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

The Family International

There is a discussion on the Family International’s talk page (section "Cult vs. New religious movement (again)") as to whether it should be labelled as a “cult” or as a “new religious movement”.

The word "cult" has been named as one of Wikipedia’s “words to watch”, as an example of a word that is “best avoided” and cannot be used without an in-text attribution. According to Wikipedia's definition of "cult", it is “considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices.” Because of this, the term has long been abandoned in academia, and the neutral term of “new religious movement” is used instead.

Since academic sources consistently call this organization a “new religious movement”, and sources that call it a “cult” are generally biased and focus on negative and controversial aspects of the group, I believe that the organization should be labelled as a “new religious organization”, in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies regarding a NPOV, Words to Watch, and academic sources.

However, another editor believes that the organization should be primarily referred to as a cult, since this term is used in certain unspecified sources. So far, we have not been able to come to an agreement. Theobvioushero (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Support use of the term "cult". GPinkerton (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that academic sources have replaced the word cult with new religious movement? TFD (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Couple of things: Firstly the sources currently used to support the word cult are not remotely scholarly and are openly biased. They need to be removed from the lead; but there is no reason they cannot be contextually used elsewhere in the body. Secondly there are undoubtedly scholarly sources which refer to the subject as a cult (e.g.), and there are other scholarly sources which explicitly deny it is a cult and refer to it as a movement (e.g.) Thirdly, there is no reason it has to be a dichotomy. Just state that it has been variously defined as a cult, movement... whatever else you find. But cult is frequent in the literature, so it has to be in there in the first couple of sentences. Cambial Yellowing❧ 17:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, but want to note that contemporary scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a "cult" are uncommon and use this word in the sociological sense, rather than the sense used by the general public. I agree though that we should mention that they have been called a "cult" in the introduction as long as we include an in-text attribution, in accordance with the “words to watch” policy, rather than presenting it as an objective fact. For example, "They have been accused of being a cult by counter-cult organizations such as ICSA and the Cult Education Institute." Theobvioushero (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources published via university presses are usually acceptable. If sources also call it a NRM (it is likely applicable as a more general category), it would be possible to mention both NRM and to say that it has also been described as a cult (although avoiding to mention specific people as if it was a minor opinion). —PaleoNeonate – 16:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

To quote from one of the sources I presented earlier, “the sociological concept of a cult, as a certain type of religious innovation, has not retained its morally neutral meaning in the arena of public discourse…. For this reason, the morally neutral term of new religious movements (NRM’s) has come to replace the pejorative label of ‘cults’ in the lexicon of most social science scholars of new religions.” Theobvioushero (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Simply put, GPinkerton has repeatedly asserted that the term "cult" is biased, while providing nothing to back that up. Editor also claims all sources referring to it as a cult are biased and therefore should be dismissed. Sources use both "cult" and "new religious movement" to refer to the group, so both terms are appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion is taking one bias and merely replacing it with one in the other direction. It's not clear why you consider a link to a google scholar search of "the family international" evidence that references are uncommon; I appended the world "cult" to your search and 344 results were returned. As I already stated in my reply above, I agree that it's fair to say that "they have been described" or "defined" as a cult, as a NRM, etc, rather than stating it as fact in WP voice. But the word "accused" is not neutral. They have been described as a cult in the academic literature, and frequently in mainstream news sources (recently by BBC, The Times, The Guardian) not just by "counter-cult organizations". Cambial foliage❧ 00:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

344 is still a small percentage of the total (2,740) though, and the vast majority of those sources do not call the organization a “cult”, but use the term in a different way. Academic sources point out that “most social science scholars of new religions” do not use the term “cult”; that the term “new religious movement” has been the “preferred” term of religious scholars since the early 1970’s; and that "the term 'new religions' would virtually replace 'cult’" by the end of the 1970’s.

I don’t see any issue with using the term “described” rather than “accused” though, and agree that it is also be appropriate to mention news sources that have used that term; it would just would require additional citations. For example, "They have been described as a cult by counter-cult organizations and various news organizations such as the BBC, New York Times, and the Guardian.” This point can be expanded on in the “reception” section, and uncontroversial terms such as “new religious movement”, “group” and “organization” can be used to refer to the group generally without the need for in-text attributions. Theobvioushero (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s better if we don’t have an extended exercise in sophistry; nor will doing so support your case. The only place I mentioned appending "cult" to your search for "the family international", was in the context of pointing out the shortcomings of your citing such a search as evidence that scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a "cult" are uncommon. It isn't evidence for that. If I were looking to cite google searches as evidence for the counterfactual ("scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a cult are common") I would have substituted "children of god"+ cult and pointed toward the ~16,000 results. I didn't do that, because search result numbers alone are not evidence to buttress either POV, nor would they form a method of framing a NPOV if they were. Stick to actual evidence, not google search pages.

It's true that scholars in different fields have different words for things, sometimes for non-academic reasons. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology puts the issue with regards to movements neatly: "Most NRMs would fit into the sociological category of either sect or cult, but scholars came to favor the term NRM in order to avoid the pejorative overtones associated in the public mind with these labels." WP:LABEL, which I assume is what you were intending to cite in your OP, states that words like cult are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The argument you are trying to make has no basis in the policies used to determine content on WP. There is no suggestion in the MOS, nor in any policy, that we should censor academically published use of specific words because they have fallen out of fashion amongst scholars in certain disciplines. If numerous scholars have stated that the subject of the article is a cult – and a brief perusal of the contents of some of the 16,000+ g scholar results on the subject indicate that numerous scholars have done so, including recently – then the article should state as much.

