Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

The Family International

There is a discussion on the Family International’s talk page (section "Cult vs. New religious movement (again)") as to whether it should be labelled as a “cult” or as a “new religious movement”.

The word "cult" has been named as one of Wikipedia’s “words to watch”, as an example of a word that is “best avoided” and cannot be used without an in-text attribution. According to Wikipedia's definition of "cult", it is “considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices.” Because of this, the term has long been abandoned in academia, and the neutral term of “new religious movement” is used instead.

Since academic sources consistently call this organization a “new religious movement”, and sources that call it a “cult” are generally biased and focus on negative and controversial aspects of the group, I believe that the organization should be labelled as a “new religious organization”, in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies regarding a NPOV, Words to Watch, and academic sources.

However, another editor believes that the organization should be primarily referred to as a cult, since this term is used in certain unspecified sources. So far, we have not been able to come to an agreement. Theobvioushero (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Support use of the term "cult". GPinkerton (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that academic sources have replaced the word cult with new religious movement? TFD (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Couple of things: Firstly the sources currently used to support the word cult are not remotely scholarly and are openly biased. They need to be removed from the lead; but there is no reason they cannot be contextually used elsewhere in the body. Secondly there are undoubtedly scholarly sources which refer to the subject as a cult (e.g.), and there are other scholarly sources which explicitly deny it is a cult and refer to it as a movement (e.g.) Thirdly, there is no reason it has to be a dichotomy. Just state that it has been variously defined as a cult, movement... whatever else you find. But cult is frequent in the literature, so it has to be in there in the first couple of sentences. Cambial Yellowing❧ 17:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, but want to note that contemporary scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a "cult" are uncommon and use this word in the sociological sense, rather than the sense used by the general public. I agree though that we should mention that they have been called a "cult" in the introduction as long as we include an in-text attribution, in accordance with the “words to watch” policy, rather than presenting it as an objective fact. For example, "They have been accused of being a cult by counter-cult organizations such as ICSA and the Cult Education Institute." Theobvioushero (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources published via university presses are usually acceptable. If sources also call it a NRM (it is likely applicable as a more general category), it would be possible to mention both NRM and to say that it has also been described as a cult (although avoiding to mention specific people as if it was a minor opinion). —PaleoNeonate – 16:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

To quote from one of the sources I presented earlier, “the sociological concept of a cult, as a certain type of religious innovation, has not retained its morally neutral meaning in the arena of public discourse…. For this reason, the morally neutral term of new religious movements (NRM’s) has come to replace the pejorative label of ‘cults’ in the lexicon of most social science scholars of new religions.” Theobvioushero (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Simply put, GPinkerton has repeatedly asserted that the term "cult" is biased, while providing nothing to back that up. Editor also claims all sources referring to it as a cult are biased and therefore should be dismissed. Sources use both "cult" and "new religious movement" to refer to the group, so both terms are appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion is taking one bias and merely replacing it with one in the other direction. It's not clear why you consider a link to a google scholar search of "the family international" evidence that references are uncommon; I appended the world "cult" to your search and 344 results were returned. As I already stated in my reply above, I agree that it's fair to say that "they have been described" or "defined" as a cult, as a NRM, etc, rather than stating it as fact in WP voice. But the word "accused" is not neutral. They have been described as a cult in the academic literature, and frequently in mainstream news sources (recently by BBC, The Times, The Guardian) not just by "counter-cult organizations". Cambial foliage❧ 00:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

344 is still a small percentage of the total (2,740) though, and the vast majority of those sources do not call the organization a “cult”, but use the term in a different way. Academic sources point out that “most social science scholars of new religions” do not use the term “cult”; that the term “new religious movement” has been the “preferred” term of religious scholars since the early 1970’s; and that "the term 'new religions' would virtually replace 'cult’" by the end of the 1970’s.

I don’t see any issue with using the term “described” rather than “accused” though, and agree that it is also be appropriate to mention news sources that have used that term; it would just would require additional citations. For example, "They have been described as a cult by counter-cult organizations and various news organizations such as the BBC, New York Times, and the Guardian.” This point can be expanded on in the “reception” section, and uncontroversial terms such as “new religious movement”, “group” and “organization” can be used to refer to the group generally without the need for in-text attributions. Theobvioushero (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s better if we don’t have an extended exercise in sophistry; nor will doing so support your case. The only place I mentioned appending "cult" to your search for "the family international", was in the context of pointing out the shortcomings of your citing such a search as evidence that scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a "cult" are uncommon. It isn't evidence for that. If I were looking to cite google searches as evidence for the counterfactual ("scholarly sources which refer to the organization as a cult are common") I would have substituted "children of god"+ cult and pointed toward the ~16,000 results. I didn't do that, because search result numbers alone are not evidence to buttress either POV, nor would they form a method of framing a NPOV if they were. Stick to actual evidence, not google search pages.

It's true that scholars in different fields have different words for things, sometimes for non-academic reasons. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology puts the issue with regards to movements neatly: "Most NRMs would fit into the sociological category of either sect or cult, but scholars came to favor the term NRM in order to avoid the pejorative overtones associated in the public mind with these labels." WP:LABEL, which I assume is what you were intending to cite in your OP, states that words like cult are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The argument you are trying to make has no basis in the policies used to determine content on WP. There is no suggestion in the MOS, nor in any policy, that we should censor academically published use of specific words because they have fallen out of fashion amongst scholars in certain disciplines. If numerous scholars have stated that the subject of the article is a cult – and a brief perusal of the contents of some of the 16,000+ g scholar results on the subject indicate that numerous scholars have done so, including recently – then the article should state as much.

Finally, the notion that "new religious movement" is somehow neutral takes as a given your POV that the subject is a religious organization. Clearly, that is part of the controversy and resistance to your proposed changes, and given that so many sources from reliable news media and scholarship refer to it as a "cult", using "new religious movement" as a pretended neutral term does not produce a NPOV. “New religious movement” must instead be listed as one of the various definitions it has been given by scholars, and perhaps by reliable news sources (though in a brief search I couldn't find the latter; every news source referred to the organization as a cult, not as a religious movement, new or otherwise). Cambial foliage❧ 23:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

We can disregard the Google Scholar searches if you do not believe they are productive. I want to make sure that they do not distract from the scholarly citations that I also provided. According to the academic sources, "new religious movement/new religion" is a "morally neutral" term that has been "almost unanimously adopted" by scholars in order to avoid the terms "cult" and "sect." It is currently "the generally accepted term" for such groups, and has "virtually replace[d]" the word "cult" in academia. To clarify, I am not saying that the term "cult" should be censored, just that it needs in-text attributions, due to its "pejorative" connotations.

I have never heard anyone deny that the Family International is a religious group. From what I have seen, those who prefer to call it a "cult" do not believe that terms such as "religious organization" or "new religious movement" are inaccurate. Instead, they prefer "cult" because it is a more specific term. Who are you referring to that denies this group is a religious organization? Theobvioushero (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not saying that the term "cult" should be censored, just that it needs in-text attributions – so we agree that in the lead paragraph it should state that scholars and media organisations have described it as both a cult and a new religious movement, with some specific examples.

The subject of the article is the Children of God/The Family, not two sociologists’ views about what is or is not “morally neutral”. For the same reason, what an encyclopaedia, or an undergraduate writing a term paper, thinks is generally true, does not countervail the widespread use of the term cult in this specific instance. Are you suggesting that a cult and a new religious movement are the same thing? If so, your proposed changes and this thread is a waste of time. If not, in a situation where many scholars call it one thing, while many scholars, media, and NGOs call it something different, choosing one over the other as a neutral term is not a NPOV. A neutral term would be something which is a category into which both terms clearly fall – i.e. a “movement”, or a “group”, or an “organization”. It doesn’t say very much because it’s designed not to, in order to be neutral. We don’t give more weight to one set of scholars because they represent the POV you happen to prefer.

First couple of pages of results of news organizations which refer to it as a cult, with no mention of religion: Cambial foliage❧ 11:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

GetUp! and Addressing NPOV Issues

The page for the progressive organization GetUp! seems to indicate biased reporting. Particularly with its insistence in pushing for a connection with George Soros and its repeated citing of the Morning Mail. Soros as I recall, is a figure commonly associated with various biases in his reporting, and is subject to various theories in regards to his political involvement. I am unfamiliar with the organization by-large and I would appreciate some insight onto what should be done for this page. Hopefully this is the correct venue to do so. --Ornithoptera (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Recheck

can you tell me if this edit by this guy breaches pov rule for wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan&diff=979414452&oldid=979248952 Baratiiman (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Baratiiman, personally, I can see both sides of this argument. However he explicitly states that there is no evidence of this being taken in Isfahan. HeartGlow ^(talk) 03:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• again HeartGlow30797 Pahlevun showing he won't need NPOV
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan&diff=979907351&oldid=979881663
• Baratiiman (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fashion_in_Iran&diff=980451588&oldid=980441033 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yousef_Tabatabai_Nejad&diff=980451190&oldid=980427046 Baratiiman (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Iran&oldid=prev&diff=980594867 Baratiiman (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan&type=revision&diff=980594777&oldid=980594561 Baratiiman (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Public opinion of Portland protests

Comments are requested here: Talk:George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon#Proposal to include poll of public opinion. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 SCOTUS vacancy

Hello all,

There's currently a dispute regarding NPOV (and SYNTH) over at Talk:2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy#Quotes in background section. Given the small editorship of the article, more eyes on the discussion couldn't go amiss. Sceptre (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Public Interest Legal Foundation

Hi, could I get some assistance at this article? I surfed in on a link last week and noticed the POV was seriously negative. I tidied up and added more info, including a notable lawsuit (see history). My edit was reverted, and I put up a POV tag, which has also been removed without discussion. Just made another effort to edit the intro to balance the POV, but the rewrite and info I added to the article last week have all been reverted again. Thanks for any help. Pkeets (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Concern on neutrality of the Spitnik V (vaccine) page

I have concern about this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gam-COVID-Vac

There is an ongoing dispute and editing wars between different "parties" which clearly indicates there is a neutrality issue. My main concern is the "Scientific assessment" section which is full of political statements and opinions of the official from different countries. I propose either to remove all the information in the section and replace it with the scientific research assessment or to rename it "Political and other statements of the officials from different countries and organizations", which it is now. It is very misleading to call "political and other statements" "scientific assessments". 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:102C:3581:147C:582F (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Addressing bias (Robert E. Lee Academy)

To Whom it may concern: There is currently an ongoing dispute regarding NPOV of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee_Academy You can see it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_E._Lee_Academy

or in the revision history. I left a lot of edits requests for BillHPike, Jacona but those editors ignored most of my reasoning. I think the editors are clearly biased and cannot edit the page from the NPOV. Here is the proof of their bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Billhpike/Archive_4 The section “Rober E. Lee Academy “ Jakona (the editor heavily involved in the editing) cites: “I believe that the article is WP:NPOV because it doesn't delve sufficiently into the white supremacy. The naming of the school for Lee, a man who was famous as a traitor to the U.S., a slaveholder, and a particularly violent one, and an emblem of white power needs far more attention. Some of this can be found here. More about Lee as a slaveholder, torturer, murderer, traitor, and symbol of white supremacy is easily sourced.” Question: how the person who edit encyclopedia can neutrally edit the page on the same topic? While Robert E. Lee page is balanced and neutral, this cannot be said about the school.

