Talk:Taliban

Coalition Attack Section

This section is somewhat flawed. I will correct the footnote citation to what the author tried to cite to, but as far as I can tell the article does not support this paraphrasing. The paragraph adds to the article though, so I am hesistant to eliminate it altogether.

"The Washington Post stated in an editorial by John Lehman in 2006:

What made the Afghan campaign a landmark in the U.S. Military's history is that it was prosecuted by Special Operations forces from all the services, along with Navy and Air Force tactical power, operations by the Afghan Northern Alliance and the CIA were equally important and fully integrated. No large Army or Marine force was employed.[131]" ThomasHodgkissLilly (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How is this relevant information in an already very long article about the Taliban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.205.30 (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Taliban's treatment of women

Canadian soldiers should be changed to NATO troops because Canada is in no way the only force fighting in Afghanistan or sometimes seen in a negative light by the Afghan people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.247.6 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a disclaimer attached to anythccccccing from RAWA. They are not a neutral, non-biased humanitarian group. They are a political group with political leanings. This should be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.174.242 (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Taliban's version of Islam

While in power, the Taliban implemented the "strictest interpretation of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world,"[11]"

That's just sensationalist hogwash. The Taliban are Sunnis, and Deobandis at that, they implemented a very strictly enforced version of the Hanafi law (or fiqh) which is the most liberal in Islam (out of the four schools of law, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, Shafi'i).

The strictest interpretation of Shariah law itself is instituted by Saudi-Arabia which is Salafi. Not just Salafi even, but Wahabi (an even more extreme sub-branch of Salafis). However, "reform" for the Saudis has taken the form of looser enforcement which does not change the fact that the law "on the books" so to speak, is much stricter in Saudi-Arabia than it was for the Taliban. Is taboo to mention because the Saudis are our allies?

Al-Qaeda are also Salafi, being mostly comprised of extremist Arabs and Saudis. So it's important to note that Al-Qaeda would sometimes institute its own brand of Shariah in Afghanistan, distinct from the Taliban, even up to the point of foreign policy. Al-Qaeda's influence on the Taliban is very similar to the situation in Lebanon with Hizbullah acting like a "state within a state", and the nightmare scenario for the West has been Hizbullah becoming powerful enough to derail Lebanon. It was the same case in Afghanistan, albeit the Taliban weren't too far off the mark to begin with. The Israel-Lebanon war of 2006 was very similar to the Afghanistan war and 9/11... the non-government state actors (Hizbullah, Al-Qaeda) attacked a foreign power and drew its host country (Lebanon, Afghanistan) into a war. The host country showed solidarity with the organization because of how deep it was embedded into the culture and populace, though it likely had little say or even knowledge of the original attack (Lebanon's government didn't know Hizbullah tried to conduct a cross-border raid, the Taliban and most of Al-Qaeda had no clue that 9/11 was even in the works). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.174.242 (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Taliban and A-Qaeda with Hezbollah is not only funny but ridiculous. Hezbollah is democratically elected by people and is a political party with large number of supporters!88.97.164.254 (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

the taliban r said to be wahabi in the main article but infact they r deobandis and many of them graduated from the deobandi seminary jamiah huqqanyah in pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.219.176 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

al qeda and osama bin laden are definitely not salaafi. For example, osama bin laden decalerd publicly after 9/11 "we say fatiha for the souls of the hijackers" and saying a fatiha for a dead soul is a sufi concept. Just because osama bin laden came from saudi arabia, that doesn't instantly make him salaafi. In fact, salaafi islam is the state religion and osama bin laden is at war with the state of saudi arabia so therefore he is declaring salaafi islam to be his enemy. In salaafi islam, teh theme is pure islam, back to the origins of Islam. Osama bin laden lets anyone join al qeda, even if they are mushrikeen or such like, implying a very different policy to the salaafi who say that we must all follow one version of Islam. Finally I will make the point that if you go into any salaafi mosque (for example masjid as salaafya in birmingham; UK) and ask about jihad they will tell you there is no jihad to fight at the moment and they will belittle all of the "extremist" groups such as al qeda, taliban, al shabab etc. The taliban are wlel known deobando (sufi) muslims and it should be understand that sufism is in direct opposition to sufism. I suggest reading http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/ its a great book called the wahhabi myth and it will open peoples minds to who the salaafi are and who the terrorists are (two very different types of muslims)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.16 (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting the previous user: "The taliban are wlel known deobando (sufi) muslims". Deobandis and sufis are not the same thing, although they are both Sunnis. In Pakistan, the majority of the population of Sindh and Pakistani Punjab were sufi, and came into conflict with the incoming refugee Muslims from northern India (mostly Deobandi) after Partition in 1947. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.176.71 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Are the Taliban "Hanafis"? Or even "Deobandis"? I find these accusations akin to those who try and say that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was a Sufi. Yes, he once was, but if you read up, he clearly came to reject their position. Can the same be said of Taliban members who graduated from the Deobandi school? I think it is very likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Buddhas of Bamiyan

Why do "the intentions of the destruction remain unclear"? It seems pretty clear why the statues were destroyed by reading the New York Times article referenced in the section. 124.171.164.160 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Opponents

The United Kingdom is not stated in the opponents list. This suprises me, as they are currently leading the fight against the Taliban in afghanistan. 14/12/08

Also, Canada has a large contingent of soldiers in country... Why are the U.S. and U.K the only NATO forces represented in the side bar?Mikeonatrike (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is also bias to make a statement "the UK is leading the fight against the taliban". I am currently serving OEF09 as a combat medic and I have seen the following forces- French, UK, Australian, Afghan Army, US, and a few others. I am US and I believe we are all contributing in this country. I must say however that I have been to BAF (Bagram Air Force Base), FOB Airborne, and COP Carwile in the wardak provence. In all my experience the US populates most of the small bases away from the bigger FOB's with niceities such as showers, hot chow, and communication to the soldier's home country. So in my experience the US does without more and is closer to the front lines of this conflict, not to say that is how it is everywhere but something to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.91.217 (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

um?

why is Pakistan listed as a Ally last time i check they were fighting them.

In response: Pakistan has had an extremely close nexus with Taliban thru JUI. And the last time I checked Pakistan was turning into Afghanistan. Hint Hint --> TALIBAN HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT (considering they are sunni islamists and finally Paskistan is regretting their close alliance with them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.46.136.178 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing a school project on the Taliban and how they governed Afghanistan. I find no mention of their achievements on this page. This is a little disappointing and says something about the neutrality of the article.

What achievements? Can you post your school project here when you done it so that we see what achievements you are talking about? 88.97.164.254 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is one achievement: (Taliban) declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan#Rise_of_the_Taliban_.281994.E2.80.932001.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.93.13.41 (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Pashtuns

Can we add some of the information found in the following USA Today article about ethnic Pashtuns being ethnic cleansed by ethnic Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, into this article?

"CHESHMEH-YE SHIR, Afghanistan — From the road, this hamlet looks wrecked and deserted. Doors and windows have been ripped from the dried-mud dwellings. There are no sheep or other signs of life.

But as Mohammed Azim, 46, leads the way, heads peer out from around corners. Soon there's a crowd of men and a handful of women and children watching from a distance as Azim explains their caution.

These people, many of them his relatives, are in hiding. "No Pashtun can just journey out of his house," he says.

Human Rights Watch agrees. It says Pashtuns, the dominant ethnic group in most of Afghanistan — except in the north — are being beaten, raped and robbed here by armed gangs of ethnic Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. The human rights group, based in New York City, says it has no figure on the number of victims, but its investigators have collected anecdotal evidence that indicates dozens of Pashtuns have been killed in the assaults. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/05/13/pashtuns.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litrboxr (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are many reports saying that Iran is providing weapons to Taliban so why is Iran placed as opponent? George |Bush, the White House and senior US Military personell all say that Iran is helping the Taliban. Someone needs to check into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litrboxr (talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, exactly! "Bush, the White House and senior US Military personell" are saying that Iran is helping Taliban. Someone have to check into this and try to veryfy the claim using more reliable sources. Until someone does, we can safely assume that to be a lie and stick with the opposite: that Iran is against Taliban (which is BTW rather obvious to anyone familiar with the subject). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.249.143 (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Man you don't know how to search for something online? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Quds Force, the elite unit of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, provides "lethal support" to the Sunni-dominated Taliban for use against U.S. and NATO forces, according to information in the new U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran. How many more sources you want to see here?--119.30.71.83 (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Initally, when the war on terror started, the then moderate Iranian government actually supported NATO in ousting the Taliban. This is all well documented in the series "Bush's War", but here's a blurb supporting it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/slapface.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.32.91.79 (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two good reasons to doubt those reports, Litrboxr. I will hand you the third: no trustworthy organisation has yet supported these accusations of Iran helping Taliban, and leave the others as an exercise for you. 82.95.146.33 (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I didn't place the tag on the top of this article, but I would agree that the article is not neutral in tone. Claims of a Taleban resurgence are presented without challenge to their authenticity and without acknowledgement of the apparent decline in that resurgence in 2008. (The timeline itself has just one major incident in 2008, so either it needs a huge update, or the preceding section is wrong or out of date.) 96.237.243.124 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Taliban Vs Afghanistan

What is this crock of bs....The new puppet government in Afghanistan is intalled by invaders...how can it be thought of as legitimate government...you guys must have a heavy POV that is same as US government right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellibeing (talk • contribs) 03:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE as to why this is. Only a fringe would share your opinion of the current Afghanistan government being illegitimate. -- Atama^chat 15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the free and fair elections, for both women and men, have given the current government legitimacy. Rather than goverment by force of arms and a power clique. Robauz (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Fr

"Free and fair" elections which had only US approved candidates. Spare me your propaganda. Do you think that if given the chance the afghans wouldn't vote for someone who would kick the yankees out of afghanistan. Why are there no candidates who demand that the USA will leave afghanistan? Do you really believe that among millions of afghans nobody wants the yankees to leave? The Taliban proposed to have a court in which the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, if proven guilty they would hand him over. The USA didn't accept and started the war, killing a million civilians. If the yankees felt they had enough proof why didn't they accept the offer. What proof did they really have that it was Osama? Osama denied it himself [1]

"Free and fair" election. You have got to be kidding.

[2]. Normally terrorists (sometimes even falsely) claim these attacks since it gives them prestige. Someone who has already declared war on the USA wouldn't deny this particular attack (9-11) if he was responsible. They still haven't found Osama by the way. Should the afghans suffer eternally for what foreigners (Al Qaeda) supposedly did? When will the occpuation stop and Afghans can have real democratic elections? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious stupidity you have just spited out...Invaders who invaded Afghanistan from far away land are fighting with Afghanistan....They have nothing in common. I guess gas pipeline is probably the only thing we can say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellibeing (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no oil in Afghanistan. This.machinery (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally get side tracked by that sort of dumb comment, but just incase anyone thought there really is no oil in Afghanistan, there is shitloads of both oil and gas (although obviously not Iraqi levels) plus Cheney always wanted to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, but I don't wanna get into american foriegn policy. Just see San Francisco Chronicle, Asia Times, BBC or pretty much any good newspaper to be honest. Pidz (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Taliban deaths

Is there any reliable count of how many talibans have been killed by U.S. coalition forces since the war in Afghanistan began? The article lists some counts of civilian deaths, but I didn't see any mention of Taliban member deaths. — Loadmaster (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so, considering that Taliban usually collect their wounded, there's no real way of knowing other than a rough estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.200.223 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Extremely Biased

The article seems to be extremely one-sided and anti-Taliban, seemingly painting the organisation as evil (or at very least misguided) at every oppotunity. A "Criticism of Ideology" section exists, which is of course fair...yet the closest thing I found to a "Defence of Ideology" section (which this article should have), is an "Explanation of Ideology", which basically merely states that the Taliban are idiots who don't know any better. This article needs to be neutral, we shouldn't be painting the Taliban in a negative light. --86.158.187.75 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In the muslim faith the Koran preaches to never kill another muslim for he is your brother, and anyone else is an infidel. The Koran teaches muslims to talk to the infidels and try to preach about the muslim religion, not kill them. While on patrol i am close friends with my interpreter who is muslim (Pashtun) and he talks to me and teaches me of his ways. Apparently the muslim people do not like the taliban for they do not follow the Koran as it was meant, and mistreat them. I have worked on numerous Afghan Army personnel who were shot and even killed by taliban, while I was handing out meds and giving medical treatment to a village in the Wardak provence. If the taliban does not want to be labeled as ignorant and "evil" then they should not indulge in mindless bloodshed, especially on a mission in which free medical care (MEDCAP) is being given to the local nationals.

No no the bias is good, think about it, would you give the Nazis just as much positive light as negative? Talibans -are- idiots who can't do better. They get the light they deserve, because there's no really "good" side to their faith. 83.115.211.71 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The articles on the Nazis do no contain the same jingoistic bias as this article. Soldiers fighting on the opposite side are hardly neutral commentators. The whole "Criticism of Ideology" section should be removed. There should be maybe a paragraph about women's rights in the article. There should be more mention of the widespread atrocities by the warlords AKA "Northern Alliance" that led to the creation of the Taliban. 70.114.217.117 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly Biased

Might as well change the name of the article to "The Taliban according to the US government." The article is filled with opinion, false accusations, and flat out name calling. And please, there's no reason to call the Salafis "Wahabbis." The term is not only inaccurate, but also derogatory. All instances of "Wahabbi" must be changed to "Salafi." In addition, as the Taliban were very clearly influenced by the Deobandi school, claims of it being influenced by the Salafis are ludicrous, as the Deobandi stance towards Salafi ideology is thoroughly explained by Mufti Ebrahim Desai, a prominent Deobandi scholar, on his website, www.askimam.org. Please make this a real article, not a baseless set of lies against a government that was not only quite popular, but continues to increase in support to this day.Wasabi salafi koonkati (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you any idea at all what the Taliban do to their enemies?Prussian725 (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Or to their own people (especially women ^{[3] [4] [5]})? — Loadmaster (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I supect he does, but please argue his point (that the article inacuratly reflects both the influences and influence) of the Taliban. He did not raise any issues about civil rights.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Wow. I'm going to be honest--did not read beyond the first few lines. I was looking for a basic definition to describe the current status of the Taliban...but as soon as I got to the word "terrorist movement", my eyes boogled and I went elsewhere for a less shallow depiction--after all, the Taliban WAS the legitimate government in its time. I was relieved when I nav'd to the discussion page and found that there are some people who realise that this site is meant to be a factfile, not a journal of opinion. I hope someone puts in an effort to update the page soon. Until then, I encourage people to seek out alternative sources of information on this subject. Night_w 19:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by Taliban WAS the legitimate government in its time? Where did they get their legitimacy from? Did people elect them? The fact that not a single civilised country ever recognised them is a good indication of how legitimate they were! Only their paymasters and partners in crime (i.e. Saudi, UAE and Pakistan) recognised the Taliban! 88.97.164.254 (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

these kinds of comments show huge bias and either intentionally misleading people to further your own cause or gross ignorance. You attribute the talibans main funding to be the muslim countries, what about the fact that they were originally the mujahideen, funded by america to fight back russian forces. If america backed them in order to allow them to take over the country then america has ruled them to be legitimate (ironically also being the ones to overthrow them). And no, the ammount of other countries that recognise them as a legitimate government is irrelevant. If we wish to over throw a countries government, we cant simply declare them illegimate and then go wading in then guns blazing to "liberate" the people. If the world decideds to declare the american government to be illigitimate can we legitimately wage war on america? Also I aggree, the taliban were not a good government IN MY OPPINION but oppinions are welcome at wikipedia. They are sufi, not salaafi and this article is far too POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.16 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some technical problems with the article? It's all well and good making sweeping statements, but to change the article you must find technical points and list them. So to anyone considering these potential errors and viewpoints, list in point form what should be changed. DavidHuo (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Too much content in intro

Much of the info in the intro is also covered in the article in more detail. By selectively moving some info to the intro, it implicitly makes it more important than other info, and also necessarily deprives it of some context. I think deleting much of the repetitive info, it would address some of the POV concerns.Vontrotta (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Biased is right -- *for* the Taliban

"On September 21, 2001, the Taliban quite reasonably responded that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty they would hand him over, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking him to the September 11 attacks."

Unclear on the concept, people. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Whether the Taliban's response was "quite reasonable" is for the reader to decide. Editorializing isn't appropriate.

I hope an editor will get around to fixing such faults in this article. --Andersonedits (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I made a pass on some of the article, but there is always room for improvement.Vontrotta (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair comment - I put in this particular edit, and you're right; though what I was trying to get at was the fact no other government would have acted any differently by requesting evidence before extraditing someone. Any suggestions on how to better phrase this? Nuwewsco (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the important thing is the "fact", that is the response to the request for extradition. Whether or not it was "reasonable" is a subjective determination that every reader of the "encyclopedia" can make based on his or her knowledge of the circumstances, only a small sketch of which is included in the article. I think if you want to add something like this, it ought to be something along these lines: "various commentators have assessed the reasonableness of the Taliban government actions and have concluded...." with a cite to the article(s) that have a full discussion of the topic. In the absence of that, it is better to just stick with the facts.Vontrotta (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe if "quite reasonably" was removed, and an explanation of WHY was added it would be less biased and make more sense. Also, other than that paragraph, i think the whole article is very anti-taliban. It also might be useful to less informed readers why the taliban are fighting NATO? Junhalestone (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Taliban resurgence

Canadian soldiers should be changed to NATO troops because Canada is in no way the only force fighting in Afghanistan and Afghans' opinions of other nations troops have also changed. 72.242.247.6 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest reducing this section to a very short summary and leaving all the details for the main article Taliban insurgency, which needs work to improve its cites.

Comments?Vontrotta (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening para grammar

"Committed fundamentalist insurgents, often described as "Taliban" in the media, originating, and currently based in the Frontier Tribal Areas of Pakistan, [3] are engaged in a protracted guerrilla war against the current government of Afghanistan, allied NATO forces participating in Operation Enduring Freedom, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF),[4] and an effort to expand their operations and influence in Pakistan."

The above sentence reads horrendously. It should, IMO, be broken in two. Or something.

I'll try to fix it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Taliban is misspelled in Arabic. The word ends in a fatHa tanween, not an alif noon.

It's not arabic its pashtun.

Pashtun has a great many loan words from Arabic, which came into the language with the introduction of Islam. Taliban is one of them, and the person who mentioned fatHa tanween is correct. It should be: طَلِباً

Taliban is from the word "Tali", meaning "Students", of which Taliban is the plural.

Neither of you are correct. The word is طالبان. It is comprised of the Arabic word طالب, meaning "student" with the Persian/Pashto plural suffix ان. The use of tanween would change this word to an adverb: "studently", which is, of course, not really a word at all. Jemiljan (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

None of you are correct! طالبان in Arabic means "two students" as the alef nun ending is the 'dual' suffix. Making edit as the current use of Arabic for plural students is incorrect. No idea why they would call themselves that though. Although I wouldn't put two students beyond defeating the Western...umm...colonialists. Mikesta178

Um, can someone else make the edit? I'm not very active and don't really understand the format used when it says "students". Just to confirm, "students" should be "two students." Mikesta178

The word Taliban has a Arabic origin, but we need to translate it in Pashtun context which is just a plural form of Talib, and means Students.

I think either leave llike I did or put origin arabic and meaning in pashtun is studentsBabak2000ir (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What has Taliban got to do with Pashtun Nationalism ?

The Taliban was created by Pakistan after the backdrop of the proxy war led by CIA in Pakistan against the Soviet influenced government later to become the Northern Alliance. The NA were backed by Iran and Russia to combat the fundamentalist doctrine installed by Pakistan which itself is now having to deal with albeit reluctantly according to US officials.

