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

Request for comments on criticism and controversies section

Transluded from SpaceX Starship's talk page:

Should the criticism and controversies section be integrated to the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Why not just write it as prose in the body?Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

There are times when a reader might want to - for whatever reason - know specifically about the criticisms and controversies about a subject, and might not wish to read the entire article to find that info buried throughout the text. I find it useful to have stuff like that separate; some think it violates neutrality, but readers should not be forced to read either accolades or criticism if they don't want to. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6033:FF4F:6CE5:7BA8 (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure this is a valid reason, we are not many things and one of those is a gutter press scandal rag.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Who said anything admit gutter press scandal rag? We shouldn't be including gutter press scandal content in articles at all. Having criticism separated into a section, that would otherwise be in the article but within the rest of the article text, doesn't turn us into a tabloid - it's all the exact same content, just organised differently. Also, to clarify, I was only talking about scholarly criticism on academic subjects...I would agree that for most BLPs having a section tempting drive by muckrakers to fill up with trashy scandalous gossip would not be wise. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6033:FF4F:6CE5:7BA8 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This essay might be useful: Wikipedia:Criticism Cinadon36 16:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, how do we get a feeling of how well vetted a particular essay is? Anyone can create an essay and it's not a guideline, although I know some policies and guidelines make references to essays. Graywalls (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

unattributed claim of a terror attack

At 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, an article on a Palestinian stabbing to death an armed Israeli settler in the West Bank, the unattributed view that this was a terror attack is offered in Wikipedia's voice. The justification for inclusion is a number of Israeli news sources (Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Ynet) called it a terror attack. The reason others (waves hand) have offered to remove it is that third party uninvolved sources such as the BBC, AP, Financial Times do not use that language in their own voice, and in the case of the AP explicitly attributes it to an Israeli police spokesperson. WP:WTA seems pretty clear to me, but an editor has claimed that an RFC is needed to show that there is not consensus for the inclusion of this value laden label in Wikipedia's voice, and that's just silly so here I am. Should Wikipedia call something a terrorist attack when sources outside of the area of conflict do not do so? nableezy - 21:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You cannot describe it as "unattributed" when as you point out a bunch of RS, in their own voice, call the attack a "terror attack". And I don't know what you're reading into WP:WTA, but here's what it says about words like "terrorist": ...best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

That bar has been met. And I have never seen anything in regards to inclusion be based upon whether or not a RS happens to be within a conflict zone! -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I point out that RS also do not use that term in their voice, making the usage decidedly not "widely used". Israeli press calls all Palestinian violence terrorism, that and other shocking developments at 11. And yes, without attribution in our article it is unattributed. Im not sure if youre using words in some way besides their definition, but that is what "unattributed" means. And what WTA says is, even if widely used, use in-text attribution. nableezy - 21:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The group that "took responsibility" for the attack is an internationally-designated terrorist organization. But it wasn't conclusive that they were behind it. But if we accept the conclusion that that group was behind it, then would it not be a terrorist attack? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That would be a judgment best left to others to make, not Wikipedia. The African National Congress was once an internationally-designated terrorist organization. I dont personally think attacking an armed participant in a war crime is best described as a "terror attack", but I acknowledge that others do see it that way, which is why I think attributing "terror attack" to the Israeli police as the [AP does would be the best way for us to go. And not just accepting one "sides" POV as though it were unimpeachable fact. nableezy - 21:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree and I would support removal or attribution to the source, rather than Wiki's voice. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

In general, we should be avoiding these "absolute" motives (like terrorism, murder, assassination) until we have a firm statement from the investigative body responsible for that event (police, etc.) and avoid using RSes' own assessments of these terms. We often jump too fast to label these with these extreme terms that are guestimates by people that do not have the position of expertise to make that determination. --Masem (t) 21:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The investigative body responsible for that event (Israeli Police) have said it was a terrorist attack. Inf-in MD (talk)

Assuming that nableezy is right about only Israeli media using the label, we should absolutely not use it in wiki-voice. We can't rightfully say a label is "widely used by reliable sources" when only media outlets affiliated with one side of a conflict use the value-laden label. Firefangledfeathers 21:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I have not done an exhaustive search, the ones offered for the label are all Israeli news orgs (RS all of them no doubt, but certainly have a partisan tint), and the ones Ive seen from outside of Israel that picked up this story have not. There may well be others that do use the label, but the major international news sources dont seem to. nableezy - 21:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I would say my view here is susceptible to a showing that independent RS are using the term in their own voice. Even then, I think the way it's currently used in the article is untenable. A redirect link to Palestinian terror, which targets Palestinian political violence is ... not great. When specifically referring to the perpretrator of the attack, I would be greatly surprised to learn that independent RS refer to him as simply "the terrorist" as the current version of the article does. Firefangledfeathers 22:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:The Jerusalem Post is considered both independent and reliable. They said this:

"Israeli man killed in West Bank terror attack ... stabbed to death in a terror attack ... The Palestinian terrorist, Salam Azal..."'[1]

But at this point, I'm personally fine with adjusting the article so "terror attack" in the lead isn't in wikipedia's voice. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I could have been more clear: I meant 'independent' here as in 'not affiliated with one side of the conflict'. Firefangledfeathers 03:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A misleading presentation of the way the term is used. Non-Israeli, independent and reliable sources describe it a "terrorism", e.g - Mickolus, Edward (2016-08-08). Terrorism, 2013-2015: A Worldwide Chronology. McFarland. ISBN 9781476664378, and the OP knows this because it is (a) used as a reference in the article, and (b) discussed on the talk page. There are many others- Evyatar Borowski, 14, who was killed in a terrorist attack at Tapuach Junction in 2013.; Terror Stabbing Victim Laid to Rest, etc... If the redirect link is a problem, we can remove it Inf-in MD (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Neither of those websites are reliable sources, and one book with a brief mention does not make the term widely used. And it is beyond silly to claim I know what every single source in an article says, nearly as silly as claiming that it is widely used when you start citing websites that describe its own views as coming "from a pro-American, pro-Israel perspective". nableezy - 23:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Both of them are reliable sources, the Jewish Voice is a reputable weekly newspaper, as is the Jewish Press. Having a pro-American, pro-Israeli perspective does not make something unreliable, nor does it make it Israeli. The book source highlighted was mentioned several times in a discussion on the talk page that you participated in, and in the AfD of the article you participated in. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The question is, is the pro-Israeli perspective the neutral point of view for the article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The claim I was addressing was that these are not reliable sources. Do you agree that they are? Inf-in MD (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliability =/= Neutral point of view, we both know that. If international outlets are attributing the terrorist aspect, then that's likely to be the NPOV as well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop deflecting - are these reliable sources? Are they "international" outlets (i.e non-Israeli) ? If yes, we can address how to best achieve a NPOV on the article. Sources don't have to be neutral, articles do. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

If there's deflecting happening here, it's not Hemiauchenia. I agree with the point: this is not a question of reliability, and it's a good thing we're here at NPOVN. Firefangledfeathers 03:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)]

Please read the comments by Nableezy, which are repeatedly about reliability. 14:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The Jewish Press promoted an empty book titled A History of the Palestinian People on Amazon, until it was removed as a racist tripe, and bragged about doing so (here). A publisher pushing racist tripe and goading others in to doing so alongside is your idea of a reliable source? The Jewish Voice may be reliable for local news among the Sephardic community in Brooklyn, but no it is not a reliable source for violence in the West Bank. nableezy - 03:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The JP published as satirical review of a satirical book (and tagged it as satire). Some may have found the satire offensive, but this is not in any way a reflection on its news reporting reliability. Th policy on reliable sources does not limit a paper's reliability to the neighborhood where its headquarters are located . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inf-in MD (talk • contribs)