The most important thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_addressing_bias

Due to the bias, the editors refuse to see the positive changes for the school for the last years and use the information in the sources selectively to reflect their bias opinion. Even a request to change the page name by using proper sources, was rejected. I’m asking non-biased editors to come and read the Talk page and check the page for neutrality.

Disclaimer: I also have a conflict of interest and I admitted it on my talk page. I only asked for the edits requests according to the Wikipedia policy. Fritzsmith20 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• • "Balanced and neutral" does not mean complimentary. It is well-sourced that Lee was a slaveholder who violently beat his slaves until their flesh was a blood pulp and poured brine on their wounds. He was a traitor to the United States and is frequently used as a symbol of repression of African-Americans. In contrast to the verbage above, Lee's page discusses his slaveholding, his brutality towards slaves, and more.
  • It appears that the editors idea of "neutral" point of view is actually the idea to whitewash the article of any factual history.
  • While User talk:Fritzsmith20 claims the school has changed it's name, and even provided a source, I checked court records and found that there is a different corporation of that name elsewhere in the state that uses the "new" name, and has for decades. The newspaper articles about the subject stated that they were changing the name but hadn't yet done so officially. Based on that, I didn't think it's wise to move the article to the "new" name - they're probably not going to be able to use the new name. If it's appropriate to change the name based on the fact the school changed it on their website and acknowledged the change wasn't yet official, have at it!Jacona (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Jacona, after all what you said on BillHPike’ Talk Page, (see your own words cited above) I doubt that you can edit Lee Academy page without bias and I don’t think it is appropriate to edit on this topic while representing your own ideology. Do you have any conflict of interest related to the subject, such as your friends or relatives related somehow to the topic? If “yes”, please, recognize it as I did on my page and give unbiased editors to do their volunteer work properly.

• • Regarding the school name. Your refusal to update the school page is beyond any reason and looks more like an attempt to use Wikipedia knowledge only to prevent the inevitable. The new school name reflects our policy change and it looks like you feel uncomfortable about it. I have a feeling that you wish to punish the school for its past issues (which were real many years ago but that has changed) and thus refuse to accept the fact that the school is reforming. Our new name change has been well received by parents, students and community and everyone sees it as a positive change. The name has been updated on the website and can be confirmed by secondary sources. Now the name change “officially” as you call it, will happen very soon – with a large non-profit like this, it takes time to make sure everything is done correctly. Hundreds of our students, the school staff and other people in the community already call us “Lee Academy” and that will continue into the future. Our lawyers have told us that even if the name change we record with the state of South Carolina has to be something in the line of "Lee Academy of Bishopville" our dba can easily and legally be "Lee Academy".Fritzsmith20 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that not being a white supremacist is a conflict of interest? Jacona (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fritzsmith20: you still haven't complied with WP:COI despite your obvious close relationship to the school - you are clearly a connected contributor and that should be declared on the talk page of the school as well as on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV policy question, history: Antonius Verancius' quote, which version is more neutral?

I'm having a discussion with another user on which of these 2 versions is more netural:

(A) According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks",[59] while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".

(B) According to Antun Vrančić, Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks". According to the Romanian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that they easily equal all of the others,[59] while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".

This is the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Transylvania#Antonius_Verancius'_quote My diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=979026390&oldid=978024079 His diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=979473136&oldid=979026390

The original text in Latin is the following: Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant." doesn't specify the word "any" in its translation. The word for word translation is as following: qui = who or whom, quamlibet = however, harum = these, facile = easily, magnitudine = size, aequant = match. The word "any" is non existent and not implied by the author.

The other user argues that: Quamlibet means as well "any", to any extent, any degree, "quamlibet harum" in this context appoints this, as the three main nations are listed in the first place, and added one to be mentioned which number may be equal with any of these. While I argue that: Quamlibet does have more meanings depending on context, but the context "quamlibet" is used here doesn't imply the use of quamlibet as "any". This is the debate that scholars had as well. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. Anyway, this doesn't matter that much as our personal opinions on the subject doesn't matter, we only have the sources to work with and through. I just posted this so you know it was already discussed. We have 2 sources contradicting each other and need to find a balance.

The other user argues that: the page has a consensus on the current content sourced. I argue that: the current content is sourced correctly but interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. It is not a problem of sources, both sources are already present in the article, but rather a problem of wording.

I argue that: His edits with language that implied one is objectively correct is clear violation of WP:NEUTRALITY. While I on the other hand, simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources on equal grounds, despite the clean latin version supporting the Romanian translation. He argues that: What you did is the assertion some expressions the sources did not say, on the other hand the last stable version properly summarizes what the sources in fact say, without taking sides.

Eventually, I told him again that: The text you are trying to keep, is worded overwhelmingly in favor of Hungarian historians implying the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one. Clear Hungarian bias. I simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources, and removed the language that implied one is objectively correct. Despite the Romanian version being supported by the clean Latin translation, I did not mention that because of WP:NEUTRALITY. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While as far as I know, only Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. The sources, for both versions, are already listed in the article, but are interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. My job here is not to tell which one is right, I simply list both versions on equal grounds. Unlike you, who wants to list the clearly in favor of the Hungarians version wording. I get that you disagree, but you can't disagree simply on the grounds that you don't like it. Wikipedia is for education not personal opinions. Which is why I believe the only solution is a 3rd opinion.

He argued that: There has been not any bias, sources were cited and summarized (the Romanian and Hungarian interpretations are both identified, in this order), what you do here is pure OR, and yes, your personal opinions should be ignored, which you don't do. I argued that: a version with a wording such as "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", which falsely implies that one is objectively correct, is far from neutral.

What do you think, which version is compliant with WP:NEUTRALITY and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn (talk • contribs) 23:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I see no reason to bring this issue here, which is purely your OR, as it has pointed out in the article's talk page, where anyone interested may see how you ignore important points and refuse to understand our policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, your summarization is as well suffers from all of these. This issue earlier wen't through a noticeboard and both Romanian and Hungarian editors agreed the current (longstanding) version, which in fact summarize what the sources tell us. This user tendentiously failing to recognize this. The Romanian interpretations are summarized - on the first place indeed - the Hungarian in the second place, and only the latter notes about the translation's proper interpretation. We cannot summarize something from a source, which is not stated. This is not (cannot be) a neutrality issue, since both viewpoints are summarized accordingly to the sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC))

The reason to bring this issue here is because we cannot reach consensus by ourselves. Please, specify that the person who "it has pointed out in the article's talk page" was you. I also pointed out violation of WP:NEUTRALITY in the talk page, but I will not talk about myself in 3rd person to make it seem like someone else has said it. If such a noticeboard existed, you gave no link to it, please post a link if it exists. If this is about the discussion above our discussion in the talk page, that discussion did not involve me and was not related to the wording of this parahgraph, which is what our discussion is about. Hypothetical scenario on neutrality: We have source (A) and source (B), source A claims that "the sky is blue", source B claims that "source A claims the sky is blue, however the proper color of the sky is red". We do not pick sides. Which wording is more neutral? To say that source A claims that "the sky is blue" while source B claims that "the sky is red"; or to say that source A claims that "the sky is blue" while source B noted that "however the proper color of the sky is red"? In the 2nd version, I believe the phrasing is clearly in favor of source B and violates WP:NEUTRALITY. Everything I utilized from both sources is something that was started by both sources. That is not how it works. Both viewpoints can be summarized accordingly, but still worded in a non-neutral way. A Wikipedia article is not simply "copy-paste from the source", we add our own words and make our own sentences around it. For example: "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", this sentence is not present in either source. It is a phrase added by the editor. This is where the bias can happen. LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, there is no violation of neutrality, discussed also here and there (along with links) and involved the issues we talk. Your demonstration fails since such like however the proper color of the sky is red does not play, there is no is, but would be, etc. Similarly you utilized things the sources did not say, do not confuse this with close pharaphasing/copyedit.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC))

Yes, we discussed it, and you failed to convince me it isn't, and I failed to convince you it is, that's why we are here. The difference between 'is' and 'would be' is just semantics that doesn't strongly imply the benefit of doubt. When you say "according to John", you are not implying John is objective, when you say "John noted that the proper order would be", you are implying John is objective and right. I already told you that I did not utilize things the sources did not say. Unless you can actually give examples, all you have are empty words with no weight, as usual. Constantly making empty accusation with nothing to back them up will get you nowhere. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"Constantly making empty accusation with nothing to back them up will get you nowhere." -> again, drop such remarks, because the opposite is happening. You believe falsely about something that would be an NPOV issue, although it isn't, and still fail to understand that "John noted that the proper order would be" is describing what's in the source. You did utilize, but we have also discussed this earlier. You lack of the necessary attention to the details.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC))

I won't drop such remarks, because the opposite is not happening. You want evidence that this "Constantly making empty accusation with nothing to back them up will get you nowhere." is ture for you? In an ironic twist of events, look at your quote "argument": "drop such remarks, because the opposite is happening". You made no argument there, you only stated an opinion, a declaration, that's all your stances are in generals, personal opinions with nothing to back them up. Then let's move on to your very next phrase: "You believe falsely about something that would be an NPOV issue, although it isn't", that's it, that was your "argument": "although it isn't". This is one of the many clear cases, but it will make no difference to you. As for the last part, I didn't fail to understand that part, but you're so far off that explaining what the real problem is to you will take another paragraph, I don't know whether you're going for a strawman or genuinely missing the point but just re-read our previous conversation. With all respect, this is your style of debate in general, regardless of your point you have no arguments to support your stance. But you insist on your empty accusation in a WP:BLUDGEON style, and you wonder why I'm here asking for a 3rd opinion. Please, consider your style or reasoning before accusting others that they lack the attention to the details. In a childish naivety, you expect your empty stances to simply be believed, this is not what happens in real life, where you have to back up your stances with evidence and arguments. So naturally, I didn't believe most of the things you said, sorry, but you're not as all knowledgeable and rational as you think you are. Re-read our conversation with that in mind and things will start to make sense for you. As for me, I'm done with this conversation for it's the equivalent of trying to argue with a stone, I'll wait for a 3rd opinion and we can continue from there. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this wall of text is useless, you have to re-read everything if you still don't understand what you fail. WP:COMPETENCE is required, I won't explain something the 11th time when it was already discussed clearly and explained not just in the article's talk page, but here.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC))

Comment: I do not understand what is the core of the debate. I think nobody is willing to read lengthy threads to comment on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The original version of the article is (A), I changed it to (B) arguing that version (A) violates WP:NEUTRALITY. In this instance, there are 2 sources contradicting each other: a Romanian and a Hungarian one. In version (A), the Romanian source is listed first, afterwards the Hungarian version is listed with what I find a non-neutral language: "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be", implying that the Hungarian interpretation is the correct one. In version (B), the original quote of Antun Vrančić that both sources agree upon is listed first, following the point where both sources diverge: with the Romanian source arguing that it means "they easily equal all of the others" while the Hungarian source arguing that it means "they easily equal any of the others in number". Concenring version (A): Another user changed the language to "while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part" but was reverted back to "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part". LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this "Hungarians vs Romanians/Romanians vs Hungarians" approach verified? Are there reliable sources stating that a "Hungarian" and a "Romanian" interpretation exist? I assume there are scholars who translate the Latin text differently. Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't have a specific source to state that a "Hungarian" and a "Romanian" interpretation exists, only the two sources with different translation. Historians Jean W. Sedlar [East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000–1500] and George W. White [Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe] based part of their work on the quote in question as well, so they may have translations of their own for the Latin text, although I don't have the books themselves to verify whether they have indeed made a translation of the Latin text. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

