Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.12.127.137 (talk) at 17:56, 31 March 2023 (→‎Removal of criticism on Donald Trump indictment: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
    Shortcuts
    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:
    Start a new discussion

    Race privilege

    A fairly new article, I'm concerned that this isn't written from a NPOV and relies on disproportionate weight in order to make certain statements, particularly against Japanese people. Indeed, I removed one statement that I found to be particularly egregious. While I am reluctant to comment on editors themselves, the creator of this article has expressed strong nationalist views around South Korea and has admitted they have a negative view of Japanese people, so I'd like to request more eyes on this article, please. — Czello 13:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact, I can't see where any of the sources use the phrase "race privilege" at all, leading me to believe this is just WP:OR designed to grind an axe around Japanese people. — Czello 13:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it discrimination to judge my editing with my user page? You wouldn't have doubted my editing if I hadn't revealed on the user page that I was a resistance nationalist. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have certainly still brought the case here - but some of your personal statements about the Japanese and Chinese does lend credence to what I'm saying above. Normally I would certainly comment on contributions, not contributors, but you have been explicit in your dislike of the Japanese. — Czello 13:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article seems to be entirely OR and is not suitable for mainspace. @Mureungdowon: Are you willing to draftify your article so you can work on devloping it and getting feedback from other editors? The alternative is likely deletion. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's an acceptable feedback, I'll accept it. However, there is racial privilege similar to the white privilege Japanese have in their relationship with Korean/Chinese other Asians. The content must be supplemented in the article about this part. It would be nice if other users who are interested in social justice could add it to the article. Mureungdowon (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The biggest issue is that "Racial privilege" is a term that isn't in any of the sources. As far as I can see this topic is WP:OR. That's why you should take this back to draft format to expand on it. — Czello 14:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind if you move the article to draft right now. However, I hope you don't doubt my editing too much. Mureungdowon (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like a lot of what you're talking about is covered in Racism in Japan. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not discrimination. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_privilege#the_section_on_%22Japanese_ethnic_privilege%22_smells_like_WP:SYNTH I believe Binksternet is more aware of Japanese ethnic privileges. I want more professional users than me to add content related to the 'sensual feeling of racial superiority' that modern Japanese feel toward other Asians (especially Koreans and Chinese) in the article. However, if such content is not added, I hope that the contents I wrote will be maintained. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mureungdowon: There's already an article about this topic at Racism in Japan. If there's a significant omission, then it can be corrected by using WP:Reliable sources that provide the information. We don't come up with our own conclusions based on what we think is true, we don't use Wikipedia articles to promote social justice, and we do not under any circumstances express contempt or dislike for racial or ethnic groups. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the same user arguing an academic featured in the Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea article's race is worth mentioning because "There is really no racial discrimination against the Japanese in South Korea" Tdmurlock (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a translator error. There is racism against the Japanese in South Korea. But it is insignificant compared to discrimination against other Asian races, and rather there are more Japanese ethnic privileges that offset it. The problem is that when we say anti-Japanese sentiment, Westerners users take it as racism. For example, South Koreans demanding compensation from the Japanese government, victims of the past World War II or anti-Japanese sentiment by South Korean feminists are not racist. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In South Korea, the term 'anti-Japanese' (반일) is not necessarily about the Japanese race. For example, what the article "Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States" deals with is mostly racism against the Japanese. However, the "anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea" focuses on diplomatic conflicts with Japan and historical independence movements in South Korea, rather than racism against Japanese people. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More importantly, 반일 generally does not mean racism. Racism against Japanese in South Korea is called 혐일. However, English language does not distinguish the two. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. This category is not used only for Korean racism against Japanese people. It is even used in articles unrelated to Korean racism, such as Yasukuni shrine, Japanese war crimes, events related to Japan's attempts to colonize Korea, or articles related to law, which Japan has done unilaterally wrong. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This category is not used only for Korean racism against Japanese people. It is even used in articles unrelated to Korean racism, such as Yasukuni shrine, ... Why?! Rotary Engine talk 01:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In South Korea, the term "anti-Japan" is not used exclusively for racism. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't so much that those articles aren't examples of "anti-Japanese racism", but that they aren't examples of any definition of "anti-Japan", and they aren't... you know... in Korea. Reliable sources do not describe Nippon Steel, Mitsubishi Group, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as being "Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea", and yet, somehow, they're all in that category. There's been a failure, by some editors, somewhen, to understand WP:Categorization. "Category:Anti-Fooness in Barland" isn't mean to include everything that makes some Barlanders upset at Foo. Rotary Engine talk 03:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And to get back on point (perhaps): Concur with Tdmurlock on excluding non-Korean race Japanese-born naturalized South Korean as a descriptor for Yuji Hosaka at the article Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea; if it's an attempt to add or remove validity, then it's a Genetic fallacy; if not, it's an irrelevance. Rotary Engine talk 03:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Russ Baker

    Russ Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Family of Secrets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Russ Baker has argued in an article on his website (and presumably as User:69.203.117.207 and User:172.56.160.210 on Talk:Russ Baker[1]) that Wikipedia editors have cherry-picked sources to negatively describe his journalistic approach and his book Family of Secrets. The second story in today's issue of The Signpost written by Andreas also discusses this matter. I will send pointers to this discussion at the relevant talk pages, as well as WP:FTN as the book describes a possible fringe theory. -Location (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC) [edited to include additional IP - 20:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)][reply]

    I don't think Baker's claims have much merit. He seems to be upset that Wikipedia doesn't treat his article as a hagiography.The negative material is well sourced and I don't think it is undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a WP:COIN posting is probably in order, if the IP doesn't want to admit to any COI. And therefore a lil notice on the talk page of those pages and a request that this person not edit the article directly. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think an article subject complaining about their biography is a COIN issue. This happens all the time and is usually handled at BLPN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Hemiauchenia that Baker's complaints lack merit and that his aim is hagiography, not neutrality. The article subject has actively participated in the article over the years and is unhappy that he has not gotten his way. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this detail about his first performance WP:DUE for the body of Laurence Olivier?

    See this discussion on the talk page.

