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

Former Ladies of the Supremes

I’ve seen this article with issues. I fixed the article to show like an encyclopedic article, but it seems like it doesn’t look like one, instead of looking like a fanbase wrote the full article. The article is not in chronological order; Before it had “Keeping The Musical Playing - Musical Highlights” and “Forty Years Later - Fantasy Becomes Reality”, I fixed those two sections. I recently put a POV template in the biography section because of all this, and removed “exit member, enter member” because it did not look like anything that belonged in the article. Yes, people should know the members who left and entered (replaced), but I had to merge all of them. Other sections are highlighting their performances, which is really not necessary for anything that is on Wikipedia. So, I wanted to put this on the noticeboard because this article has been poorly written since the past 10 years. I recently replied to an old comment from 15 years ago. Every mention of a member it is like "Former Supreme" and allat. Oldschoollover24 (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I sort of had cleaned up the article a little bit, but I will review it later and come back to add refs. Binksnternet had cleaned up the article, and I had cleaned it up multiple times before they did. I still need help for cleanup. Oldschoollover24 ( chat with me ) 23:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, the article was some material off the Jean Terrell article copied the “FLOS” article TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 11:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I added references, and as of now they have 8 references. I added 7, 4 mostly about Mary Wilson (singer) and the group, also 3 that highly/mostly does have something to do with the group. Someone added a reference from ghostarchive.org, I removed "Former Supreme" or Original, I am still working on it. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 13:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Now 13 refs. Removing template because the article seems to be fixed now. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 05:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Political positions of Javier Milei — Environment and climate change

TLDR: Should the undermentioned content be restored at Political positions of Javier Milei?

While this dispute is by no means limited to a single section, I will start with this. There has been a discussion between @Pedantic Aristotle and I at Talk:Political positions of Javier Milei. Unfortunately, the discussion has been only between them and I, so I hope that we can get some imput from one or more third-party users. I think this is the appropriate noticeboard, since Pedantic Aristotle argued: "To include such paragraphs will only be attributed to political activism, it does not follow WP:NPOV guidelines, and derails the discourse from the actual content of this article, which are specific political policies, and views on government affairs." Obviously I disagree, and I think it is an NPOV violation not to discuss something that has been widely covered by reliable sources (e.g. from the Associated Press: "He believes selling human organs should be legal, climate change is a 'socialist lie,' sex education is a ploy to destroy the family and that the Central Bank should be abolished."). They also think these are not political positions (obviously they are in my view and have been reported as such by reliable sources), even though this is clearly discussed in other articles, such Political positions of Donald Trump. This is what the removed section about Milei's views on climate change and the environment had to say:

A climate change denier, Milei rejects the existence of global warming, contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change, and attributes it to a socialist invention; he said that concerns about climate change are nothing more than "deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists". Despite his past comments that global warming is a hoax, Marcia Levaggi, a veteran climate diplomat, said in December 2023 that she has the full support of Milei's government, stating that Argentina would stay in the Paris Agreement and keep its commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050 under Milei. Levaggi also said that the Ministry of the Environment would be eliminated as part of a promised effort to shrink the government and "distributed among different ministries".

References

They removed this section arguing: "lets wait for more specific sources from Milei instead, this could be more relevant to policies under the government, or his presidency. its not clear if these are Mileis positions to stay in the paris agreement, or this is related to a larger political program." Obviously, they are relevant in my opinion, secondary reliable sources are preferred over primary ones, and the same reliable source (Reuters) explicitily cited Milei's past climate change denialist comments, which are important for context if we must have such a section. I think this should be restored (its wording can be copy-edited, more sources be added, etc.) and WP:PRESERVE be applied. The bolded part was added by me in an attempt to compromise with them, since they said they see "political positions" to mean those related "specific political policies, and views on government affairs", with the bolded part fitting that, yet they still removed the sourced content.

In conclusion, to reiterate: should the aforementioned content be restored? Or were their arguments for removal valid? Davide King (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned, I don't see how opinions on climate change can be a political position, since its an environmental phenomenon. Environmental policies would be political positions. I support the inclusion of opinions on climate change in the right context if there is a relevant policy being discussed, as was done in a statement like this;

"Argentina under incoming President Javier Milei will remain part of the Paris Agreement on climate change, the country's new top climate diplomat told Reuters on Sunday, despite the leader's past comments that global warming is a hoax."

I've opposed adding it as stand-alone or an extended elaboration as proposed, since such elaboration would not be relevant for a political position article, but may be relevant for other articles. Since there was ongoing discussions about this in the talk page, and the proposed paragraph was mainly focused on Marcia Levaggi, instead of Milei, I reverted the paragraph while working towards consensus or waiting for something more suitable to be added.

The key question is if including opinions on environmental phenomena is NPOV when listing a presidents political positions; "A climate change denier, Milei rejects the existence of global warming, contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change, and attributes it to a socialist invention". I believe it would violate NPOV guidelines quite severely to include it this way, but it could be included in various contexts if relevant to the topic, e.g. to contrast the position on the Paris Agreement, sections on media coverage, a section about his rhetoric and so on. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Can we please get a third-opinion view? Pinging these who have recently replied to one of the threads here, such as @ActivelyDisinterested, @BD2412, @Coretheapple, @Jimcastor @Masem, @Nableezy, @Selfstudier, and @SPECIFICO, but anyone is welcome. Davide King (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I would not restore the bolded text as it is far too close a paraphrase to the Reuters source. On its subject, I do not think there we can draw a clear distinction between political positions of an individual and the political actions of their government, at the very least they contextualize each other and sources are likely to compare them (as Reuters does). On the question of whether Environmental matters belong in political positions, in general they definitely do, as do demographic matters, military matters, cultural matters, etc. In this specific case, the views seem to overlap with not only his time as a political pundit, but also with his time as a legislative candidate/legislator. On the unbolded sentence Pedantic Aristotle notes above, there are some ways in which it is not as encyclopaedically written as it could be. I would remove "contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change", which does not add much understanding and thus reads as quite pointy. "A climate change denier, Milei rejects the existence of global warming" is also entirely redundant, saying the same thing twice, which may also read as pointy. CMD (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@CMD, thanks for your response. It is written that way so that we can have relevant links for the reader, such as Climate change denial and Scientific consensus on climate change. Also the wording used here is not different from that of other relevant articles, such as Political positions of Donald Trump or at Jair Bolsonaro.

Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, repeatedly contending that global warming is a "hoax". He has said that "the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive", a statement which Trump later said was a joke. It was also observed that he often conflates weather with climate change.

Bolsonaro rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. He repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the Paris Agreement during his campaign.

We could just have "climate change denier" or simply say that Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, if that would be less pointy; it is, however, well in line with hwo the issue has been described in other relevant articles. Reliable sources have widely reported on Milei's statements that climate change is "a socialist lie" and the like. So how do you suggest we word it?
Davide King (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Putting "scientific consensus" in the same sentence segment is better than having it in its own segment, if that is the way you wish to go. I don't think the socialist lie part is an issue, although reading again is a socialist lie the same as a deception by neo-Marxists? They feel similar. There is no need to force wikilinks in if they don't naturally work, but if you think they are important, and assuming socialists are neo-Marxists for Milei, perhaps "Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change; he said that concerns about climate change are nothing more than "deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists". CMD (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That would be fine, @CMD. The only reason I used that wording was also to avoid WP:NOPIPE and for transparency/precision, e.g. it may not be clear where exactly "rejects" link to. But linking issues aside, your suggested wording is fine. The reason why I put both "socialist lie" and "deceptions by neo-Marxists" is that the first can be considered a form of conspiracy theory about climate change, while the latter can also be put the context of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (according to reliable sources I have read, neo-Marxism is considered an euphemism for Cultural Marxism, since the way it is used it has nothing to with actual neo-Marxism), of which Milei has been described as promoting.

That is another section that was removed. Again, Political positions of Donald Trump include Trump's birtherism conspiracy theories about Obama, so the question to ask is this: should Milei's promotion of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory have its own section (like with Trump and birtherism) or should be merged into the "Education" section? Indeed, apparently the other user (Pedantic Aristotle) and I had reached a compromise about having the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory mentioned in the "Education" section, since that is the way Milei sees it, yet they removed it on the grounds that they were "some controversial additions. also make sure the article focus on the political positions, we have a dedicated article for public perception, to keep things on topic". As I said, mention of conspiracy theories, which are often political in outlook, have been routinely discussed in such articles. The only disagreement should be on which wording to use and how to word it, rather than whether it belongs to; per reliable sources, it clearly belongs and is something that has been significantly discussed. To semi-quote ActivelyDisinterested, "Cultural Marxism shouldn't be a political position, but politicians have made it a political position." Davide King (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Climate change shouldn't be a political position, but politicians have made it a political position. Inclusion of a politicians position of such matters is not NPOV, neither is having a section for it an NPOV matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, indeed that is also what I said that climate change "shouldn't be a political position, but politicians have made it a political position". Yet I do not understand your next statement of why "inclusion of a politicians position of such matters is not NPOV, neither is having a section for it an NPOV matter." If reliable sources widely reported the topic, the real NPOV violation is not including something that has been deemed by reliable sources a "significant view". This is also well in line with how we have covered the issue with other politicians.
Davide King (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I meant the opposite, but was thinking about the policy while typing. To not include the section would go against NPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that inclusion of the position and having a section for it are inline with NPOV policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @ActivelyDisinterested, that makes more sense. :-)
I found your quote very interesting, and I think that could also be applied to "Cultural Marxism" (another issue), what do you think? That was also removed on the grounds that these were "some controversial additions. also make sure the article focus on the political positions, we have a dedicated article for public perception, to keep things on topic", even though I thought we had reached a compromise in having that discussed within the context of "Education" rather than "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", which the other user opposed on similar grounds for climate change. I think WP:PRESERVE applies and I believe that sourcing is good enough. The wording could be improved but I see no reason to remove it outright.
Davide King (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, regarding "Climate change shouldn't be a political position, but politicians have made it a political position."

This seems to be a common interpretation by editors here. But, we are also entering a significant fork in the road on NPOV, either it means there is an established Truth with consensus amongst editors on Wikipedia that should be supported, and the role of Wikipedia is to educate the readers and inform them about these evil politicians, or NPOV means Wikipedia does not engage in this discussion, and simply lists relevant information.

By including opinions on topics unrelated to political positions, because we believe politicians have made them into political positions, we are in fact engaging in this very discussion, and going for the former definition. Alternatively, this information is only listed as contextual information, for relevant positions on the environment, the difference is subtle but fundamentally important.

The larger topic on rethoric etc, can easily be included in other ways, which does not establish The Truth for the readers.

This is a much larger problem than what people here think it is, with significant consequences for how Wikipedia is edited. If the definition is in fact the former, Wikipedia should probably abandon the goal of NPOV, and instead pursue a consensus based opinion.

cc: @ActivelyDisinterested @Chipmunkdavis @Davide King Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I will just say it is not us who have made them political positions. It is reliable sources themselves that discuss it within that context. For example, we do not discuss the climate change views of Donald Trump because we feel they are a political position or to provide some WP:TRUTH. We do so because reliable sources consider them political positions and have widely reported them that not including them violates WP:NPOV. Milei's views on this have also been widely reported. These are just my two cents. Davide King (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, we should include those with attribution in e.g. public image. Anything else would be to transfer those opinions to become Wikipedia's opinion. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

For reference, some sources that do not support the definition of climate change being a political position;

UN on climate change; https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change

BBC on climate change; https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24021772

Oxfords definition of Political; https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/political?q=political

Cambridges definition of Political; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/politics-political-politician-or-policy Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course, climate change is not per se a political position, since it simply "describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its effects on Earth's climate system". Yet it is clearly relevant to politics and government as both the UN and BBC sources report, thus supporting what @ActivelyDisinterested, @CMD, and I wrote.

• The BBC article literally includes a section titled "What are governments doing about climate change?", while the UN says: "Climate action requires significant financial investments by governments and businesses." Additionally, the dictionaries definition respectivaly says politics "means the activities of the government or people who try to influence the way a country is governed" and "connected with the state, government or public affairs". So where is the issue?
• Finally, both linked articles report that "recent climate change has been caused by human activity, mainly the widespread use of fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - in homes, factories and transport", and that "since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas."
• Milei rejects this consensus on climate change, calling it "a socialist lie" and linking it to "Cultural Marxists / neo-Marxists", thus making even more relevant to politics, since Milei himself linked climate change to politics with his "socialist lie" and "Cultural Marxists / neo-Marxists" comments.

What more is needed to see this as the obvious? Davide King (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Just include content related to what Milei thinks the governments should do about climate change, and its clear as day. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What about those who think the government should do nothing about climate change because it is "a hoax" or "a socialist lie"? That is still a position, whether you like it or not. Also Wikipedia is based around independent secondary sources, and an article about the politicial positions of a politician should not be a mere list of what he or she said but should reflect how these independent secondary sources have covered him. If they covered him as a climate change denier, we explain why using what those sources said, or what Milei said, and his eventual response or denial that he is a denier. But it is relevant to his positions. Davide King (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if there is a source that actually states the position as the government should do nothing about climate change, or equivalents, it should be included under "Environment" as the source states. For Milei I did not see such a source yet, the only source I read is that his government supports the Paris agreement. Then we can include the comment on global warming being a hoax to balance that as Reuters did, since its a relevant context. Just needs to be done in the right order, as the right order would be perfect NPOV, and simultaneously convey the same content. Win-win. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Environment positions are defacto political positions and are commonly included as such in other articles.
The article subject is "Political positions of Javier Milei" not just the government header by Javier Milei political positions, so anything relevant to the political position of Javier Milei is appropriate to be in the article. If you want an article about only the position of the government he is currently leader I suggest you start a new article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No disagreement here, I don't think it contradicts my proposals. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No what I'm saying is that the environment section should be returned to the article, there is no need to have a source that actually states the position as the government should do nothing about climate change, because the article is not about the government run by Milei but the political positions of Milei himself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, what i meant was that we need a source that confirms what political positions Milei has on this topic, i.e. what his opinion is on government affairs related to the environment. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

So do you, @Pedantic Aristotle, agree that the section should be restored? Because now we have two third opinions supporting we restore that (@ActivelyDisinterested and @CMD, with the latter also giving us some advices on how to improve the wording but still agreeing that it should be restored). Both also seem to agree with my argument that this is indeed a political position and that climate change is something that can be discussed in an article about the positions of a politician, if reliable sources have significantly covered it, which is clearly the case.
Finally, as Actively Disintered said, we do not need "a source that confirms what political positions Milei has on this topic, i.e. what his opinion is on government affairs related to the environment" because "the article is not about the government run by Milei but the political positions of Milei himself", and reliable sources have significantly covered Milei's comments denying climate change. Davide King (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

We all agree there is a difference between government policy, and political positions, and we all agree that climate change is relevant to politics, and I have no problem including a section on Environment, thats not the topic of discussion. We also seem to agree that climate change is not a political position in itself.

How then do we create a section on Environment? We need sources that mentions his political positions related to the environment first, no? After that we can include it in the article, and we can add contextual information as Reuters did. The comments from @ActivelyDisinterested and @Chipmunkdavis has not really addressed this issue.

The article should front and center be about the positions, the moment we start filling this article with political discussions and controversies, we are engaging in a debate we should be no part of. To help the process move along, how about

we include something like this?

== Environment ==

Javier Milei will keep Argentina in the Paris Agreement on climate change. This stance contrasts with his earlier comments that global warming is a hoax. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I prefer using a clearer chrological order (e.g. he first made his climate denying comments) but we can simply reverse that. I oppose to the removal of Milei's characterization of climate change as "a socialist" lie" or that he rejects the scientific consensus of climate change; we should give context, and since it is about Milei's political positions, it is relevant that we include what Milei has said about the issue, as reported by reliable sources. It is also not a given that "Javier Milei will keep Argentina in the Paris Agreement on climate change", and that is the part that CMD had some issues with; I had added it as a compromise to have the section restored. Davide King (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so its tricky in every direction. It would be helpful to have sources elaborating on his Environmental positions, that would make things easier.

Things like "a socialist lie" etc is more related to rhetoric and criticism of socialists, than anything else. "Rejects the scientific consensus of climate change", i would include with attribution in public image, assuming the sources say that directly. I find them notable topics related to his character and persona at least.

What is unclear, is what is the purpose of including them as a political position? The notability is related to the statements themselves, not because they are notable political positions, i don't think they even are political positions to begin with.

When reading about political positions, I assume a reader would be looking for positions, rather than a list of controversial statements. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Colombo, Sylvia (9 December 2023). "'From horrible to merely bad': will Javier Milei take his chainsaw to the environment in Argentina?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 December 2023.

"A climate change denier, Milei has promised not to comply with the 2030 agenda – which is centred on 17 sustainable development goals – and to withdraw from the Paris agreement because he will not accept 'impositions from outside'. He says his government will not have policies to fight the climate crisis, protect Indigenous people, or decrease deforestation, nor to sustainably regulate the production of the shale oil and gas reserve of Vaca Muerta, seen in Argentina as a golden goose.