These two authors just directly copied the Romanian sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC))

I see, were their translations the same as the Romanian source or they referenced the Romanian source with its translation? Regardless of whether it was a personal translation of their own that is the same as the Romanian source or making a footnote reference to the Romanian translation, the simple consensus with the Romanian source implies they agree with the Romanian source. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Surely there are other scholars who have translated the relevant passage into English. Before we can choose between A and B, we need to see how C, D, E, F (etc) translate it. It may be that one of the translations you are focused on (either A or B) is an outlier... not in sync with the rest of the academic community. IF so, then that outlier translation can be discarded as being fringe. And IF not, we can describe the debate without it becoming a Hungarian vs Romanian thing. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to choose between A and B, the user fail to understand how sources are summarized, believeing by mistake it would be a neutrality issue, which is not, just and only becuase he fails to understand in one source it is noted what would be the proper translation (which is anyway attributed).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC))

I think Blueboar's advice should be accepted. You probably can find translations in different languages. I am sure, Verancsics's work was translated to German and Slovakian. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a good idea. However, how could we establish what is academic consensus? Considering the way Wikipedia works (as far as I can tell) we can only establish academic consensus if one secondary source directly says that there is an academic consensus on a matter. We could gather different translations from other sources to make a reasonable idea, but even then, wouldn't that technically be OR? Not that I'm against the idea, as we probably have no better choice, just asking for the technicalities. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If academic consensus does not exist, we should not create it. Translations published in reliable sources can hardly be regarded as OR if the core of the debate is the proper translation of a Latin text. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I have no problem to investigate other translations, but I hope you see this misplaced issue, when a user simply does not like what a source tell us, which highlights the translation issue, which is relevant in this particular context of the historiography of this topic, which has an approved history on this matter anyway (i.e. Pascu's recurrent distortions). In other words, more translations does not change or influence the earlier mentioned facts.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC))

Borsoka, the cause of this debate, at least from my part, is not which source is right and wrong, for that is the work of scholarly debate. Although Blueboar's initiative to see whether one of the sources is an outlier not in sync with the rest of the academic community is a good method of solving this issue. My concern however, was with the langauge used by the editor, not with the quotes from the source itself. Which I believe is biased because it implies one source is the correct one. This part: "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part", is neither from the Romanian source or the Hungarian source, it's the editor's own words. KIENGIR's reply to you is a lie, I make no stance on what either source tell us. I would argue that he is projecting, as you can see from his own words: "(i.e. Pascu's recurrent distortions)" he has a clear bias in this issue, strongly believing that one source is in fact the correct one. I have no problem with this, he can have whatever opinion he wants, the problem is that he is trying to insert this strong belief that one source is in fact the correct one in the article. LordRogalDorn (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think @Borsoka: is able to read sources, and interpret them appropriately. Hence you again boomeranged yourself, and your accusations may be easily disproved.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC))

There are no accusations of the sources themselves (lol), merely a mention of lack of neutrality in the way they are presented. I think he has already read the sources at this point. LordRogalDorn (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

You are making accusations, and the point is there is not any lacking neutrality, yes he surely did as he agreed about the longstanding representation.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC))

• Quick question... are either of the two sources under discussion translating directly from Latin into English? Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The Romanian source is in English and the Hungarian source is in Hungarian. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Genetically modified food controversies

This is not my field, but edits to the article appear to have introduced a strong bias in favour of the views of GMO organisations. There are some strong claims, with links to questionable surveys funded by big GM players.

I have added a section in talk - but do not feel qualified enough to review the content as it stands. Bear in mind that, at first, it may appear to be fairly written; source tracing and analysis begins to uncover the bias.

Personally I feel that there is little room for statements as ‘fact’’, on a controversial subject - especially in an article supposed to be depicting the controversy; unless those facts concern the controversy rather than the positions taken by the parties to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 (talk • contribs)

I have a strong background in genetically modified organisms and medicine. I've actually genetically modified species before. The science behind genetically modified foods is strong because the techniques used are safe. Also, the genes that are being introduced into foods is done by a process called transgenesis; which means that the genes already existed in organisms that are already in human diets and put into a different species. This means that the GMO foods are getting genes that have been vetted for quite some time.

Lastly, the scientific basis for why GMO is that the genes eventually leads to protein. DNA -> RNA -> usable protein (the central dogma of Biology). You body does an awesome job of breaking down proteins to the point that they are nonfunctional while they're in your stomach. In essence, it's next to impossible for these proteins from genetic modification will cause you harm.Axelremain (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I've alerted 20040302 to the discretionary sanctions in this topic, especially on WP:ASPERSIONS with the comment this article is currently a thinly veiled attempt by the GM lobby to argue the GM case. For anyone not familiar, we had a DS-enforced WP:GMORFC a while ago when it comes to neutrality of content (e.g., scientific consensus and the public perception mismatch with it) while dealing with WP:FRINGE points of view. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

User:AxelRemain seems to have missed my point. The article (and the responses above) depict the issues of the argument, not the argument itself. When we describe a conflict in an encyclopaedia we don’t try to determine who is right! It’s ludicrous. The point is to explain the conflict, describe the antagonists, and understand - at the very least empathise with their motives for investing in the conflict. The article mentioned here does none of that. Moreover, the attacks above seem to imply that my views are somehow WP:FRINGE yet all I have argued is that 1) the arguments are in the wrong place, and 2) the sources of those arguments are clearly backed, and owned by, one of the antagonists. My own view - that the source used comes across more as pseudoscientific claptrap written to impress investors and legislators - may well be seen to be fringe by those who defend such a position - but do you not find it interesting that articles such as “The more favorable attitude of the citizens toward GMOs supports a new regulatory framework in the European Union” are not being covered by the press? No press releases for this sort of thing - because the media is not the intended audience. 20040302 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Axelremain and Kingofaces43 have it right. We don't give equal validity to fringe views alongside science. And the scientific consensus is clear. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Peer reviewed sources are not psuedoscientific claptrap written to impress investors and legislators. If there's a peer reviewed source that demostrates observable detriment to genetically modified organisms I'd be happy to read that and change my view. So far, I've seen thousands of articles pointing in the direction that there are no negative side effects to eating GMO foods. I'll also reference back to my original post that describes why, from a basic science point of view, of why the theory behind GMO causing caustic side effects lacks merit. Axelremain (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There doesn’t seem to be a consensus that there’s a consensus on GMOs: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

The arguments given above concern whether or not GMOs can be eaten safely. But no mention is given of devastating economic, environmental, or social impacts that -at least some - GMO practices have already shown. I say “there’s an ongoing debate concerning GMOs”, and I am told “it’s safe to eat GMO food” Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 (talk • contribs)

First, please WP:SIGN your comments so others don't have to do that for you (and read WP:THREAD). Please keep in mind Wikipedia is not the place to WP:SOAPBOX against scientific consensus on topics like GMOs, etc.

The Hilbeck source you now mention was already dealt with at WP:GMORFC and discounted as very WP:UNDUE akin to cherry-picking those that claim no consensus in the climate change denial subject. Likewise, you seem to be going on a tangent about the arguments about the consensus being backed financially. As mentioned at the article talk page, the source you are criticizing doesn't even appear to exist at the article. There doesn't appear to be a specific content issue to address on the article talk page, so it's not clear why this noticeboard was opened. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally we would treat a review study published by Springer as the final word on whether or not there was consensus among scientists. If it's wrong, then it should have been retracted, or at least we could find reliable source that say it is wrong or more recent review studies that come to different conclusions.

GMO at present is used almost exclusively to produce animal feed, cooking oil and high fructose corn syrup in the U.S., the production is heavily subsidized and contributes to the obesity epidemic. Most production relies on Round Up fertilizer which according to U.S. courts are carcinogenic. The technology is being expanded to Atlantic salmon which has had a devastating impact on coastal regions. Yet none of this is mentioned in the article because the non-GMO versions of these products have the same negative consequences.

We also know that Monsanto had a policy of paying supposedly independent voices to defend GMO and trash anyone who criticized them. Bayer, which bought Monsanto, subsequently revealed and stopped the program. Some of the independent voices were previously involved in defending the safety of tobacco products and in climate change denial. Yet none of that is mentioned in the article.

There are of course conspiracy theorists who have made unfounded claims against Monsanto and GMO. Per weight, we should not give them equal validity.

TFD (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally we would treat a review study published by Springer as the final word on whether or not there was consensus among scientists. Not when there are numerous other reviews and statements from scientific societies saying something else. And no, being wrong does not mean it will necessarily be retracted. By your logic, any so-called review article, so long as it was published by an academic publisher (not automatically a green light), could overrule any other set of sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A review study is "an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic." Since determining the current understanding of the topic is the major goal, if it gets it wrong it's a fatal error and it should be withdrawn. Failing that one would expect that its conclusions would be challenged in scientific publications. I did say that we could also look at other reviews, particularly those published after this one. But AFAIK, there are no other similar independent studies. Instead we relied on the expertise of editors such as yourself to tell us that they were aware of the relevant literature and found that there was a consensus. Incidentally, it's offensive to repeat my words. I have the cognitive ability to read what I posted without your repeating it for me. TFD (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My quote of you wasn't for you. And I know what the purpose of a review article is supposed to be. The fact is, though, that non-withdrawn fringe "reviews" published by academic publishers do exist. [1] I'm not saying that Environmental Sciences Europe is as disreputable as Homeopathy, but I am showing that it is wrong that non-withdrawn reviews necessarily carry much weight. The crucial factor is what other reviews and scientific society statements say. And that was established at WP:GMORFC. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The homeopathy article is not a traditional review article. Its authors examine a number of recent papers, conduct experiments and form a hypothesis. All kinds of wacky theories and unexpected results of experiments are published in academic journals which is why we rely on review studies to "summarize[] the current state of understanding on a topic." Ironically the homeopathy article does not say that there is a lack of consensus among scientists about homeopathy. That would be false and would warrant retraction from even a homeopathy journal.

You keep saying that there are independent review studies in academic journals that say there is a consensus about the safety of GMO foods. But no one has presented one.

Note also that lack of consensus does not mean that much credence is given to the opposing view, just that it has some credence.

TFD (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

TFD, this is getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory at this point as it's not focused on specific content, but do read WP:GMORFC as you are severely mischaracterizing what editors have done (and some of your views here were not considered WP:DUE there). If you want to claim no one has presented independent sources, that time has long passed and is ignoring all the work other editors have done in that area providing just that. Remember that due weight was the relevant policy at that RfC. We can't cherry-pick a single review like that against all the other independent sources from major scientific organizations and reviews (climate change denial again as an example of why that isn't done). There's no need to rehash that further though since the RfC is long complete and nothing has really changed in the literature since to refute it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No it's not getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory since I am not publishing my own thoughts and analyses or new information. I have no opinion and have expressed no opinion on the safety of GMO products. This is WP:NPOVN which is the appropriate forum for discussing the neutrality of articles. In other words, you are unable to provide any review studies about the safety of GMO and instead refer to earlier conversations. I'll take that as your answer.