Finally, the notion that "new religious movement" is somehow neutral takes as a given your POV that the subject is a religious organization. Clearly, that is part of the controversy and resistance to your proposed changes, and given that so many sources from reliable news media and scholarship refer to it as a "cult", using "new religious movement" as a pretended neutral term does not produce a NPOV. “New religious movement” must instead be listed as one of the various definitions it has been given by scholars, and perhaps by reliable news sources (though in a brief search I couldn't find the latter; every news source referred to the organization as a cult, not as a religious movement, new or otherwise). Cambial foliage❧ 23:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

We can disregard the Google Scholar searches if you do not believe they are productive. I want to make sure that they do not distract from the scholarly citations that I also provided. According to the academic sources, "new religious movement/new religion" is a "morally neutral" term that has been "almost unanimously adopted" by scholars in order to avoid the terms "cult" and "sect." It is currently "the generally accepted term" for such groups, and has "virtually replace[d]" the word "cult" in academia. To clarify, I am not saying that the term "cult" should be censored, just that it needs in-text attributions, due to its "pejorative" connotations.

I have never heard anyone deny that the Family International is a religious group. From what I have seen, those who prefer to call it a "cult" do not believe that terms such as "religious organization" or "new religious movement" are inaccurate. Instead, they prefer "cult" because it is a more specific term. Who are you referring to that denies this group is a religious organization? Theobvioushero (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Cuties

Can people keep an eye on the Cuties aritlce? I'm sure you've all heard the controversy so I don't think I need to recount it here. There's a lot of editing by infrequently active users and lots of uses of dubious sources (like forbes blogs) which require a cleanup. Kind Regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Navid Afkari

I have been trying to clear the Navid Afkari article of original research and non-neutral content. However, User:Ali mjr keeps reverting it. The problem is their additions are trying to advance a certain point of view, namely that Afkari is innocent and the execution is unlawful. The additions also include original research. They admit as much on their talk page.

Some examples of this content are:

• calling the murder "alleged" (even though the defendant was convicted)
• adding multiple quotes from the subject about the illegitimacy of his conviction, with certain parts bolded for emphasis
• making unsourced claims about the lack of evidence: "For one, they used the CCTV footage of a street near where Torkman was found dead; The footage was from more than some two hours before Torkman's death and henceforth, one cannot base that as evidence."
• other non-neutral and unsourced statements such as "Despite all the flaws in the murder case with the no actual footage of the murder scene and the false testimonies, the court persisted with holding Navid accountable."
• otherwise engaging in original research by coming to conclusions based on reported facts: "This raises the questions as was this an actual execution by hanging or perhaps it was a mishap where Navid had been tortured to death, so officials said he was executed in order to avoid an even greater public anger."

I had previously opened a discussion on the article's talk page, and also communicated on the user's talk page, but the user does not engage in dialogue and simply re-adds the content. ... discospinster _talk 21:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

All the additions have been cited. If anyone had put the time to read and educate themselves on the matter, would know what is being said and why is being said. Everything that has been bolded is there for a reason and that is clear. To explain your call,

• It is "alleged" because even though the defendant was convicted, the conviction was unlawful. The reasons as to why that is the case have been cited fully.
• The addition of the included quotes was a must. Without them, the reader would never know that the convicted actually was against the ruling (as oppose to accepting the charges) and would think that a "criminal" had been justly executed. It is only fair to know both sides of any story.
• All the claims are included with multiple sources somewhere in the text. You just did not bother putting the time to read the text fully, nor have you read the citations included.
• Neutrality of a paragraph is independent of the truth. One might believe that the sky is yellow, but in reality, the sky is blue. There have been flaws in the case and there are no questions regarding that. There was no footage of the murder scene either, nor were the testimonies reliable. The citations are an affirmation of the preceding statements. Please read them.
• there were no conclusions made. The final paragraph is an invitation for thinking. The reader is free to decide for themself.

I tried to answer you to the best I could but you did not want to listen, nor did you "simply" read the citations. There is nothing I can do when you turn a blind eye to what was said. mjrx (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC) am

GetUp! and Addressing NPOV Issues

The page for the progressive organization GetUp! seems to indicate biased reporting. Particularly with its insistence in pushing for a connection with George Soros and its repeated citing of the Morning Mail. Soros as I recall, is a figure commonly associated with various biases in his reporting, and is subject to various theories in regards to his political involvement. I am unfamiliar with the organization by-large and I would appreciate some insight onto what should be done for this page. Hopefully this is the correct venue to do so. --Ornithoptera (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Recheck

can you tell me if this edit by this guy breaches pov rule for wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan&diff=979414452&oldid=979248952 Baratiiman (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Baratiiman, personally, I can see both sides of this argument. However he explicitly states that there is no evidence of this being taken in Isfahan. HeartGlow ^(talk) 03:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• again HeartGlow30797 Pahlevun showing he won't need NPOV
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan&diff=979907351&oldid=979881663
• Baratiiman (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fashion_in_Iran&diff=980451588&oldid=980441033 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yousef_Tabatabai_Nejad&diff=980451190&oldid=980427046 Baratiiman (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Iran&oldid=prev&diff=980594867 Baratiiman (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan&type=revision&diff=980594777&oldid=980594561 Baratiiman (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Public opinion of Portland protests

