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

Islamic State war crimes & POV tag

Article: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War

Perceived problems:

• 1) The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Jaysh al-Islam militants have been accused of using civilians and prisoners as human shields. This information has been repeatedly removed by User:My very best wishes and User:Iryna Harpy see diff, diff, diff, diff. – link to discussion: [1]. I think this is violation of WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE.

• 2) The "neutrality dispute" notice reads: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I have placed the notice on the article "Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War" on May 4 (diff), at which point an edit war began. The neutrality notice was removed by User:Volunteer Marek (diff) and User:Iryna Harpy (diff). It was restored by User:EtienneDolet (diff) and User:Dorpater (diff).

Proposed changes (see diff):

"Civil rights activist told ARA News that "ISIS militants prevent the people of Manbij and Jarablus from leaving their hometowns despite the fierce airstrikes by Russian warplanes". The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Turkish-supported Jaysh al-Islam rebels were accused of using civilian residents of towns, Alawite civilians and captured Syrian soldiers as human shields."

References used in the proposed text:

• "Islamic State digging in in Raqqa, hiding in civilian shadows, amassing human shields". The Japan Times. 18 November 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) – "The [Islamic State] fighters are hiding in civilian neighborhoods and preventing anyone from fleeing, activists said. ... Activists from Raqqa say the northern Syrian city’s estimated 350,000 residents are gripped by fear, rattled by powerful Russian and French airstrikes that shake the city daily"

• "ISIS extremists use Syrian civilians as human shields against Russian strikes". ARA News. 24 January 2016. – "ISIS militants prevent the people of Manbij and Jarablus from leaving their hometowns despite the fierce airstrikes by Russian warplanes," civil rights activist Issa al-Raei told ARA News in Manbij. "The ISIS terror group is using those civilians as human shields against the Russian airstrikes," al-Raei said.

• "Russia in Syria: Assad loyalists paraded in cages through Damascus by rebels trying to stop air strikes". The Independent. 3 November 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) – "The militants, one of the most powerful rebel factions operating in the Douma suburb of Damascus, have been videoed driving at least 100 cages around residential areas on pick-up trucks to pressure the government to call off Russian airstrikes, according to the anti-government Shaam news agency. Air strikes have routinely targeted Douma and other neighbourhoods in the Eastern Ghouta region of the country while rebel groups have retaliated by sending rockets in government controlled areas of the city."

• "Syrian rebels use caged hostages as human shields against airstrikes". International Business Times. 3 November 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) – "Hundreds of people believed to be from President Bashar al-Assad's Alawite community have been put in cages and paraded through besieged Damascus suburbs, apparently to deter Syrian and Russian aircraft from further bombing the city of Douma."

Related Articles:

Gaza War (2008–09)#Civilians as human shields

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Human shields

Libyan civil war (2011)#Human shields

Thank you for any help you are able to provide. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• As formulated above or here your text is not about Russian military, but about crimes by ISIS, which belongs to other pages we have. Note that the title of your thread here was "Islamic State war crimes". Yes, exactly, this is about Islamic State war crimes and therefore should be included in appropriate page(s). Simply noticing that "during strikes by Russian aviation people were prevented from leaving their homes by ISIS" in the end of a paragraph somewhere might be OK, but you need a consensus for this on article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Throwing together a bunch of SYNTH diffs and casing aspersions about other editors (yet again) is not the same as actually presenting a case for inclusion. Firstly, in the sequence of things, the matter had been discussed and resolved by 17 April: a month prior your slapping the tag on the article in this dedicated talk page section here. Suddenly, unsatisfied with the fact that your content had been rejected as being the WP:SYNTH that it is, you tag the article on 14 May and try to justify it by adding another complaint on the talk page thread a few hours later on 15 May.

Secondly, you've also misrepresented Étienne Dolet's rationale for the POV tag which was over a different issue altogether which was resolved within an hour of discussion on the talk page with his own removal of the tag. If any of these other editors believe this 'human shield' content to be of consequence, why have none of them joined in the discussion on the talk page? The last comment by me was left on the relevant thread on 17 May. No one else has bothered responding. You suddenly picked up on it again on 21 May and have started a thread here because...? There's hardly a lack of editors involved in the article, so there's no justification for using the NPOVN other than your refusing to drop the stick. That's not what the NPOVN is for because there is no ongoing dispute over your proposed SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• the matter has NOT been resolved by 17 April.

• Volunteer Marek removed the POV tag on 2 May (diff) I've restored the neutrality notice on 4 May (diff).

• the POV tag was restored by 3 editors (not counting Étienne Dolet) - me, Dorpater and Dbdb (diff).

• I have started a thread here because... WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE.

• Another unresolved NPOV issue is WP:POVTITLE. See links to discussion - [2], [3]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This thread is about the WP:UNDUE content you want to add about the use of 'human shields' as pertaining to the article in question. It has been made clear to you that this is an ISIS war crimes/human rights issue, not the misunderstood SYNTH you've been trying to get into the article. Per MVBW, "Simply noticing that "during strikes by Russian aviation people were prevented from leaving their homes by ISIS" in the end of a paragraph somewhere might be OK, but you need a consensus for this on article talk page." Instead of discussing this rationally on the talk page, you've thrown various issues into the pot. Please don't use this noticeboard as a general complaints department board about all of things you don't like across articles. The ISIS business has been dealt with: it was not a tactic used specifically as insurance against attacks by the Russian military. Your other content complaints are being discussed on the talk pages of the relevant articles, so prolonging this here is inappropriate. You are explicitly using this board to point your finger at specific editors as being 'culprits'. If that is your belief, it's an issue for the ANI, not for the NPOVN, the RSN, or any boards dealing with content issues. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Toby72, I'm not sure what assistance you're requesting. The matter has been discussed to a stalemate on the talk page, right? In terms of Wiki politics, how can this be moved forward? I'm new here, this question is coming from a naive point of view, I have no idea how such matters go from here.

As to the complaint that your argument is synthetic -- I would begin by asking, why is the information relevant to the article? The obvious answer would be, that the Russians might well have been doing their best to avoid civilian casualties, and ISIS is primarily responsible for any casualties that have occurred, because of their use of human shields. If this is correct, then including the information would not be UNDUE WEIGHT, but rather it's essential for NPOV balance. But, is my argument really synthetic? Have one or more of the sources specifically mentioned this reasoning? If so, that could be cited and quoted, avoiding the charge of SYNTH. It seems to me that this so-called 'synthesis' is as obvious as WP:BLUE, but that's just me.JerryRussell (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi JerryRussell, thank you for your opinion. No, ISIS is NOT responsible for all casualties that have occurred, but the use of human shields in armed conflict is a war crime ("The militants have been videoed driving at least 100 cages around residential areas on pick-up trucks to pressure the government to call off Russian airstrikes" ... WP:SYNTH? UNDUE WEIGHT?).

Per WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." Since the publishers of The Independent, International Business Times or The Japan Times think the story is relevant, I see no reason why we shouldn't. The compromise text was proposed here. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Tobby72, thanks for the clarification. I agree that the information seems relevant and should be included. I think the problem the other editors are complaining about, is that the proposed text doesn't explain the context, as to how the use of human shields has effected the Russian military intervention. The concern about WP:SYNTH, if I understand it correctly, is that by juxtaposing the information without context, readers are tempted to jump to conclusions, just as I did, that some of these 'human shields' have in fact been among the civilians killed by Russian attacks. With the new information you're providing, one might be tempted to conclude that perhaps the Russians are avoiding attacks on cities where ISIS is using human shields. But if I simply state the conclusion, without evidence from the sources, that's 'Original Research'.