But in recent weeks, there have been signs of a possible softening of the rhetoric as Milei prepares to take office in Casa Rosada on Sunday. Nature defenders in Argentina and Latin America are watching to see if he will implement his destructive environmental agenda, as his Brazilian ideological partner, Jair Bolsonaro, did in Brazil between 2018 and 2022, or whether he will moderate his tone."

This is well in line with my proposed wording. Davide King (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this source we could use for something. It will need rephrasing to align with encyclopedic content, but it contains information on political positions.

The article would support something like this;

Milei intends to pull Argentina out of the Paris Agreement and ignore the 2030 sustainable development goals. His approach includes no specific policies on tackling the climate crisis, reducing deforestation, or regulating the Vaca Muerta shale reserve sustainably. He has previously stated that global warming is a hoax.

We need to consider what to do about the other article contradicting the Paris Agreement statement tho. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That is fine by me but this belongs: "Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change; he said that concerns about climate change are nothing more than 'deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists'." The same source I provided to you calls him a climate change denier, we simply cannot ignore that. Your proposed wording, without this part, makes it appear as though Milei does not think anymore that climate change is a hoax, which is not supported. Davide King (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point, I didnt read it that way, but we should stick to factual statements, and avoid opinion statements.

E.g. "Milei has stated that global warming is a hoax" would be a factual statement. How about this phrasing?

"Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change", is an interpretation, better suited for public image.

That he has used "deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists", would be a factual statement, but its not very relevant, beyond him accusing neo-Marxists of things. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that "Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" is an opinion, to me it reads as an accurate description by reliable sources but that is secondary. Whatever precise wording we use, it is important that we mention his views about climate change, which have been described as denialist. Also stating that "global warming is a hoax" is, by default, rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change. Why mention the quote about it being "a hoax" and not "deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists"? I think both are relevant. Davide King (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Re, "Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" lets call it an interpretation then, it seems people have a bias against things being called opinions, even though most things are.

The statement "global warming is a hoax" is directly related to the section on environmental policies related to climate, it also captures "climate change denial" well, while also being a factual statement. It is the best option from my perspective.

neo-Marxists, socialist lie etc are primarily related to anti-socialist rhetoric, they don't add anything that wasn't already stated on climate change. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

But that is not an opinion, and it is not seen as an opinion by WP:RELIABLESOURCES who state it as fact, and there is no reliable source questioning this, in which case it would have needed to be attributed. That is even more the reason why we should report this, and explain that his views about climate change come from his anti-socialism. Davide King (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we are going a bit off-topic, and into a discussion on semantics. What i mean is that you require an interpretation when making an analysis of what someone said. The interpretation can contain facts.

Re "That is even more the reason why we should report this, and explain that his views about climate change come from his anti-socialism.", I think it would be sufficient to just add what RS have reported as political positions, explanations and analysis are done in public image, where we just repeat what has been reported by RS. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we will have to agree to disagree, or else this will never end. We will leave that to the closure.
I think, here, @Liu1126 explained this issue perfectly. In particular, "if we use this method, then we end up having to go through this whole rigmarole for every single sentence of every single article, deciding whether it falls closer on the fact side of the spectrum or the opinion side of the spectrum." That is something that I have noted in my interections with you, and while I think we did much good together, it is becoming tearsome to have such long discussions about everything, with you questioning everything a source said. I am following what Liu1126 wrote, and my proposed text falls in line with WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." That is what I did, with both The Guardian and the Financial Times (independent secondary reliable sources) doing the interpretation for us and describing him as a climate change denier. Since no one is disputing this, certainly not any reliable source, it can be considered more than a mere opinion, so there should be no issue with us stating that "Milei is a climate change denier" or that he "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" in a section discussing his views about climate change and the environment, plus the other wording you proposed, which is fine.
Davide King (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think semantics are important, although apparently not everyone here agrees with that.

I don't see that I'm proposing anything complicated or controversial;

- add attributions when its an opinion

- don't state opinions as facts

- use reliable sources for the content, not our own opinions

- stay on topic, add content where its relevant

What @Liu1126 says about rigmarole is not what I'm proposing. Simply phrasing things with attribution would be a simple solution for most cases, and would end arguments like these.

If he is described as a climate change denier, then we should write that he is described as a climate change denier. Its not what is being done, instead editors are transferring these statements to become the opinions of Wikipedia, there should be no surprise it results in so many discussions...

I'll try to summarize the alternative. Wikipedia should form a consensus to define the truth and opinions on various subjects, and write that in the article. It should derive the truth and opinions represented by reliable sources. If that is what most editors on Wikipedia wish, then thats what it will be. My opinion is that its likely not desired, and will have unintended consequences.

Overall, the quality of the articles are improving, but i agree it is a slow process. At least I hope I'm getting some of my points across. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTION says: "Although everything on Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice, not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." That is why we avoid saying "Sources A, B, C, D, F, G, etc. say X." If sources A and B say X but sources C and D says Y, with all sources being equal on quality, then we use attribution. We can say that Milei has been described as a climate change denier, or that his positions have been described as rejecting the scientific consensus. But we must say it in a section about climate change. So far, you are the only user opposing that we write what Milei has said about climate change, including calling it "a socialist lie" and attributing it to "neo-Marxists". Just because Milei is using anti-socialist rethoric, it does not mean it is not relevant to write this in a climate change section. Milei himself made this a political position, since these quotes are straight from him.
Davide King (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Why would it be an interpretation and not a description? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

In short, this version would add only the part that CMD opposed the most, and remove the part that ActivelyDisinterested and I had no problem with (e.g. Milei rejecting the scientific consensus and the way he characterized the issue). Davide King (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @ActivelyDisinterested, @Chipmunkdavis, and also other users from the Kennedy's thread, which seems similar to this in regards to NPOV issues but in this case the other user I have been discussing this with (Pedantic Aristotle) oppose the aforementioned text at Political positions of Javier Milei § Environment and climate change. In alphabetic order, excluding no one (everyone is welcome to help us move frward with this stalemate): @Ad Orientem, @BD2412, @Bon courage, @Darknipples, @DeCausa, @EvergreenFir, @The Four Deuces, @GRuban, @Hemiauchenia, @Hob Gadling, @Horse Eye's Back, @Liu1126, @Masem, @Muboshgu, @North8000, @Pavloskaz, @Ser!, @Silverseren, and @Szmenderowiecki. Davide King (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Milei's policies or Argentina (independent of Wikipedia's take on it) for me to confidently comment on this issue right now. I think I may be interested in closing this discussion instead.

By all means present reliable coverage, and in particular I am looking forward to your usage of South American newspapers (particularly Argentine ones). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

During his political career, Milei has described climate change as "a socialist lie", and said that concerns about climate change are nothing more than "deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists". As result, he has been called a climate change denier. Pedantic Aristotle wants to remove this and move them at Public image of Javier Milei, although I do not see what they have to do with that and are clearly relevant to his political positions. Now that he has become president, it appears that he is trying to moderate his stance, although that is to be seen, and WP:CRYSTAL applies. Even reliable sources reporting on his attempt to moderate mention his climate-denying comments, so why should we not to? Finally, we already have precedents with Jair Bolsonaro and Political positions of Donald Trump, who are incidentally also two politicians who have been compared to Milei, where we report they reject the scientific consensus on climate change and how they have characterized it (e.g. Trump with the Chinese hoax and Milei with the socialist invention). Even La Nación reported: "During the presidential campaign, Javier Milei gave several statements denying climate change and its sources." Whether he will really moderate is to be seen, and even if we will, the article should cover Milei's political career and not just his presidency.

References

Davide King (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not at all opposed to having them on Wikipedia, but I believe they should be included in the proper contexts. They are relevant to public image, due to the large amount of articles written about his him that includes these statements. They are not political positions, as per the dictionary definition of the word "Politics".

Also... we should defiantly not establish the articles on Bolsonaro and Trump as precedent for how to write articles. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

As stated by TFD and many others, they are considered political positions, thus they belong to an article about his political positions... Davide King (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed a few editors have this opinion, but i find it quite odd to change the dictionary meaning of things. If that was not enough, it also has implications which i believe are harmful to NPOV and the credibility of Wikipedia. But i can only offer my concerns, and hope to shift the consensus in a positive direction. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I told you, medical abortion and climate change are not per se political postions (e.g. one is a medical procedure, the other is a term to describe global warming), yet they are clearly relevant because whether one wants abortion to be legal or illegal and whether someone wants to do something or not about climate change, it turns into politics (both require government actions, as both the BBC and UN showed, thus they become related to government affairs, thus they fit the dictionary "political position" definition in this sense) and thus they are relevant and generally discussed in "Political positions of" articles. It is also relevant why someone may want to make abortion illegal (usually religious reasons, in Milei's case it is also a matter of property) or why someone does not want to do anything about climate change or may want to exit the Paris Agreement (e.g. it is "a socialist lie", "deceptions by neo-Marxists", or "a hoax invented by the Chinese"). Do you now better understand why "Abortion" and "Climate change" are routinely discussed in such articles?
Davide King (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Milei's position on climate change is a political position. It's part of his political position of anti-socialism. Compare with abortion. Abortion itself is not a political position, it's a medical operation. But attitudes toward abortion are political.

I agree btw that the phrasing used for Trump and Bolsonaro is better. He "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" conveys a more neutral tone to "contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change."

Also, I don't favor replacing "socialists" with "neo-Marxists." TFD (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they are possibly related to his anti-socialism position, but this is also well covered. Abortion is a good example, the topic for a political positions article is about government policy on abortion, not abortion itself, but we can clarify the position on abortion with e.g. religious beliefs. Only including the religious beliefs would make no sense. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces, "neo-Marxists" is used because that is what he said, and we are quoting him. We could link "neo-Marxists" to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory since that is the context (he has promoted this conspiracy theory, which was also removed by the article by Pedantic Aristotle, even though it was put within the context of education, as they had agreed and also used similar arguments to their removal of climate change, citing NPOV issues), and clearly not what we say at "Neo-Marxism". I prefer using the quote, since "socialists" could mean everything and nothing, and because it does appear he used the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory in relation to climate change, too. It is not a big deal to me though. Davide King (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Pedantic Aristotle needs to read WP:FRINGE and its corolllaries WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:LUNATICS and WP:YWAB. NPOV does not mean all opinions are treated equally, only those that are treated equally by reliable sources. Crazy ideas that are clearly rejected by experts, such as climate change denial, are to be described as such. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are implying i disagree with these policies, but that's not quite the topic of the debate. Its a matter of how to write it NPOV. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I am implying that you are trying to violate them by treating scientific consensus as a mere "opinion". That is not how it is done on Wikipedia. NPOV does not mean what you think it means. Loads of experienced editors have been telling you that in one way or another, but your philosophy seems resistant against any reasoning. WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY is another good read for you. (Anticipating a response: There is no WP:TWOAGAINSTMANY but if there were, it would say pretty much the same thing.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Lets skip the semantic discussion then. If you think my proposals are not helpful, thats also fine, but I assume people will consider the arguments on their merits. We are here to help improve Wikipedia, and I'm sharing my perspectives as everyone else are. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps now is the time to see that your argument does not stand on its own merits is only perpetuated by bludgeoning? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm against uninformative vague characterizations in Wikipedia and doubly so when they are made by "RS's" that are political opponents. "Climate change denier" is one of those terms. At worst it can mean flatly denying the common meaning which is the scientifically accepted central tenet of climate change (human caused activity significantly affecting the climate) or much vaguer more arguable things. Or interpreting spur-of-the moment hyperbole. Much better to put in objective facts in rather than somebody's characterization. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. The case of Milei seems to fit "flatly denying the common meaning which is the scientifically accepted central tenet of climate change". If it was much vaguer, I could see your point, but I think there is no one disputing this, so I think at least in this case your concerns are unfounded. We can avoid using "climate change denier" (even though diverse reliable sources, such as the Financial Times and The Guardian, used it), if that will restore the sourced content that in my view was wrongly removed. But we cannot avoid stating that Milei "flatly [denies] the common meaning which is the scientifically accepted central tenet of climate change". Is there anyone or any reliable source disputing this? Davide King (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm here because pinged and interested in the wiki process side. On that note, disagree with the process of your last sentence. Setting a high bar of "need an wp:RS that says otherwise" to leave something out is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

But the thing is, in this case, that Pedantic Aristotle is arguing we do not put something in, like that Milei has been described as a climate change denier (we can say this if you prefer) or that he rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. Indeed "setting a high bar of 'need an wp:RS that says otherwise' to leave something out" is what Pedantic Aristotle has argued, just subsitite "that says otherwise" with "that says that 'climate change is [relevant to] a political position'". This is clearly relevant to his views about climate change and the environment, which is something that should be discussed in the political position article of a politician, do you not agree with this? Davide King (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Davide King: I'm sorry that I'm not deep enough in on the article or knowledgeable enough on him and the situation to recommend how this should end up. I think that my comment on avoiding uninformative vague characterizations is valid nevertheless. I very much agree that his views about climate change and the environment should be covered. Ideally from a more detailed analysis and presentation by an objective source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Climate change is just as much a political position as his views on abortion are. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

We would not write a dedicated section about Milei's opinion on medical abortion procedures in a political positions article. On climate change, its only relevant to include political positions related to the environment. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yet abortion is always cited in "Political positions of" articles because it is a political position, it is relevant to politics (e.g. whether someone is for it to be legal or illegal, or whether someone supports or reject the scientific consensus on climate change, which requires governments, thus politics, among others to be solved), and it is routinely discussed as such by reliable sources. You are free to think all such articles should not have an "Abortion" or "Climate change" section, and you are free to argue to have them removed. I do not think you are going to find any consensus though and you will likely get reverted for it and will not achieve consensus in a RfC either. Davide King (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You should know by now thats not my position. I've supported both abortion and environment sections. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yet you continue to think that "Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change", or that he is a climate change denier, is an "interpretration" and do not want it to be stated in a climate change section, even though reliable sources clearly consider this and his past denialist comments relevant. Again, would you be okay with us stating "Milei's position on climate change has been described as rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change" (I do not support this wording), or is the issue that you do not consider this relevant or a political position? Even though it is, per WP:RS and most other users here who have commented. Davide King (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, i would not support those. We already include his comment that "global warming is a hoax", making these redundant additions, as @Chipmunkdavis also mentioned.

The place to elaborate on how media has characterized him would be Public image. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No, CMD's issue was mainly with having both "climate change denier" and "rejects the scientific consensus", in fact their proposal is this: "Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change; he said that concerns about climate change are nothing more than 'deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists'." Also Milei's comment is not that "global warming is a hoax", his comment is that climate change is "a socialist lie". It is reliable sources that have described him and his comments as arguing that it is a hoax and that he is a climate change denier. Also no, we do not segregrate content like that. How reliable sources have described Milei on a given issue, e.g. climate change, can also be discussed in the "Political positions of" article, which should not be a mere party platform where we just list "Milei said this and that". It must have analysis. Davide King (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it should be an article including everyones opinions and analysis about the positions, because that would make the article an unreadable mess. Encyclopedic content should stay on topic. Where does it say analysis is required in positions, when public image is dedicated to such analysis? To my knowledge, this is how other equivalent articles have been edited (please don't use Trump/Bolsonaro as examples).

Beyond that i think you demonstrated the problem with the Wikipedia approach you suggest. It becomes very confusing who said what, who interpreted what, what are facts, what are opinions when its all muddled together without attributions.

What about this then, although its less optimal;

== Environment ==

Milei has expressed intentions to withdraw Argentina from the Paris Agreement and ignore the 2030 sustainable development goals. His environmental policy approach includes no specific policies on tackling climate change, reducing deforestation, or regulating the Vaca Muerta shale reserve. He has called climate change a socialist lie. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Surely that he has called climate change "a socialist lie" should be the first thing we write, since it explains why "he has expressed intentions to withdraw Argentina from the Paris Agreement and ignore the 2030 sustainable development goals", e.g. he believes it is a hoax. But it is not a big deal. What is a bid deal to me is that your proposed text does not include this: Milei rejects the existence of global warming, contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change, and attributes it to a socialist invention; he said that concerns about climate change are nothing more than "deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists". Both @ActivelyDisinterested and @CPD (I followed their suggestion to remove "climate change denier", since the way it was written before, it did look like repeating the same point twice) do not have an issue with this, and I still do not see a valid reason to remove that. Indeed, the section should be titled "Environment and climate change". Davide King (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Please bear with me, in my example. To me this reads as the abortion equivalent along the lines of;

X believes that god created man, and believes the bible considers life to be sacred. He said that people who perform abortions commit murder.

It does not appear encyclopedic to me. From my perspective, the political position should come first, relevant context is added as secondary information to the extent they clarify the position. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

How is that relevant context? There's nothing in there which links the two sentences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

That looks like a strawman, since this is what we say about abortion, which is perfectly fine by me, and you (Pedantic Aristotle) do not seem to have issues with it either.

Milei opposes both abortion and euthanasia, grounding his views in propertarian terms, as he sees it as violating the non-aggression principle. He considers abortion to be a violation of property rights and equates it with theft. Milei holds that abortion is morally indefensible, even in cases of rape, and supports it only when the mother's life is endangered. He plans to hold a referendum on Argentina's 2020 abortion legalization law and has indicated he would support its repeal. He has stated that his opposition to abortion is based on what he said is an "unrestricted right to life". Arguing about the beginning of human personhood, he said that life begins at conception.

