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

Requested move of Living with COVID-19 article

I have proposed to move the Living with COVID-19 article to Endemic management of COVID-19. Please see the related discussion, more input would be appreciated. SmolBrane (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I see that the discussion there is now closed. @SmolBrane: Got to say: if this were re-opened, I'd support the move on the basis that the latter is more likely to remain an appropriate title in a decade or two, but I don't think the current title is an NPOV problem, unless the "POV" is simply where we stand in history. - Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks--the POV issue was because of DUEness(a subset of npov policies) and constraint issues on the article[Living with COVID-19(policy) vs living with Covid(the sentiment)], not a neutrality issue. Nonetheless the issue has been resolved(I think) with the creation of the Endemic phase of COVID-19 article and the resultant differentiation. SmolBrane (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern about Pro-Vegan and Pro-Animal Rights Bias

I've noticed a... troublesome running thing about pages pertaining to animals, animal agriculture, and animal agriculture...

So I was on the Beef page and noticed that the page claimed that beef (and meat in general) have a huge negative environmental impact and make up most greenhouse gas emissions and would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions if everyone stopped eating beef and meat in general. This claim has proven to be exaggerated and agriculture (both plant and animal) only makes up about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions [1][2]. Multiple sources used in the article clearly had a pro-vegan bias, including use of an opinion piece of a citation..

Now that's just one article. But I went looking further and found some more... disturbing pro-vegan and pro-animal rights biases on tons of pages...

Ethics of eating meat, Carnism, Psychology of eating meat, among tons of other articles, clearly have an agenda on pushing veganism and animal rights, plus PETA is often used as a source despite the fact that the organization has actively been involved in misinformation campaigns (such as the "milk causes autism" thing). Then I found the WP:Animal rights project, ostensibly meant to educate readers about the concept of animal rights, but is clearly made to push an agenda instead. WP:ADVOCACY comes to mind in regards to this. Greyhound 84 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Greyhound 84: I'm beginning to look into this, but you can be more specific about the false claims in the articles? For example, what text from Beef is incorrect? It says beef makes up the most agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, which is true and reliably sourced. ––FormalDude talk 03:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that PETA is not a reliable source, but I only see one instance of it being used (at Ethics of eating meat). I've removed it. ––FormalDude talk 03:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: For starters, the article claims that the majority of crops are grown solely to feed livestock. Crops are almost never used solely for a single purpose. This disregards that most parts of a plant are inedible to humans and that even the edible portions are often processed with milling or pressing and that produces additional byproducts. When we grow wheat for example, humans are only able to eat the smallest part of the plant, the fruit body. The rest of the plant (leaves, stems, husks, pods, etc.) are then fed to animals, some parts right away (the hay and leaves) and some parts later during the milling process (the husk and various forms of starches or sorghums, even gluten, which is hard for many humans to digest). In fact 86% of animal feed worldwide is inedible by humans. The overwhelming majority of it consists of forage, crop residues and by-products that have to be fed to animals because they would otherwise be wasted. [3]

The opinion piece on the article is here Beef#cite_ref-25

It claims that demand for beef is causing deforestation of the Amazon. Most Brazilian beef is actually exported to China and Hong Kong, and Wikipedia is banned in China anyway.

Also I found that there was a proposal to blacklist PETA as a source, at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_310#PETA, but it didn't seem to go anywhere. Lastly, someone reverted your removal of the PETA source. Greyhound 84 (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Greyhound 84: I do not see where the article states "that the majority of crops are grown solely to feed livestock."

Beef#cite note-25 is indeed sourced to an op/ed, but the author appears to be a subject-matter expert, and the piece is well referenced. The claim that beef is the primary cause of deforestation in the Amazon is accurate according to this study. I have no clue if it's true that most Brazilian beef is exported to China and Hong Kong but I am sure that does not have any affect on this claim.