No, that was their news desk. See where it says "By Jewish Press News Desk". Very publicly pushing racist propaganda. And of course the headquarters are not relevant lol, but a small local paper focused on the Sephardic community of Brooklyn is not reliable for material on acts of violence in the West Bank. nableezy - 18:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely essential that we don't adopt the language of one side of a conflict. This is pretty basic NPOV territory. In Israel, it is commonplace for everyone from a kid throwing a stone to a regular soldier of an enemy country to be called a "terrorist". We can use it with attribution, but it is not a neutral term. As pointed out, reliability is irrelevant; this is not an issue of fact but an issue of label. Using "terrorist" without attribution would be the same as using "shahid" (martyr) without attribution. Zero^talk 04:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The comments of User:Zero0000 are especially apt here. Nableezy demonstrates above that neutral international sources do not use the term terror attack, therefore we shouldn't either. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Opening paragraph of Gary Glitter article

There is an active disagreement as to how the opening sentence (and opening paragraph) of the Gary Glitter article should read - the discussion is at Talk:Gary Glitter#Page Emphasis. For context, Gary Glitter was formerly a highly successful musician in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s. From the late 90s to the present day he has been convicted of various sexual offences involving children in both the UK and Vietnam, and is currently imprisoned in the UK for a lengthy prison term. He is therefore one of the most infamous people in the UK today.

My concern about the article is that I feel the opening paragraph places undue weight on his prominence as a musician by burying the lead on his current fame as a convicted sex offender, which is primarily what he is known for in the present day. Absolutely no mention of this is made until the fourth sentence of the article, which has the effect of making his convictions appear to be of secondary importance. My issues with this are:

1. It places undue weight on his fame as a musician, given that secondary details about his musical achievements are mentioned before his sex offences are referred to at all.
2. It also puts the casual reader at risk of missing it, given the numerous and repetitive achievements listed in the second and third sentences. Someone who is just trying to get the gist of who he is may stop reading before reaching the fourth sentence. (I know that I sometimes read articles like that if I just want to find out why someone is notable ASAP when reading something else, as I'm unlikely to care about a slew of career highlights in that situation.)
3. Without preface, the mention of Glitter as a sex offender is missed from Google results containing the article (given they only show around 20 words).

I would propose changing the first sentence to describe Glitter as a "former glam rock singer and convicted sex offender" (or the other way around), in the same fashion as Ian Watkins. This allows the reader to anticipate the elaboration in the fourth sentence, and prevents the (somewhat lengthy) detail on Glitter's achievements from obscuring his current status.

However, there has been pushback against this on the basis that he is only notable as a sex offender because of his notability as a musician. My response to this is that notability is not assessed chronologically but by degree, and no sources since around 2006 have shown any interest in anything other than Glitter's fame for his sex offences. We are past the point of recentism being an issue. I should also note that the reason he is a famous sex offender is because he was already a famous person, and has nothing to do with why he was a famous person. It is therefore incorrect to say that his fame for sexual offences is secondary to his fame as a musician, as knowledge of both is necessary to get a full picture of why he is famous today.
—Theknightwho (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it should probably open something like "Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944),[3] known professionally as Gary Glitter, is an English former glam rock singer and convicted sex offender who...." In line with our other articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Which other articles did you have in mind? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not Jimmy Saville then, who wasn't convicted and whose abusive nature doesn't appear in the google search thingy in exactly the same way as Gadds doesn't. -Roxy the dog. wooF 20:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Ian Watkins is an example. Theknightwho (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Why do only "sources since around 2006" dictate the order of content in the first sentence. That's just another form of "recentism", isn't it? I'm also not sure that Glitter and Ian Watkins are very comparable (and I'm not sure that's really because I'm a raving glam-rock fan). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein, James Hydrick, and many others, see [2]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

How many UK top ten hits did Terapon Adhahn have in the 1970s?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that Glitter wasn't a signficant musical figure, but he's about as notable for his sex offences as his musical work now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 That is a misleading example. Most people on the list of search results are only famous sexual offenders because of their prior fame for something else, but for most of them their current notoriety is proportionate to their pre-existing fame. In other words: the fact that Glitter was already very famous means he is particularly notable for being a paedophile. This is the point I was making when I said that it's to do with the fact that he was already famous at all and not why he was already famous. Theknightwho (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to ping me. I do actually have this page on my watchlist, thanks. My point was that different people may be proportionately notable, in different ways, for different reasons. I realise that Wikipedia generally tends to assume a dichotomy of "notable or not". Most people will not first become notable for being sex offenders. If they do, they are unlikely to be also notable later for anything else. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies - it was to make it clear I was directing my response at you without forking the discussion. I have actually addressed this point in my previous reply, though. Barring anything particularly notable about their crimes (e.g. Epstein), fame as a sex offender correlates 1:1 with their pre-existing fame, given that public interest in their sexual offences will obviously correlate with how much interest people had in them in the first place. This is why Gary Glitter is a lot more famous for being a paedophile than Tesfaye Bramble. Theknightwho (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I find that a simple indent usually does just fine. No forking required. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

"Oh no, Larry, that glam-rock Gary can't be the one I'm searching for. I'm after Vietnam peado Gary..." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm talking about people who don't know who he is but might Google him because his name came up somewhere. Come on. Play nice. Theknightwho (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the best example - a better example is when the article comes up in searches for things other than "Gary Glitter". Theknightwho (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

How Wikipedia articles appear in Google search results is pretty irrelevant. This is a red herring as WP:LEAD is what matters. I'm open to tweaking the opening paragraph, but saying "he is a sex offender" in the opening sentence is unnecessary. Do credit the reader with an attention span longer than a goldfish.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to take out some of the detail that is now in the opening paragraph, to leave a shorter paragraph such as:

Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944), known professionally as Gary Glitter, is an English former glam rock singer who achieved considerable chart success in the 1970s and 1980s. Known for his extreme glam image and his energetic live performances, his career ended after he was imprisoned for downloading child pornography in 1999, and child sexual abuse and attempted rape in 2006 and 2015.

The details about his singles chart hits, the critic's comments and the reference to TOTP should then be added in to the second and third paragraphs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

No objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Also agree with Ghmyrtle. This tightens up the opening paragraph and does not hide or downplay the sex offence convictions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it would be an improvement, but I don't see what the objection to calling him a sex offender in the opening paragraph is - particularly when it is laid out that way in so many other articles. His notability today (not his notability in the 1980s) comes from both, and the average person (that knows who he is) would describe him by saying that he's a singer that got done for being a paedophile. Both facets of who he is are intrinsic to that. Theknightwho (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Except we don't label him in that way, in the entire article. You don't "get done for being a paedophile" (which is a psychosexual diagnosis), you get done for "having sex with children" (which is usually illegal). The only mention of the p-word is: "In an interview with BBC News in May 2006, Glitter denied that he was a paedophile, and claimed not to have knowingly had sex with anyone under 18." Come on. Play nice. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Which addresses absolutely none of what I said, as I was obviously speaking informally. Have you got a response to the substantive point? Theknightwho (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, this "average person (that knows who he is)" is obviously a very useful source. I guess we ought to run all Wikipedia article lead sections by him, just to check they sound ok? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Collectively, they're a very useful source for establishing notability, yes. What's your point? Theknightwho (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia. We're more interested in what the reasons for his notability will be in 50 years, or 200 years, time - not in what the media today decide will help sell copies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