The infobox has Iran in the Opponents, isn't that suppose to be Pakistan instead? Pakistan has 80,000 of their soldiers fighting the Taliban on daily bases and yet Pakistan is no even mentioned in the infobox..."Pakistan's army is battling militants in at least three areas of the northwest. The most intense fighting has been in the Bajur tribal region, where the military claims to have killed 1,000 rebels for the loss of about 60 troops. [6] I don't see any reports about Iran fighting with Taliban, and the Taliban are not on the border with Iran, they are on the border with Pakistan. Somebody needs to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irozee (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I can assure you Iran is any-Taliban, though they may not be engaged in combat with them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Per this Iran cannot be considered opponent.--LloydKame (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But this says: Observing that Iran has long opposed the regime of the Taliban in Afghanistan on the grounds that it oppressed Shiite Muslim and other Persian-speaking minorities, it said Iran nearly launched a military attack against the Taliban in September 1998 after Taliban fighters captured and killed nine Iranian diplomats based in northern Afghanistan.

Sounds like the Taliban and Iran are opponents, alliances of convenience notwithstanding. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I's unessary to add Iran in the list, it's understood that Iran is anti-Taliban. The infobox is for opponents who are currently engaged in battles with Taliban fighters. India is more anti-Taliban than Iran but we don't need India listed in the infobox also.--LloydKame (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If the question on the heading is being posed, it was my understanding that the much of what would be the Taliban was educated in Pakistan. However the Pashtun element is the result of the Soviet-Afghan War, because the majority of those who fled to Pakistan were Pashtun. This resulted in a change in the entire ethnic dynamic of Afghanistan, in which Taijiks and Uzbeks were demanding greater representation in national affairs, and the Hazaras were pushing for regional autonomy. Some Taijiks and Uzbeks supported the Taliban I would guess out of necessity, however the Hazara were ruthlessly persecuted- oftentimes simply executed in the street. I would not dare speak for Pashtuns but the few that I know who came from Afghanistan or have been there tell me that many of them make fun of Hazaras, calling them "flat nose" etc. In other words, the Taliban did represent a predominantly Pashtun movement that was indeed supported heavily by ISI and Pakistani entrepreneurs who wanted an overland trade route to Central Asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.151.246 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editsemiprotected}}

there is a section in this article labelled "life under the taliban" in which some of the behaviorally restrictive methods of enforcement by the group are listed. one section is trasnposed from a preior section in the article itself, so we, in effect, read "no clapping at sporting events or kite flying, or sports for women" twice in this article. i'm wondering if one of the two iterations can't be removed for the sake of redundency.

 Done I've consolidated the two lists. Cheers! --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the inclusion of the truth that the Taliban went to Texas in 1997 in December as reported by the BBC. They were guests on Unocal. When the Taliban refused what looked like a permission for a pipeline to Halliburton investments in the Caspian Sea, this rejection gave US big oil motive to seek a "new Pearl Harbor", ie 911, as pined for on the PNAC website in 2000. In other words, the Taliban going to Texas was a watershed moment that cannot be left out of any true understanding of the US relationship to these people. I am no fan of the Taliban, but I am no fan of US foreign policy right now and for good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgamall (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous uncited references to rape

There is not a single shred of evidence that the Taliban ever "raped" anyone for theft! That's just plain ridiculous. Please remove it.

Oh is it ? They did not rape anybody ?

Second, let's not abuse HRW by dropping their name to support false information. Their documentation of the Massacres of Hazaras does not cite a SINGLE rape. Please remove this as well.

We all know of the Taliban's shortcomings, errors and crimes. Yet, let us remain objective and factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.52 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The War Briefing

Perhaps this link may be included: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warbriefing/

This documentary also discusses the reasons why the ISI helps the taliban (because they think the USA might still lose the war and the fear of Afghanistan becoming part of India, and why Paskistan has failed in the past vs the taliban (stationary, WW2 war tactics that are useless against single taliban; usually outfitted with sniper rifles and blending into the landscape)

and prevention methods currently in use and which are proving effective (small US bases/outposts being stationed at the smuggle routes in Waziristan)

Please include in article, Thanks, 81.246.154.35 (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reagan armed Taliban?

{{editsemiprotected}} This article says the taliban org came about in 1994 but it also says that reagan armed them during the 80's,how is this possible, perhaps individuals belonging to other groups were armed by reagan and then joined the taliban but this still should not count

 Note: That edit was vandalism. Can you state where thepassage is? Thanks. Leujohn ^(talk) 13:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration delivered several hundred FIM-92 Stinger missiles to Afghan resistance groups, including the Taliban, to aid the defeat of the Soviets.[79] 220.253.86.202 (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Somehow Reagan armed the Taliban 14 years before they were formed.

This have to stay in the articel, because mujaheedin, that was formed in february of 1979 and supported by Reagan and other US presidents, was splitted up in Tale and the Northern Alliance. The Taliban was the main part of the group. The NA didn't wanted to be as brutal as the mujaheedin was. --62.16.168.251 (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out before the taliban did not exist back then.

Ahmad Shah Massoud

There are at least two variations of the spelling of his name in this article. It is possible to have a standardised spelling that is used consistently throughout?

Sharia in Pakistan

Can someone please edit the last paragraph in the intro? It makes it sound like the girls are banned from school because of Sharia law, which is not true. Not only that, but the two references given do not mention anything about girls being banned in the first place.--Logosod (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no update regarding the Pakistani military offensive in the Swat valley? This whole article needs to further elaborate on the relationships between Aghanistan and Pakistan.70.23.231.65 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Taliban as terrorrists

I strongly object to the introductory sentence designating the Taliban as an Pashtun Islamic terrorist movement. This is especially problematic regarding the Taliban's formative stages in 1994 and 1995, besides clearly violating wikipedia policy not to describe groups as terrorrist. I would suggest to describe the Taliban as an Islamic fundamentalist movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikluus (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though I have nothing but contempt for the group: this is not a neutral presentation. Oddly, for such a clear issue, though has little discussion on the talk page. That said, we might state in the lead that it is called a terrorist group by *place relevant entities here, including US, EU, UN, China, etc.*. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That could be considered to be an implicit statement declaring that the Taliban are terrorists. Indeed, given the tone of the Wikipedia article on Afghanistan concerning the Taliban - if one expects Wikipedia to be consistent across articles - then it would be unwise to even imply that the Taliban are terrorists: the Wikipedia article on Afghanistan (currently) clearly states that the US overthrew the Taliban *Government* due to their failure to hand over Bin Laden. It would be incredibly easy to spin th earticle in the opposite direction and portray the Taliban as a legitimate government, overthrown by an overzealous US, and struggling to regain control. Therefore I agree that the article should aim for neutrality and avoid inflammatory words such as 'terrorist' altogether. Bagofants (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As Taleban is on the Terrorist lists of almost every country, I think mentioning it is warranted. 88.97.164.254 (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is in reference with Roy, Olivier, Globalized Islam, Columbia University Press, 2004, p.239

They did not destroy the graves of pirs (holy men) and emphasized dreams as a means of revelation.[28]

Sufi Shrine 'blown up by Taleban'

Sufi Islam and the Taleban Suspected Taleban militants in north-west Pakistan have blown up the shrine of a 17th Century Sufi poet of the Pashtun language, police say

link title

taliban crimes

The Taliban is a big terror group (Named by West Media) and them crimes against humanity should be said ,like as what they do in Parachinar,Pakistan. Actually Taliban are the creation of the Dwarves and Hobbits—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.223.130 (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to add bullshit, make sure it makes sense Junhalestone (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pashtun Islamic "Terrorist" movement

Why does the primary description include the qualification "terrorist" in it? I was only aware that the Taliban was an Afghani political/religious party. Can you please explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twainmane (talk • contribs) 05:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

List of terrorist organizations: Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) www.state.gov Taliban is not on the list. - Steve3849 ^talk 06:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

test

Insert non-formatted text here

CIA helped create Taliban?

The article states that there is "no evidence" that the USA helped create Pakistan. There are a number of statements and articles that suggest otherwise. For example, in a recent statement by Secretary of State, Clinton stated "...the problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for, having contributed to it ... the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union"

She then goes on a long discourse about how the US created Taliban and abandoned Pakistan to deal with the aftermath. The full article is here: http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/12-us-created-taliban-and-abandoned-pakistan-clinton--bi-06

I can point to other articles as well if required, but I suggest that this be acknowledged in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasarp.mail (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Created, or helped train anyone who fought the soviet union, some who later formed the Taliban? Doesn't seem the same thing.ChillyMD (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Taliban was created in 1994, well after the Soviet-Afghan War was over. They were Afghan students attending religious schools in Pakistan. The ISI gave them weapons and sent them back to Afghanistan. Clinton has confused them with the Mujahideen, which fought the Soviets and later became the Northern Alliance. Kauffner (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, not quite a neutral article

The opening paragraph says the Taliban was overthrown by "invading US military crusaders". Is Al Qaeda editting this page?

Janithor (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, this is very far from neutral. Please, anyone with an account, remove the word "crusaders". 85.124.169.8 (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Al Qaeda, Taliban and Nanawatai

People seem not to be able to differentiate between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation which attacks military and civilian targets around the world. The Taliban was the dictatorial fundamentalist government of Afghanistan which didn't make such terrorist attacks although it was an opressive regime. The Taliban (was) supported (by) Al Qaeda but so did the USA. Al Qaeda (together with american support) had a big part in the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Soviet–Afghan War. Things later went bad between Al Qaeda and the USA. Al Qaeda supposedly was responsible for the 9-11 attack and the USA demanded from the Taliban that they delivered Osama to them.

If you know Pashtun culture (Pashtunwali) then you know that someone who is a guest can't be harmed or allowed to be harmed by others (Nanawatai code). Even if an enemy asks for Nanawatai you have to give them hospitality, food and protection [7] [8]. The Taliban proposed to have a court in which the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, if proven guilty they would hand him over. This way they were not breaking hospitality rules because a criminal forfeits his right of protection since Melmasti and Nanawatai work both ways. The guest also has an obligation to behave properly and do nothing to harm (the honor of) the hospitality giving party. The Taliban also covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan refused the offer.

The USA didn't accept either proposition and attacked afghanistan. I don't know why anyone who wants to catch Osama wouldn't accept these offers. Maybe the idea of getting hold of Osama through Islamic or pashtunwali law was not acceptable to them. It would have allowed the Taliban to save face. They would not have bowed to US threats but would have convicted Osama themselves. If the Taliban had just handed over Osama and bowed to US threats, there would have been no war against Afghainstan by the way. So it is not a question of holding the Taliban responsible for 9-11 and punishing the Taliban/Afghanistan. It is a question of showing dominance. Apparently showing USA dominance was more important than actually catching the perpetrators and saving a million innocent afghan civilian lives which would later die in the war. Even U.S. military casualties would have been prevented by avoiding the war. All these casualties greatly exceed the 2900 deaths of 9-11 and could have been prevented. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro

The intro has a section that reads 'its leaders were removed from power by NATO peacekeeping forces.' In the interests of neutrality shouldn't this read 'its leaders were removed from power by NATO forces.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.74.107 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. All of the intro sections need refining. I'm too busy at the moment to do it myself though. Ottre 21:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Taliban

Is it 100 years old or what?

from THE STORY OF THE MALAKAND FIELD FORCE by Winston S. Churchill (1897)

All are held in the grip of miserable superstition. The power of the ziarat, or sacred tomb, is wonderful. Sick children are carried on the backs of buffaloes, sometimes sixty or seventy miles, to be deposited in front of such a shrine, after which they are carried back—if they survive the journey—in the same way. It is painful even to think of what the wretched child suffers in being thus jolted over the cattle tracks. But the tribesmen consider the treatment much more efficacious than any infidel prescription. To go to a ziarat and put a stick in the ground is sufficient to ensure the fulfillment of a wish. To sit swinging a stone or coloured glass ball, suspended by a string from a tree, and tied there by some fakir, is a sure method of securing a fine male heir. To make a cow give good milk, a little should be plastered on some favorite stone near the tomb of a holy man. These are but a few instances; but they may suffice to reveal a state of mental development at which civilisation hardly knows whether to laugh or weep.

Their superstition exposes them to the rapacity and tyranny of a numerous priesthood—"Mullahs," "Sahibzadas," "Akhundzadas," "Fakirs,"—and a host of wandering Talib-ul-ilms, who correspond with the theological students in Turkey, and live free at the expense of the people. More than this, they enjoy a sort of "droit du seigneur," and no man's wife or daughter is safe from them. Of some of their manners and morals it is impossible to write. As Macaulay has said of Wycherley's plays, "they are protected against the critics as a skunk is protected against the hunters." They are "safe, because they are too filthy to handle, and too noisome even to approach."

Also see

OPINION: Moolah for the mullah —Nasir Abbas Mirza from the Daily Times

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\20\story_20-4-2009_pg3_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeofVA (talk • contribs) 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Taliban's website

{{edit-semiprotected}}

Please add under External links:

* [http://www.alemarah.info/english/ Taliban's website (English)]

(source: [9]) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to the controversial nature of this request, I am forced to decline it pending discussion. Intelligentsium^review 01:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You can find said discussion here. Intelligentsium^review 02:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll just put it here, then.

{{helpme}}

See above (and yes, this template is supposed to be used on article talk pages, per User:Hersfold). What should be done in this situation? Intelligentsium^review 02:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, idk, I would think this link would be OK per Wikipedia:EL#Official_links. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that per WP:ELOFFICIAL a link would be appropriate. However, can this be reliably confirmed as the official site, rather than something run by a fringe group claiming to speak for the whole? I am unable to find conclusive sources, not least because most news agencies citing the "Official Taliban Website" do not actually give a URL. DoktorMandrake 03:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If it can be verified as their official site, then it appears to be within the guidelines to include it, any controversy over the content notwithstanding. But verification may be difficult. --RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• My gut instinct is to include the link. Nobody in the media has ever linked to the official al-Qaeda websites like Al-Ansar either. Ottre 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, let me again call attention to the RS posted above: Beam, Christopher (2009-10-06). "How Do I Get in Touch With a Terrorist? Call his cell". Slate.

"The Taliban usually post their messages and videos to their own Web site. (Check it out the latest press releases here.)"

-- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we've all read the article. Slate is not considered a RS on the Middle East. Ottre 02:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. It's owned by WaPo. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

{{edit-semiprotected}} The matter seems to be settled. Please add under External links:

* [http://www.alemarah.info/english/ Taliban's website (English)]

(source: [10]) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Due to Ottre's claim that this is not a reliable source, I don't think you can call this settled, just dropped. (Had you refuted his statement with "Puh-lease...", things might have been different.) I'll pass this to the RS noticeboard to confirm it is a valid RS for this info, then we can add it. Celestra (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, then, how about Wired Magazine?[11] To quote, leaving out superfluous links:

With the addition of online video, the Taliban’s website now has a complete multimedia package of voice, video and text, marking a trend of increasing sophistication for the Afghan insurgent group’s propaganda efforts. Visitors to the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” website can now read through Taliban news updates in Arabic, English, Urdu, Pashto and Farsi, peruse official magazines like Al-Somood and listen to Radio Shariat, the Taliban’s old FM radio station now available to stream online.

While likewise not renowned for expertise on the Middle East (which I think is a silly requirement for sourcing this info, not reflected in WP:RS), Wired is renowned for their expertise on the Internet. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done No other sourcing is needed; I just wanted to confirm that Slate was a reliable source. Since there was so much discussion about it, I've added the source as a reference to allow the reader to verify the site as well. Celestra (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Taliban's Relations With The U.S.A.

In late October,2009,U.S. President Barack Obama signed a bill,his signature authorized the bill's passage into law,the bill was the budget for the U.S. Department Of Defense for the fiscal year 2010. Part of the bill provided money for the Taliban,in the form of direct payments to the Taliban. News media reports at the time said the U.S. was paying the Taliban to lay down their arms and stop fighting,while other stories said that the U.S. would pay the Taliban to 'protect villages'. I'd like to put that on the main page,but because of Wikipedia's pro-Obama bias,a fact like that would last about five minutes before someone deleted it. The page about the Taliban should become a locked page,so nobody could delete the fact that Obama signed a bill that authorizes direct funding to the Taliban terrorists. Signed-Anthony Ratkov November 16,2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.155.167 (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

I just looked at the main page,and I saw that the page already was locked,so it's impossible to edit the page!Sorry about that! Signed,-Anthony Ratkov November 16,2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.155.167 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

Remove NPOV break early in article, "Reflecting its persistent power to intimidate the populace". This quoted sentence is emotive and implies a political point of view. Taliban court system is like any other legal system: A system of laws. The statement suggests the writer must consider all law systems to be "persistent powers to intimidate" populaces. Or the writer of it suggests that he is applying it exclusively and choicely to the Taliban system of government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHuo (talk • contribs)

• Could you please say (verbatim) how you think that sentence should be written? Then re-apply the {{editsemiprotected}} tag. Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Taliban has implemented one of the "strictest interpretation[s] of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world", yet still occasionally updates its code of conduct.[14]" DavidHuo (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Potentially another separate issue with the line: Does "code of conduct" here mean, "reform"? If they are "reformist" or "progressive" (however slightly) they should be described how other legislatures are described when they make changes to law. DavidHuo (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some cases in which it is not possible not to be biased. Yes, it may be "NPOV" but simply put, the Taliban is evil, there is no other way to say or put it. Who or what else would blow up a school for children (girls)? Taliban blow up girls' school in Pakistan Bdelisle (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Bdelisle: "simply put, the Taliban is evil, there is no other way to say or put it...Who or what else would blow up a school for children (girls)"

You put an object over lives? How about the children inside the school? One US-Nato strike KILLED 60 CHILDREN, including men and women, and all you care about is a school:

From the BBC: "There is convincing evidence that 60 children and 30 adults were killed in a US air strike in western Afghanistan"-http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7582170.stm

By your own definition of evil, the US-Nato is at the extreme of 'evil', ie 'evil incarnate'

To others here: Bedelisle shows the need for these changes to be made across the article. DavidHuo (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

I'm going to decline this for the time being, since it seems that the issue is not clear-cut, unsupported by sources, and (to me eyes) driven by a point of view that appears to be political. Arguing merits of one side to a dispute over another is unhelpful and an edit change should only be supported by the clearest exposition of (a) the contention in the article which is sought to be changed; (b) the proposed new wording to remedy this and (c) a reliable source to support the change. I don't see that here. If you can put it in clearer terms below, please do so. Rodhullandemu 02:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(a) Already done

(b) Already done

(c) I want to refer you to your own Talk page that quotes one, "Jimmy Wales". The original assertion I'm objecting to has no citation, it is an opinion. And a political one, as no other political systems are described in that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHuo (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed this by request, and take your word that the cited source, to which I do not have access, does not support the contention "Reflecting its persistent power to intimidate the populace...". The use of extraneous material to support such a contention without an explicit citation would be original research or a synthesis of that material, and I think little is lost by removing those words. Rodhullandemu 13:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Swat mines

The Swat mines part doesn't belong here. This article is about the Afghan Taliban, while the entire Swat issue belongs to the Pakistani Taliban article (if you would want it in the first place that is).87.84.248.99 (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Taliban is a bad word for a fanatic and wicked person

In the majority of the world, the name taliban became a bad word. If someone is a wicked, violent, fanatic and useless person, this person is called such as a taliban, even if this person isn't an Islamic.Agre22 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

I've never heard that before. "Nazi" is till used in most of the western world at least. Tommkin (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Some corrections requested please

This is a highly biased information that has been compiled and many facts seem to have been deliberately ignored. Its my appeal to the stakeholders of Wikipedia, including Mr. Jimmy Wales, to ensure that information quoted in Wikipedia remains credible. I dont want to, neither I am the authority to get into a discussion of who created "Taliban", but by reading this document reader feels that Pakistan is solely resposnible for Taliban. As per the statement given by Ms. Hilary Clinton, US secretary of States, she owes that US was atleast partially responsible for creating, supporting Taliban through Pakistan. I am enclosing the youtube link of her speech, and would request authorised users to please update/correct the information contain herein.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2CE0fyz4ys

Here is what she says in the above link Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday said that the US was also partly responsible for the present mess as it virtually abandoned Pakistan after the Soviets left Afghanistan.