The climate change denial actually cites a review, "Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015." If climate change deniers said it was cherry-picked then I would ask them to present an alternative review that came to different conclusions. Cherry picking means to search for examples that support one's conclusions. The proper approach, which both the Climate Change Denial article and I follow is to look for sources without prejudice and accurately reflect them. It's not as if I neglected any review studies. I asked you to provide any and you are unwilling or unable to do so.

Incidentally, I did not participate in WP:GMORFC so please don't imply that I did. No idea what you mean by my ideas were not considered WP:DUE. WP:DUE refers to article content not arguments about content.

TFD (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It is well into WP:NOTFORUM territory because the matter has already been decided at WP:GMORFC, so there are no changes to discuss, even though you continue to imply that the scientific consensus around the safety of GMOs doesn't exist. I thought about posting some reviews, but decided against it as it would imply that something remains to be established. The sources are right there at WP:GMORFC. If you will refuse to hear that, well, I've done my part.

The review of studies about denialism doesn't fit in here, and your analogy of "if climate change deniers said it was cherry-picked" has it backwards. The point is that climate change deniers seize on small portions of the literature to claim that no scientific consensus exists, and that GMO safety deniers do the same. It is the GMO safety deniers who are engaging in the cherry picking.

And as for WP:DUE, I think it's clear that the point is that material that denies there is a scientific consensus was determined not to have due weight at GMORFC, and that arguing that same way now is arguing for undue weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't continue to imply that the scientific consensus around the safety of GMOs doesn't exist, I merely stated that the only review study presented says that. Articles should not be based on our personal opinions, but on what reliable sources say, whether or not we agree with them.

While one editor who voted against the proposal in WP:GMORFC mentioned the Hilbeck study, it does not appear to have been discussed.

Since the RfC, Bayer (which bought Monsanto) was settled for claims that Round up caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bayer has also confirmed that Monsanto hired scientists to prepare reports that said GMO was safe and paid people to defend them on the internet.

The final thing I would mention about the RfC is that it is rare for discretionary sanctions to cover content rather than behavioral disputes.

So it seems that there is good reason to revisit the RfC. I have asked here for someone to provide a definitive academic review study that says there is consensus about the safety of GMO and have been assured they exist but will not be provided.

I certainly don't want to open an RfC that has no chance of success. Bear in mind that they occupy a great deal of time for all concerned. So before I do that I would like to ask you once again to show that the review study has been debunked or that subsequent review studies have come to different conclusions.

TFD (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• The well-sourced science around GMO safety has not AIUI changed since that mega RFC. If users want to discuss the rumours &c. around the "dangers" of GMOs they'd best be discussed in context at the GMO conspiracy theories article. The OP seems to be advocating for WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@TFD: You are completely on the wrong track here. Also, you wrote a misleading sentence above. Since you do not like being told what you wrote, I cannot tell you which sentence it is, but scientific questions are definitely not decided by lawyers. (That would be horrible.) Roundup (herbicide)#Carcinogenicity tells you what you need to know; ignore the primary sources quoted there, concentrate on what the scientific bodies say.

And yes, the analogy to climate change denial is fully justified. Pseudoscience inspired by political opinion, just the opinion in question is different. Even the rhetorics is the same:

"This is not my field, but" - just like Republican know-nothings saying "I'm not a scientist, but". Why don't people see that the less they know about a subject, the less their opinion is likely to be correct? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

When I edit articles, I look for academic review studies and textbooks to determine the weight of expert opinion. What I have found is different from the conclusions of the 2016 RfC. If you can point to a review study that came to a different conclusion or cite textbooks that support your position, then that would help me. I don't really think the comparison with Republicans is accurate. They don't look at review studies and textbooks and in fact ask us to reject them, instead citing isolated studies. TFD (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, on one side, we have (among other things) this 2016 Consensus Study Report from the National Academy of Sciences: Many reviews have indicated that foods from GE crops are as safe as foods from non-GE crops, but the committee re-examined the original studies of this subject. The design and analysis of many animal-feeding studies were not optimal, but the large number of experimental studies provided reasonable evidence that animals were not harmed by eating food derived from GE crops. Additionally, long-term data on livestock health before and after the introduction of GE crops showed no adverse effects associated with GE crops. The committee also examined epidemiological data on incidence of cancers and other human-health problems over time and found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops. And this statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, referring to multiple other scientific societies: The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques. (Though from 2012, if the scientific consensus had actually changed since then, we would see a retraction or updated contradictory opinion from one or more of these societies. No such statement exists.)

On the anti-GMO side, we have this Hilbeck et al. "review" published in Environmental Sciences Europe, a pay-to-publish journal that published without any peer-review the discredited Séralini paper after it was retracted from a reputable journal. The "review" cites the Séralini paper approvingly.

So, for good reason, the Hilbeck et al. paper carried little weight at GMORFC. A paper published in an ideologically-slanted journal by a small group of activist scientists cannot rebut the findings of numerous scientific societies as they each reviewed the studies and reviews in this area.

Here's how politically motivated science denial works. (1) Start with an ideology (pro-corporate for climate change denial or anti-corporate for GMO safety denial, though more on that in a bit), (2) reject the science, (3) fund organizations staffed by activists and sympathetic fringe scientists, (4) seize on contrary research (whether from those organizations or elsewhere), (5) claim that a scientific consensus does not exist. That is the obfuscation that occurs relating to climate change and GMOs. And as for bringing up corporations like Monsanto, editors may be interested in comparing the size of the organic food industry to that of biotech companies. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Added more links. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall read the material you provided and get back to you. TFD (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Andy Ngo a "journalist" - RFC notice

A RfC has been opened is asking to revisit this question, should Andy Ngo be described as a journalist in wikivoice in the lead sentence of the article. In related discussions what other terms may be OK in wiki or attributed voice. Editors have suggested "writer" and "provocateur" be included in the lead in Wiki voice. Discussion here Talk:Andy_Ngo#RFC:_"journalist". Springee (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification about an RfC on Infobox Chinese at Democratic Progressive Party

There is an RfC here about whether Democratic Progressive Party should be one of the MOS:CHINA exceptions to including both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese in the {{Infobox Chinese}}. Part of it concerns whether inclusion/exclusion satisfies WP:NPOV. The participation of interested editors is appreciated. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

White supremacy and the Proud Boys

There is an ongoing debate about how best to reflect the Proud Boys connections to white supremacy (sources). While it's broadly represented on reliable secondary sources that the Proud Boys have affiliations to white supremacists and have been involved in white supremacy (a Proud Boy member organised the Unite the Right rally where a white supremacist drove through a group of counter-protesters etc), the group's website officially rejects racism and their chairman, Enrique Tarrio, is a black Cuban-American. The main issues is if it is a NPOV and sourcing issue to qualify statements about white supremacy with a mention of Tarrio's ethnicity? I mention sourcing because this Daily Beast article appears to be the only source that explicitly parallels Tarrio's ethnicity to the group's broad affiliations with white supremacy, so WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE may be of relevance.

For context about the status quo, the article's lead currently says that the Proud Boys are "affiliated" with white supremacists, with the body saying:

Some men who are not white, including the group's chairman Enrique Tarrio, have joined the Proud Boys, drawn by the organization's advocacy for men, anti-immigrant stance, and embrace of violence. Officially, the Proud Boys condemn racism, with Tarrio stating that the group has "longstanding regulations prohibiting racist, white supremacist or violent activity". However, the ADL has deemed the group as having antisemitic, Islamophobic and racist views, with the group known to threaten, intimidate or violently assault anti-racism protesters. The group has claimed there is an "inherent superiority of the West", going to great lengths to mask members' connections to white supremacy.

ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Calling the MRA movement "advocacy for men" is pretty laughable on its face. It's a misogynist movement, not "advocacy for men". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely a failure of some kind to constantly qualify statements about the group with "but they put a token (Tokenism) guy Enrique Tarrio a faux leadership position". Especially considering the stuff said and the positions set for the group by the original group founder Gavin McInnes. Tarrio's presence is an example of the "black friend defense"; the group is still racist, and by all accounts McInnes is still in charge (quotation from article: "On 21 November 2018, shortly after news broke that the FBI had reportedly classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group with ties to white nationalists, McInnes said that his lawyers had advised him that quitting might help the nine members being prosecuted for the incidents in October and he said "this is 100% a legal gesture, and it is 100% about alleviating sentencing", and said it was a "'stepping down gesture', in quotation marks.")2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A number of far right groups officially renounce racism or fascism but it's cosmetic rather than genuine. I think it is important to reflect what reliable sources say about them, rather than give equal validity with what they say about themselves. I would say something like, "the Proud Boys is a white supremacist group that tries to present an image of racial diversity." As you pointed out, news media routinely refer to them as white supremacist. I have always taken the view that news reporters do not have the expertise to make this determination. But presumably they don't do this themselves but get the information from academic sources and groups such as the ADL and SPLC. So it needs stronger sourcing than media usage. But media usage does show that it's not an unusual description. The term "Western chauvinism" is a clear giveaway. Western means white. And there's a long history of racists showing admiration for some minority groups.

The current U.S. presidential election has brought the group to the forefront. It's probably best to wait until after the election to resolve it.

TFD (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• A group officially rejecting racism or having a black chairman aren't adequate reasons to ignore or downplay strong WP:RS sourcing describing them as white supremacist; the first one is a violation of the WP:ABOUTSELF prohibition on using a source for "unduly self-serving" claims about themselves, while the second argument is WP:OR. If the statements about themselves and the arguments you are talking about are significant, there should be high-quality sources covering them of comparable weight to the ones describing them as white supremacist. If we can't find such sources, then presenting the question as seriously in doubt would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, not NPOV; NPOV means accurately stating what the sources, as a whole, say about them. --Aquillion (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That's just one facet of it. Sources should be selected and used, ideally so it represents how things are perceived world wide. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A common issue with this and other extremist groups they tend to co-exist with such as Rose City Antifa, Antifa (United States) is sources are gathered to support opinion statement of facts. Such as as saying "far right" and citing a bunch of sources. Common argument in these articles are far right vs right; far left vs left. It can be avoided by saying some sources describe them as far right, some describe them as right. WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:V and WP:YESPOV are worth reading. Graywalls (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• It would probably be best to note that the group is widely viewed as white supremacists and then find a good source to say why. Also, ABOUTSELF should allow posting of the group's denial and it appears that a number of RS have said the group denies the claim. Specific responses to accusations against individuals or organizations are not violations of ABOUTSELF. The fact that the Daily Beast looked into the subject suggests it probably is due for inclusion but with limited weight. A number of recent articles have noted both the white supremacist links and that the leader is cuban-american [[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]]. It should be clear that sources haven't taken this as proof that the ties to white supremacist don't exist and details as to what the ties are would better inform the reader as to why the group is seen as such regardless of the ethnicity of various members. Springee (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Just to draw this conversation together, it sounds like we're all in agreement that chiefly, the label white supremacy is well-grounded in reliable sources, and that the groups official rejection of racism should be attributed and mentioned per WP:ABOUTSELF. Does that sound right to everyone? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the denials are more pro-forma than real and may be unduly self-serving. For instance, in the latest escapade with the #proudboys hashtag, the public statements were clearly contradicted by the behavior of the group's official parler account (run by Tarrios himself). This is now reflected in the article but it's a consistent pattern for the group to issue self-serving denials that are contradicted by their own actions and language before or after a specific event. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. I think that if no one has any objections, it'd be best to include a short neutral statement like The Proud Boys have a history of contradictory self-published claims, and should normally be attributed in-line for any self-serving statements or statements with any connection to any other party. to the talk header (possibly in the FAQ, maybe as a standalone {{Tmbox}})? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I second this suggestion. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B074:56CF:36AE:9C24 (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