So you're arguing it's simply not notable enough, despite him being universally described that way in the media? Theknightwho (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes - "the media" are short term, largely profit-oriented, and essentially ephemeral. We try not to be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, but on what basis is his status as a sex offender ephemeral in a way that his status as a former glam rock star is not? I could understand if it were just the 1999 child pornography convictions, but it is a sustained and repeated facet of who he is that occurred over a long period in multiple places, that - after the 2015 convictions - are known to have occurred during his musical career. Theknightwho (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

He's "universally described in the media" as just a sex offender, yes? That's quite a strong claim. What's your time frame here: the last week? the past year? or, somewhat arbitrarily, "since around 2006"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not say that, as I previously stated that "It is therefore incorrect to say that his fame for sexual offences is secondary to his fame as a musician, as knowledge of both is necessary to get a full picture of why he is famous today." I have no idea why that is being construed as me saying his convictions are more notable. Could you also please state what recentism issues you think are likely to arise here? Theknightwho (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

So, is he is "universally described in the media" as a) a sex offender, b) a sex offender and former musician, c) something else? Am also still keen to get clarification on your use of the present tense. I guess we could move onto actual evidence for your claim after that. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

He is universally described in media today as either a sex offender or a former musician and sex offender, and not a single article that I can find omits to mention it. To be honest, you've yet to actually state what your objection to my proposed amendment is here. Theknightwho (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said here yesterday, "I think it's fair that his musical achievements come first, as that is the correct chronological sequence. ... We ought assume that most readers are capable of reading an entire single paragraph, rather than trying to snatch at a headline in the first sentence." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

And, as I said here yesterday, "you are simply ignoring the plain language used in MOS:FIRSTBIO about the opening sentence", and specifically where it says "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." Chronology is irrelevant to notability, given that both aspects of Glitter's life explain his current notoriety. Plus you clearly do think that readers need to know that he is a "former glam rock singer" from the outset, despite their ability to read as much in the rest of the paragraph, so you're going to need to explain why that is the only thing which should have such prominence, or I assume you agree that that should be removed? Theknightwho (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think the opening sentence needs to mention he's a "former glam rock singer". I don't think that's unreasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

So why, then, not the other equally notable aspect of his life? Theknightwho (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, starting to feel a little weary now. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there any chance of getting some fresh eyes here, rather than the usual suspects repeating the same arguments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah. It's simple. He's known as a glam rocker and a paedo. Put both things in the first sentence and you're golden. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the proposed revision by Ghmyrtle is reasonable. Glitter is notable for two reasons and we shouldn't bury the lead. I think we can trust people to read two sentences in sequence. Compare Kevin Spacey, which is a more complicated example because although his career has (effectively) ended, he hasn't been convicted of any crimes. Mackensen (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is exemplary of the problem nowadays that en masse, we as editors want to call out anything negative about a person or topic in the lede and as early as possible, without recognizing the impact on NPOV's requirement on tone in our writing. Pushing the convictions into the lede sentence and giving it seemingly equal weight creates a clear tone problem. There is no requirement that the lede sentence must include everything why a person is notable, though the lede overall should include all such facets. We don't assume people stop after one sentence of the lede, but instead read the whole thing, so there's no need to push as much as possible into that first sentence. Instead, as has been suggested, the lede probably should have a final paragraph devoted to the convictions, so that the first paragraphs cover why he was far more notable (his musicial career). --Masem (t) 13:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think if anything he's more notable as a high-profile paedophile. As a reasonable rule of thumb for a first sentence, ask yourself the question: using just fifteen words, how would I describe Garry Glitter to somebody who knew nothing about him. The subsequent sentences and paragraphs can unpack that. This sort of progressive "zooming out" is a feature of good lede writing (see Topic sentence), and avoids the potential POV problems of trying to emphasize (or de-emphasize) stuff by its placement. Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think this is fundamentally what is at the heart of the dispute. I find the view that he is “far more notable” for being a musician completely alien. How much of this is down to generational differences in perception, I wonder? Theknightwho (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    • On a side note, Alexbrn, I’ve just spotted your edit summary and snorted into my tea. Theknightwho (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• I think Ghmyrtle’s suggested rewording is excellent. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'd go with Ghmyrtle's suggestion, slightly trimmed as follows : "Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944), known professionally as Gary Glitter, is an English former glam rock singer who achieved chart success in the 1970s and 1980s. His career ended after he was imprisoned for downloading child pornography in 1999, and was subsequently convicted of child sexual abuse and attempted rape in 2006 and 2015." At the time of his first arrest, his musical career was basically over and he was already parodying himself (eg: a bunch of Young Person's Railcard adverts c. 1991 showed Glitter with a caption "nice try") so it's easy to make a clear link between the musical career, which had a finite duration, and the criminal convictions, which are ongoing and creating more enduring coverage. So putting them on equal balance in chronological order, as separate sentences, seems about the right balance to me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I’m happy with this, for the reasons you’ve given. Theknightwho (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've now modified the lead, per what appears to be a consensus here, and Ritchie333's suggested wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed redirect: Race and crime→Race and crime in the United States

A redirect proposal based partially on NPOV concerns is taking place at Talk:Race and crime § Propose redirect to Race and crime in the United States. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

China COVID-19 cover-up allegations

Hi, I just moved China COVID-19 cover-up allegations from its previous title China COVID-19 cover-up. Can someone more experienced assess the neutrality dispute on the article? My specific problem is with the second section that seemingly use original research to conclude cover-up, based on reports that the Chinese government isn't cooperative on certain international investigations into COVID-19's originals.--GeneralBay (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need this as well as COVID-19 misinformation by China? Wikipedia gets more embarrassing every day. Alexbrn (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Eh, we have a COVID-19 misinformation by XXX for dozens of countries. But that China COVID-19 cover-up was the title is a bit shocking. Thank you for moving that GeneralBay. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Anything verifiable at China COVID-19 cover-up allegations should be reproduced at COVID-19 misinformation by China and then the former can be AfD. Sennalen (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Something maybe worth noting is that the closer of the previous merge discussion may lack the necessary experience and did not notice that various oppose !votes were from mostly-leak-promotion accounts... —PaleoNeonate – 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably one to blank and redirect (I'd do it if I could face another round of lab-leak drama from the crazies, which I can't). Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• The page has now been moved back to the non-neutral title by User:RenatUK. I suppose an WP:RM is the next step, but honestly I agree that merging or redirecting may be better than trying to turn this mess into a policy-compliant article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd almost say that moving it back to "allegations" is a proper adminstrative step to abide by NPOV. Nothing on that page has a confirmed (equating to a guilty conviction) of China's cover-up, though the allegations are clearly there, and so as it stands the title is a clear NPOV violation that needs to be dealt with. But I have a feeling an RM is the right step to make sure there's no further questions. --Masem (t) 05:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Concur with Masem. There's no good reason for Wikipedia to be taking a stance as to whether any given country is engaged in a COVID cover-up absent any sort of actual evidence. Especially when so much of the claims surrounding China have emerged as part of the hyperbolic American propaganda offensive against China that recently (yesterday) included calling China, and I quote, "A threat to the solar system". Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Alexbrn:, please don't do that. Last time you tried those WP:DENY tactics, it caused a very serious altercation between ProcrastinatingReader and Barkeep49 [3]. It is fine for you do that with 9/11 truthers who take up time and space arguing about the melting point of steel, but it's not okay for you to cause altercations between senior editors and administrators. I wonder if Barkeep49 even knew what ProcrastinatingReader was saving us junior editors from that time. How many junior editors got banned for violating the misapplication of the MEDRS that nearly forced a change to this perfectly fine policy? Francesco espo (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • How many junior editors got banned ...? ← not enough, by the look of it. WP:CGTW#3 applies. Alexbrn (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReaders "procedural" AfD was an attempt to stitch up any attempt to get the article deleted by deliberately giving a poor deletion rationale that people would obviously vote keep against. Barkeeps complaint was spot on. As for you, you are solely here to push fringe theories, and it would be better for everyone if you stopped editing entirely and stopped wasting peoples time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia:, what would have been the "right rationale" to convince those 80 editors to vote to delete it and why didn't you try that in the five months that the page was blanked? Kindly strike your uncivil comments above as you did with those other comments of yours. Thank you and good night. Francesco espo (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I've opened a move request, see Talk:China_COVID-19_cover-up#Requested_move_8_December_2021. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