Saying that Milei rejects the existence of global warming, contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change, and attributes it to "a socialist lie"; he said that concerns about climate change are nothing more than "deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists" is perfectly in line with Milei opposes both abortion and euthanasia, grounding his views in propertarian terms, as he sees it as violating the non-aggression principle, which you seem to be fine with. Yet it is the same thing: Milei opposes abortion-rights because he sees it as violating the NAP, and Milei rejects the scientific consensus on climate change because he believes it is "a socialist lie".
Davide King (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, the section on abortion does elaborate on contextual matters. Note that in abortion we start with the position, which is the matter of law, then explain it afterwards. At the end we include a statement on conception (the metaphorical equivalent to climate change/global warming).

For environment, the environmental policy is the matter of law, then we include his statement on climate change at the end, "he has called climate change a socialist lie." The statement "deceptions promoted by the neo-Marxists" is basically the same thing, just rephrased, so didn't think it added anything new, but it could be added if you think its important.

Note that we didnt include any elaboration whether or not life begins at conception according to science or other third parties, that seems relevant for another article. Neither did we include analysis on the abortion views, criticisms or similar, those could be included in public image if they are notable.

Hope that helps to clarify. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, that Milei rejects the existence of global warming, contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change, is clearly relevant, as climate change requires government action, among others. It is also certainly due since it explains why Milei does not want to do anything about it. So your argument that "we didnt include any elaboration whether or not life begins at conception according to science or other third parties" misses the point. It is not a big deal to me the exact order but other articles started this way, and I do not see why you are so opposed to this. "Note that in abortion we start with the position, which is the matter of law, then explain it afterwards." So why can this not apply here, too? I see no difference from "Milei opposes ... abortion [note that we do not say abortion-rights but abortion, the medical procedure, as reliable sources worded it]" to "Milei rejects the existence of global warming, contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change". To me, that is the same thing. His climate change denial statements should go first because all his proposed enviromental policies, or perhaps his lack of proposals, are the result of that and not vice versa. Just like the section about "Abortion" is titled "Abortion" and the first thing we do is saying that he opposes it and then we elaborate on why he thinks so, the climate change section should include "Climage change" in its title. So the first thing we do is saying that he thinks this is a hoax and then we elaborate on why he thinks so and how he does not want to do anything about it. It is a matter of logic. It is not that Milei does not want to do anything about climate change, and by the way he thinks it is a hoax; it is that Milei thinks it is a hoax, thus he does not want to do anything about it. Like with "Abortion", the latter order for "Climate change" is more logical, and I would argue that the fact he denies climate change is the most important thing, just like that he opposes abortion is, and is the first thing we say. We should follow the same order and logic. Davide King (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, these are good arguments you make. I'm sure I come across as pedantic, but I hope controversial topics like these are worth it. :-) Also appreciate the patience.

I thought that the statement "he has called climate change a socialist lie" made his position very clear, and there is no need to expand on that further. The rest is just analysis on what he means when saying that, and trying to educate the reader. It doesn't clarify the position further, it just rephrases and restates the same thing multiple times.

If climate change requires government action is the central topic of the debate for Milei at least. For commentary - I'd bet that he believes people will take action without government involvement if people believe in climate change. It would align well with the ideology, he does not think the government should be involved in anything, and its why he accuses the "socialists" of introducing taxes, laws and restrictions. But thats definitely OR.

I hope we reached some mutual understanding of the disagreements here. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am not going to repeat what I already told but I really appreciate your words and that we reached some mutual understanding of the disagreements. So unless other users want to weight in, if @Szmenderowiecki is still willing, they may write a closure (I apologzie and feel bad for them having to read all this ♥️), so we can see what consensus there is for and what they suggest to move us forward. :-) Davide King (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you understand Spanish, but on one of the presidential debates [1], he said that there is a natural cycle of temperatures going up and down and had nothing to do with human intervention. So, there is little room for interpretation that he doesn't accept the scientific consensus that current changes in temperature are due to human intervention. I can make a literal transcript if you need it.

In the video he continues saying that since it is a lie that it is caused by human activity the policies about climate change are made to collect funds in order to finance lazy socialists who write papers about it. Note that the woman in the video was a socialist candidate, so this part might be rhetoric, specially if we consider that in the same debate he called another candidate "a terrorist that put bombs on kindergartens". The latter is now his current security minister (no joke).

Regarding Pedantic Aristotle hypothesis, I think Milei and pretty much any libertarian would argue that the market is more efficient than the state, and thus there is no need for government intervention, regardless of their position on climate change. What changes is whether they believe it is a real problem or a theoretical one.

I also think that denying global warming (science) is not the same as arguing it is a neo-Marxist hoax (politics). One thing is saying the theory of relativity is wrong because this and that step in the derivation are wrong (even if the objections turn to be incorrect), and another one is saying it cannot be right because Einstein was a socialist [2]. Günther Frager (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Günther Frager, thanks for your comment. I was aware of Milei's comments about Bullrich, I missed Milei's reiterating his climate denialist views. I also agree that "pretty much any [American-style]] libertarian [in most of the world they are seen as right-wing libertarians] would argue that the market is more efficient than the state, and thus there is no need for government intervention, regardless of their position on climate change. What changes is whether they believe it is a real problem or a theoretical one." That is indeed what changes. I am not sure whether it means you believe the content should be restored or that you support that we say Milei rejectes the scientific conesnsus on climate change and the way he sees it in a climate change-related section at "Political positions of Javier Milei". But the fact Milei himself said that during one of the presidential debates should stop arguments claiming that this is not relevant to politics or that his denialist views about climate change do not belong at "Political positions of Javier Milei" in the relevant section. At "Public image of Javier Milei", this can be contextualized within his support of some conspiracy theories, but it is also relevant and should belong at "Political positions of Javier Milei". Davide King (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I support entirely the inclusion of it in the political positions of Javier Milei. My comment was to give a primary source to dissipate any doubt that "Milei denies global warming" is not a conjeture made by our secondary sources, and that is is not a conclusion from "global warning is a socialist hoax".

Part of having a policy is acknowledging that it tries to solve a concrete problem. Milei argues that there is no problem at all, and therefore no need for a policy. This is the same position that other politicians have on other issues. For example, no politician in Argentina would propose a policy to to curb the overpopulation of hippopotamuses for the simple reason that it is not currently a problem. Günther Frager (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

One thing is saying the theory of relativity is wrong because Yes, those are minor differences in the pretend reasons, but the real reason why free-market fans reject climate change is always that they do not want regulation of the energy market. So they invent either one fairy tale (the science is wrong) or another fairy tale (it's a hoax), and the same person can use one fairy tale at one time and another at another time. It's just motivated reasoning and kettle logic. We do not need to quote the exact pretend reason a person happened to use, the usual wording "rejects the scientific consensus" is enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Genghis Khan

I want to add historical dates such as early 13th century or 1220's in this sentence but I'm being prevented by another user. Does he even have any right to do this? "The two earliest descriptions come from the Persian chronicler Juzjani and the Song diplomat Zhao Hong" it comes a section of a wikipedia paparagraph-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Character_and_achievements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengoku-lord (talk • contribs) 12:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain how this presents an NPOV issue? I am not clear on that. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sengoku-lord, the best approach would be for you to start a thread on the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes. Please be aware that the article is currently undergoing a review for good article status. Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Niyi Osundare

• Niyi Osundare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is our article on Niyi Osundare sufficiently neutral? I thought not and made some cuts, but a new editor disagrees. Am I the one in the wrong here? More eyes and hands would be very appreciated. MrOllie (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

no, it is not sufficiently neutral. i would go so far to say that more ought to be done. at the very least, several claims should be backed up by citations RetroCosmos (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont think this page I wrote, Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, should have been deleted. It involves Michael Jackson

I think it was improperly deleted bc it upset some fans. What do you think;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safechuck_v._MJJ_Productions&oldid=1189083980 Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It was redirected because the case is ungoing and appeal court rulings that may or may not lead to trials do not warrant standalone articles. No articles were created for this case when the cases were dismissed, nor were articles created for the dismissed creditor claims. There are also no articles to Robson vs MJJ Production or MJ Estate vs HBO either. There are 1000s and 1000s of appeal court rulings which set precedents and they don't have separate articles. castorbailey (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But then why did you delete all the CONTENT about the ruling from the "Child Sexual Abuse Accusations against Michael Jackson" page when i put the content on there? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Just because a case "involved Michael Jackson" does not guarantee it a page of its own. See WP:NOTINHERITED. BD2412 T 01:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Though it should be covered, which it appears to be on that redirected page. Masem (t) 01:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. That is its best context. BD2412 T 01:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Are there standalone articles about appeal court rulings especially in ungoing cases? Never saw any. castorbailey (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine comes to mind, but such cases are a rarity, involving legal issues of national importance. BD2412 T 02:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's a federal case about an abortion drug and the article was created before the appeal court ruling. It's about the case as a whole not the ruling in particular. I don't see why a ruling by a state appeal court which the state supreme court did not even review would warrant a standalone article just because it involves Michael Jackson. castorbailey (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jimcastor: I am not making a case for inclusion of the disputed article on the basis of the abortion case existing. BD2412 T 17:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes you making a case on flimsier basis. You were asked to provide examples where state appeal court rulings in ungoing cases had their own article. So far you didn't. The one example you shows was after a trial and in a case with life and death repercussions. No page was created for any ruling in this matter and this one should not get preferential treatment either. castorbailey (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure who you are speaking to, but if you meant me, of course i provided references to 1) tons of coverage of this particular ruling; 2) significant legal /human resources industry publication coverage even though the ruling is only a few months, 3) a number of other Cal Ct t of Appeal individual pages. Not sure if you are forgetting. Also more to the point, you keep evading the main issue which is the content of the ruling keeps getting scrubbed from the C.S.A.A.A.M.J. page, by folks you have a history with according to talk pages.

When you say "other rulings didnt get their own pages so this one shouldnt get preferential treatment ," that makes bo sense. 1) feel free to write other pages on rulings, 2) whether or not others did, this particular ruling got tons of media coverage and legal analysis, 3) what do you mean by "preferential"? You think it should be erased because the Jackson favorable lower court rulings, that got overruled, dont have pages?

but this is all besides the point. Why does the content keep getting scrubbed per the C.S.A.A.A.M.J. page Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There are definitley stand alone appellate ruling pages. I searched the California court of appeals pages to create the stand alone page.

I would be fine with inserting the ruling content on the redirected page but users seem eager to delete it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I included it on that page myself, don't know why it was deleted. What state appeal court ruling in ungoing case has its own page? Here the page was created to promote the appeal court ruling in particular, there was no page for the case before that, nor for the related Robson vs MJJ Production or MJ estate vs HBO castorbailey (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The ruling summary has been repeatedly deleted from the redirect page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Just doublechecked and all references to the ruling have been scrubbed from the page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Various folks have purged the reference to the ruling on the "accusations" page consistently Bhdshoes2 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Masem and @BD2412 any tips on best practices when other editors keep deleting coverage of the revival of the lawsuits in August from the "Child Sexual Abuse Accusations Against Michael Jackson" page? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, if others are objecting to the inclusion of content on a Wikipedia page, the proper response is to initiate a conversation on the talk page and generate a consensus for inclusion of the content. BD2412 T 01:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree! I wasnt saying it needs its own page bc it involves MJ. I meant to say i think it is being DELETED bc it involves MJ. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to coverage of this case in, e.g., law school textbooks or law review articles? There are literally tens of thousands of cases decided at the state appellate level every year, so our standards for inclusion of a case must be high. We don't even include all cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. BD2412 T 14:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If you search the decision, there are a vast number of mainstream media hits discussing the ruling (likely due to the MJ nexus) but it is still early days for treatment in law review articles I am guessing. But there has been some discussion of legal impact in expanding corporate liability in CA. below are some write-ups focusing on legal significance as opposed to the news angle:

* "Can an employer be complicit in sexual abuse of employees? | HRD America"

HRD America https://www.hcamag.com/us/specialization/employment-law/can-an-employer-be-complicit-in-sexual-abuse-of-employees/457706

News and info about human resources management for the American HR professional. Read the latest HR news, interviews, and analysis from the HRD team.

• https://www.mathenysears.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/09-14-2023-Safechuck-v.-MJJ-Productions-Inc_.pdf law firm's alert on ruling
• https://www.sierrasun.com/news/law-review-are-michael-jacksons-corporations-liable-for-his-sexual-abuse-of-young-boys/
• https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/michael-jacksons-companies-face-reinstated-sex-abuse-claims
• https://www.courthousenews.com/lawsuits-against-2-michael-jackson-companies-reinstated-by-ca-appeals-court/
• https://www.law360.com/articles/1704263/michael-jackson-s-cos-face-skeptical-panel-in-abuse-suits Bhdshoes2 (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

making sure you saw this in the blizzard of text Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jimcastor why did you delete the first two sources above as "unreliable"? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Because they are not reliable sources. First is the site of a lawfirm second is an opinion piece by a lawyer castorbailey (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Ps and on the supreme coùrt point, correct that there are zillions of rulings a year and they dont all get Wikipedia pages. But someone has to write the page. The absence of a page doesnt mean it [necessarily] is "supposed" to not exist - it just means [possibly] no one wrote it yet.

And there are Califronia appellate rulings on Wikipedia - that is where I got the framework for the infobox. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

PPS also I'm not saying that it HAS to have its own page necessarily. It ain't Roe v. Wade. But i do have concerns about the "one--two punch" against neutral information going on here. First I write the page on the ruling. An editor deletes it eith a redirect and says consensus needed on talk page. OK so I add it to the main accusation page. Same editor removes the ruling infobox. Ok... well maybe infoboxes don't belong on a page on a survey page about all allegations -- what do I know. Then a different editor or editors deletes out literally all references to the ruling from the page. So even if inadvertent, the upshot is no one can use the encyclopedia to read up on this ruling. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

We have California Supreme Court cases like Moore v. Regents of the University of California, Summers v. Tice, and Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California specifically because they are notable enough to have made it into law school textbooks. I see a number of lower appellate court cases that are unreferenced and probably should be deleted. BD2412 T 15:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes those are all landmark cali supreme court rulings, this was not even taken by the supreme court. I deleted the infobox because infoboxes are for article summaries not section summaries otherwise every page could be cluttered with infoboxes. All references to the ruling should not be deleted. I noticed that evidence of Bhdshoes2 engaging in off wiki canvassing to spread negative material on Jackson was submitted on this board Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing, WP:Canvassing, Offsite canvassing on a General sanctioned page and topic. Please take a look. Looks like the canvassing is taking place on a reddit sub of Jackson detractors and based on his edit history he plastering salacious material (whether notable or tabloid) in as many places on wiki as possible including here on this board, see: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Reflist-talk Michael Jackson. It looks like heavy WP:ADVOCACY at the very least. castorbailey (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not true. At all. Never did offsite canvassing. Never posted salacious material. If people are being nasty doxxers on social media to you, I'm very sorry that happened, but dont blame me. "Salacious" makes no sense. You know we are talking about an accused child abuser right? I personally dont like talking about the specific sexual allegations but sometimes it comes up in ... editing a page about a guy repeatedly so accused. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You did post salacious material in this board too filled the reference list with them when references are not supposed to include extensive text, you exaggerated Star Arvizo's claims in the references. If a salacious accusation made was justification to include them all over wiki, we could include the details of Joe Bartucci's or Daniel Kapon's claims too but we don't because wiki is not supposed to be a platform for every fishy abuse allegation ever made. The allegations in the notice was that you started or participated in a reddit thread where users were urged to come here and fill wiki with anti-Jackson material. So far you did not deny your involvement in that thread. castorbailey (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It is fascinating to me that you are offended to see graphic citations to the sexual content of Star Arvizo''s testimony, widely reported, and yet in same breath you dispute that Star accused Jackson of sexually abusive behavior. The only reason for the quotes and citations is because you kept disputing he claimed abuse. How can his testimony be too scandalous for a talk page, but not worth noting when we list the people who have, according to reputable sources, accused Jackson of abuse. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said you exaggerated what Star Arvizo actually said making it look like he claimed Jackson walked in naked and masturbated in front of him and his brother, that was not his claim and Star Arvizo saying "we were grossed out" would not make his claims sexual abuse under the law. Your reason to fill the reference list with that was what you have been doing elsewhere: to put anti-Jackson material in as many places on wiki as possible. The issue is not whether it is "scandalous" but it's not what references are for. As I stated Bartucci's and Kapon's allegations have even more salacious material, they were both reported by numerous outlet, that does not mean that you or anyone else should plaster their claims all over wiki. I see you still did not deny your involvement in that reddit thread, I take it as an admission you in fact were involved. castorbailey (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, you don't think exposing one's erect penis, while nude, to an 11 year old boy and his brother is sexually abusive? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully. both you and @Jimcastor: are treating this as a venue in which to discuss the topic... Not wikipedia. Both of you appear to be wayyyyy too involved to edit this topic area dispassionately, I suggest you move on to other topic areas before your editing privileges get imperiled. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Ps "if all references to the ruling should not be deleted," then why does it keep happening and what do we do about it? Edit wars are illegal so ... what do we do? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

All references to the ruling should not be deleted. You however wanted a standalone article for that ruling which has no precedent on wiki. The one example you cited is inapposite. castorbailey (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop with the strawman arguments that i demanded a standalone. Yes i think the standalone is defensible, but I said it would be fine to cover in the C.S.A.A.A.M.J page. I said 1200 times that in lieu of the standalone we could do a blurb on the page. And as you know from the talk page, I announced i would add it to abuse page. But editors (with whom I notice you have a relationship per talk pages) like Mr. Boar1 and TruthGuardians keep deleting the content from the "accusations of abuse" page. That ruling that the trial could proceed was in the New York Times in August 2023, Washington Post, Guardian, etc etc etc and bad faith editors keep scrubbing it because they are concerned about the "accuser count" apparently making Jackson look bad.