"There is a very strong argument, which is: It wasn't a bad investment to end the Soviet Union, but let's be careful what we sow, because we will harvest. So we then left Pakistan. We said, okay, fine, you deal with the Stingers that we've left all over your country. You deal with the mines that are along the border. And by the way, we don't want to have anything to do with you," Clinton said testifying before a Congressional committee.

After the downfall of the Soviet Union, Clinton said the US stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with the ISI.

"We can point fingers at the Pakistanis, which is -- you know, I did some yesterday, frankly. And it's merited, because we're wondering why they don't just get out there and deal with these people. But the problems we face now, to some extent, we have to take responsibility for having contributed to," she said.

Clinton said the US has a history of moving in and out of Pakistan. "I mean, let's remember here, the people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago. We did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan, and we did not want to see them control Central Asia, and we went to work," she said.

"It was President (Ronald) Reagan, in partnership with the Congress, led by Democrats, who said, you know what? Sounds like a pretty good idea. Let's deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military, and let's go recruit these mujahidin. And great, let's get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam, so that we can go beat the Soviet Union. And guess what? They retreated. They lost billions of dollars, and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union," Clinton said. And what is happening in Pakistan today is a result of that policy, she acknowledged, so the US should also take a part of the responsibility.

Hina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinashah101 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Iran -- all citations are same and false

I have been trying to find out what's what, way too much to learn quickly -- but I had to stop right at the beginning of this. Why on earth would Iran help their enemies the Taliban?

Iran helped the Hazara, opponents of the Taliban according to Rory Stewart, author The Places In Between someone much more conservative than I am but who seems to realize that Shiite Iran would have no reason to support the Taliban.

I'm sorry I can't give more specifics at the moment -- I"m sure someone can. See Juan Cole, http://www.juancole.com/ or "Dave's Middle East Study Group" which, thought out of date as Dave has had to put on hold temporarily, has useful references. Dave has read everything he can, on all sides, to see who we are bombing.

I agree with others here that this is not an article but a propaganda piece. I urge someone with knowledge to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.207.195 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting you: “Why on earth would Iran help their enemies the Taliban?” I don’t pretend to fully understand the prejudices and hatreds of people over there. But there is the old adage “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Iranian support for the Taliban is “limited” according to Robert Gates. Trying to put myself into the Iranian’s shoes for a moment and think strategically, I can imagine they would want to provide the Taliban with sufficient short-term material support to make America’s task in Afghanistan difficult without appreciably strengthening the Taliban’s long-term strategic influence on the country. Greg L (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit for proper internal linking

{{editsemiprotected}} The first paragraph contains a red link caused by improper formatting. The source reads: [[Pakistani Punjabi people]]|Punjabis]] It should be: [[Punjabi people|Punjabis]] to produce a proper link. This produces the following: Punjabis Please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.153.98 (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2010

 Done Set Sail For The Seven Seas 28° 7' 30" NET 01:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Was "taliban" a name chosen by the group themselves, being students of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, or attributed to them by others? Hexmaster (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This name was attributed to them by other people because they belonged to different madrassas in Kandahar. Kindly post such questions on WP:RD. Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam is a completely different organization. You are perhaps confusing them with Deoband school of Islam. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 09:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

I was very disappointed by this article and even more so by the discussion where many comments are poorly written and unsigned. Now I too may be culpable because I don't know where I should ask this question!

In the very first section, the article states, "...revived as a strong insurgency movement governing mainly local Pashtun areas during night and fighting a guerrilla war against the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan,..." What does it mean by "during night"? Is it that when dusk falls, they move in with courts and attempt to settle disputes, etc, only to disperse again when daylight appears?

I was hoping for some enlightenment on this complicated topic - Wikipedia usually scores well for me - but I leave the page more confused than when I came. I am not trying to be critical, heaven knows I couldn't do anything even half as well, but I do think some objectivity would go down well here with less personal antipathy. Dawright12 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Taliban "propaganda"

I've reverted a recently added section on "Taliban propaganda", as it was only supported by a single reference which was written by the UK's Ministry of Defence - which is currently at war with the Taliban. As the only reference is diametrically opposed to the Taliban by definition, they can hardly be counted on for being objective in this subject. (Ironically, this refernece could reasonably be regarded as anti-Taliban propaganda!) Nuwewsco (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dreadful to read

I have read a great many things in my time but generally avoid all things about war. Today I came here to break that tradition. I can say this is probably the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It has obviously undergone ridiculous amounts of North American editing that has turned it into an expressive and passionate account of "BLAH".

This is why I probably stayed away in the first place. These accounts are not reasonable, rather impossible to draw any decent facts from because the editors have tried to synthesise a variety of different views that add very little to the subject. Obviously this is such a sensitive area to North Americans that it is impossible for any independent bystander such as myself to make any sense out of. I thought coming here would perhaps be less biased but I guess that everyone is just so blind to it now that you don't see it. Moving elsewhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.14.236 (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.193.130 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. It is curious that the "Emmergence" section of the article starts directly after the Soviet-Afghan war, ignoring the fact that it was the United States that in face trained and supplied the Taliban to combat the soviet invasion. This article is one of the most biased I have read on Wikipedia. Another aspect I find particularly disturbing is the addition of several links to torture/execution videos. This is the only article that I have come across that features such controversial and sensational information. I ask if the videos are indeed needed to have a clear view of the subject. This article just screams propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.211.198.39 (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Numbers of death victims under islamic emirate

I think that we should have had the numbers of executions and other state-caused deaths (like torture, suicide and ideology(liberalist)-cause deaths, like hunger, not able to get health care, murder because of weapon law, as in all other capitalist states). I would imagine that the death toll is about 1,8 million, but I don't know anything about it. Want that people that know it shall write it in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.168.251 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate? Are you referring to the Taliban or not? Since when did they constitute an Emirate?Jemiljan (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Taliban /Arabic

Dudes, Taliban isn't arabic because if it was it would be Dual thus Taliban would mean two Students. It's the Farsi Plural. Ok? Ich change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.241.133 (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "talib" comes from Arabic. In Persian the word for student is daneshjoo (دانشجو) and even if "talib" is being understood there, the root is somewhere else. Emesik (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Funds from opium

Regarding the edit I just made (In the Opium section), I just read the cited NYT article and I think that simply saying that it says, the Taliban get funding from opium, is telling only part of the truth. The article is about *all* funding sources including opium, and quotes both Richard Holbroke and Gen. McCrystal as saying other funding sources are more important than opium. It presents no others disputing that. Given (as the article also points out) popular perception is thatopium is their primary funding source, I think it important to not to leave these details out. 65.183.81.120 (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Arabic/Persian

Since the word طالبان in Arabic means 'two students' as pointed out above, should the etymology in the introduction not be changed to something like 'from the Arabic طالب 'student' + the Persian plural suffix ان-' (reformatted according to house style, I guess)? Doesn't seem much more cumbersome to me, and at least it's correct, unlike the present definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.207.192 (talk)

A discussion needs to be had with regular or interested editors about the best form for this and then a specific edit request posted here. Thanks, Woody (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the new address for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan English website is http://www.shahamat-english.com/

http://www.shahamat-english.com/Geo8rge (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.182.136.46, 7 May 2011

There is the quote:

"We don't like to be involved with them, as we have rejected all affiliation with Pakistani Taliban fighters ... We have sympathy for them as Muslims, but beside that, there is nothing else between us"

I clicked footnote 25, and it lead me to a New York Times Article that says the exact opposite of this quote and does not even have the quote in it. In 2009 Pakistan and Afghanistan Taliban forces formed an alliance. They are allies.

67.182.136.46 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Are you sure you clicked on the right article? I found the exact quote on that New York Times article (here). Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I'm really not sure why this is even in here:

"John P. O'Neill was a counter-terrorism expert and the Assistant Director of the FBI until late 2001. He retired from the FBI and was offered the position of director of security at the World Trade Center (WTC). He took the job at the WTC two weeks before 9/11. On September 10, 2001, O'Neill told two of his friends, "We're due. And we're due for something big.... Some things have happened in Afghanistan. [referring to the assassination of Massoud] I don't like the way things are lining up in Afghanistan.... I sense a shift, and I think things are going to happen ... soon."[62] O'Neill died on September 11, 2001, when the South Tower collapsed.[62]"

What does this have to do with the article?Sedna1000 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Sedna1000

Edit request

I'm really not sure why this is even in here:

"John P. O'Neill was a counter-terrorism expert and the Assistant Director of the FBI until late 2001. He retired from the FBI and was offered the position of director of security at the World Trade Center (WTC). He took the job at the WTC two weeks before 9/11. On September 10, 2001, O'Neill told two of his friends, "We're due. And we're due for something big.... Some things have happened in Afghanistan. [referring to the assassination of Massoud] I don't like the way things are lining up in Afghanistan.... I sense a shift, and I think things are going to happen ... soon."[62] O'Neill died on September 11, 2001, when the South Tower collapsed.[62]"

What does this have to do with the article?Sedna1000 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Sedna1000

 Not done: It is in the history part, because the Taliban during that period harbored Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is said to be responsible for the assassination of the anti-Taliban leader Massoud (which experts in the U.S. such as John O'Neill then saw as a sign something was shifting in Afghanistan and something was going to happen in the U.S. also). That is part of joint Taliban-Al Qaeda history. JCAla (talk) 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Taliban Claims Responsibility for Attacks

CNN is reporting the Taliban is claiming responsibility for two suicide bombers attacking a paramilitary academy in the Pakistan, killing eighty and injuring over a hundred. The Taliban stated they did this in response to the killing of Bin Laden and this is just the first in a series of retaliation attacks. I'm at work and can't update the article here, I have found links (CNN, BBC, MSNBC)for those who have the time and ability. Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL FAIL

A PROTECTED PAGE AND YET SOMEONE UPDATED IT WITH GAY PORN. WHAT NONSENSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.101.36 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed lead that was way too long

As discussed above, the lead was way too long. I have been WP:BOLD and cut it back to a more reasonable length. There are probably things that have been deleted from the lead that could be reinserted latter in the article, and if so, please do so. But please try too keep the lead from again growing too long. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dp412, 6 August 2011

"The Taliban, alternative spelling Taleban,[4] (ṭālibān, meaning "students" in Arabic)" Taliban means students in Pashto, not Arabic. It is the dual form in Arabic ("two students") but Arabic is not the relevant language when speaking of this group. The correct etymology is already explained in the article. The first sentence should be changed to match. Dp412 (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Since the word is a loan word from Arabic, wouldn't it then also be Arabic for students as well making the first sentence technically correct? Since I am not a speaker of Arabic, I would need some clarification on that before agreeing that it needed to be changed. Topher385 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

'Taliban engage in terrorism against the civilian population' if refering to IED's is biased.

I feel the claim that the in the article that the 'Taliban engage in terrorism against the civilian population' is a gross simplification attributed to one party during an ongoing guerrilla war and should be reconsidered. If the statement means the use by the Taliban of IED's (as is implied) then the claim of 'terrorism' is POV as the counterpoint is that this is not terrorism at all but the use of an effective if ruthless guerrilla tactic intended against ISAF/NATO forces that does however often cause 'collateral' civilian casulties. The aim of the IED attacks is to create ongoing ISAF/NATO casulties and erode long-term political support of what are seen as foreign occupation forces, even if this is at the expense of civilian casulties, nothing more- dss2mtm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.46.176 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Taliban acid attacks on schoolgirls and terrorism against women who seek education
• Taliban attack on busy supermarket in Kabul killing a human rights activist and her four children and husband
• Taliban gunmen randomly execute 38 civilians at a Jalalabad bank
• Taliban kill medical students at a Kabul hospital

= TERRORISM against the civilian population

A guerilla war against military forces is something else.

The Taliban are responsible for 82 % of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan. JCAla (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request from AndrewMcN

Under "Ideology" -> "Criticisms" there's a para alleging bestiality. It should be removed unless it can be substantiated with a more reliable reference. The reference given is to a magazine article which does not itself cite sources, and which contains little discussion other than the indication that these recordings supposedly exist. There are a few youtube videos around of such things, many of which surface repeatedly in different years and supposed locations.

 Question: Where is it alleging this? I do not see it in that section. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I can't read. Removed now --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request September 22, 2011

Please insert in External links between Aljazeera and The Guardian (alphabetical order):

• Taliban Conflict collected news and commentary at BBC News

Thanks. 75.59.229.4 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Content removed & POV tag?

Were is the section for the POV tag? And as to the content being removed, if Pakistan refutes the claims that they have aided the Taliban then instead of removing the content you need to balance it with a rebuttal from a RS. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the previous version did not even attribute the allegation to the US gvt, and infact presented it as encyclopedic content, which is definitely POV. If you want to mention it then you need to use a sentence like "US gvt. alleges Pakistan of aiding..." etc and not the way it was. And in anycase adding it to infobox is completely biased. The POV tag is added because I only reverted the obvious instances, while the article tone still implies Pakistan's historic ties as being current one while it fails to credit that US had the same during the cold war. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall various agencies other than the US mention that Pakistian had aided the Taliban, It is hardly POV to state what a great many sources have said, you need to add a reliable source which says that the Pakistan government denies these allegations for balance, that is how it works. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Try Fundamentalism reborn?: Afghanistan and the Taliban By William Maley as a source for what you need. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have a problem with other a:gencies saying that. The article didn't attribute those facts to any, that's the problem including the article tone (without refutation) and the infobox inclusion. I'll edit accordingly. If you want to add the allegation on the Pakistan army, you have to add the refuation along with it. You can't just instate a POV and expect other editors to balance it for POV. Such content is to be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes I can, if you dispute that which is a widely reported fact then it is you who needs to find sources which refute this fact. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the POV tag is to alert editors that there is a discussion regarding a specific POV issue. It is not to be used to object to "article tone." If there are no further specific POV issues then the tag should be removed.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Article tone is a POV issue and being discussed here too. So the tag is completely valid untill those parts are rewritten. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are strong refutations from Pakistan: [12] [13] [14] [15]. You can find 100s of more I'm sure. You also need to review this article War in North-West Pakistan. Now I hope it's clear that you can't add that content without attribution and refutation as per WP:NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not think you understand, all those sources say the government denies the claims, this is hardly surprising. It is a widely reported fact that they do in fact offer support to the Taliban. The source I recently added is from the academic press and is an obvious high quality source for these matters. Do you have any sources other than government press releases which refute the claims? By all means add to the article that the Pakistan government denies these allegations, but it is widely accepted that they do, there is no neutrality issue here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, you have not attributed that the 'wide' allegations are by the US govt. Not attributing that compromises the article's neutrality. It will only be neutral to say that "the US (and if any other mention that too) govt. alleges Pakistan to be supporting taliban and Pakistan strongly denies it" and even with all this stated, the infobox inclusion is not justifiable. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Again you are wrong, it is the mainstream view as evidenced by academic sources that they supported the Taliban, your only sources which refute this are press releases from the government. It is not "just a US govt" view at all as you keep saying, it is a widely accepted fact. Now please add a source to the article which says they refute the allegations and we can be done with this. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you need to stop throwing the burden of correcting the issue on me. It is your responsibility to add the material in a neutral way since you are reinstating it as per WP:NPOV and WP:VOLUNTEER. Then, news articles are reliable sources. The 'academic' sources you have given are also based on POV of US officials. Your term 'widely accepted fact' is a WP:Weasel. Here is another reliable source which is not a press release from Pakistani govt. [16]. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(out)+(ec)I have not said your sources were not reliable, I said they were government press release. You may not say that the academic sources are based on US pov at all, if you disagree take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. It is not my responsibility to add balancing content, it is yours, you are the one saying the article is not neutral. I have presented sources from the academic press which shows it is mainstream thinking that they have supported the Taliban, it is for you to prove per WP:BURDEN that this is not the case. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue is not of reliability and I just gave you a contradiction from the mainstream, If you don't think its your responsibility to add a neutral POV when you add content, you need to read WP:NPOV. The WP:BURDEN on me is only to prove that the content is disputed, which I did. I just reviewed your added academic source, it does not seem to be so neutral itself while judging ISI. In the very next sentence after alleging ISI for taliban support, it says "On the basis of such stereotyping it is assumed...". I think that is enough to present an openly proclaimed prejudice by your source. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to review it again, it does not say that which you think it does. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have, [17] here you go. You are clearly adding non neutral content as per WP:NPOV. You should self revert or add attribution and refutation along with removal of infobox inclusion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you have not. I am not going to continue to argue this with you, if you feel the source is not reliable then please post on the reliable sources noticeboard. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I just quoted you a phrase from the book you cited. Are you even reviewing your own citation? This is clearly a POV dispute and not an RSN dispute. I've given you contradicting news sources as well as mainstream evidence. Since there are contradictions this becomes a controversy and should be treated as one with neutral entries. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No you took a phrase from the book out of context, that phrase has nothing to do with what is being discussed, it is about the hill people of Pakistan, so no, you did not read it properly at all. There is no POV dispute at all, mainstream sources explicitly state that Pakistan security services aided the Taliban (as does another source I added) Your sources are mainstream yes, mainstream media. All your sources are doing is reiterating what the Pakistan government has said. Again, if you think the source does not support the edit take it to the RSN board. If you think it is not neutral to write that Pakistan has aided the Taliban go to the neutral point of view noticeboard. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not out of the context, if you read the whole paragraph, it is a continuation (infact a judgement) of the said statement. While some of my sources are reiterating Pakistan refutation, the last source I gave is independently telling the same (if you reviewed it at all). You're really hard at hearing. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are reading it out of context, by the way, "say that the Pakistani intelligence agencies have long used threats, arrests and killings to control the Taliban and that they could be doing so again to maintain their influence over the insurgents." This is from your previous source, it clearly says the Pakistani intel agencies have controlled and helped the Taliban. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, controlling someone and having influence over them is opposite of alliance. And did you miss the arrests? And a dedicated article written on 10 year war with their allies in Pakistan? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You can be allied with someone and still exert influence over them, please post to the noticeboards a I have suggested as this is obviously going no-were. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Inter Services Intelligence (Pakistan's intelligence agency) is included in the infobox as an ally of Taliban (and opponent of USA) while Pakistan and USA call each other allies (though strained). Further more, the article tone and some instances imply the same. On which side should ISI be listed as an ally (Taliban or USA) in infobox and how to go about making the article tone and mentioned allegations/refutations neutral? Refer to below transcluded discussion and the talk page discussion in the main section for more details pointed out by involved editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC

A transclusion of the main section's discussion continued at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban is given in a subsection below. You might want to refer to that so that the discussion does not go into circles. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Senior US officials called Pakistan an ally of the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network (Taliban's most destructive element) a "veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency." TopGun forgot to mention that in the initial question.JCAla (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The ISI act as a state within a state, just because the government of Pakistan say they do not help the Afgan Taliban does not mean that the ISI do not. There have been quite a few sources which state that the ISI are allied to the Taliban and there are no neutrality issues that I can see with this being in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

ISI by all means comes under the jurisdiction of government of Pakistan. The issue is whether Pakistan is an ally of USA or Taliban. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Come on, TopGun, don't start fooling yourself. The Pakistani army is running Pakistan not the civilian government, and the ISI officers are drawn from the army.JCAla (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Lets not go into that debate and first solve the issue at hand. And lets remain WP:CIVIL. I think the bot has not yet listed the RFC (here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law) , so we'll have to wait for some time. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As I told you before, Pakistan and the US are allies regarding issues surrounding Pakistan's stability and the safety of its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan and the US are no allies (anymore) regarding Afghanistan, because Pakistan is allied to the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan and the US changed its policy towards the Afghan Taliban in 2001, starting to fight them.JCAla (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that. We can read that from above since I transcluded the discussion so as not to flood this subsection with the same comments again. This will now continue as per RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How many sources need be presented before TopGun admits that the ISI are allied with the Taliban? We have MSM sources, we have academic sources and we have political ones. Enough is enough. I have removed the POV and the very pointy factual accuracy tag that he added. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop rushing to a conclusion. Things work by discussion here. And I am by the rules to call an RFC on this. If you don't want, don't participate. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop dragging things out, the ISI are allied with the Taliban, all sources say so and you are being disruptive. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking here without sources. Lets stay on topic. Stop trying to silence the dispute on your own accord. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm with The Last Angry Man here. We can't drag it out until unknown just because the input that came so far isn't liked by you. I'd say we wait two more days. If there is no change in the opinion of the majority of editors on this issue, then the tags need to be removed and the ISI stays in the infobox. And, one tag until then is enough. JCAla (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I am disputing the factual accuracy here, whether ISI's ally of one or the other is a fact being disputed while the rest of the issues are POV disputes. I hope you know the difference. You should self revert the tag. And read WP:DEADLINE & WP:VOLUNTEER. There is no deadline that I have to follow. RFC will continue, only after that can tags be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No you are disputing the factual accuracy of the MSM and the academic press, all of which say the ISI are allied with the Taliban. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There. You said it that I'm disputing it (and I gave sources). Whether I'm right or not is not for one side to decide. The tag should be put back right away. The RFC is now listed. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

TopGun, three editors have stated that they disagree with you. WP:DEADLINE means that there is no deadline for wikipedia articles to be complete, it does not mean that one editor can forever put tags into an article even if a majority of editors agreed the tags are not justified. JCAla (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor above just said I was disputing whatever he thinks is WP:TRUTH. And no, you didn't read, read again, both the links I gave. This is about the article since it is its talkpage, and there's no deadline. And even if there 'was a consensus', consensus can change. Read WP:OWNERSHIP, you don't own this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources you gave say the II are allied with the Taliban, the only sources which deny this are Pakistani government press releases. You are not disputing the factual accuracy of this article, you are disputing the MSM and the academic press which clearly say the ISI are allied to the Taliban, you are free to take the sources to the reliable sources noticeboard if you think they are not accurate. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Being an ally of one party or another is a factual dispute. Read WP:COMMONSENSE. And no, the sources I gave support my claims and I've given enough arguments. It is ridiculous to deny the existence of the dispute itself after a discussion this long on the talk page and the NPOV notice board. I've already listed an RFC, so RSN is not needed. And FYI, tags and disputed edits are not made without a conclusion when RFCs are tagged. Having another discussion at full length to prove it to you that the dispute exists (while the dispute itself is unsovled) is craziness. The length and arguments of the discussion itself tells about the dispute's nature. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

This section is being transcluded from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban, edit on that page if you want to add comments here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

fa:ویکی‌پدیا:تابلوی اعلانات منابع معتبر

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

Gabor and Ataturk

This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It has never been resolved.

Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 autobiography Zsa Zsa Gabor: My Story. This alleged liaison has been in the public discourse ever since. Some additional references:

• "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
• Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
• Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
• Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
• Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
• Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.

A couple of editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. Removing this information violates WP:NOTCENSORED. I have restored it for the time being, but it's bound to get deleted again unless more editors enforce having the content retained. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been two days and still no feedback. As expected, my additions to Ataturk and Gabor's respective pages were reverted. This violates WP:NOTCENSORED, does it not? The reverting editors have argued against including the information because it is a claim not a fact. We're talking about a relationship from the early-to mid-'30s, long before tabloids and social media existed. Ataturk has been dead since 1938. So of course there aren't going to be receipts. Gabor's account is the only thing to go by, and many publications have long accepted it. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It has now been 17 days and still none of you have joined the discussion. Please give input so this debate doesn't go dormant yet again. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Well over a month now. Community participation is strongly needed. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you link the page in the title of this section? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's both Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Zsa Zsa Gabor. Schazjmd (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"As a possible smear, political and wartime foe British Prime Minister David Lloyd George wrote in 1919 of a meeting with "Mustapha Kemal, a man who I understand has grown tired of affairs with women and has lately taken up unnatural intercourse". Atatürk adopted seven daughters and a son."

This (quote) is an assertion that does not appear very encyclopedic. The issue may be that Gabor is a WP:PRIMARY, but it is still attributable to her. Placement in the article may be the key to resolving the issue. DN (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Hindu American Foundation

Editors are requested to take a look at Hindu American Foundation and ensure compliance with NPOV. I do not see any violations of the policy but as the primary author of the article, I might be biased. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

it seems fair and balanced. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom." – Aristotle DangalOh (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a well rounded article. Nice work! Fenharrow (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Jack Schlossberg and pages on Kennedy family as well as JFK descendants

Due weight and neutrality issues currently being discussed at Talk:Jack Schlossberg regarding due weight of including trivial mentions and magazine commentaries. Additional input would be appreciated, there, or here. Similar issues with various pages about Kennedy related families and descendants of Kennedy. Graywalls (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like things have improved. If this is an ongoing issue on other Kennedy articles, you might point out that if the info is already listed in the info-box it creates a redundancy and WP:LEADCLUTTER to have it all in the same spot twice. DN (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Shortly after this discussion was started, it was found that a second account was being used by the article creator to bypass consensus building, then a WP:LOUTSOCK. Graywalls (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Repressed Memory

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.

---

I have been trying to bring the Repressed memory article up to date as it violates the neutral point of view policy and contains misleading, factually incorrect and unsupported assertions.

Extensive discussions on the Talk:Repressed memory page have been unsuccessful and I have been accused of edit warring, dishonesty, trolling and insulting other editors, despite trying to respond to the criticisms in good faith. I am finding that editorial processes are being used to shut down the argument and take it away from an evidence based discussion about the content. Attempts to resolve this through DR were unsuccessful as the opposing editors chose not to engage.

This is a serious issue, associated with trauma and PTSD, and the medical misinformation that is currently embedded in the article has the potential to cause harm. Some input would therefore be appreciated as this is not the first time an editor has attempted to bring in a NPOV, to no avail. NpsychC (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Therapists who believe in repressed memories have already caused harm and are not doing serious science. See Satanic panic, Alien abduction, Age regression in therapy and Past life regression, which are all based on the same set of dubious techniques that supposedly make people regain memories but actually makes them fantasize the specific things the therapist believes in (aliens, Satanist cults, reincarnation, whatever). As with other pseudosciences, there is a lot of attempts to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE in all those articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in your opinion on the lead sentence, since it refers to the subject as "controversial". I'm dealing with a similar issue in terms of navigating WP:VOICE and MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. Under the umbrella of pseudoscience, I think this may be justified, but is this the only type of exception to the rule? DN (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The subject of repressed memory is considered by some to be controversial, but it is not scientifically discredited as the lead suggests. Some psychologists still believe that repression is the mechanism by which memories are unavailable for a period of time, but dissociative amnesia is the current scientific explanation for the phenomena of recovered memories. I'm not sure it directly relates to your query DN as this isn't pseudoscience but hopefully this helps. NpsychC (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Use of the term "some" in that context is something we should try to avoid. See MOS:WEASEL. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"Bogus" is probably a better word: controversial implies there are legitimate voice on both sides. Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. "Controversial" is false balance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, as we have discussed on the talk page, presenting information from respected books and journals in the field of psychiatry and psychology is not pseudoscience and it is not presenting WP:FALSEBALANCE. I understand that this is your belief and you clearly have a strong opinion about this, but I respectfully ask that you bring evidence and not just your opinion as much of what you are saying is conjecture. NpsychC (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The correct criterion for books and journals as sources is not that the user NpsychC respects them. Neither is "strong opinion" defined as what the user NpsychC disagrees with. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Do we not have at least two articles on this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we have dissociative amnesia and repressed memory. Is that what you mean Slatersteven? NpsychC (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

(not my topic area; don't know how I got here) Unless I'm misunderstanding, we seem to have Dissociative amnesia about a legit psychological phenomenon, and Repressed memory about a discredited theory.

NpsychC, I see you've been trying to add Staniloiu and Markowitsch 2014 at doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70279-2 and McElvaney 2015 at doi:10.1002/car.2280 to the article under discussion here, while these sources are not cited at Dissociative amnesia. Should they be? Is that a better or less better place to cite them?

Would it help resolve this to include further prose disambiguation between the idea of repressed memory and the phenomenon of dissociative amnesia as currently understood? There seem to be several locations in the article Repressed memory where it is (confusingly? accurately?) identified with dissociative amnesia – in prose, in source titles, in direct quotes – and only one wikilink to the Dissociative amnesia article anywhere on the page.

As a non-expert, it seems pretty unclear to me, based on reading skimming this article, the major differences between these ideas. That could probably be handled better. (I could also actually read both articles before commenting 💁🏽‍♀️) Folly Mox (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts Folly Mox. Part of the reason I sought to clean up the article is because repressed memory is a lay term that is often used interchangeably with recovered memory in both professional and non-professional settings (hence the confusion). The article as it reads, implies that the process of a memory being out of awareness for a period of time (recovered memory) is scientifically discredited, without any clear references to support this position and without showing it to be an issue for which there is contention in the literature. The article also does not state that dissociative amnesia is the current scientific explanation for the phenomena. I think the articles by Stanilou, Markowitsch and McElvaney could absolutely be added to the dissociative amnesia page, but my main aim was to clear up the misinformation on this page. Repression is one explanation for recovered memory which has fallen out of favour, while dissociative amnesia is another, more current explanation based on a large body of evidence and as stated by the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5) which has a rigorous scientific review process behind it. The whole article is a bit messy, but the lead was my first priority as it is what most people read and held the most bias. NpsychC (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem with your editing remains that it is WP:OR - the sources you cite do not specifically make the points you are attempting to use them to support. I've explained that at Talk:Repressed memory, but you have not meaningfully engaged with that issue so far. MrOllie (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is blatantly untrue. I have explained this twice link at Talk:Repressed memory and provided references to back this up, including one that is already in the article. You had an opportunity to go over this in dispute resolution but refused. Not understanding the scientific literature in an area is not a reason to continue to ignore a whole body of evidence that you don't like and is an abuse of editorial processes. NpsychC (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You have explained the chain of reasoning that has lead you to your beliefs about Repressed memory - but it is not to be found in the sources you cite. And you cannot dismiss other editors or their arguments by asserting that they do not understand the literature. MrOllie (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Critics of dissociative amnesia (for example [18]) would tell you that there is no difference, and the term is an attempt to rebrand the same discredited ideas. A bit like 'Alternative medicine' vs 'Complementary medicine'. MrOllie (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Or more like an 'old theory' vs 'new theory'. NpsychC (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Critics of dissociative amnesia (for example [10]) would tell you that there is no difference, and the term is an attempt to rebrand the same discredited ideas. A bit like 'Alternative medicine' vs 'Complementary medicine'.

And in writing this, you yourself just proved the link that you are criticising and calling WP:OR NpsychC (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, my understanding of the WP:OR criticism is that I had not demonstrated a link between repressed memory and dissociative amnesia. The literature is littered with these links, including the ones put forward in the discussion, and so this feels like a using an editorial process to shut down the discussion and ignore whole raft of evidence that would establish a neutral point of view. NpsychC (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood the policy on original research, then. It is not about demonstrating a link or not. If you feel you have to demonstrate a link to use the citations in question means that the citations in question do not stand alone and you are performing WP:SYNTH. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You keep reverting to process MrOllie and once again, respectfully, you had an opportunity on the talk page and in DR to work with me to bring the article to a place where it does not violate the neutral point of view. You continually revert back to editorial processes (which is a clear strength of yours) and refuse to properly engage in the content. NpsychC (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I have directly asked for a quote supporting the edit, but none has been provided. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you stopped responding there, so here we are. MrOllie (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

HOw about letting others have a say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Having said that, lets have a quote form one of the sources supporting the edit? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Localized dissociative amnesia applies to memory loss for a “circumscribed period of time” and may be broader than amnesia for a single traumatic event, for example, “months or years associated with child abuse” (p. 298). Because localized dissociative amnesia most resembles what was formerly called repressed memory, it is noteworthy that the DSM–5 calls this type “the most common form of dissociative amnesia.” NpsychC (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

doi: 10.1177/1745691619862306 This is a direct quote from the article. NpsychC (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

And what did the edit say, what is this being used to cite? Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I am trying to do more than one thing at once.

"Localized dissociative amnesia applies to memory loss for a “circumscribed period of time” and may be broader than amnesia for a single traumatic event, for example, “months or years associated with child abuse” (p. 298). Because localized dissociative amnesia most resembles what was formerly called repressed memory, it is noteworthy that the DSM–5 calls this type “the most common form of dissociative amnesia.”

The page reference is referring to the DSM-5 and describes how dissociative amnesia is now used to describe repressed memory. This article supports the position that there is contention in the literature about whether repressed memory/dissociative amnesia is a valid phenomena. The article currently reads as though repressed memory is scientifically discredited. This is what my edits are based on. NpsychC (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The article reads that way because the best sources read that way. Here's another quote from the same source you just quoted here: A relevant question is how flawed ideas regarding the functioning of memory could be corrected. That unconscious repressed memory is still accepted with little qualification and remains popular among many mental-health professionals can be explained in part by the now well-replicated finding that it is typically difficult to correct erroneous beliefs. MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you MrOllie for engaging in the content of this. This article does indeed provide an argument that unconscious repressed memory is flawed and is one position in the literature. NpsychC (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

THis seems to be about rebranding repressed memory as dissociative amnesia instead, not that it is valid. This looks a lot like wp:cherrypicking. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not cherry picking. I am doing this quickly, and will have to go soon for a while but please consider the following from Stanilou and Markowitsch (2024) in the Topics in Cognitive Science Journal:

"There is an ongoing debate on the old idea that memories can be repressed or suppressed (Dodier, Gilet, & Colombel, 2022; Erdelyi, 2006; Freud, 1898, 1899; Hartmann, 1930; Jung,1905; Kunzendorf & Moran, 1993/94; Loftus, 1993, 1994; Markowitsch, 2000; Otgaar et al., 2019; Suarez & Pittluck, 1975). We will argue for the existence of repressed memories on the basis of the dissociative condition named “dissociative amnesia” (DA) (Markowitsch & Staniloiu, 2016; Markowitsch, Staniloiu, Kordon, & Sarlon, 2018; Staniloiu & Markow- itsch, 2014; Staniloiu & Markowitsch, 2022; Staniloiu, Markowitsch, & Kordon, 2018). By doing so, we will center on Tulving’s (2002, 2005) and Semon’s (1904) concept of the state dependency of memories, on the relation between stress and memory (Staniloiu, Kordon, & Markowitsch, 2020b), mechanisms by which DA is likely to occur (“Two-hit hypothesis”) and differential diagnostic criteria for the occurrence of DA.

We are of the opinion that our arguments favor the existence of repressed memories in the context of DA and that there are cognitive and biological bases demonstrating that repressed memories are a valid entity in the context of DA."

Their research showed physiological changes in the brain using functional imaging techniques for those with dissociative amnesia. I am not asking that the article removes the argument that recovered memories are not valid, it is an important position in the literature and there should continue to be debate about this. I am just asking that the article be updated so it doesn't violate the neutral point of view policy. NpsychC (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Then you need to give the text you want to add, not just tell us you want to add it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I have outlined the changed I am proposing in Talk:Repressed memory. Are you asking me to post the edits and research backing the changes here again? NpsychC (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Staniloiu and Markowitsch argued in their 2014 article titled 'Dissociative Amnesia' in Lancet Psychiatry that "Dissociative amnesia is characterised by functional impairment. Additionally, preliminary data suggest that affected people have an increased and possibly underestimated suicide risk." This highlights the importance of the misinformation in the wikipedia article being corrected. I hope those who are critical of the update can now see the validity of the changes and will cease trying to prevent the updates. NpsychC (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This essentially amounts to "if you do not change the article the way I want it, people will kill themselves". The way you frame it: This highlights the importance of the misinformation in the wikipedia article being corrected, when you have not demonstrated that there is any "misinformation" in the article, does not bode well for your article editing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, this isn't a personal attack. I am merely using evidence to show that this is a serious issue, and that misinformation for a vulnerable population could have real world consequences. I have provided evidence to answer all content related criticisms, but there appears serious gatekeeping going on with this page. This is a direct violation of NPOV and has the potential to cause harm. I think it is best if we don't interact further on here and give other editors a chance to provide input about NPOV. NpsychC (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No, just the text you want to add, so we do not have to wade through a talk page to find it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

1) Removal of the links at the top of the article to Freud's Seduction Hypothesis and Recovered Memory Therapy, and replaced with Dissociative Amnesia. Dissociative Amnesia is a better link than seduction hypothesis or recovered memory therapy as these are not current issues associated with the discourse around traumatic memory.

2) The 2nd paragraph needs considerable rewording. The first sentence is categorically untrue as can be seen from the evidence already submitted here but is also articulated by the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5-TR, 2022) through the diagnosis of dissociative amnesia [19][20][21]. The idea that memories were repressed reflects the discourse and understanding at the time when the majority of the research in this article was published. The idea of repression as a psychological process is no longer held by all psychological modalities and dissociative processes have been discussed in the literature from at least 1996 [22] The article should be clear therefore that these types of memories are now called dissociative amnesia. It is misleading to state that repressed memories are largely scientifically discredited as it implies that memories that have a delayed recall are never valid. The words 'and largely scientifically discredited' should therefore be removed from the first sentence. I also propose that the term dissociative amnesia be introduced early into the text so that the distinction between a repressed memory, and the idea that a memory may be unavailable for a period of time, is clear (ie. the difference between the lay term repressed memory and the psychological mechanism of repression).

3) In the 3rd paragraph it states that mainstream clinical psychologists have stopped using the concept of repressed or recovered memories. This is not true and is backed up by evidence in the text. Also, it once again reads like delayed memory retrieval/dissociative amnesia is no longer valid. The resource for this paragraph is a letter written by a clinical psychologist to the courts twenty years ago, not a peer reviewed article. This whole paragraph is also inflammatory and conflates recovered memory therapy with repressed memories without bringing in dissociative amnesia or current research. NpsychC (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Why could you now have just said what text you want to say? What do you want us to say the actual text using the words you want to use, not the justification, to the explanation just the actual text. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

See also: Repression, Dissociative Amnesia

Repressed memory is a psychiatric phenomenon that has evoked much controversy, and which involves an inability to recall autobiographical information, usually of a traumatic or stressful nature. The concept originated in psychoanalytic theory where repression is understood as a defense mechanism that excludes painful experiences and unacceptable impulses from consciousness. The return of these memories to consciousness is also referred to as recovered memories, while the process by which they are out of awareness was considered repression. More recently this phenomenon is considered to be explained by the diagnosis of Dissociative Amnesia, where the inability to recall personal information is due to dissociative processes and is inconsistent with ordinary forgetting.

While the concept of repressed memories was highly contested through much of the 1980s and 1990's, there is now a significant body of evidence that supports the idea that memories for traumatic events can be out of conscious awareness for a period of time. Historically, some overzealous therapists are thought to have provided therapy based on the belief that alleged repressed memories could be recovered, but that in seeking these memories this led to the creation of entirely false memories. This has had implications in forensic settings, where the validity of these memories has been the subject of much controversy and debate. NpsychC (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The references are all above, but I will add those in when I have more time and before making the edits. NpsychC (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It will need to be added that recovered memories for trauma is still contested in the literature, but I think it can be done in a better way that the article currently reads. It would need this to establish a NPOV, but I will have to come back to flesh it out further. NpsychC (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Well as some (all?), of the sources you are using just seem to be saying that its a rebranding, no I am not sure this does pass wp:v. They would support "Repressed memory has been rebranded Dissociative Amnesia". Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that the article as it currently reads does not violate NPOV based on the research I have brought in here? NpsychC (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Repression and dissociative are different psychological processes, so rebranding isn't quite right... NpsychC (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"We propose that during and after the 1990s, when the term repressed memory was widely criticized, proponents began to favor the term dissociative amnesia instead.", if you can't even be arsed to read the sources you use, then I am out of here with a no to this suggestion, It fails wp:unduewp:v as it is wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That is one argument, that there has been a rebranding. WP:UNDUE would dictate that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources," should be included for neutrality. There is a whole body of research, including the DSM-5 and functional imaging results that support the idea of dissociation and associated amnesia. That is not rebranding, it is the evolving science of psychology. Please don't accuse me of not being "arsed" to read the sources. It is totally missing the point of my position. Once again, I would like to ask, given the research outlined above from reputable sources, is your position that the repressed memory article, as it currently reads, does not violate a NPOV? NpsychC (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2024 (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.

Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom

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.

---

According to the latest census, 81% of the UK population identify as white. One would expect that the majority of crimes would be carried out by this demographic. However, mainly Muslim men, many of Pakistani origin, who represent less than 3.5% of the UK population, were disproportionally represented in sexual assaults against tens of thousands of white girls as young as 11 years old over many decades. To suggest that this systematic abuse resulted in a moral panic is not only factually incorrect but is also an insult to all those children that were abused by these pedophiles and let down by social services who were scared to act for fear of being called racist. 101.115.187.54 (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

[[23]] "Defendants were predominantly male (99%) and aged over 18 (97%), as in previous years. Five in six (83%) were White British...". Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I think adding that very clear context (81% and 83%) in the lede would help quell the complaints about the title of the article. At present, the critics of the article seem to believe there is a disproportion sexual offending rate by non-whites. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Or we just say what RS say, that it's a conspiracy theory, we do not need to pander to them. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The majority of child sex offences (80%+) and the majority of grooming offences (80%+) are commited by white offenders. Asian / Muslim / Pakistani (or whichever term the media is using) are slightly over represented in grooming cases, but that still only accounts for roughly 10% of such cases.

That so many believe otherwise is because the recent high profile cases are all that the media has reported on, while ignoring the majority of crimes. Hyper focusing on those cases hides rather than highlights the extent of the issue. That is why there is an article about it.

If you want to know about such crimes there are articles about all the cases involved, and about sexual abuse in the UK in general. If you want to know about how the media over and under reports such crimes, then you can read the article that certain parts of the media are so upset about. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@ip, do you have any data supporting your claim that "mainly Muslim men, many of Pakistani origin, who represent less than 3.5% of the UK population, were disproportionally represented in sexual assaults against tens of thousands of white girls as young as 11 years old over many decades"?

@ActivelyDisinterested, I don't the the breakdown of grooming offenses by race in the document linked by u:Slatersteven, where do your numbers come from ("still only accounts for roughly 10% of such cases")? Alaexis_¿question? 20:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

See Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom, this is spill over from a discussion on the articles talk page. The exact figure (from very poor data) is that Asian's account for 14% or grooming cases, but it's easier to talk in rounded figures. There also more information in Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Group based child sexual exploitation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the RM has really upset online nazis, and we can't really divorce any discussion about the article at the moment from that. Sceptre (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

And as soon as I post that, Milkshake Boy decides to stick his oar in. Typical. Sceptre (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2024 (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.

International Churches of Christ

Inviting editors to a discussion at Talk:International Churches of Christ#NPOV as a couple of editors have continued to push {{POV}} templates on the article in order to push a content dispute which is currently being addressed in an RFC TarnishedPath^talk 14:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I see the RfC started on Oct Sept 19th, and the tags were just put up today, is that correct? I would think adding tags in the middle of an RfC is generally frowned upon, TAGTEAMING seems to cross the line no matter when, but especially during an RfC. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but consensus being required for POV tags only seems to make sense if discussion is already under way, or am I missing something? DN (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

19 September rather than 19 October. The tags appear to have been applied in part due to perceived issues with the lede, which are the subject of the RfC, but also the general "negative" tone of the article. As I've tried to explain more than once, including at Talk:International Churches of Christ#NPOV, this "negative" tone is a reflection of what reliable, secondary sources have to say about the topic. If editors arguing that the article is unduly negative present evidence of views from secondary sources that portray the ICOC in a more positive light being absent from the article, then those could be used, but I've not seen many such sources presented in the various discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I've notified the two editors who've been adding these tags of this discussion as a courtesy. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest creating a link on the talk page so that all are notified, transparency is important for any/all involved. See WP:CANVAS. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@DN done. TarnishedPath^talk 04:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify: since my comment above referred to the actions of two specific users who tried to add these tags, I felt I needed to notify them of this discussion to comply with the requirement specified at the top of this board to notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. No canvassing involved! Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Darknipples, yes discussion is underway in the RFC which addresses the lead. The lead has been the focal point of a lot of discussion with a few editors pushing that there is a NPOV problem and two of them drive by tagging a ridiculous number of POV related TAGs on the article. TarnishedPath^talk 04:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath If this is in reference to me, I do not appreciate it. I did not create the tags, and I'm not even saying I agree with all of them. I just saw that you reverted them without having consensus to do so. I do not find your accusation of me "drive by tagging" to be appropriate. XZealous (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@XZealous at Special:Diff/1250249051 you added four tags to the article at the same time. Call it reverting or whatever you want, the effect of adding four tags to the article at the same time, while there is active discussion on the topic in an RFC, is exactly the same. It's extremely unproductive to say the least. TarnishedPath^talk 07:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all the tags were related to the RfC. I also did not add any tags, I only undid your reversion. However unproductive adding the tags may have been, it was not right for you to remove them, hence why I undid your reversion. You cannot just remove tags because you don't like them there. They should be discussed on the talk page and a consensus should be reached. XZealous (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Undoing a reversion which removes tags, is exactly the same as adding tags. The effect of your edit was to add tags. It was not right that anyone engages in WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING to push a content dispute. It's disruptive and many would consider it to be WP:TENDITIOUS. TarnishedPath^talk 07:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you further explain how this is WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING? I have read that policy a number of times now and cannot seem to find how it was violated. XZealous (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding four tags at the exact same time which are all minor variations of each other, particularly when you've advised that you don't agree with all of them? Can you please advise how this is anything other than WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING? TarnishedPath^talk 08:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive by Tagging is explained here:

• WP:DRIVEBY

See also: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup

Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed—is frequently referred to as "drive-by tagging", particularly when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or subjective tags, such as {{npov}}, it is important to explain yourself on the article's talk page or in an edit summary. It can be helpful to refer to applicable content policies, such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, though WikiLawyering is discouraged.

By contrast, adding tags for obvious, major flaws can be helpful. However, if an article has insufficient references or other issues, then pointing this out with a tag may not result in the problem being fixed. It may be better to fix it yourself.

There is no requirement in Wikipedia policies that editors must "pay their dues" by working on an article before they can add a tag, so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page.

- The problem was clearly identified on the Talk Page with a heading of #NPOV and concerns raised about #UNDUE weight given to one perspective. Also, there is lots of disagreement over how the LEAD should be formatted, as shown by the current RfC. Hence the Tag on the page that reflects that reality. I have referred to policies and am hoping for more experienced editors to weigh in on the disputed perspectives.

- I have been, and remain involved in this project as an active editor of the article. No-one is driving by here. I have "paid my dues", even though it is not required. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Dumping 4 tags which are all slight variations of each other on an article in one instance is clearly WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING. Please cease your wikilawyering. TarnishedPath^talk 13:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that the effect of the edit added the tags. However, I am not interested in adding the specific tags. I was only preventing what I thought to be an inappropriate reversion on your part. If you find @JamieBrown2011's tag adding to be tendentious, then feel free to open a discussion on the talk page about it before having an unneeded back and forth of adding and reverting. XZealous (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You added the tags also, whatever way you want to spin it. That you advise that you don't agree with them all just makes your edit more problematic. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath you keep shifting the conversation to the tags, which is only making me believe that you really don't like them there. My issue is not with the tags, but your reversion. I am not defending or advocating for those tags. I will attempt to keep making this clear as it seems you are mischaracterizing my statements. XZealous (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, this discussion appears to have established that there's no consensus for the tags to be added. XZealous, who reverted their removal, doesn't appear to agree with their addition, leaving only one editor who seems to support them. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Is consensus needed for a tag to be added? I have not seen that in the policy. I have only seen that concensus is required for its removal.

I will clarify again, I did not state that I "don't agree with their addition." Please refrain from summarizing my comments in that way. If I decide to make a stance of my view of the tags I will do so at the ICOC talk page XZealous (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, XZealous, it doesn't require a whole discussion that establishes consensus before a tag can be added, but if an editor adds a tag and then it's reverted, that indicates that the tagging is contentious and should really be discussed further. It's analogous to WP:BRD.

On the not agreeing with the tags' addition, I was going by your comment that "I'm not even saying I agree with all of them", but apologies if I mis-summarised your position. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying here. However, I have went to remove tags that I have found contentious before and I was told to take it to the talk page to achieve consensus before my removal, and the tag was then replaced. I'm confused as to why the process on this one seems to be different. XZealous (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That would also be analogous to WP:BRD. If you make a bold edit such as adding or removing a tag and you're reverted, it's on you to seek consensus for the addition/removal through talk page discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that people need talk page consensus for the removal of a tag. That process was not followed for @JamieBrown2011's tags. They were removed without consensus. That is why I think they should stay up. If an editor disagrees, they can open up a talk page discussion and see where it goes from there. XZealous (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be, my removal of an earlier tag was treated differently than this one. I wouldn't want it to be acceptable to have double standards. XZealous (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus for their addition in the first place. I strongly advise you to drop this stick, as it's verging on tendentious now. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It crossed the line of WP:TENDENTIOUS a while ago. TarnishedPath^talk 23:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Refer to Template:POV#When to remove, which states:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

There is clearly consensus here (at the NPOV Noticeboard) that the tag does not belong on the article.

Please cease continuing on with your WP:wikilawyering and WP:IDHT. TarnishedPath^talk 23:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this has established there is consensus against the tags being there. TarnishedPath^talk 09:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Reading up the policies on tags we find this:

Disputes over tags

Whether a tag should be placed on an article is sometimes the subject of disputes. Occasionally, editors place tags to make a point, to disrupt editing, or to be tendentious. Similarly, editors occasionally remove tags without solving real problems because they are embarrassed by the tag, do not want additional attention from other editors, or do not like tags.

Rather than reverting or edit warring over the placement of a tag, use dispute resolution procedures. Start by engaging in a calm discussion on the article's talk page.

Some tags, such as {{POV}}, often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Per Template:POV#When to remove:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

It is clear that there is consensus here in this discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard to remove. TarnishedPath^talk 10:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Im unsure on how you think there is consensus on this? Also, there was no consensus when you removed them in the first place. I see you talking about tag teaming, drive by tagging, and tendentious editing. I would rather have engage in honest conversation with other editors rather than having an edit war with other labels being thrown out. XZealous (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There's four editors in this discussion and not one of them, yourself included, is for adding all four of those tags. There's not even been a argument proffered which is correct policy-wise for the maintenance of the tags. That's consensus for removal. TarnishedPath^talk 11:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment here. As you yourself have noted to me, consensus is not about a vote count. I see in no way how this discussion can lead you to the conclusion that consensus was reached to take the tags down. If you do, could you explain how you see it that way. XZealous (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote count, but you have proffered zero valid policy reason for the maintenance of those tags which would overcome the numerical superiority of those who have indicated that they are against the tags. TarnishedPath^talk 23:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Tags shouldn't be a "Permanent resident" on an article. You wouldn't allow them to be up for even 12 hours!

Also, happy to remove the "Buzzword" tag if that seems to bother you. (Even though that exact debate is going back and forth in the current RfC) the Tag simply reflects that reality. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This discussion demonstrates that there is consensus against any of the tags so no don't add anything. TarnishedPath^talk 13:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I found this Noticeboard discussion through a reference in the ICOC article’s Talk Page. Having just posted on the Talk Page’s NPOV discussion, I want to add my voice here that the NPOV Tags in the ICOC article are justified. ~~~~  Meta Voyager (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm yet to see any credible policy based arguments that the article has a NPOV problem and that weighs towards there being consensus that the NPOV tags stay removed. TarnishedPath^talk 05:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The policies regarding these tags are clear:

"Some tags, such as {{POV}}, often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time."

- Many editors have mentioned concerns over the article. From the LEDE, even stating it "needs to be completely re-written" Talk:International Churches of Christ#c-Cordless Larry-20240918194300-GreenC-20240918192100, to new editors need to be called in because of the disputes Talk:International Churches of Christ#c-WhatamIdoing-20240918172400-NPOV to wholesale misrepresentation of what sources are saying Talk:International Churches of Christ#c-JamieBrown2011-20241011170500-XZealous-20241011164900 . There is certainly NO CONSENSUS that NPOV has been applied.

- Secondly, since we are concerned with following policy, POV tags do not need consensus to be added, they need consensus to be REMOVED. (as is clearly stated in the policy above) You removed them 3 times in a 24 hour period, coming awfully close to edit warring. (which is again going directly against Wikipedia policies). JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You're incorrect. Please don't repeat yourself over and over. TarnishedPath^talk 07:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Your continual dismissal of @JamieBrown2011 is getting concerning. I would encourage you to listen to other editors rather than brushing them off. XZealous (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I've listened and then I've told them why they are incorrect. Other editors have done the same. I don't plan on doing it ad infinitum. TarnishedPath^talk 09:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the view that Tarnished is being dismissive, much less "brushing off" other editors here. I recommend we try to stay on topic, but only if there's anything NEW to add. Repetition is inappropriate and might be interpreted as WP:BLUDGEON. Cheers. DN (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is already underway via RfC, and the term is properly attributed with an inline citation. IMO the tags really aren't that necessary. DN (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we describe someone, in wikivoice, as a cult leader (in principle)

Today I have decided to swing the bat at the hornet's nest and bring up something that has always bothered me: can we describe people as a cult leader in wikivoice? Per MOS:CULT, we cannot, but people often do, and this stays in very high profile articles that have passed our review processes. This will disproportionately apply to very high profile cases, but as these are the examples to follow, I feel they are influential.

As such, here is a survey of the highest profile ones I thought of off the top of my head:

• Jim Jones (which is a GA) calls him a cult leader as first descriptor and in short description
• David Koresh calls him a cult leader as first descriptor and in short description
• Larry Ray (cult leader) not an article yet, but a high profile recent case, and the mainspace redirect and draft is "cult leader"
• Keith Raniere says cult leader as first descriptor and in short description. I'm more sympathetic to this because NXIVM isn't a religion and I don't know what else to call it
• Jeffrey Lundgren, has it as second descriptor
• Roch Thériault says says cult leader as first descriptor and in short description
• Marshall Applewhite (FA), does not say cult leader, says religious leader
• Shoko Asahara, says "was the founder and leader of the Japanese doomsday cult", which is kind of iffy but doomsday cult is, unlike cult, an actual definable term

Probably dozens of other pages from search. These are the people I thought of off the top of my head. Cult is inherently a value descriptor, hence per MOS:CULT you should only ever have it attributed; this rule is flouted constantly. What brought this up is @Hemiauchenia (tagging because I feel you may have some thoughts on this) challenging the descriptor on two other articles. I actually agree with this decision generally, the only reason I added it was for consistency with the Koresh & Jones articles (and the fact that I was hesitant to apply religious leader given the questionable status as a religion). But given the MOS, should we ever even describe someone, in wikivoice, as a cult leader? I do not care which way we go, I just want consistency with MOS. Can we, in wikivoice, call someone a cult leader? I feel like we shouldn't but the ur-cult leader Jim Jones has it there so I feel like if that article, a GA, says it other people are going to emulate it in writing their articles. Thoughts PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Well looking at the first one Jim Jones there are citations calling it a cult and him the leader - but for BLP reasons we probably should attach one of them to the sentence calling him a cult leader. Normally citations aren't required in a lead but yes I agree this is a case where attribution in the lead is called for. NadVolum (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum I'm not sure if attribution fixes the issue here because unlike other contentious labels cult doesn't really have any definition besides "group that is bad", and any attempts to apply it as such are fiendishly controversial. The word itself is opinionated, vs even terrorist, which applies to doing a specific thing, "cult leader" as a label has problems it doesn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

If it is a label regularly used of them and here's no serious disagreement then the label is fine. However it needs attribution. NadVolum (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum There is much serious disagreement with the label cult itself. The relevant academic field largely stopped using it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think it depends the quantity and quality of sources. "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term."

Maybe WP:VOICE can help with clarification. Otherwise, I concur that unless the mainstream consensus agrees, it's safer to use attributions. DN (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• However, it would need attribution - no, this is untrue. WP:NPOV is clear that we cannot attribute uncontested facts in ways that would imply that they are mere opinions; and as core policy, it overrules the MOS on this. Terms listed on MOS:LABEL can (and in fact must) be used unattributed in situations where they are uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources, since to do otherwise would be to treat them as opinions in violation of NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, are you saying that something must be factually established as a cult before an article can use the term? XZealous (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sort-of. In order to call something a cult in the article voice, it must be clear that the highest-quality sources, as a whole, treat the fact that it is a cult as straightforward, uncontested fact. ("Uncontested" means there's no serious dispute among the highest-quality sources; they can still be called a cult, in that case, even if their adherents disagree, or even if there's dispute in lower-quality pop-cultural sources and stuff, as long as there's eg. a very clear academic consensus.) The term can be used in situations that don't reach that bar, but in that case we'd usually have to use attribution. Also note that the bar to call a specific person a cult leader is higher than referring to a large group as a cult, on account of WP:BLP; with groups there is a little bit more leeway (but you'd still need, generally, an agreement among the sources that it's a fact, yeah.) Keep in mind that this can be as simple as a bunch of high-quality sources describing them as a cult in their article voice, with nothing of comparable quality that disagrees and not too many sources that tiptoe around it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

How can it be established as a fact in the highest quality sources if the term is avoided by those sources? It seems that the hypothetical of it being established as fact is impossible. So the MOS should be followed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I've made similar mistakes many times: BLP doesn't apply to Jim Jones, who died a long time ago. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject means if it's widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject then it may no longer be best avoided. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

In which case it should be attributed, which in the case of everyone listed above, it is not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant cited not attributed in the lead if the label is due. NadVolum (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." This is why I asked. I see no issue with saying someone is "commonly described as a cult leader", but saying they are directly seems to flout the manual of style even if cited. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

So how does one of these academics you refer to describe someone who gets a following and then gets them all to commit mass-suicide? NadVolum (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

They just don't use the word, or if they do use it they attribute it. Journalists tend to use it, of course. Further "someone who gets a following and then gets them all to commit mass-suicide"; that's like eight or so people so they could probably just list them by name at that point. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification NV. DN (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No. If it's only used by a couple sources, then it should be attributed. But if virtually every time the person is discussed in reliable sources they are labelled a cult leader by those sources, then there is no attribution needed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

So, the MOS is wrong, and we can call someone a cult leader in wikivoice? I want it to be established one way or the other. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The MOS is a style guide. It is expected and accepted there are sometimes exceptions to guidance issued on style. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There being "sometimes" an exception doesn't quite apply when it seemingly applies to every example that involves the cult terminology. What makes this an exception instead of the rule? What differentiates the people we call cult leaders in wikivoice from the people we should attribute it with? Because as demonstrated above even in the highest profile cases there is inconsistency. We call Jones and Koresh cult leaders, but not Asahara or Applewhite. All four are the most popular conception of cult leaders to the modern public. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The MOS is not wrong. You are wrong in trying to take portions of it without the rest of it. I'll quote it and add emphasis for your understanding: may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. It isn't a contentious opinion if it's widely reported in reliable sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That still feels like it's reading "you should always use in-text attribution for these labels", which has always driven me mad even outside this case because clearly is not how it works in practice! But perhaps I am interpreting it overly literally. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• No, that part of the MOS is incorrect. WP:NPOV, the actual policy, is very clear: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice... If something is an uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion, it cannot be attributed; it must be stated, unattributed, in the article voice as fact. This is true even for specific terms listed on MOS:LABEL. The issue is that when the guideline for LABEL was written, people mistakenly believed that those terms would always be treated as opinions by RSes - but in situations where they are not, as core policy, NPOV takes priority and the MOS recommendation to attribute them must be disregarded. --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I've said this before, but MOS:LABEL frequently gets people in a position where they're actively opposing NPOV while attempting to defend it. We should state the plain and relevant facts as facts, and not add misleading attribution. Jim Jones was a cult leader. It's his primary notable role. The article would be worse if we started with a less informative, less supported role and then said "These books and these journal articles and these news sources have called Jones a cult leader." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What annoys me about that is if "cult leader" is the defining aspect, I feel it would naturally follow the group be labeled the same way, we don't label the group the same way as we do the person; the lead of Peoples Temple says "religious movement", only noting at the end that it is popularly considered a destructive cult. What makes someone a cult leader is leading a cult, there is no other definition, but then we don't label what makes him a cult leader a cult. And is Jim Jones the only cult leader then? I'm using him as the highest profile and clearest cut example because he's everyone's idea of a cult leader, but how many newspapers calling someone a cult leader do we have to add before we can call someone that in wikivoice? This can't only apply to Jones. So what is the line? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

On your first point, I urge you for the sake of your own sanity to abandon your hopes of consistency between articles! I'm not saying Jones is the only cult leader. If the question is "Can we describe someone, in wikivoice, as a cult leader (in principle)?" then the existence of one cult leader appropriately described as a cult leader in wikivoice means the answer must be yes. When you get to "how many", there's never a satisfying answer. There's no line, but there is a test: NPOV's "seriously contested". Interpretation is up to local discussion or dispute resolution, but I personally favor analysis of the best sources available. Among those top few books and journal articles, is Jones's status as a cult leader seriously contested? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Little hope of inconsistency not bothering me given my OCD, but I will try not to bother anyone with it haha. But yes, sorry if I came across as pushy. I just wanted to get more thoughts that weren't my own because I am not sure where exactly the consensus is.