María Consuelo Porras

I came across the article because it had a cite error. I've corrected that now, but some of the claims that have been added (in particular by this edit) seem over the top. e.g. "Porras' tenure has been criticized by the left for what they consider a backsliding in the fight against corruption." and "Charges are based on ideological motivation and lack legal basis." (additions in italics). I've added some citation needed tags, but could someone with some idea of Guatemalan politics have a look? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Bias / conflict of interest on topics relating to Hinduism

Arbitrary break #1

It has come to my attention that User:Joshua Jonathan may be acting against NPOV and have a conflict of interest in articles regarding Hinduism, specifically Advaita Vedanta. I have examples of this user being uncomprimising regarding these matters. It worth pointing out this users main interest is Buddhism per his user page [4].

This user seems to think because this user has a understanding of both Buddhism and Hinduism he can make comparative edits, that only seem for example to affect "Hindu" topics. For example, I have had drawn out discussions with this user on the Talk page about Hindu icon Adi Shankara[5], [6][7] after this user blocked this user permanently [8]. After blocking this user, Joshua Jonathan must of thought he could act unimpeded but I was there to address it, which only then it was subsequently changed. This user, for someone that is supposed to be acting in neutrality and in sensitive matters per wiki rules, changed Adi Shankaras religon to "Shaivism"[9] which shows the unawareness and lack of sensivity when dealing with anothers religon. (for the record Adi Shankara is most definitley not a Shaivite.) Almost whenever this user works on a article within the scope of Advaita, the user makes comparions to Buddhism. Its worth noting this user has no interest in promoting articles to GA status[10], so why is this is so invested in topics like these, if not to improve it to wikipedia standard? The reason why I am finally reporting this user is because of the article Advaita Vedanta where this user is acting in a WP:OWN way, against Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and against Wikipedia:Good lede trying to making the lead confusing. This user does good work on other topics, but his lack of senstivity and unawareness makes me think this user is acting in a more meticulous, cunning way. I personally believe this user is a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim by insuating that Advaita and Hinduism by proxy is "influenced" or takes "influence" from Buddhism. Both religons strongly dispute this. What this user will do in rebuttal is confuse with excess amount of information that the user with a problem will be discouraged and dissuaded. This user abuses wikipedia warning templates in almost dogmatic way, making sure this user can act unimpeded. I received my first block (albeit a ban from the Adi Shankara page for a day) and my only goal is to improve wikipedia by elevating article to GA status. This user may be great dealing with ips on other Indian topics like hindu/buddhist empires, but when it comes to religon and philosophy, its hard NOT to see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view being breached. Like I said from the start, this users main interest is Buddhism. JJNito197 (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Forum shopping and you won't get a topic ban against anyone at WP:NPOV/N see this thread at WP:AN/I for discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You are being aggressive. I was advised to come here. JJNito197 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but to bring up matters about content dispute with you and Joshua Jonathan having different opinions, not baseless personal attacks like I personally believe this user is a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim. –Austronesier (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 ETA Forum shopping may have been somewhat unkind as the user was directed here and I should avoid WP:BITE but you should understand you won't get your interlocutor banned here for what he has done - even if you think the edits he made to the article were non-neutral. At this forum you can find people who might have subject expertise to attempt to discuss how to make the article more neutral. I am, myself, far more versed in Buddhism than Hinduism but from what I see the edits made by the Joshua_Jonathan are righteous and well sourced. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: thats my opinion, is that not allowed? Simonm223 If you look at the full paragraph, you can see it clearly. JJNito197 (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not allowed. See WP:NPA. - MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie If it consititues an attack, please remove. It was my opinion. JJNito197 (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I did, in fact, review the diff containing the majority of JJ's edits on the article you linked to. They were a combination of minor edits, changes to wording that improved flow, and explicitly cited changes. In aggregate they represented a mechanical improvement to the article. If there's issues with neutrality I would suggest you'd be well advised to address either specific sources JJ used or specific sources you feel would better represent a neutral article here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, the article is in breach of Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and good lede. The citations do not have text where we can analyse the content, and seems to be excessive. Does or does it not at least LOOK like WP:OWN if the I had a problem with it and others did, but were reverted. Its not about specific edits on that page, I thought that was clear by the fact I wanted administrator attention, not dispute resolution. The way the article stands now is not the problem per se. JJNito197 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it does not look like WP:OWN it just looks like a routine attempt to improve an article. And it does not seem less legible to me examining the difference between them. The problem here is this: you have, as of today, asked on multiple locations to have this editor topic-banned on the basis of, frankly, nothing. In the process you violated WP:NPA. That's a more serious problem than claims of non-neutral editing that you refuse to back up with evidence as it isn't very collegial. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How does it look like an attempt to improve the article if the user has stated that the user has no intentions of elevating the article to GA status.[11] I actually think your help regarding the matter has been cursory, seeing as you have not attempted to address the other points I made. There is a reason I made this, to bring attention to the matter. The fact that this user was banned when he was clearly acting in GOOD Faith is quite sad. He was proactive in many articles.[12] JJNito197 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I am uncertain why you keep bringing up some other editor who pulled a block. WP:OSE is usually used to refer to article content but in this case it applies. The onus on you is to demonstrate that JJ has been disruptive in some way, not to argue that he has been no less disruptive than some other editor who was blocked. And, regardless, you won't succeed in getting anybody blocked at WP:NPOV/N because that's not something this message board is used for. So, again, I'll ask: Do you have any evidence that these edits were non-neutral, that they misrepresented sources or that reliable sources contradicting these edits were removed? Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That user should not have been blocked permenantly thats why, and was reported by Joshua Jonathan. Joshua Jonathan has stated that Joshua doesn't care to bring the article to GA status[13] so 1, why is Joshua reverting edits on that page, making it more confusing. 2. Why is that user oversourcing the article with no added textual reference so we can source the content and confirm the authenticity. 3. Why is Joshua adding dubious Buddhist terminology to explain Hindu oriented topics and 4. Why is WP:OWN'ing the article so others and myself cannot edit the article. JJNito197 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

this is beginning to look like a retaliatory action and lest you pull a WP:BOOMERANG I'd strongly suggest you should drop this line of approach. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You are reading into something thats not there. I'm not particually wiki-comfortable so can you stop wiki-shaming me and address the points I am making. Thanks JJNito197 (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