Why did you delete the standalone ruling page rather than move the content to the "abuse accusations" page? Why dont you revert the bad faith deletions about the upcoming trial in Feb 2024? Don't you want a good wikipedia page that provides readers with an allegation overview? Why dont you want anyone to know? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It's hardly a strawman when you did want a standalone article and this very notice is titled "I dont think this page I wrote, Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, should have been deleted". As you were informed repeatedly I redirected the article to the allegation page for the above-mentioned reasons and I added the information about the ruling to that page myself. If anyone deleted it since then, that's on them not me. castorbailey (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Revamping the header

There is currently a discussion on the talk page about revamping the header that may be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. non-neutral lead section

- Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

In the lead section of the article we read that he is “is an American politician, environmental lawyer and activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories.” The characterizations of promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories seem undue for a lead section. WP:UNDUE

Compare with the corresponding presentation current lead section of Britannica: “American environmental lawyer, member of the prominent Kennedy political family, and activist who became a leading figure among vaccine skeptics.” with no mention of misinformation or conspiracy theories.

Currently edits are locked for unrelated reasons, Special:History/Robert F. Kennedy Jr. but it seems appropriate that the lead should be edited. Pavloskaz (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

He seems a very well-established antivaxxer.[3] Maybe the world's most famous? There might be a case for having that descriptor first, but in any event it's due prominently in the lede to avoid whitewashing. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that he may be currently the most famous vaccine skeptic, hence “a leading figure among vaccine skeptics” seems appropriate to include in the lede.

However, he is currently a candidate for POTUS. As such he is better characterized by his political positions on a wide array of issues. Saying that he “spreads vaccine misinformation and conspiracy theories” in the lede seems biased in the current context.

Also, the choice of words is too strong, and the sources cited cannot claim high degree of majority agreement (again, contrast with the Britannica description, arguably a source that is more incentivised towards neutrality than any of the sources [1-5]).

The current description, both in content and phrasing, seems way unbalanced.

See also the lede for other candidates:

“ Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.”

“ Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ ⓘ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States. An ideologically moderatemember of the Democratic Party, he previously served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 under President Barack Obama and represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009.”

There is clearly a gap in the degree of neutrality compared to the Kennedy article. Pavloskaz (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

'Vaccine skeptic' is a kind of fake term like 'climate skeptic' and not something for a serious encyclopedia article. Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not see what “fake term” means. One can be a skeptic on any subject, regardless of our position regarding the merit of their doubts.

Skepticism Pavloskaz (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Would that make us "skeptic" skeptics? GRuban (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

🙂 Pavloskaz (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"vaccine skeptic" There is no such thing, just conspiracy theorists and scaremongers. Misinforming people for fun and profit. Dimadick (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone can be anti-vax without providing misinformation. "Misinformation" should not be in there unless he furnished categorically false info and there is strong sourcing for it. North8000 (talk)

Let me say first that Kennedy does promote "anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories" (see article sources) and it's absolutely WP:DUE to have that upfront in the lead (and, indeed, watering that down to “a leading figure among vaccine skeptics” is what would be WP:UNDUE). However, subjectively, that first sentence makes one think one is about to read an attack piece rather than an encyclopedia article - the tone is off. I would suggest ending the first sentence at "activist" and make the next sentence "He is known for promoting anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories and is the chairman and founder of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group." DeCausa (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that is still not neutral, in the sense of placement. It lacks the civil distantiation afforded to other candidates in the lede. No one would introduce a POTUS candidate as “known for promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories” in the first, second or third sentence.

Compare with the ledes of two more candidates.

“Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an American philosopher, theologist, political activist, social critic, actor, and public intellectual. The grandson of a Baptist minister, West's primary philosophy focuses on the roles of race, gender, and class struggle in American society. A socialist, West draws intellectual contributions from multiple traditions, including Christianity, the black church, democratic socialism, left-wing populism, neopragmatism, and transcendentalism. Among his most influential books are Race Matters (1993) and Democracy Matters(2004).”

“Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy is an American entrepreneur and presidential candidate. He founded Roivant Sciences, a pharmaceutical company, in 2014. In February 2023, Ramaswamy declared his candidacy for the Republican Party nomination in the 2024 United States presidential election.” Pavloskaz (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

A better template might be David Icke or Andrew Wakefield. Bon courage (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

These individuals are not currently candiates for a major political position. The comparison is incongruent in terms of neutrality standards that need to be upheld. Pavloskaz (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Putting yourself up for elected office does suddenly not grant you special status on Wikipedia, so far as I am aware. Follow the sources. Bon courage (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You cannot “put yourself up” for POTUS. It requires a minimum of public exposure that justifies a heightened impartiality standard in the lead description. Pavloskaz (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

He declared himself a candidate, ergo he "put himself up" for office. Impartiality is not "heightened" in these cases. We don't purposefully create double standards. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not about neutrality/impartiality of the encyclopedia in a presidential race. The lead, which naturally will have the highest readability reach, currently reads more like an attack on the candidate. It also sets the perception for the rest of the article. No other current candidate is presented in such terms. Biographies of living individuals naturally have to be edited to adapt to evolving contexts.

The way that it stands now it runs the risk of being misinterpreted as a double standard in the presentations between Kennedy and other candidates. Pavloskaz (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Correction: “This *is* about neutrality…” Pavloskaz (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

So in order to remedy a supposed double standard you are proposing a WP:FALSEBALANCE? How do you square that with policy and guideline? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not proposing a false balance. What I am proposing is balanced given the current context. As the article stands, I would be like introducing Donald Trump with “attempted to overturn the 2020 election result” in the lede. Or Joe Biden with “and withdrew U.S. Forces from Afghanistan”, i.e. include a major attack point of their opponents on a specific political position in the lede. Does that seem appropriate? Pavloskaz (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The false balance would be equating mainstream political positions and conspiracy theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"I am not proposing a false balance." Agree to disagree on that. DN (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the false balance exactly? The lead states opinions as facts, and includes opinions without attribution, which is clear NPOV violations.

This could be written true NPOV, immune to NPOV criticism, but instead the choice is to write opinions as fact, which does more harm than good, and discredits Wikipedia overall. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead states facts, the only opinions I see are Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s. DN (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It is clearly asymmetic to the way other candidates are presented in the lead (even Trump is presented in a neutral manner) and makes the article look vandalised. Like someone has tried to cram as man references as possible against the candidate n the first sentence! Pavloskaz (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Comparing RFK to other candidates will not help your argument. What you may not realize is that truth is irrelevant here. The lead sentence says "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials as RFK Jr. and the nickname Bobby, is an American politician, environmental lawyer and activist..."and that is the first thing readers will see. The rest is not as much anyone else's fault, including the editors on Wikipedia, as it is RFK's. DN (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The reader will see the full first sentence, that’s how reading goes, and not just the uncontested segment you copy here. And it is the part you miss that we are discussing. Pavloskaz (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We do not "heighten" impartiality. We remain impartial, even if it is not politically convenient to a political candidate. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The current lede is not impartial imo. By “heightened” I mean that this is currently a very important article because of the presidential race. Pavloskaz (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, a lot of political articles on Wikipedia is about pushing a political bias, rather than writing encyclopedic content in a neutral tone. The main problem seems to be the practice of transfer opinions from reliable sources into facts on Wikipedia, instead of including opinions with attribution. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUTH EvergreenFir (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with it. Opinions are not facts, yet opinions are frequently written as facts simply because editors found many RS agreeing on something. Its very harmful to the Wikipedia project. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That is literally how being a candidate for POTUS works. You can put yourself up to run today if you'd like. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Getting yourself on the ballot in a majority of states requires a minimum of public exposure. Pavloskaz (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There is not a single state in the Union where getting yourself on the ballot includes a public exposure standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Getting a Wikipedia article requires a certain amount of exposure as well (see WP:N). EvergreenFir (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't require any more exposure than that there be sources and that those sources be publicly accessible in some way... We have plenty of obscure topics which are almost completely unknown outside of a specific academic niche (well under 1 in 100 of the general population would have been exposed to them). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ballot access

“In the 20th century, ballot access laws imposing signature requirements far more restrictive than Wigmore had envisioned were enacted by many state legislatures; in many cases, the two major parties wrote the laws such that the burdens created by these new ballot access requirements (usually in the form of difficult signature-gathering nominating petition drives) fell on alternative candidates, but not on major party candidates.” Pavloskaz (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

How do you get from signatures to public exposure? If you're familiar with signature drives you will know that most of the people who sign have never heard of the candidate before, they are supportive of the process. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Except that unlike them, RFK Jr's notability does not come from association with conspiracism. Like Donald Trump, mentioned above, people knew who he was long before he weighed in on conspiracy theories.

The relevant policy is Impartial tone: "articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." We don't say for example that Dr. West "promotes Christian misinformation." We don't lecture readers that Christianity is an irrational belief system.

No reasonably informed reader will confuse "vaccine scepticism" with holding a reasoned scepticism of vaccination. It's similar to lots of polite descriptions: pro-life, climate change scepticism, anti-Islamism. TFD (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The guy does seem to like a good antisemitic conspiracy theory too.[4] Bon courage (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering the people with which Kennedy associates himself, hardly surprising. He has been promoting the international Jewish conspiracy for quite some time. Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• I must comment on the oddness of a 10-year, 8-month old account making their very first edit today and finding their way to this noticeboard directly afterwards. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  There is nothing odd. I was shocked by the sloppiness of presentation on a very important article. And thanks for the warm welcome on the noticeboard :) Pavloskaz (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, Evergreen is right. That is odd. You made an edit request on Talk:RFK Jr. and didn't even wait for a response before launching this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I am not an editor, but a daily reader. Maybe I rushed to the noticeboard and did not follow the process correctly, because of inexperience. I apologise for this. Pavloskaz (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Welcome @Pavloskaz, your input is appreciated. Typically the edits are done on the article, and if its reverted, discuss on Talk page first. The topic can be posted here if no consensus is made in the Talk page discussions. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @Pedantic Aristotle. Editing is locked “to prevent vandalism”. I have submitted an edit request. Pavloskaz (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• His promotion of scientific/medical misinformation and conspiracy theories is well documented in reliable sources. It has been a major topic of coverage about him and his campaign. It belongs in the lead. I am not sure if it belongs in the opening paragraph. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not familiar with the person in question, but i think NPOV requires attribution instead of writing it as a factual statement. It would not be a problem to state that reliable source X has accused him of Y. Its a different thing entirely to present it as The Truth. Since this appears like a political article, anything thats not factual events should be considered an opinion. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  The problem comes when we would have to say that "reliable sources A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U, and V have accused him of Y." In that case when there are no significant sources which say the opposite we can just say "He did Y" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Then it could be generalized if they are of similar nature. If it is a diverse and wide range of sources, then write a short summary of what those are. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Why? And can you point me to an article which does that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  It says right here in the first bulletpoint WP:WIKIVOICE. Avoid stating opinions as facts. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  These aren't opinions, they're facts. It is a fact that RFK JR promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories. It would be an opinion if we for example said it made him a bad person or unfit to be President. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, that only applies to uncontested statements. If it was uncontested then it wouldn't be here on the NPOV board. Statements such as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" are definitely interpretations/opinions, regardless of their merit. If there are many sources saying this, it would make a stronger case to include that in attribution, rather than presenting it as the opinion of Wikipedia. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm fine with stating something to the effect that "he has been widely criticized for promoting conspiracy theories and misinformation regarding vaccines." -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  So I took a quick look in the articles body to make sure it would be justified, but i couldn't find many attributions that would support that statement. The only attributions i found on vaccines was from one epidemiologist, and his own family, so the body needs to be fixed. The body in its current shape would only support something like "has been criticized by some epidemiologists and the Kennedy family for his anti-vaccine disinformation", which I'm certain is not a correct representation on this topic.

  Unfortunately the editing of the body is so poor, it may ruin the credibility of the criticism. Assuming the criticism is justified, the article deserves an NPOV cleanup, so that the content can be taken seriously. NPOV wording would be something like this, the current lead could easily be dismissed as political activism:

  "Robert F. Kennedy Jr., born in 1954, is an American environmental lawyer, writer, and anti-vaccine activist. He is the son of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy. In 2023, he announced his independent candidacy for the U.S. presidency.

  Kennedy founded the Waterkeeper Alliance and has been involved in legal actions against pollution. He has garnered significant attention for his controversial views on vaccines, which have been widely criticized by scientific and medical communities." Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Scientific American article says: "Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality" and "Kennedy has been brazen in publicizing outright lies". The article provides the receipts, giving specific examples of false statements that Kennedy has made, and has continued to repeat after being presented with proof of their falsehood. BD2412 T 00:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  That is a good inclusion to support the lead. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  So using reports from Scientific American, NBC, The Hill, NYT, The Guardian, The Wrap, we can characterize a candidate in the first sentence of their. And link the reader to these articles in that same sentence to get a first encyclopedic impression of the candidate. Does that seem like a proper editing practice? Pavloskaz (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  It is a frequently used practice on Wikipedia, which is very harmful to the project in my opinion. I would argue the practice should be abandoned, and i would encourage editors on Wikipedia to defend proper NPOV style of writing across the board, regardless of their personal opinions on a topic. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Citations are usually supposed to be left out of the lead, but this can lead to instability for certain more contentious topics, typically political. DN (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  What reliable sources contest those statements? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  The opening post mentions one source that does not include that phrasing, but I'm not familiar with this person or topic. I'm providing input on how to write this NPOV, not the content. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  You can't base content on what sources don't contain. If there were RS that said this person was a respectable source of high-quality health information, that would move the needle. But you can be sure there is no such source. Bon courage (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, but we also can't pick sources and assume their opinions are universally accepted. Facts and opinions needs to be treated differently, especially on political topics. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  So despite previously claiming that it was contested you are now claiming to be unaware of any source which has contested it? How does that work? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not here to argue content. The statements are phrased as opinions, thus they are opinions, and require attribution. The fact is that such and such RS have made these statements. Whatever we may think of this person, we should not reword opinions into facts, regardless of how widely used they are. If they are widely supported opinions, then write that. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Which statements are phrased as opinions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Statements such as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" are interpretations/opinions. It automatically becomes an opinion statements due to these words. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Why is either of those an opinion rather than a fact in this context? If they're opinions what would the factual name for the misinformation and conspiracy theories be? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The only fact is that we have RS that says this or that. There are no ways to write opinions as facts.

  It would be a big quality boost, increase the credibility of the article, and end these kinds of discussions to simply write it formally NPOV as opinions with attribution. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  But what they're saying are facts, not opinions. What isn't factual about about the text concerning misinformation and conspiracy theories? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  An opinion statement cant be a fact, it is semantically impossible. A factual statement would be an opinion with attribution. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  What would be the opinion being attributed? I can't identify an opinion in that sentence, thats why you're being asked to. You haven't yet. You need to if you expect to be taken seriously. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The statement "activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation", is an interpretation/opinion of what he has said. A factual statement would be e.g. "have been criticized for promoting anti-vaccine misinformation by x".

  The phrasing here is key, one is an opinion, the other is a fact. By including a RS, we did not prove the statement "activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation" to be true, we only proved it as an opinion by RS. Its not up to Wikipedia to take a position one way or another, we simply include what RS have said about the topic, and thats it. In this case, as there appears to be a wide range of sources, we simply write that a wide range of RS have said this. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Its not an interpretation/opinion of what he has said, its what he said on a basic factual level. The information he promotes is factually misinformation and the theories he advances are factually conspiracy theories. Those are no more opinions than his birth date. See WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, you are asking wikipedia to take a position... A pro-fringe one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  "The information he promotes is factually misinformation and the theories he advances are factually conspiracy theories."

  Please show me where i have contradicted this. I've provided no opinion on that one way or another, only NPOV phrasing. I disagree my proposals for NPOV phrasing would support his views. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  You said those were opinions, not facts. Again, you are opposing NPOV phrasing... Not supporting it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  I only said the statements were opinions, and made no assessment of the factual accuracy. The semantic difference may not be important to you, but please avoid misrepresenting my comments.