It's not contested in books by journalists, but is contested by most "new religious movements" academics, who overwhelmingly reject the word cult entirely except for a handful of people, but the field as a whole has been criticized for being too nice to groups accused of being cults, but generally the word is not used in religious studies academia. But very much is by journalists, hence the tension. NRMs/Cults are a nightmare topic area. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The actual policy (WP:BLPSTYLE) is less strong than the MOS... It says "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." so it doesn't have the blanket direction to use in-text attribution which we find in the MOS. The actual policy does not prohibit describing people as a cult leader in wikivoice... Perhaps the MOS needs to clarified, Policy trumps MOS after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Well, BLP isn't an issue for most of the people here, as most have been dead or executed. So I'm not sure how applicable that is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting. We expect extra caution with neutrality in BLPs, so it's odd to see a weaker rule there than in the MOS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's surprising to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Would you agree that in general that what is "widely used by reliable sources" is exactly the sort of thing which doesn't get in-text attribution? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem with "cult" specifically is that 95% of the academics who discuss cults do not use the word cult. But journalists do, overwhelmingly. We could probably have an article on the fight over using the word cult. So calling someone a cult leader or something a cult will always be contested to some degree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't what I asked... I asked whether you would agree that in general what is "widely used by reliable sources" is exactly the sort of thing which doesn't get in-text attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm. Not sure if I can give one answer there. I'd say it depends on the exact label and how negative it is, how widely used it is (is it every source or just most) and how clear the definition of the label is, or if different kinds/opinions of sources always give the label or it varies between things. For example, if something is the popular word used to describe something in the news, that doesn't mean it's always accurate. But for example, terrorist is clearer, because you can be convicted of a terrorist act. You can't really be convicted of being a cult leader, and unlike terrorism cult doesn't have a clear definition. So in the case of terrorist, yes, but I'm not sure about the specific label "cult". PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other... I'm asking an extremely broad question, not about labels but about all content in mainspace. Across all of mainspace we do not use in text attribution for that which is "widely used by reliable sources". Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW WP:VOICE is also relevant and more generally applicable to dead people. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's been attempted. I'd contribute a !vote if it came up again. People tend to forget about all the policy backups and see changing LABEL in isolation, and worry it'll enable POV-pushing, when the goal is really the opposite. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think something here probably needs to be clarified but I am not exactly sure how. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It'a sad how many people in this discussion are saying MOS:CULT, a part of manual of style, should just be ignored. Like "terrorist" vs "militant", I don't think there is ever going to be complete consistently on Wikipedia on which term is used, but I always think that "cult" is a pejorative and should be avoided being objectively stated in wikivoice, particularly with regards to the religons themselves. That doesn't mean that the term has to be omitted completely, just that it should be attributed, with stuff like "widely described as a cult (leader)". I think Jim Jones may be an exception in that he didn't appear to actually believe many of the things he taught. I'm iffy about "doomsday cult", what is usually meant by that term is that the movement is millennarian, but if sources specifically describe it as a "doomsday cult" I see no reason not to mention it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Could always take the Manson family approach and say a "commune, gang, and cult". There – all bases covered! Bon courage (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If "cult" is used to describe a high control group or if it is an expression of distaste towards a group, then I do not find it appropriate to use. The term is highly subjective, but also highly critical. Because of this, I would be very careful in using it. XZealous (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the Jim Jones article, I don’t think removing the word cult from the lead would change the meaning of the article. Is describes him as the leader of a group and says what that group did. Most people would come to a conclusion that he is a cult leader from that description. Even if they didn’t, they would have an idea of who Jones was, and what he did. It is kinda like saying that someone is a politician and Prime Minister. The description is less subjective, and makes the term redundant. So, while it appears that one could use "Cult Leader", often one doesn’t need to. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources characterise the article subject as a cult leader the article should reflect that. The claim that "the relevant academic field" stopped using the term "cult" is inaccurate and loaded. The only academic field in which a majority have largely stopped using the term is religious studies. Therefore, implicit in that opinion is the notion that the only "relevant academic field" is religious studies. This is clearly only the case if we accept the circular argument that all cults are actually religions and therefore the relevant field of study is religion. The word I would use to describe that argument is bullshit.

Scholars in the fields of clinical psychology, law, skepticism, philosophy, psychiatry and others continue to use the term cult. These have equal or greater claim to be the relevant academic field to study these groups than religious studies. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, actually, I did not think of it that way. But the issue is, they all have different definitions for them, no? And this still lends the issue of which ones we are and aren't describing as cults. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV is unambiguous on this point: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice... As core policy, NPOV overrides the MOS on this (and, in particular, overrules LABEL) which means that in situations where it is unambiguous that the sources treat something as an uncontested and uncontroversial fact, it must be stated in the article voice and cannot be attributed in a way that would make it seem like an opinion. The MOS can set a high bar for this, of course, but it cannot set a hard-and-fast rule that cult leader can never be stated in the article voice regardless of the state of sourcing; that would contradict NPOV, which means that arguments from that position can and must be disregarded as being against policy. Now, nothing stops someone from setting a very, very high bar for such language - but as soon as someone says something along the lines of "you can never describe someone as a cult leader in the article voice", you can safely start disregarding them, because NPOV is clear that there's a point of sufficient sourcing where we would not only be allowed to do so but required to so; we cannot overrule the sources just because editors personally disagree with using a particular word or term in that fashion. --Aquillion (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Bit like terrorist, preponderance of sources say so, we say so. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that, when dealing with WP:BLPs in particular, it's reasonable to require a higher bar than just a preponderance - there needs to be a genuine consensus among the highest-quality sources available that it's indisputably true. My point is just that there is such a threshold where we'd have to describe it as objective fact (ie. WP:NPOV prevents MOS:LABEL from establishing a list of verboten words that we can never ever describe as objective fact in the article voice, the way some people have sometimes tried to interpret it.) The threshold can still be extremely high, especially for BLP subjects or exceptional claims; 51% of sources saying someone is a terrorist and 49% of equally high-quality sources saying "lol no" obviously wouldn't be enough. To override the MOS, the sourcing has to reach the point where the state-facts-as-facts part of NPOV unambiguously kicks in and says "no, sorry, this is just an undisputed fact among the highest-quality sourcing." --Aquillion (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Gun show loophole endless discussion over NPOV

See Talk:Gun show loophole#How should this term be labeled?

Please note this is a WP:CTOP article which has held GA status for years despite the validity of said status being called into question during the current discussion [24].

The originally requested change was to include the term "controversial" in the lead sentence.

From this...

• "Gun show loophole, also called the private sale exemption, is a political term in the United States referring to the sale of firearms by private sellers..."

To this...

• "Gun show loophole, also called the private sale exemption, is a controversial term in the United States referring to the sale of firearms by private sellers..."

I began the discussion by asking for some neutral WP:RS around Oct. 3rd, per WP:CHALLENGE, and added an NPOV tag [25].

I was given various sources of different quality that use terms such as "so-called", "notorious" and ones that said that only gun control advocates use that term or invented it, which seems a dubious assertion to me, given the NRA and the GOA rant on and on about how "The Gun Show Loophole" doesn't exist.

• Politico April 2024
• Wapo 2013
• CBS April 2024
• The Hill June 2024
• National Interest 2016
• CNN June 2024

I only found 1 recent RS that uses the term "controversial" in this context, but the article doesn't seem to explain why it's controversial. NBC News April 2024. IMO we have more neutral high quality sources that do not use such terms.

In my view the editor(s) haven't acknowledged that they may be inserting MOS:CONTROVERSIAL and MOS:DOUBT in WP:VOICE into the lead sentence. One of their edit summaries seemed to accuse me of WP:OWN [26], while others seem to claim that past attempts, which I subsequently reverted, represent a legitimate current consensus despite these past editors not being presently active on the talk page at this point and failing to gain consensus, provide citations, and appearing POVish etc...

Considering the numerous past discussions on NPOV that also considered the usefulness of adding the term "controversy" [27] [28] [29] [30], including at ANI [31], I decided to chalk it up to a simple misunderstanding per WP:AGF.

I made an attempt to achieve consensus by including some of the requested wording into the last paragraph [32], but it was quickly rejected.

I'm all for trying to improve this article, but it's past time for some consensus and or explanation on whether reverting the lead back to the version it was ten years ago on the Gun shows in the United States article (current version BTW), is somehow better. Maybe I am the only one that sees a nearly 10 year old WP:DEADHORSE.

Cheers to all the impartial editors willing to comment here or at the article talk page. DN (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I would simply state that this was, and is, an ongoing conversation with consensus building on the article talk page itself around simply describing the term as reliable sources currently do (which is to say that there is a multitude of heated opinions about the very validity of the term, a.k.a. "controversial", but I think "disputed", "contested", or any number of various synonums would suffice. "So called" is how the majority of reliable sources seem to describe the term, and while normally that would be a weasel word to avoid, if the RSes use the language directly, then we are generally obligated to follow in using the language of the RSes, but felt that "controversial" might actually be a bit of a best-of-all-worlds compromise of sorts indeed given the MOS:CONTROVERSIAL nature of this specific article. @Darknipples said repeatedly he or she would bring this before the NPOVN, while myself and other editors currently working on building consensus on the talk page of the article (in a direction that clearly was against the liking of DN) have asked for patience and cited the essay WP:NORUSH.

Happy to continue to work on consensus building at the article's talk page and welcome any other input that others might be able to offer. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's been a week, and you haven't provided a single NEUTRAL source explaining what the controversy is. DN (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Nearly all of the sources provided, excluding possibly the Nat Interest as you already pointed out, were reliable secondary sources and which use language describing the term in a highly charged and controversial manner. I already provided direct quotes from the body of each of them on the article's talk page as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a dubious assertion. Please quote them here. What do the neutral sources say about why it's controversial? DN (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear cut. Without doubt it's controversial. Are people not able to view the sources be presented? Moxy🍁 22:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

They are all on the talk page here if you or anyone else wants to participate. We were building consensus there and still are. Talk:Gun_show_loophole#How_should_this_term_be_labeled? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I will repost here, but I believe it would have been best to keep the conversation in one location, there are far more sources on this too, but these were just some that I found:

1. From Forbes, "The Justice Department announced new rules that would force unlicensed gun sellers who primarily sell firearms at gun shows and online marketplaces to register with the federal government—a significant change that could close the notorious “gun show loophole” [2]https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2024/04/11/biden-closes-gun-show-loophole-heres-what-to-know-and-when-rule-comes-into-effect/

2. From CNN, "In a preliminary injunction issued Tuesday, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives cannot enforce the rule intended to close the so-called gun show loophole in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Utah." [3]https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/politics/gun-show-loophole-injunction-texas-kacsmaryk/index.html#:~:text=The%20new%20ATF%20rule,%20which%20took%20effect%20May%2020,%20seeks

3. From NBC, "The Biden administration announced Thursday that it is proposing a rule to eliminate the so-called gun show loophole — one of the biggest attempts to regulate the sale of firearms in years." [4]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administration-proposes-eliminating-gun-show-loophole-regulation-rcna102800

4. From National Interest (only potentially non-RS, but I do not see it on the RSP list, so it is not unreliable either), "In reality, there is no “gun show loophole.” If an individual wants to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms retailer, which typically makes up the majority of vendors at gun shows, the individual must fill out the requisite federal firearms paperwork and undergo a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check."[5]https://nationalinterest.org/feature/10-myths-about-guns-america-14850 Iljhgtn (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The Forbes article is easily misread. Where it says "a significant change that could close the notorious “gun show loophole”....The significant change is referring to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Bipartisan, meaning "supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties". DN (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yet the "gun show loophole" is labeled there as "notorious", which one might say would be a decent way of describing something that is "controversial" don't you think? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Otherwise, it could just as easily have said, "a significant change that could close the gun show loophole", the "significant change" still would then be referring to the BSCA of course, but the nature of how the gun show loophole is being described by reliable sources is what we are discussing. In that regard, the language chosen by the reliable sources is, at minimum, describing a term that is highly charged and controversial to its very core. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

How many neutral high quality sources describe it as notorious? Enough to justify putting it in the lead sentence?

If the loophole is notorious, as in, notable in a bad sense, does that mean it does exist and gun rights advocates are wrong? DN (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

which one might say would be a decent way of describing something that is "controversial" don't you think?

That's called original research. I don't get paid enough to make inferences sources don't explicitly state on Wikipedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Controversial according to the NRA, definitely. DN (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Controversial to both left and right sources. Not just "the NRA"... You have I think helpfully introduced an important follow up question DN, which is Why is it controversial? But that is a ancillary point to what we are discussing here. Which is just: Should the term "Gun show loophole" be called "controversial" in the lead? Or, alternatively some other variant such as "disputed", "contested", or some other term. That is the only aspect of what is being discussed, and you have made your argument that you feel no such label of any kind is needed. I do genuinely feel your "why" question matters, but it is a secondary question to the discussion at hand. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Explaining "the why" is actually the purpose of an encyclopedia. What do you think it does? DN (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The why is just one part (which can be part of the lead as well, in addition to being explained more thoroughly in the body... ancillary to the core of this discussion though)... the what is another, and the words that we use should accurately reflect the way that reliable, most often secondary sources, write about each and every subject which is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article as part of this encyclopedia. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Pretty easy to find it seems to be all related to unregistered sellers and buyers...... Even Layman sources explain this.[33]. This is covered in the article..... That by the way is very interesting read... As someone from a non-gun loving country it's just interesting to see how people get around these things. Moxy🍁 22:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Which part explains it? DN (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's in the article all over or are you referring to the sources being presented? (Do you need access to the sources) The opinion section is great in explaining even to someone new to the topic like myself. Moxy🍁 23:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I realize it's in the article and yes I have access. What words does the article use to explain why GSL is controversial? DN (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Its pretty clear to anyone who reads the article and the sources there that call it contentious and/or controversial. For example "the Biden administration is moving to end the controversial “gun-show loophole.”". Even adolescence publications use the term [34]... Thus indicating how widespread the terminology is used. It's very odd debate over one word that is clearly sourced all over. Let's see what others have to say. Moxy🍁 23:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying it's clear without showing us where the explanation is. I have already presented the NBC article which also doesn't explain it.

The Teen Vogue article is just commentary ie OPINION by Prince Shakur. The article says..."In recent decades, however, gun culture has become increasingly controversial in the United States."

However, it does NOT seem to say that GSL is "controversial" DN (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone has the ability to search these terms and should before commenting (I get hundreds of hits). The term has been used for over three decades from what I can see...CNN 1999 "Gore's presence on the Hill was intended by Democrats to remind voters that the controversial "gun show loophole" amendment to the Senate's juvenile justice bill only passed due to Gore's tie-breaking vote last week.". I'm not seeing a debate that controversial is even a debate its just there in the context of the loophole. Is there some controversy over partisan usage? Moxy🍁 00:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

In terms of NEUTRALITY, yes. DN (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I can agree it was considered controversial in 1999, per your source, but in 2024, much less so. DN (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Then why is it used in a source dealing with the current president? Or by NBC in 2013. To be honest the whole topic sounds controversial let alone the term used. Seems like in the States this is a decades long debated. Even the centrist publication politico use the term [35]. Moxy🍁 01:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it has no value in the lead sentence. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we are supposed to remain neutral. Other sources say "so-called" which again ignores MOS:DOUBT and MOS:CONTROVERSIAL respectively.

See Wikipedia:Controversial articles. We are supposed to DESCRIBE the controversy, not Wikipedia:Don't "teach the controversy".

Cheers. DN (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We should explained to our readers it is a controversial term and subject as the sources do and lead our readers to more exhaustive information WP: purpose. Why leave our readers in the dark to guess or click source after source to get this information? Topics of this nature should be edited by people who don't have a vested interest in them. Moxy🍁 01:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting Deja Vu here. Where do these articles EXPLAIN the controversy?

Speaking of vested interest, the majority of sources that call this controversial are not academic or high quality. These days, many of the ones saying EXPLAINING how it is controversial seem to be OPINION based. DN (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Again many types of sources cover this topic and why from juvenile publications to academic publications such as....

Chambliss, W.J. (2011). Crime and Criminal Behavior. Key Issues in Crime and Punishment. SAGE Publications. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-4129-7855-2. Retrieved 2024-10-11. One controversial route to gun acquisition comes from what gun control proponents refer to as the gun show loophole

Even encyclopedias cover this..

Schildkraut, J.; Carter, G.L. (2022). Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law [3 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 290. ISBN 978-1-4408-6774-3. Retrieved 2024-10-11. "gun show loophole" remains a contentious goal of the gun control movement. Moxy🍁 02:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Controversial route" and "contentious goal"... see WP:SYNTH. DN (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Reading the sources, it's not clear to me whether they think it's the term that's "controversial" or the loophole itself that's well known for some bad quality (i.e. notorious). Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I have made a final BOLD attempt in the last paragraph of the lead to try to find consensus on the talk page. [36]

• Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have campaigned for universal background checks and an end to the gun show loophole. Advocates for gun rights find the subject controversial and dispute the existence of a loophole since current laws provide rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and do not regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens.

Cheers. DN (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Responding to the top post, just expressing support for DeCausa's edit here. No need for the "term" business in the first sentence. That said, IMO it could be simpler: "The gun show loophole is a legal exception in the United States that allows the private sale of firearms without requiring a background check for the buyer." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep. That's an improvement. DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The key to this discussion is that there is absolutely not a consensus over whether the term itself is even a validly neutral term simply describing a phenomenon of policy, law, or otherwise, or if the term itself is a tool of propaganda. By calling the situation a "loophole", which many say is no such loophole at all, the mere usage of the term does advance one side of the argument, even without further definition. Therefore, if we were to follow the reliable sources which report on this term, they often say "so-called Gun show loophole", "controversial Gun show loophole" or some other such descriptor. I am sure there is also controversy surrounding both the term as well as the related policy, but at the moment the only discussion is really based around whether or not the term itself is neutrally used without any further commentary (and that is simply not how the reliable sources use the term, they always seem to couch it with additional descriptive language). If we were to quote from the source Rhododendrites just cited for example, many claim "there is no loophole" at all, which is why something to the effect of "the term is controversial" in the lead of the article is both warranted and heavily supported by numerous reliable sources.

" 'Close the gun show loophole,' demands Handgun Control, Inc. The major obstacle to Congress’s complying with HCI’s wishes appears to be the desire of many Democrats to preserve gun shows as a campaign issue in the 2000 election. But if the voters learn the facts about gun shows, they will discover that there is no gun show loophole, no gun show crime problem and no reason to adopt federal legislation whose main effect would be to infringe on First and Second Amendment rights."[37] Iljhgtn (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There should be an article on the phenomenon, whose existence is not seriously in doubt, of private firearms purchases that do not require background checks. If there's a better article title available, we should start a requested move discussion. The article about that phenomenon should not start by discussing the controversial nature of the term, but with a plain description of the phenomenon itself. If this means waiting a while before the bold restatement of the title, that'd be fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There has been much discussion over the title, and we discussed naming the article Gun show loophole controversy at one point if you want to check the archive, but we seemed to stick with WP:COMMONNAME.

