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

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and Anti-racism

A while back an editor edited the two above articles to include claims that Blumenbach, an anthropologist who is now best known for his white supremacist theories on race, was actually an early proponent of scientific anti-racism. To support this claim they cited a few sources which at best seem to claim that Blumenbach is not quite as racist as he's commonly assumed to be. (He certainly didn't consider himself racist, but a benevolent helper to these poor degenerate races, but given that white supremacist simply means that one believes whites are the superior race, I don't know why calling him one should be controversial.) They also created a large section in the article arguing in a rather unencyclopedic tone that modern perspective of his theories as having advanced white supremacy are due to mistranslations of his work, rather than due to the fact that he clearly, uncontroversial believed that non-white races were inferior to his own. When I removed these claims, a new editor began reverting me and has been disinterested in engaging on the talk page. Thoughts on how better to use these sources, if they're needed at all? It doesn't seem to be a particularly widespread belief, and including a long defense of Blumenbach and the uncritical claim that he 'considered an early pioneer of scientific anti-racism' seems like undue weight. Vary | (Talk) 23:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You may want to take another look.

• Gould, Stephen Jay (October 31, 1994). "The Geometer of Race". Discover. ...Blumenbach was the least racist and most genial of all Enlightenment thinkers. How peculiar that the man most committed to human unity, and to inconsequential moral and intellectual differences among groups, should have changed the mental geometry of human order to a scheme that has served racism ever since.

Can dig up more if needed. fiveby(zero) 00:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I understand that he was not a hateful person, but it is quite a significant stretch to call him an early proponent of scientific anti-racism (even the quote you suggest acknowledges that was not his legacy,) and the argumentative tone of the long digression insisting that those who find his theories about race white supremacist are just misunderstanding him seems very unencyclopedic in tone to me. Vary | (Talk) 00:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I think your first characterization was off the mark, but missed scientific anti-racism. Is that even a term that should be used? I only see it in the index of the cited work. generally considered an early pioneer in what is now called scientific anti-racism does absolutely need some good sources. I don't think scientific anti-racism is generally considered a real thing, let alone with 'pioneers'. fiveby(zero) 01:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Anti-racist work in the sciences is a thing, at least, but Blumenbach wouldn't have even had a concept of it, much less been a proponent of it, so a few authors who say he wasn't personally racist don't justify the much stronger claims being made in the article. Vary | (Talk) 03:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"Blumenbach was the least racist and most genial of all Enlightenment thinkers" seems pretty far from "at best seem to claim that Blumenbach is not quite as racist as he's commonly assumed to be" by all means. That source is clearly meant as "not racist". Blumenbach or authors who say he wasn't personally racist don't need to justify themselves, there's no need to justify yourself if the accusation has no basis, the ones who accuse him of racism need to justify themselves, as they are the ones making the accusation. At least that's how it should be in a normal world. You say there are much stronger claims being made in the article, can you post them? fiveby, can you post your counter-claims as well? only the soruces saying he was/wasn't racist or white supremacist. So we can have an accurate picture. LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning the use of "pappu" to insult Rahul Gandhi

"Pappu", a Hindi term meaning something like "not-very-bright young boy", has been widely used to insult Rahul Gandhi, one of the most prominent politicians in India; it has now become a significant facet of his public image. This is substantiated in at least a hundred reliable sources; I've provided a selection in Talk:Pappu#Sources and am happy to provide more if it matters.

Recently, I added this fact to Pappu, but was reverted. I then started a discussion a discussion on the talk page, where most participants opposed my edit on the grounds that (1) it would violate the BLP policy, (2) journalistic sources were insufficient to substantiate the fact, and (3) such insults, as "propaganda" and "political gaming" should not be mentioned on Wikipedia.

The question here: would it be undue weight to devote a few sentences or, at most, a paragraph to this insult and its evolution on Pappu or in a "public perception" section on Rahul Gandhi?—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya8795, NeilN, Anupmehra, Katyaan, Vigyani, Vaibhavafro, DESiegel, Akhiljaxxn, RegentsPark, Kautilya3, 25 Cents FC, Fylindfotberserk, and WhatamIdoing: since you have either participated in or been invited to a previous discussion of this topic, I am inviting you to this one too.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

All seems a bit trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not just a random nickname; it's part of a broader narrative that he's a political lightweight who has only become a leader because he's part of a huge Indian political dynasty. And, probably more importantly, reliable sources consider it significant enough to mention it over and over again.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Then it is appropriate in his article, but not in an article that is not about him. In the grand scheme of things this is not its sole, main or even majority use.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that this is its majority use. If you asked random people in India to name a person known as "pappu", I think Rahul Gandhi would be by far the most common answer (obviously my sense is not a reliable source, but I think the volume of sources using the nickname backs me up). But in any case, most of Pappu is a list of people known by that name, and at least mentioning that Rahul Gandhi is one of them seems totally appropriate.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"Notable people named Pappu", that his not his name.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I went through several dozen Google News articles. With three exceptions, every headline that referred only to Pappu (i.e., not a first and last name) was about Rahul Gandhi. Those three exceptions were about a child raped in the 1970s (preasumably the child's full legal name isn't given for privacy reasons), a traditional food dish with the same name (think Johnny and Johnnycake), and an unrelated politician who was being accused of similar behavior. AFAICT sources really are using this primarily to refer to Rahul Gandhi. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

One of the basic principles of NPOV is do not state opinions as facts. The OP seems unable to distinguish between the two. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

My edit which started this discussion said: "In politics, pappu has come to be an insulting nickname for Rahul Gandhi." This is a fact. Many people do call him "pappu" (I don't). What would violate NPOV is taking a side on whether the nickname is fair or unfair.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

But is it its sole use, or just one of many uses?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Does it need to be? Karen (slang)#Examples doesn't seem to be any the worse off for naming several people who acquired that nickname. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Compare that to what the Washington Post wrote:

BJP leaders called him “pappu” — a Hindi term for a well-meaning but dimwitted little boy.

That is how an OPINION is stated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Not really? We WP:ASSERT facts, including facts about opinions, but we don't assert opinions themselves. "In politics, pappu has come to be an insulting nickname for Rahul Gandhi" is not an opinion: it is a fact that this person is called this name. "BJP leaders called him "pappu"" is not an opinion: it is a fact that these people call this person this name.