ADL says members of varying ethnicity, Hosang who is cited as calling them fascist despite only saying they approach fascism calls them multi cultural. I think it would be best if we're not going to stick with the ADL or SLPC description as the lede as is the case with the vast majority of right wing hate groups, would be to say some call them white supremacist despite having members of varying ethnicity, being multicultural and having a black cuban leader. If further RS material pops up citing tokenism then it should be included-RS material to this effect does not exist despite aspersions to it being posted over and over and over again. Lastly, despite RS sources using white supremacist label more recently, it is still like fascist the minority POV as portrayed in the RS. THey are most commonly referred to as a far right wing hate group and that is probably because that is the description from the SLPC. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2461:5DFD:6A2C:87C5 (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As per the discussion and sources in the article, the consensus amongst sources is that the group has significant ties to white supremacy, and as explained in the article's lead, the group does officially reject racism. The Hosang sources explicitly calls them a proto-fascist group, too (relevant quotation viewable in the citation). With their leader being a black Cuban-American, this has often been brought up in discussion, and it is considered original research to say they aren't based on that (without sources), and there is no evidence that this official appointment reflects any ideological changes with several reliable sources, including the FBI, highlighting their white supremacist connections. We would only mention in the article that Tarrio's appointment is tokenism is if that is commonly covered in reliable sources. Do you have any evidence that there is a consensus amongst independent reliable sources that the Proud Boys are not fascist? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought this thread was asking about using the term “white supremacist”, not about the term “fascist”? These two terms are not identical. Not all white supremacists are fascists, and not all fascists are white supremacists. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears the PB's have been posting to Parler, Reddit and probably their various private forums trying to get their members to come to the site and repeat centrally provided talking points over and over again. Some of them are a bit more "screamy" than others, some a bit more sea lioning than others. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The lack of assumption of good faith on this topic with the continued warrantless attacks on editors that seek the page to adhere to WP guidelines is in direct violation of WP policy and should cease immediately. I posted the lede should say right wing extremist hate group, something wholly not congruent with the obvious personal attack posted above. I have no issue using ties to white supremacy provided it is weighted properly as most RS do not include that in their description even though it is hardly tenable upon further inspection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B424:DCDD:60B9:9757 (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• The way the group should be presented in the body to be neutral would be something like this order of discussion:
  1. What the group is on paper - its clearly not like a non-profit, but its some type of foundation or organization with a leadership and this needs to be stated upfront and factually. A brief mission statement should be here, why the organization exists.
  2. What the broader public opinion of them are, which is where the white supremacy facets will come into play. This is where attribution and mentioning the ADL and other comments will be mentioned
  3. What the Proud Boys have actually said in response to the public opinion in that they (claim they) are not a group that promotes racism, with brief statements as to why. They clearly are going beyond just denying this but because most everyone else thinks they are in fact racist, we can't give them false balance of coverage, but it is inappropriate not to give them the coverage of why they say they aren't supporting racism, which become obvious on the final point...
  4. Why the media distrust the PB when they say they are not a group promoting racism. In otherwords, the counter-counterarguments to the PB's counterarguments. That does seem to exist separately from the accusations that PB is a group that supports racism.

In this order, you have a logical narrative flow and covers both sides neutrally but with appropriate weight. As that reflects to the lede, the lede should start with the most factual information (what the PB entity actually is) then move to the fact that the group is seen as having ties to white supremacy and far right despite their denials of this position. Ledes of articles need to start from impartial tones with the most objectives/factual information, not the most notable stuff, though what makes a topic notable should be hit by the second or third sentences once the key facts have been doled out. The problem is that editors seem to be racing to include the notable criticism first and forgetting the factual stuff which is absolutely necessary to be put first. --Masem (t) 17:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

In theory, I would agree. The problem is that it is impossible to structure the article in this way. Reliable sources don’t AGREE about what the Proud Boys (as an entity) actually IS. All we have is opinion. To some, it is a fascist white supremacy group. To others, it is a controversial conservative advocacy group, to yet others it is a “western chauvinist fraternity”. Some say it is part of the “men’s rights” movement, others say it isn’t. Which view is correct? THAT depends on who you ask. Again, it is a group that is defined by opinion. Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources don't agree then we report their disagreements. We don't cherry-pick to fit some editors political bias, who then goes reverting any change claiming it is against consensus and the reliable sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Somewhere, there has to be something on paper of what the PB is, if they are an organization with leadership. Reading what the SPLC says about them, the shortest factual statement is a "fraternal organization" which is very neutral and objective. Their mission from this would be, "protect and promote western values" by the same [6] So a simple statement would be "The Proud Boys are a fraternal organization established by Gavin McInnes in 2016 to protect and promote western values." Then we lay into the media's criticism: "The group has widely been condemned as supporting far-right and white supremacy..." and so on at that point. That's it, that's all the reworking to hit NPOV at the top and then get into the meat of opinions and commentary that make the group notable. --Masem (t) 19:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Something like that seems like a good idea. Obviously remember that WT:RSP says "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (RSP entry) is one of the most controversially classified sources in this list." -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all I'm saying is that from what NPOV and where WP's impartialness should be, the first statement about the PB should be a brief objective statement of what they are without any view through the opinionated lens, which I think what I stated is correct. (we're not endorsing their mission by stating it that way). We would do the same describing, say, the Shiners or any other similar fraternal group; that brief statement I cannot see how that can be taken as "unduly self-serving". Then after that, its "fair game" to lay into the media's coverage and vast criticism of the group. We can't erase that away at all, but we can establish a more neutral tone to start and give the group at least a brief, reasonable statement of what they were founded as. --Masem (t) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not justify putting a claim in wikivoice in the first sentence of the lead that, according to RS, is a falsehood. The definition of fraternal organization on dictionary.com (a society of men associated in brotherly union, as for mutual aid or benefit) does not include a racist gang, and the purpose for which it was established was not to "protect and promote western values" unless western values here means racism and violence. This proposed sentence is the opposite of "a brief objective statement of what they are". The claim that Proud Boys is a fraternal organization that protects and promotes western values, if in the article at all, needs to be attributed and doesn't belong in the lead. NightHeron (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your WP:OR of them not being a fraternal organization does not overrule WP:NPOV. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not OR. The first sentence in the lead, and in fact any statement that's presented in wikivoice rather than attributed, has to be consistent with RS, and I'm just pointing out that the proposed first sentence is not. Are you claiming that independent RS describe it as a fraternal organization? NightHeron (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

[7] -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I pulled that straight out of SPLC. It's also how they call themselves, and repeated oft by many news sources. Again, its simply describing the group in a neutral term (and seriously, regardless of all that they do, that does seem to be a completely appropriate term to use for them) before launching off into criticism. --Masem (t) 22:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

SPLC is very clear that that's their self-description, and Haaretz also used it as the way they describe themselves. But other RS such as The New York Times use their own terminology, which is certainly not fraternal organization; for example, see [8], where the short description used is extremist organization. According to WP:NPOV, we're not supposed to use political-spin terms, but rather the terms that are most commonly used by independent RS. NightHeron (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

But I would think most editors would recognize that "far right", "white supremacy", "extremist organization" are all political spin terms, especially in light of the recent debates. They're all value-laden labels and lack objective criteria, though as applied to a group and not a BLP, we have a lower bar for inclusion.

That said, this is where I sense too many editors in this convo feel that we must make sure the reader is away this is a bad group. And I don't disagree that at the end of the day, a reader should be walking away from this article with the understanding that the group is readily seen as being associated with far right, white supremacy tones. We absolutely cannot whitewash that away (as I see some newer editors/IPs suggesting). That's staying, as per WEIGHT. But WEIGHT does not override NPOV in terms of Wikivoice's tone and impartiality. We are not here to right great wrongs. Wikivoice cannot start in a stance that is critical of the Proud Boys despite how hated the group is by mass media. This is why the first sentence and how it is approached must start with a minimally objective statement of what the group actually is. And it seems to be best described objectively as a fraternal/men's organization, founded in 2017 by McGinnis to support pro-West views. That's all facially true, and so it is impartial and neutral. And then you can get to the meat that this is very much challenged by the popular media. Its a simple initial detour to set a neutral tone for how the article starts that brings better in line with what NPOV expects. (Consider that the flip side, organizations/groups that are widely praised, or the like, we don't lead their articles in the first sentence with the heaps of praise but simply establish the facts then dig into the positive criticism.) --Masem (t) 22:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your framing problems are betrayed when you use language like "how hated the group is by mass media". The group is not "hated" by "mass media", the consensus of Reliable Sources is overwhelming simply because of the facts. Your framing falls into the category of false balance. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B074:56CF:36AE:9C24 (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

What "facts" are at play here? If we're talking about how the group is called far-right, white supremacy, extremist and all that, those are still value-laden labels with subjective criteria which are impossible to prove out, similar to proving out a negative. Wikivoice cannot call them as such as a fact, but we can certainly can and pretty much have to include the media's mass condemnation of the group with those terms, lay out the media's evidence for why they call them that (of which there's numerous pieces) and very little for the PB to explain against that. The false balance would be giving equal air time to the PB to explain their side with the same number of words/etc. A false balance is not giving one or two sentences to explain exactly what they are objectively on paper, particularly in context of NPOV. --Masem (t) 23:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"exactly what they are objectively" is an extremist organization. That's not political spin, it's a fact. The description in your proposed opening sentence of the lead, a fraternal organization formed to protect and promote western values, is political spin. NightHeron (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

An "extremist organization" is still subjective: extremist to whom? And the statement I said is this: "The Proud Boys are a fraternal organization established by Gavin McInnes in 2016 to protect and promote western values." That it is a fraternal or men's organization is very objective - that's the basic structure of the group without applying spin. The statement "established ... to protect and promote western values" is not political spin, that's a factual statement of why it was formed as part of its charter, but obviously that's not how the group behaves. Politically spinning this would be trying to whitewash away the criticism of the press and stick to that, but to briefly mention what its purpose was when founding and then get into the criticism is standard practice for nearly any organization. Neutrality demands that nearly every article about organizations should start with the same type of framing sentence before getting into the meat of the issues with the organization. --Masem (t) 00:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that its version of "western values" has as much relation to the normal definition as scientology's version of "ethics" does to actual ethics, that's a laughable line of argument. Once again this is a false balance argument. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

WP cannot make those judgement calls. Simply presenting the brief, facial reason the group was set up by founders is an objective statement. But I will say we could also write it as "The Proud Boys is a fraternal organization founded by Gavin McInnis in 2017. Purportedly established to protect and promote pro-west values, the Proud Boy are commonly considered to be associated with far-right and white supremacy..." --Masem (t) 04:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"Simply presenting the brief, facial reason the group was set up by founders" is not "an objective statement", it's a failure to account and properly present what is obviously unduly self serving. This is especially true when a group or individual uses dog whistling terms or their own internal definitions of words or phrases such as "western values" that would not be correctly presented if not clarified in text. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, even Fox News, $DEITY help us, calls them a far-right group. Anything else constitutes an outlier, I'd say. The Haaretz source Emir provided says "a far-right, 'western chauvinist' fraternal organization". Nobody puts it first: their defining characteristic is not fraternalism, it's being far-right. There are books sources for them being (or at least claiming to be) a fraternal organization, but as I say the defining and dominant descriptor is far-right group.