Comments are requested here: Talk:George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon#Proposal to include poll of public opinion. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 SCOTUS vacancy

Hello all,

There's currently a dispute regarding NPOV (and SYNTH) over at Talk:2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy#Quotes in background section. Given the small editorship of the article, more eyes on the discussion couldn't go amiss. Sceptre (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Public Interest Legal Foundation

Hi, could I get some assistance at this article? I surfed in on a link last week and noticed the POV was seriously negative. I tidied up and added more info, including a notable lawsuit (see history). My edit was reverted, and I put up a POV tag, which has also been removed without discussion. Just made another effort to edit the intro to balance the POV, but the rewrite and info I added to the article last week have all been reverted again. Thanks for any help. Pkeets (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Concern on neutrality of the Spitnik V (vaccine) page

I have concern about this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gam-COVID-Vac

There is an ongoing dispute and editing wars between different "parties" which clearly indicates there is a neutrality issue. My main concern is the "Scientific assessment" section which is full of political statements and opinions of the official from different countries. I propose either to remove all the information in the section and replace it with the scientific research assessment or to rename it "Political and other statements of the officials from different countries and organizations", which it is now. It is very misleading to call "political and other statements" "scientific assessments". 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:102C:3581:147C:582F (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Addressing bias (Robert E. Lee Academy)

To Whom it may concern: There is currently an ongoing dispute regarding NPOV of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee_Academy You can see it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_E._Lee_Academy

or in the revision history. I left a lot of edits requests for BillHPike, Jacona but those editors ignored most of my reasoning. I think the editors are clearly biased and cannot edit the page from the NPOV. Here is the proof of their bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Billhpike/Archive_4 The section “Rober E. Lee Academy “ Jakona (the editor heavily involved in the editing) cites: “I believe that the article is WP:NPOV because it doesn't delve sufficiently into the white supremacy. The naming of the school for Lee, a man who was famous as a traitor to the U.S., a slaveholder, and a particularly violent one, and an emblem of white power needs far more attention. Some of this can be found here. More about Lee as a slaveholder, torturer, murderer, traitor, and symbol of white supremacy is easily sourced.” Question: how the person who edit encyclopedia can neutrally edit the page on the same topic? While Robert E. Lee page is balanced and neutral, this cannot be said about the school.

The most important thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_addressing_bias

Due to the bias, the editors refuse to see the positive changes for the school for the last years and use the information in the sources selectively to reflect their bias opinion. Even a request to change the page name by using proper sources, was rejected. I’m asking non-biased editors to come and read the Talk page and check the page for neutrality.

Disclaimer: I also have a conflict of interest and I admitted it on my talk page. I only asked for the edits requests according to the Wikipedia policy. Fritzsmith20 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• • "Balanced and neutral" does not mean complimentary. It is well-sourced that Lee was a slaveholder who violently beat his slaves until their flesh was a blood pulp and poured brine on their wounds. He was a traitor to the United States and is frequently used as a symbol of repression of African-Americans. In contrast to the verbage above, Lee's page discusses his slaveholding, his brutality towards slaves, and more.
  • It appears that the editors idea of "neutral" point of view is actually the idea to whitewash the article of any factual history.
  • While User talk:Fritzsmith20 claims the school has changed it's name, and even provided a source, I checked court records and found that there is a different corporation of that name elsewhere in the state that uses the "new" name, and has for decades. The newspaper articles about the subject stated that they were changing the name but hadn't yet done so officially. Based on that, I didn't think it's wise to move the article to the "new" name - they're probably not going to be able to use the new name. If it's appropriate to change the name based on the fact the school changed it on their website and acknowledged the change wasn't yet official, have at it!Jacona (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Jacona, after all what you said on BillHPike’ Talk Page, (see your own words cited above) I doubt that you can edit Lee Academy page without bias and I don’t think it is appropriate to edit on this topic while representing your own ideology. Do you have any conflict of interest related to the subject, such as your friends or relatives related somehow to the topic? If “yes”, please, recognize it as I did on my page and give unbiased editors to do their volunteer work properly.

• • Regarding the school name. Your refusal to update the school page is beyond any reason and looks more like an attempt to use Wikipedia knowledge only to prevent the inevitable. The new school name reflects our policy change and it looks like you feel uncomfortable about it. I have a feeling that you wish to punish the school for its past issues (which were real many years ago but that has changed) and thus refuse to accept the fact that the school is reforming. Our new name change has been well received by parents, students and community and everyone sees it as a positive change. The name has been updated on the website and can be confirmed by secondary sources. Now the name change “officially” as you call it, will happen very soon – with a large non-profit like this, it takes time to make sure everything is done correctly. Hundreds of our students, the school staff and other people in the community already call us “Lee Academy” and that will continue into the future. Our lawyers have told us that even if the name change we record with the state of South Carolina has to be something in the line of "Lee Academy of Bishopville" our dba can easily and legally be "Lee Academy".Fritzsmith20 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that not being a white supremacist is a conflict of interest? Jacona (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fritzsmith20: you still haven't complied with WP:COI despite your obvious close relationship to the school - you are clearly a connected contributor and that should be declared on the talk page of the school as well as on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV policy question, history: Antonius Verancius' quote, which version is more neutral?