An opinion – which we would not put in the article – would sound something like "Rahul Gandhi doesn't deserve to be called Pappu by his political opponents". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Since I've been pinged. Generally, derogatory political nicknames should be avoided because they are, um, political. The exception is if it is explicitly included in an article or list on derogatory political nicknames. If you want to start an article List of derogatory political nicknames in India, assuming all this is well sourced (I haven't checked), and assuming that there are other such nicknames (I don't know), that would probably be ok. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark, what would you advise editors of Brenda? The article describes it as an "irreverent" nickname for Elizabeth II. Would you remove it because that article isn't exclusively about derogatory nicknames? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Although the issue is in the grey area, I tend to believe that unless this is an article dedicated to Rahul Gandhi, this mention shouldn't be made even if it fulfills NPOV, V and NOR. Because biograhpies of living people must be treated with a high degree of sensitivity. The article in question has 3 sections: the first that is for a summary, obviously "Pappu" is first and foremost a name and should be treated as such, even if informally it has another meaning to the people of India. Despite the popularity of Rahul Gandhi's nickname, "Pappu" is still first and foremost a name. Use in ad campaigns is out of the question, as this is "propaganda" and "political gaming" rather than an ad. And notable people named Pappu, his name is not Pappu. LordRogalDorn (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • We do want to avoid off-handed, single use names dropped as insults or the like, no question, but the weight of coverage and that this isn't a flash in the pan (2013 at least [1]) tells me this is something that should definitely be included as well as how he's played off that image. It is completely possible to do this in a neutral voice as suggested above as long as we explain the background of why the term is derogatory and how it got attached. --Masem (t) 22:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

    Masem, I think that would be ideal. Would you be willing to have a go at doing that? I think it might help the situation if a neutral admin made the edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

    I have tried to write a neutral para or two about the term and connection to Rahul here. --Masem (t) 23:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Masem, it appears that @Kautilya3 reverted your addition a few hours later, with a request for further discussion. What do you think we should do now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

    It would be good to see if the addition you asked to me make seems reasonable under NPOV given the commentary on the talk page and above. There are valid concerns on BLP issues but to ignore the application of Pappu to Gandhi particularly in terms of timing seems a major WEIGHT omission given how it persists today. --Masem (t) 01:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

EnlightenedWikipedian

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• EnlightenedWikipedian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am submitting this here because of the text "An administrator can repair damage made by a malicious user more quickly than other users: if someone is making multiple damaging edits, it will be easier for you to report them than try to repair everything yourself. To see whether a user is making many damaging edits, click their username, and then User contributions" on the page Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, This user seems to have edited the Niccolo Machiavelli page according to his/hers own opinion on how machiavelli should be remebered in history, If one checks the users edit-history this only confirms that the user has personal interest in rewriting the historic view on machiavelli. And achording the the previously scited wikipage i ask you administrators to take a look at this. I only noticed this because the user had changed the italian title of the book Florentine Histories to "Florentine" instead of "Fiorentine", the later being confirmed by e.g. the wikipage for the book. Tobbe s 97 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have now reparied the damage, please voice your opinion here instead of changing back again. Tobbe s 97 (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Campaign for Real Education

There is a pattern of editing on this page Campaign for Real Education that demonstrates lack of neutral point of view editing [[2]], [[3]]; including prejudicial and derogatory material being added with references that do not back up the statements being made [[4]], ; reliance of unreliable sources, or claims with no reliable sources or evidence referenced at all, and removal of referenced material that puts material into context and/or balances the neutrality of the article. [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]].

There are also BLP issues relating to the orgnasation's founder - again with claims being made that are WP:UNDUE, non neutral and prejudicial; in the form of quotes taken out of context and unverified, or unverifiable material. Any attempt to improve the article in terms of referencing, and neutrlity appear to be reverted on sight by one editor: [[11]], [[12]], [[13]].

Tonyinman (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Tonyinman, the dearth of sources about this group (92 Google hits in total) leads me to believe the article should be deleted, so I have nominated it per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign for Real Education Guy (help! - typo?) 22:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The claim above a about "references that do not back up the statements being made" and the message left on my talkpage alongside the notification of this discussion ("Please do not add unreferenced, unsourced or poorly sourced material to the article. Any material needs to be backed up with a reliable third party source. The claims in your content were not backed up by reliable third party sources, and several references were entirely irrelevant and did not in fact back up your claims") is one of the more bizarre I have received for some time. I reinstated a few bits of text removed by Tonyinman, having added sources (in some cases two or three) to every sentence. Specifically:

• References to the organisation being right wing:
  • Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Challenge for Multi-ethnic Societies "One right-wing group, for example, the Campaign for Real Education, opposes the teaching of..."
  • Education And Politics For The 1990s: Conflict Or Consensus? "Right-Wing Pressure Groups and Some of Their Publications... CRE (Campaign for Real Education)"
  • Dictionary of British Education "Campaign for Real Education (CRE) The CRE was formed in 1987 by a group of parents concerned by 'failing standard'. Although its ideas are right-wing..."
• Direct quote "press for higher standards and more parental choice in state education." taken from The Courier
• References for the organisation opposing the teaching of sociology and politics
  • Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Challenge for Multi-ethnic Societies "the Campaign for Real Education opposes the teaching of sociology, politics, peace studies, world studies and political education"
  • The Politics of Race, Class and Special Education: The selected works of Sally Tomlinson "the Campaign for Real Education, which opposes the teaching of sociology, peace studies, world studies, political education..."
• References for the organisation opposing anti-racism and anti-sexism claims
  • Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Challenge for Multi-ethnic Societies "the Campaign for Real Education... is critical of anti-racism and anti-sexism"
  • The Politics of Race, Class and Special Education: The selected works of Sally Tomlinson "the Campaign for Real Education which opposes... anti racist or anti-sexist initiatives"

It is unclear whether Tonyinman has actually bothered to read the references, or has somehow been unable to spot the text quoted above in them. Number 57 22:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Reminder that this is an WP:NPOV discussion and not a WP:RS discussion. Number 57 has failed to make clear how any other these sources are WP:RS. Tellingly, all the material s/he/they has added/reverted has been negative and prejudicial to the subject of the article. (Hence this WP:NPOV discussion.) I would argue that none of the sources highlighted by Number 57 above are WP:RS since they amount to a collection of personal opinions or unevidenced assertions from various non-notable individuals who happen to have their views included in non-notable and small circulation publications. Furthermore, some of the quotes relied upon are more than 30 years old and are thus stale. Given this lack of evidence and biased one-sided editing, there is a clear WP:NPOV issue here. There is also the issue of WP:BLP, which remains unanswered by this editor. In particular, the content related to the founder of the organization is not neutral, is WP:Undue and uses inappropriate tone, eg: "ran it from his bedroom" WP:BLPSTYLE, is not balanced WP:BLPBALANCE and should be removed per WP:GRAPEVINE. There's also an argument that the founder of this organization doesn't meet notability standards, and therefore text relating to him should be removed per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Tonyinman (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, unanswered, is the question of why Number 57 has repeatedly removed/reverted correctly referenced material that has sought to balance the article. Tonyinman (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

All of the books cited are published by Routledge, one of the UK's main academic publishers. The founder is deceased (in 2012), so it's also not clear how BLP is an issue. The reasons for various text removals were clearly explained in my edit summaries.