    Summary of the discussion: In December 2022, I added (underlined): his first stage appearance was in a sketch called The Unfailing Instinct at the Brighton Hippodrome in August 1925. He tripped and fell on his face during the performance. Today, a user removed these 10 words with the edit summary: trimming unencyclopaedic trivia.

    Here are all the high quality sources which describe this event and how it impacted Olivier's career:

    Donald Spoto's 1941 biography (page 44):

    After four weeks on tour with this trifle in Manchester, Liverpool and Brighton, his salary of two pounds was slightly augmented when he was asked to be assistant stage manager and play the silent policeman in a melodrama, The Ghost Train, in which ‘Miller had scored a great success in London. No such success was Olivier’s: the Brighton drama correspondent alluded to him only to note his unintentionally dramatic entry onstage.. Heedless of the stage manager’s warning about the set’s raised doorsill, Olivier reduced a tense scene to giddy farce as he tripped, sliding precariously toward the footlights. He fared no better in his next employment..."

    Anthony Holden's 1947 biography (page 326):

    Twenty-two years his junior, Joan Plowright was young enough to be Olivier's daughter, precisely the role she played at the Palace Theatre, taking over the part of Jean Rice from Dorothy Tutin....Though she too was married - to the actor Roger Gage - there followed a "euphoric" progress through Glasgow, Edinburgh and Oxford to the Brighton Hippodrome - the scene of Olivier's first professional stage entrance, flat on his face, over thirty years before."

    John Cottrell's 1975 biography (page 34):

    "That summer Olivier made his first professional stage appearance since leaving drama school, and he literally fell flat on his face. The occasion was a sketch called Unfailing Instinct, put on as a curtain- raiser before a Brighton Hippodrome production of Arthur Ridley's new play The Ghost Train. Again and again the eighteen-year-old novice had been warned about the importance of lifting his feet as he came on stage via a door built into the scenery on a wooden base. It made not a dime's worth of difference. On the cue for his entrance he stumbled stupidly into the base of the door frame and plunged head- first into the footlights with sufficient impact to earn his first, brief notice as a pro: "Mr. Laurence Olivier made a good deal out of a rather small part."

    Francis Beckett's 2005 biography (page 16):

    "[His first performance was also] one of the most dramatic: he fell headlong, his face coming to rest in the footlights. There was a torrent of laughter from the packed house, and when he eventually left the stage, they gave him a round of applause."

    Terry Coleman's 2006 biography (Pages 25, 485):

    "The first time he appeared on stage as an actor, in public, was at the Brigthon Hippodrome at a charity gala at the beginning of August 1925, and it was in music hall, and he fell flat on his face...Olivier was in the one straight act of the evening, a short curtain-raising sketch called The Unfailing Instinct.""

    It's also mentioned prominently in this New York Times review of Olivier's 1985 Autobiography Confessions of an Actor:

    "In 1925 he made his first appearance on a professional stage, on a variety bill in Brighton, and he made his entrance by tripping over the sill of a door in the scenery. He sailed through the air right into the footlights, and the accident provoked the largest laugh he has ever received in his life as an actor."

    The user who removed (User:SchroCat) has further said: We are not writing a book-length biography, we are writing a summary of his career.

    So I ask you, NPOVN, is this information DUE inclusion? Thanks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This is a minor content dispute, somewhat outside the remit of NPOV. There is a talk page thread on this already, so it seems a little pointless (and crossing into Wikipedia:Forum shopping) to have a second thread opened after only three and a half hours of the first one opening. - SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:DUE is a subsection of WP:NPOV. It's entirely within policy to advertise discussions at the appropriate noticeboard, and not forum shopping if the summary is worded neutrally. Do you have suggestions for how to phrase the above to make it more neutral?
      Outside (uninvolved) participation is one of the best ways to resolve a dispute. So far, everyone who has commented was intimately involved in prior disputes on that talk page. I'd like some outside eyes on this. In fact, this is exactly the course of action recommended by WP:DR "at any time". — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Drop the stick and walk away? Stop wasting people's times by stonewalling over inappropriate nonsense in a biography? Shades of the Rylance debacle, but we should be grateful you're not misrepresenting sources this time. - SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please restrict comments about user conduct to user talk, where such comments are on topic. Posting such irrelevant things here only serves to distract from any productive discussions of content, and your repeated posting of such things is part of why I've advertised here for outside (unbiased) input. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked a question, I answered. I was however wrong to say you haven't misrepresented the sources though: to try and claim that any of these justify your rather odd conclusion that the show "how it impacted Olivier's career" is another stretch beyond all comprehension. - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several ways I think these sources (and others) do so:
    1. This was the first of many times Olivier's clumsiness would show in his career, but one of the only times it was audience-facing. This is remarked in several other sources in addition to the many mentions of his falls or accidents above.[1][2]
    2. It was his first professional performance, and a hit to his ego that he got such laughter out of a crowd he never got in any other role. NYT and otheres remarked on this above, not the least of which was Olivier himself in his Autobiography.[3]
    3. It was his first performance, and a story he told often to show humility. For a man whose most famous roles are his psychologically intense Shakespeare productions,[4][5] this moment in his career that he (by his own admission and as described in secondary sources above) often thinks about, serves as an interesting foil to this characterization.
    4. It happened in the same town that he eventually came to live in for most of his life (Brighton).[6][7] His biographies remarked on this fact in direct reference to where he brought his last wife, and lived out his golden years.
    I think I would expand on this in one additional sentence using the sources I've linked, but I'm content with only the 10 word mention as sufficient. It's far from Trivia, he dedicated 5 of his 330 pages in his autobiography to it (~1.6% by word count). The NYT includes it in a 60-word mention in a review that's only 1780 words (3%). We can manage to include 10 words.
    Sources