So here's my concern - I'll be very explicit as I don't want to "wiki-shame" you. You've put up, in multiple places, a request that an editor be topic-banned because of a dispute on this page. Your justification for said editor is a vague gesture toward a technical guideline whose interpretation is very open: Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. When you've been asked for evidence of non-neutral editing you've declined to actually provide it. Meanwhile the edit log shows no indication of edit-warring or disruptive editing. However you've brought up, regularly, that an editor the editor you are in conflict with disagreed with previously ended up blocked and that you feel this was unjust. In aggregate this is not a good look. Now me? I care a lot about academically sourced content - it's something of a pet interest of mine - in addition I'm someone with a lot of background specifically in Buddhism and, from the Buddhism side of this equation, the edits I can see from the editor you are in disagreement with are good edits. Now as I've also mentioned I'm less expert in Hinduism than Buddhism. However that's why I keep asking you for supporting sources. You have yet to provide any. At the very least your requests to have this editor topic-banned are grossly premature and represent a fundamental failure of WP:AGF - a principle of Wikipedia far more important than Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. My advice to you has been to drop the interpersonal conflict angle here which is very likely to backfire on you and to concentrate on constructively improving the article at the heart of this dispute. I'm not going to go around in circles with you any further. I've said my bit. Come back with some evidence that this article has been edited to be non-neutral or drop it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I do appreciate what you wrote and have taken it into consideration. I am only highlighting that user because I was also blocked from that page albeit for a day, also by Joshua Jonathan's report. It is not a "boomerang" issue because I do not particually care about that user as a back and forth issue, but there are edits that for me (and others) that one cannot reconcile just as academic intrigue. Adi Shankara is one of the most esteemed Hindu figures and on the third paragraph there is paragraph that talks about Buddhism. I can't stress how offensive it was to Hindus before we resolved it on talk. There is another example, if we look at Ātman (Jainism), Ātman (Hinduism) and Ātman (Buddhism) they summarise each religon succinctly. However the Ātman (Hinduism) article is the only one that makes comparisons to Buddhism, which was added by Joshua Jonathon. This is not particually a problem, but if I dared TRY and remove that comparison I will no doubt recieve warnings and be shut down. This can understandably leads people to the conclusion that Buddhism topics is not under the same academic scrutinzation as Hindu topics, and thus make people powerless when dealing with certain topics. Like I said I do appreciate this response, but alas I feel that nothing can be done without making a screech and holler like I have done above. This may be an issue site wide, not just Joshua Jonathan. JJNito197 (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I am going to have to point out that by the definition you seem to be trying to employ, you have a COI in the topic area too. I think you need to read wp:rightgreatwrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, I am neither a Hindu nor Buddhist. I am interested in Hindu topics as a wikipedian, thats where it stops. Some userpages obscurate, others don't. JJNito197 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

And there you have what others are saying to you, there is no evidence a COI with the user, as you have suggested, exists. You need more evidence than you have provided (as in some beyond "well I find their edits offensive"). If you do not drop this you might well get a ban, as this is all a bit wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This has changed since Simonm223's advice. It is no longer about Joshua Johnson specifically. Joshua also works on Buddhist topics, so I am not taking everything from the User page. I dont expect him to be banned or anything in particular. Something needs to be brought to the light somewhere or nothing changes. I need to be informed or advised on how we go from here. If one looks at the Adi Shankara talk pages, looks at the Advaita Vedanta talk pages and other things I had mentioned, they can get the gist of the complaint and where it stems from. I assure you I only came here after a period of time, and I didn't come here if I knew something wasn't problematic. JJNito197 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've already responded twice; twice my respons was not published due to the fast Forum-shifting. Quite annoying. But here's the response I intended to give:

Serious? You just mass-reverted my edits throughout the article on Advaita Vedanta diff, including three notes and five or six sources, because you object to this sentence in the lead:

[Brahman], which is self-aware (svayam prakāśa)
[Sources: <ref name="Ganeri"/><ref name="IEP"/>{{sfn|Dasgupta|1975|p=148-149}}{{refn|group=note|name=self-luminous}}<br> pure Awareness or Consciousness.<br>[Sources: </nowiki>

This info is well-sourced and correct - core Advaita tenets - and a summary of sourced info in the article.

Regarding my neutrality, let's ask some other editors: @Kautilya3, Ms Sarah Welch, TrangaBellam, WikiLinuz, Chariotrider555, and Fowler&fowler:. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's quite disruptive that an editor mass-reverts a large amount of edits because they oppose the inclusion of relevant info in the lead, info which describes two core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. Not of Buddhism, But of Advaita Vedanta. To quote Shankara, as quoted repeatedly in Advaita Vedanta:

I am other than name, form and action.
My nature is ever free!
I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.
I am pure Awareness, always non-dual.

— Adi Shankara, Upadesasahasri 11.7, [Source: {{sfn|Comans|2000|p=183}}]

Adi Shankara, 20th verse of Brahmajnanavalimala:
ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या
जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः

Brahman is real, the world is an illusion
Brahman and Jiva are not different.

Brahmajnanavalimala 1.20

References

For "self-luminous," c.q. "self-aware [awareness]", see Advaita Vedanta#Three states of consciousness and Turiya.

In response to JJNito's accusations:

• 1, why is Joshua reverting edits on that page, making it more confusing. - confusing to you? See the core tenets above.
• 2. Why is that user oversourcing the article with no added textual reference so we can source the content and confirm the authenticity. - because someone keeps reverting well-sourced edits pwhich present core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. See also WP:VERIFIABILITY: if you're unwilling to check the sources, then indeed mass-revert is the easy way to push ypur point - but not the accepted way.
• 3. Why is Joshua adding dubious Buddhist terminology to explain Hindu oriented topics - where exactly? Regarding the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta, that's an established fact in the academics; excluding this info would be a groos breah of NPOV. If you don't like that, see Talk:Muhammad/images.
• and 4. Why is WP:OWN'ing the article so others and myself cannot edit the article. - because you're unwilling to accept WP:RS.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

PS: my username is Joshua Jonathan, not "Joshua Johnson." Not reading anything? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Break for readability.

• 1, confusing to you? See the core tenets above. - Its confusing (was further confusing) per the ambigious terms "pure Awareness" or "Consciousness" which does not adequetly summarize what Brahman is per Hinduism. Satchitananda is widley regarded as the most adequate summary. A

• 2. because someone keeps reverting well-sourced edits pwhich present core tenets of Advaita Vedanta. See also WP:VERIFIABILITY: if you're unwilling to check the sources, then indeed mass-revert is the easy way to push ypur point - but not the accepted way. - How does one check the sources without having access to a compendium of books - having a note to explain it in the sentence like you have done, albeit not consistently, is what you should do. Especially about that cite you added to the Buddhist "two truths doctrine" that I cant read. Have you not heard of Parabrahman or Nirgna and Saguna Brahman?

• 3. here exactly? Regarding the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta, that's an established fact in the academics; excluding this info would be a groos breah of NPOV. If you don't like that, see Talk:Muhammad/images. - Disengenious, the Advaita talk page is literally a back and forth with a self proclaimed Buddhist about a Buddhist word 'Svasaṃvedana' that you inserted in the lede.

• and 4. because you're unwilling to accept WP:RS - I am interested in bringing articles to GA status, you are not. I fully value RS but your RS seem to be sporadic at best.