  I would also expect contentious topics like these to continue to create contention given how NPOV is interpreted. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes indeed... Because if they did not create contention they wouldn't after all be contentious topics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Kennedy's promotion of anti-vaccine narratives, particularly through his Children's Health Defense organisation, has been his most notable activity over the last 2 decades. It belongs in the opening sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• The lead could have a sentence or two on his political views (other than his environmental work) as he is a presidential candidate with non-negligible support, but the anti-vax advocacy stuff definitely belongs there and it has been the defining characteristic of at least a substantial part of his life. And "anti-vaccine" and "misinformation" are appropriate descriptors of his advocacy. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• There were two recent well attended RFCs about this matter, which ended with the current wording. This looks like forum shopping to try and undo those RFC by finding a technicality. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Just to point out again, any change to the wording should go through closure review or a new RFC. NPOV will have been considered in those RFCs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I have submitted an edit request. Editing is currently locked for unrelated reasons. Pavloskaz (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's not what I was saying, Requests for Comment are a internal Wikipedia process for determining consensus. One was held about the initial wording of this argument, it was well attended, and those who took part took NPOV into account. To now change that consensus (because consensus can change) should involve either re-opening that RFC or starting another one. To undo that consensus by forum shopping the question here isn't how it should be done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• While the anti-vax and misinformation details are absolutely correct for RFK Jr., and they are significant enough to his notability to be in the lede, placing them as such in the lede sentence violates the neutral, dispassionate tone requirement that NPOV demands, because it makes it like we are forcing the scarlet letter about those aspects front and center. The same intent can be said by a second lede sentence to explain and give content without forcing it into what should be an objective statement that ledes the article. --Masem (t) 02:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not this invented rule again! It's probably better to follow MOS:FIRSTBIO and make sure the opening sentence says what this person is most notable for (health misinformation). Bon courage (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  That rule says "The first sentence should usually state:" (my stress). FIRSTBIO also goes on to say "However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead paragraph." Which is basically what I am suggesting to improve tone. Masem (t) 03:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The most notable thing about this person is the antivax stuff. There is no reason to avoid reality. Bon courage (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  And there is zero harm to moving that to a second sentence, still keeping it high up in the article lede to meet the principles of FIRSTBIO to show that it is a significant reason why he's notable, while meeting the NPOV policy requirements on tone and impartiality. Masem (t) 05:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  As ActivelyDisinterested mentioned above, the last two RfCs aren't even cold yet. It should console everyone clutching their pearls here to know that the first part of the lead sentence (which is quite long) reads..."Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials as RFK Jr. and the nickname Bobby, is an American politician, environmental lawyer and activist...". DN (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, It's a shame its being written in a way that would automatically dismiss the criticism as political activism. If it was written NPOV it could be taken seriously by more readers. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Is that the point? More readers? DN (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't the point to write articles on Wikipedia to be credible sources of information? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Credible according to who? Pavloskaz? That's only one reader. You said readers, plural. Who are these people you speak of? DN (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  As a longtime reader and donor I am very disappointed by this attitude on a very important article. This is just an obviously politicised presentation of the candidate, inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and the editing process seems to be blocked.

  Again, do a quick comparison with Britannica, they have all the information about the anti-vax and conspiracy stuff, but not in the first sentence! With 5 links to just these. Like, isn’t this the obvious good practice for a POTUS candidate? Pavloskaz (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Pavloskaz, consider that NPOV also implores us to avoid a recency bias. Yes, right now this individual is in the news for political candidacy. However, they have spent the last 18 years with a large amount of coverage in reliable source around their anti-vaccine advocacy. If this individual were in fact a perennial political candidate (eg. Jill Stein) the discussion would certainly be different, but that is not the case.

  I'll also point out that Britannica does indeed have an anti-vaccine note in the first sentence, for what that is worth. —siroχo 18:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Credible, as in verifiable. The factual statements written in the lead are not verifiable as facts, only as opinions. Thus the articles credibility comes into question. Readers trying to verify the information, will fail to do so in its current form. If it was written NPOV, this wouldn't be a problem. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  A problem for who? DN (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not for who, for what. It wouldn't be a problem to verify the information, the current phrasing is unverifiable. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• The fact that he is an anti-vaccine pseudoscience pusher is the primary source of his notability and has been for decades. Recent political activities doesn't change that. We wouldn't alter the first sentence of Alex Jones just because he ran for president, we would just add "and United States presidential candidate" to the first sentence. Which is what was done with RFK Jr, with the American politician part even being the first things noted in the lede sentence. Everything in his first lede paragraph is properly weighted in prominence and discusses both aspects of his notability. Trying to remove or lower this information in the lede is just attempts to subtly whitewash the article. Silverseren^C 02:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Several here have made this comment, that he is most famous for his anti-vax positions. But I think that this is clearly wrong, as he has bexome recently much more widely known globally because of his presidential bid. I doubt that many people outside the US knew him before that. (I certainly didn’t. I came to the article to check him because of the 2024 bid.) Pavloskaz (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  And it immediately looked like someone had vandalised the article to include an attack on the candidate in the lead! But at the same time editing is locked “to prevent vandalism”. How does that work exactly? Pavloskaz (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  It works. DN (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  That does not answer the “how”. Pavloskaz (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The "how" is quite irrelevant. DN (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I mean in terms of process. Who decides ultimately to lock the article to its current state? Pavloskaz (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  That is a question better suited for the WP:TEAHOUSE. I suggest staying on topic according to the venue. DN (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thats done by administrators, who are elected by vote by registered users. Restrictions on editing are usually done for articles that experience frequent reverts, instead of discussion and consensus on the articles Talk page. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you! I see the elected editors are not doing their job properly in this case. I will look into how I can take part in the voting process. Pavloskaz (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The lock could be valid, since the article may have had frequent edit waring and contention. It is there to promote discussions on the Talk page for edits, and reduce volatility in response to volatile editing. I think voting requests for admins are sent out automatically, based on users who has interacted with the administrators in question, but I'm not very familiar with the process. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the lock is for frequent changes as indicated by the history, and seems valid. But this also blocks the process of updating the article to reflect current context. Pavloskaz (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The opposition, which seems to be frequent is not related to the content, but that its not written as NPOV. It actually discredits the article and editors, instead of the subject, which is very unfortunate. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. As it stands now the lead is clearly sub-standard for an encyclopedia article on a U.S. presidential candidate. Pavloskaz (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Above, Pedantic Aristotle has difficulties recognizing facts, calling them "opinion". Here are opinions: its not written as NPOV and clearly sub-standard. Most experienced editors disagree with you two.

  My opinion is that your reasoning has been substandard through the whole thread.

  • First, you essentially argued that the articles about people who are not famous for spreading misinformation do not say that they spread misinformation, so an article about someone who is famous for spreading misinformation should also not say that he spreads misinformation. Well, let's just write "X is a human." as a first sentence so they are all the same.
  • Then, you essentially argued that misinformation is in the eye of the beholder, as if no methods existed that can reliably discern true information from false, and as if no people with any clue about anything existed. Well, they do exist.
  • Then, you essentially argued that what Kennedy did yesterday overshadows everything what he did the last twenty years to the extent that it is not worth mentioning anymore. This is the WP:RECENTISM playbook, and we should not follow it.

  You can find multiple instances of the same reasoning in the archives of the Kennedy Talk page. They did not work because that reasoning is bad. But the people who used it probably believe that they did not work because of a sinister conspiracy of, I don't know, maybe pharma shills, or Democrats who want Kennedy's antivax stance be be widely known, in order to split the loon vote by luring antivaxxers away from Trump, or whoever. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is a miserepresentation of my arguments. My only argument is that this is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is too politicised as a lead description.

  I am not discussing the content or veracity of the misinformation claims, and Kennedy did not become a candidate yesterday (recentism). He is currently known globally for being a presidential candidate. To say that he is currently mostly known for anti-vax seems U.S. provincialism to me at best. English language articles have global reach, especially the ones about POTUS candidates. Pavloskaz (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  To say that he is currently mostly known for anti-vax seems U.S. provincialism I am not from the US and do not live there. His misinformation is available worldwide, but you cannot vote for or against him worldwide. So, "U.S. provincialism" applies to his presidential candidacy more than to his antivaxerism. Also, information about the truth or otherwise on what somebody says about a scientific subject is not "politicized". Deleting it because he is running for president would be. Misrepresenting science-pseudosience conflicts as "political" is a common ploy by politically motivated pseudoscience fans, such as climate change deniers. It does not work on Wikipedia because of WP:NOTDUMB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  So it would be e.g. OK for Wikipedia to introduce Donald Trump as “ex president etc… , and a climate change denier.” With 5 references just to the last phrase, in the first sentence of the lead? Pavloskaz (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  If the reliable sources gave that aspect that sort of weight, yes. But actually, he is more of a all-round reality denier. Things he regards as unpleasant - a black US president, climate change, COVID-19, Trump having a smaller crowd than Obama, Trump losing an election, several other things - he handles by denying that the are true, as fans of Norman Vincent Peale and other extreme proponents of a positive mental attitude are always in danger of doing. Since climate change is not what reliable sources focus on, it would not be OK. If they did focus on it, it would. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure what you are referring to as facts, but facts needs to be supported by evidence. If a wide range of sources have said X, it does not make their statements fact, the only evidence would be that they are opinions expressed by a wide range of sources.

  Its unclear if your comments are related to things i wrote or not, but I will answer them anyway;

  • I believe I proposed to include what RS have said about it, instead of rephrasing it as facts.
  • Whether his statements are misinformation or not, or if its in the eye of the beholder is off-topic for the article, it is sufficient to state what the RS have said, thats it.
  • Agreed on WP:RECENTISM.

  I have no opinion on the content of the article, only the style of writing in relation to NPOV. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  The sources quoted in the article would tell you why it is misinformation, if you actually read them. Everybody can verify that the things he says about vaccines are untrue. That you dismiss the information as "opinion" and are too lazy or unwilling to check is your problem. They are reliable sources, and what they say checks out with what other reliable sources say on the same subject. The sources even contain links to such sources. Kennedy is spreading misinformation. Fact. Your claim that, for instance, what Scientific American writes is opinion, has no basis in reality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not taking any position on the information, neither am i dismissing it. There seems to be a semantic confusion on the word opinion. A fact is something you can verify through experiments. Opinion includes interpretations of facts. I'll assume you are correct that the sources include statements that can prove he is spreading misinformation, but it does not make the statement "Kennedy is spreading misinformation" a statement of fact, thats a semantic confusion. The statement "activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories" is a reflection of the opinions or findings of the sources.

  Wikipedia should only convey what RS say on a topic, nothing more nothing less. What is relevant is that many sources have criticized him for his spreading of misinformation, and that the semantics chosen in the lead is phrased as an opinion of Wikipedia.

  The example i posted earlier, or similar, would be a much clearer phrasing, which would align with both NPOV and verifiability ("He has garnered significant attention for his controversial views on vaccines, which have been widely criticized by scientific and medical communities")

  In general, the goal of phrasing things as WP:Truth is not a good idea. The same information can be conveyed within NPOV, and increases the credibility instead of decreasing it. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  There seems to be a semantic confusion on the word opinion I am not interested in those sophisms. By interpreting the words "opinion" and "fact" that way and insisting on treating the anti-vaxer term as a mere opinion, you are trying to turn Wikipedia into one of those relativistic, postmodern Larry Sanger-style failed "encyclopedias" that are useless for obtaining actual information because they make no difference between a scientific finding and the brain fart of an ignorant loudmouth. You really need to read up on the Wikipedia policies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've only clarified it to make sure we understand each other, I hope I was not offending. My proposal is to attribute these statements, to improve the credibility of the statements. Its the opposite of what it seems you think I'm saying. In order to establish credibility, its important to know who has made a statement. An opinion can have significant weight depending on who has made it, its not a dismissal or belittling. Including such statements without any attribution does not provide it credibility, its quite the opposite. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  We should not attribute statements of fact because it falsely implies they are not actually facts, like we wouldn't write 'According to NASA, the earth is round.' MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, but we disagree on the definition of a fact where this applies. In this case it is actually harmful to not include it. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  My proposal is to attribute these statements, to improve the credibility of the statements By that reasoning, combined with your agreement that statements of fact should not be attributed, if follows that you do not want to improve the credibility of facts. This does not make sense, and you are not convincing anybody. Attribution weakens a statement.

  How about you coming to terms that your own peculiar interpretation of the situation, including your peculiar belief about what attribution does is not how things are handled on Wikipedia? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  If that is how I'm interpreted, then yes sure, it makes no sense. It's not quite the point I've been trying to make, but I see I've failed to explain it. We are dealing with contentious accusations, and topics that have been under frequent dispute, not if the earth is round. If someone accused Joe Biden of pedofilia, I would not immediately assume it is true even if Wikipedia would write it in the lead, I would want to know who made this accusation and what is the evidence to support it. The suggestion is that I need to read every source in the article to find out where this came from. But maybe its just me who sees this as a problem of credibility. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is just through the looking glass. This guy is a full-on antivaxxer. No credible source says otherwise, and on Wikipedia this is what we call a "fact". Wikipedia is many things but it cannot change factual reality as relayed by reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  In such a case, without a conviction and a trial, we would use alleged. Also we have WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT to help us determinate how much prominent that claim is. WP:ASSERT is clear on this and explains how Wikipedia is a bit broader, and it is not here to reflect the WP:TRUTH but merely to WP:VERIFY that a significant number of WP:RELIABLESOURCES indeed consider RFK Jr. as having engaged in conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine misinformation. If we were to follow your reasoning, we would have to attribute almost everything, including uncontested statements or facts as opinions, which would also be very sloppy writing. That goes against WP:ATTRIBUTION, which says: Although everything on Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice, not all material is attributed. That is because we do not treat facts as opinions, and we may not use a dictionary definition of fact, since Wikipedia is not about the truth. If generally reliable sources state as fact that RFK Jr. engaged in conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine misinformation, and there are no generally reliable sources contradicting this, we follow them and state it as a fact. Since Wikipedia is always evolving, as soon as reliable sources contradict this fact, we would change the wording to reflect this. This has not happened, however, and I do not think it will. We can discuss whether that should be in the first sentence (it does seem to be inline with MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE and his career of anti-vaccine misinformation seems to triumph the WP:RECENCY of his presidential campaign) or be moved further down but we are not going to state facts as opinions.
  
  Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but you seem to think that fact is closer to truth, e.g. the Earth is round, or the Earth is not flat (only such claims should be reported as facts, everything else is mere opinion that must be attributed even though it is generally considered a fact for our purposes). But for Wikipedia, facts, which we do not consider the same thing as truth, is broader. For example, we state as fact that someone has engaged in conspiracy theories and misinformation if that is the clear majority among reliable sources (especially if they themselves state it as fact and there is no equally reliable sources contesting this, in which case we would use attribution and follow WP:BALANCE in proportion to their prominenance when there is a clear disagreement, which does not appear to be the case here), and we state as fact the political positions of a politician if there is a clear majority in support or even academic consensus that he or she is far-right, communist, or whatever. Even though this may not fit your definition of fact.
  
  Also sources that are considered generally reliable, they are generally reliable for a reason: they have fact-checking and an editorial process (arguments of their use of labels or their writers being "sloppy" because it is not liked what they say, it is not a good argument to dismiss them), they usually issue retractions if they got something wrong, and have a record of being reliable. So if they attribute something as an opinion, then we are likely to attribute it too. But if they state something as fact, and there is no other reliable source contesting this, applying some reasonability depending on context, we also state it as fact. If there are two or more generally reliable sources stating something as fact but are clearly contradictory, then we report both viewpoints, keeping in mind WP:BALANCE. This also applies to the discussion we are having about Javier Milei and climate change. As with Milei, there is no generally reliable source that contest the anti-vaccine misinformation claim for RFK Jr. I am open to suggestions on how to improve wording and how to structure the lead, especially if this will stop us user from complaining about this and having these endless discussion. But I am opposed to treat facts as opinion, and thus I oppose that we reword it to "skepticism" rather than "misinformation", which is closer to how reliable sources have described this.
  