    1. ^ Beckett, Francis (2005). "Laurence Olivier". Life & Times [Haus Publishing]. Haus Publishing. Retrieved 12 March 2023.
    2. ^ Berre, David (28 January 1988). "'MACBETH' CURSE OF THE STAGE". Washington Post.
    3. ^ Olivier, Laurence (1987). Confessions of an actor. [London]: Sceptre. pp. 47–52. ISBN 9780340407585. We were in the Brighton Hippodrome, on a Sunday evening in the autumn of 1925. I passed through the stage door and the stage doorkeeper said sharply, "Name, please? Oh yes, you're new, aren't you? Well now, I've been told to warn you: be careful the way you make your entrance. This is the old type set. The doors in the set are framed right out - the same width all the way round, top, both sides and bottom. That means across the bottom of the doorway there is a sill - ooh - four and a half to five inches high. It's quite difficult not to trip over this, see?" ......My cue came and I started forward, the stagehand just touched me on the sleeve and pointed to the bottom of the door; it was my turn to wave someone impatiently away. I gave the canvas door a push and strode manfully through it. Of course I did a shattering trip over the sill, sailed through the air, and before I knew what was happening to me I found my front teeth wedged firmly between a pink bulb and a blue one in the middle of the footlights....In the many years between then and now I have delightedly played in numerous comedies and have often had cause to cast my mind wistfully and longingly back to that moment. I have flattered myself that I could generally fetch the size of laugh that I thought I, or the comic situation, merited, but I have sighed in vain; never, never in my life have I heard a sound so explosively loud as the joyous clamour made by that audience. Whenever I may have thought that I had reason to feel pleased with myself, the recollection of my first entrance on to a professional stage has restored my sense of balance at once.
    4. ^ Barnes, Jennifer; Olivier, Laurence (2016). "Laurence Olivier". Shakespeare Bulletin. pp. 487–491.
    5. ^ Ashworth, John (1 May 1949). "Olivier, Freud, and Hamlet". The Atlantic.
    6. ^ Heath, Jacob (6 February 2021). "The stunning Brighton home of one of the country's most legendary actors". sussexlive.
    7. ^ "Lord Olivier's home in Royal Crescent". My Brighton and Hove.

    — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You’re missing the point—and the mark—by some distance. I’m not sure you fully grasp what an encyclopaedic biography is. Still, having the same discussion in two places is a waste of time and effort, so I won’t continue here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem UNdue. Sennalen (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently these supposed ten words are supposed to convey the long winded nonsense spread over four points, (“golden years”? What ludicrous waffle). The ten words tell readers nothing about Olivier, his career, his abilities or his acting. They are unencyclopaedic trivia. - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems overly harsh... Its clearly not trivia, although you might be able to convincingly argue that it is unencyclopaedic (you have not yet done so). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think those 10 words should appear in the article without more. You could expand to explain why the incident matters and how it affected Olivier's future career, or you could remove the ten words. I'd prefer the former.—S Marshall T/C 17:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    DRASTIC

    An editor is saying that WP:NPOV requires us to include a particular sentence from a source. The disputed sentence is Members of DRASTIC have engaged in personal attacks against virologists and epidemiologists on Twitter, falsely accusing some of working for the Chinese Communist Party. See proposed deletion here[2] and talk page discussion [3]. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to those who responded. Readers of this noticeboard are invited to return to the DRASTIC page and assess whether or not, in light of the discussion, the contested statement should remain in the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Cluttered article with an overkill of citations and a refusal by editors to come to a neutral consensus in Arshtins

    This article is cluttered with sources and quotes from 2 nations claiming a historical tribe that belonged to both of the peoples (Chechens & Ingush), there were a lot of edit wars on this article, some sources are way too biased, i proposed to make the article more neutral in the talk page by deleting most of the text in the "Ethnicity" section and only adding them as references in a text that could be written like this:

    "some authors refer to Orstkhoy as Chechen (references), while some authors refer to them as Ingush (references) but most agree that the tribe belongs to both nations as Orstkhoy are one of the 9 historical Chechen Tukkhums and one of the 7 historical Ingush Shahars"

    This was met with disapproval and claims of Orstkhoy being "more Ingush" than Chechen and accusations against me trying to put Chechens in first place (even though i just proposed we write the names of the nations alphabetically). What is worse is that one side cherrypick sources that promote their case while trying to downplay the other side. This kind of attitude only invites edit wars (which has been fought on that article many times). This tribe the article is about is an integral part of both nations, therefore in my opinion it should be neutral and not be cluttered with dozens of sources from both sides.

    If this is the wrong noticeboard or if i didn't do this correctly then please correct me because it's the first time i'm using this noticeboard. Goddard2000 (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You did this fine. Did you notify the other editors on their talk pages? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No i didn't, was i supposed to? i told them that i would notify the admins. Should i tag them i here? Goddard2000 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should post the following template on their talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NPOVN-notice LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right apologies @LegalSmeagolian is it alright if i just tag them in here? like so @Muqale @WikiEditor1234567123 ? Goddard2000 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the before and after version of a vandalization where someone from Ingushetia deleted a neutral headline and removed Chechens while only adding Ingush. here

    After the article was vandalized another account added back Chechens but put them above the new Ingush section. here

    After some time @WikiEditor1234567123 decided that this should be in chronological order [4]


    If this isn't edit warring and trying to push for their nation to be above then i don't know what it is. Wikieditor and Tovbulatov might've not done it for that reason, and i don't want to make this discussion more toxic but whoever the IP belonged to clearly did it out of malice and to put his nation first. I'm only writing this now so i could add the diffs, so people could get the full picture. My only proposition is that we return to the version that was before the IP account vandalized the page (with more info ofc like i proposed above). Goddard2000 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello, in no way am I taking sides here, but I would like to emphasize that before the article was edited by this IP address, the article did not represent anything, there was not a single authoritative source and the article looked pro-Chechen, I don’t understand where you are saw Vandalism. I noticed that this IP address changed the article and made it in the style of a Russian article, which also mentions that Orstkhoy is a Chechen tukkhum. Targimhoï (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello Targimhoi, the original one sources Jaimoukha i believe and it was weak, but i am talking about the headline which was neutral. The text itself i have said many times that we could've fixed like i proposed above in my first post. IP account in no way changed the article and made it in the style of a Russian article, he removed everything related to Chechens, and only added Ingush, he even removed the neutral headline solely for the reason that it mentioned Chechens first. Why else would one remove it? Goddard2000 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      LegalSmeagolian, I have not made a single edit on the Orstkhoy article and am being accused of edit-warring. I was tagged in the talk page and simply discussed the article and ly point of view. Muqale (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't accuse you of edit warring, i specifically mentioned Wikieditor, IP adress and Tovbulatov. I tagged you in here because you were involved in the discussion of the talk page. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: Should Moldovan be removed as a language in Moldova?