Regarding that 'PS: my username is Joshua Jonathan, not "Joshua Johnson." Not reading anything?' I could possibly be going blind for all you know. Best JJNito197 (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You keep bringing up this 'GA status' thing like it is some kind of badge of shame. No one is required to participate in the article ranking process. MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course, but don't act like you are trying to improve the article earnestly. If you were trying to improve the article earnestly you would attempt to bring the article to GA status. I think you forget that Joshua is the most active user on that page. JJNito197 (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is simply wrong. I earnestly try to improve articles and don't care one whit about GA status. Your priorities are not everyone's priorities. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No it is not, there is no requirement to do more than making an article better. Some do this by looking at grammar and spelling, others by adding snippets of information.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay I take that back. I am quite proud of bringing articles to GA and the GA award is there to show that great effort has been made on the article to improve the readability etc. JJNito197 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I suspect many of us have worked on articles that have achieved GA status. So I am unsure what point you are trying to make.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan said I don't take RS seriously. JJNito197 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

So? The fact you have worked on GA articles does not mean you are free from bias or cannot make mistakes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You have to take RS seriously to bring articles to GA :-) JJNito197 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this needs to be closed, as it is going nowhere,faxt.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and JJNito197, the fact that you describe this as potential bias against Hinduism is troubling to me. Without substantively weighing in on the disputed edits, I see nothing that comes close to fitting that description. Dumuzid (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say Advaita Vedanta but Hinduism is more knowlegable. If you change that more specifically it would help. But it's not just me, it's mulitple people. This user on Advaita talk says[14] it the placement of Buddhism in origins section is misleading because it makes it feel that Advaita originated from Buddhism, and this does not reflect mainstream scholarly consensus this user[15] says Joshua Johnson needs to stop inserting his biased views and opinions in the introduction of article. Joshua Johnson has constantly shown an biased against Advaita tradition and has filled the article with opinionated controversial information and this user[16] says the edits are unusual descriptions. Of course, this is only and handful and it looks as though nothing can be done, but I fear I will have to come back here in the future if nothing changes. JJNito197 (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You fail to note that the reported user seems to agree with the first edit. I am done here, but you have convinced me you are not operating in good faith. Dumuzid (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not a Hindu. That simply shows what I am thinking. Kind regards, JJNito197 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• ad1: my description is sourced; yours is an opinion, as long as you don't provide sources.
• ad2: I provided notes with quotes; you removed them. All the sources are accessible via Google Books; some I own myself, like Deutsch.
• ad3: "back and forth" is agross exaggeration, and not an excuse to mass-revert well-sourced info.
• ad4: your RS seem to be sporadic at best - get real; what sources do you know of? Some of my sources:

• Comans, Michael (2000), The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta: A Study of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, and Padmapāda, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
• Dasgupta, Surendranath (1975), A history of Indian philosophy. Volume 2, Motilal Banarsidass Publ.
• Davis, Leesa S. (2010), Advaita Vedānta and Zen Buddhism: Deconstructive Modes of Spiritual Inquiry, Continuum International Publishing Group
• Deutsch, Eliot (1973), Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-0-8248-0271-4
• Mayeda, Sengaku (2006), "An Introduction to the Life and Thought of Sankara", in Mayeda, Sengaku (ed.), A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120827714

NB: Koller and Meno were alredy used in the lead, but misrepresented. See also User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources for the kind of sources that I use. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
PS: diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Today is Pearl Harbor Day, the 80th anniversary to be sure. May suggest, J. J. Nito, that you order your warplanes back before they reach metaphoric Hawaii and commemorate the day with peace and goodwill? I have known Joshua Jonathon for a long time on Wikipedia. I have found them to be sincere, upright and honest. I have found JJ to be a part of a consensus that we are all human, and like humans everywhere, indelibly African in our blood and bones. That fact predates both Buddhism and Hinduism. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment It's a flippant remark that JJNito197 accuses Joshua Jonathan (JJ) of being a pro-Buddhist and anti-Hindu POV pusher, with Advaita being its proxy. Taking a glimpse at the Talk:Adi Shankara and Talk:Advaita Vedanta, I could see the dispute is mostly frivolous, from linking to self-published sources (with its author not being a scholar), to mass reverts. I could also find "sources" that state philosophies of Hinduism, Buddhism, Yoga, Vedas and the Gita came from Saint Thomas (this for example, from a pastor). So one should really be careful on what sources are scholarly and what isn't. Making a significant contribution to Advaita Vedanta requires one to have an understanding of the nuances in the subject, and I believe JJ is well-read in that regard; that's the reason why I sought the assistance of JJ in that GA nomination request, which you were referring to multiple times throughout the discussion. It is my interest to make the Advaita article a GA, and other editors don't necessarily need to possess such an interest, and that apathy doesn't make him a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim. I also found JJ to be approachable when it comes to consensus if your arguments and sources that you cite in support of that are of eminence. Thanks, WikiLinuz 🍁 (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have to agree with JJNito that Joshua Jonathan's edits are overly scholarly & obfuscatory. The lede has become much more confusing from one year ago. 45.78.192.243 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  overly scholarly & obfuscatory: Please have a look at WP:OVERSIMPLIFY - [articles should not give] readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when they don't. And, this is precisely suitable for Advaita Vedanta article given the subject it deals with. WikiLinuz 🍁 (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Overly scholarly, that's a new objection on me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, Wikipedia does not suffer from being too scholarly in general. I think greater academic rigor would be a good thing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with User:WikiLinuz in that that great attention should be made to verify the academic rigor of a source presented. The more scholarly a source is, the more reliable it tends to be, and I think that User:Joshua Johnathan is doing well in that regard. I think a good job at WP:CONSENSUS was made at Talk:Adi_Shankara#Debates_with_Buddhist_monks in regards to contested terminology, and we as editors should work together in that regard to make such articles represent the consensus of academic scholars. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Update I no longer have an issue with Joshua Jonathan's edits. I understand now it is in good faith and Joshua Jonathan is not at fault for expanding and giving definitions that the user is familiar with, understandably, translating terminology that would otherwise be unknown to the wider public. I agree with that user that translating words from Sanskrit (and translating concepts regardless) is problematic in itself, given the multiple defintions for multiple things. I also know that we do disagree on certain things but we can resolve them in the talk page in a forthright, non-hostile, academic manner. I advise if anybody has a problem with any edits to go to the talk page and bring up the topic for discussion. JJNito197 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You advise that, do you? That advice only seems to be news for you. DeCausa (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for myself mind. JJNito197 (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Le Pen

FMSky is reverting my additons to the lead of the Jean-Marie Le Pen article. Which include describing him as "far right", which is commonly used by sources eg [17], [18], [19] as well adding mention of his conviction for holocaust denial, which is mentioned in the body. FMSky contends that these additions are undue. Unlike the French language version, the lead currently lacks mention of his convictions for racial hatred, which I think should be mentioned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree and I've started a discussion on the article's talk page asking FMSky to explain themselves. VR _talk 19:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC about rapid-onset gender dysphoria

Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage#RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Promotional editing problems at McGarry, Ontario

It seems like the article's been turned into a massively promotional article. The article also has numerous other problems on top of that. Invalid^OS_talk 13:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Vacuous truth - Where and why did my edits to a talkpage disappear

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

---

Where are my edits on . They are not even in the history What is going on. I've been on wikipedia with good faith for some 20 years, and this never happened. I wrote what I thought should be an intuitive and clearer description of Vacuous truth, and it has been erased, with no trace. No mention on my talk page. No mention here? What is going on?

I also answered a false-truth page request on the talkpage (which had an answer that it was not needed), and pointed out that the Israeli court allowed a fallacy to be broadcast on TV even though the court agreed it was a fallacy, as long as the show was saying what was known to them as the truth, without the intention of lying. So, in some settings, truth can also be somewhere along a continuum and not as implied in the Greek philosophy's term of Logical Truth only true or false. I suppose someone read that wrong and thought I was bringing up something controversial or political. I was not. There is no one as far as I know who contested that decision about the SECOND court case against the TV station for slandering the officer, in which he lost. (The first court case about the shooting and killing itself has been heavily criticised.) My post was discussing the question and answer given on the talk page and only secondarily referring to the topic of Vacuous truth, so I would leave that revert be (and perhaps would even erase it myself after second thoughts of how it may be percieved.)