I agree with the reverter @C.J. Griffin that the PETA source is suitable and applicable as a direct quote with attribution. ––FormalDude talk 18:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

noticed that the page claimed that beef (and meat in general) have a huge negative environmental impact - This is not actually controversial. What's controversial is the "what do we do about it" part.

make up most greenhouse gas emissions - It doesn't say that, at least not the version I'm looking at. It says "Beef has a high environmental impact, being a primary driver of deforestation with the highest greenhouse gas emissions of any agricultural product", which seems pretty accurate.

would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions if everyone stopped eating beef and meat in general - this isn't wrong. It's oversimplified both in terms of massively scaling up replacements and the various socioeconomic considerations, but it's not wrong. More importantly, it's an opinion that an awful lot of people have expressed. We should not say, in Wikipedia's voice, that "if everyone stopped eating meat, it would fix climate change," but we can present strategies reliable sources have presented and we can highlight areas that contribute significantly to climate change (areas where there's room to make changes all the better).

We generally shouldn't be citing PETA for statements of fact, but as one of the best known organizations focused on issues like animal welfare engaged in a wide range of activities over a long period of time, there are likely a handful of exceptions, especially when merely citing their position on something in a way that's framed accordingly.

Ethics of eating meat, Carnism, Psychology of eating meat, among tons of other articles, clearly have an agenda on pushing veganism and animal rights - A subject like carnism is predicated on there being cognitive dissonance between people's fondness for animals and being ok with eating them. Of course it sounds like it's pushing an "animal rights POV" -- because that's what it's about. With any of these articles, however, we should present ideas in rough proportion to the way reliable sources write about them, which bring me to the most important bit:

I'm responding without a ton of background with these particular articles, and am responding to the very generalized claims of "bias" here. You'll have more success effecting change in these articles if you actually edit the articles, adding reliable sources, removing unreliable sources, and proposing concrete changes on their respective talk pages. It looks like you haven't edited any of them? Wikipedia has plenty of articles with various degrees of bias, and the only reliable way to address it is to go in and fix it. If you find that your efforts are thwarted by people who do not seem to adhere to NPOV, that would be a good time to come back to this board. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I want to second @Rhododendrites insightful comments above. it is not a question of bias. if you want to broaden the coverage of a range of views on specific political issues, it is easy to do so within the guidelines of Wikipedia. simply use reliable sources, to provide basic data on the range of views on these issues. if an issue is a subject of genuine debate, then there is nothing wrong with adding material to the article, to cover the full range of valid opinions. Sm8900 (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

As someone who frequents ag. topics and misinformation in ag. science, I've noticed the general issue with some articles over time as Greyhound brings up, though I haven't had the energy to dig into it as much after the GMO topic finally settled down. It does have some similarities to the anti-GMO subject though in that there are a lot of misnomers that people regard as "common knowledge" that us educators end up having to refute, even in sources we technically can use on Wikipedia, like newspapers. They bring up how claims the most crops are grown solely to feed livestock, and that's an extremely common misnomer where the stats are often misleading either due to lack of knowledge or even purposely in real-world sources. There was a good FAO journal article/lay article awhile back that helped outline some of this.

That's just one common IRL example, but what a lot of the articles need is just starting from square one with how things actually work rather than leave openings for one-liners that may appear valid at face-value. That's just my advice for now rather than just going and removing information. It's better to teach readers (and editors) what the background is first as this is a another agricultural science topic prone to misinformation that often catches people off guard. I don't plan to dive into the subject very much in the near future, but that's at least the tack I'd take to make some headway. Feel free to ping me if you need an ag. science expert to give input on something specific though on occasion. KoA (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:, My intent is to raise concerns about agenda-based editing try and initiate a cleanup of pro-vegan and pro-animal rights agenda-based editing. Furthermore, PETA is not an animal welfare group. They get millions of dollars in revenue a year, and spend less than a percent of that to actually help animals. In fact, they kill the vast majority of the animals they take in. They are also known to be tied to terrorist organizations. [4][5][6][7]

I also saw this article[8]. It is from 2013 and the original link is now dead, but it shows that vegan propaganda is indeed a years-old issue on Wikipedia that has gone unnoticed for the most part. Most of the examples in the article have been cleaned but still there's tons more work to be done. Greyhound 84 (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Greyhound 84, your first paragraph should definitely have stopped after the first sentence; the rest just makes it clear you have a beef with PETA, but has zero impact on how the various articles should be evaluated.