    There is an RFC at Talk:Moldova#RFC: Should Moldovan be removed as a language in Moldova that may be of interest to those here. Posted here per guidance at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC.  // Timothy :: talk  15:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Gays Against Groomers

    This page is revoltingly out of line with so many of Wikipedia's rules, and I have fruitlessly tried for weeks to fix it on the talk page: Talk:Gays Against Groomers

    Most glaringly, the article uses biased sources to present contentious claims in Wikivoice. Even setting aside the heightened requirements for claims about living persons and groups of living persons, WP:BIASED makes it clear that claims made by biased sources should be attributed to them in the text.

    The article boldly labels the group as far-right and anti-LGBT, and although it does not make it clear which citations support these claims (violating WP:V), checking the small handful of references to arguably neutral sources reveals no such substantiation for them.

    The majority of the article's references are by The Advocate, LGBTQ Nation, Media Matters for America, and The Daily Dot; the latter two are explicitly recognized to require contentious claims on WP:RSP. Oktayey (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Two notes: First, it would be good to get a wider range of sources in the article. I don't necessarily mean a wider range of perspectives (which is secondary) or that we should be providing a WP:FALSEBALANCE, but it's not ideal for any article (especially on a controversial topic) to rely on just a handful of sources. I thought the claim above that The majority of the article's references.. might be an exaggeration, but it doesn't appear to be.
    Second, just looking at the article history, I do see some concerning edits by Oktayey. For example, preempting the kind of description used by several of the cited sources with a "dissenting source" directly in the lead, when that dissenting source is not really a dissenting source (it just doesn't include their activities in that first sentence). Or replacing a summary of how reliable sources characterize their activities with a quote from how the organization describes its own activities. There's a place for "what they see as indoctrination" or somesuch in the article, but we should be characterizing it first and foremost how the cited sources characterize it (and the summary of cited sources may change somewhat if there are additional good sources that can be brought in).
    As for the far-right and anti-LGBTQ labels, based on my cursory look at the sources, I suspect there's more likely to be consensus among the sourcing for [something like] the latter than the former, but a narrow question like that, combined with available sourcing, sounds like a sensible topic for an WP:RFC. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really appreciate your input, but I'd like to respond to a few points here.
    In the first edit of mine you mention, I placed the claim from the 'dissenting' source first because the LA Times by far the most reputable of the sources describing the group's ideological position according to WP:RSP (I chose to cite the Seattle Times mirror because the LA Times is paywalled).
    As for the substance of the source's claim, I think the author's description of GAG as a "small LGBT group" directly supports the claim that GAG is an LGBT group, and thus, precluded from being anti-LGBT.
    Regarding the third edit, it was a hasty attempt at substituting a claim that's entirely unsupported by the provided source—nowhere does it say that GAG "opposes LGBT representation in schools", or anything to that effect. I was sure to avoid presenting the phrase in WP:WIKIVOICE by putting it in quotes to reflect the source—I figured that, while imperfect, it was a stark improvement over leaving in what appears to be [[WP:OR|original research].
    Again, thanks for your attention! Oktayey (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I think the author's description of GAG as a "small LGBT group" directly supports the claim that GAG is an LGBT group, and thus, precluded from being anti-LGBT" Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Internalized jeez. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This group seems to be precisely what the reliable sources describe them as. No issues here. Zaathras (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we talking about the same group, Gays Against Groomers? From what I've seen from them, they don't appear to me at all far-right or anti-LGBT. Oktayey (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhhh, all of the reliable sources call them far-right and anti-LGBT, all of their talking points are far-right and anti-LGBT, and all of the accounts they follow or share on social media are far-right and anti-LGBT. Woodroar (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by what I've personally seen, every one of those claims is untrue. As for the first one specifically, the LA Times, which is in very good standing on WP:RSP, labels GAG "a small LGBT group". The edit I made adding that source to the article was reverted. Oktayey (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia doesn't base content on what contributors claim to have 'personally seen'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I have concerns about @Oktayey's ability to look at this group with a NPOV. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have similar feelings about other editors, but I don't go around trying to smear them for it. I know that simply slinging around accusations of personal bias isn't only unproductive, but also irrelevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't care about the personal views of its contributors—only the integrity of their contributions. Oktayey (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite relevant if personal bias causes an editor to refuse to accept what reliable sources say about a topic, and the editor continues to insist WP goes against RS in how it portrays a group. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue it's never relevant. In a case where an editor is so blinded by their bias that they fail to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, their bias may be the cause of the issue, but it isn't the issue itself—the issue being the violation of the rules. Wikipedia has no rule against being personally biased, for better or for worse. Oktayey (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what I was arguing, and to imply such is incredibly disingenuous. Oktayey (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please go back and read the rules a bit more carefully. If we are going to talk about bias, lets begin at the beginning. Here are some quotes from gaysagainstgroomers.com

    "An entire generation of children are being used as lab rats and destroyed by the radical Alphabet Mafia"

    "What we are witnessing is mass scale child abuse being perpetrated on an entire generation, and we will no longer sit by and watch it happen. It is going to take those of us from within the community to finally put an end to this insanity, and that's exactly what we're going to do"...

