATTLEGROUND editors like you. So if you don't want to go that way: 1. no more lies 2. no more comments about editors and the way you think they behave or should have behaved 3. shorten your posts 4. no more forum shopping. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What action is User:Rococo1700 asking, anyway? At DRN it wasn't clear whether they were asking for arbitration, or blocks, or mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That is pretty obvious. He seeks support for his opinion that the paragraph he wrote is balanced and neutral and should be added to the article. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not asking for mediation. I initially had hope, but all suggestions are deleted and blocked, even if well-sourced. There has been intransigence in past, and after short discussion on talk page, there continues to be now. There is no movement. I recommend arbitration. I recommend a third party come up with a paragraph about the facts to be placed in the article, and allow outside editors including myself offer opinions. If both sides (the deletion and insertion sides) agree, we add more. If not, only the arbitration paragraph is allowed in. Following that, this article will benefit from a mechanism that prevents this task from being just deleted later. I am interested in changing the article than blocking the editors from all of Wikipedia. My fear is that they will however attempt to delete the entry. But let us begin by getting some facts in the article. I would like to write a paragraph under the heading Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot. I have provided my suggestion.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the drift of Rococo 1700's ideas in this matter for the Schneerson article. The traffic accident involving the cortege, what may have been silence or oblique references from Schneerson after , the subsequent deaths, the absence of any compensation by the perpetrator or his employer, or dangerous driving charges, the paying out of 400,000 dollars by NYC et cetera are all noteworthy and encyclopaedia material. The "superiority of jews over all others" remarks reliably attributed to Schneerson are also noticeably absent and merit a separate section and/or mention under theology or controversy section. That both are missing is another glaring example of how a coterie of editors can commandeer an article to its detriment and the detriment of WP's credibility.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, I am not going to discuss the points you brought up, not because I agree or disagree, but because my aim is to remain focused on getting at least mention of the linkage of these events to Schneerson into the article. It has been a tactic of Bus Stop, Kemal Tebaast, and Debresser to raise extraneous issues and opinions to get arguments started. I do think there is plenty of sourced and relevant material that can be added to the Crown Heights riot entry. I have focused on a paragraph with well-sourced material prominently featured in its own section in a succint retrospective biography of Schneerson, in fact his long obituary in the New York Times. The problem is that once you get them to agree on the text of the paragraph, they then argue that we can't agree where the paragraph should go, or try to hide it in the text. This information was a subsection of the Wikipedia biography from 2009 to 2013 or 2015, and a section of his obituary comprising nearly 10-20% of the biography. They now claim it is unimportant, and because we can not agree to make it a subsection or a paragraph, it can't be inserted. Ultimately I recommend focusing on a core, relevant, well sourced subsection entering into Schneerson's biography linking to Crown Heights riot. Rococo1700 (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You have offered good reference, a chance for discussion, and a sound rationale Rococo - perhaps it is time to be bold and choose a place in the article or a new section where you believe the text belongs and insert it. Agenda hounds must then offer a clear singular rationale if they revert you. You have my consensus and support. Oh and Merry Christmas !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tumadoireacht He was bold already. And then he was reverted. And then he was bold (disruptive) another 3 times or so, and was again reverted each time. Your advice is a little belated. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser - perhaps it is the reverters and not Rococo who are naughty/"bold"/misguided/suffering from agenda fever. your advice is a little unseasonal.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rococo1700: First, after looking at the article it does seem to suffer from a significant degree of WP:PEACOCK ("renowned" etc.). I had assumed there was more of a background to the dispute regarding the riot but the talk page conversation was pretty brief. At any rate, I did not notice any compelling reasons against inclusion or clear arguments as to why this is not a "controversy" related to Schneerson. Especially since this is not a BLP, any major incidents related to the person ought to be included somewhere in the article, and if the accident and riot were significant elements of the obituary it seems like inclusion is an obvious choice. @Debresser: There also seems to be a lack of civility and respect on both sides of this. I'd like to remind everyone involved of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and of course WP:NPOV. Editing articles where one's personal opinions on or attachments to the topic are significant is a bad choice and there are many other articles on wikipedia that need attention. —DIY Editor (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree completely. Rococo1700 is being very annoying, e.g. asking all editors again and again to "address the Rfc" on the talkpage. Which is precisely what editors are doing. The fact that all there disagree with him, does not mean they don't "address the Rfc". The comment regarding personal involvement is a bit awkward, since several editors involved are veteran editors. Speaking for myself only, I have an 8-year+ record of being able to make good edits, including edits opposite to my POV in various areas. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