As for your second paragraph, having skimmed the link, the criticism seems to be of two kinds: Wikipedia appeals to authority by using "X claims that..." formulations, which is laughable (contested claims should precisely be attributed to their originators rather than stated in wikivoice), and Wikipedia gives prominence to fringe POVs or uses below-MEDRS-quality sources, which is certainly a problem but not limited to vegan-adjacent topics by any means. As far as I know, MEDRS-sloppiness is not slanted towards pro-veganism either, and your posts here so far failed to convince me of that. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Greyhound 84, can you cite the article and the passage that says "the majority of crops are grown solely to feed livestock?" I think the reference is to corn and soy, not wheat, which are mostly grown for animal feed. Of course they are pressed for oil and some of the production is used to feed humans. See for example the WWF: "In fact, almost 80% of the world’s soybean crop is fed to livestock, especially for beef, chicken, egg and dairy production (milk, cheeses, butter, yogurt, etc)."[9] The USDA: "Nearly half (48.7 percent) of the corn grown in 2013 was used as animal feed. Nearly 30 percent of the crop was used to produce ethanol. Only a small portion of the corn crop was used for high-fructose corn syrup, sweeteners and cereal, at 3.8 percent, 2.1 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively."[10]So you might find better sources and phrase it better. But the claim appears to be substantially true. Note also that there is a range of views between defenders of agribusiness and PETA, and just because someone opposes subsidies to agribusiness does not necessarily mean they are an animal rights activist. TFD (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Postcolonialism

After reading the Postcolonialism article, it is my opinion that the section on Ireland is a blatant example of failing to comply with the encyclopedia's standards of neutrality.

First and most importantly, a review of the postcolonial discourses in Irish scholarship indicates that there's been a back and forth dialogue between literary critics (say, Joycean scholars) and who we would normally think of as "mainstream" historians, with the majority of the latter opposing the idea that 20th Century Ireland could be conceived as a "postcolonial" society. We can see historians pushing back against this theory at least as early as 1990[11]. In the Oxford handbook of modern Irish history published 2015, it was much the same story (p.516[12]). The only thing that actually changed in 25+ years of scholarship is that all the steam had left this debate by the time the Oxford Handbook was published.

In light of all this, it should come as little surprise that the Ireland section in this article was almost entirely sourced to 'Men of Letters' (ie, scholars of literature) while the dominant view of the historians has been left out with no indication to readers that this subject is controversial. By my count there were only two sources that could be qualified as mainstream historians of the subject -Liam Kennedy and Stephen Howe -but the both of these scholars explicitly reject postcolonialism (specifically as the theory has been applied to Ireland, which may require further context), and were thus misquoted in this section as defending statements they do not endorse.

I'm trying to be as brief as possible so ask for more info if needed.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It all does sound very ivory tower to me going on about native's interior life and socio-cultural. People brought in English teachers during the famine because it would help the children get a job if they emigrated. Saying 'The recorded narratives of people who starved, emigrated and died during this period reflect an understanding of the Irish language as complicit in the devastation of the economy and society. It was perceived as a weakness of a people expelled from modernity: their native language prevented them from casting off ‘tradition’ and ‘backwardness’ and entering the ‘civilised’ world, where English was the language of modernity, progress and survival."' is just being highfalutin wanting to get a PhD thesis signed off or paper in a learned journal I think. NadVolum (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

One of the problems with Irish postcolonial theory from the historian's perspective is that it relies too heavily on postmodern forms of analysis which were used traditionally in the domain of literary critique (hence the predominance of literary scholars in this field). The subjectivity involved in this approach (which could be based on anything from emigrant love letters to Early Modern bardic poetry) is beyond what is typically found in mainstream history (taking into account the subjective nature of historical analysis vs other social sciences), and has enabled postcolonial theorists to draw dubious parallels between English colonialism in Ireland and non-European overseas colonies like Algiers and India. These attempts to remove the colonial experience in Ireland from its Western European context is what most historians primarily object to (see here[13]).