Do the sources say anything that would help create a complete picture, which would include the Russian response to ISIS use of human shields? I think the information would be very helpful, if not necessary -- considering that the article topic is the Russian military intervention. JerryRussell (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Too much defending of ISIS and Jaysh al-Islam – the whole section "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians" (btw, per WP:POVTITLE: "avoid judgmental and non-neutral words", see diff) only includes real or alleged Russian war crimes. It violates our WP:NPOV policy. Per WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." It was reported that Jaysh al-Islam rebels were using human shields in 2015 to prevent Russian air strikes, by placing captured civilians in cages in public areas. International law considers the use of human shields to protect targets a war crime. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War). -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've boldly put the text back in the article, worded as follows to hopefully address the SYNTH and OR issues:

Civil rights activist told ARA News that "ISIS militants prevent the people of Manbij and Jarablus from leaving their hometowns despite the fierce airstrikes by Russian warplanes".[257] The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Turkish-supported Jaysh al-Islam rebels were accused of using civilian residents of towns,[258][257] Alawite civilians and captured Syrian soldiers as human shields against Russian air strikes.[259][260]

We'll see if this wording satisfies My very best wishes and Iryna Harpy. JerryRussell (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No, this is still textbook WP:SYNTH. Two different aspects - war crimes by Russian military and use of human shields - are being put together (synthesized) from separate sources to make a novel conclusion about the nature of Russian war crimes (basically, to try and excuse'em). Unless you have sources which discuss the Russian war crimes and attacks on civilians in the context of the use of human shields, rewording the text in different ways is not going to work. It'll still be SYNTH. What you need here is a rewording but more sources, if you want to include it (personally I don't think this should be included in this section at all).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the relevant wording from the policy for reference:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

I've emphasized the "or imply" part to make it explicit that this is SYNTH even if Tobby72 doesn't come right out and say that it's okay for Russia to attack civilians because ISIL is using human shields - it's still SYNTH if he's only trying to imply it (which he is).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Volunteer Marek, what the sources say is that ISIL and Jaysh al-Islam were using human shields to try to prevent Russian attacks. If the problem is that the use of this information implies an unwarranted conclusion, why do you say that more careful rewording can't prevent the reader from making this conclusion? For example, the article could add: "According to Amnesty International, war crimes by one party to a conflict do not justify war crimes by the other." Ref: https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2015/03/palestinian-armed-groups-killed-civilians-on-both-sides-in-attacks-amounting-to-war-crimes-during-2014-gaza-conflict/

On what basis are you asking for more sources, and what would you like those sources to say? If it doesn't belong in this section, perhaps it belongs in a new section? The article includes many items describing responses to the Russian military intervention, so this information certainly is relevant to the topic.

It would be more helpful if you would contribute to the process of finding a way to include this information that's compliant with all Wiki policies, rather than trying to exclude it. I agree completely with Tobby72, that simply excluding the information is a violation of NPOV, and does not make Wiki a better encyclopedia. JerryRussell (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@JerryRussell: There was no consensus for including the content other than your own tête-à-tête with Tobby72 well over a month after any active discussion took place here, yet you took it upon yourself to reinstate the content in the article without bothering to make an appearance on the talk page... which is where any discussions of content took place, and where any further discussion should take place. You've been provided with policy and guideline based reasons for non-inclusion by Volunteer Marek. Pinging My very best wishes and myself from this board is not a substitute for the use of the article's talk page, nor is this a WP:BATTLEGROUND involving only the editors who responded here. WP:SYNTH is WP:SYNTH, it isn't WP:NOTSYNTH. Conflating sourced content in order to POV push a position is disruptive at best. It does not enhance Wikipedia in any shape or form. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

More careful rewording won't help because it doesn't change the fact that different sources are being synthesized to reach a conclusion which is none of them. In particular, this is the section about Russian attacks on civilians and war crimes. Putting in stuff about human shields *into that section* automatically implies that these war crimes and attacks are a result of the usage of human shields and/or that they're ok, given the usage of human shields. That is not in the sources.

Note that I am not against using this info somewhere else. I believe I indicated this on talk previously. But you can't put it in this section without having sources which explicitly make the connection. Obviously the "basis" for me asking for more sources is WP:SYNTH itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

What? This discussion still continue? Just in case, to clarify my opinion, inclusion of such material in this section of that article does represent WP:SYN and undue. However, this is a sourced material which can be used on other pages, for example, on a page about crimes by ISIL or about this war in general. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Iryna Harpy, I've been working with Tobby72 since last May 30, trying to understand how to include this material. As a relatively new user, I am puzzled by your view that this noticeboard is not an appropriate venue for discussing content issues. I was not meaning to exclude other editors from the discussion, much less to engage in battleground behavior. But, I would be happy to continue discussing at the talk page. JerryRussell (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, JerryRussell. My apologies if I came across as not assuming good faith in my response. Ultimately, discussions here are not protracted. Regular editors (particularly those who have already been involved in the salient talk page discussions) state their piece and the thread is understood to have gone stale very quickly on articles dealing with controversial subject matter (a week after the last comment is already at the stale stage). It just sits here until it's eventually archived (a sporadic event as it's usually archived by editors who use this board from time to time). In other words, we stop watching the discussion here, so it's highly unlikely that anyone previously involved in the discussion even knows that a few exchanges have come to pass unless we stumble onto it.

If it's something you feel needs to be discussed again, it needs to go back to the relevant article's talk page where all editors watching the article itself are going to know what's going on as a matter of transparency. I hope that helps to clarify how this noticeboard works. I'm afraid it's clunky, but at least it works as a method to get some third party feedback. As per the other editors commenting here, I don't believe it to be WP:DUE in the article in question, although there are surrounding articles on the subject matter where it would be due. Editing Wikipedia is a steep learning curve, so I can understand your being bewildered. I'm sure you'll get the hang of things quickly, although it's inevitably a trial by fire experience. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Having a section titled "Alleged use of human shields" seems a case of over emphasis to me, as well as having a title open to misunderstanding. If there are sources that say IS has been using "human shields" (or has been restricting civilians leaving towns being bombed) as a tactical response to the Russian use of airstrikes then that would be suitable content to include, but not in a whole section by itself. It is not synthesis to connect that some civilian casualties killed by Russian airstrikes died because they were put there in possible harms way by IS, because that would be the tactical purpose of having human shields. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Bryce Dejean-Jones

The issue is with the paragraph describing his death. The current wording, insisted upon by User:Pmaster12 and inserted by him, says that Dejean-Jones "entered" the apartment where he was killed and then was attempting to "enter" the bedroom when he was shot. All of the sources describe the act of entering as either "kicking in the front door" or something close to that (rather than, say, opening the door with a key), and say that the resident shot through the bedroom door as Dejean-Jones was kicking at it/trying to break through it. See [4],[5], [6]. It seems to me that the manner of entering is an important aspect of this story and must be mentioned in this article, and that omitting such an important aspect creates a clear WP:WEIGHT problem. The article is currently posted on the main page via ITN, so this matter does need to be addressed quickly. Nsk92 (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, P's clearly a fan who wants to whitewash the situation to make it look like BD-J merely accidentally, innocently walked in and was shot dead unjustly an without reason. The sources clearly state that BD-J deliberately broke down the front door and the bedroom door - only then did the resident shoot him. P's claiming that 'entered' is the same thing as broke doors down and that BD-J just made an innocent error. Deliberately breaking in two doors isn't an accident - whoever's apartment he thought it was. P's also claiming that the method of entry is irrelevant. Jim Michael (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