Can you explain why you said that the references did not back up the claims, when they very clearly do? Number 57 23:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I already have. Secondly, this is an WP:NPOV discussion and not a WP:RS discussion. Perhaps you might explain why you have repeatedly removed material added by other users that attempts to improve the article in terms of balance, and neutrality? [[14]], [[15]], [[16]].

What? You are the one that brought up the WP:RS issue. Re those diffs, I give quite clear reasons for removing the text in the edit summaries of the latter two. Regarding the first, I didn't see the relevance or usefulness of the expanded quote you added (which has since been removed entirely by JzG for being from an unreliable source, the Daily Express) or the Hansard statement. Number 57 23:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an WP:NPOV discussion and not a WP:RS discussion. Despite being asked politely, you have avoided any attempt to explain why you have repeatedly removed material added by other users that attempts to improve the article in terms of balance, and neutrality. This is a clear instance of bias and breach of WP:NPOV guidelines. I'm taking a Wiki Break from this discussion since ample evidence has been provided to demonstrate the lack of neutrality, and this particular conversation is not being met with a response that will improve the article for other editors or Wikipedia readers. Your edit summaries have also been uncivil [[17]], so I choose to no longer engage with you in discussion. Tonyinman (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

If this isn't a RS discussion, why did you say "Number 57 has failed to make clear how any other these sources are WP:RS."?? In both my last two responses I've either explained why I removed text or pointed to where I stated the reason why. The string of bizarre claims and comments is behind my view expressed in the final edit summary mentioned. Number 57 00:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Tonyinman, are we in the Twilight Zone? You complained about non-neutral material and unreliable sources; the material reinstated by Number 57 is neutral and sourced to reliable sources. If you think that somehow reliable sources calling something "right wing" is not neutral, then you do not really understand what neutral is. That you keep repeating "this is an NPOV discussion and not an RS discussion", that's just disruptive. I think a good outcome would be you accept what the sources say and not get blocked, because I'm going to drop a note on your talk page for harassment: that is in fact what you are doing. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Please see the previous discussions re WP:NPOV and this article here: [[18]]Tonyinman (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope, Drmies is correct. Your referring to a 6 year old discussion started by an editor banned from all Wikipedia sites and with no participants other than Number 57 and a sarky IP doesn't impress. Your giving an Admin a 3RR warning without even using the article talk page doesn't show good faith. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"Charlie Kirk lost his spot at West Point to a minority woman"

The editor 'Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d' (who has edited for less than three weeks, yet somehow knows Wikipedia policy) has edit-warred out variations of long-standing text (with the help of veteran editor 'Emir of Wikipedia') so that the page for Charlie Kirk (activist) now states that Kirk lost his spot at West Point to a minority woman.[19] There is no evidence that Kirk lost his spot to such a person. These editors also omit that Kirk has at varying times claimed that he (i) was sarcastic and (ii) had never said it. In other words, they are leaving out crucial context and feeding the readers with unfounded white grievance politics stories of how women and minorities are taking away opportunities from white men like Charlie Kirk. It's a clear-cut NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I suppose the problem is how to use the fewest words to (neutrally) express the idea that a claim was made while also casting doubt on its veracity. If I were writing the section I'd try this: "Kirk claims he applied to the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, and was passed over in favor of 'a far less-qualified candidate of a different gender and a different persuasion.' Kirk would later deny making the claim or pass it off as sarcasm." Citations omitted for brevity. I think both disputed versions are clear on the point that Kirk is making a claim, and that the claim hasn't been independently confirmed. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The talkpage back and forth on it is definitely not helpful, and there's a lot more going on with Emir. In the middle of discussions about this issue, Emir made a ton more edits that look like Whitewashing (censorship). 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Because of the way Kirk presents himself, there are an unlimited amount of baseless and unverified claims that he had made. As an encyclopedic article, his BLP page is not required to include all of the misinformation he had put forth, especially about himself and his background. His page currently says he claims to have applied West Point and was rejected. This is probably worthy of inclusion under the “Early life and education” section. Unsubstantiated claims Kirk has made about being passed over for a less qualified minority candidate have no place in the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I definitely don't see the present need to include it. Were he to known to be on a more long-term "crusade" against West Point because of being not being accepted based on his claim, that would be a reason to include, but this seems like a very one-off thing that never comes up again in discussing him , and because there's no way to verify that, it's unnecesssary to include. --Masem (t) 14:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I was commenting to agree with you, but then I double-checked the citations/article on question and recalled that his activism is associated with colleges specifically. I don't think it needs to be a grievance against West Point in particular for us to say that this "founding myth" of his ties into his notability. I do of course think that it is necessary to frame this unverifiable claim appropriately, so that we are not saying that he actually lost his spot, but rather that he attributes his failure to qualify for West Point to affirmative action. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I favor Mackensen's method. Write that: "Kirk claims he applied to the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, and was passed over in favor of 'a far less-qualified candidate of a different gender and a different persuasion." Kirk would later deny making the claim or pass it off as sarcasm. Seems to be very explicit about what both of your are implying. To really get to the bottom of this, you should look for sources that (a) he said the first part (b) he later denied it or passeed it off as sarcasm. LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Should the lede and body of the article Alexis Texas mention she co-hosted the 2015 AVN Awards?