The term "postcolonial" as it's applied to Ireland is a loaded term that specifically relates to post-independence (post-1921) Ireland. What's implied in the use of this terminology (and explicitly argued in the literature) is that Ireland wasn't merely annexed by England in the Early Modern period as part of a typical process of nation-state development (which would've been unremarkable in terms of Western European experience), but that Ireland's status in the United Kingdom after the Act of Union was a continuation of the colonial relationship. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

You should add the dispute, and the historians' view to the article (especially those currently misrepresented), and maybe trim some of the detail there now. Ireland gets rather too long a section it seems to me. Have you raised the issue at talk there? Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I have, and the editor has been pinged, but she hasn't been very helpful so far. She claims that the critique of the theory is included in the section as it reads currently, which it clearly is not. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. The article is about "a critical theory analysis," not what happens when countries cease to be colonies. Most of the section is sourced to academic writing. I would however alter the first sentence: "Ireland experienced centuries of English/British colonialism between the 12th and 18th centuries." It should be prefaced with something like, "According to post colonial studies scholars." While England subjugated Ireland, it is not clear that this was colonialism. England itself had been subjugated by Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Normans, but that was seen as different from modern colonization.

When it is clear that the article is about a point of view, it is not necessary to rebut each analysis. I would only add criticism that specifically addresses the post colonial studies interpretation of Irish history, otherwise it raise OR issues.

TFD (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

You disagree with who about what? Re, the first sentence, what is supposed to have happened in the 18th century to end "colonialism" in Ireland? The Acts of Union 1800 changed almost nothing. The really wierd thing about the article is the lack of a section on the "application" re South Asia. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• The average reader would have no idea what a "critical theory analysis" is or any of the other academic jargon in the lead. The section on Ireland makes vague references to "scholars" but doesn't specify if these 'scholars' are historians or people writing about Irish history from a vantage point outside of mainstream history (it's the latter). If I didn't know anything about this subject, I'm reading the section on Ireland, I'm reading a lot of historical claims about Early Modern and Modern Irish history, and I'm assuming that the scholars cited are recognized as experts in these particular periods of Irish history (they're not).
• Of course 'postcolonial' has everything to do with a society after it gains independence from a colonial arrangement. When applied to Ireland, the term comes into use only in 1921, which means that "critical theorists" claim a colonial status for Ireland not just in the Early Modern period but for the entire Union period from 1801 -1921. And they don't stop there. Rather than place Ireland's experience with colonialism in a European context, they take an exceptionalist view of Irish colonial history and draw comparisons between the Irish and colonized peoples outside of Europe (in this telling of history, the Irish are not more similar to the Welsh or Scottish, but to Native Americans, Africans and Indians; Algiers is frequently referenced by these scholars). Otherwise, why single out Ireland for "colonial" treatment? Why not speak about French Brittany in colonial terms? Or the Spanish Netherlands? Napoleon "technically" colonized Northern Italy, but we don't speak about post-Napoleonic Italy with "postcolonial" terminology because historians agree that this period is best understood in the context of Napoleonic Europe (Napoleon also expelled the Austrians from Italy, and who had also technically colonized Northern Italy). Likewise, an Irish postcolonial scholar will write about the Williamite Wars with references to the English conquest of North America, while a historian would say that the Williamite vs Jacobite phenomenon is better understood in the context of British archipelagic history and the broader context of the European wars of religion. "Postcolonialism" in Ireland is a loaded term that's historically and geographically myopic.