At some point dismissing the obvious as political spin slips into denialism. It's hard to find a single mainstream source that does not identify them as far-right - and I suspect that this is primarily because if you cal;l someone fascist, it is often interpreted as invoking Godwin's Law (which, incidentally, is officially suspended for the duration, according to Mike himself). Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We clearly aren't going to ignore that pretty much everyone seems to call PB as far-right, though we still have to recognize the term is a value-laden label and have to speak to it out of wikivoice ("is widely considered far-right" rather than "is far-right"). But that's a minor point to the main issue here in that we need to simply lead off with a brief objective statement of what the PB is free of subjective commentary from any source before getting to the meat of notability. This is the "X is/was a Y" statement I've talked of here, and what's important is that in that statement, "Y" does not need to be why X is notable, but should be an objective characterization of X into some taxonomity of knowledge, with the statement of notability following up after that's been said. This is how is done on almost all other articles, and that should be maintained here. In this case, if we are talking an organization, then calling the PB a "fraternal organization" or a "men's organization" is about the best we can do to fit it into the various classifications of other organizations. After that, the rest of the WEIGHT of media sources are fair game. --Masem (t) 23:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There are several problems with this proposal, chief among them that any mission statement or position statement put out by the Proud Boys is straddling or jumping past the line of unduly self-serving, I personally would say outright dishonest or doubletalk. Starting with "what the group is on paper" is also inconsistent with the pages for other hate groups such as Patriot Prayer, Identity Evropa or the Ku Klux Klan. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that there is nearly universal agreement about what labels apply to these hate groups (in some cases, even agreement among their members), while with Proud Boys there isn’t. Reliable sources DON’T universally agree on what labels apply to them. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Use content with the strongest RS sources- all RS are not created equal- and most to least in the mainstream and add to the article considering greater and lesser weight. The PB website is not a reliable source. If we want to say PB says they are not racist the best source is a secondary source that reports this. Since this is a relatively extraordinary claim given evidence in other RS it should probably be inline cited and attributed. Facists and white supremacists are not the same although they may overlap. Use what the sources say and if the claims seem hard to buy into inline cite and attribute the claim to the group-don't make the claim in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia cites sources that are opinion all the time. That opinion is sometimes blatant sometimes hidden but possible opinion in reliable sources is a given. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The three right wing hate groups above as with most right wing hate groups on WP lede with the SLPC's description. In this case the SLPC labels them a far right extremist hate group or something similar. The majority of RS labels them something along those same lines. Why is WP deciding this time is different and using minority RS opinion over the majority and the exoert notable opinion of the SLPC and ADL as the lede? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B424:DCDD:60B9:9757 (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I agree with that approach, as long as we don't stray too far from WP:SPADE with the primary description: "Proud Boys are a group of young men who enjoy strolls in the spring sunshine while coincidentally armed to the teeth and carrying Confederate flags because they like the colour" isn't going to cut it, as you acknowledge. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The right wing vs. far right argument is a red herring. These terms can be used interchangeably when the context is understood. For example, if someone writes, "neonazis, neofascists and other right-wing groups," it is clear from the context that the other right-right groups aren't moderate Republicans and UK Conservatives. It's similar to if someone referred to the former leaders of East Germany as socialists. It's not that they are saying they are not Communists like the leaders of other Eastern European countries and should be grouped with social democrats, it's just that they are using a different term to mean the same thing. TFD (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Masem is 100% right on how this should be handled. The first sentence should be 100% objective and no matter how much we dislike the subject should not be the sentence where the negativity starts. I also agree with Masem that all articles should be written as if we have no emotional attachment to the subject at all (ie IMPARTIAL). As an encyclopedia we should not be trying to persuade others that this person/group is good or bad. We should simply state the facts. The reader can make up their own mind if they wish. This sort of format isn't something that should be unique to this article. It should basically apply to all articles. It's something that should be done as a mater of principle not just editor preference. Springee (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

In our article on Osama bin Laden the first sentence of the lead describes him as the leader of a "terrorist" organization. So are you suggesting that we should remove that, so that no matter how much we dislike the subject [the first sentence] should not be the sentence where the negativity starts? NightHeron (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Well NightHeron, that's exactly how Whitewashing (censorship) an article works! 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We put terrorist in the first line because that is what makes Bin Laden notable. We can't compare one article to another. Within the first few lines of every article we must indicate where notability lies. All of our articles must present a WP: NPOV; this is applicable to all articles across Wikipedia, and is policy; we don't have to reinvent the wheel here. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

If you can't understand that the violence/terrorism is what makes the Proud Boys notable, what we have here isn't a policies issue but a WP:COMPETENCE issue, Masem. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, and what makes Proud Boys notable is that they are far-right. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG I'd be surprised if their notability is simply that they are far-right. I haven't looked at the sources much, but I do watch the news and the group has taken far-right to another level; that may be their notability. Just a comment; I'm not disagreeing so much as suggesting there's much more than far-right to describe them and their notability. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What's actually important on the Bin Laden article is that it starts "was a founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda", with the rest of the phrase of that first sentence being how al-Qaeda is described (note this actually doesn't label Bin Laden directly). The part in quotes is a neutral, impartial identification of who bin Laden, with the second phrase getting to the notable facet of the orgnization. This is completely reasonable and on parity to what I am proposing. --Masem (t) 04:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I was responding to another post rather than to the Bin Laden article and was suggesting that what we put in the first few lines must indicate what is notable rather than what is negative or positive or any other subjective way of judging the subject or article. Whitewashing doesn't enter into the discussion if editors are writing from a NPOV since whitewashing is both a subjective way of writing and a subjective way of describing the content. We can't compare articles in a specific sense although general points might be similar. I think the Bin Laden lead is very well written, by the way, and is a good example of how to deal with notability. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

And I will agree with that, my comment was more to NightHeron's comment suggesting we should remove "terrorist" from it. The lede of bid Laden, outside of a lengthy first sentence, is what I consider the right approach, and can be applied here in the same manner. --Masem (t) 04:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Our article on Osama bin Laden specifically does not describe him as the leader of a terrorist organisation. It describes him as a founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda, designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, and various countries. I concur with Littleolive oil that that is very well written; an excellent example of quality NPOV-aligned attribution. - Ryk72 ^talk 04:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that there's anything wrong with the Osama bin Laden article. I was simply pointing out that, if one accepts Springee's claim that "all articles" (Springee's emphasis) must have first sentences that do not convey anything negative, then the term "terrorist" would have to be removed from the lead sentence on Osama bin Laden. My rhetorical question was a reductio ad absurdum of Springee's statement about all articles. I'm sorry if that was unclear. I was disputing Springee's statement about policy in all articles; I was not advocating any changes in the Osama bin Laden page.

If the lead sentence in the PB article describes PB correctly as an extremist organization characterized by racism and violence, that doesn't necessarily have to be in wikivoice. It could be attributed to the NY Times, SPLC, and numerous other sources. Generally, extensive citations are not needed in the lead, but they're not prohibited either. As pointed out, the "terrorist" designation on Osama bin Laden is attributed. NightHeron (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

But note that the lead sentence already has extensive citations (9 of them). If some editors are squeamish about stating the nature of PB in wikivoice, then some words could be inserted, such as "...is an American political group widely characterized as...". That would be a bit wordy and weasle-ish. Perhaps a better comparison than the Osama bin Laden article would be the Ku Klux Klan article, where the first sentence states in wikivoice that the KKK "is an American white supremacist hate group." We would have to change the KKK article and many others if we were to adopt Springee's policy that all articles should have no negativity in the first sentence. NightHeron (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the bin Laden article would comply with my intent. It's objective in describing bin Laden's role in the organization and, as Masem says, it is the organization that is described as X and all descriptions are attributed to governmental/international organizations. I wasn't previously aware of the bin Laden intro but I think it makes a strong template to follow. I'll leave it to others to figure out how to translate that intro into the PB article. Springee (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the first "sentence" but the first part, where we same "X is/was a Y", or often "X is/was a A, B, and C". Now, that might be one sentence by itself, it might be the first phrase of the first sentence (as in the case of bin Laden), but whatever that is, that should be factual and objective to quickly classify what the topic X is into a taxological or heirarchical position of human knowledge. It also establishes quickly an impartial tone for the article. At this stage of the article it is NOT about identifying why X is notable but basically to quickly establish to the reader what X is. (Remember that notability is a guideline and not policy like NPOV). Then after that it varies depending on the topic, but usually when we talk persons or groups, the next phrase or the next sentence is likely going to stress the reason why we have the article, and that's the notability factor; we're getting to that right away after establishing a fact to build on. In the case of bid Laden, we explain the terrorist nature of the organization he ran as defined by the UN. As I've proposed for the PB, you define them first as a fraternal organization founded by McInnis in 2017 (that's factual), and then go on to explain they claim to be pro-west ideals but are regularly seen by media as a group associated with far right/white supremacy and criticized for that, immediately after that. Now every reader's clear by the end of the second sentence that the group has possibly deceitful purposes, but established in a tone that is dispassionate and impartial from the way the media treats the topic. That's how we are required to write in Wikivoice per NPOV. We are not ignore the RSes, but we are making sure the neutrality and impartiality of the tone of our writing, which also must be kept to, is upheld. --Masem (t) 14:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your original proposal was to replace the first sentence by the sentence The Proud Boys are a fraternal organization established by Gavin McInnes in 2016 to protect and promote western values. This states as a fact in wikivoice that the purpose of establishing PB was quite noble. I see that you've now dropped "to protect and promote western values" from your proposed first sentence. But you still want to keep "fraternal". Why? The current wording "male-only" is clearer; fraternal is less clear, because it often implies other things as well, such as brotherly and comradely.

If we really want to invent a new policy for this article (regarding the absence of negativity in the first sentence [which was Springee's proposal], or at least the absence of negativity stated in wikivoice), then the policy would have to be appled to the Ku Klux Klan article and many others, isn't that right? NightHeron (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with the issues of concern on my initial suggestion, just that "fraternal organization" is used by many good RSes, so it wasn't a term I pulled out of thin air. I understand the concerns, just that it is the focus on some factual statement right up front to establish where in the whole of knowledge the organization sits that is key. We need to stop first and explain what the PB are factually before launching into why its notable. The KKK is a bit different since there's three different versions of it, but I do think its lede sentence can be structured better. But again, lets use bid Laden or (and I'll be the one to evoke Godwin's law here) Adolf Hitler as examples of ledes that lay out the facts before laying out the criticisms that made that person notable or notorious. We have to be dispassionate and it should not be the goal of our writings to get to how "bad" a person or group our the door - that's what causes the lack of impartiality and neutrality in tone. We have to write in a disinterested tone, and many of these articles lack that in the race to include all these criticisms. We have to include them, but they don't have to be featured as soon or predominately as some do present. --Masem (t) 15:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

So now you're really saying that you'd want to change the lead to the KKK article as well. How about the BLP for David Duke? The first sentence there also has some negativity stated in wikivoice.