• Alexis Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have two reliable sources Las Vegas Weekly and Uproxx -- to confirm that Alexis Texas co-hosted the 2015 AVN Awards:

1. "Porn Convention: AVN Fan Awards Voting, AEE Talent Lineup and More", Las Vegas Weekly, 5 December 2014, retrieved 23 October 2020, AVN also recently announced that comedienne and actress Danielle Stewart would be joining AVN Awards co-hosts Alexis Texas and Tommy Pistol as the awards show's comedic co-host.
2. Mancini, Vince (27 January 2015), "'I Have A Lot Of Tricks, But I'm Not Your Dog': An Interview With AVN Awards Co-Host Alexis Texas", Uproxx, retrieved 22 October 2020, Before she started working in porn in 2007, Alexis Texas grew up in Texas. ... As if to confirm that she's attained a level of pornstardom reserved for only the super elite, Texas was named co-host of the 2015 AVN Awards.

Should the lede and body of the article Alexis Texas mention she co-hosted the 2015 AVN Awards? Thank you, Right cite (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Leads are not news paper style leaders, they are summaries of our article. As it does not seem to be a major part of our article no.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:Thank you for your third-party opinion! Can it be mentioned in the body of the article itself? Right cite (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

See no reason why not, its not exactly a major achievement but one line should be OK.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay great, thank you! Right cite (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

GenScript Biotech

The article GenScript Biotech is currently an advertisement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality

Should the Catholic Church's (non-)"acceptance of same-sex relationships" be mentioned in this article's lede? I argue that this fact is clearly indicated by the sources, both as a general body of sourcing and as specific ones already cited in the lede such as this one. On the other side, Jzsj and Bealtainemí have repeatedly attempted to remove it, saying that this is not acceptable language because the church is fine with friendships or business partnerships between people of the same sex and citing fringe groups advocating "reparative therapy" for homosexuality to support their argument.

It's a curious case because Jzsj seems at the same time to acknowledge that the longstanding text was accurate, but feels that concealing it would WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in some way.

Previous discussion at Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality#Relationships. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I find yours a prejudicial summary of what I was saying. You can at least quote my words which lead you to arrive at this conclusion. My point is simply that we should change the current last sentence in the lead from "that gay relationships should be recognized" to "that sexual activity between gay persons should be recognized".Jzsj (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, if that is "simply" your point, then why did you neither make nor discuss that edit, and instead edit other parts of the lede? Secondly, that's a nonsensical sentence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

In response to what Roscelese said of me here, perhaps this is sufficient reply. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It's an article about homosexuality, not about same-sex friendships. The church's stance against homosexual sex should be made explicit, right from the first sentence. Move the bolded "dissent" title to the second or third sentence, after establishing the church's stance. The dissent should follow the acknowledgement of the Church's longstanding position against homosexual sex. Don't try to hide the Church's monolithic posture on this. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Bink, to clarify, the current text after these users' disruption reads "A number of Roman Catholics and Catholic groups have sought to change Church teaching to allow for sexual acts between members of the same gender and for gay marriage", but this isn't an accurate précis of the article or of the sources, which talk about the church accepting same-sex relationships generally, and not just standing aside and ceasing their political activism against marriage. It gives the mistaken impression that these are isolated and separate issues, rather than a self-evident condemnation of same-sex relationships, which no one is likely to accidentally misinterpret as "friendships" or "business partnerships." (I had suggested "romantic and sexual relationships" as a potential compromise to address this ridiculous objection, but no, these users don't want to compromise, they want to pretend that gay relationships are just about sex.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. We should not be giving the reader a mistaken impression that the Church is standing aside, allowing the dissenters free rein. One way to do that is to first establish the church position against sex for mere pleasure. The church prefers procreative sex inside marriage, and they allow "unitive" sex for older married couples past childbearing age, which is the crack in the door allowing dissenters to push for a sort of church-sanctioned unitive sex between same-sex couples. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, Bink. I think we do a good job in Catholic Church and homosexuality of explaining the reasoning the church gives for its intolerance of homosexuality, but I don't think we need to re-create that entire article in the lede here. The important thing to do is to accurately and fully convey what it is these dissenters support and/or oppose, which, based on the sources and the article text, cannot clearly be compartmentalized into "the church's opposition to sex" and "the church's campaigns against marriage," but also "the church's non-acceptance of same-sex relationships generally." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to justify why an article should be kept when the ones who try to remove it have no basis to remove them on. Fringe sources should not take priority. I think the difference between you two stands in the subtile difference between the meaning of "the acceptance of same-sex relationships". You can interpret it as "friendship" but I think it's common sense and the vast majority of people, when they hear "the acceptance of same-sex relationships" will interpret it as "gay/lesbian relationships". Therefore, saying that "the church is fine with friendships or business partnerships between people of the same sex" is misleading. This is not a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because the church is very open about it's anti-gay stance. I agree that the change from "that gay relationships should be recognized" to "that sexual activity between gay persons should be recognized" is nonsense. The opposition doesn't have a basis to justify their removal. I'm in favor of keeping the status quo version. As a possible compromise, if you want to be more explicit, you could say: "the acceptance of same-sex romantic relationships" so that there won't be any room left for misinterpreting it as "friendship", although I don't think anyone would misinterpret it as friendship. LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobody proposed removing the article. In the discussion, Roscelese was asked to accept either rewording or removal of a phrase only ambiguously sourced. She has since agreed to reword the phrase. The matter is concluded. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

TERF has an RFC

TERF has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Loki (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, that link does need go direct to a discussion just the talkpage. If you are editing headings please use anchors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Grr, I changed the title of the RFC after posting this without realizing that it would break all the links I posted. Gonna fix now. Loki (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC relist at Talk:Pit bull

I've relisted an RFC at Talk:Pit bull concerning weight of sources for the lede and am requesting outside editors to take a look at the issue. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

[just commented after seeing this] - yes, this could use more attention. It seems strange to me that people are saying a newspaper or magazine article about pit bulls biting people would be more (or equally) reliable to peer reviewed scientific journals... complete with claims that the whole field of veterinary scholarship is biased. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The article "Chaldean Catholics"

User:Ninnyçizzy says that the article Chaldean Catholics must have the introductory phrase "This article is about ethnic Assyrian adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church". I say that the question of whether Chaldean Catholics are "ethnic Assyrian" should be addressed within the article, not imposed as a preliminary prejudged definition. I personally accept that Chaldean Catholics fit into the generally accepted definition of ethnic Assyrians, but I do not exclude from the definition of "Chaldean Catholics" those members of the community who avoid that definition.