  I hope this will be the end of it. Davide King (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  We are dealing with contentious accusations, and topics that have been under frequent dispute, not if the earth is round. I see no big difference between your Kennedy-is-anti-vax fact denial and the views of this person: Talk:Flat Earth/Archive 7#Disinformation, the EARTH IS FLAT and this can be SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. This article is not about Flat Earth, it promotes a round earth. You both try to turn Wikipedia into something that promotes your own ideology. Your reasoning is as weak as that person's reasoning, and you will fail just like that person failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  "your Kennedy-is-anti-vax fact denial", is an unfounded accusation of my comments, but its clear you are not here to discuss the intricacies of NPOV. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• I would agree with some above that while the information belongs in the lead, the existing MOS:LEADSENTENCE is suboptimal. A rewrite to handle the views/activism on their own rights would convey the same information, perhaps even without the classic WP:REFCLUTTER. Raising anti-vaccine topics twice independently in the first two sentences is another signal that the text isn't meshing as holistically as it could. I would also agree with those above suggesting the individual's notability is to a great extent related to his US Presidential candidacy. Looking at the google trends, there is a marked difference in attention right at the declaration of candidacy. This is not recentism, but a reflection of the different importance reliable sources associate with different activities. (All said however, I am not sure whether this discussion should overturn the consensus of an RfC.) CMD (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I just left a “support” comment for the proposed change there (from another user). Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

  That was proposed on Nov. 2. As time goes by, I think the current lead becomes more and more dated, and needs to be edited to reflect neutrality in the presidential race. Pavloskaz (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Re: That was proposed on Nov. 2, on November 3, well after entering the presidential race, Kennedy attended an anti-vaccine conference in Georgia and "confirmed his commitment to the cause and spoke to his base about how he, as president, would serve the movement he built", specifically saying that he would order the National Institutes of Health to stop fighting infectious diseases, stating: "We're going to give infectious disease a break for about eight years". BD2412 T 15:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Since I responded to the edit request, I should repeat and expand on my opinion here. My response (which I still stand by) was: Per MOS:LABEL, these terms can be used if widely used by reliable sources, which they are, as you can see in the in-line footnotes. Also per WP:VOICE and WP:DESCF, the use of Wikipedia's voice instead of in-text attribution is appropriate here as these statements are not contested by other reliable sources.
  However, I made this response towards the request of removing the misinformation and conspiracy theories part entirely. This discussion is more about the placing of the wording, and my opinion on this issue is slightly different. A Google search on "Robert F. Kennedy Jr." gives results that seem to feature more about his current presidential campaign, which would indicate that his "current" notability is more about this campaign. Balancing this against his "past" notability of anti-vax claims, my opinion is that this could go both ways. I wouldn't mind if the candidacy information was put into the first sentence and the anti-vax information placed after that (while still in the first paragraph), but I don't feel too strongly for this either.
  Pavloskaz's comparison to Trump and Biden's articles is invalid because they have already served as president, which would be a stronger claim to notability for them and should be used as the first sentence per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, whereas Kennedy Jr.'s strongest claim to notability is more debatable, given his long history of anti-vax activities. Again, I emphasise that I do not have a strong opinion on the order of the information in the first paragraph, as long as the information currently in the first paragraph stays in the first paragraph.
  In response to Pedantic Aristotle's comments, I stand by my original response. Unless you can provide reliable sources that explicitly contest the statements on him spreading anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories, these statements should be considered uncontested for Wikipedia's purposes. To give an example, there's plenty of people out there who believe that the Earth is flat, but we don't say in the Earth article that "a majority of sources state that the Earth is round". Liu1126 (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @Liu1126. I started the thread here right after submitting the edit request and may have jumbled the process a bit because of inexperience.

  The Earth article is not the best comparison imo because we are talking about the biography of a living person.

  For a candidate previously widely known for other stuff I would compare with Cornel West or Vivek Ramaswamy. In both of these cases you can see the difference in the style of presentation with Kennedy’s lead.

  As you are aware, more and more people will be searching for the candidate and led to the wiki page, which in the current context seems way outdated. I am an international reader, and I am not even informed in the first sentence that this person is currently a candidate for POTUS. Pavloskaz (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  That the Earth is round is something that can be proven with experiments, so that is the definition of a fact. There is no contestation on the accuracy of the information, i have no opinion on it. Using the phrasing "activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories", is an interpretation. It may very well be true, but it is a statement of interpretation/opinion and requires attribution. It should certainly be included, just be done properly within NPOV. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  It appears to be uncontested... What reliable sources contest it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Whether a statement is a fact or opinion isn't determined by our subjective views, there is a clear definition at WP:ASSERT. If there's no serious dispute over the statement (in reliable sources, of course), then it is a fact. If there is, then it's an opinion. Like many people have said, you need to provide reliable sources that explicitly refute these statements to show that it's in dispute, not just based on your own opinion.

  The issue with separating facts from opinions using your method of "proven via experiments" vs. "interpreted by people" is that the real world isn't black and white like this, its a spectrum. There's statements like "the sky is blue", which can be proven by observation; then there's current events that theoretically can be proven by just being there; then there's descriptions of events that people may dispute even if they all saw the same thing... etc. If we use this method, then we end up having to go through this whole rigmarole for every single sentence of every single article, deciding whether it falls closer on the fact side of the spectrum or the opinion side of the spectrum. Liu1126 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Basically what you are saying is that e.g. if many RS writes their interpretation of something, and they agree or write the same thing, it becomes a fact. I'm not sure that is a wise approach, and it opens up a can of worms.

  Yesterday was my first time reading anything about RFK, yet the lead made it look like he was a victim of political activism, as is common for politicians. With the amount of misinformation and propaganda spread everywhere, critical thinking is becoming a requirement. The proposal would entail that Wikipedia should do the critical thinking for you.

  I would urge people to reconsider this approach. Writing statements with attribution will improve the quality dramatically, in particular for political articles which are filled with activism and disputes, and would remove bias in editing. Adding attribution would further the credibility of the statement, leaving political statements without attribution is more likely to discredit it as someone POV pushing. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, your summary of my comment is correct. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and if all reliable sources say the same thing, then Wikipedia should also say the same thing, and in its own voice. There's plenty of people who disagree with various policies of Wikipedia, but this noticeboard probably isn't the best place to discuss it. WP:VPP would be a better venue.

  If I may go a bit off topic here, I think Wikipedia shares many traits with traditional encyclopaedias, and one of those traits is its use as a general reference work, where most casual readers want to know some random thing and quickly look it up to satisfy their curiosity. Sure, we don't recommend this practice, but that's probably what the majority of readers do, and burdening them with a comprehensive discussion of twenty different viewpoints just sends them away. People don't want opinions, they want facts; they don't want to think, they want to know. Critical thinking is important, but it's not the job of Wikipedia to promote it, just like one wouldn't expect Encyclopædia Britannica to do this. But that's just a little rant about society from me. Liu1126 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. If that is the established policy, then Wikipedia should probably not be used for political articles. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• As ActivelyDisinterested says, there have been two long RfCs with a great deal of participation. We do not need to revisit this every few weeks or start forumshopping. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I am not forumshopping, I am just not experienced with the editing process. I have left a support comment in a related RfC. And as Kennedy becomes more and more recognisable as a candidate, this does need to be revisited. Pavloskaz (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Could I direct you towards WP:BLUDGEON? You've commented in this thread thirty-three times in under 24 hours. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Do not accuse people of forumshopping if you do not wish a reply 🙂 Pavloskaz (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, and that's still thirty-two other comments in under a day. My point, and WP:BLUDGEON, stands. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The wording has already been hashed out in prior discussions held by actual Wikipedia editors. Jumping through hoops every time a new WP:SPA gets their hackles raised is a time sink. Zaathras (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, RFK Jr. is the leader and public face of a famous anti-vax and health conspiracy organization. His activities are well-documented and reliably-sourced. It is weird to come whine to Wikipedia because people don't like RFK Jr.'s career choices. -- M.boli (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Sigh Excellent forum-shopping, but RFK Jr.'s actual profession for the last two decades has been as the leader of an organisation whose sole aim is the pushing of an anti-vax misinformation campaign. He has been notable for very little else until this presidential run, so removing what he is notable for now would be WP:RECENTISM. After all, he could scrap his presidential run tomorrow. Black Kite (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  No forumshopping or SPA. The quality of articles is a legitimate concern for me as a longtime reader and donor (albeit not editor). The current lead is clearly politicised, does not even mention that he is a candidate in the first sentence, and makes Wikipedia look like an op-ed.

  This is bad for Wikipedia, when it is used like just another social media account for or against a candidate, instead of defending its status as one of the last, and possibly the most important holdout for the original vision of the web. Pavloskaz (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  You clearly did not read WP:RECENTISM, why would we put one notable thing (running for US presidency) RFK Jr has been doing for < 1 year above the several notable things (environmental activism, anti vaccine activism) he has done for decades? Also, these recent attempts at whitewashing the lede of the article are very concerning for me as a longtime reader and editor (albeit not much of a donor) - our wording on his antivaccine activity had been rather stable for years until he declared this candidacy. Knuckling under, what IMO is fairly transparent attempt to turn this biographical article into more campaign outreach, would be a huge blow to Wikipedia Cannolis (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  It does not even mention his candidacy in the first sentence. In the current context this looks partisan, not encyclopedic. Pavloskaz (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Black Kite, and per my comments above, this was decided by a very recent RFC. Anyone wanting to change it should go through WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. The idea that the participants didn't take NPOV into account is a none starter, and trying to undo that RFC by using this board looks a lot like forum shopping. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"with no mention of misinformation or conspiracy theories." So Britannica is useless and presents biased and inaccurate information. I already knew that when I joined Wikipedia twenty years ago. It is a rather poor excuse for an encyclopedia. Dimadick (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Britannica is often not very good, and it's a wonder it gets held up as a gold standard on Wikipedia (invariably as a supposed trump card in content disputes). It does not follow Wikipedia's WP:PAGs in any case, and I'd expect Wikipedia to be aiming much higher than Britannica. Anyway, since it's emerged this whole topic has been addressed by RfCs which are still warm, perhaps an admin could make this pain stop and close the thread? Bon courage (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Britannica also tends to err on the side of "diplomatic" when it comes to descriptions of living people due to a tradition which dates back to before the Defamation Act 2013 brought the UK into the modern world in terms of defamation. On wikipedia we've inherited a very different tradition, largely that of Florida, which errs towards calling a spade a spade. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

NOPE per WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. We go with the scientific consensus. Bobby is an HIV/AIDS denialist, the OG, along with Andrew Wakefield, of the MMR/AUTISM Lie, who just a few months ago said "No vaccines are safe and effective" while simultaneously trying to claim he is not antivaccine. There were multiple RFCs on this exact topic, and this is just forum shopping.DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, at this point we've pretty much figured out what is what, right? Do we need to keep going further? jp×g🗯️ 15:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Concerned that Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson lacks neutrality as it omits a number of sourced accusers

Especially the "Further Allegations" section at the end. Someone researching Michael Jackson who wanted to learn exactly how many individuals have accused him according to the mainstream press would never, ever know.

That is the complete opposite of what an encyclopedia is all about.

At the end of the day, it has been widely reported that 8 males who met him as a child have accused him of sexual abuse. Not necessarily all these males accused him of sexual ASSAULT, but all 8 absolutely accused him in sworn testimony, court filings, or high profile interviews of childhood sexual abuse.

Every effort to list these accusers, no matter how well-supported by multiple news articles, gets reverted by others.

The article overwhelmingly discusses the accusations of one boy, Jordie Chandler, in 1993, in utterly exhaustive detail, in what I can only interpret as an effort to discredit that first accuser and tire the reader before learning more.

Should the reader make it through the blizzard of text to the end, they will see "Further allegations" with the tiniest blurbs on Arvizo trial, and the subjects of Leaving Neverland.

Editors immediately pare down any effort to describe these accusations more fulsomely. It was 8 boys from what mainstream sources in Google News tells me.

The article is called "Child Sexual Abuse Accusations against MJ" not "Child Sexual Abuse Accusations against MJ (But Only The Real "Big Deals")."

I want to stress that I'm not saying that what the accusers said about abuse is true. But it IS true that the 8 accused him. That happened.

Every other high-profile American recipient of multiple sexual misconduct allegations (Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Russell Simmons etc etc) seems to have a chart or list of accusers but not Jackson.

And Jackson is DEAD unlike those folks so defamation is an utter non-issue.

Would welcome neutral opinions as i know others disagree.

Big discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

From what it looks like, we don't have firm (through investigative or court decisions) that some of the claims of those accusers are true. Thus, from both a standpoint of neutrality and for the privacy of the individuals that have made claims yet verified, its best not to name them. The example cases you give are those where the accusations have been resolved, so the names seem reasonable there. Masem (t) 01:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait, Jackson was acquitted in the one trial he underwent so none of the 8 accusers' stories have ever been verified. All 8 were minors at times they alleged abuse so none of them should be discussed in public by that metric, right?

We have no reason to assume any of the allegations are true. We just know they were made. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

of the 8:

- 4 gave public interviews (safechuck, Jacobshagen, George, Robson)

- 4 never wanted to be public presumably (Chandler, Arvizo bros, Francia).

Should the names of all who haven't gone public be removed and changed to "first accuser," etc. The names are widely published. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Just being widely published is not the metric we use, particularly when it comes to living persons in this case. If they have taken steps to try to stay out of the public light, we absolutely respect that. Masem (t) 01:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The article has been stable and reached GA status as it has zero neutrality issues. There is no complete list of accusers that are listed on any of these pages that you mention above. Wikipedia is not a social movement and does not require that every single allegation is listed about a high profile person or celebrity.

Furthermore, this particular article is about extraordinarily notable accusations against Jackson that has been widely reported. The listed accusers in this page were either a plaintiff in a civil trial/suit or “By the People” in a criminal trial. This is not about everyone who has made questionable accusations against Jackson. If there was no thorough investigation of sorts to address these accusations where the accuser was the subject of a civil or criminal trial against Jackson, they are not listed here. If I made an accusation against Jackson and some sources reported on it, it would not make this article. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but then why are Chandler and Arvizo named in the article? They certainly try desperately to stay out of the public eye. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok then why cant we simple say in tbe lead that the article ONLY covers people who brought civil or criminal claims against Jackson? Why does the article have to mislead readers into thinking they are looking at the breadth of accusers? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The title of the article does not implore to me that it is fully extensive, but only those that have significant media coverage and resolution. Masem (t) 02:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Chandler’s allegations were huge. It was the first time that Jackson was accused of abuse. Notability of these allegations were huge. Chandler’s received multimillion dollar settlement with a civil case preceding a criminal case. Chandler first went to a lawyer, but eventually law enforcement got involved and started to investigate Jackson to a notable degree. Arvizos went to law enforcement after first seeking civil lawyer. A criminal case went to trial and created a notable media frenzy. A thorough investigation took place. None of the other proposed additions have this level scrutiny, notability, or impact to Jackson’s career and life. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

But of course there are going to be varying levels of media attention for varying accusers. Star and Francia were witnesses during the overall 2005 trial so of course they would not get as much attention (still widely reported) George and Jacobshagen's accusations got media attention during the Leaving Neverland era, but obviously their claims don't reach the graphic shocking levels of those in Leaving Neverland as they don't involve sexual assault. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Why would an accusation need "resolution" before it may be listed? Resolutions can take years. Shouldn't "widely reported" be sufficient?

The piece i keep getting stuck on is the idea that someone wants to look up the agreed facts about the Jackson accusations in the encyclopedia and ... cannot. Imagine I'm an academic researching high-profile accusations. I come to the page for a basic timeline and I cannot get it. Not because the media didnt widely cover those other accusers (because they did) but because they aren't as famous as "the four biggies." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to give people free publicity because they make accusations. Imagine if everyone who wanted to see their name in Wikipedia was informed that all they had to do was make a sufficiently salacious accusation against a sufficiently notable figure, and get the press to report that the accusation was made. In that light, it becomes rather obvious that there must be some reasonable internal limitations to prevent Wikipedia from becoming Accusationpedia. A reasonable start would be to require some degree of proof to provide credibility beyond the mere fact of the accusation being made. BD2412 T 03:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

What proof do you have in mind? All 8 accusers are liars or fabulists according to many of the frequent flier editors on the page. Does that mean they should all be deleted? Star Arvizo swore in open court under oath that Jackson exposed himself and urged masturbation during the criminal trial. Jason Francia was his maid's son swore as well under oath that he was assaulted in open court in the criminal trial. Jackson paid him $2million. Both George and Jacobshagen produced photographs of themselves with Jackson when they made their claims. Again I'm not saying these omitted 4 accusers are telling the truth- how would I know? But their allegations aren't devoid of weight. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I see Jason Francia was included in the page. Sworn testimony is hardly proof of anything one way or the other, both Robson and Safechuck gave sworn testimonies that Jackson never did anything sexual and testimonies cannot be used as sources on wiki anyway. Jacobshagen did not produce photographs to corroborate his claims the only photographs/videos he had were made on a single day in March 1998 when he and Jackson were in the company of numerous people. This was the only time he had any contact with Jackson but the allegations in the Mirror is that he was alone with Jackson , spent nights with him, shared beds with him more than once, was in a bathroom with him where Jackson went naked. None of that is supported with any photo/video/witness or his own interviews prior to the Mirror article. Terry George did not show any photograph with Jackson when he was a child. He does not have proof of the alleged call, nor that he was friends with Jackson at any point. He has one recorded interview with Jackson in 1979 with Randy Jackson also in the room, that includes nothing sexual at all, and has two photos with Jackson when both were adults similar to innumerable other photos Jackson took with random fans. Jacobshagen's and Terry George's allegations are certainly "devoid of weight". castorbailey (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

By your logic then, all 8 should be deleted from Wikipedia due to lack of proof. But the issue is not whether it is TRUE that the 8 accusers were abused. The issue is whether it is TRUE that 8 accusers accused him publicly. And these 8 indisputably did. The "not devoid of weight" comment has nothing to do with "proving" MJ did it. it means support for the truth that tbe allegations were made, in public, and are less flimsy than, say, a random anon post on Twitter. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Your brought up supposed photos by Jacobshagen and Terry George as sufficient evidence to include them when no such evidence exist. There is proof that Chandler, Arvizo, Robson , Safechuck were with Jackson numerous times proof that all of them spent nights in various places where Jackson slept. They all filed lawsuits or Jackson was charged over their allegations, the cases had lengthy litigation and were widely reported by hundreds of reliable sources. Unlike Jacobshagen who was reported in a tabloid, was never with Jackson beyond one day (but not night), did not allege anything sexual and Terry George who does not have any evidence he had any contact with Jackson beyond that one innocent interview in 1979. Their claims barely go above a flimsy anon post on Twitter. Definitely "devoid of weight" when what you claim something, as Jacobshagen does, that is not even possible. As noted by other editors wiki does not include any and all allegations ever made nor does any other encyclopedia. castorbailey (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I was responding to the poster above not claiming the accusations were "true." At the end of the day the below is what we can "know" from Google News:

1. Chandler
2. Francia
3. G. Arvizo
4. S. Arvizo
5. T. George
6. Safechuck
7. Robson
8. Jacobhagen

==links to news reports on the 8 accusers== Bhdshoes2 (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Not anything sexual??? Come on now. Jackson is dead. He cannot be defamed. The story of these 8 accusers were widely published in mainstream media.