NO, Jim Michael YOU ARE the individual that cares whether he's innocent or not. I told you numerous times that I could care less but people like you don't surprise me at all. I didn't not want to go this route but you continuing this whining about him smash in something which clear you have a personal feeling about this situation is why you are continuing to complain on how it's written or looks. A daily reader would understand the situation but people like you doesn't surprise me. You are just a brainwashed individual that cares about who's innocent and who's bad which that is irrelevant to this topic. Obvoiusly you Jim Michael have some personal bias about this situation what mess with your judgment. You Jim Michael keep on talking because it shows how ridiculous your getting. I don't understand how it got to this point but I know where I stand. Unfortunately all it takes one to go far. Pmaster12 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, the reader wants the truth, which is that he broke into the apartment, which is where he was shot dead and was why he was shot dead. It's very relevant and is reliably sourced. If you don't care, then stop whitewashing the article. You first claimed he didn't break in. Now you claim it's irrelevant and that entered means the same as broke in. Prior to hearing of his death, I had never heard of him or you, so you can't claim I have something against him or you. I'm not being biased; I'm describing in the article what the sources say happened. You're misleading the readers by making it sound like he didn't do anything wrong, when you know full well that he did. Jim Michael (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Oh, Oh, who says you need know about him to be bias. I never said you need to know about to be bias. You Jim Michael are the only one that I came across that is complaining about the wording when it's many different sources out there. You said he smashed in and over exaggerating this situation which many sources clearly does not say that. You Jim Michael are the one that cares whether he's innocent that why I said that you MUST have a personal bias about this situation. You don't need to know about this subject to have a personal bias. If you didn't have one. I would not have to keep going back and forth here. You Jim Michael complain whether he's innocent which that's irrelevant when you are adding information bout this topic. That's what I'm saying. Only people like you Jim Michael want every chance you get to whine about about innocent or guilt which that should never cross your mind when adding information to a situation especially like this one. I don't care about it you care cause you want to brianwash anybody that speaks about innocent or guilt and that's not your place to decide that. That's why I said you Jim Michael have personal bias about this situation. You started this. I keep telling you numerous times I could care less whether he's innocent or not. So stop bringing that up if you are not bias or have nothing personal about this subject. You are just individual that brainwashed fan that so concern about whether the subject is guilty or not which is why I'm not surprised. Just another fan looking for something to spread your personal feelings about. Pmaster12 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan; I guess you're a fan of his and/or his team, so you want to paint him as perfect. As I previously had never heard of him or his team, I'm in a good position to edit neutrally. I'm improving Wikipedia articles. You know that broke in is substantially different from, and more accurate than, entered. It's relevant fact that he broke into an apartment, and because of that was shot dead. Had he not broken in, he would not have been shot. You're the only person trying to cover up what he did by claiming he merely made an innocent mistake. If you don't care, stop whitewashing the article and ranting about it. Other editors agree with me that the relevant facts need to be stated in the article. No editors are agree with you on this matter. If someone kicked your front door in, then kicked your bedroom door in, would you say the intruder entered, or broke in? You'd say he broke in. If someone described him as having entered, you'd correct that person and say that he broke in. Jim Michael (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

See I don't care if editors agree with me or not. You Jim Michael care about being right. I don't care because it's neutral point of view so if you are looking for editors or users to agree with you so you can feel like your good about yourself. That's your thing. I don't care I'm not looking for that. I'm doing my best to put the appropriate information and improving the articles. Not on how it looks or whether he's innocent or not like I said on numerous times that's irrelevant. That's it. So let's get that out. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of his team that's why I said that your argument is kind of getting a little delusional. You bringing famdom just shows me how low you get to try to convince others but yourself that you are obviously looking for something here to gain. Like I said numerous times keep your personal feelings about this situation to yourself because if that's not bias editing. You Jim Michael are the only one here in the discussion that cares about innocence or guilt and trying to measure intent which I've said multiple times now. It's means the same thing just worded differently. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You're not being neutral or appropriate. You're deliberately misrepresenting what happened. Changing broke down the front door to entered it is not the same thing. If you really thought it meant the same thing, then you wouldn't have repeatedly changed it. Jim Michael (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm changing not because of you Jim Michael. I still think it's the same wording just worded differently. I changed it because of my earlier discussion with Nsk92. So I can finally get this subject resolved. Pmaster12 (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You know full well that broke in and entered are not the same thing. If you thought it was the same you wouldn't have repeatedly changed it to entered from broke in. You've only stopped doing that because Nsk and someone else opposed you. They only became involved because you kept whitewashing the article to make it look like BD-J didn't break in. If someone broke in to your apartment/house, would you say to police that the intruder "entered", or would you say that he broke in? Jim Michael (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The police would know what entering means. You Jim Michael know what enter means but you Jim Michael probably have a personal gain. Like I said before you Jim Michael are the only one that cares about the other irrelevant things. You are still trying to brainwash yourself and other editors that you don't understand the word enter means. I know you Jim Michael are smarter than that. I know you have your personal feelings about this situation while editors are the opposite the ones in this discussion. I could care less about the subject being innocent or guilt which that should not be in your mind when you are editing these articles especially something controversial like this if you were not bias. Otherwise you would not still be going on about this subject which to me this is a non issue. Pmaster12 (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You know that entered has a much broader meaning than broke in; most entries don't involve breaking in. Police wouldn't say, and didn't say, that BD-J merely entered. They, like the media, made it crystal clear that he broke in. Had he survived being shot, he'd have been arrested and charged with a crime. You say you don't care, and you think it's a non-issue. In that case, stop ranting about it and do some useful editing elsewhere. All the editors involved in this issue oppose you on this matter. Jim Michael (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me tell you something you are the one is ranting and raving about crime and the wording of this article. YOU Jim Michael ARE the one starting editing warring over something that's really a non-issue. That's what I'm saying. I'm going to tell you this again, hear me clearly cause you really are stretching this. I don't care if editors agree with me or not. You Jim Michael care about being right. I don't care because it's this is neutral point of view so if you are looking for editors or users to agree with you so you can feel like your good about yourself. That's your thing. If that makes you Jim Michael feel good go ahead. This is all about discussion. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

YOU NEED TO STOP ranting about innocence or guilt which that is irrelevant in these sources. YOU go somewhere else with that but don't start editing warring over something that's non issue. It's ok to disagree because that's what this noticeboard is about but turn this a edit war which you started. I'm the wrong editor for that. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You are the only one whining and complaining looking for agreement for your personal gain which that's not what this noticeboard is about it's about getting issues resolved. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You're not being neutral - that's the problem with your editing related to this article. If you think it's a non-issue, leave it alone. There's consensus that the article should say that BD-J broke into the apartment where he was shot dead. Jim Michael (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about me being neutral that's your problem you are trying to measure every editors intend that works your personal gain or feelings about this article because if that wasn't the case you would not be edit warring. My editing it means same just worded differently. You keep on going and going on how this article should make the subject look bad which that should not matter to you at all. Where Previous discussions are you care is how the subject looks in the article and all I said is that argument is irrelevant. That's it and this is resolved. Pmaster12 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I notice three issues after reading the sources: (1) There is no mention of DeJean-Jones taking a walk before the break-in, though it is obvious he left the g/f or acquaintance's apartment. Though to say he only took a walk is unknown, until there is more information (like the pending toxicology report mentioned in the sources). (2) There is no mention of the fact the resident called out to DeJean-Jones, but received no response. (3) There is no mention that after being shot, DeJean-Jones left the apartment and collapsed in the breezeway. At this point, only the known facts should be in the article, not any guesses onto what happened. As more facts are released, they should be added and linked as is, imo.Nobody1231234 (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"