    ...And here is an article from The Intercept that mentions them. I think you may need to reevaluate why you are here. DN (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you quoted GAG themselves—drawing personal conclusions from their words is WP:OR, and so is impermissible for inclusion on Wikipedia.
    As for The Intercept, WP:RSP explicitly acknowledges it is a biased source, and so its claims must be supplemented with WP:INTEXT attributions, not presented in WP:WIKIVOICE. Oktayey (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't change the fact that we have a bunch of other reliable sources referring to them as anti-LGBTQ. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BIASED specifically acknowledges that for Wikipedia's purposes, "reliable" doesn't mean "unbiased", and it then makes clear that claims by biased sources should be attributed to them in the text, not presented in WP:WIKIVOICE. Oktayey (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet again you need to WP:LISTEN. See this source, which is not biased, referring to them as anti-LGBTQ. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why isn't that one of the references on GAG's article? I assumed because it's, for whatever reason, ineligible for use on Wikipedia. Oktayey (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked about this source in a conversation you were taking part in on the GAG talk page yesterday. Until now you've not actually said anything about it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just incorporated the TIME source into the article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that—I've been a bit overwhelmed lately. It seems like there's been a minor explosion of commentary from different editors on this debacle. Oktayey (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is revoltingly out of line with so many of Wikipedia's rules, as this claim has been soundly rejected, I believe we're done here. All that's going on now are back-and-forth that aren't moving the needle.Zaathras (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This does seem like one of those inconsistencies in how people use language when talking about a controversial group or for that matter grouping people. It certainly seems odd to suggest a group that, if the name is correct, consists of gays would be against the entire class of "gays, lesbians, bisexuals, queers and transsexuals". I do get that people have generally combined their interests and often their interest are common. Thus we have a label that is generalized and any organization that opposes a part of the interests of that grouping are given the "anti-" label even if they include members of that group. Are the same labels applied to lesbians who don't want to include trans-women (is there such a named group)? Regardless, this certainly seems like a contradiction. I suspect if the group in question were less controversial the sources we use to report on such groups would be more accurate in their labeling. I will note that sources like The Advocate, LGBTQ Nation, MM4A and The DD are not likely to be overly specific or sympathetic in their coverage of the group. While they may be factually correct, we should be very careful about bias and that can include how they label the group. It also might be helpful to do a general article search and see how often the label is used, not just that we can find the label when doing a keyword search (no idea how the original sources were found). I'm not familiar with GAG other than their very provocative name and an assumption regarding what they are advocating against. Springee (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mentioning Taiwan’s lack of international recognition in the lead of it’s article

    The articles of all countries that lack international recognition such as Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Kosovo, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus and others all of them have their status as being “unrecognized by international community” or “partially recognized” with mentioning the number of countries that recognizes them. With Taiwan being the only exception. Which is weird and reflect Eurocentric bias because countries like Kosovo and sahrawi arab republic have even more international recognition than Taiwan and recognized by 101 and 45 UN member states respectively, while Taiwan which is recognized by only 13 UN member states have this significant information forcefully omitted from the lead. Something which I believe should be mentioned in the lead to make Taiwan like all other countries that lack international recognition and not making it a special status, a status that is even more special than countries that enjoy much more international recognition as if there are double standards.