The reality is that there's no wikipolicy forbidding negativity in wikivoice in the first sentence. You and Springee are proposing a new policy that, if adopted, would have to be applied everywhere and would basically be a whitewashing of articles on Proud Boys, Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, etc. NightHeron (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Because it has been a problem for the last 5-6 years, that due to external events, editors have gotten .. emboldened, I guess? on articles of people/groups associated with the far/alt right to paint them in as bad a picture as possible as allowed by RSes but forgoing what NPOV says in terms of how we write in Wikivoice. (I don't blame them, the situation is very dire and this is a very tempting position to take, so it is only human nature to go this way, coupled with a media that is not letting down on their criticism of these groups or people) Look at any other bio or group article that otherwise not on that side of the spectrum that has been vetted by many eyes, and nearly every such article will start with the factual statement, even for those that are generally universally praised or elevated, and only after getting them sorted into where they fall into the taxonomity of human knowledge, then move on to why they are important and introduce subjective or other forms of praise, criticism or other non-objective facets. (eg Mother Teresa, Albert Einstein, Nelson Mandela, etc. Our articles cannot be "scarlet letters" on these groups even if that is the bulk of their coverage in the media. And again, this is not saying the first sentence wholly has to be this, just the first "X is/was an A, B, and C" phrase, everything beyond that should be clear. As yet another consideration here, this "X is/was an A, B, and C" phrase also now should be matching up with the new short descriptions that are being deployed for search engine purposes among other things, and these absolutely cannot use subjective terms, so all the more importance that the first phrase stay to the objective facts.

What we really need to be doing is thinking, how do we write this to be parallel to all other similar organizations that have been written on WP, and then how to we deviate appropriate to account for the massive criticism they have received? Maintaining the similar structure, tone, and approach to other organization articles where possible with appropriate sourcing is part of neutrality policy, and then we can talk about the WEIGHT of addition material related to the criticism of the group to add atop that. So this means we still need to objective state what the organization is in the lede upfront, and in the body objectively state their history and briefly their claimed purpose and activities (we aren't giving weight to being their real purpose, just what's said on paper), and then we're ready to consider all the calls labeling the PBs as far-right/white supremacy and the like. That's how we should be thinking of these, but instead, most editors appear to think from the last point because that's just where the sourcing clearly is, and not giving the first point any consideration. --Masem (t) 16:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:"to be parallel to all other similar organizations that have been written on WP", it has already been demonstrated above that your proposal is not consistent with other similar organizations that have been written on WP. But just to demonstrate how facially ridiculous your argument is I'll provide some examples here, from organizations or people that are also in Category:Alt-right.

1. Ku Klux Klan - "The Ku Klux Klan (/ˌkuː klʌks ˈklæn, ˌkjuː-/),[a] commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist hate group..."
2. Identity Evropa - "Identity Evropa (/juːˈroʊpə/), rebranded[10] as American Identity Movement in March 2019,[2][11] is an American neo-Nazi[12][13][14] and white supremacist[14][15][16][17][18] organization..."
3. Alt-Right - "The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement..."
4. Richard B. Spencer - "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born 1978) is an American neo-Nazi,[1][2] antisemitic conspiracy theorist and white supremacist..."
5. VDARE - "VDARE is an American website focusing on opposition to immigration to the United States and is associated with white supremacy,[2][3] white nationalism,[4][5][6] and the alt-right.[7][8][9]"
6. Vanguard America - "Vanguard America is an American white supremacist, neo-Nazi, neo-fascist organization. The organization is also a member of the Nationalist Front.[1][2]"
7. National Policy Institute - "The National Policy Institute (NPI) is a white supremacist think tank and lobby group based in Alexandria, Virginia.[1][2][3][4] It lobbies for white supremacists and the alt-right.[5]"
8. New Century Foundation - "The New Century Foundation is a white supremacist[1] organization founded in 1994 by Jared Taylor known primarily for publishing a magazine, American Renaissance, which promotes white supremacy."
9. Northwest Territorial Imperative - "The Northwest Territorial Imperative (often shortened to Northwest Imperative or known simply as the Northwest Front)[2] is a white separatist, neo-Nazi idea that has been popularized since the 1970s–80s by white nationalist, white supremacist and white separatist groups within the United States."
10. League of the South - "The League of the South (LS) is a white nationalist, neo-Confederate, white supremacist organization,[6][7][8][9][10]..."
11. The Daily Stormer - "The Daily Stormer is an American far-right neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and Holocaust denial commentary and message board website that advocates for the genocide of Jews.[1][2][3][4]"

I could make this list even longer but I think the point is made. There does not appear to be any legitimate concern for "consistency with other articles", or any real policy reason to whitewash the lead by starting with the facially false, unduly self serving claims of the Proud Boys organization. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

If those articles have a problem we fix them, we don't ruin another article for in the name of consistency. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you really just suggest that those articles are "ruined"??? The argument made by Masem and Springee was that wording needed to be removed from the Proud Boys lead to be "consistent" with other articles. This is clearly a false argument, as demonstrated by checking "other similar organizations that have been written on WP" (Masem's words).

Also to Masem, if you are going to suggest that the Proud Boys should be listed at List of general fraternities as a "fraternal organization" you're going to need to provide some REALLY good sourcing to back that up. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

First, I never said the wording has to be removed from the lede. That's whitewashing and 100% agreement we can't do that. I am pointing out it should be shifted to slightly later in the lede after establishing the factual placement of the group/person in the taxological knowledge structure. Far far different. Second, in the case of PB, I don't think a "fraternal organization" is necessarily the same as a "fraternity" as we apply that latter term (that's more for college-based groups), but if it is objective founded as a fraternal organization it should be categorized like that. As WP editors, we can't take this type of stance that "oh this group's offensive so it shouldn't belong with the rest of these others". It's similar to the argument happening at Andy Ngo whether he should be called a journalist, with some arguing that calling him a journalist against "actual" journalists like Woodward and Burnstein would be doing a disservice to those journalists. Unfortunately, this is what being neutral and impartial is - we cannot judge in wikivoice, and that's what you're asking us to do. --Masem (t) 17:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, btw, you are proving the point that this is an issue that affects any person/group associated with far/alt-right ideologies. It is nearly impossible to spot check and find examples of the same type of wording of those you give that exist in articles for liberal groups or even for people or groups that are in great regard. I'm sure there's some but it is very difficult to find these, while you can trip over any of these when you go searching for this for people/groups on the far right. Which indicates there's a significant problem here. --Masem (t) 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"It is nearly impossible to spot check and find examples of the same type of wording of those you give that exist in articles for liberal groups..." So, your position here is that you believe that the Proud Boys, and other extremist right-wing groups (up to and including neo-nazi and white supremacist groups) are somehow being done a disservice because they are accurately represented in the lead sentences of articles? This appears to be a false balance ploy, similar to the coining of the term "alt-left" to create a bogeyman. That you cannot find, as you term, "liberal groups" who have "the same type of wording" is more evidence of a specific agenda - especially since if one looks at organizations like the Young Communist League USA one finds them described as "The Young Communist League USA (YCLUSA) is a communist youth organization in the United States", and I think everyone here understands that the term "communist" is understood to carry derogatory connotations by most of the USA no matter where they sit on the political spectrum. The underlying issue you have here is that, factually, left-wing groups tend not to be hate groups or associate with hate groups. That is a factual observation, and attempts to create a false equivalence where none exists in the name of "neutrality" do wikipedia a disservice by creating whitewashed, inaccurate articles. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That example of the Youth Communist League is exactly the same as the bin Laden where he is described as a leader of a militant organization, which in both cases is acceptable because those are objectively what they are. That group is founded on communism , that a fact, so it makes no sense to remove that out of there. With the PB, the issue is that they were founded on pro-West ideas, which is what people do have problems with including as a fact, and I agree in this case deferring this to put it against what they are more publicly seen as is probably more correct. --Masem (t) 18:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

And further, it is the problem that we have created a completely different approach and structure to articles on the far/alt-right than any other ideology. This is not being neutral or impartial. As I said, we should start with trying to write with the same structure and then add on top the WEIGHT of criticism these groups have drawn. This keeps all that is probably in most of these articles in place, but shifts where it is discussed to keep a more impartial tone. --Masem (t) 18:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"pro-West ideas"... No, they were founded as a white supremacist hate group. The "pro-west ideas", "western chauvinism", and other doubletalk terminology designed to obfuscate is unduly self-serving and disingenuous. Your push to whitewash the article in the feigned name of "neutrality" seems to be exactly what is referred to in WP:NPOV's warning that "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance" since the group "purports to be against white supremacy, while overtly promoting the precise theories and narratives that white supremacists are known for." https://www.insider.com/proud-boys-trump-debate-who-what-comments-hate-group-2020-9 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

In wikivoice, we cannot question what McInnis said what he founded the PB as, as that is documented fact, and we certainly cannot said it was founded to promote white supremacy because he never said that. But we can present the fact in wikivoice that the bulk of the media seriously doubt that the "pro-west" goals were the legitimate reason for the group's establishment due to the fact the group engages repeated in far-right/white supremacy activities and behavior. No one is going to be able to prove that unless McInnis self-asserts this, which is unlikely. So to address the false balance argument, that would be stating factually, "PB is a group that promotes pro-west values" without any further clarifiers, as clearly that is disputed. What is not a false balance is stating "PB is a group founded by McInnis to promote pro-west values. The group is frequently criticized for its racism views." or "While the group purports to promote pro-west values, it is frequently called out as racist." Both of these establish why there's a controversy over the group. And both of those do not whitewash anything but maintain neutrality and impartial tone. --Masem (t) 19:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Part of establishing false balance is putting their claims first, and then the overwhelming weight of reliable sources second. Given the imbalance in the case of the Proud Boys, this is definitionally false balance. It's not a 1v1 "he says this, other guy says this" situation - it's the overwhelming weight of reliable sources, against the unduly self-serving claims of the Proud Boys. The impartial description for the Proud Boys should be as the lead currently is, well sourced to multiple reliable sources of high quality that establish what the group really is, not what it duplicitiously claims to be in doubletalk. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a false balance concern about overloading the article with unduly self-serving claims, I agree. That's not what is being called for here at. Identifying briefly what the group can be categorized as based on how it was founded, and the purported reason it was founded, is the farthest from being unduly self-serving. Unduly self-serving would be including their entire mission statement, how the organization works, their internal literature they share with its members and the like (which we know many consider farcical) as to try to demonstrate the group is pro-west, given that nearly no RS goes into any length on this. No one is calling to add these at all.