Ninnyçizzy sees as inadmissible within the article "Chaldean Catholics" any mention that the term "Assyrian" can also refer to adherents of a particular Church distinct from the Chaldean Catholic Church. He calls any mention of it "redundant and fallacious". I hold that, if this article uses the term "Assyrian" (as it does), it ought to indicate the sense or senses in which it uses it.

There has been no meeting of our minds on the Discussion page. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The dispute seems definitively ended, and this notice may be removed. Bealtainemí (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"School of Advanced Studies"

Discussed article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Advanced_Studies Dispute not resolved on Talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacquelin5624

Diffs: Several points of Controversy (Line 118->), too many to copy paste, which are either lacking citations or containing biased language. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=School_of_Advanced_Studies&type=revision&diff=986484146&oldid=986437377)

The problem: The section under dispute seems to include many sentences without proper citations, citations in the wrong places, or citations which seem to be inaccurate. Moreover, the language used in the section seems to be biased, which is why I suspect the viewpoint is not neutral. I tried to use the Talk page to discuss these missing references. However, the user reverting edits insisted that the citations are accurate. Furthermore, they admitted Conflict of Interest, as well as refused to provide proper citations. They also blame me for having a conflict of interest, though my edits include both sides of the controversy instead of just one; I've suggested a neutral version of the page, whereas the reverting editor insists on keeping a CoI version. Another external opinion is requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelin5624 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Syrian placenames

There are disputes on a number of talk pages of articles about Syrian settlements (including but not limited to Talk:Al-Malikiyah, Talk:Al-Muabbada, Talk:Al-Jawadiyah) over what titles the articles should have. My understanding from Talk:Kobanî#Requested_move_19_December_2019 is that we're obliged to follow WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. the name the place is best known in English-language sources, no matter its official name or how it's known locally. It'd be great to know if this really is the relevant policy, as it is being opposed pretty much everywhere I propose it, usually on the basis that, as these places are part of the Syrian Arab Republic, they ought to be called by their Arabic names, as per Syrian law. As far as I know, Kobanî is the only Syrian settlement that has been moved on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, from its official name of Ayn al-Arab. Konli17 (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: "Of archdukes and princes"

The RfC at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Of_archdukes_and_princes has been lingering at Requests for Closure for quite some time so I have provided a summary non-administrator close. Normally, archived RfC's are unarchived to close but the relevant thread was >89kb so I am posting this notice instead. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should neutral countries and the UN Assembly figure in the lead in Hamas?

There's an RfC taking place at Talk:Hamas#RfC:Should neutral countries and the UN Assembly figure in the lead? regarding the designation of Hamas a "terrorist organization". The RfC was listed in the wrong category (History and Geography rather than Politics, government and law), and I think it would benefit from being mentioned here.

At the core of the RfC are these two question:

1. Whether neutral countries maintaining their neutrality towards a specific entity is WP:NOTABLE enough for a lead.
2. Whether the UN not passing a resolution is WP:NOTABLE enough for a lead, or whether one should consider passed votes and failed votes differently (in other words, whether by rejecting a resolution one automatically adopts the opposite position, or just remains undecided). This is complicated by a technicality associated with that particular vote, which meant that it failed despite gaining a majority.

There are some sourcing issues, as well as misrepresentation of what the resolution draft actually states. More eyes welcome. François Robere (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It is an NPOV issue and the more eyes the merrier but that is all that is needed here, a request for more eyes, there is no need to litigate here what is already being litigated at the rfc.Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

PhD candidate as a reliable source for a denial of Syrian Kurdistan against the views of multiple professors stating otherwise?

At the article Syrian Kurdistan there is currently a dispute going on which we have discussed at the RSN where we were told that due weight be rather an issue of the discussion. So there is me who wants to have included an undoubtedly existence of Syrian Kurdistan, and Amr ibn, who claims there does exists enough doubt about the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan to merit the inclusion of the mention that only "some regional experts" and "many Kurds" refer to the Syrian part of Kurdistan as a Syrian Kurdistan, Rojava or Western Kurdistan. As some people might know, the Kurds were and are fighting against ISIS, (which it defeated in October 2017 in Raqqa), and Turkey specifically waged and wages a war against the Kurds in Syria. Then the Kurdish population was divided into the countries Syria, Turkey and Iraq following the partition of the Ottoman Empire. So Kurds are really present in Syria and the areas of Syrian Kurdistan are adjacent to the other parts of Kurdistan. This is WP:commonsense. But Amr Ibn denies the (by scholars undoubted) existence of a Syrian Part of Kurdistan and brings Mustapha Hamza, a PhD candidate with no Wikipedia article as a reliable source against multiple well known scholars and professors (most with an own Wikipedia entry) on the topic and wants to have mentioned that only "some regional experts" and "many Kurds" call it Syrian Kurdistan, Rojava or Western Kurdistan. He brought books of McDowall (well respected scholar on Kurds who sure mentions a Kurdish population in Syria and Denise Natali, who also accepts the existence of Kurds in Syria). As to me, there doesn't exist an expert on Kurds in Syria that denies the fact of a Syrian part of Kurdistan adjacent to the other parts of Kurdistan as it is also stated and depicted in the Kurdistan article on Wikipedia. Here you can read the discussion at the RSN and here our discussion at the article talk page. My demand is that commonsense and the view of multiple respected scholars are the views presented in the lead and the doubt is removed.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You fail to make distinction between presence of Kurds in Syria (just like in any other country) and Syrian Kurdistan. Respected maps and books have not shown the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan, although they still talk about Kurdish communities. PKK/PYD portal have started this rhetoric of a "Syrian kurdistan" during the Syrian civil war and the control of large swaths in northern Syria by PYD militias. See the differing maps for this area corresponding to the military control of YPG militias.

Furthermore, this article is not unique in saying "Syrian Kurdistan" is a nationalist Kurdish invention. Below are some books talking about Kurdistan without any mention of a "Syrian Kurdistan":

• Book chapter by Kaya and Lowe
• David McDowall, 1997. A Modern History of the Kurds
• Denise Natali, 2005. The Kurds and the State: Evolving National Identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran.
• Edgar O'Ballance, 2004. The Kurdish Struggle.

Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, there was a long discussion involving many users (not just me) on the Talk page before adopting the text ""some regional experts" and "many Kurds" refer ". Also, the Treaty of Sevres map (1920), which is used as the foundation for all Kurdistan statehood claims does not even touch the Syrian border, this latter became even farther south with the Treaty of Ankara (1921). One more, thing, as you know, a peer-reviewed article is by definition a reputable source, whether the author is a PhD scholar or a full professor. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there you see how Amr Ibn argues, he defends a source by a Phd candidate against numerable well known and really very often cited Professors on the topic.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is one more reference (page 1) from the prestigious International Crisis Group. I quote: The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this was after they captured the territory from ISIS. And yes they wanted to rule themselves instead of being ruled by Assad, who is widely viewed to be a hereditary dictator who defends the prohibition of the Kurdish culture. Still, the PYD/SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces)) is/are a legit and firm defender of the Syrian territorial integrity, as they are the main force against the Turkish invaders. It will be interesting to know, if Wikipedia has the POV of Assad and ISIS or of a democracy which allows all nations to live their culture.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am glad you are exposing your POV-pushing agenda and opinionated nature of edits for admins here to judge. I am sure you think yourself on a propaganda website, not WP. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd be glad, too if an admin would look into the dispute. Just to clarify also to you. I am referring to the Point-of-View of Assad and ISIS who's views of terror and autoritarian non-democratic government are not really well seen in the academic world, and the Point-of-View of a democracy governing in the Autonomous Administration of North East Syria who's valors and policies can be found in the vast majority of the movements and parties of the academic society. I'd say it is commonsense pushing what I do. There exists a part of Kurdistan in Syria and this is commonsense.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's also ironic that someone with your POV pushing history and refusal of arbitration results and ban log opens a claim here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comments 1.) If either editor in this dispute wants administrator action this is the wrong place to seek it. 2.) What is the actual dispute here? All nations are, by definition, nationalist … inventions, so what's the issue at hand? A map is not a territory: the area called Syrian Kurdistan certainly exists. It's not deniable that conflicts exist as to whether this is Kurdish Syria or Syrian Kurdistan, so what's the dispute here? GPinkerton (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment @Paradise Chronicle:, @عمرو بن كلثوم: when you bring these topics to any outside page, you need to summarize first by putting bullet points, diffs and things like that. You should also attempt to bring it first in a neutral wording. Then you can dispute it as much as you want. So I'll try to summarize.

This seems to began with the wish to remove "many Kurds and some regional experts" in the sentence "regarded by many Kurds and some regional experts as one of the four parts of Kurdistan" Paradise Chronicle is of the opinion that this is an undisputed fact and therefore we can remove "many Kurds and some regional experts" Amr ibn Kulthoum then responded with a number of links, which I suppose oppose the undisputed fact. After a small amount of back and forth, they brought their concerns to WP:RSN. In that conversation, ElKevbo concluded that the books bought were likely reliable sources, but they had concerns over WP:UNDUE. Then, they brought the conversation here, where they returned to back and forth before other editors commented.

My Concerns:

@Paradise Chronicle: typically WP:COMMONSENSE is not viewed as a concrete argument, more as a "I believe my edit was common sense" but it is not something which you can repeat over and over, because if there is a lot of opposition clearly it isn't viewed as common sense.

@عمرو بن كلثوم: I share ElKevbo's concerns about putting too much weight on this idea. Admittedly, I have absolutely no knowledge in this issue. Presently, Paradise Chronicle hasn't brought any evidence which shows WP:UNDUE applies here. If one of you two can find sources like AP, Reuters, BBC etc using/not using Syrian Kurdistan, then that will most likely settle the debate since they follow similar policies as we do.

Both: This is not the avenue that should've been followed. The RSN was fine as it was requesting the correctness of a source, but this is quite clearly an attempt to win a debate, not attempting to reach a neutral point of view. Dispute Resolution, RfC or asking an admin to attempt to mediate would've been much better. Also, both of you are not presently attempting to reach a consensus. Wikipedia isn't about winning, but finding solutions that both follow our policies, maintain an encyclopedic tone and having broad consensus among editors. I suggest requesting mediation. I'm also going to request for the article to be protected to stop the high amounts of edit warring. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 13:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

There is one paper of a nobody (I can't find anything on him on the internet) who even supports the cultural right of the Kurds in Syria. If you google Mustapha Hamza he is either a medical doctor or scientist who studies noise (yes this exists). Sixula's not very well founded judgement places a no name Phd candidate as an accepted pare for an academic authority (widely and often cited also in other books on the topic) and professor on the topic like Jordi Tejel. Tejel was actually already cited in the article so I didn't think I need to bring this up here again. Reuters was also already cited. I've now added at least three more professors to sort of WP:overkill the phrase with 10 sources of which several are sitting professors or university lecturers and others are well known authorities on the topic. There are David Romano, Thomas Schmiedinger or Michael Gunter and all of them one can google and find them as academics. Less well known academics I do not name here.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: you are putting words in my mouth. I at no point actually made an analysis which stated that certain sources were or were not WP:RS, I simply stated that you had, at that point, given no evidence to show that Syrian Kurdistan existed or to show WP:UNDUE. You have now done that. However, I don't think I emphasized my last point enough; this is not the correct route. You need to seek mediation, ask an a RfC, do something, but this isn't it. If you disagree with my judgement on my summaries or my concerns, that's fine. But please attempt to heed my last point of advice, that this is not the place to do it. Also pinging @ElKevbo: if he wishes to comment on the new sources brought. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 20:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

No thanks; this all seems to be off-topic for this noticeboard. ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: yes, I agree. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 22:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Here a some others sources, all of which use "Syrian Kurdistan" and none of which post dates the Civil War. Some even discuss the definition and usage of the term and its suitability.:

• In the Dispersion. World Zionist Organization, Organization Department, Research Section. 1962.
• Ghassemlou, Abdul Rahman (1965). Kurdistan and the Kurds. Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences.
• Chaliand, Gérard, ed. (1993) [1978]. Les Kurdes et le Kurdistan [A People Without a Country: The Kurds and Kurdistan]. Translated by Pallis, Michael. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-194-5.
• Bruinessen, Martin van (1978). Agha, Shaikh and State: On the Social and Political Organization of Kurdistan. University of Utrecht.
• Gotlieb, Yosef (1982). Self-determination in the Middle East. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-03-062408-7.
• Bruinessen, Martin Van (1992). Agha, Shaikh, and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-018-4.
• Izady, Mehrdad R. (1992). The Kurds: A Concise Handbook. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-8448-1727-9.
• Kreyenbroek, Philip G.; Allison, Christine (1996). Kurdish Culture and Identity. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-329-1.
• Bulloch, John; Morris, Harvey (1992). No Friends But the Mountains: The Tragic History of the Kurds. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-508075-9.
• Mirawdeli, Kamal M. (1993). Kurdistan: Toward a Cultural-historical Definition. Badlisy Center for Kurdish Studies.
• Jaff, Akram (1993). Economic Development in Kurdistan. Badlisy Center for Kurdish Studies.
• Gotlieb, Yosef (1995). Development, Environment, and Global Dysfunction: Toward Sustainable Recovery. Delray Beach, FL: St Lucie Press. ISBN 978-1-57444-012-6.
• Meho, Lokman I., ed. (1997). The Kurds and Kurdistan: A Selective and Annotated Bibliography. Westport, CN and London: Greewood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-30397-5.
• Berberoglu, Berch (1999). Turmoil in the Middle East: Imperialism, War, and Political Instability. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-4412-2.