What exactly would an edit opposite to one's POV be, including something that you don't want to see included? Editing articles where such a POV exists seems problematic. —DIY Editor (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

"including something that you don't want to see included" Precisely. Yes, it is problematic. It demands strict adherence to what you know to be correct and believe in, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, over one's emotions and opinions. There is a reason Wikipedia does not restrict editing in fields of personal interest. I think there are two reasons, as a matter of fact. 1. A believe that editors are capable of good editing, even in view of personal opinions. 2. The understanding that the truth is likely to benefit from opposite points of view. Anyways, I am not reciting the credo, but when several editors, from different backgrounds, collectively disagree with a certain editor, that is IMHO more likely to be a reflection of that one editor's problems, than anything else. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I think the recent talkpage discussion has proven that Rococo1700 is not just annoying, but has some competence issues. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser - point of information- you are not stating the truth when you say all editors disagree with Rococo. As to your statement re Rococo being "annoying"-Wise folk say that no one ever annoys one - instead one takes what others offer and annoys oneself. Finally your point on competence- if Rococo is an enthusiastic but less competent editor then you ( as you maintain), and has a shorter pedigree, perhaps it behoves you, and indeed all of us to assist him/her to greater skill with the fraternal welcome which WP aspires to.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, not all. Thank you for your advice. I hope you understand that my first reaction was also to see how to work together with him to improve the article. That is why initially I supported his edit, with some modifications. However, his continued battleground behavior has utterly antagonized me. Unfortunately, Rococo1700 is one of those editors who is not here to contribute collectively to this project. He wants to push a point, and is not susceptible to good influence. That is why he was blocked recently. Perhaps his block will put him back on the right path, but I doubt it. Debresser (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Awards in Karl Wolff article

A disagreement has arisen as to whether certain awards, such as Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918, Golden Party Badge, Honour Chevron for the Old Guard, SA Sports Badge (Bronze), German National Sports Badge (Silver), Olympic Games Decoration (First Class), Nazi Party Long Service Award (10 years), SS Long Service Award (10 years), Sudetenland Medal (with Prague Castle Bar), Memel Medal, Sword of honour of the Reichsführer-SS, SS Honour Ring, SS Julleuchter, should be included in the article.

The relevant discussion is at: Talk:Karl_Wolff#Awards_removal. A few more opinions to help reach a consensus would be appreciated.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Categorization of Polish killings by USSR as genocides

I could use some help determining if the long series of edits by 2001:558:600A:99:B1F9:36D3:FC39:4FC7 (talk · contribs) fit WP:NPOV. This seems like a touchy subject, and the mass unilateral categorization of these acts seems controversial to me.

(In chronological order)

• Addition of all three events to List of genocides by death toll [22]
• Categorization of pages under Category:Genocides:
  • Polish Operation of the NKVD (1937-38) [23]
  • Katyn massacre [24]
  • Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-46) [25]
• Addition of all three pages to Template:Genocide [26]
• Addition of Template:Genocide to articles:
  • Polish Operation of the NKVD (1937-38) [27]
  • Katyn massacre [28]
  • Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-46) [29]

Because this affects many pages, it hasn't been discussed on any particular talk page. I'm looking for a sanity check on whether this seems WP:NPOV and not any specific action. Thanks for the extra pair(s) of eyes. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• All three have unarguably been described as genocides, by reputable people with varying degrees of closeness - the Polish view (that of the government and Polish historians) is that they are genocides. The Russian's obviously disagree. Outside observers range from one to the other commenting on intent and end-result. But generally the outside observers agree that they certainly satisfy most of the criteria for a genocide event. As to if this is non-neutral editing? Probably, but it is backed by reliable sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Only in death! I was hoping this would take the form of an "informal RfC." In that regard, I'm hoping I can get some more responses. If others generally agree that it's fine or if there are no responses after a while, then I'll consider this matter closed. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

impeachment of Dilma Rousseff

I have many concerns about the Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff article, which definitely does not meet due weight standards and has a number of other problems, some of the latter just possibly caused by language issues. For example, she does not offer a defense but an "excuse". The talk page shows that then-active editors felt that her contention that removing her amounted to a coup did not warrant inclusion because she was impeached in accordance with the constitution. According to those editors. Help is especially needed from anyone who speaks Portugese, but even if you don't -- I can just barely read it sometimes -- there is still plenty you could do. I am annotating the talk page; so far nobody is answering.