But why was my suggested edit to the article completely deleted? And why was there no-one informing me in any way that the edits in the talk page have been reverted. I do not see it in my alerts.

Reading user:MagneticInk about hostility on that talk page, I hope I didn't put myself in the line of fire. I had no idea about the previous arguments on that talk page and was just trying to use Wikipedia to understand what started off for me as an extremely convoluted philosophical paper by Eugene Mills. Once I spelled out what I understood by reading all the technical terms of logic and translated Vacuous truth into plain English, Eugene's sentence became clear to me, and I thought it would be of use to bring down my explanation and discuss it, before putting it up on the page itself. That (discussion) of course cannot happen if what I wrote has been deleted without a trace! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein explained it at the talk page saying "Please do not interject Israel-Palestine politics into a non-political page. It is completely inappropriate. See the following notice. As for your edits: they are in the history, [1]. Perhaps you were looking at the article history rather than the talk page history." Doug Weller talk 17:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC) —

OK Thank you! Sorry for the trouble I caused. I don't know why the edits didn't show up in the app or web. Perhaps it was while it was being updated... פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation

There is a discussion about whether the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation article is neutral in the way it presents what it does. A COI editor and one other editor have a longstanding back and forth.

The question is, should a hisotrical preservation group be presented as an org that preserves an area, or as an org that obstructs development, or both? And if both, is the "History" section non-neutral in its presentation of the "obstructing" angle? The RS used to make the case aren't particularly clear, from what I can see.

Right now, the lead is written as a compromise, but the COI editor still believes it is too heavy on the criticism.

It would be great if other editors could take a look. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It can be both or neither.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skeptic, can you clarify which side the "COI editor" is on (no need to say who they are, but it would help with proving a clearer understanding of the situation..My suspicion on a topic like this one is that any editor pushing one of those two positions in particular is almost certain to be likely to have a COI, whether they've stated so or not..yet I think the other side might be more likely to disclose such potential conflict. So I'm curious..:) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:907D:4451:8F72:3CE1 (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@2600:1702:4960:1DE0:907D:4451:8F72:3CE1: Yes, the COI editor is DVillageP11, and they are arguing for framing the org as "preserving" historical sites rather than "obstructing" or "blocking", development and they are opposed to the term NIMBY being applied. Hope that helps. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Harry Sassounian

Harry Sassounian was an American citizen of Armenian descent who was part of Armenian militants who killed Turkish diplomats for their denial of the Armenian genocide in the 1980s. A user called Grandmaster is accusing me of murder apologism because I:

1. called Sassounian an "American citizen" rather than labeling him as specifically Armenian,

2. mention Arikan's genocide denial (with a source) as the motivation for the killing which it clearly was.

Though the event was inherently political (genocide vs. its denial), Grandmaster reverts my edits and not only leaves out said information but also includes factual errors like double names, grammatical mistakes and a differentiation between the Armenian and Western Armenian languages, which does not technically exist. I would appreciate some third source looking into this instead of Grandmaster intimidating me by threatening to "report me" 217.149.166.11 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with calling Sassounian an American citizen, but this anonymous user made a bunch of strongly POV edits to this article. First, the article in LA Times does not call Arikan a denier. Second, political views of a person cannot be a justification for murder, and should not be stated in the lede as a matter of fact, considering that the court found that Sassounian "singled out the victim because of the victim's nationality". The facts in the article must be presented in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:VER, which I tried to explain to this user. In addition, this is also an arbitration covered area, of which I alerted the user. Grandmaster 20:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Now, Grandmaster is doing a smear campaign against me and further intimidating me with a so called sockpuppet investigation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ClassicYoghurt). I think this in itself is NPOV and unprofessional. Plus, the LA times article and the jury's statements must both be included. Grandmaster, who apparently heavily fights with other editors oftentimes, is not allowing new sources to be featured alongside others and keeps bad formatting and errors in the article. Please someone weigh in. --217.149.166.11 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

A motive for a crime is a very pertinent thing to include in an encyclopedia, if it can be sourced reliably. Saying what that motive was does not entail endorsing the motive or the crime. Sennalen (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Professor Michael Yeadon's Wikipedia page

I'm a regular user of Wikipedia and have also made donations over the years in order to support this "source of information".

Today, I decided for the first time to take a look at the Wikipedia page for Professor Michael Yeadon and I was appalled by the totally biased and inflammatory tone of the content of that page. And it now makes me doubt the "facts" which I have read on other Wikipedia pages.

I am beyond confused why Wikipedia has chosen to completely discredit and print false information about Prof Yeadon, just because his views on Covid currently differ from some other scientist's views regarding this virus.

Firstly, Prof Yeadon is NOT an anti-vaxxer. If you actually took the time to listen to his reports, read his papers, etc., he very clearly states that he is NOT anti-vaccinations and never has been. And having worked for Pfizer in the past (a creator of a range of vaccinations) Prof Yeadon was very much in favour of the creation and roll out of vaccinations. So, you have printed a complete falsehood quoting him to be an anti-vaxxer and I would be very careful about continuing to state that piece of information on Prof Yeadon's page.

Prof Yeadon is however, critical of the current Covid vaccination roll out, and again he has very clearly explained and reported why he feels critical of it - he makes sure his views and opinions and reports are all backed with scientific data (which you clearly have chosen not to research, read, listen to, or publish).

Whether you like his views or fact based opinions or not, that does not allow Wikipedia to publish blatantly biased information about a person which completely discredits their wealth of knowledge, experience in the relevant field, expertise and decades of relevant research into viruses and respiratory diseases. It astounds me that Wikipedia believes that to be acceptable.

If you're not aware of the fact, uptake of any vaccinations (including the Covid vax) is entirely voluntary in the UK. It is a personal health/medical choice - whether Wikipedia or anyone else likes that fact or not. It does NOT automatically make someone an anti-vaxxer if they choose not to receive a Covid vaccination. It is exercising a personal right regarding their health, a choice which we all currently have in this country. If the Govt feels that situation should change, then no doubt it will make the change. Until that happens, we all have a right to make choices about personal medical intervention.....or not and NOT to be judged or criticised on exercising those rights.

There are many other incorrect "facts" in your Wikipedia page regarding Prof Yeadon, which I simply don't have the time to bring to your attention. It's YOUR job (as it is for any journalist worth his/her salt) to ensure the information you print in your pages are factual and unbiased, not mine!

Safe to say, I will never be donating to Wikipedia again if this genuinely is that standard of "real" facts that you aspire to.

Very disappointed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.151.230.178 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That would be the same Michael Yeadon who is "The ex-Pfizer scientist who became an anti-vax hero" (Reuters)?[20] or the Michael Yeadon who is an "Antivaxer with eye on Lib Dems plans resort for unjabbed" (The Times)? All anti-vaxxers say they aren't anti-vaxxers. I think your problem is likely to be with reality not Wikipedia, and that being the case then yes you will be disappointed. Maybe try Conservapedia? Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

And if your donations are dependent on specific content, then they are not donations, they are attempted bribes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It truly is amazing how many IP addresses seem to be used by long-term donors. Theknightwho (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Does splitting off of the "controversies" part of the main pages on the NSA, CIA, and FBI raise neutrality concerns?