I'm having a discussion with another user on which of these 2 versions is more netural:

(A) According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks",[59] while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".

(B) According to Antun Vrančić, Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks". According to the Romanian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that they easily equal all of the others,[59] while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".

This is the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Transylvania#Antonius_Verancius'_quote My diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=979026390&oldid=978024079 His diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=979473136&oldid=979026390

The original text in Latin is the following: Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant." doesn't specify the word "any" in its translation. The word for word translation is as following: qui = who or whom, quamlibet = however, harum = these, facile = easily, magnitudine = size, aequant = match. The word "any" is non existent and not implied by the author.

The other user argues that: Quamlibet means as well "any", to any extent, any degree, "quamlibet harum" in this context appoints this, as the three main nations are listed in the first place, and added one to be mentioned which number may be equal with any of these. While I argue that: Quamlibet does have more meanings depending on context, but the context "quamlibet" is used here doesn't imply the use of quamlibet as "any". This is the debate that scholars had as well. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. Anyway, this doesn't matter that much as our personal opinions on the subject doesn't matter, we only have the sources to work with and through. I just posted this so you know it was already discussed. We have 2 sources contradicting each other and need to find a balance.

The other user argues that: the page has a consensus on the current content sourced. I argue that: the current content is sourced correctly but interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. It is not a problem of sources, both sources are already present in the article, but rather a problem of wording.

I argue that: His edits with language that implied one is objectively correct is clear violation of WP:NEUTRALITY. While I on the other hand, simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources on equal grounds, despite the clean latin version supporting the Romanian translation. He argues that: What you did is the assertion some expressions the sources did not say, on the other hand the last stable version properly summarizes what the sources in fact say, without taking sides.

Eventually, I told him again that: The text you are trying to keep, is worded overwhelmingly in favor of Hungarian historians implying the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one. Clear Hungarian bias. I simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources, and removed the language that implied one is objectively correct. Despite the Romanian version being supported by the clean Latin translation, I did not mention that because of WP:NEUTRALITY. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While as far as I know, only Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. The sources, for both versions, are already listed in the article, but are interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. My job here is not to tell which one is right, I simply list both versions on equal grounds. Unlike you, who wants to list the clearly in favor of the Hungarians version wording. I get that you disagree, but you can't disagree simply on the grounds that you don't like it. Wikipedia is for education not personal opinions. Which is why I believe the only solution is a 3rd opinion.

He argued that: There has been not any bias, sources were cited and summarized (the Romanian and Hungarian interpretations are both identified, in this order), what you do here is pure OR, and yes, your personal opinions should be ignored, which you don't do. I argued that: a version with a wording such as "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", which falsely implies that one is objectively correct, is far from neutral.

What do you think, which version is compliant with WP:NEUTRALITY and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn (talk • contribs) 23:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I see no reason to bring this issue here, which is purely your OR, as it has pointed out in the article's talk page, where anyone interested may see how you ignore important points and refuse to understand our policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, your summarization is as well suffers from all of these. This issue earlier wen't through a noticeboard and both Romanian and Hungarian editors agreed the current (longstanding) version, which in fact summarize what the sources tell us. This user tendentiously failing to recognize this. The Romanian interpretations are summarized - on the first place indeed - the Hungarian in the second place, and only the latter notes about the translation's proper interpretation. We cannot summarize something from a source, which is not stated. This is not (cannot be) a neutrality issue, since both viewpoints are summarized accordingly to the sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC))

The reason to bring this issue here is because we cannot reach consensus by ourselves. Please, specify that the person who "it has pointed out in the article's talk page" was you. I also pointed out violation of WP:NEUTRALITY in the talk page, but I will not talk about myself in 3rd person to make it seem like someone else has said it. If such a noticeboard existed, you gave no link to it, please post a link if it exists. If this is about the discussion above our discussion in the talk page, that discussion did not involve me and was not related to the wording of this parahgraph, which is what our discussion is about. Hypothetical scenario on neutrality: We have source (A) and source (B), source A claims that "the sky is blue", source B claims that "source A claims the sky is blue, however the proper color of the sky is red". We do not pick sides. Which wording is more neutral? To say that source A claims that "the sky is blue" while source B claims that "the sky is red"; or to say that source A claims that "the sky is blue" while source B noted that "however the proper color of the sky is red"? In the 2nd version, I believe the phrasing is clearly in favor of source B and violates WP:NEUTRALITY. Everything I utilized from both sources is something that was started by both sources. That is not how it works. Both viewpoints can be summarized accordingly, but still worded in a non-neutral way. A Wikipedia article is not simply "copy-paste from the source", we add our own words and make our own sentences around it. For example: "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", this sentence is not present in either source. It is a phrase added by the editor. This is where the bias can happen. LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, there is no violation of neutrality, discussed also here and there (along with links) and involved the issues we talk. Your demonstration fails since such like however the proper color of the sky is red does not play, there is no is, but would be, etc. Similarly you utilized things the sources did not say, do not confuse this with close pharaphasing/copyedit.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC))