Sources do not always describe the term as controversial.

These days, sources say closing the gun show loophole through universal background checks appears to enjoy high levels of public support on both sides of the aisle. See Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

The concern here is that the term is Loaded language via MOS:LABEL, and really doesn't provide any informational value other than to to give unconfirmable assertions the appearance of fact. See WP:VOICE

• Avoid stating opinions as facts.
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
• Avoid stating facts as opinions.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.

I can agree that certain prominent opinions say that it is a controversial term but they are opinions that tend to be attributed to gun rights advocates. DN (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I am open to a renaming of the term, but feel that reliable sources do use it often enough, though they do very often speak of it with that exact language mentioned in MOS:LABEL. We are advised according to the MOS in those instances to use the language often used by the reliable sources, "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." We should absolutely include all of the aforementioned sources in the lead when we add "controversial" to the lead of this article, which is not always required in the lead (body normally being sufficient), but in this case, due to the contentious nature of the subject it is warranted. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The current iteration already takes it a step further and devotes the entire last paragraph to explaining the opinions of both sides. DN (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That is more of the "why" you were focused on, the "what" still revolves around the term itself being contested, controversial, disputed, or simply not agreed upon in terms of use and meaning, therefore we need to include that per MOS:LEAD which says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The "controversy" in this case being the term itself according to the reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We need to remain neutral and give each side their DUE WEIGHT, by not leaving out sources that do not call this term controversial, such as this https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/2024/what-does-closing-the-gun-show-loophole-do. It was an arduous task getting this article to GA status, and we did it by not putting one opinion over the other in VOICE. DN (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, but the majority of sources claim some form of controversial nature attached to the term itself, including "so-called" as discussed previously ad nauseum, or call it as such outright. It is also placing WP:UNDUE weight to not include the descriptor most accurately describing the term according to reliable sources. That is in fact an editorial decision that runs directly counter to the language used by the reliable sources when reporting on and referring to the term "Gun show loophole." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like we are going in circles because we aren't acknowledging why that conflicts with WP:VOICE, MOS:DOUBT and MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. It seems like you are claiming that sources that don't describe the term as controversial are somehow WP:FRINGE. You have yet to provide neutral high quality sources that EXPLAIN why the TERM itself is controversial, as opposed to the debate over it. DN (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Do the sources you refer to say the TERM is controversial or the debate? DN (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources you provided aren't exactly clear on whether they are referring to the TERM or the debate/perception/opinion. See WP:SYNTH. DN (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's a more academic source that explains the term WITHOUT using the term "controversial", like most NEWS organizations might.

• The term "Gun Show Loophole" came about as a result of the passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.

References

Cheers. DN (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The simplest solution is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as we have tried to do with the last paragraph in the lead. Why put "controversial" in WP:VOICE and ignore high quality sources like the one above? DN (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Besides the fact is that it isn't entirely clear whether news sources are referring to the term or the actual loophole, we must also consider that GSL is referred to by many names. It is also called the private sale loophole, the private sale exemption, the private seller loophole, the Brady bill loophole, Brady law loophole etc...etc...etc... While the "Gun show loophole" is likely the first prominent term for it, the fact remains that is not the only nomenclature for GSL. See Gun show loophole#Provenance DN (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I can see why DN would want to change the opening sentence from "political" to "controversial" as the term clearly is controversial. It's also political as it's used to try to influence/sway public opinion to push for a policy change. Why not just say both? Is there an issue with this version of the lead, restored by DN, last January? [38], "Gun show loophole is a political term in the United States referring to the sale of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, that do not require the seller to conduct a federal background check of the buyer. This is also called the private sale exemption." I think it's clear the term is controversial and the last paragraph of the lead says as much. I don't think the current lead is as good since the political/controversial nature of the term should be made clear. Springee (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

No need for either. We don't need to make the subject of the article a term to talk about how the naming is controversial. "The gun show loophole is the exception to background check laws for private sales" is simple. Then, after describing the subject, explain that there's disagreement over whether to call it a "loophole". I'm unlikely to edit that article anytime soon, but for the record I oppose any "term" framing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts as well. I barely have an opinion on whether to use "political" or "controversial" or some other descriptor when discussing the term, but the article needs to start with discussion of the topic, not the term. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, since I made this edit that's been fixed - although it could definitely been improved with Rhododendrites more succinct version. My edit hasn't been challenged so I'm unclear whether there's any point to this thread anymore. Is the issue about the article name instead? DeCausa (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Although the subject of the article is the topic (i.e. that U.S. federal law does not require background checks for private sales) and not the term -- and thanks for fixing that -- part of the article can still discuss the term itself. And some people -- especially but not exclusively gun rights supporters -- object to the term, and say that it's misleading or confusing. But there's not agreement about how to explain that in the article. That's the main point of this thread, I believe. "P.S." Re topic vs. term, the article hatnote should still be adjusted too. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the term really agreed upon though? Can an article just start talking about a term when the term itself is deeply controversial in terms of how its meaning and definition is even understood? I saw the DeCausa point, but cheese is not controversial, we all agree on what cheese is. The only thing agreed here too on a "sky-is-blue" type level is that the term itself is indeed controversial, but then the policy around what it means is a separate debate and whether or not that policy is beneficial or not is all also ancillary and additional information beyond the initial point as reliable sources discuss. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

We'll see if there are anymore objections when someone removes the NPOV TAG, or we could take a poll. DN (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa, Rhododendrites and Firefangledfeathers, as they are the most impartial editors yet to comment here. DN (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting other editors aren't impartial? What do you consider your level of impartiality? Springee (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I brought this issue here because I'm involved and impartiality is not only relevant, it's essential, as is assuming good faith. DN (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's probably better to say involved vs impartial. I'm also uninvolved I've never edited the article or it's talk page. Springee (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Springee except for one addition based on the entirety of this discussion was adding the following based on how the reliable sources use language on this term, "Gun show loophole is a controversial political term in the United States referring to the sale of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, that do not require the seller to conduct a federal background check of the buyer. This is also called the private sale exemption."

That keeps both political and controversial in the lead, which accurately describes how the reliable sources for the most part deal with the term itself and then also gets right into the concept as well without confusing the reader. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Would it work for all involved if the "political"/"controversial" label was placed in a second sentence rather than the first? I think the political nature of the term should be in the opening few sentences but I can see, when if I don't agree with, the arguments for not having it in the opening sentence. Springee (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be at least helpful to see what it might look like as part of a Bold attempt to resolve the discussion, I support making the edit and we can discuss whether or not it is genuinely an improvement then or not. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Where are the sources that say this is a "controversial TERM", or even a "political TERM", for that matter? DN (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hang on. WP:REFERS. Maybe the article can deal with the controversy around the term. But that can't be anything to do with the first sentence or, I would say, the first paragraph. That should summarise the substance of what the article is about. If there are any issues about the name then that should be dealt with through WP:RM or an etymology section, and certainly not in the first paragraph. That should be only about what substantively is covered by the article. I speak as Brit who knows nothing about the substance of the article, never heard about the issue until 2 days ago and is just basing my view on WP first principles. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. What I've tried to do is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in the last paragraph. DN (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think 4 paragraphs in is way to far. Part of the issue with the term, the reason why it is referenced with things like "so called" is because, like many political labels, it is misleading. Consider this paper which [39] which states, "Federal law makes no distinction between sales occurring at gun shows and other sales; there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. ". Politifact also weighs in on some of the issues [40] (see section 3). Here is another PF article (run by another source) [41] which makes a similar point about the issues with the term itself. I don't think it is reasonable to put the controversial nature of the term any further down than somewhere within the opening paragraph. If the scope of the article is really going to be private party sales then the article should be renamed to the inherently less political title and the discussion of the "gun show loophole" can be treated as a sub topic. Springee (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear from the sources whether the loophole is controversial because it allows otherwise prohibited people from buying guns or because it isn't actually a loophole. IOW is the term controversial or the policy? TFD (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the term is controversial because it is misleading. I mean when we have a noted researcher saying there is no such thing as the gun show loophole, that certainly suggests the name is not accurate to what is typically being described. Springee (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The idea was to spend the first 3 paragraphs focusing on facts explaining why and what it is to give context to the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in the last paragraph. If there is a consensus by impartial editors for such a change I am open to it, but it doesn't seem prudent. POV in the lead should be minimal as possible AFAIK, but I'm no expert.

Back to the topic at hand. The first source you cited does not seem to claim the gun show loophole is a controversial or political term, but please correct me if I missed it. It is about a 2008 "Fatally Flawed Study Yields Misleading Results" by the NBER. Garen Wintemute, one of the author's of this source, is already quoted in the GSL article (Notable Opinions) stating "The fundamental flaw in the gun show loophole proposal is its failure to address the great majority of private-party sales, which occur at other locations and increasingly over the Internet at sites where any non-prohibited person can list firearms for sale and buyers can search for private-party sellers."

Section 3. from PF also does not appear to call it a controversial or political term, but again, correct me if I'm wrong here. I would also note that the NRA often cites Kleck's work.

The PF repost in the Austin American Statesman seems like they used a collection of sources to write a commentary, also does not seem to use "political" or "controversial" to describe the term either from what I could parse, but again, maybe I might have missed it.

We also have other academic sources that do not call the term political or controversial, including a Richmond VA Law Journal piece written specifically about GSL. It's quite succinct and to the point.

References

Cheers. DN (talk)

The source you provided, despite being an editorial, seems to support the idea that the term is controversial by noting the opposing views of those who are familiar with the law. It notes that gun rights advocates note that this isn't a loophole in the law, rather that what how the laws were designed. At the same time the author clearly is concerned that the law has ambiguity over who doesn't require a permit to sell and that private party sellers can attend a gun show thus connecting with buyers. So again, the issues with the term are illustrated even by a source that isn't sympathetic to the gun rights side of things. Springee (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"The source you provided, despite being an editorial, seems to support the idea that the term is controversial by noting the opposing views of those who are familiar with the law"

It's from a Law review, and we don't try to draw conclusions from sources per WP:SYNTH. Let's look at the text...

• The term "Gun Show Loophole" came about as a result of the passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.
• These laws effectively created a dual standard for gun sales based on the federal license status of the seller. The Brady Act mandated that licensed gun dealers must conduct criminal background checks on potential buyers regardless of whether the sale takes place at the dealer's store or at a gun show, whereas the Firearm Owners Protection Act expressly exempted "persons making occasional sales or selling all or part of a personal collection" from the need to obtain a federal license to sell firearms.
• Thus, a private individual who is not considered to be "engaged in the business" of buying and selling guns, or who sells occasionally, is not required, or even allowed, to conduct a background check on a prospective buyer.
• The reason for the exception to the background check requirement for private sellers was to allow for the unregulated sale or transfer of guns between friends and relatives or the "occasional" sale of guns by individuals from their personal collection.
• The gun lobby argues that since this exception was included in the original intent of the laws it is not technically a loophole.
• The counter argument is that many private sellers at gun shows exploit the vague definition of "engaged in the business" and the equally undefined concept of "occasional" sales.
• While some private sellers at gun shows do indeed only sell one or two weapons and attend just one show as a seller, many gun show sellers who are not federally licensed buy and sell large numbers of guns and attend many shows each year.
• Therefore, a private seller using the exception written into the law in a way that was not originally intended creates what is in fact a loophole.

No mention of "controversial" or "political" so far. If you still feel this is inaccurate, please quote where the source mentions either of those things. DN (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Many sources have said "so called..." Perhaps we could use that instead? The problem is trying to find a way to summarize the way the term is not treated as literal by many sources across the spectrum. Springee (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

As per the sources provided by myself and various other contributors, it is evident that there is a significant controversy surrounding this term. According to MOS:OPEN, it is crucial for the lead's definition of the term to acknowledge this controversy by labelling it as a "controversial term" or using similar terminology. It is inevitable that such terms will arise in an encyclopedia though infrequent. Alternatively, @Springee's's suggestion of referring to it as "so-called," as supported by numerous sources, appears to be an acceptable approach for the same reasons. While I understand @Darknipples's perspective, it is important to consider more than just the optics of the lead and prioritise accuracy. The disputed status quo of the article warrants a revision. Fenharrow (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"controversy surrounding this term."

We have tried to address these concerns by using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to mention "controversial" in the last paragraph of the lead, and WP:REFERS to determine that the lead sentence was improperly formed. DN (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, it's not clear if these sources are referring to the term or the loophole/exemption itself. See WP:Synth. DN (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I am open to the idea of WP:RM to "Private sale exemption" if there is consensus that it will help resolve this NPOV "controversy" objection once and for all. The lead sentence could then read...

• Private sale exemption, formerly called the gun show loophole, is the lack of mandatory background checks in the United States for private sales of firearms, including those done at gun shows.

What do we think? DN (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Is that nearly as common though? It could be considered if it's close but we wouldn't normally override RS if there is a significant gap. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

We should find out. They mean the same exact thing according to sources, so technical work should be nil. All the sources that use GSL should still have the same weight, but the title will be less "controversial" for those with POV concerns. I'm open to it as long as it puts this issue to bed with a consensus once and for all. DN (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Framing or assigning POV to either GSL or PSE in order to focus on CONTROVERSY is basically a WP:POVFORK. The idea here is to try to find a way to resolve the perceived inherent "controversy" that might be more attached to one term as opposed to the other. DN (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to propose changing the name of the article to "private sale exemption". Although I find your suggestion better than the current lead, I wonder what everyone thinks of renaming the page to "private sale exemption" and referring to "gun show loophole" as a colloquialism used by gun control advocates. As indicated in the lead presently, "gun show loophole" does not solely refer to the lack of background checks ONLY at gun shows. Please feel free to weigh in @Moxy @Darknipples @Springee @Mudwater @Iljhgtn. Fenharrow (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The Gun show loophole is the same thing as the Private sale exemption. GSL doesn't ONLY refer to private sales at gun shows. DN (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:POVFORK DN (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been busy IRL so only a limited reply. PSE would be a more neutral title and I would support the move. GSL is an inherently inaccurate and political term. Private sale exemption is still somewhat POV since it labels this as an exemption vs the reverse which is when restrictions were applied they only applied to commercial sales. It would be like calling tax free sales at a yard sale a sales tax exemption. Still, I think it would nicely avoid the issues above. The GSL term could be a sub topic of the article and wouldn't need to be in the lead. Springee (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

A version of the same subject framed solely in criticism or inaccuracy, already exists at Gun shows in the United States#Gun show loophole, in which the first sentence reads:

• "The so-called "Gun show loophole" is a controversial political term in the United States coined by gun control supporters that refers to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows."

I don't know whether or not PSE is a more common term than GSL at this point, but your "NPOV" version already exists over there. DN (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Where would Gun Show Loophole redirect? The content needs to live at the redirect. Springee (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a title change if it is warranted, not a redirect.

RS says that PSE is simply another name for GSL. There is no difference between the two terms. We should not "move content to a new article page" because it is already treated in the current article. See WP:NPOVVIEW...

• "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia."

Creating a separate article on the same topic, framed solely to highlight negative viewpoints, creates a WP:POVFORK.

The only available reconciliation being proffered here is to see if PSE is a suitable title change. To attempt to create a POV fork is explicitly against policy AFAIK. DN (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we are misunderstanding each other. I think changing the name to the more accurate, less POV PSE is better than leaving it at GSL. I was asking about the redirect because people may search for "GSL" so we want it to go somewhere and you mentioned the GSL section of the Gunshow article. I assumed you meant all the discussion of the controversy around the name would be there. If you meant GSL -> PSE then I think we are both good. I just want to make sure you don't mean GSL -> GS#GSL_Name . If we are actually in agreement that the current article content wouldn't change (other than the name controversy could be moved out of the lead) then I think we are on the same page.

What I would suggest is rename the current article then point GSL at the current article. We could change the intro to something like "PSE", also known as the GSL, is... I think most articles that talk about "GSL" also call it a PSE (or similar). At the same time, we don't have a lot of sources calling it the "so called SPE" or even scholars saying "the PSE doesn't exist". To avoid a POV fork it might make sense to have the GSL part of the GS article point to the part of PSE that talks about the controversy associated with the name. Springee (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for adding clarification. DN (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Lets try to clarify this to concise points of contention in order to expedite a resolution.

Mudwater, Fenharrow, Iljhgtn, Springee...

1. Does the current lead still violate NPOV in your opinion, despite "controversial" being mentioned in the last paragraph with attributed POV to gun rights advocates? Yes or No.

2. Is the same "controversy" that is claimed to be attached to the term GSL also innately attached to the term Private sale exemption? Yes or No.

Gun show loophole, also called the private sale exemption, is the lack of mandatory background checks in the United States for private sales of firearms, including those done at gun shows. Under U.S. federal gun law, any person may sell a firearm to a federally unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have cause to believe that the person is prohibited from possessing firearms,[1][2][3][4] and as long as the seller is not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms.[5]

Federal law requires Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) stores, such as gun stores, pawn shops, outdoors stores and other licensees, to perform a background check of the buyer and record the sale, regardless of whether the sale takes place at the seller's regular place of business or at a gun show. Firearm sales between private individuals who reside in the same state – that is, sales in the "secondary market” and with an unlicensed dealer – are exempt from these federal requirements; however, in some states, it is the same. According to a statement by the United States Department of Justice in 2024, unlicensed dealers are a significant source of firearms that are illegally trafficked into communities.[6]

Twenty-two U.S. states and the District of Columbia have laws that require background checks for some or all private sales, including sales at gun shows. In some of these states, such non-commercial sales also must be facilitated through a federally licensed dealer, who performs the background check and records the sale. In other states, gun buyers must first obtain a license or permit from the state, which performs a background check before issuing the license (thus typically not requiring a duplicative background check from a gun dealer).[7]

Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have campaigned for universal background checks and an end to the gun show loophole. Advocates for gun rights find the subject controversial and dispute the existence of a loophole since current laws provide rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and do not regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens.[8][9][10]

Cheers. DN (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies Moxy, I forgot to ping you as well with regard to the 2 questions listed directly above. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes. The current lead is still inaccurate and relating to NPOV in need of major corrections.

2. Not to the same extent. @Springee did raise a brilliantly worded point though worth quoting from, "Private sale exemption is still somewhat POV since it labels this as an exemption vs the reverse which is when restrictions were applied they only applied to commercial sales. It would be like calling tax free sales at a yard sale a sales tax exemption." Though, like Springee, I agree that PSE is less problematic than GSL which is extremely problematic and needs serious revisions as it currently is live in the lead, or a total page move to revise this as @Darknipples says "once and for all" (though WP is a living encyclopedia so nothing is truly ever "once and for all" though I get what DN is aiming for.

I think the page move needs to be done at this point, but then the next question will be in wording the new lead most accurately to reflect the reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Point taken, and while a title change might make sense, we cannot create or redirect to a separate article simply to focus on criticism. See WP:NPOVVIEW... DN (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Tools for determining title

The Google Books Ngram viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content) was recommended to me as a tool to help determine which title receives more results. From what I can tell GSL is currently the more dominant than PSE, but I could be mistaken. DN (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Break

I have invited 2 more editors from the article talk page here to discuss the issue. It appears there is still talk of changing the lead sentence to defining the term despite WP:REFERS, regardless of the fact that it is already in the lead and attributed to gun right's advocates. Since I still feel this may frame the subject in an UNDUE manner, I made another BOLD attempt in order to try to resolve the issue. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Something else that has not been addressed, is whether the prominence, or number, of neutral RS that use the terms "so-called" or "controversial" outweigh the number that don't, per WP:WEIGHT. At this point we seem to have no idea the number of articles mentioning GSL or PSE or any of the articles referencing this subject by one of it's many names, are in the majority. On it's face, without evidence that the majority of neutral sources use these terms, the claim that it is DUE (in the lead sentence as opposed to the last paragraph where it currently is) appears illegitimate. DN (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples@Springee@Iljhgtn@Mudwater@Moxy @North8000. Apologies in advance if I missed anybody.