BLP in *enormous* need of help. It's an important event so deletion a very last resort Elinruby (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

PS - so far I have not pinged anyone as the last edit by anyone else was a year ago, including the editors I quoted above. Then someone listed it on Pages in need of translation, which is how I came to it. I don't usually do Portuguese, but I needed a break from what I was working on, this article was languishing, and I followed these events in the news, somewhat. There is no current disagreement, although I took issue (today) with the comments above. I'll note on the page that I sought help here so watchers will know -- please advise whether I should go further and ping the people who where editing it last year. Mainly though, I am asking for help not a determination of bias. There is no question the article is defamatory, whether deliberately or not. Setting out the case for the prosecution is not a balanced account. I am going to go post a BLP warning on now and return to the language issues, and address the neutrality as best I can, as I come to it. But that will leave her version of events out, because there is no more than a sentence or two there now. I didn't really sign up to research this, or to solve every language problem for that matter -- I may well encounter stuff my very very iffy Portuguese can't handle. I might be able to fix the badly translated titles in the references, maybe. Elinruby (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

given that at least one editor is definitely paying attention, I pinged everyone on the talk page, with the exception of two users where I would have had to create a talk page for them.Elinruby (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Elinruby, that article describes the impeachment process, following strictely that sources support, imho. If you find reliable sources that support "coup theory", expand the article, please. I apologyse my poor English, as so your Portuguese. I began a revision in your last edits, concerning some lack of "trans-title" in some refs, but I'm busy in next days. Best regards. PauloMSimoes (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @PauloMSimoes: for your help with those titles, a technical issue which would have been daunting for me. I will also leave some comments in the text with questions that perhaps you can answer and which I suspect may be language issues. There is one in the lede already. Please do not apologize for your English, which is better than my Portugese.

The thing is, it is not a matter of proving there was a coup. Dilma Rousseff said this, not a random bystander, and therefore it is pertinent. She is an important party to the events in the article and if she disagrees with the accusations -- which she did -- then her version of events needs to be expressed. I do not see that right now, although there may be something there in the statements about blackmail, which need to be better stated, as they are confusing. Was she the one being blackmailed? Apart from this point of confusion though, we have only the statement that she denies wrongdoing or knowledge of wrongdoing, and and another than no wrongdoing on her part was found; two widely separated sentences in a fairly long article. She *did* say the proceedings amounted to a coup. This is part of her version of events, and it can totally be qualified with "according to Rousseff" if you disagree, although as I recall NPR pretty much said that the impeachment was political. But we can go there when I have found a reference for that. For right now, here on this board, my point is that this is the epitome of a story with two sides and that both need to be presented, especially since there are serious accusations of malfeasance made by people under who were investigation against someone who was cleared, or at least not proven to be involved. Since the article has sat like this for a year, the fact that you are busy for a couple of days is minor I guess, but this does need to be addressed. Elinruby (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

meanwhile, re the "coup" remark:

• theintercept.com/2016/09/23/brazils-president-michel-temer-says-rousseff-was-impeached-for-refusing-his-economic-agenda/ -- there is a portugese version of this article
• theintercept.com/2016/09/28/brazils-impeached-ex-president-dilma-rousseff-says-successor-confessed-to-the-coup/ this one also
• www.thenation.com/article/international-tribunal-declares-impeachment-of-brazils-dilma-rousseff-an-illegitimate-coup/ -- guest author
• www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37271465 -says not a coup
• www.wsj.com/articles/brazils-dilma-rousseff-likens-ouster-bid-to-coup-detat-1471377698
• www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/11/dilma-rousseff-brazils-ex-president-says-successor-temer-took-bribes
• www.economist.com/news/americas/21696550-how-should-presidential-systems-deal-political-breakdown-when-coup-not-coup