We have been over it many times in the Talk page and getting nowhere, so I am seeking other opinions. At present[[7]]is written in the majority view which is to say: "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." (TIs being people who believe they are subject to covert targeting.) This assumes the psychiatric opinion as fact. However, there has been a significant Washington Post article on TIs, Mind Games, which, it seems to me, says that there may be something really happening to these people, that they may not be deluded. I would like to see the EH article incorporate what I see as the opinion of the Washington Post, which for starters would not have written such an article if they thought that TIs were entirely delusional, they would have written an article on a disturbing mass delusion. There are many points made in that article, and the two other similar articles cited, that support the view that, whilst the article should state the psychiatric opinion it should only state it as an opinion, not as a fact. I will go through the points from those three articles one at a time if that is necessary.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Working through the Mind Games article for instances that support my position that the EH article should be written as an open question as to whether there is real targeting happening, not just delusions, extracts from the first few paragraphs say: "IF HARLAN GIRARD IS CRAZY, HE DOESN'T ACT THE PART. .....At 70, he appears robust and healthy -- not the slightest bit disheveled or unusual-looking. He is also carrying a bag.

Girard's description of himself is matter-of-fact, until he explains what's in the bag: documents he believes prove that the government is attempting to control his mind. He carries that black, weathered bag everywhere he goes. 'Every time I go out, I'm prepared to come home and find everything is stolen,' he says.

The bag aside, Girard appears intelligent and coherent. At a table in front of Dunkin' Donuts inside the train station, Girard opens the bag and pulls out a thick stack of documents, carefully labeled and sorted with yellow sticky notes bearing neat block print. The documents are an authentic-looking mix of news stories, articles culled from military journals and even some declassified national security documents that do seem to show that the U.S. government has attempted to develop weapons that send voices into people's heads.

'It's undeniable that the technology exists,' Girard says, 'but if you go to the police and say, 'I'm hearing voices,' they're going to lock you up for psychiatric evaluation.'"

The Washington Post obviously is of the opinion that Girard might not be crazy and is giving him the space to say that he thinks the government is doing something to him. This surely is saying that the WP is of the opinion that it is an open question not definite evidence of delusions? My first attempt to post the above led to it disappearing on clicking "Save Page" Jed Stuart (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence is too much. Seriously though the article acknowledges the experience of voices etc is real. There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used. (and the second is important - we would need both) Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no real dispute in the WP sense here. We have an WP:SPA editor pushing a WP:FRINGE idea, and everyone else telling this editor to please stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart, you may find the page at WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The OP, a polite but inexperienced WP:SPA, has been told many times by experienced editors that this will simply not fly, but unfortunately has failed to understand. I'm afraid that Jed is coming from an In-Universe POV, and the crowbar of understanding is so far simply not working. We need a bigger crowbar, and a very firm foundation for the fulcrum. Guy's essay ought to help, and WP:OUCH may also be pertinent. I, on the other hand, think it may be too late. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC) -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Replying to all: I am not an SPA. I have 3 separate areas of interest and experience, however I have only done two edits in WP in the 'electronic harassment' article. Both edits are now gone so I have effectively done none. For now I only have limited time for participation and decided to use it to attempt to get that article NPOV rather than 100% weight to the psychiatric opinion and 0% weight to the claims of TIs. To state the psychiatric opinion as fact in that way is to entirely negate the claims of TIs, which seems inappropriate. I am only attempting to integrate the view of the Washington Post article Mind Games which gives the TI claims a 'might be something in it'. I think those claims should be described as a conspiracy theory (although I would prefer conspiracy belief as they are not seeming to come at it from a theoretical perspective, but more from an attempt to describe weird experiences). To pitch the article as psychiatric opinion vs TI conspiracy theory is not to push a fringe idea as is claimed that I am doing. TIs seem to be always willing to admit that they have no hard evidence but nevertheless their claims are gaining considerable traction in alternative mass media. e.g. Coast to Coast AM, Jessie Ventura. So it seems that Alternative View - TIs Conspiracy Theory, or some such, would be appropriate, and not Fringe Delusion.

The article WP:1AM is interesting, but that has not been the situation for long. There have been many other editors on my side of the debate contributing to the Talk page, and who have given up in frustration at the immovable block of editors insisting that TI claims MUST be described as definitely delusions. My attempts to set up mediation only resulted in a fake mediation which was closed before I had the chance to reply. Yes, I was slow to get back to the mediation, but they should be fully aware by now that I only contribute every 2-3 days.

As to the point by jytdog "There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used." The 'Mind Games' article goes in depth into the question of technology and the possibility that something like an extension of the MKUltra project has been in operation since MKUltra was exposed and closed down. The latter point is consistent with the WP article Project MKUltra section 12 Aftermath [[8]] Jed Stuart (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart It doesn't matter how reasonably well you argue. As stiff as it is, this article (as well as others involving Government crimes) are in the hands of conservative groups, probably a joint of real undercover agents (would you ever believe wikipedia had undercover agents editing it?.. I still have problems believing this but I'm trying to not exclude it) and wannabes trying to "do the work better". Either that, or it's a matter of fact that the vast majority of people cannot accept the chance that Federal agencies are still onto MKUltra and COINTELPRO alike programs. Everyone is entiteld to their opinion and, to quote a good one, "I would give my life to protect your right to have one", but hey.. sources speak clear at loads that Electronic harassment is an open question, not a verified illness. I'm sorry if you feel offended but I really have no personal hate towards any of you thus I don't consider it a personal attack (not to mention I'm doing it for a better wikipedia). This article should be taken to WP:ANI or WP:AE because indeed it is a matter of behavior in a too disputed argument. It's so disputed that even opening a case at WP:MEDCOM would ultimately be justifiable. Specifically WP:Civil POV pushing is what I broadly would invite to look into, but the problem sets immediatly as: how can ANI, AE and MEDCOM be free of "whitewashing agents" looking to basically protect their reputation?

The editors involved in the writing of this article are generally not looking to discuss, they are whether purpotedly or not willfull in coordinating denial over the chance Electronic harassment is an open question which, according to wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it results as such. Yet we have this undercover conservative editors and admins looking after their clerk editing wikipedia reputation, denying vital info that could even alleviate the pain possible victims may be really going through the way it is claimed, which soundss absolutely detestable and repugnant. The way the article is written is unacceptable considering the many sources available. Also every source keeps on being rejected with inconsiderate nonchalance and often bad faith. About bad faith for example, how can you consider alien abductions notable enough to be compiled into such a biased article? How can you compare the chance of State terrorism with that of extraterrestrials abducting humans? Why are you so keen on trying to fool us (editors and especially readers), regular unknown people, simple internet users that never did you any wrong? Let's face it, building 7 could not come down the way we are told. And neither the twins. I must be taking myself too seriously in trying to subvert this specific wikipedia censorship.. but the point I guess, is that I always related to knowledge with pure openness, thus it must hurt to see wikipedia being gamed by a bunch of who knows who nobodies.