Hiding Star, Jason, British phone guy, and German guy from the public does detriment to Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality which is the cornerstone of the whole enterprise in adding to human knowledge. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Sunday Mirror is not mainstream media, not reliable source and has no place om wiki. Just because Jackson cannot be defamed does not mean that in his case we should use wiki to promote highly questionable allegations which were not even reported in any RS as sexual abuse. The German's guy story in particular is not possible, he was not with Jackson during any night, not in any bathroom with him with Jackson taking a bath either. Jacobshagen himself is quoted in the Mirror denying any explicit sexual act. Sexual abuse always involves explicit sexual acts. castorbailey (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're overstating the Wikipedia aversion to tabloids. It all depends on context. But you keep harping on the German guy. What about Star, Jason, and Terry George? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Tabloids are never supposed to be used as sources on wiki as they are by no means reliable sources. If they are used elsewhere that does not justify the use here especially when the story in question is impossible as Jacobshagen never spent any night with Jackson, never was alone with him, never met him in 1995, his so called letters from Jacksons are forgeries etc. It has no place on wiki more than allegation that the moonlanding was faked on the Moon landing article. George did not accuse him of sexual abuse and I already explained why those accusations are "devoid of weight" too. When there is not even evidence that Jackson ever talked to George at all and George kept changing the story sold to tabloid it's obvious why his claims are "devoid of weight" and are in the Jacobshagen category. Star did not accuse him of sexual abuse [not only assault but abuse is against the law too] and Jason was included. castorbailey (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

We cannot ignore the footnotes below. Both German guy and Terry George's allegations were reported in NON-tabloid sources even if they gave initial "exclusives" to the British tabloids. See below. Both did on-camera interviews. The issue is not whether they are telling the truth. The issue is whether reliable media sources support the fact they indeed accused Jacksons. If you want to undermine their claims with reliable sources, do in their entry on the page. Folks can't fairly demand that the page falsely indicate to readers that they never happened when it is indisputable that they did happen. Feel free to add facts that undermine the claim, but dont "memory-hole" the claim. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The other source for Jacobshagen contradicts the specifics in the tabloids source and does not include allegations of sexual abuse. In any case that would not be enough to cross the threshold to possibility much less notability, as Jacobshagen did not spend any time with Jackson at all beyond one day in the company of many others. As other editors told you already just because something happened does not warrant inclusion. Joe Bartucci's allegations were reported by far more reliable sources than Terry George's or Jacobshagen's (NBC, BBC, Rolling Stone, Independent, Fox ), he also filed a lawsuit, they still should not be included because they are not possible. There is no RS reporting that Terry George alleged sexual abuse and there is no evidence he had any kind of phone conversation with Jackson at all, much less the one alleged. castorbailey (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Also who the heck announces to the world that they were the victim of child sexual abuse for "free publicity"? At least two of the accusers say they were mocked by other children as being likely victims for their association in public with Jackson (Gavin and the German guy) Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Robson himself wrote, "My story of abuse will make me relevant and relatable". You could also ask who announces to the world they were abused/raped by Jackson when in truth they never met him. Those cases (Flowers [5], Kapon [6], Bartucci [7], boy in Canada [ [8], Reynoza [9]) demonstrate that there are people who get satisfaction out of falsely accusing a famous person. This boy [10] went on camera and, like Terry George, Jacobshagen, Robson and Safechuck accused Jackson of the most heinous acts when, in truth, he had no contact with him at all. If we included everyone who accused Jackson, we should include him, too. 2BOARNOTOOB (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont know anything about tbese folks ans I can't go down the YouTube rabbithole. To me it is the "Google news" test. If the allegations are published in Rolling Stone, ABC News, Vanity Fair, NYT, CNN etc then they are widely published allegations.

Sanitizing Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

As User:Popcornfud explained, reaching GA status may be insignificant, esoecially if reached, like this page was, in 2008 and the page has been drastically rewritten since. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s actually not been substantially re-written. It’s been stable. Nonetheless, there’s a process to contest its status within reason, and that reason just does not exist. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps its just a difference of opinion on what "substantially re-written" means but IMO this certainly qualifies [11] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. GA (or even FA) status should not be taken to mean an article can't have problems, even serious problems, or that it cannot be substantially improved. Popcornfud (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

My concern is - imagine a hypothetical researcher on, say, false allegations, comes to Wikipedia to research how many times Jackson was accused by an individual who met him of sexual abuse. They would read the page thinking it was 4 - Chandler, Gavin, Safechuck, robson. But Google News tells me that clearly is not true. From what i see on Google News, it is clearly 8. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There are absolutely no circumstances where the GA/FA status of an article can be used to justify exclusion of content. The appropriateness of content is determined only by what external sources have to say on a subject. This is core Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean there is absolutley no question that a huge pile of media sources confirm the 8 males either swore in court or did a high-profile interview accusing Jackson. I'm not saying it proves Jackson did it. But it proves the 8 accused him and should be on the list of accusers. Especially where the man is dead and cannot be defamed. What's more, any child celebrity that has DENIED being assaulted by Jackson has their denials trumpeted all over Wikipedia. Only the accusers get repeatedly erased. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I do think is arbitary selection. You were informed repeatly that there was a female accuser and four male accusers who never met him too. The majority of children who denied abuse are not listed on wikipedia and ceraintly have no sections or subsections especially not if they sold their stories to tabloids and alleged the impossible . Since the prosecution, Robson and Safechuck personally,and Leaving Neverland strongly suggested those child celebrities were molested inculding evidence here that they were not in is simply WP:BALANCE Mr Boar1 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I can only go by reliable sources in Google News. All of the 8 males I named about accused him of sexual touching, exposure of genital, or sexual overtures when they were children. All of the 8 either accused him in open court or in televised / high profile interviews. The question is why folks keep deleting the well sourced 8 who are not already on the page. The sources are below in footnotes. It is not your place to say they "alleged the impossible" unless you have a source and if you do, then add it. But dont pretend the accusations were never made in highly publicized media reports. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• I do not know the details well enough to opine on which accusations should and should not be mentioned in the article… However… I would say that enough time has passed that we should be looking for more than media sources to support our coverage of the topic. Have no historians written about it? Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  I can see a number of academic articles when I search "Safechuck and Robson" on Google Scholar but I don't have access to the contents. I get same thing when I search Google Books. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  “The Fans of Michael Jackson v. Wade Robson and James Safechuck: Forensic Fandom and the Staging of a Media Tribunal

  By PD Keidl - ''American Behavioral Scientist'' 2022 - journals.sagepub.com (arguing that Michael Jackson fans "use nonfiction media to stage a public trial and prove Jackson’s innocence and Robson and Safechuck’s guilt.")

  An essay analysing "fan reactions to the sexual abuse allegations brought forward against Michael Jackson in [[Leaving Neverland]]" Bhdshoes2 (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  This seems more like a media academic analysis than a historian's writing. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Reflist-talk Michael Jackson

References

This conversation is dead. Nothing here amounts to the suggested additions being added as the previous admins and editors alike have said above. No thorough investigations, no real notable allegations of abuse (talking on the phone, regardless of content of conversation is not abuse even if true or notable). No consensus is going to be reached. The article should remain in its stable form. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

yet again this text misleads. [[Terry George (entrepreneur)]] did not allege "talking on the phone." He alleged Jackson was performing a sexual act on the phone when George was 13 ("can you believe I'm doing it right now") and urged the same. On ABC News no less. Francia did not allege "tickling." He alleged tickling led to touching of his private parts. In court. Star Arvizo alleged Jackson exposed him and urged him to masturbate. In court. The page is scrubbed of these allegations. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV Request 12/17/23

1. The article in question is Jackson Hinkle.
2. Specific change being proposed (and subsequently reverted). The source describes Hinkle as a #MAGACommunist, therefore I believe that the article can say that "Hinkle has been described as a #MAGACommunist."
3. The problem is that this change is necessary for NPOV. Hinkle is directly described by In These Times as a #MAGACommunist, not simply a self-description. Opposition says this is a self-description, which violates OR (still waiting on their response to this). We have multiple examples of when "MAGA Communist" is a self description (signaled by quotes, or by directly mentioning Hinkle to be a "self proclaimed communist"), but this source does not do this. Opposition also argues it violates UNDUE, but the multiple other descriptions (of Hinkle being right wing, far-right, etc) are not being removed (still waiting on their response to this). There are also other sources that describe him as far-left, post-left, and even as a communist. Admittedly, at least 1 of these sources is probably unreliable, but nevertheless, there is significant coverage of Hinkle being described as something not on the right-wing.
4. This problem has been thoroughly discussed on the talk page, with opposition attempting to bring new reasons why this change should not be made after I explain the error with their existing reasons. Most of the discussion can be viewed here. Once the discussion started getting long, I tried to bold the most important points I was making.

Alleycat1995 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that the only explanation on Wikipedia as to what being a 'MAGACommunist' actually implies is in the Hinkle biography, I fail to see how telling readers that he's been 'described as' one in the lede is helpful. People know what 'far right' means (at least, I hope so). The average reader is highly unlikely to be familiar with obscure self-applied hashtag labels that appear from the sources cited to be used for effect rather than as an indicator of any specific ideology. Undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

What AndyTheGrump wrote is what CommunityNotesContributor and DFlhb already told the OP on the talk page multiple times. "MAGA Communist" is one of Hinkle's self-descriptions, so it is redundant to add that label as one that he has been described as, and the source for that claim is in fact about the far right and shows that leftists see Hinkle as far right (if there was any doubt). Also the "far-left" source is actually referring to his show, and I would argue none of these sources can be considered generally reliable to weight in on Hinkle's position on the political spectrum. Compare to the sources that described him as either conservative, right-wing, or far-right: Agence-France Presse, Bellingcat, The Guardian, and The Times are all considered generally reliable, so the claim that Hinkle is not right-wing looks undue, if not outright WP:FRINGE. Please, Alleycat1995, do not reply to this message since we already discussed this at length on the talk page. Let's see what other users say.
Davide King (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. What another user has said was WP:OR, arguing it was a self-description. "Please do not reply to this message" No, I will correct error. We've already discussed how his show is inseperable from him, hence why it's his show. (Why did you not include this part of the conversation in your post?) Additionally, I am not suggesting to remove the other labels, so your point about other sources is null. Alleycat1995 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the In These Times article, they call "#MAGACommunism" a hashtag movement, so a neologism invented on Twitter. Hinkle is described as a #MAGACommunist, hashtag included, in an aside which also calls him a "far-right actor" taking advantage of the pro-Palestinian movement. Using the term in Wikivoice makes the article more confusing and, yes, gives undue weight to what is basically a political trolling campaign. This kind of thing is why MOS:NEO exists, so the term should be used in quotes if at all. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If MAGACommunist is ever used in an article, it will need to be made very clear that it's a far right position. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

South American river maps

I reverted a bunch of edits by BoomGoesTheTrinitrotoluene (talk · contribs) which removed maps made and added by SurinameCentral (talk · contribs), who seems to be on a mission to introduce what they assert are neutral maps concerning Suriname. BGTT asserts that these are not in fact neutral concerning territorial claims, and while I did not agree that they should have been mass-reverted without discussion, I do think they need to be examined by a larger audience, given the recent flurry of territorial claims and counterclaims in the area, especially between Venezuela and Guyana. Examples include [12], [13] and [14], not to mention SurinameCentral's userpage. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

See this discussion where I've negotiated a compromise out of SurinameCentral whereby the maps proposed in that discussion will have a solid line for actual control and a dotted line for claims. I told them to be bold specifically about the compromise maps shown there before finding this noticeboard entry through your notice on their talk page.

The maps that were removed in the diffs you linked were indeed biased, not even bothering to show any territorial dispute at all despite SurinameCentral's insistence on "neutrality" by using dotted-line maps for both claims regardless of control when the map was of Guyana (which they have now compromised on, as I said). JM (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Additionally I think BoomGoesTheTrinitrotoluene's reversions follow WP:BRD so I see no problem with that. JM (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

JM, the dotted maps I see in that discussion have dots so thick they appear almost a solid line. This has been a persistent problem with these maps, the last figleaf I remember was putting small dots within a very dark red background so they were hardly visible too. It is not bold to continue a monthslong campaign, it is disrsuptive. CMD (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say the "monthslong campaign" was bold, I didn't even know about it until after I managed to convince them to compromise and told them to be bold and change the maps to the compromise versions if they wanted to. I feel that it's implicit that other editors could come into the discussion and contest the compromise, and that the boldness would be part of WP:BRD which would apply to all the changes and so other editors could revert them. I figured the compromise maps were harmless and just provided more information than the originals. I figured the best way to resolve the dispute was what I negotiated; it shows the contested claims while also making it clear who controls the land. No other editors were opposing that compromise at the time. I wasn't paying attention to the size of the dotted line of all things. I wasn't aware of any tricks being pulled by anyone and I didn't see this newly-created discussion until after the compromise. Obviously POV-pushing is bad. Feel free to revert, or to go back to the discussion and argue with SurinameCentral, if you want. JM (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the process arose from good faith. For the record, the changes made in the large batch made following the discussion included changes like this one which clearly did not follow your view of showing contested claims while making control clear. CMD (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

When I told them in that discussion Change as many as you want (WP:BOLD) I feel that the context implied I was referring ONLY to the changing the original maps in dispute presented on that talk page to the revised maps I was presented with. You're right, SurinameCentral definitely didn't have my permission to go and make a change which not only involves a totally different map, but directly goes against the compromise in that it fails to show controlled claim vs uncontrolled claim. But I don't think their actions there have anything to do with my discussion with them, I think it's just part of their general WP:SPA mission to change maps involving Suriname. Still, it's a problem when they know that I and others consider those maps non-neutral yet continue to change them anyway. (Also, that map doesn't even show all disputes anyway, since it doesn't show Venezuela's claim to Essequibo or Guatemala's claim to Belize; it comes off as a specifically pro-Suriname map.) JM (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

SurinameCentral's Twitter account provides some insight into his agenda and where he would take Wikipedia, without the intervention of editors. SOUTHCOM (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, there's a lot there. This would make SurinameCentral a disruptive bad faith SPA POV-pusher with a COI violating WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, wouldn't it? Definitely not someone beneficial to the encyclopedia. I wonder if this needs to be taken somewhere else. JM (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

What a drama being created by southcom, everything must be done not to allow the Surinamese version, because then everything must be neutral, but touch 1 Guyanese biased map and everything is digged from everywhere to justify bias. SurinameCentral (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I have the neutral versions of those maps ready, i will upload them and replace them. SurinameCentral (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

question, why is the title South American river maps when the Surinamese river maps are being discussed? SurinameCentral (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I would assume it’s because Suriname is in South America Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I updated the entire series yesterday, replaced them but all. Edits were reverted by @Chipmunkdavis for unknown reasons. SurinameCentral (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

United States support for Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

At United States support for Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war an editor is claiming that criticism of the US support for Israel is not a part of the subject of US support for Israel and is removing that criticism from the lead on that basis. I think that is a straightforward NPOV violation, but I'd rather avoid continuing an edit-war over this, so if anybody else can opine that would be helpful. nableezy - 02:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I would call the portion he reverted plagiarism and a borderline copyvio considering how close the paraphrasing is.

The disputed addition to the article:

The United States has come under fire from international leaders, human rights organisations, and UN officials for vetoing the resolution and for not putting an end to the fighting that has killed over 17,400 Palestinians and roughly 1,200 Israelis since October 7.

Al Jazeera:

World leaders, international rights groups and United Nations officials have criticised the United States for vetoing a UN resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and failing to halt the war that has killed more than 17,400 Palestinians and about 1,100 people in Israel since October 7.