The sources may not support the coup remark -- at the moment I agree that most express skepticism, although not all, so a real weighing for due weight would require more research than I am willing to do right now. But there are solid sources that she *said* this. Elinruby (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree Clearly bias against Dilma. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me}

It was not a coup, period. Dilma, as other populist leaders like Kirchner, Chávez or Maduro, simply tries to explain her misfortunes with some convenient conspiracy theory. But it is just that, it's just rethoric for the masses, Dilma does not believe it for real. The Constitution of Brazil says it clearly: "constitui crime inafiançável e imprescritível a ação de grupos armados, civis ou militares, contra a ordem constitucional e o Estado democrático" (Portuguese: "The action of armed, civilian or military groups against the constitutional order and the democratic State constitutes an unsustainable and imprescriptible crime"). Meaning, she's accusing them of committing a crime. But did she formally accused them in court? Did she provide some proof to back it up? Is she ready to have her conspiracy theory tested against the legislators' right to defense and the scrutiny of an impartial judge? No? Then there's nothing else to be said. The conspiracy theory is noteworthy enough to be mentioned, and it is, but as what it is. It can not receive equal validity, or treated as if it was a plausible and accepted theory. Cambalachero (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying we should say, in the voice of wikipedia, that it was a coup. At all. I am saying that SHE said so and she is entitled to have her version of events reported in the article. I repeat, this is a BLP. It does seem she has discredited herself a bit by using such an emotionally-charged word, since the news outlets of the world then focused on fact-checking this rather than the validity of the claims against her, at least in many cases. And yet. It is also true that the charges against her were at best pretty technical, which one is left to induce from the language of the article, and that she was impeached by people deeply implicated by Operation Car Wash, which has yet to find evidence against her. But for now let's start here: The article reads like the case for the prosecution written in bureaucratese intended to shore up its validity. We do hear that she denies the charges, and that she offers an "excuse" for Petrobras losing money. (It occurs to me just now to wonder what the price of oil was at the time, but again, that's background.) This is almost an attack article and the only reason I have not proposed it for deletion is the amount of work that has gone into chronicling events that are definitely notable. It seems better to keep and make neutral. And again, I am not Brazilian and not involved in the article until now; I came to the article from the translation wikignome system Elinruby (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It is impossible to debate with someone that states" It was not a coup, period...., Dilma does not believe it for real." and does not present any kind of references to support the statement. The Wiki-Rules are not based on my or your personal preference. The poor neutrality of the article will continue to exist, because the Brazilian editors clearly don't like the woman and they will never accept facts based on reality if it does not mirror image they private conceptions and points of view. Noam Chomsky has informed them, "the impeachment count as a kind of soft coup", in their opinion, is just another PT's paid propaganda source. The article is a joke. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 23:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well see here is the thing. This is a bioography of a living person. It contains disputed defamatory material. The default is delete, people don't seem to realize this. The other side of this must be presented. If you think that the other side is mendacious then fine, you bring it, but it must be in the form of some sort of evidence. This will be a little hard for english wikipedia to process because of the Portugese but the page cannot remain as it is. That is not an option and I am not going away. Those are the rules -- unless someone can explain to me that I am wrong about this --- and so long as these are the rules they WILL be applied to this page. It theoretically should have been deleted already. I am open to treating it as a news story but even then the rule would be DUE WEIGHT no? Elinruby (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Dilma, her party and their supporters are actively engaged in spreading the coup discourse and provoking political division among the brazilian people. Legally, there was no coup and any brazilian with 3 or more working neurons knows better than to use wikipedia to spread the coup discourse. The people who support the coup discourse can easily be linked with some clear bias towards Dilma, PT and latin american socialist dictators and/or murderers such as Guevara, Castro, Chavez, Maduro and Kirchner. Noam Chomsky supports this gang because they antagonize US capitalism. Every brazilian artist who voiced support for Dilma either held first-tier offices in PT governments (Gilberto Gil), had close relatives in first-tier offices (Chico Buarque's sister was a minister) or received millions of reais (BRL) of taxpayer money to produce movies, plays and musical records through a law (Rouanet Law) that enabled PT to extensively buy political support. This was the case of the cast and producers of the movie Aquarius who cried coup in a protest in the 2016 Cannes festival. Some bias in the article is expected, and it probably will only be resolved when time has passed and the events can be analyzed with proper hindsight. This surely won't be the case before the next president-elect takes office in january 2019 nor before her political allies face trial for their numerous crimes. The bias exists, and it is unlikely to be properly fixed in the short term. Fbergo (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't counted my neurons lately but I am not Brazilian anyway so... Please explain artists in first-tier offices? I was not aware that artists in particular favored Rousseff. Why should I care about Chico Buarque? -- and ok then, Rouanet Law seems like something that should be in the article if that is the case. I am not aware of the Aquarius incidemt at Cannes. Is that in the article? Elinruby (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have an article on the "soft coup" conspiracy theory. Several populist leaders (Dilma, Kirchner, Maduro, etc.) seem to love it, there should be some material for an unified article about the concept. Cambalachero (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