However, I'm not here just to shout wishy-washy, I would like to point to the lack of hystorical perspective, mentioned with other words by Jed Stuart in the above comment. There have been many "attempts" to correct the censoring POV of the article throughout the last months/years, but I never came accross anyone mentioning WP:RECENT, a decently important essay. WP:RECENT is spot on firstly because COINTELPRO and MKULTRA are hystorial heavy weighting notable and verified clandestine projects which should be more seriously taken into account, and secondly because fundamentally the whole present bias is based on contemporary years's mainstream news about a modern phenomena revolving around internet communities that show traits of mental illnesses. Nonetheless, various reliable sources indicate the existence of weapons meant to induce mental illnesses thus it really is a gigantic mistake to propose the mental illness theory as fact.

There would be more to discuss about, but it's just too frustrating for anyone to be maliciously outnumbered the way it happens all the time. I guess that's why the degree of incivilty is non-existent on the side of the civil (indeed) pov pushers. What about the pointlessness in WP:SPA accusations? Do you think everyone can dedicate their working day to editing an encyclopedia? Let's resume good ol' Aaron Swartz for a minute:

Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible.

On the other hand, everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they’ve come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Wikipedia. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Wikipedia itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else.

Other encyclopedias work similarly, just on a much smaller scale: a large group of people write articles on topics they know well, while a small staff formats them into a single work. This second group is clearly very important — it’s thanks to them encyclopedias have a consistent look and tone — but it’s a severe exaggeration to say that they wrote the encyclopedia. One imagines the people running Britannica worry more about their contributors than their formatters.

What about that argument about pseudoscience detracting from notability?.. Have a read at what's written at the bottom of this for instance. The point with pseudoscience anyway, is like the one with comparing alien abductions to State terrorism: there are reliable sources citing the existence of these exotic weapons just as we have prove of, at least past, State terrorism (it always shows up after a while for some reason, and it's always about other countries, other cultures, other languages), while on the other hand there are no reliable sources citing the existence of extraterrestrials anywhere close enough to our planet, not to mention the abduction part. I know you will keep on stonewalling anyway, I already came to the understand there's no chance of having a un-POVed debate on this article, thus why am I trying my best to contribute to this article? Probably just because Jed is being treated unfairly. Have a good evening all. 82.59.56.100 (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since mentioning sources, is this one from 2008 relevant in your opinion? Peer reviewed by a University. The author is an academic definitely in good-standing even to date and mainstream nonetheless, Kingsley Dennis. What else is needed to accept Jed's suggestion of writing the Electronic harassment page as an open question? 87.1.117.202 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Stanford University article is 100% glowing PR-advertisement

When I tried to tag the article for improvements, I was reverted without any fixes. The article on June 7th 2016 reads like an admissions brochure. The article is well-referenced but all of the references point to positive achievements and don't even try to give any kind of a balanced view. There's no mention of how Stanford failed to release the mugshot of its student rapist or any criticism whatsoever.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you ever pause to think you may be coming to that article with an agenda? Every campus has had rapes, many resulting in well publicized cases. Colleges and universities, for the most part, contain mostly material about what they are, their history, faculty, alumni, things that are not inherently negative. Their existence and notability is mostly about things that people would consider positive. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to catalog crimes and other negative incidents associated with places and institutions, but rather to distill the substance out of the reliable sources relevant to the topic. The negative stuff gets put there, like any other content, if it is relevant to the subject's notability, of due weight, well sourced, non-POV, is better described there than other articles, and so on. By the way, drive-by-tagging of prominent, well-watched articles is generally frowned on and usually gets reverted, especially if done by editors new to the article who get disgruntled at one thing or another and have not let a discussion run its course on the page and attempted other content resolution steps first. And especially the Advert tag, which is completely misapplied here. You're just pooping on the article, not making a legitimate claim that the article was written by an advertising agency. Though I do see that you've made some bad faith accusations on the talk page about the editors being Stanford alumni. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The rape case called my attention to the article initially. But this is not about the rape case. But when I read the article, it's entirely positive, no negatives, a glowing brochure, and this can happen when all of the contributors have a vested interest (a conflict of interest, because that happens to be their alma mater. There's no mention of the firing of H. Bruce Franklin, a tenured professor opposed to the Vietnam war. Look at these statements:

"...The university is also one of the top fundraising institutions in the country, becoming the first school to raise more than a billion dollars in a year ... Stanford's academic strength is broad with 40 departments in the three academic schools that have undergraduate students and another four professional schools.... and companies founded by Stanford alumni generate more than $2.7 trillion in annual revenue, equivalent to the 10th-largest economy in the world .... It is also one of the leading producers of members of the United States Congress...." (okay, that is a criticism) ...The Stanford University Libraries (SUL) hold a collection of more than 9.3 million volumes, nearly 300,000 rare or special books, 1.5 million e-books, 2.5 million audiovisual materials, 77,000 serials, nearly 6 million microform holdings, and thousands of other digital resources, making it one of the largest and most diverse academic library systems in the world ...Notably, the Center possesses the largest collection of Rodin works outside of Paris, France ... Stanford has a thriving artistic and musical community ... Stanford is one of the most successful universities in creating companies and licensing its inventions to existing companies; it is often held up as a model for technology transfer..."