The discussion between me and @Thewolfchild: about this at Talk:National Security Agency#Removal of Content from Main Article is not going anywhere, so I'd welcome input from others, especially from experienced editors. Until a few days ago the main page for the NSA included extensive information about controversies, and the TOC listed 13 of them, so that any interested reader would quickly find what they wanted. Now there's nothing more than a link to a newly created "List" article that contains that information. I later noticed that a while ago the same editor had done the same on the main pages for the CIA and the FBI. In all cases, coverage of these controversies in the news media and other sources has been extensive, and there's been a lot of public interest. My concern is that a reader could easily get the impression that the main page has been sanitized by relegating criticism to a subsidiary page. I assume good faith, am not claiming that there was any intent of bias, and take Thewolfchild at their word that their only reason for doing this was to shorten the rather long main page. But it seems odd that, if it's really necessary to shorten these articles, sections weren't removed that are much less likely to be of interest to readers, such as NSA#Facilities for example. NealKoblitz (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It does raise NPOV concerns. Especially so given that despite removing ~50,000 bytes of content, no discussion about the split has been sought, and no attempt has been made to follow CORRECTSPLIT – instead the section has simply been deleted and pasted into a separate article with no summary. Splits on highly visible pages such as this should certainly have discussion first. I should restore the status quo prior to this bold edit, until there is consensus, or not, for removing this whole section of content. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I normally say that "controversy" sections should not exist; they just lower the bar for putting heckling and POV crap into the article. But in this case, these contain a huge amount of central and important content; IMO they should not be removed. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: this isn't about the existence of "controversy" sections, just that the size of one became quite large, in an already very large article, and the section was split off to it's own page. No content was lost or changed in the move. - wolf 23:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming any content was removed, but that the removal of that content from the main article creates NPOV concerns. This seems fair, given that readers will naturally land on the main page first. Theknightwho (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

As per Wp:STRUCTURE, to maintain NPOV we should avoid Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself because this can result in an unencyclopedic structure. Rather than separating off into a separate article (which would intensify the NPOV problem here), restoring NPOV would entail folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. Most of this content should be incorporated into the “History” section. If there is a size issue it can then be dealt with in the normal way by trimming of excessive detail from all sections. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I answered (and received responses) in two places. Briefly, I am more more focused on the informativeness of the article (which POV can affect) than the higher goal of NPOV. Either way, to avoid duplication, I'll move to just the talk page of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The key is proper summarization. As long as the main article covers the fact that these controversies exist, and gives a synopsis of what they consist of… I don’t have a problem with placing the details of the various controversies in a sub-article (or series of articles). Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. While controversies are noted in the lead, the section itself still needs a summary. If the split remains and no one else does it, then I'll write one. - wolf 14:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Strong no. Contrariwise, NOT having such sections woulc be aeggregious violations of somethubg of a far more fundamental nature than applies to NPOVl concerns, though I lamely confess I cannot think of the word forv it at this time. It would br dangerously close to censorship and/or suppression of knowledge to have all of the controversies scattered and buried throughout the rest of the article. Furthermore, except for the agencies themselves, there IS NO "POV" controversy that even exists here. It is universally in ALL of our best interests to have this information as easily accessed as possible while adhering to all the rest of the P&Gs. These are exceedingly powerful government agencies, and the perpetuation of knowlege over wrt to controversial things they've done is how government is kept honest in free societies, and is one of the critical factors in in ensuring free societies REMAIN free. For, if the CIA or FBI & knew that they could do anything in the world that they want and that its reporting would be minimal to non existent, they would be playing hard and fast with the rules whenever they wanted. Including said sections on said types of articles is how these groupsare kept honest and within the rule of law we've placed them under. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6CB7:62BD:5DB:4891 (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

HM Prison Edinburgh: Craig Murray

I am referring the entry on Craig Murray as per the discussion on the talk page: User:NSH001 refuses to accept that his version of the text about Murray is biased, goes beyond the facts and indulges in obvious speculation. Mark Hamid (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No other inmate's circumstances are treated in the way being insisted upon here. Mark Hamid (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Everything I wrote is fact-based, with one possible proviso. I referred to the fact that the case was heard without a jury (and that's still a fact), the implication being that no jury would convict on the evidence presented; thus in effect the case was rigged to get the desired verdict. It remains my view that the case was rigged – and not just the absence of a jury. However, I am willing to consider taking that part out for now, as it could be regarded as OR. I also note that the ECHR, when it eventually gets round to hearing the appeal, is quite likely to comment on the absence of a jury, and the numerous other judicial anomalies involved. --NSH001 (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's best to keep discussions all in one place, so I have moved the folowing from Talk:HM Prison Edinburgh. --NSH001 (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Why not just stick to simple facts? "Found guilty of contempt of court for publishing information about the Alex Salmond trial." Schazjmd (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Publishing reports on a court case is not a crime. It's what journalists do as a routine part of their work. As it happens, Murray's court reports are complete (except when he was barred from entry to the court), scrupulously accurate and written in clear, elegant English. If you overlook the claim of "jigsaw identification", then you're not sticking to the facts. --NSH001 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It remains my view that the case was rigged. Nobody cares what your opinion is on this case. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

On the ‘lack of a jury’ point, plenty of inmates in Scottish prisons are in there following conviction by a judge sitting without a jury, but - as per established practice - Wikipedia entries don’t note this. There is no right to jury trial in Scotland, so it’s not appropriate go into the judicial process, even if you personally feel it was prejudicial. Mark Hamid (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This is bizarre. I offer to make a concession, and you are both responding as if I had said the opposite. Mark, could you please show me the evidence for your claim that "there is no right to jury trial in Scotland"?

NSH001, if you are under the misapprehension that blatant editorialising like this [21] is remotely compliant with WP:NPOV policy, you are very much mistaken. As Schazmid says above, all we need to report in this article is that Murray was imprisoned there. We say nothing about the merits or otherwise of the conviction, since that is entirely off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No, there is no editorialising there, other than possibly the point I've already mentioned (and that can be dealt with, if necessary). We do say what the inmate was incarcerated for. Unfortunately, in this case, because the charge of "jigsaw identification" is so rare, some explanation is necessary of what it is, and that makes the entry longer than would normally be expected. --NSH001 (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Murray's article doesn't even mention "jigsaw identification". Why does it need to be explained in a list of notable inmates? Schazjmd (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"Murray's article doesn't even mention "jigsaw identification".". That's bizarre. It's what he's imprisoned for, FFS. I've said this before, but can I just remind you all that without "jigsaw identification", there is and was no contempt of court. Someone should correct it ASAP. Admittedly I haven't looked at it for a long time – it's not the sort of article I enjoy working on. I hope someone else will do it, but if necessary, I'll do it myself. --NSH001 (talk)

He's imprisoned for contempt of court. It's contempt of court because a judge made that ruling. Rightly or wrongly, it is what it is. The list of notable inmates is not the place to argue the case or even to explain it. "Found guilty of contempt of court for publishing information about in connection with the Alex Salmond trial." suffices. (I tweaked my suggestion.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This is clear editorialising per MOS:EDITORIAL. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The crime was "contempt of court"; "jigsaw identification" is not a crime known to the law of Scotland (and don't ask me to prove a negative). As for proof that there is no right to trial by jury in Scotland, that "the procurator fiscal is the master of the instance" is a long-established precedent for which, again, you will find no recent contradictory case law. The PF chooses between summary (judge, sheriff or justice sitting alone) or solemn procedure (judge or sheriff with a jury) - the exceptions are those limited cases where statute law requires a particular approach (eg. solemn for murder trails) and anyone with professional experience of the Scots legal system will tell you the same. Mark Hamid (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)