1.Why GSL as an article title is inaccurate?

The lead of this article says "Gun show loophole, also called the private sale exemption, is the lack of mandatory background checks in the United States for private sales of firearms, including those done at gun shows. " when that is clearly not the case as shown by multiple sources.

For example, this source says that the term "gun show loophole" is "flawed" and fails to convey ALL the exemptions present to gun sales with background checks and some other sources 12 merely say that the loophole refers to sales done via gun shows and online markets.

Clearly, this is not reflected in the lead as it says ALL private sales fall under the "loophole".  

2. Proposal to rename this page "private sale of firearms" or "private sale of guns"

There are numerous sources that refer to the sale of guns by individuals without a background check as "private sales" and that is just calling it what it is, and suggests no "controversy" and/or is not even a "political term" like the great "gun show loophole".

Fox News and the sources which Fox News cites in its article call the selling of firearms by individuals "private gun sales" or "private sale of firearms"

ATF and its various instructional booklets call it "private sales"

The US Department of Justice calls it "private firearm transactions" AND "private sales".

Note that these US government sources, even though they intend to "close the loophole", are not calling it something preposterous like the "Gun show loophole sales", "Sales of guns facilitated through the gun show loophole" or something absurd like that for the simple reason that this term does not cover the ambit of what they seek to abrogate the same way "private sales of firearms" does.

On a personal level, I do think that this page will fare better if it were titled “private firearm transactions" as it can also include transactions like gifting a firearm that is not just "sales" which also, according to some exceptions, does not need a background check every time a firearm is gifted, and this article can have a separate section about that if necessary. Overall, the title 'gun show loophole' does not do justice to what the entire article is about. Fenharrow (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

About Darknipples's comment "impartial editors yet to comment here," I want to clarify that I am from India and have a completely Indian origin. I have never visited the States before, so I suppose I could probably be the most impartial editor here, haha! Everything that I have said here is based on what I find online, aka references, news and sources. I do not stand to personally benefit from any of this; I'm just here for the spirit of the encyclopedia. Cheers! Fenharrow (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant to say uninvolved, as Springee pointed out. DN (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:FIRST. "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English."

We explain those details regarding perceived "flaw in the terminology" in the body, the way MOS seems to instruct us to do. DN (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a term designed to vilify rights related to private sales, gifts and inheritances. It's also misleading because the vast majority of what it refers to is unrelated to gun shows. Of course it's controversial, a sky is blue statement. Also the topic is so vague and with such variable uses that the target of the term is not a distinct topic. IMO for those multiple reasons, if there is to be a separate article with that name, it should be just about the term and is not the place to cover what the term seems to vilify. A good example is Gay agenda which is an article about the term and is not the place where Wikipedia covers the LGBT initiatives which the term seeks to vilify, and covering them in an article with that name would be a POV reinforcement of that attempted vilification. One way to do this would be by renaming and then covering the term in a section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There is an EXTENSIVE FAQ on the article title located on the article talk page and should be considered. If we are going to do a RM on the title, what evidence is there that PSE, or whatever is being considered, is more prevalent in sources than GSL? I have tried to point to Google books Ngram, but no one seemed to acknowledge that, much like the policies and guidelines, or the fact that this article achieved GA status.

If the RM reveals no consensus, or consensus against changing the name, is the plan to then do an RfC on the lead sentence? That would seems like a lot of effort and use of the communities time to determine whether or not it is editorializing or a POV issue which I had hoped would be resolved here, by uninvolved editors. BTW, for sake of argument, I found some sources about GSL (not necessarily the term per WP:DICT) that do not use the terms "controversial" or "so-called".

[42][43] [44][45] [46] [47] [48][49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60][61] [62] [63] [64] [65][66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]

I would also note, interestingly enough, some articles use "so-called" in one part of their article but not in others. Cheers.DN (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO the issues are a lot deeper and need a lot more fundamental fix than just picking an adjective. Starting with the fact that it is a term and otherwise not a distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to address this via RM for the title or RfC on the lead sentence, but I'm concerned with saying we need to do both. If the current title is determined to be appropriate, as it seemed to be the last (several) time(s), would an RfC on the lead sentence still be necessary? It's not my intention to quid pro quo, I'm simply trying to find a way to resolve this without it being a drain on the community. If I'm the only one with that concern, then so be it. DN (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What other title is more prominent in your opinion? DN (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have reviewed some of these sources that you have presented here@Darknipples, they are making the same point I made above. For example, 26, says "He cited two pitfalls to avoid: adopting a limited, “gun show loophole” approach and creating an exemption for holders of unexpired concealed weapon permits. “These more limited approaches are unnecessary and would still allow prohibited persons to purchase firearms from private parties,” he said.". GSL is not the all-comprehensive term that it is incorrectly understood to be. This source that you mentioned 27 says "Concerns about private-party gun sales and the importance of gun shows as a source of guns used in crimes have led to repeated calls for closing the “gun show loophole” — by which advocates usually mean requiring that private-party sales at gun shows be routed through a licensed retailer who will do a background check and keep a record of the purchase." Fenharrow (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

"In fact, there is no gun-show loophole as such. Federal law is silent on the issue of gun shows and permits private-party gun sales to occur anywhere. As a result, such a limited measure might well have no detectable effect on the rates of firearm-related violent crime. Gun shows account for a small percentage of all gun sales in the United States — between 4 and 9%, according to the best estimates available. Similarly, they account for just 3 to 8% of all private-party gun sales" excerpts from 27

"GSL" is distinct from private sales of firearms. The sooner we reach an agreement on this, the sooner we can start to help the article. Fenharrow (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to cherry-pick and form all the WP:SYNTH conclusions you like. Frankly, it's a waste of time. DN (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Any other less hostile comments are also welcome. Fenharrow (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

How about some substantive comments? That would be refreshing. DN (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Do either of those sources use the terms "controversial" or "so-called"? No? Ok. DN (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point, THOSE were not the changes I was talking about and I do not appreciate the tone you are using, DN. I feel unnecessarily scolded. If you want "substantive comments" please read every preceding reply of mine. Good day to you. Fenharrow (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for hurting your feelings. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

They are criticizing incorrect behavior. And redefining their motive as "hurt your feelings" is also not right. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You can interpret it however you like, but commenting on it is irrelevant and unnecessary since my apology was genuine and you are not a mind reader. So let's agree that we do not have permission to speak for one another. Deal? DN (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I was reading what you wrote, nothing about reading your mind. North8000 (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Trying to find a source that says that the term is controversial is like trying to find a source that says rain is wet. Sources don't repeat glaringly obvious stuff. North8000 (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been asking for reliable neutral sources since this dispute started 3 weeks ago. So far we have found one that doesn't even clarify if it refers to the term or the subject, let alone actually explains what the "controversy" is. By all means, share them. DN (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Since giving WEIGHT to things that are not properly sourced tends to fall under the umbrella of WP:OR, what is it you are suggesting? DN (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless NPOVN is able to mediate this problem more effectively, we should discuss whether an RM for title or an RfC on lead sentence is more prudent. Perhaps a poll? Cheers. DN (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Fenharrow has really hit the nail on the head. They made very strong points. For a long time it appears the article correctly said GSL was (is) a political term and then went on to discuss both what they term generally was meant to cover and why the term was inaccurate in a literal sentence. If we are going to downplay the issue with the term I think a RM makes sense. There is plenty of evidence that the term is not accurate. Springee (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have some concerns that there is not a distinct topic (other than cover it only as a term, which would call for deletion of the majority of the article.) But I think that renaming it is the best practical solution. It could cover the legal status of private transfers (sales, gifts, inheritances) in the USA. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

RM started

I have just created a RM on the article talk page to change the title of "Gun show loophole" to "Private sale of firearms in the United States". @Darknipples @Fenharrow @North8000 @Springee @Moxy @Mudwater please feel free to comment over at Talk:Gun_show_loophole#Requested_move_24_October_2024 Iljhgtn (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I notice you did not ping TFD, Rhododendrites, Firefangledfeathers, DeCausa, and Alpha3031. DN (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, sorry to be a pest, I just want to make sure there isn't any concern as to the choice of editors which received notifications above, versus the ones that did not. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The Antioch Review article looks suspect

Not an editor, just wanted to bring this to people's attention. The Antioch Review article looks suspect, in terms of neutrality. It gives off "person who is affiliated with thing being a major contributor to the article for that thing" vibes. I'm mostly talking about the fifth paragraph of the "History" section, although I'm uncertain about the article as a whole too. Hope this is the right place to post about this kind of thing, I'd appreciate for someone to take a look at it. 66.73.175.231 (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to this paragraph?...

• Free speech is taken seriously at The Antioch Review. The Winter 2016 issue published an article considered offensive to many transgender individuals and supporters, but was nevertheless defended against a wave of criticism on the grounds of free expression of ideas and opinions, even when they run counter to one's own.

References

If so, I can see how the first sentence may be WP:UNDUE in WP:VOICE, but might be attributed to the author, if they are considered significant or prominent as a WP:RS.

Cheers. DN (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna take a poke at the article and see what I can clean up. Sirocco745 (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I've found in relation to NPOV.

The first paragraph of the History section was added here by now-inactive user Jbbirwin using a reference from "review.antiochcollege.org". Since the website is unfortunately dead and I can't retrieve a copy of the page due to the Internet Archive recently being hacked, we can't yet confirm whether this was just a copypaste. However, it's definitely not got a neutral tone about it. If the part that states they "sought to establish a forum for the voice of liberalism in a world facing the forces of fascism and communism" were in quotation marks, so as to indicate to readers that this does not reflect Wikipedia's view on the subject but it is rather the subject's own self-assessment, then that's bare minimum.

Next is the paragraph mentioned above by DN. This would be more relevant to include if there was sourced evidence of "free speech (being) taken seriously at The Antioch Review" that showed this commitment to free speech demonstrated over the course of the Review's history.

And last thing I'll mention before I get to work on the article is that the whole History section reads like a newspaper article and is quite non-specific with its claims. "While its pages have been populated by innumerous academics" does not tell us anything about said academics, for starters.

So that's all I've got for now. I'll get started on making some changes and tagging the page with WP:PEACOCK and/or WP:WEASEL, along with the one on style (I forgot what it was called!). Unrelated side note, but screw those hackers. The Internet Archive is an invaluable resource given the constantly changing nature of the internet and access to material, and it being down is more than a minor annoyance. Sirocco745 (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the article, I appreciate it.

Another unrelated sidenote, I find it absolutely lovely that you guys use the terms WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL to describe those things. This is a good website. 66.73.175.231 (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Mullenweg's philanthropy section

Not sure what to do with Matt Mullenweg § Philanthropy. I'm not familiar enough with the relevant policies to decide if we should just axe the content or merge it into the unrelated personal history or do something else about it. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It does read like puffery. But you do need to raise this on the article's talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops. Well, since I've already opened this, I've transcluded this thread to the article's talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC on lede of Masada myth

Here: Talk:Masada myth#RfC on the article lede. Is the lede too POV, or OK? (Involves the Middle East so hang on to your hat lol.) Herostratus (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Fátima prayers

I'm bringing this here because the whole thing is stating catholic beliefs in wikivoice. Starting with the lead: "of the seven prayers, reportedly (...)" on the origin of the prayers, is very much POV. The prayers were published by a nun starting in 1937, from what I can gather. TBH, I'm not even sure this meets notability standards, as the whole thing is based exclusively on primary or not-independent sources. Should WP be a resource for people to learn their prayers? VdSV9•♫ 14:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Trying to address NPOV on Trap-Neuter-Return and reached an impasse

The Trap Neuter Return page has NPOV concerns going back at least 5 years. I proposed edits, starting with the lead paragraph, but the active editor on the page @Geogene is not accepting any edits. I've withdrawn edit requests to the lead sentence and would like to proceed with edits to the rest of the paragraph that are not NPOV concerns; they are clarifications to increase accuracy. I'm here to ask for guidance on how to reach consensus. Nylnoj (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion notice

Copied from WT:FTN:

Wikipedia:Fringe theories has an RfC

Wikipedia:Fringe theories has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. (Note: from continuation of ongoing discussion at Village Pump (policy).) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

More specifically, this is a very serious formal proposal to merge Fringe theories/noticeboard into this one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

List of antisemitic incidents in the United States and its associated deletion discussion

Talk page is a mess around which incident to include, what incident should be considered antisemitic or not, and which incident is a BLP violation or not.

I initially suggested massive scope check, and possible deletion. I think someone took me up on the AfD challenge. I haven't kept up, but the talk page, deletion page, and the associated arguments could all use more eyes. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

S. A. Ajayi

• S. A. Ajayi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A new user is repeatedly inserting a hagiography into this late politician's already non-neutral article. Unreadable lines like "Chief S.A. Ajayi was a highly skilled polyglot, fluent in multiple Nigerian languages, Chief S.A Ajayi's linguistic abilities and multi-cultural understanding played a significant role in his advocacy for majority and minority coexistence" are being added to an article that already contains such gems as "Chief Ajayi pursued this vision with equally passionate illustrious sons of Ijumu until the Local Government was created". Sources for these statements include a letter to a newspaper (the hagiographic paragraph is a poorly paraphrased version of this letter) and other non-neutral newspaper articles. There's an important article about an important person in Nigerian history buried in this morass, but it's buried very deep at the moment. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:208D:22DF:6D36:FDE2 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

SEGM and conversion therapy

There is currently an ongoing dispute at Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Arbitrary break (Conversion therapy) concerning the source linking SEGM and promotion of conversion therapy. The quote from the relevant source is as follows:

Dr. Malone and fellow SEGM member Dr. Colin Wright have asserted, “Counseling can help gender dysphoric adolescents resolve any trauma or thought processes that have caused them to desire an opposite sexed body.” In my opinion, these statements are transphobic and reductive and favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth. [... rest of the quote is MEDORG notes]

It is asserted that the entire source, post In my opinion, should be excluded as WP:RSOPINION, and that it is WP:SYNTH to consider the quote from Malone and Wright as verifying favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth as a factual statement. Editors are invited to join the discussion on the article talk page. I have also posted this at WP:NORN#SEGM and conversion therapy since both noticeboards seem relevant. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I will note here as well that the quote as presented in this source removes the opening proviso "But in most cases", which changes the tone somewhat.

Also, I think you are not accurately describing my objection to the subsequent MEDORG statements. It is not an arbitrary claim that "everything after the opinion is opinion". The issue is that what relates the subsequent statements to the quote is a statement of opinion. The form is (paraphrasing):

• Here's a quote
• In my opinion it is conversion therapy
• Here's information about conversion therapy

The MEDORG information is all totally factual - but the basis for presenting the two alongside each other as if they are related is opinion. That added, I welcome some outside input.

Void if removed (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Beside the above mentioned discussion I would like to draw the attention to the unacceptable condition of the entire article about SEGM. Multiple users have already raised at the article's talk the issue of the total lack of balance and neutrality in the article, when only negative and critical opinions are mentioned, many of which come from fringe or biased sources, advocacy groups, etc. [89] It would be good to have more outside involvement to make the article more compliant with WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia guidelines.--JonJ937 (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Larnoch Road murders

Can someone take a look at this article including the talk page? I feel the article has had issues with POV editing that have resulted in the article not accurately reflecting the sources and BLP violations. I believe uninterested editors who have not heard of the incident will be best here. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Twitch

This edit seems to describe what happens as a "unacceptable miss" in wikivoice.

@LuffyDe: @Masem: Polygnotus (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You can correct it. Also Masem should reverting my edits which have over 5 papers reporting on the same issue by claiming that it happened on "one day" only while it was a year long embargo. LuffyDe (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I recognize now it was an issue for one year. However, when the bulk of published complaints on the matter are from social media users and not experts or journalists, it is very much Undue to being that weight to the antisemitic claims. We cannot assume that Twitch purposely kept the block on longer than needed (eg using the word "embargo" is OR and POV) I have kept the key parts of the material and briefly mention the antisemitic claim as the reason Twitch acted now. — Masem (t) 17:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ariane Tabatabai & Iran Experts Initiative

Ariane Tabatabai is a BLP that has been edited by people with strong opinions and some vandals. Polygnotus (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: Iran Experts Initiative is a related article. Polygnotus (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation#Requested_move_12_October_2024

move discussion after consensus to merge 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and Nuseirat refugee camp massacre. posting this on here. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Aaj Tak

• Aaj Tak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article about an Indian news outlet is strongly negative in tone and accuses the publication of promotion of "disinformation", a serious accusation which I am not sure is backed up by the sourcing, though I admit that I am not that familiar with Indian news media. I would appreciate input from someone familiar with Indian media. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's some Indian newsmedia: Wikipedia’s credibility at stake as its editors target more Indian media outlets Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This is indeed how I found the article. The article does seem to have a bit of a pro-BJP tone, like a lot of Indian news media (India's press freedom is relatively low), so I took what it said with a grain of salt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia Newslaundry, The Wire, The Hindu, The Indian Express, The Caravan and there are many other independent outlets. But If you want something specific then do tell me maybe I can help.

1. https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/02/29/nbdsa-cracks-whip-asks-aaj-tak-to-remove-fictional-video-targeting-rahul-congress
2. https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/04/10/psychological-repercussions-court-restrains-aaj-tak-reportage-on-shraddha-murder-case
3. https://www.newslaundry.com/topic/aaj-tak
4. https://www.newslaundry.com/2018/01/02/fake-news-2017-aaj-tak-toi-zee-india-today-republic

Newslaundry is an Indian media watchdog of sorts they pay really close attention to what goes on these News Channel. You can also just google Aaj Tak disinformation to see what pops out.

Take a look at this also https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2022/07/08/aaj-tak-vs-newslaundry-restriction-or-criticism/ DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If you look for Godi media aka Modi aligned media then you're going to find it. Of the top of my head I can give you the name of at least 10 Independent Indian media outlets. Some of them are mentioned in WP:RS and some aren't. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not denying that Aaj Tak has reported misinformation, I'm just not sure how much weight should be put on it. For example The New York Times infamously put out Caliphate (podcast) which turned out to a a hoax. Should we then say that The New York Times "has promoted disinformation".? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. Reading the newslaundry article where they uncritically promogulated the claim that a fatwa allowed Saudi Arabian men to eat their wives is such an egregious error that I have to consider the current article completely justified. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia and antisemitism

• Wikipedia and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was just created. I'm really unconvinced that Wikipedia is able to write neutral critical articles about itself generally, but this article in particular just seems like a bad idea. I think it would be better covered as a section of Criticism of Wikipedia.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems highly likely to act as a POVFORK in practice, even if not intended as one. Remsense ‥ 论 03:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the sourcing also seems thin. Obviously, I suppose you could include the recent right-wing media coverage that Wikipedia is antisemitic because of its coverage of the Israel Palestine conflict, but that would have clear POV issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Made a merge request at Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Asian News International

This discussion may be of interest to members of this noticeboard. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The whole legal case aside, there are several issues of contention:

• 1. The article is mostly based on 2 investigative articles by The Caravan and The Ken (both as I understand respected Indian magazines), and it there is disagreement as to whether their allegations that ANI has served as a mouthpiece/propaganda vehicle for the Indian government (which is pretty much sourced only to these two magazine articles) should be attributed to them or not in the lead section.
• 2. There is dispute over whether the fact that ANI has had several articles from factcheckers showing that they have at times reported false claims be included in the lead section as supporting the claim that they have "consistently reported misinformation"
• 3. whether or not allegations of poor treatment of employees made in the The Caravan and The Ken are due for inclusion in the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  As I show in the t/p (and Hemiauchenia probably agrees), there are other highly reliable sources that bring the same allegations against ANI. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, the additional sourcing has assuaged a lot of my concerns. If anyone wants to request that the page be unprotected that's fine with me Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This section is being transcluded from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban, edit on that page if you want to add comments here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)