yeah there should. You want to try to draft one? Maybe include a primer on how to amend the constitution, isn't that how these things are done? Elinruby (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Good catch @Elinruby:, as evidenced by the reactions of @Fbergo: and @Cambalachero: the article seems to be a magnet for tendentious editing with a lack of regard for wikipedia policies and guidelines. They also seem to have no problem violating WP:FORUM in the promotion of their clear points of view and should in my opinion entirely recuse themselves from editing this article. This type of editing damages wikipedia. —DIY Editor (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that we should give equal validity to a fringe theory? Cambalachero (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, and I have never gotten into a fringe theory discussion so I could be wrong... However I think WP:FRINGE is intended to address ideas like chemtrails and birthers and miracles and... I dunno. It seems to me that if you are going to say someone is corrupt then you need to allow them to answer it. If you think she is lying then then thing to do -- someone feel free to jump in here -- is to say (for example) Dilma says that "so and so didn't do his evaluation report honestly and took a bribe to recommend a Petrobras expenditure" then you refute it if it is not true. As in "so and so said she used to hide the guns. She denies this but so-and-so testified to this effect at her former colleagues' trial on this date", with a reference. I can't parse what is right or wrong about a lot of this stuff, mind you. Why the big discussion about whether or not she handled guns? I do think it is material that Cunha is in jail and Temer has someone who is he ing to indict him -- I don't know how realistically but that *is* happening. Or is this just party politics the way it always is in Brazil? Anyway. The defense in an impeachment trial is highly material to the article about the article^oops impeachment.

In ten words or less the fact that you don't believe her doesn't make it a fringe theory. I saw an article that said that 60% of the legislative branch was under indictment, and they voted to impeach her, who notably remains unindicted I believe? I realize that members of her party were indicted and it's hard to believe her hands are clean especially on the matter of protecting Lulu by appointing him as he chielf of staff. Elinruby (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Contrast the article about the impeachment of Temer -- much more focused. I do not think that anyone, even Rousseff, disputes that the procedure to impeach a president was followed. When she calls this a coup she is saying that it is an illegitimate transfer of power, I think. It's possible she should not call it a coup as this would affect treaties and trade agreements, right? Brazil doesn't need to be on any sanctions lists. However, I would like someone to explain this budget manoeuver to me, since apparently both Rousseff and Temer have done this --- funded certain programs by executive edict? And the budget is a legislative function...Elinruby (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

NY Times said: "Vice President Michel Temer, who has been convicted of violating campaign finance limits and will now be under tremendous pressure to stem Brazil’s worst economic crisis in decades. Describing the effort to remove her as a coup, Ms. Rousseff, the first woman to be president of Brazil, has repeatedly rejected calls to resign, vowing to continue her fight to stay at the helm of Latin America’s largest country, the world’s fifth-most populous." 76.111.200.108 (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Blazer

The article in question is Chuck Blazer.