    Before making any edit. First i started a talk in Taiwan’s talks page and initially reached consensus with the one i was arguing with here to add the fact of Taiwan’s lack of international recognition, which I did here [1] and here [2], later on, a user started a disruptive edit warring [3] [5] [4] using an RFC that says that we should refer to Taiwan as a “country” instead of a “state” as an argument, then after that another user made disruptive editing [6] saying in his edit summary “no it’s recognized as a country” (as if i denied Taiwan’s statehood). This all happened before anyone of these disruptive editors go to the talks page. But later on one of them started joining the talks. And i would like you to check their arguments and how many times each one of them changed his argument to a non-related another argument each time i reply to a one and how many time they make irrelevant arguments (i.e “Taiwan is a country !”). i hope this noticeboard solve the problem and help achieving the neutrality of wikipedia and the article. Stephan rostie (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no requirement that all pages look the same. It's lack of recognition is mentioned at the end of the lead with proper context. It look pretty neutral to me. NadVolum (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The OP wants more input. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the current situation of the article is probably fine. The lead already has a lengthy paragraph that explains the political situation of Taiwan, it's not necessary to put that in the first sentence. Also, I think it might be helpful to review this RFC. Just two years ago, the community considered this very issue and overwhelmingly decided that the article doesn't need to mention Taiwan's status in the first paragraph. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems reasonable for the paragraph on the political status to include a count of coutries recongizing it. Sennalen (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A count of what sort of recognition? Diplomatic? Cultural? Financial? Political? Military? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever goes for other partially recognized states. Sennalen (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no agreed upon definition of a partially recognized state, thats why our coverage of them has been a contentious issue since the very beginning. Note that our page on partially recognized states takes a rather idiosyncratic perspective in that it only considers diplomatic recognition and takes an absolutist stance on it. Note that this is *not* the standard the OP is using, if so they would have mentioned all the articles for partially recognized states which fit that definition and are on that page (like China and South Korea) where we make no note of it at all in their intros. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that either was is fine. But the current status of Taiwan is a gorilla in the living room regarding Taiwan. The lead covers the details regarding that but never really states it in summary form. IMO a statement in summary form somewhere in the lead would be a good addition. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure those are comparable, Taiwan is a top 25 economy... Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Kosovo, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus combined have less than 10% of Taiwan's GDP. I'd also point out that you appear to be confusing a lack of recognition with a lack of diplomatic recognition, those are not the same thing... For example if we look at Great Britain's relationship with Taiwan we find that the UK recognizes them on a cultural, political, economic, financial, social, educational, intelligence, and military level but not a diplomatic level (example of the political, military, and economic ties from yesterday's paper [5])... Now note that of all of those forms of recognition diplomatic is actually the least important but from your proposed version the reader would be left with the impression that diplomatic recognition *is* recognition and not *part* of recognition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Taiwan is a top 25 economy. We are not talking about taiwan’s economy, this have nothing to do with the debate. We are talking about the fact of Taiwan’s lack of international recognition that can be even said that Taiwan is not recognized by roughly all the international community.
    the UK recognizes them on a cultural, political, economic, financial, social, educational, intelligence, and military level. Prove the existence of such things like “economic recognition”, “education recognition”, “financial recognition” and provide sources that such terms even exist first. Then come and continue the debate. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So diplomatic recognition exists but no other forms of recognition do? I'm not familiar with that school of international relations theory, what is it called? Note that in the British example its illegal for Britain to export weapons or most weapons components to China (has been since Tiananmen) so per your logic of diplomatic recognition being recognition how is it legal for British firms to sell arms to Taiwan? The only way they are able to sell arms to Taiwan is if they recognize them as an independent country when it comes to trade and military affairs, which they do. Same goes for the US, its illegal for US firms to sell arms to China, but we sell arms to Taiwan all the time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That has nothing to do with recognition, or the Contras would have been an independent country. And that is entirely OR. OR and wrong, but for our purposes we can just call it OR. nableezy - 19:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misremember the Iran-Contra affair, it was arms sold to Iran (like China under an arms embargo) which broke the relevant laws not the funds (specifically not arms) supplied to the Contras (in a very weird full circle way its actually KMT dictatorship era Taiwan which the Contras buy a lot of their arms from, the T65 assault rifle is emblematic as a Contra weapon for a reason). The US did not supply significant weaponry to the Contras, we're talking grey origin (clandestine) small arms not openly acknowledged sales of fighters and destroyers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh I didnt say anything about Iran-Contra? The CIA was arming the Contras prior to the Boland Amendment (and after for that matter), and helping with their drug trafficking, along with arming any number of other non-state actors over the years, independent of the Iran-Contra affair. Recognition as a state has never been a requirement for the US or any other country to arm some group. Or another example, Operation Cyclone. Or Timber Sycamore. The US has a long history of arming groups it has never recognized as a state. nableezy - 19:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fascinating opinion, I like how you completely ignore the nuanced argument I just made in favor of an anti-imperialist rant. I take it you support changing the lead of Palestine to "Palestine, is a partially recognized state located in the Southern Levant, Western Asia." for consistencies sake? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol anti-imperialist rant? Are you serious? By demonstrating how wrong your unsourced OR is? Sorry I guess? Palestine is recognized by 138 other states. Israel by 165. Taiwan is recognized by 13. One of these things is not like the other. You didnt make a nuanced argument, you made a factually incorrect claim, and now are blustering and making personal attacks. Have fun with that. nableezy - 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They would all appear to be the same in that the number is only part of the number of total states. All three of those are partially recognized in the diplomatic sense, so why would we treat one of them differently? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    lol. The US is not recognized by 4 member states of the UN. But to you thats the same as Taiwan. Good luck with that argument. Somebody missed the orders of magnitude lesson in math it seems. nableezy - 20:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are not orders of magnitude in "partially." The three rhetorical levels of that turn of speech are none, partial, and all. Anything which is more than none and less than all is partial. You aren't objecting to the OP naming Kosovo as a state with partial recognition, is there a reason why? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would I? It is partially recognized, with a bit over half the UN member states recognizing it. You are making an absurd argument here, but fine. How about instead of partially recognized we instead say largely unrecognized? Or widely unrecognized? Those would apply to Taiwan, and can easily be sourced (largely unrecognized, widely unrecognized). Or would you rather continue making things up about how if the US trades arms with somebody that means they recognize it as a state? nableezy - 20:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If my argument is absurd why is the Czech Prime Minister talking about "good economic, educational, and research relations with democratic Taiwan"? It seems like the idea that there are multiple forms of recognition is accepted by everyone besides a handful of wikipedia editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OR. Having relations with some entity is not recognition as a state. And there is no source saying there are multiple forms of recognition, there is just you making it up on Wikipedia. nableezy - 20:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a Noticeboard, the original research policy does not appear to apply to anything you and I are saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that there are multiple forms of recognition is accepted by everyone besides a handful of wikipedia editors. is an invention by yourself, and it cant be used as the basis as an argument on Wikipedia as it is both wrong and OR. nableezy - 21:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stephan rostie: if you're still wondering about the nuances of recognition can I recommend this [6] article? "The hitch is that the Czech government never agreed to adhere to the one-China principle. Instead, according to the website of the Czech embassy in China, the Czech Republic adopts a one-China policy. Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala reiterated Prague’s position in response to China’s criticism. "Czechia respects and represents its own one-China policy,” Fiala said, according to a Jan. 31 Associated Press report. “As a sovereign country it is us who decide whom we call or whom we meet.” He added that “we traditionally have good economic, educational, and research relations with democratic Taiwan.” The Czech Republic’s one-China policy mirrors that of the EU, which has long recognized the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China while simultaneously developing strong relations with Taiwan." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How about something roughly like this early in the lead but not in the first sentence?: "China emphatically claims that Taiwan is a part of China; many countries deal with Taiwan as a separate entity in many respects without officially recognizing it as being a separate country." North8000 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is a massive failing of WP:WEIGHT to not include that Taiwan is largely unrecognized as a state in the opening sentences of the article. That is among the most significant aspects of the ROC, that it has lost the recognition of most of the world as a state (hell its literally in the news right now how that continues) as other states have switched their recognition to the PRC. nableezy - 20:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My idea attempts to do that. Which covers the country status issue but in context which is particularly important in this case. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Im not a big fan of that formulation. Just say the facts, facts that are easily sourced and widely accepted outside of a cohort of passionate Wikipedia editors. Taiwan is largely unrecognized as a state as most states have shifted their recognition to the PRC, while many countries maintain some level of relations with Taiwan, including military and economic ties. nableezy - 20:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we get it... You are opposed to the longstanding consensus on how we treat Taiwan... But that doesn't mean you get to misrepresent that consensus as "a cohort of passionate Wikipedia editors" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not misrepresenting anything. See also WP:CCC. Right now, on this board, it appears to be just you making novel interpretations that sources do not support regarding Taiwan's lack of international recognition. nableezy - 21:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I suggest you read through this noticeboard conversation again before you make any more misrepresentations. This will be my last comment on the matter, I wish you the best of luck in your editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ive read it, including the multiple times you just made things up. If that method of arguing ends then great. nableezy - 21:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no “long standing consensus” regarding this, the community never discussed mentioning taiwan’s lack of international recognition before i noted it recently. Stephan rostie (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, its been discussed dozens of times across well over a decade (the standing consensus can be found here [7]: "There is a strong consensus against mentioning the status of Taiwan's international recognition in the first paragraph. WP:SNOW applies." etc. I take it you haven't yet figured out what a talk page archive is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    China emphatically claims that Taiwan is a part of China;. There is just a small problem with this, which is that it’s not only china that claims that Taiwan is part of china, the overwhelming majority of world countries and international organizations (i.e UN) recognize Taiwan as part of china. That’s why calling it “china claims” is inaccurate as it gives an impression that china is the odd one and that it’s only china that holds this view, whereas the reality is the opposite. Stephan rostie (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't true, most countries follow a One China Policy which does not recognize Taiwan as part of China. The one that recognizes Taiwan as part of China is the One Chine Principle which is followed by a minority of countries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No most countries are ambiguous as to whether or not they consider Taiwan a part of China. Nearly all countries however recognize the PRC as a sovereign state and do not recognize the ROC as such. And it is astonishing that Wikipedia is burying the lead on that to appeal to the sensitivities of a group of editors and not simply following the sources. nableezy - 21:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I said I wasn't going to post again but if a country is ambiguous about whether or not they consider Taiwan a part of China they do not recognize Taiwan as part of China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is not what ambiguous means, and that has no bearing on the fact they do not recognize Taiwan as a state. nableezy - 22:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but no, apart from the western so called “one china policy”, UN and overwhelming majority of the world countries recognize Taiwan as integral part of china. [1] Stephan rostie (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    My attempt as a solution was only that. But it covered the two big realities, the country status and that many countries deal with Taiwan as a separate entity in many respects. IMO highlighting only the former in any summary would be POV. And focusing on it being in the very first sentence of the article IMHO would also be POV. Finally, the lead is an editor-created summary of the article.Sources don't say what should be in the first sentence of a Wikipedia article and so it's not correct to imply that any choice there represents a failure to follow sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thats what WP:WEIGHT is about, following the weight sources give a topic in our articles. Taiwan's lack of recognition is among the most pertinent and widely discussed facts about it. nableezy - 22:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with you on that. IMO by a mile, the tensions with China, fears of an invasion and other countries' involvement in relation to those two things get by far the most coverage. On a second note, wp:weight relates primarily to coverage in the article, and the guidelines for leads define how the lead is drawn from that coverage. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Stephen D. Krasner (2001). Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities. New York City: Columbia University Press. p. 46. ISBN 0231121792.