JM (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont think that is a superficial modification, but that really doesnt have anything to do with the NPOV aspect of this. nableezy - 02:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

SamX suggested a rewrite of The United States has received widespread international criticism for its veto of the ceasefire resolution. which I am fine with. Should the lead of the article include such criticism? nableezy - 03:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I prefer SamX's version for copyright reasons. I am not goiong to comment on the NPOV aspect. — Diannaa (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky statement on Israel

There is a discussion at this link concerning the addition of article text relating to a statement of Noam Chomsky's many decades ago concerning Israel. The discussion concerns whether this is significant biographical content that has somehow been overlooked and should have been added to the article years ago, or whether -- in the alternative -- this is quasi-COATRACK insinuation of UNDUE material that supports narratives about current events. SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Its more a question on if his views on Israel should be included and not the incredibly dishonest presentation of them now where he is only critical of US policy in the Middle East, vs the above use who is claiming that because the article did not have this material previously that means that it is not DUE. I leave it to somebody else to figure out how that makes sense, as I have tried and cannot make it make any sense at all. nableezy - 03:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"Classical Hollywood cinema" fanboy article is a disaster

This article seems to have been monopolized by an individual or small group of individuals whose perception is warped...and no one's doing anything about it.

There are a couple of major issues. First is the timeframe used to define "Classical Hollywood". Some Joe Schmo has put 1969 as the cutoff, but the reference that immediately follows this dubious claim - Oxford Dictionary website - says 1960! Which means the editor who put '69 is lying (misrepresenting, fabricating, whatever).

For perspective, Raquel Welch said that she thought of classic Hollywood as finishing off in the '50s, while TCM's Alicia Malone considers a classic film to be anything before 1980. There is no clear definition.

Even if you approximate, 1969 is such a random year. Smack dab in the middle of counterculture, it's completely inappropriate to use as a cutoff. 1959 or 1979 would make sense.

The second major issue is the compilation of actors and actresses that are ostensibly "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema". Some of the names on there are laughable. Tippi Hedren? She starred in exactly two films. And while she was born in 1930, her first credit isn't until 1963. By that standard, Ron Howard should be on the list, since his debut well precedes Hedren's. By that standard, there are hundreds of names you could add to the list. The inclusion of Clint Eastwood is also absurd, as he didn't star in a Hollywood movie until 1968 when he was 38. Fabian Forte and Tuesday Weld, both of whom are 13 years younger than Eastwood, were household names a decade before he was, yet they aren't even on this bogus list. The list even has Zsa Zsa Gabor (!) as a "major figure from classical Hollywood cinema". Unbelievable.

It looks like someone has thought up all the famous or semi-famous performers born within a certain time, and that's the measurement they've used to determine eligibility....regardless of whether the performers were part of "Classical Hollywood" or not. It's ageism and pigeonholing, and it has nothing to do with "Classical Hollywood". Parts of this page have been written by editors who don't even understand what classic Hollywood is.

This isn't going to get resolved without administrative intervention. The talk page is no use. There have been attempts to start a discussion over the years, but nobody ever replies.

If you're going to pick a cutoff, the cutoff should be backed by a consensus. As for the index of actors and actresses deemed "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema", the only names that should be retained are those on AFI's 100 Screen Legends, since it's the only criteria that has been established.

To prevent future abuse, it might be a good idea to remove the "major figures" list altogether. I'm looking through the edit history and no such section even existed until a decade-plus after the article was forked. Namwidow (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

• Peter Schiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nick McKenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Peter_Schiff
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MaskedSinger

Current discussion about undue weight found here on the talk page. All relevant parties in that discussion have been notified about this discussion.

I would appreciate more eyes on the article as well as input on the talk page regarding proposed changes. To summarize, the dispute over the investigation and the results of the investigation have been ongoing for several years, so the article has not been stable for a while. This appears to have come to a head in the last month with the end of the civil action in November 2023. The investigation section has grown larger and smaller depending on the various edit wars, with it now composed of about three paragraphs. Proposals on the talk page suggest bringing it down to one paragraph, since the allegations from 2020 have now fallen to the wayside, and Schiff was previously found not guilty of any illegal activity, and in more recent, subsequent civil action against his accusers, Schiff reached a cash settlement which includes the removal of the allegations in broadcast form (and possibly otherwise). It seems odd, therefore, to continue stating these allegations upfront as if they were true, and to continue presenting them in the current format. I believe this section should be minimized and brought up to date, while of course presenting a brief historical overview of the dispute, but in a much more condensed and less accusatory format. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This also concerns Nick McKenzie and has been brought to the attention of both WP:BLP/N and WP:AN/I. All of the accounts engaged in the reverts to introduce non-WP:NPOV edits are not extended confirmed and a lot appear to be WP:SPA. TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I will broaden the scope. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC that may be of interest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#RfC_on_sexual_violence_in_lead_section

Coretheapple (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on removal of image collages from Year articles

There is an ongoing RfC that may be of interest to editors here regarding the removal of image collages from individual year articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years § RfC: Removal of image collages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine

I would like to bring to light some concerns regarding the content and sourcing on the Wikipedia page for the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM). There are several key issues that compromise the page's neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing.

1) Over-Reliance on SPLC as a reliable Source for a controversial topic:

A. Most concerning is the heavy and disproportionate reliance on a single source - the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). As I previously discussed on the Talk page, the SPLC is known to express strong opinions on certain organizations and is defined as "opinionated" and "non-reliable" for the non-extremist organization (and SEMG is not defined as such an organization). Also, using them excessively to characterize another organization directly contradicts Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Reliable sources should provide balance and context, not overwhelmingly advance one perspective.

Furthermore, the SPLC report is used duplicatively within the article, risking the appearance of attempting to unduly amplify criticism rather than fairly represent available evidence. This also violates the prohibition on excessive citation density from a narrow range of sources.

B. There was a discussion on the SEGM's talk page where I informed other editors that the SPLC is an opinion source and cannot be applied voluntarily to SEGM's as it is not defined as an "extremist or hate organization". However, the source has been excessively used on the page mostly by the same editor (talk) who had been previously banned from editing any gender-related topics on Wikipedia as TheTranarchist for abusing Wikipedia policy before. I'm surprised to see that the same editor is back and allowed to edit freely on the same highly controversial topic.

Helpful links:

• Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine
• Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Affiliations
• Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Reception

2) Questionable Use of Science-Based Medicine:

The page also cites Science-Based Medicine, which describes SEGM as a 'transphobic organization'. Given that Science-Based Medicine resembles a blog and Wikipedia’s guidelines on blogs as sources (WP:Blogs as sources) caution against using such sources for factual statements, this raises questions about the reliability of the information presented. Blogs, while sometimes suitable for opinions, should not be the basis for factual claims on Wikipedia.

Helpful links:

• Science-Based Medicine
• Wikipedia:Blogs as sources

3) Misrepresentation of Yale School of Medicine Report:

Lastly, there's a significant issue with how the Yale School of Medicine report is presented. The report, critiquing SEGM, is portrayed as an official stance of the Yale School of Medicine. However, a disclaimer clearly states that it represents individual faculty opinions, not the institution's. This misrepresentation contributes to an unbalanced portrayal of SEGM, misleading readers about the weight and authority of the critique.

The statement on the SEGM's page:

In April, researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report in response to the attacks on transgender healthcare in Arizona and Texas which described the core of SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists acting outside of mainstream scientific consensus and organizations, and help lawmakers criminalize transgender care.

Disclaimer (first page):

This report reflects the academic work of individual Yale faculty and does not represent the views of Yale University, Yale Law School, or Yale School of Medicine.

I believe that presenting this report as representing Yale School of Medicine's official view misleads readers and skews the article's balance.

Helpful links:

• Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Reception
• [15]

(First page, under the authors' list)

These issues collectively suggest that the SEGM's Wikipedia page may not be meeting the site's standards for neutrality and reliable, unbiased information. I bring this to the attention of reviewers and editors for further examination and potential corrective action. Colaheed777 (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Science-Based Medicine: It is a RS. See WP:SBM. Of course, alt-med fans always try to remove it, saying that it is just a blog. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I count eight out of 58 <ref>s in the article are to SPLC, or one of 27 unique references, so how is that "heavy and disproportionate reliance on a single source"? The preponderance of sources available define the SEGM as "outside the medical mainstream" or as "anti-trans activists". That view generally agrees with what SPLC has to say about them, so they don't stand alone in that assessment; it is the majority view. Mathglot (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah SEGM looks like a political/culture-war org dressed up in science-y clothing. Very on trend for the discourse of today, Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that SBM and the SPLC are appropriate here. Moreover, the article text does not portray the Yale researchers' report "as representing Yale School of Medicine's official view". That's simply how one describes work done by people who work at Yale. XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that these sources are reliable. The SEGM promotes non-mainstream views and our article correctly reflects that. DFlhb (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States

For the past few days User:Homerethegreat has decided that there is a serious neutrality issue at 2023 Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States but won't say what it is.

Two editors on the talk page cite Template:POV: "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given" ubut Homerethegreat says it's "clear", that he "sees" it, and that it's "overreaching." Also: "there is a neutrality issue as I've said", that it's been clearly stated, that it's been explained with examples.

Nothing is stopping him or anyone else from adding more pro-Israel protests to the list as long as there is WP:RS. There are plenty out there, but even he admits that "there are more examples" of pro-Palestinian protests. He says "this needs to be dealt with" but he doesn't say how anyone is supposed to deal with it or what kind of deal with satisfy this consideration. The template was removed once but reinstated by User:Agmonsnir who has not participated in the talk discussion or provided any reasons except that he disputes it too.

Homerethegreat is also currently the subject of an ANI complaint about for "biased editing on a contentious topic".

Right now, he appears to be WP:NOTHERE to build WP:consensus and is holding the page hostage without providing conditions for when and how the POV template may be removed. Dispute resolution requested. 13:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Kire1975 (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, first merry Christmas and I hope you're having a good holiday. I don't really understand why this needs to be addressed here in the noticeboard but ok, I'll try to explain what I explained on the page. I put 3 examples of paragraphs and explained below the problem. And I replied in the page just asking you to please read what I wrote. Under every paragraph I wrote the specific problem. I know nothing stops me from adding more content but at the moment the article is not neutral since it presents only 1 POV and I personally edited there and realized the problem was present in other places in the article. Until the issues aren't fixed the article is not neutral. I really don't understand why it's a problem that I pointed out the issues... Joyeux Noël :). Homerethegreat (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed two out of the three concerns, but the third one is unclear. Left a note on the talk page. Kire1975 (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Most of Homerethegreat's issues with the article can be fixed with hard work. The article is not biased; it is incomplete. His other edits have not been reversed. The other editors are not trying to enforce an agenda. There are multiple POVs already in the article. If he would like to add more, he can. CarmenEsparzaAmoux and I have done a good chunk of work on the page over several weeks. The template isn't necessary-- time working on the page is. As, Kire1975 said, most recent protests have been Pro-Palestine, which is why they have received more edits lately. See: https://www.axios.com/2023/12/09/palestinian-protests-us-israel-gaza-war. Catboy69 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course, I know the statistic but that's not the issue I raised. It's normal that articles that are built may be centered on a certain point of view. In time this I hope will be addressed addressed, but until then it's important that readers are aware of the issue until the issues are resolved. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

In process of being built* (clarified) Homerethegreat (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

How is this article centered on a certain point of view?

What is "this" that you want to be "addressed addressed"?

What "issue" is it that is so important for "readers" to be aware of? Kire1975 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy that you took the time to read the problems I raised and address what I wrote, although I still do not understand why this had to be taken here for you to respond to the issues I raised. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Before these new edits, "pro-Israel" appears in reference to protests on the list 9 times. There are 37 sections or sub-sectios on the page. You listed only three that had problems. You could have easily googled the missing material and added it yourself, but now, after two of those three sections have been fixed to your satisfaction, you are still insisting that the NPOV template stay without telling us what will satisfy you. You have taken the page WP:HOSTAGE. Kire1975 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Just for the protocol, I did explain in the Talk page:

An article on an ongoing event that has conflicting narratives about it has serious concern on neutrality by default. Every sentence is picked by excellent editors who have different perspectives about what should and what should not be in the article, based on their relative point of view of events. It takes time until such an article can be more neutral, with relevant historical perspective and enough editing. Agmonsnir (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• The problem here is that, with the article broken down by region, it's hard to say whether there are notable protests in favor of XYZ in a particular area or not of weight equal to the currently-listed ones; this is best resolved by trying to find and add them. Simply assuming there must be equal counter-protests in every region and tagging the article until they're found and added is WP:FALSEBALANCE, in that the implicit demand here is that the article present equal number of protests in every section regardless of the weight of sourcing. If someone had already found valid things to add to the page and there was an unresolved conflict over adding them, tagging might make sense, but absent that, time spent trying to add the tag to the page would be better-spent looking for sources, since those are necessary to justify the tag in a context like this anyway. And when / if they're found, they can just... be added, unless someone disputes them. (And if there eventually is such a dispute it would probably be best to use section-level tags instead of article-wide ones, unless it actually does end up spreading to encompass the entire article.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  In that same vein, it may help to rework that article as a whole to be a summary of the general protests across the US, rather than this detailed distillation by region; individual protests which drew more attention (such as those at various colleges) can be described in more detail but a good 25-40% of that article is just "a protest also happened here" which really isn't encyclopedic. Written in this way, the article will likely reflect that most of said protests are anti-Hamas/pro-Israel while there are a smattering of pro-Palestine/anti-Israel protests, which to me would be a far better summary approach for that page and avoids the issue of what's happening here by Homerethegreat in terms of trying to fight for equal weight. Masem (t) 00:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, another advantage to rewriting it like that is that, hopefully, editors could then look for broader secondary, survey-style, or at least nationwide-coverage sources discussing the overall direction and tone of protests and summarize them using that as opposed to having a bunch of "there was a protest at XYZ" as it is currently. Nose-counting ourselves to establish stuff like that isn't great and tends to lead to bloated unreadable articles even aside from any neutrality concerns as people rush to insert as much as possible. --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, should I add the explanation I wrote on the page here? I'm sorry I did not respond in the past few days. I just felt a rapid succession of what felt like attacks to me and I got distressed and had to take a break, I'm sorry. Thank you for taking a look and for the professional insight on the article. I do agree with Masem and with you on an the more encyclopedic approach, but for now I do not wish to approach the article. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Homerethegreat has WP:SEALIONED the following pages for a pro-Israeli POV disguised concern that the page is somehow violating NPOV:

• Nakba Denial
• Bethlehem
• Israel
• 1948 Arab–Israeli War
• Indigenous peoples
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Kire1975 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The page that is the subject of this thread is certainly not the first or only example of an instance where the user in question has made the claim of POV issues with inadequate follow-up or explanation on talk with recourse to sources and policy (as opposed to opinion), and this behaviour is certainly arguably becoming a community time sink. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of Hamas denial in lead of article

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.

---

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_7_October_attack_on_Israel#RfC_on_Hamas_denial_in_lead_section. This presents a possible NPOV issue, one way or the other. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no NPOV issue. @Figureofnine is trying to force the deletion of the fact that Hamas denied the accusations, as reported in The Washington Post. Regardless of who is right or wrong in this article, maintaining proportion and neutrality in the lead section is important. The lead section should include both the belief of aggression from Israel and the belief of denial from Hamas. Figurenine quickly initiated an RCF to block the discussion, and many users who agree with his point may not be truly neutral if we examine their contributions. Therefore, the RFC should be conducted on a larger scale instead of framing it as an NPOV issue here.

Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Where is the NPOV issue? Please feel free to quote the specific part of the policy that should apply here. M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I replied to the RFC already but what the case boils down to is a wide accusation that Hamas has done vile crimes, but Hamas has denied those claims (as reported in reliable media). Without any international court ruling Hamas to be guilty of those crimes, including the accusation without the denial is a NPOV issue, because it makes Hamas implicitly look to be at fault in Wikivoice. I did offer a suggestion that if Hamas' denial cannot be trusted, as discussed in reliable sources, then the denial inclusion can also include how there is doubt in their word. Masem (t) 15:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Put simply, it's what the OP is after (the removal of the denial) that would cause a NPOV issue. M.Bitton (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

What is your basis for looking for "any international court ruling"? I would not consider that a very neutral or realistic way of deciding on wording for the lead section. fiveby(zero) 17:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's standard in Wikipedia to include an accused person's denial of a crime when they have not been convicted. Omitting their denial is implicitly saying they are guilty. In fact the source used to report the accusations is also used as the source that they reject them. The article should use the same neutral tone as the reliable sources it uses.

Before anyone argues that BLPCRIME does not apply, please note I have not cited it since it applies to individuals, not groups.

The Washington Post and the overwhelming majority of rs available have no sympathy for Hamas and therefore there is no reason to correct their reporting in order to put Hamas in a less favorable light. TFD (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2023 (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.

More eyes please

Melbourne shuffle has some newer editors changing who the founder is, sourcing it to an interview, and edit warring attempts to revert it. See article history and article talk page. Is content dispute-ish so don't really want to use my tools. Would prefer neutral editors to come in and opine on the topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Maharani Wisma Susana Siregar

Brought this up on the talk page but I thought this would be a good place to get some more eyes on it. I was copyediting and came across Maharani Wisma Susana Siregar, whose description as a "freedom fighter" combined with the very limited English info about her activism and the flag thing makes me nervous. I'd love it if someone with more familiarity with Indonesia-related topics could take a look and get some Wiki Magic going. (And sorry if this is the wrong place for this, I'm still rather new). thrashunreality (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)