Yes, we discussed it, and you failed to convince me it isn't, and I failed to convince you it is, that's why we are here. The difference between 'is' and 'would be' is just semantics that doesn't strongly imply the benefit of doubt. When you say "according to John", you are not implying John is objective, when you say "John noted that the proper order would be", you are implying John is objective and right. I already told you that I did not utilize things the sources did not say. Unless you can actually give examples, all you have are empty words with no weight, as usual. Constantly making empty accusation with nothing to back them up will get you nowhere. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"Constantly making empty accusation with nothing to back them up will get you nowhere." -> again, drop such remarks, because the opposite is happening. You believe falsely about something that would be an NPOV issue, although it isn't, and still fail to understand that "John noted that the proper order would be" is describing what's in the source. You did utilize, but we have also discussed this earlier. You lack of the necessary attention to the details.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC))

I won't drop such remarks, because the opposite is not happening. You want evidence that this "Constantly making empty accusation with nothing to back them up will get you nowhere." is ture for you? In an ironic twist of events, look at your quote "argument": "drop such remarks, because the opposite is happening". You made no argument there, you only stated an opinion, a declaration, that's all your stances are in generals, personal opinions with nothing to back them up. Then let's move on to your very next phrase: "You believe falsely about something that would be an NPOV issue, although it isn't", that's it, that was your "argument": "although it isn't". This is one of the many clear cases, but it will make no difference to you. As for the last part, I didn't fail to understand that part, but you're so far off that explaining what the real problem is to you will take another paragraph, I don't know whether you're going for a strawman or genuinely missing the point but just re-read our previous conversation. With all respect, this is your style of debate in general, regardless of your point you have no arguments to support your stance. But you insist on your empty accusation in a WP:BLUDGEON style, and you wonder why I'm here asking for a 3rd opinion. Please, consider your style or reasoning before accusting others that they lack the attention to the details. In a childish naivety, you expect your empty stances to simply be believed, this is not what happens in real life, where you have to back up your stances with evidence and arguments. So naturally, I didn't believe most of the things you said, sorry, but you're not as all knowledgeable and rational as you think you are. Re-read our conversation with that in mind and things will start to make sense for you. As for me, I'm done with this conversation for it's the equivalent of trying to argue with a stone, I'll wait for a 3rd opinion and we can continue from there. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this wall of text is useless, you have to re-read everything if you still don't understand what you fail. WP:COMPETENCE is required, I won't explain something the 11th time when it was already discussed clearly and explained not just in the article's talk page, but here.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC))

Comment: I do not understand what is the core of the debate. I think nobody is willing to read lengthy threads to comment on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The original version of the article is (A), I changed it to (B) arguing that version (A) violates WP:NEUTRALITY. In this instance, there are 2 sources contradicting each other: a Romanian and a Hungarian one. In version (A), the Romanian source is listed first, afterwards the Hungarian version is listed with what I find a non-neutral language: "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be", implying that the Hungarian interpretation is the correct one. In version (B), the original quote of Antun Vrančić that both sources agree upon is listed first, following the point where both sources diverge: with the Romanian source arguing that it means "they easily equal all of the others" while the Hungarian source arguing that it means "they easily equal any of the others in number". Concenring version (A): Another user changed the language to "while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part" but was reverted back to "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part". LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this "Hungarians vs Romanians/Romanians vs Hungarians" approach verified? Are there reliable sources stating that a "Hungarian" and a "Romanian" interpretation exist? I assume there are scholars who translate the Latin text differently. Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't have a specific source to state that a "Hungarian" and a "Romanian" interpretation exists, only the two sources with different translation. Historians Jean W. Sedlar [East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000–1500] and George W. White [Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe] based part of their work on the quote in question as well, so they may have translations of their own for the Latin text, although I don't have the books themselves to verify whether they have indeed made a translation of the Latin text. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

These two authors just directly copied the Romanian sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC))

• Surely there are other scholars who have translated the relevant passage into English. Before we can choose between A and B, we need to see how C, D, E, F (etc) translate it. It may be that one of the translations you are focused on (either A or B) is an outlier... not in sync with the rest of the academic community. IF so, then that outlier translation can be discarded as being fringe. And IF not, we can describe the debate without it becoming a Hungarian vs Romanian thing. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to choose between A and B, the user fail to understand how sources are summarized, believeing by mistake it would be a neutrality issue, which is not, just and only becuase he fails to understand in one source it is noted what would be the proper translation (which is anyway attributed).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC))

I think Blueboar's advice should be accepted. You probably can find translations in different languages. I am sure, Verancsics's work was translated to German and Slovakian. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a good idea. However, how could we establish what is academic consensus? Considering the way Wikipedia works (as far as I can tell) we can only establish academic consensus if one secondary source directly says that there is an academic consensus on a matter. We could gather different translations from other sources to make a reasonable idea, but even then, wouldn't that technically be OR? Not that I'm against the idea, as we probably have no better choice, just asking for the technicalities. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If academic consensus does not exist, we should not create it. Translations published in reliable sources can hardly be regarded as OR if the core of the debate is the proper translation of a Latin text. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I have no problem to investigate other translations, but I hope you see this misplaced issue, when a user simply does not like what a source tell us, which highlights the translation issue, which is relevant in this particular context of the historiography of this topic, which has an approved history on this matter anyway (i.e. Pascu's recurrent distortions). In other words, more translations does not change or influence the earlier mentioned facts.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC))

• Quick question... are either of the two sources under discussion translating directly from Latin into English? Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The Romanian source is in English and the Hungarian source is in Hungarian. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Genetically modified food controversies

This is not my field, but edits to the article appear to have introduced a strong bias in favour of the views of GMO organisations. There are some strong claims, with links to questionable surveys funded by big GM players.