    Requested Move of Revolution of Dignity

    There is a requested move at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity that may be of interest to this noticeboard. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    2023 Las Anod conflict

    2023 Las Anod conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I have just semi-protected this page and partially blocked the two main editors from it for two weeks. There is probably a need for experienced additional eyes to ensure a neutral point of view. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Per the talk, we've found sources passing WP:VERIFY that contradict the article. MathAfrique (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please carefully read the discussion so as to be able to incorporate all the sources and take an WP:NPOV position. MathAfrique (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the implementation of the Wikipedia policy known as MOS:TERRORIST, as it pertains to Shamil Basayev

    I am currently involved in a dispute on the talk page of Shamil Basayev. In my, as well as User:Ola Tønningsberg, understanding of the manual of style(MOS:TERRORIST), this is correct implentation, as is seen in the lead of the Shamil Basayev article:

    He ordered the Budyonnovsk hospital raid, Beslan school siege[4] and was responsible for numerous attacks on security forces in and around Chechnya[5][6][7] and also masterminded the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis and the 2004 Russian aircraft bombings. ABC News described him as "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world."[8]

    This is because MOS:TERRORIST states:

    Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

    The quote from ABC news is in my estimation the correct implementation In-text attribution. I am therefore proposing to remove the word 'terrorist' in the first paragraph of the article, as the in-text attribution/quote from ABC news is more encyclopedic, and in line with the guidelines on Wikipedia. User:Chaheel Riens seems to have a more unconventional interpretation of MOS:TERRORIST. Admin @El C: also questioned if User:Chaheel Riens is familiar with MOS:TERRORIST, in another noticeboard thread that pertains to this same dispute(altough another, now resolved issue.)

    (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

    I agree. We need exceptional reasons to label someone a terrorist. The fact that they have engaged in terrorist actions is not sufficient. TFD (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, Sextus, you seem to be arguing for inclusion. not removal:
    • The quote from ABC news is in my estimation the correct implementation In-text attribution - which is, as you know - "ABC News described him as "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world". I'm with you on this. It's a quote in the lede which is corroborated by the article itself. Quotes in the lede do not need sources, as the lede is to be a summary of the (sourced) material in the article, but in this case it's sourced there as well.
    However, the point - which has always been the case - is that the article makes multiple mention of him being a terrorist, labelled as a terrorist, and taking part in terrorist activities. Not only that, but we also have the quote from his interview where he describes himself as a terrorist.
    We have both quoted from MOS:TERRORIST, and the interpretation is the same: in which case use in-text attribution - which has been done. Please clarify why you feel that there has been no attribution in the text of the article to support this. The term "terrorist" and variants are used 31 times within the article, including sources with titles and content of:
    • "The day I met the terrorist mastermind - SHAMIL BASAYEV, a Chechen warlord and Russia’s most wanted terrorist..."[8]
    • "Shamil Basayev: Death of a Terrorist"[9]
    • and of course the quote from Basayev himself: "I admit, I'm a bad guy, a bandit, a terrorist ... but what would you call them?"[10]
    Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional - link to the discussion (such as it was) over where Sextus unnecessarily raised the topic at AN/I[11]. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pleased that I created this thread in this noticeboard, I am of the conviction that you are making no effort whatsoever to understand my, and other editor's stances'. You just keep telling me what it seems that I'm arguing for, as though I don't perfectly understand my own argument to begin with, you have done it here, here, as well as in this very thread.
    I have tried to explain to you that this is not a dispute for whether he was a terrorist or not, neither is it an dispute about what the RS say, but rather what the correct way to implement MOS: TERRORIST is. Let me illustrate for you how MOS: TERRORIST is implemented in other Wikipedia articles, where the RS report that person in question have engaged/affiliated in/with terrorism.
    Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's first paragraph in lede:

    Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (Arabic: أبو بكر البغدادي, romanized: ʾAbū Bakr al-Baḡdādī; born Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Ali Muhammad al-Badri al-Samarrai (Arabic: إبراهيم عواد إبراهيم علي محمد البدري السامرائي, romanized: ʾIbrāhīm ʿAwwād ʾIbrāhīm ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Badrī as-Sāmarrāʾī); 28 July 1971[2] – 27 October 2019), was an Iraqi militant and the first caliph[a] of the Islamic State, who ruled as the dictator of its territories from 2014 until his death in 2019.