False balance does not mean that the side with the most weight goes first. That's no where in policy. But we do have policy on our tone to stay neutral and impartial, and that's where presenting brief objective statements before piling on the lengthy amount of criticism is absolutely in line with that. To lead with criticism, even if it is written out of wikivoice with attribution immediately creates a non-encyclopedic tone for these articles and makes them stand out compared to equivalent topics, which is why these are a problem. --Masem (t) 20:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"pro-west" is a doubletalk term that readers will not understand without clarification, and further, no reliable source uses that when describing the group without it being a "the group describes themselves as" quoting that falls under guidelines for unduly self-serving self-published statements. Giving it weight and prominence in the lead is inappropriate. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Doubletalk is a redirect so readers will not understand that without clarification. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that RSes do state that PB claim their group is pro-west, this clearly is not a unduly self-serving statement, since it is being made by 3rd parties. The frequent use by RSes gives actual weight to mention it, but to respect the false balance concern, it needs to be made right up against the assertions the group is far right/white supremacy/racist by the media. Which is all part of the various solutions I've presented. It would be a problem to present "PB is purported to be pro-west" in isolation of anything else. --Masem (t) 20:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, pro-West is code. It means Aryan. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Assuming the RSes point this out, then this can be said "While the group state their are "pro-West", many of their critics state this represens Aryan values and support far right/white supremacy views." or something like that. We know what the cover of the book claims to say, and we know what many many many sources say what is actually in the book but we should still address the fact that the book cover and the contents are far different (which is a point in the RSes that there's a duplicity in how the group presents itself). --Masem (t) 21:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:The reliable sources do NOT state in their own words that the group is "pro-west". At most they repeat that "pro-west" (sometimes "western chauvinist", sometimes other internally defined dog whistling terms) is how the group describes themselves. That's a self-serving claim being given way too much undue weight in your proposals. And yes, Guy is correct: "pro-west" is a dog whistling term with white supremacist connections, the same as nonsense such as "anti-white-guilt" or "white pride". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

A unduly self-serving claim would be one that we would be pulling from the PB's own website or their own social media accounts with no other source talking about it. We do not want to pull from these at all, that's creating the false balance. But when we have RSes talking about what the group has said, even in discussing the dubious nature, these are no longer self-serving claims, they become part of the sourced discussion that is covered by WEIGHT that should be included, framed within the context of these sources doubting that purpose and not factually, of course. To omit when even RSes are discussing those would be actually violating NPOV, but I fully agree framing is very important to avoid claiming these as fact. But I want to stress yet again: Wikivoice cannot judge. We can report the stance of the majority of sources call the pro-west view of the PB as BS and that they are actually far more racist, but there's plenty of reason both from a NPOV/neutrality and from a sourcing stance to include that information briefly and wth the proper framing. --Masem (t) 22:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you have a distorted view of "what can be said in WP:Wikivoice". Your proposal fails to account for clarity, and fails to "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity". The group's self-description and reliable source analysis should be covered in the article body, but it's such a self-serving load of hooey that it belongs at the back of the lead and very carefully worded to make clear that these are the claims only, not backed up in any factual sense. For a good example look at David Duke's lead which waits until the last line before mentioning "western culture" and "traditionalist Christian family values" while making clear that these are in a "what he considers to be" sense rather than the normal definitions. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

A statement like "While the group was purported founded to support pro-West values, it is broadly characterized as a far-right and white supremacy organization by the media and advocacy groups." (What I would propose as the second sentence) is a statement that matches what is said out of many many RSes discussing the PB. Those reliable sources briefly touch on the duplicity of the "pro-West" claim before jumping into why they're a racist group. There is not one iota anything self-serving when RSes are saying that, and framing it using a word like "purportedly" or "claims to be" or any other combination, similar to what the RSes say, avoids stating it as fact in wikivoice. This is comparable to what you're pointing about Duke's lede and "what he considers to be"; we're taking the "pro-West" out of Wikivoice and putting it to a claim the group makes, as stated by RSes covering the group. (That said, Duke's lede has the same overall problem that it bypasses the fundamental "X is a Y" objective statement to get to the scarlet lettering ASAP even if that's what RSes focus on).

Especially when we are trying to cover a topic that is controversial, we should always lede in with a very brief statement of what the controversy is as part of taking a neutral and impartial tone, and which that can usually be done in one sentence. Then you can take WEIGHT into account and go into the added details that one side may have over the other. So it is clear that in the case of the PB, it is not only just that they are racist, but that they adamantly admit they are not racist. Now, very little RS agree with their view, so we can't write much to support that, but we can still address the core issue, their claimed "pro-West" purpose vs their observed actions being taken as racist by nearly everyone else in the world. Remember: we cannot judge, we can only report how the media and other judge, and we have to take a disinterested tone in writing these. It can be hard for groups that are this hated in the world, but we have to try a lot better because if we don't take careful steps now, it will spread further by example. --Masem (t) 23:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem you are arguing that the article should be propaganda - that the article should use the PB’s preferred, euphemistic, silly-formal self-description (the formality of “fraternal organization” is also ‘’a joke’’ - that kind of snark is how they roll.) That is not what Wikipedia does. We want to describe them, not sanitize or platform them - on that, see this ‘’On the Media’’ episode.24.90.99.159 (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem always argues that we put the propaganda first. They did it for Gamergate - so much so that those deplorable fucks refer to them as "Based Masem". Masem will always carry water like this. Keep that in mind while developing consensus. Jorm (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• • Back off the personal attacks, please. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem is making a case based on principle and they are right to do so. The whole encyclopedia would be better for more people writing with this same clarity of principle. Springee (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing on what should be a brief statement to keep the initial tone of the article impartial before you get into everything else that exists already in the article, because we are supposed to be neutral, impartial, and dispassionate about these topics, period. We are supposed to be trying to write this in an academic standard, not a media standard. --Masem (t) 00:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"fascist" is a specific term of art in security/terrorism studies, cf. Hoffman? More than that, the discourse of the SPLC is very much geared towards gov't practitioners and domain experts so it's very specific and uses precisely the words it means to use. Fascism is a salient political characteristic of a movement they would mention if the Proud Boys were clearly characterized under it. It's not something one neglects to mention any more than one would neglect to mention that Nazi Germany was fascist. While it's true that the SPLC has had hiccups in the past, it's way overstating the position to say that it's unreliable. Two points: first, fascist-adjacent is not enough to be fascist (if the claim is even true), any more than is communist-adjacent enough to be communist. Second, far-right populism is compatible with fascism only in the sense that it's a NECESSARY condition. It's not a SUFFICIENT condition. Academic press is not the same as academic -- anyone non-academic can publish (and they definitely do allow conspiracy theorists, e.g. genocide revisionists) and there's no peer review. There is no source by a recognized academic, think-tank, or gov't agency categorizing the hate group of consideration as explicitly fascist. This is a precise categorization, an academic term of art, and cannot be inferred if absent. Non-academics, e.g. every one of the authors of the various forms of fascist sources, incorrectly use terms like this frequently. As for why the sources are not valid note they do not conceive of fascism a la the standard academic conception of the term, i.e. O'Sullivan (1983) or Gilbert's entry (2005) in Honderich's Oxford Companion. Citing them would be like citing popsci articles and one academic press publication using gravity incorrectly and claiming that since no general relativity textbook explicitly called their description wrong their claims are valid. Either find an academic/research org claim or gov't source, or we're citing newsmag articles using "fascist" in a nonsense popsci fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:191E:5CB6:A14D:C35F (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about fascism and PBs??? --Masem (t) 01:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I think it was a general comment on the article rather than a direct reply to your points. - Ryk72 ^talk 01:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jorm:I was not aware of this but having googled it and read up on it I see what you mean. Thank you for helping me make sense of what wasn't making sense. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FD59:4855:C8D6:F3B9 (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not a place to vent your views on the Gamergate debate/discussion. Masem is just trying to write logically instead of unneutral propaganda. The project would be a better with more editors like them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly? Do you consider the first sentences in the leads of Proud Boys (current version), Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, etc. to be unneutral propaganda?? NightHeron (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is the difference... Duke (as an individual) and the KKK (as an organization) openly admit to being white supremacist... However, the Proud Boys explicitly deny that label. I feel that the ledes of Duke and KKK articles are therefore neutral, while the lead of the Proud Boys article is not. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Literally from the David Duke article, "An ADL profile of Duke states: "Although Duke denies that he is a white supremacist and avoids the term in public speeches and writings, the policies and positions he advocates state clearly that white people are the only ones morally qualified to determine the rights that should apply to other ethnic groups."[5]" @Blueboar: you really made a poor argument that showed you haven't even read the articles or the wikipedia guidelines. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2C26:E795:C811:3DED (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, "Masem is just trying to write logically instead of unneutral propaganda is an inversion. The sentence ought to be "Masem is trying to write unneutral propaganda instead of trying to write logically" given their consistent trying to over-weight unduly self-serving WP:ABOUTSELF statements while minimizing reliable sources. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2C26:E795:C811:3DED (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, Emir of Wikipedia, So you're saying that the first sentence of the lead of a BLP or an article about an organization must not contain anything that the subject of the article would disagree with? Thus, the first sentence must sound like the beginning of a puff-piece; the non-puff-piece content can come in only after the first sentence. That's an interesting proposal, but it's not consistent with Wikipedia policy, it's not what neutrality normally means, and if you propose such a policy change in an RfC, my guess is that it will not garner much support from other editors. NightHeron (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That’s not what either has said. Please stop trying to put words in the mouths of those you disagree with. Are you aware that Masem has been involved in crafting the NPOV policy for about 15 years now?... he knows what it says because he helped WRITE a lot of it. More importantly, he knows the INTENT behind what is written. His take is spot on. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I just re-read their comments and yes, that's EXACTLY what they are saying. And after rereading the policy pages, it's pretty clear Masem is misrepresenting them. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:ACBB:DDDC:F690:A1EA (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

As a thought. The first paragraph perhaps even the first sentence of the lead should indicate notability. I'm not convinced that the explanatory statement or mission statement PB have posted about themselves is what makes this group notable. Nor do I think calling the group far-right indicates notability. I suspect there are multiple far-right groups meeting in the living rooms (or basements) of American homes. What makes this group notable when others are not? It is important and necessary to outline how the group sees itself, and although the PB website is a primary source, (this is an accepted use of primary sourcing), however placement of that source/content is not the primary issue in the lead nor are concerns about whitewashing or negativity The primary issue is placement and agreement of what is notable, whatever that is. Focus on whitewashing and negativity are not where attention has to be in constructing the lead for a neutral article. Notability which may be either negative or positive or a combination of other factors is the primary issue. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

They are notable because they are "a far-right,[1][2] neo-fascist[3] and male-only organization[4] that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada.[5][6][7][8][9]". Consistent with similar other entries on Wikipedia that were posted earlier. " It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable..."

1. It establishes the topic as being the Proud Boys organization.
2. It establishes the context: they are a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only organization.
3. It establishes the reason for notability: they promote and engage in political violence in the United States and Canada.

This opening sentence is very consistent with the policy written at WP:LEAD. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:ACBB:DDDC:F690:A1EA (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The lede section must identify why a topic is notable, but it says nothing about the lede sentence doing that job. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. which is exactly what is still being proposed. And as per MOS:LEAD, Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. --Masem (t) 01:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the lede section is multiple paragraphs in this case, destroys that completely disingenuous argument that the first sentence is somehow "overloaded." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:ACBB:DDDC:F690:A1EA (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Weird discussion at Talk:Hamas#Edit request

I asked for a copyedit to a locked article, and was answered by condescension, accusations of "POV pushing", and WP:WALLS of irrelevant material. Input welcome. François Robere (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait 3 days and then edit it yourself.Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Or... we can discuss it now. How 'bout that? François Robere (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You asked for input. Not my fault if you don't like it.Selfstudier (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)