The following three sequential diffs are the subject of contention 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_Blazer&diff=756421661&oldid=742371419 2.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_Blazer&diff=756421764&oldid=756421661 3.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_Blazer&diff=756443152&oldid=756421764

Chuck Blazer has two sources of notability: soccer administration, and large scale financial crime. I believe the version of the lead I modified was too 'sanitized.' By the wording, Blazer might be an innocent Whistleblower. I changed the wording to make his criminality clear to readers early on in the article, and explain how he was coerced to be a cooperating witness. No POV commentary—his criminality is well publicized. GiantSnowman responded with a blanket reversion (no summary), while leaving a Level 2 Vandalism warning on my Talk page. I responded by opening a discussion @ Talk:Chuck Blazer. I believe my arguments there use Wikipedia policy to thoroughly justify my changes to the article. I especially put the torch to Snowman's attempt to justify his edit with WP:UNDUE, and I want to restore my edits. Tapered (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Blazer is primarily notable as a soccer administrator; his brush with the law is secondary. The current wording in the introduction has been there a ling time and is well thought-out and neutral. Your wording is NPOV and violated BLP. You seem to have some agenda in painting him as a "crook", as the wording on the talk page shows. GiantSnowman 08:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the current version is just fine; we don't know exactly why he chose to become a cooperating witness and that's too detailed of information for the lede at any rate. We should dispassionately describe people accused and/or convicted of crimes, even if they're awful people; we should let the sources do the condemnation, not us. 08:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman. The proposed language in Tapered's edits is unnecessarily accusatory. The second paragraph in the lead pretty much covers Blazer's actions in the scandal.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The Peruvian nitrate monopoly conspiracy

The article in question is Peruvian nitrate monopoly.

I am concerned that the creator of the article is pushing a fringe perspective that basically amounts to a conspiracy theory of the Peruvian state monopoly as the primary driver for the War of the Pacific, which was a conflict fought between Peru, Chile, and Bolivia over the control of nitrates in South America. This is the version of the article supported by the creator, Keysanger: [30]. I have edited the article to reduce the fringe perspective and with evidence that supports the mainstream view on the topic, which is that Chilean expansionism is what caused the War of the Pacific. This is my proposed version: [31].

I have attempted to discuss matters with Keysanger at Talk:Peruvian nitrate monopoly#Chilean bias - Article Needs a Rewrite, but the user obfuscates the matter by missing the point (whether purposefully or inadvertently, I don't know) and ignoring it (preferring instead to engage in edit wars).

I should clarify that my position is not against the idea that Peruvian Nitrate Company was attempting to gain an upper hand in its cartel of nitrates by purchasing a Bolivian mine. However, to manipulate the information to paint it as if Peru sought the start of war is simply ludicrous. Clearly, this exempts Chile's role in the conflict, despite the mainstream historical perspective is that Chile, which had been damaged by the Peruvian monopoly, was the country that resorted to the use of force in order to resolve the matter in its favor (much in the same way it had done during the War of the Confederation).

To sum things up, here is a straightforward quote from the historian Robert N. Burr:

Chile justified war against Peru on the basis of an alleged conspiracy to destroy Chilean nitrate operations and establish Peruvian predominance. It was claimed that since established Chilean interests and rights in the Bolivia littoral stood in the way of that scheme, Peru became secretly allied with Bolivia which it then encouraged to resist Chile's just demands. The extent of Peruvian treachery became evident when it sent to Santiago a mediator even as it prepared for war. [...] A detailed evaluation of the merits of these and other versions of war guilt in the Pacific conflagration of 1879-1883 is beyond the scope of this work. Several conclusions do present themselves, however, in connection with the circumstances and forces that affected Chile's decision to wage war and its formulation of war objectives. The most immediately obvious casus belli was the conflict of interests arising from one country's economic predominance on the soil of another. [...] Bolivians came to entertain fears concerning ultimate Chilean political domination of the littoral. But fearful, impotent, poorly governed Bolivia could neither strengthen its economic and political position in the littoral nor develop an effective policy toward Chile. For their part Chileans came to regard the coastal desert as their own in all but name. Not only were Chilean economic interests predominant, but development of the littoral was due almost exclusively to Chilean capital, labor, and technology. The spasmodic efforts of frequently corrupt local Bolivian officials to carry out the often arbitrary orders of the Altiplano were met by Chileans with angry resentment.

— Robert N. Burr, By Reason or Force (1974), pp. 138-139.

Sorry for the long quote, but I think it adequately sums up the point. Best.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)