I have added a section in talk - but do not feel qualified enough to review the content as it stands. Bear in mind that, at first, it may appear to be fairly written; source tracing and analysis begins to uncover the bias.

Personally I feel that there is little room for statements as ‘fact’’, on a controversial subject - especially in an article supposed to be depicting the controversy; unless those facts concern the controversy rather than the positions taken by the parties to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 (talk • contribs)

I have a strong background in genetically modified organisms and medicine. I've actually genetically modified species before. The science behind genetically modified foods is strong because the techniques used are safe. Also, the genes that are being introduced into foods is done by a process called transgenesis; which means that the genes already existed in organisms that are already in human diets and put into a different species. This means that the GMO foods are getting genes that have been vetted for quite some time.

Lastly, the scientific basis for why GMO is that the genes eventually leads to protein. DNA -> RNA -> usable protein (the central dogma of Biology). You body does an awesome job of breaking down proteins to the point that they are nonfunctional while they're in your stomach. In essence, it's next to impossible for these proteins from genetic modification will cause you harm.Axelremain (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I've alerted 20040302 to the discretionary sanctions in this topic, especially on WP:ASPERSIONS with the comment this article is currently a thinly veiled attempt by the GM lobby to argue the GM case. For anyone not familiar, we had a DS-enforced WP:GMORFC a while ago when it comes to neutrality of content (e.g., scientific consensus and the public perception mismatch with it) while dealing with WP:FRINGE points of view. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

User:AxelRemain seems to have missed my point. The article (and the responses above) depict the issues of the argument, not the argument itself. When we describe a conflict in an encyclopaedia we don’t try to determine who is right! It’s ludicrous. The point is to explain the conflict, describe the antagonists, and understand - at the very least empathise with their motives for investing in the conflict. The article mentioned here does none of that. Moreover, the attacks above seem to imply that my views are somehow WP:FRINGE yet all I have argued is that 1) the arguments are in the wrong place, and 2) the sources of those arguments are clearly backed, and owned by, one of the antagonists. My own view - that the source used comes across more as pseudoscientific claptrap written to impress investors and legislators - may well be seen to be fringe by those who defend such a position - but do you not find it interesting that articles such as “The more favorable attitude of the citizens toward GMOs supports a new regulatory framework in the European Union” are not being covered by the press? No press releases for this sort of thing - because the media is not the intended audience. 20040302 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Axelremain and Kingofaces43 have it right. We don't give equal validity to fringe views alongside science. And the scientific consensus is clear. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Peer reviewed sources are not psuedoscientific claptrap written to impress investors and legislators. If there's a peer reviewed source that demostrates observable detriment to genetically modified organisms I'd be happy to read that and change my view. So far, I've seen thousands of articles pointing in the direction that there are no negative side effects to eating GMO foods. I'll also reference back to my original post that describes why, from a basic science point of view, of why the theory behind GMO causing caustic side effects lacks merit. Axelremain (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There doesn’t seem to be a consensus that there’s a consensus on GMOs: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

The arguments given above concern whether or not GMOs can be eaten safely. But no mention is given of devastating economic, environmental, or social impacts that -at least some - GMO practices have already shown. I say “there’s an ongoing debate concerning GMOs”, and I am told “it’s safe to eat GMO food” Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 (talk • contribs)

First, please WP:SIGN your comments so others don't have to do that for you (and read WP:THREAD). Please keep in mind Wikipedia is not the place to WP:SOAPBOX against scientific consensus on topics like GMOs, etc.

The Hilbeck source you now mention was already dealt with at WP:GMORFC and discounted as very WP:UNDUE akin to cherry-picking those that claim no consensus in the climate change denial subject. Likewise, you seem to be going on a tangent about the arguments about the consensus being backed financially. As mentioned at the article talk page, the source you are criticizing doesn't even appear to exist at the article. There doesn't appear to be a specific content issue to address on the article talk page, so it's not clear why this noticeboard was opened. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally we would treat a review study published by Springer as the final word on whether or not there was consensus among scientists. If it's wrong, then it should have been retracted, or at least we could find reliable source that say it is wrong or more recent review studies that come to different conclusions.

GMO at present is used almost exclusively to produce animal feed, cooking oil and high fructose corn syrup in the U.S., the production is heavily subsidized and contributes to the obesity epidemic. Most production relies on Round Up fertilizer which according to U.S. courts are carcinogenic. The technology is being expanded to Atlantic salmon which has had a devastating impact on coastal regions. Yet none of this is mentioned in the article because the non-GMO versions of these products have the same negative consequences.

We also know that Monsanto had a policy of paying supposedly independent voices to defend GMO and trash anyone who criticized them. Bayer, which bought Monsanto, subsequently revealed and stopped the program. Some of the independent voices were previously involved in defending the safety of tobacco products and in climate change denial. Yet none of that is mentioned in the article.

There are of course conspiracy theorists who have made unfounded claims against Monsanto and GMO. Per weight, we should not give them equal validity.