    Nathan Yellin-Mor, who was the leader of Lehi(many RS accuses them of engaging in terrorism), this is the first paragraph of the lede in his article:

    Nathan Yellin-Mor (Hebrew: נתן ילין-מור, Nathan Friedman-Yellin; 28 June 1913 – 18 February 1980) was a Revisionist Zionist activist, Lehi leader and Israeli politician. In later years, he became a leader of the Israeli peace camp, a pacifist who supported negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization and concessions in the Israeli-Arab conflict.

    Osama bin Laden's first paragraph in the lede:

    Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (Arabic: أسا‌مة بن محمد بن عو‌ض بن لا‌د‌ن, romanized: Usāmah ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAwaḍ ibn Lādin; 10 March 1957[6] – 2 May 2011[7]) was a Saudi Arabian-born[8] militant[9] and founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda. The group is designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, and various countries. Under bin Laden, al-Qaeda was responsible for the September 11 attacks in the United States and many other mass-casualty attacks worldwide.[10][11][12]

    Notice a pattern? These articles don't start with: "X was a (insert occupation), and terrorist" as it is currently done in the case of Shamil Basayev, but rather have the RS claim that they were a terrorist/affiliated with terrorist organizations, somewhere lower down in the lede or article. Which is exactly the format that myself, as well as other editors find the most correct to apply to Shamil Basayev, per the reasons given in my explanation above. Do you still have any questions?
    (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    WP:OTHER - as I pointed out. Let me illustrate for you what MOS:TERRORIST states: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
    You agree that there is in-text attribution - ergo criteria has been met. Whether it conforms to other articles is irrelevant, and an argument that should be avoided as it dilutes your case. If your argument rests primarily on how other articles are portrayed, then by definition your argument for how this article is portrayed is weak. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's a correct reading of that guideline. That guideline isn't saying as long as you use in-text attribution, then you can also call someone a terrorist in wikivoice. It's saying that when you refer to someone as a terrorist, you should do so with attribution, and not in wikivoice (and you should also have strong sourcing to back up such a label)
    I think that guidance is correct - there's no compelling reason to be calling someone a terrorist in wikivoice - it sounds odd and it's an imprecise and arguably subjective label, and it doesn't provide any new information besides what could be done in a more precise and encyclopedic manner with description and attribution. Tristario (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. MOS:TERRORIST is a question of style that should not be considered inviolable. An overwhelming perponderance of WP:RS substantiating the label of terrorist should be sufficient for WP:YESPOV, especially a documented pattern of seeking indiscriminate civilian deaths. I would question the decision not to label bin Laden a terrorist.
    2. Shamil Basayev operated mainly as a military officer in a war of independence / on behalf of a quasi-state against uniformed combatants. His responsibility for civilian deaths in the Beslan school siege is disputed. The burden of proof for WP:YESPOV is not met.
    Sennalen (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for tagging me. I'll give Chaheel the benefit of the doubt and believe that he thinks that MOS:TERRORIST is saying that if there is sufficient sourcing, then you can ignore using the in-text attribution, as is seen by his messages here and here, and the one above this message aswell. Otherwise it's just vandalism at this point. What MOS:TERRORIST is actually saying is that IF there is enough sources, then you use the in-text attribution, which is already done as Sextus showed, although Chaheel insists that having simply "terrorist" in the opening sentence is in accordance with this rule. Even his participation and blame in many of the attacks he claimed responsibility for is questioned like user Sennalen mentioned above. If an editor came along and added several places that he's a freedom fighter, would that suddenly become acceptable to have in the opening line? I don't think so, nor do I believe it's acceptable the way it is now either. On another note, since Chaheel mentioned WP:OTHER, I must assert that this is not a case of WP:OTHER. I've explained to him before that WP:OTHER is generally about deleting and creation of articles, not about mimicking the style of it. It is very common courtesy and even encouraged on Wikipedia to look at good articles to mimic their style and tone.Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW I agree with Chaheel on the broader point: because MOS:LABEL can't override core policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V, sufficiently overwhelming sourcing for a contentious label can require us to use such a label to refer to a person in Wikivoice despite MOS:LABEL. (The description calls it out explicitly in the case of "pseudoscience" but it's not exclusive to that particular label.) But that's rare, and reserved mostly for cases such as Richard B. Spencer ("neo-Nazi" and "white supremacist") or Jim Jones ("cult leader") where the label is not only overwhelmingly sourced but a major part of the subject's notability. (Osama bin Laden would be such a case, so I'm surprised that his article goes out of his way to avoid it.)
    However in this case, I don't think that level of sourcing exists, so I do think you should attribute the label here. Loki (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFF, not WP:OTHER. OTHERSTUFF exists for exactly this argument, and as I point out elsewhere, relying upon how another article looks to define content of another argument is inherently weak. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay about deletion discussions, and also that isn't the argument people are making here. People (including me) are pointing out that WP:LABEL, a guideline, says that for labels like this attribution should be used, and it requires very strong sourcing, amongst other points Tristario (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Should the article Conservatism have a section on Reactionism?

    The discussion is here: Talk:Conservatism#Reactionism.

    Some folks have argued that reactionsim has nothing to do with conservatism, and therefore doesn't belong in the article at all. Others have argued for retaining a section that includes discussion of the debate over the relationship between the two concepts. There has been some edit warring and open canvassing. More uninvolved / clueful editors would be helpful here. Generalrelative (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

    Issue is which word to use in the lead, referring to the idea of a lab leak. Talk page discussion is here. Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#"Say" or "Speculate". Adoring nanny (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of criticism on Donald Trump indictment

    Please review those edits. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1147550760"