How about addressing these points? When I simply point out that contributors who disagree with me happened to be Stanford alumni, and possibly biased, I'm accused of acting in bad faith. What I'm saying is: fix the article for the OBVIOUS flaws; if not, keep the tags on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• To be honest its a bit ridiculous that an article with that large a 'student life' section does not mention what exactly the student lifestyle has landed it in the papers for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• Jesus, not even a link to the Stanford Prison Experiments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• I wouldn't tag a relatively non-controversial article as having a non-neutral point of view. Instead, I suggest you actually find sources that cover some of the controversies and tragedies at the school and are covered enough by the media or academia to merit inclusion. If editors then start to revert reliably sourced additions to the article, then we'd have an issue of a violation of neutral point of view. So try actually contributing first, instead of just expecting other editors to make the changes you want.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I will. Until then, it is a brochure and should be tagged as such.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Tomwsulcer keeps insisting that the article contains "no negatives". I provided a partial list of negatives that are already in the article here. More could be added, but it is hardly the whitewash that Tomwsulcer claims. I have removed a few examples of boosterish language that he cited and will continue to work my way through the article looking for examples of puffery. But it is ridiculous to call this article NPOV; as with other articles about top universities, such as Harvard or University of California, Berkeley, achievements and superlatives are in the article because they come from independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. And yes, I am a Stanford alum. Who do you think keeps a university article on their watchlist? --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I added the Stanford prison experiment. Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It is difficult when one is close to a subject, when one's identity is bound up with that of an institution, such as Stanford, to see things objectively, neutrally, impartially. Naturally contributors (probably alumni) will look for the glowing details and add them -- it's only what they see. And alumni will look at rival schools such as Berkeley and Harvard, and see that alumni from those schools are doing the same thing -- boosting the reputations of their schools. So it seems natural. What I'm trying to tell you is that if you stop for one moment, imagine that you are seeing the article with fresh eyes, that you didn't attend, and maybe you'll see the article for what it is -- a glossy puffy everything-is-rosy brochure. Like, if Wikipedia had music, there'd be trumpets!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The Mrs. Stanford stuff -- one line. The government scandal paragraph -- good, I missed that, my eyes had long since glazed over. It's stuff like this that is rampant throughout the article -- "...The university campus was listed by Travel + Leisure in September 2011 as one of the most beautiful campuses in the United States[116] and by MSN as one of the most beautiful college campuses in the world..." Almost the entire article is like that, as if Stanford is shangri-la, paradise found, a modern Garden of Eden, not a place that coddles rapists by reluctantly handing over mugshots to the press.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't blame Stanford or its alums; they didn't make this stuff up. Blame Travel and Leisure and MSN. As for the current rape case, there is discussion at the talk page about whether to add it; I haven't contributed to that discussion but even you agreed that "the rape case isn't all that important". --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know what your obsession is over a mugshot, but Stanford expelled the guy within two weeks - not only expelled him, but prohibited him from setting foot on the campus. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not obsessed about a mugshot, although there was widespread media coverage that Stanford dragged its feet on releasing the mugshot. Good they expelled the guy; but why the mugshot delays? For much of the public, there's a widespread feeling that the judge's lenient sentence, along with Stanford's reluctance to release a photo, is part of a pattern of white privilege. But I'm pretty much agreeing here that this particular rape incident and the fallout is not important enough to make it into the Stanford page. My overall concern, as I've tried to say again and again, is the brochure-ish-ness of the Stanford article, like glitziness on steroids. It makes Wikipedia look like a sales organ.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why this discussion is happening here rather than on the article's talk page. Now that it is here, my feeback is not particularly sympathetic. I think Tomwsulcer would benenfit from a careful reading of WP:NPOV. There is nothing there that says that positives and negatives have to be balanced or that any negatives have to be present at all. It just says that all viewpoints found in reliable sources must be represented, paying attention to the WP:DUE weightage. If there are reliable sources that comment on "white privilege" issue, by all means include them. The only problem I see with the article is a bit of WP:PEACOCK wording, which can be cured by a good copy editing pass. To add a worthwhile negative issue, try looking up "stanford research grant overheads." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

As per recent improvements, I'm okay with closing this discussion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think so too. I am not sure where the expectation came from that a university would release photos of its students without their permission. Since he was expelled and banned, I think they did the right thing (and this is a personal issue for me). It's astonishing they acted within two weeks. It's not at all "white privilege" either; it's a class issue, but neither of those things belong in the article. Roches (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of non-standard nomenclature in infoboxes - WP:UNDUE?

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

---

This is regarding a content dispute at the chess article. User:Ihardlythinkso wants to include the term "orthochess" as a synonym for chess in the article's infobox. By way of explanation, "orthochess" is used by some to distinguish "orthodox chess" (i.e. chess played by standard rules) from the many chess variants. It is rarely if ever used in standard works on the game of chess; google book search and google ngram confirm this. The word appears to be the invention of one David Pritchard, an expert on chess variants, and appears in David Parlett's Oxford History of Board Games. IHTS is arguing that this single source justifies inclusion in the infobox. My argument is that the term "orthochess" is not widely used or accepted either by chess players or by the general public, and to include the term in the article's infobox is giving it too much prominence, amounting to undue weight. The term is mentioned in the section on chess variants and that is more than enough. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sincere thanks to MaxBrowne for opening this item. The full discussion is here. As far as MaxBrowne's arguments, of course the term is "rarely if ever used in standard works on the game of chess" -- why would a work on chess have any need to use any term other than 'chess'? The term is used in contexts of other varieties of chess to distinctly identify the standard game defined by international chess body (FIDE) rules. When Partlett says in The Oxford History of Board Games "Variously known as International Chess, World Chess, Orthochess, and so on", it seems plain those alternate names would only be used where there might be ambiguity with the standard game. The term "Western chess", which also appears in the article infobox as synonym for 'chess', is the same (would only need to be used in a context where there could be ambiguity), and, MaxBrowne clearly has no problem with that. In fact all of the game name synonyms listed are really only needed or used in that same context. The idea of an encyclopedic article is to provide readers pertinent info. How the game might be referred to in the context of other varieties of chess is part of that info. And sourcing it from The Oxford can't be a better reliable source. ¶ There is no WP requirement on the {{Infobox game}} template 'AKA' (Synonyms) parameter to be "widely used or accepted either by chess players or by the general public" as MaxBrowne states. (How do I know this? Because I am the editor who added the AKA parm to that template! I did so as a parallel to the same parameter which exists in {{Infobox chess opening}} template, and as can be seen by many article examples using both templates and the AKA/Synonyms parm, there's never been the requirement that MaxBrowne states. Rather, the synonyms listed just have to meet verifiability w/ a reliable source. (MaxBrowne specifically got involved to clean up synonyms at article Danvers Opening, and none of those synonyms meet the requirement MaxBrowne has stated above; again, they were acceptable to be included as synonyms by MaxBrowne if they met verifiability/RS requirement.) ¶ As far as the term having "too much prominence" in the infobox, my gosh, it is at the bottom, and the last synonym listed. (To be fair, an editor at one point changed the location of the AKA parameter which I had added, and moved it to the position of first parameter in the template. I moved it back to last place, like in the {{Infobox chess opening}} template, contending that the synonyms list was "nice to know" info, but shouldn't be displayed first, which could distract/obscure the more substantive subject content in the infobox. In other words in that case I would agree w/ MaxBrowne, that info would be in "too much prominence" in the infobox if listed first. At the same time I can also see the logic of the editor who moved the parm to first position, since in articles, MOS policy wants any article name synonyms listed in the lede opening in bold. In the case of game Nine Men's Morris, synonyms are listed in the lede opening according to MOS, but I still think listing them first in the infobox would be ill-advised for reason already stated. In the case of Chess, *none* of the game name synonyms in the infobox are listed in the lede, and I agree with that choice, since again, all those synonyms are in the context of other varieties of chess, whereas when synonyms are not in another context, e.g. Nine Men's Morris or Danvers Opening, they are best listed in the lede per MOS. So this is a bit more complex than first look. For example I'm wondering how MaxBrowne would feel if the infobox synonyms he does accept in the article Chess infobox, are listed per MOS in bold in the Chess article lede? If the answer is that he does not like that, then I would argue, that the entire Chess synonyms list in the infobox, should therefore go away. Bottom line is I think there are two different functions that infobox game name synonyms lists are serving, and current MOS doesn't reflect that, and we shouldn't force a policy onto something new which wasn't envisioned by the policy, unless were're consistent about doing so. And even then it'd be a bad idea, since it squashes useful info to the reader.) Ok, IHTS (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I really would appreciate some uninvolved admin intervention at this point because this guy (sorry to say) is utterly exasperating to deal with. Rather than discuss, he WP:BLUDGEONs with walls of text that are impossible to address point by point, mixed in with plenty of irrelevant ad hominem stuff. He has no consensus to introduce the obscure term "orthochess" into the infobox, giving it undue prominence, and is attempting to get his way by bullying. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Zero credibility. (Please see this history of this editor's ANI complaints, when he was under mutual IBAN which he requested, then dismissed as not applying to himself, because he was "improving" an article and refused to check article history if he was overlaying my edits, and at same time recommending admin action against *me* on that basis! There is lots of bad blood with this editor and lots of WP:DROPTHESTICK needed on his part. For example see Talk:Chess#"Orthochess" for accusations that I'm "lying", and reverts to hats of off-topic thread noise, which he makes a WP:POINTy about, by opening an AN thread which only confused admins. The editor shouldn't accuse of being "exasperating" when he uses WP as WP:BATTLEGROUND for inability to put away past bad blood, and continues to take shots at me, as above. I'm sick of it too, but I don't go around throwing block suggestions in front of admin. I had a tiff once with admin Future Perfect at Sunrise, who's blocked me on occasion admin Bbb23, and when this editor sensed a re-emerged tiff was present, opened an ANI thread on a supposed IBAN violation for an edit that was what, 4 months old!? Clearly user MaxBrowne saved the ammo for his most opportune moment to strike at me. His suggestion above for admin intervention is part & parcel of the same ongoing battleground/bad-blood attitude that dominates his editor conduct re me, and yeah, I'm sick of it, but WP permits it, while I try be professional and ignore as much as I can. I have no interest in another IBAN, this editor had lots of fun tracking my edits and opening ANIs on the slightest excuse under that ban, yet had no intention of abiding by the ban himself, as history shows. So I don't know what he wants to pull in his conduct. Apparently a never-ending retaliation for some perceived long-ago "misdeed". WP supports that kind of shit and it isn't very pleasant to wade thru time & time again.) IHTS (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Western culture regards Chess as a particular game with a particular set of rules governed by an international authority (FIDE—the Fédération Internationale des Echecs). Variously known as International Chess, World Chess, Orthochess, and so on, [...]" (Parlett, David (1999). The Oxford History of Board Games. Oxford University Press Inc. p. 276. ISBN 0-19-212998-8.) and "The form of chess most people know—which is sometimes referred to as Western chess, orthodox chess, or orthochess—is itself just one of many that have been played throughout history." (Schmittberger, R. Wayne (1992). New Rules for Classic Games. John Wiley & Sons Inc. p. 186. ISBN 978-0471536215.), from two board games experts, and I'm being accused of "POV/Undue" when incorporating into an important article, and also accused (by user Quale) of incorporating the info because it's "fun" to put my own personal "stamp" on the article", and not because I try to be a serious & conscientious editor. Great. And also from Quale, term "orthochess" is an "abortion". Yeah. IHTS (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