This is a common name and need not be attributed or equivocated. GPinkerton (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Ok, this is great. I support GPinkerton in his conclusion. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work GPinkerton. Thank you for your patience, Sixula.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I stopped watching this noticeboard after the first comment of Sixula telling us this is not the right place for this debate, so I didn't see Pinkerton jump in and make conclusions for everybody, and then run to the admin noticeboard to report me as if I am the one starting an edit war and refusing to compromise. Obviously, they did not bother to visit the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page to see what's going on. I provided the all-important Treaty of Sevres map above, and a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan". This issue is really too long to explain here, so I would rather have people visit the Talk page mentioned above. In brief, two or three users are trying to show this as an entity that has long existed and three other users do not agree with that, and argue that this term was produced by Kurdish nationalists. On a quick factcheck, it is interesting that none of the links provided above by Paradise has "Syrian Kurdistan" in the name. We are not arguing about the presence of a Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria. One last thing, I just visited one of the links provided above by Paradise and could not even find Syria in there. There is Iran, Iraq and Turkey. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

POV edits by Francis Schonken on Murder of Samuel Paty

Having reached a deadlock with the user in question on the relevant talk page, as you can see here and here, I'd like to report the chief editor's persistent manipulation of content. It started with him refusing to qualify Charlie Hebdo cartoons as controversial/inflammatory, as I managed to include here after a lot of hit-and-run. Given that we already shouldn't include both drawings in the article as per WP:GRATUITOUS and that we should instead approximate their content in the prose, it appears accurate and objective for him to describe the drawings as merely cartoons depicting Muhammad, instead of the more contextual controversial cartoons mocking/ridiculing Muhammad. Please see the sources provided there, considering both their reliability and relevancy. Since we were on the verge of an edit war, for which he posted a warning on my talk page, I refrained from further editing the page. As I was in the process of filing an RfC, then, he suggested resolving the matter by making some fune-tuning to address the opposite view. A few days later, however, he decided the cartoons shouldn't even be described as a motive for the crime, which makes me question why they still appear on the article then. According to him, as once mentioned in the discussions above, encyclopedic content is only one that can be found verbatim in the references (i.e. semantic meaning). Any pragmatic meaning inferred by another editor with an opposing stance to his is labeled original research. Thus, the word "motive" must be explicitly mentioned in the sources, even though the source says, for example, Blood has been spilled before in France over satire targeting Islam. Another example of arbitrary manipulation can be found here, where he thought clearly, solely a proof by assertion, is enough ground to undermine consensus as put in WP:RSPSOURCES. I tried to trace his claims and found no evidence for the allegations whatsoever. Assem Khidhr (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's an alternative overview to Francis's somehow twisted account below:

1. 20:20, 23 October 2020: Assem Khidhr introduces "defamatorily" in the article
   • 22:14, 23 October 2020: reverted by Passant67
2. 11:03, 24 October 2020: Assem Khidhr re-introduces the same word
   • 11:11, 24 October 2020: rephrased by Passant67
   • 11:14, 24 October 2020: rephrasing removed by Francis Schonken
3. 14:13, 24 October 2020‎: Assem Khidhr starts a discussion on "defamtorily"
4. 17:43, 25 October 2020: Discussion reaches an impasse
5. 10:54, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr introduces "inflammatory" in lead section
   • 11:57, 30 October 2020: reverted by Francis Schonken
6. 11:57, 30 October 2020: Francis Schonken starts a discussion on UNAOC (the source provided in #5)
7. 12:54, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr reintroduces "inflammatory" in lead section with another source
   • 13:05, 30 October 2020: reverted by WWGB on grounds of a dubious source
8. 14:22, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr re-reintroduces "inflammatory" in lead section with new sources and quotes
   • 14:27, 30 October 2020: reverted again by Francis Schonken on grounds of lead unworthiness and POV.
9. 10:47, 4 November 2020: Francis Schonken removes "motive" from lead section
10. 10:40, 5 November 2020: Francis Schonken removes Aljazaeera source based on OR

Assem Khidhr (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Overview:

1. 20:20, 23 October 2020: Assem Khidhr introduces "defamatorily" in the article
   • 22:14, 23 October 2020: reverted by Passant67
2. 11:03, 24 October 2020: Assem Khidhr re-introduces the same word
   • 11:11, 24 October 2020: rephrased by Passant67
   • 11:14, 24 October 2020: rephrasing removed by Francis Schonken
3. 10:54, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr introduces "inflammatory" in lead section
   • 11:57, 30 October 2020: reverted by Francis Schonken
4. 12:54, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr reintroduces "inflammatory" in lead section
   • 13:05, 30 October 2020: reverted by WWGB
5. 14:22, 30 October 2020: Assem Khidhr re-reintroduces "inflammatory" in lead section
   • 14:27, 30 October 2020: reverted again by Francis Schonken.

For the related talk page discussions:

1. Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty/Archive 1#Nature of the depiction: Assem Khidhr unable to convince Francis Schonken and Passant67
2. Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty#UNAOC: Assem Khidhr unable to convince Francis Schonken and 1Kwords

Vice regent participated in both talk page discussions, taking, afaics from their relatively short intervertions, somewhat of a middle position. But if you'd like to see that as support for Assem Khidhr's approach, feel free to do so.