TFD (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally we would treat a review study published by Springer as the final word on whether or not there was consensus among scientists. Not when there are numerous other reviews and statements from scientific societies saying something else. And no, being wrong does not mean it will necessarily be retracted. By your logic, any so-called review article, so long as it was published by an academic publisher (not automatically a green light), could overrule any other set of sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A review study is "an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic." Since determining the current understanding of the topic is the major goal, if it gets it wrong it's a fatal error and it should be withdrawn. Failing that one would expect that its conclusions would be challenged in scientific publications. I did say that we could also look at other reviews, particularly those published after this one. But AFAIK, there are no other similar independent studies. Instead we relied on the expertise of editors such as yourself to tell us that they were aware of the relevant literature and found that there was a consensus. Incidentally, it's offensive to repeat my words. I have the cognitive ability to read what I posted without your repeating it for me. TFD (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My quote of you wasn't for you. And I know what the purpose of a review article is supposed to be. The fact is, though, that non-withdrawn fringe "reviews" published by academic publishers do exist. [1] I'm not saying that Environmental Sciences Europe is as disreputable as Homeopathy, but I am showing that it is wrong that non-withdrawn reviews necessarily carry much weight. The crucial factor is what other reviews and scientific society statements say. And that was established at WP:GMORFC. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The homeopathy article is not a traditional review article. Its authors examine a number of recent papers, conduct experiments and form a hypothesis. All kinds of wacky theories and unexpected results of experiments are published in academic journals which is why we rely on review studies to "summarize[] the current state of understanding on a topic." Ironically the homeopathy article does not say that there is a lack of consensus among scientists about homeopathy. That would be false and would warrant retraction from even a homeopathy journal.

You keep saying that there are independent review studies in academic journals that say there is a consensus about the safety of GMO foods. But no one has presented one.

Note also that lack of consensus does not mean that much credence is given to the opposing view, just that it has some credence.

TFD (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

TFD, this is getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory at this point as it's not focused on specific content, but do read WP:GMORFC as you are severely mischaracterizing what editors have done (and some of your views here were not considered WP:DUE there). If you want to claim no one has presented independent sources, that time has long passed and is ignoring all the work other editors have done in that area providing just that. Remember that due weight was the relevant policy at that RfC. We can't cherry-pick a single review like that against all the other independent sources from major scientific organizations and reviews (climate change denial again as an example of why that isn't done). There's no need to rehash that further though since the RfC is long complete and nothing has really changed in the literature since to refute it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No it's not getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory since I am not publishing my own thoughts and analyses or new information. I have no opinion and have expressed no opinion on the safety of GMO products. This is WP:NPOVN which is the appropriate forum for discussing the neutrality of articles. In other words, you are unable to provide any review studies about the safety of GMO and instead refer to earlier conversations. I'll take that as your answer.

The climate change denial actually cites a review, "Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015." If climate change deniers said it was cherry-picked then I would ask them to present an alternative review that came to different conclusions. Cherry picking means to search for examples that support one's conclusions. The proper approach, which both the Climate Change Denial article and I follow is to look for sources without prejudice and accurately reflect them. It's not as if I neglected any review studies. I asked you to provide any and you are unwilling or unable to do so.

Incidentally, I did not participate in WP:GMORFC so please don't imply that I did. No idea what you mean by my ideas were not considered WP:DUE. WP:DUE refers to article content not arguments about content.

TFD (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It is well into WP:NOTFORUM territory because the matter has already been decided at WP:GMORFC, so there are no changes to discuss, even though you continue to imply that the scientific consensus around the safety of GMOs doesn't exist. I thought about posting some reviews, but decided against it as it would imply that something remains to be established. The sources are right there at WP:GMORFC. If you will refuse to hear that, well, I've done my part.

The review of studies about denialism doesn't fit in here, and your analogy of "if climate change deniers said it was cherry-picked" has it backwards. The point is that climate change deniers seize on small portions of the literature to claim that no scientific consensus exists, and that GMO safety deniers do the same. It is the GMO safety deniers who are engaging in the cherry picking.

And as for WP:DUE, I think it's clear that the point is that material that denies there is a scientific consensus was determined not to have due weight at GMORFC, and that arguing that same way now is arguing for undue weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't continue to imply that the scientific consensus around the safety of GMOs doesn't exist, I merely stated that the only review study presented says that. Articles should not be based on our personal opinions, but on what reliable sources say, whether or not we agree with them.

While one editor who voted against the proposal in WP:GMORFC mentioned the Hilbeck study, it does not appear to have been discussed.

Since the RfC, Bayer (which bought Monsanto) was settled for claims that Round up caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bayer has also confirmed that Monsanto hired scientists to prepare reports that said GMO was safe and paid people to defend them on the internet.

The final thing I would mention about the RfC is that it is rare for discretionary sanctions to cover content rather than behavioral disputes.

So it seems that there is good reason to revisit the RfC. I have asked here for someone to provide a definitive academic review study that says there is consensus about the safety of GMO and have been assured they exist but will not be provided.

I certainly don't want to open an RfC that has no chance of success. Bear in mind that they occupy a great deal of time for all concerned. So before I do that I would like to ask you once again to show that the review study has been debunked or that subsequent review studies have come to different conclusions.