See what I mean? The guy is a bully. Intervention is required. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

First accuse of lying. Now a name-call. IHTS (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not a "name-call", an accurate description. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've little to say on the heart of the matter, and didn't read the wall of text above. Even less about the behavioral matter, only pointing out that Ihardlythinkso doesn't seem to have consensus on their side for the time being (so the mainspace content should follow the more apparent consensus until matters are resolved). Just that at first glance this makes me think about flute/Western concert flute situation. The first is often used as a synonym for the second, but in fact covers many more variants. If the current chess article is an article about Western chess and variants (which it apparently is), it would perhaps be better not to list any synonyms that indicate a particular variant (even if that's the most common variant) in the infobox. Otherwise the chess article should only describe "predecessors" and move all non-predecessor variants to a "See also" section. Alternatively make a separate article on the Western ("ortho") variant (compare Western concert flute) and keep the chess article as an overview, treating the Western variant maybe a bit more extensively than lesser known variants, but not from the perspective that chess is a synonym to Western chess (compare flute). Don't know if this line of thought can be helpful to get out of the conundrum? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• The analogy falls down because while it is proper to refer to a variety of traditional instruments as "flutes", there is really only one game that should be called "chess". "Xiangqi" rather than "Chinese chess" is the correct name, also "shogi" rather than "Japanese chess". They are fine games which share a common ancestor with chess, but they are not "chess". MaxBrowne (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well, there's Shakuhachi rather than "Japanese flute", etc; "... makes me think of ..." is also not steering for an "analogy", just something I offered as an idea to get out of dug-in positions. If shogi is not a chess variant it should not be in the "Variants" section of the chess article.

I agree with below that the choice of synonyms in the infobox is an editorial decision. This means: there is no "right" or "wrong", so nothing has to be "proven" one way or another. All that is needed is a consensus of editors on whether or not the orthochess synonym is a significant enough synonym to be taken to the infobox. Although WP:WEIGHT is ultimately the policy by which such significance is measured, there is no NPOV policy transgression whatever the consensus develops around (i.e. the decision is "editorial"). So not really something for this noticeboard where all solutions that conform to NPOV are equal. If after the discussion here no consensus is found, maybe consider informal mediation, or initiating an RfC on the topic on the article's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's clear from your above that you obviously don't understand, and didn't make any real attempt to understand, the issue. (So I'm perplexed why you're rendering judgement here, or even authorized to. Wow. ) IHTS (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• This sort of ridiculous argument is why I think infoboxs need to go. People arguing over useless filler/clutter. However since you insist - Ultimately, if a reliable source describes it as such, it can go in the article (infobox) - a decision over if it *should* be there is an editorial one. I cant see any argument given the sources provided that would make 'Orthochess' not a neutral descriptor. Unless it was *only* use was by the person who coined the phrase, but that doesnt appear to be the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• The term is not used by chess players and does not appear in chess literature; the only publications that use it (and there are very few of them) deal with chess variants and board games in general, and when they do use the term it is only in passing. It is a rare jargon term and putting it in an infobox gives it undue prominence; not neutral in other words. It would be preferable to have no "synonyms" in the infobox. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you. IHTS (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think we've somehow managed to come to a satisfactory resolution - no "synonyms" in the infobox, not even the standard Asian synonym "international chess". Stick dropped, arms laid down. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Good article reassessment: World War II biography

A community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, a World War II biography. The reassessment page can be found here. Part of the reassessment deals with the article's neutrality and thus falls within the scope of this noticeboard:

• GAR section on neutrality

Interested editors are encouraged to take part and comment on whether they believe the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. Regards, K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Heidi Heitkamp

Just a heads-up that what looks like several editors are introducing non-neutral language into this article. Page protection might be needed. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleveland issues with nicknames in the introduction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cleveland , see "Nickname yet Again" section

Basically, there is a contingent that feels "Mistake by/on the Lake" should not be included in the introduction, due to the nickname being old or pejorative. However, other nicknames in the same section, including "Sixth City" and "Metropolis of the Western Reserve", are even more old/outdated, and in the case of Sixth City, currently flat out false (Sixth City refers to the size of the city, of which Cleveland has not been the Sixth City for decades). In my opinion, there are three possible fixes: removing all of these nicknames from the introduction, keeping all of the names, or keeping it as is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=725338342&oldid=725288477 :Keeping all names versus as is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=722056284&diffonly=1 :Line 102 edit would be an example of removing all nicknames from the introduction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody1231234 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The above is an inaccurate summary of the extensive debate that has gone on over this issue. I don't see any purpose in discussing the issue here since it has been adequately debated on the article's talk page. The originator was properly given a 3RR warning over his edit warring and needs to address the ACTUAL ISSUES raised in opposition to the addition of the pejorative term in the lede -- it is mentioned IN CONTEXT in the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

How is the "Nickname yet Again" section"an inaccurate summary of the extensive debate that has gone on over this issue"? Was there more debate that has taken place on the issue than was posted there? I've never seen additional debate (besides the new topic "Sixth City" that was recently added. Nobody1231234 (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Long-established consensus is that "Mistake by/on the Lake" is not even a "nickname" but rather a derisive term, and as such does not belong in either the Cleveland article's lead or infobox. Similarly, there is general agreement with Tom (North Shoreman)'s view that the term belongs in the article's body, specifically the history section. Relevant discussions dating back to 2006 (all prior to the most recent discussion Nobody1231234 links to) include but are not limited to:

• Talk:Cleveland/Archive 1#Nicknames - Mistake on the Lake
• Talk:Cleveland/Archive 1#Nickname Mistake by the Lake
• Talk:Cleveland/Archive 2#Mistake on the Lake (again)
• Talk:Cleveland/Archive 2#City Nicknames in Infobox
• Talk:Cleveland/Archive 2#Nicknames

Levdr1lp / talk 07:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Nicknames are often derogatory or derisive. That does not make them not nicknames. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the issue has been discussed extensively. Recurring consensus is that the term is not a "nickname" in this context, and that it does not belong in either the article's lead or infobox. Levdr1lp / talk 08:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I have asked for additional input from members of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Cleveland & Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Levdr1lp / talk 08:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well it has been discussed extensively. Badly in the case of the 'remove' camp.