I think Assem Khidhr would do well to understand that on this point there are more editors to convince than me. Assem Khidhr was, in mainspace, reverted by three different editors. In talk page discussions there were three editors unconvinced by Assem Khidhr's rationale. Coming to this noticeboard seems rather like clasping at last straws, than a serious attempt at convincing anyone who starts from a different approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Only chipping in to say that Francis Schonken's assessment of my position is one that I agree with. Also I diagree with Khidr's edits to add inflammatory/etc as a qualifier. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We cannot say in wikivoice that something is "controversial/inflammatory" unless that opinion is universal, as that would be a breach of NPOV. We can only say that "X found the material to be controversial/inflammatory". WWGB (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This. Its clear that sources are presenting that the person in question found the cartoons inflammatory, hence their reaction, but we cannot say in wikivoice that the cartoons to be inflammatory. --Masem (t) 03:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Omission of the discussions timeline and the subjective wording impose an interpretation on a supposedly descriptive account of the events. For example, how would we know which interlocutor is unable to convince the other? It could be me failing to convince you or the other way around. To avoid redundancy, I'm inserting notes for a more disinterested version, lest a strike be taken as disruptive. Further, with the article subject being a typical flamewar, we'd expect some degree of a naturally arising factionalism that well explains why my contention seemed like a heterodox position. As evidence for this, see e.g. the discussion here, where 1kwords and Passant67 suggest there's systemic bias for Islam in enWP. Assem Khidhr (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Assem Khidhr: please see WP:TPG – don't modify someone else's talk page comments. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: You bet! I moved my annotated version to my own comment and left yours as was. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the added details, you continued to add the term "inflammatory" in wikivoice, when it clear that was a problem. --Masem (t) 03:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, being universal isn't required for inclusion on Wikipedia. In this case, we'd hardly have anything left on the site. Wikipedia is concerned with reliable sources. If the shape of earth is reported to be round in reliable sources, then we don't require flat earthers' assent to achieve universality. We speak of roundness in Wikivoice and still deliver flat earthers' theory as an assertion. Not to fall in a slippery slope, when an event evokes controversy that can be verified in sources deemed neutral, then they are controversial in Wikivoice. Again, being controversial isn't per se a negative description, it just reflects people's reactions. When these reactions are notable enough, they can be verified and hence be objectively reported. Assem Khidhr (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Calling a situation controversial in wikivoice by judging what's going on in reliable sources (recognizing there is a mix of opinions on a topic), is different from trying to assess the nature of some cartoons to call them inflammatory in Wikivoice, which is something we cannot do because that requires Wikipedia to take an opinion on the actual pictures. --Masem (t) 04:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

If enough people find something inflammatory, then can't we call that thing "controversial" in wikivoice? The very definition of the word "controversial" indicates that significant people disapprove of it.VR _talk 19:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the read I'm getting from the article, is that at the point where "inflammatory" was being added, the nature of the cartoons was not clear (after the fact they might be), and only the person in question was considering the cartoons inflammatory as to take action. In a post-analysis of the situations, we could describe the cartoons were considered controversial in Wikivoice, but not at the specific point they wanted to be introduced. --Masem (t) 19:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad someone's starting to see an impartial picture. Here's some extra evidence of controversy that I partly mentioned on different occasions during the discussions, noting that the cartoons date back to 2012, which is more than enough to objectively assess the situation and have a neutral say at the time of my edits:

1. French ex-Foreign minister Laurent Fabius described the same cartoons as pouring oil on the fire.
2. French ex-president Jacques Chirac condemned the magazine's decision to republish previous cartoons of Muhammad and described it as overt provocations.
3. American ex-president Barack Obama commented on the same cartoons: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam".
4. Charlie Hebdo was banned before in France for disparaging the death of General de Gaulle, a national symbol (note the Times article being titled The Provocative History of French Weekly Newspaper Charlie Hebdo)
5. Well-aware of WP:POINTy behavior, I'll refer to these examples only to show how often such qualifier was judged compatible with Wiki policies by other contributors in the community, some of which are pretty apt, judging by the articles assessments:
   • See the description of a white-supremacist cartoon as inflammatory in the Class B article Lynching in the United States
   • Class C Charlie Hebdo lead section reads:

     The magazine has been the target of three terrorist attacks: in 2011, 2015, and 2020. All of them were presumed to be in response to a number of cartoons that it published controversially depicting Muhammad.

   • In a reference to previous Danish cartoons, Class C The Cartoons that Shook the World lead section reads:

     The book itself caused controversy before its publication when Yale University Press removed all images from the book, including the controversial cartoons themselves and some other images of Muhammad

6. In 18:59, 2 November 2020: 1kwords admitted that it's fair to say the cartoons didn't merely depict (as stated now on the article), but rather ridiculed. He said:

   Instead the showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons ridiculing prophet Muhammad which Muslims find blasphemous would be a more appropriate phrasing.

Assem Khidhr (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• The only POV edits I see are the ones trying to label as inflammatory some perfectly ordinary cartoons. The only thing deserving of the term inflammatory in this case was the Muslim responses from the parent, the imam, and the numerous propaganda outlets and world "leaders" who have decided to burnish their Islamist credentials by calling for Macron's head, a boycott of France, and so on, just as they did when the self-same cartoons were in the news the last time an extremist decided they were "inflammatory" and killed numerous people to prove their piety. GPinkerton (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Showing pornographic cartoons to minors is certainly inflammatory, wouldn't you agree? In some jurisdictions it would also be criminal. VR _talk 19:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What editors think of images is completely irrelevant per WP:NOTFORUM. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: What relevance would that have? No-one is suggesting showing pornography to children - why would you even mention it? ... GPinkerton (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Assem Khidhr: The fact that Islamists have killed before because of the same drawings (and other drawings) does not make the practice of drawing controversial or inflammatory. It makes Islamism controversial and inflammatory and it makes Islamists tragically inflammed. Provactive action is all theirs. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Assem Khidhr: Reuters France has allowed displays of the cartoons, which are considered blasphemous by Muslims. In some Muslim countries, politicians and other figures have made rhetorical attacks on French leaders, accusing them of being anti-Islam and calling for a boycott of French products. ergo, Reuters doesn't write that the cartoons themselves are controversial, but that Muslims find them blasphemous. A Thousand Words (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, much less absence of evidence in a single quote from a single source. Assem Khidhr (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is your evidence? This is going nowhere. GPinkerton (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Religious views of Adolf Hitler

User:Hardyplants is removing stable, relevant and well-sourced content from the article because they hold the opinion that Hitler committed the holocaust solely because of "science" (as they have argued in edit summaries). This is against what the source (who happens to be a christian historian) says. - Daveout(talk) 22:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)