TFD (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• The well-sourced science around GMO safety has not AIUI changed since that mega RFC. If users want to discuss the rumours &c. around the "dangers" of GMOs they'd best be discussed in context at the GMO conspiracy theories article. The OP seems to be advocating for WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@TFD: You are completely on the wrong track here. Also, you wrote a misleading sentence above. Since you do not like being told what you wrote, I cannot tell you which sentence it is, but scientific questions are definitely not decided by lawyers. (That would be horrible.) Roundup (herbicide)#Carcinogenicity tells you what you need to know; ignore the primary sources quoted there, concentrate on what the scientific bodies say.

And yes, the analogy to climate change denial is fully justified. Pseudoscience inspired by political opinion, just the opinion in question is different. Even the rhetorics is the same:

"This is not my field, but" - just like Republican know-nothings saying "I'm not a scientist, but". Why don't people see that the less they know about a subject, the less their opinion is likely to be correct? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

When I edit articles, I look for academic review studies and textbooks to determine the weight of expert opinion. What I have found is different from the conclusions of the 2016 RfC. If you can point to a review study that came to a different conclusion or cite textbooks that support your position, then that would help me. I don't really think the comparison with Republicans is accurate. They don't look at review studies and textbooks and in fact ask us to reject them, instead citing isolated studies. TFD (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, on one side, we have (among other things) this 2016 Consensus Study Report from the National Academy of Sciences: Many reviews have indicated that foods from GE crops are as safe as foods from non-GE crops, but the committee re-examined the original studies of this subject. The design and analysis of many animal-feeding studies were not optimal, but the large number of experimental studies provided reasonable evidence that animals were not harmed by eating food derived from GE crops. Additionally, long-term data on livestock health before and after the introduction of GE crops showed no adverse effects associated with GE crops. The committee also examined epidemiological data on incidence of cancers and other human-health problems over time and found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops. And this statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, referring to multiple other scientific societies: The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques. (Though from 2012, if the scientific consensus had actually changed since then, we would see a retraction or updated contradictory opinion from one or more of these societies. No such statement exists.)

On the anti-GMO side, we have this Hilbeck et al. "review" published in Environmental Sciences Europe, a pay-to-publish journal that published without any peer-review the discredited Séralini paper after it was retracted from a reputable journal. The "review" cites the Séralini paper approvingly.

So, for good reason, the Hilbeck et al. paper carried little weight at GMORFC. A paper published in an ideologically-slanted journal by a small group of activist scientists cannot rebut the findings of numerous scientific societies as they each reviewed the studies and reviews in this area.

Here's how politically motivated science denial works. (1) Start with an ideology (pro-corporate for climate change denial or anti-corporate for GMO safety denial, though more on that in a bit), (2) reject the science, (3) fund organizations staffed by activists and sympathetic fringe scientists, (4) seize on contrary research (whether from those organizations or elsewhere), (5) claim that a scientific consensus does not exist. That is the obfuscation that occurs relating to climate change and GMOs. And as for bringing up corporations like Monsanto, editors may be interested in comparing the size of the organic food industry to that of biotech companies. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Added more links. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall read the material you provided and get back to you. TFD (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Andy Ngo a "journalist" - RFC notice

A RfC has been opened is asking to revisit this question, should Andy Ngo be described as a journalist in wikivoice in the lead sentence of the article. In related discussions what other terms may be OK in wiki or attributed voice. Editors have suggested "writer" and "provocateur" be included in the lead in Wiki voice. Discussion here Talk:Andy_Ngo#RFC:_"journalist". Springee (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification about an RfC on Infobox Chinese at Democratic Progressive Party

There is an RfC here about whether Democratic Progressive Party should be one of the MOS:CHINA exceptions to including both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese in the {{Infobox Chinese}}. Part of it concerns whether inclusion/exclusion satisfies WP:NPOV. The participation of interested editors is appreciated. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

White supremacy and the Proud Boys

There is an ongoing debate about how best to reflect the Proud Boys connections to white supremacy (sources). While it's broadly represented on reliable secondary sources that the Proud Boys have affiliations to white supremacists and have been involved in white supremacy (a Proud Boy member organised the Unite the Right rally where a white supremacist drove through a group of counter-protesters etc), the group's website officially rejects racism and their chairman, Enrique Tarrio, is a black Cuban-American. The main issues is if it is a NPOV and sourcing issue to qualify statements about white supremacy with a mention of Tarrio's ethnicity? I mention sourcing because this Daily Beast article appears to be the only source that explicitly parallels Tarrio's ethnicity to the group's broad affiliations with white supremacy, so WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE may be of relevance.

For context about the status quo, the article's lead currently says that the Proud Boys are "affiliated" with white supremacists, with the body saying:

Some men who are not white, including the group's chairman Enrique Tarrio, have joined the Proud Boys, drawn by the organization's advocacy for men, anti-immigrant stance, and embrace of violence. Officially, the Proud Boys condemn racism, with Tarrio stating that the group has "longstanding regulations prohibiting racist, white supremacist or violent activity". However, the ADL has deemed the group as having antisemitic, Islamophobic and racist views, with the group known to threaten, intimidate or violently assault anti-racism protesters. The group has claimed there is an "inherent superiority of the West", going to great lengths to mask members' connections to white supremacy.

ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Calling the MRA movement "advocacy for men" is pretty laughable on its face. It's a misogynist movement, not "advocacy for men". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)