Discussion 1 - Consensus is that MotL is a valid (if not presently used) nickname.

Discussion 2 - Consensus agrees it is a nickname, discussion is about placement given the mention under 'History'

Discussion 3 - Again its clear people agree it is a nickname but discussion is about placement due to its negative connotations. Since the argument devolved into 'well its not nice so it shouldnt be in the list of nicknames' - thats not actually a policy-backed argument and holds little weight given its a far more widely used nickname than most of the others in the list at the time.

Discussion 4 - no mention of MotL

Discussion 5 - Again, discussion basically 'its a negative nickname so I dont like it'. No policy-backed argument for exclusion. Consensus is that it is a valid nickname.

Were any of these formal RFC's weight and validity of arguments are clearly on the side of 'if nicknames are in the infobox, then MotL should be in the infobox'. 'Its negative' is not a valid reason to exclude something. 'It is not well sourced' would be. But as has been proven time and again, it is extremely well sourced and in far greater usage than most of the other nicknames. By any standards your statement "Recurring consensus is that the term is not a "nickname" in this context" is inaccurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I've commented on the most important issue below, but I can't let your bogus claim about sources pass w/o comment. "In far greater usage" implies the present and that is simply not the case. While the term may still occasionally show up, it is very rare that it will show up as saying that MOTL is today an applicable term for the city. In fact, if you go through the archives you will find that most of the references have to do with sports, comedians, or articles saying that Cleveland is no longer the MOTL. Inevitably the term will be resurrected when the GOP formally nominates Trump in Cleveland ("the biggest mistake ever on the lake"), but that doesn't make it a current nickname for the city.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Only in death- I reread the archived discussions, and there is more reference to MotL as a "nickname" than I remember. I have stricken my previous comments accordingly, including the link to the fourth discussion which does not mention MotL (error on my part- past discussions were listed primarily to demonstrate that this is not a new issue as Nobody1231234 claimed). For what it's worth, I don't particularly care where the term is placed in the article, so long as it's somewhere. Levdr1lp / talk 10:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

At best you could make an agument there was no consensus, but the discussions are quite clear. 'Its not nice so we dont want it in the infobox, lead, list' etc really is a low-weight argument. The begrudging acceptance that it should be in the article body is a compromise. Either way it fails neutrality by not giving even the nod towards representing significant differing points of view. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Only in death- You're not wrong. I can really only speak for myself, but I do think it's difficult for members of the Cleveland Wikiproject to accept that the subject we devote so much time and energy to has so often been ridiculed by the national (& sometimes international) media- more so in the 1970s & 80s, but still to this day. Cleveland has both positives and negatives- "Mistake on the Lake" obviously emphasizes the negatives. But coverage dictates content, no matter how unflattering. This isn't easy, but... I think I'm forced to concede that MotL is significantly underrepresented in the Cleveland article. Perhaps some experienced editors, each with a solid reputation for maintaining neutrality, could step in to revise the article regarding MotL. It may be difficult to find such editors among those with ties to the city. Or maybe there are some who are willing. I just know that whoever attempts to step in and change this will likely encounter resistance. Levdr1lp / talk 12:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a hardline opinion on this asnd I'm open to including nicknames in addition to the historical Forest City but I do believe that there should be some requirements:

• The names need to be both cited by reliable sources and a commonly used local nickname -- not some flavor-of-the-month thing that some kids on the corner or a musical artist came up with.
• We don't need an extensive list of everything but the kitchen sink. A short list of a few nicknames is sufficient. And if we include the derisive MBTL, it needs to be clearly defined contextually and labelled as derogatory.
• The entries need to be worded in such a way that it communicates (concisely) a chronology -- such as 'historical nickanmes include... while more modern nicknames are...'

Articles on living things (cities are living things after all)need to reflect that they are constantly in flux. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is placement. This as been discussed in detail in the past but NOBODY and ONLY have neglected to address this. MOTL is included in the body of the article in the context of a decade or two when the term appeared predominantly. The article lede, as presently constituted, has one single sentence about the city's history: "It was founded in 1796 near the mouth of the Cuyahoga River, and became a manufacturing center owing to its location on the lake shore, as well as being connected to numerous canals and railroad lines." The "History" section of the article has 10 paragraphs. It is the task of the folks who want to add the epithet MOTL to the lede to explain why adding this single historical reference, w/o any historical context at all, is consistent with the guidelines established in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. In fact, adding this to the lede as proposed would itself be a violation of NPOV which states, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Folks for inclusion need to explain how it is fair and unbiased to add an outdated epithet covering a small period time to the article's lede.

Indeed, I'm not sure why one of the three paragraphs in the lede is even about nicknames since the subject isn't even discussed in the body of the article. I suggest eliminating the paragraph and leaving the infobox as is. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. One of the options I tried to show in the original posting here was to remove all the nicknames from the intro section, except maybe the most popular one, as it is neutral and there's little reason to have a discussion on various nicknames there. In the infobox, it may make sense to link to an article on nicknames, like Chicago and city articles. Nobody1231234 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying what I meant with the infobox, Chicago has a "(for more, see full list)" link that goes to Chicago's nickname list. Alternatively, Pittsburgh has a link to all nicknames if you click on the nickname in the infobox while Cincinnati just lists an article to nicknames in their "See Also" section. I feel like going with the way Pittsburgh or Chicago handled this makes the most sense for neutrality (as the information is easily accessible from that location).Nobody1231234 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I could support something like the Chicago example. The Cincinnati article has too much separation between the infobox nicknames and the nickname article link in the "See also" section. I also think the group-piping in the Pittsburgh infobox is unclear as it potentially implies there are standalone articles for each of those nicknames when really there aren't. Levdr1lp / talk 02:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Relevant RfC about lead section of article on Singapore

• Talk:Singapore#RfC about lead section

There is a relevant RfC about the content in the lead section of Singapore. See Talk:Singapore#RfC about lead section. Would appreciate more inputs there. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Universal Windows Platform apps

Hi! I'm posting here in hopes of getting some feedback from uninvolved editors about the issue I started a discussion about at Talk:Universal_Windows_Platform_apps#NPOV. The article is Universal Windows Platform apps. The dispute seems to lie in that I perceive the tone of the article text in the "Distribution and Licensing" and "Lifecycle" sections as non-neutral, but not everyone does. I'd be very grateful for some more opinions from the community about what the best solution is here. Thanks! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 18:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)