Full disclosure: I was anticipating someone to come along and try to defend this content by claiming the article is about a "critical theory" and thus the normal RS rules for writing history content do not apply here. And that's probably the only argument that can be sustained in this case. But what does that imply about neutrality rules for writing about history on here? That they can be circumvented by creating a 'critical theory' article? Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe historians of France are now often describing the Early Modern history of the French provinces, or at least the more remote ones, pretty much in colonial terms. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Are we talking about Réunion here? That's probably fair comment if so... Girth Summit _(blether) 21:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, the DOMTOMs too of course, but they are mainly talking about Brittany, Provence, Savoie, Vendee etc, (in fact just about anywhere you might want to holiday). Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

For most of the Medieval and Early Modern periods, Savoy was its own independent territory, first a county and then raised to a duchy. It then changed hands between France and the Savoyard rulers several times until it was ultimately partitioned, forming the modern borders between France and Italy. I very much doubt that a postcolonial mode of analysis is at all helpful in explaining economic or social reality for the Piedmontese or Valdostans circa 1862. The negotiating of borders in that region followed a typical pattern in the emergence of modern nation-states in Europe, and was not dramatically different than the negotiating of borders between the Irish State and the UK when Northern Ireland was partitioned. It is certainly not a serious analysis to compare the Savoyards to the Native Americans under English colonization, as Ireland is being compared in this article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

TFD, let me reply to some of your other remarks in case I don't get anymore feedback (I was waiting for responses but that might not happen).

I have no problem agreeing to the idea that postcolonialism can imply an anti-colonialist attitude or similar state of mind, rather than a literal reading of the term. I really don't know how it's applied in other societies but I'll accept that it has some valid applications. My area is European and specifically Western European history so I've got nothing to say about the Eastern European section of this article either. I'm objecting specifically to the section on Ireland.

In the Irish case, postcolonialism is not just a psychology but something literal and deeply political. The 26 counties are described as post-colonial only after 1921 (with the creation of the Irish Free State), and for anyone vaguely familiar with the nationalist politics on that island the implication here is obvious. Northern Ireland, it is claimed, continues to remain a colony of Britain.

In addition to that, Irish postcolonialism is all about placing the Irish and Ireland in the same analytical framework as former colonies of the Global South. There's no dancing around that either. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it like that. Yes many nationalists talk that way but it is simply to set the Republic as guarantors of their civil rights to oppose Britain which so long has supported the majority unionists with an amount of power which is totally disproportionate to their numbers. NadVolum (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You may not see it like that, but the historians who've responded to Irish postcolonialism do. "The colonial analogy for Ireland in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is often accompanied by two other arguments which see southern Ireland after 1921 as post-colonial and Northern Ireland after 1921 as a continuation of a colonial arrangement."[14]

And also the fact that virtually all Irish postcolonial scholars (like Seamus Deane) have very predictable political backgrounds, while their critics in mainstream history are all over the political spectrum. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Literary historian. I see. Might just as well have a history based on the songs people sing. That certainly explains things. NadVolum (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Most of these postcolonial theorists are either English professors, literary critics, 'cultural studies' scholars etc, and most have political backgrounds like Seamus Deane.

My problem with this section of this article is that more empirical historians have been refuting this theory for more than 3 decades but they've been left out of the section. The editor who worked on this section was pinged but doesn't want to engage with these issues, claiming that the section is 'well written' and that there's already criticism included there (there isn't).

I agree with another editor here that this section should be trimmed down substantially. The postcolonial position can be summed up in a few lines, and in a few more lines we can summarize why most historians object to this. And that's about all the space Ireland deserves on this page. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

What I think I should do right now is state my whole case in full with sources and then back away so other editors can comment. I want to cover as much as possible so please bear with me. I should probably also leave a message on the talk page of that article directing editors' attention over here.

What is most striking when you review the postcolonial critiques is that every single one of these historians cited here and on the article page, without exception, writes in very generalized terms about the views of historians on the postcolonial question (they are not merely writing about their own personal opinions or research). And they’ve been remarkably consistent on this point for more than 30 years.

In 1990, Brian Walker wrote,

"In recent years, in the field of Irish literary criticism, much emphasis has been placed on setting Irish writing in its historical context, particularly its political and social context. This emphasis, however, has sometimes produced simplistic approaches to Irish history, and has ignored the new understanding that historians have of our past. One such questionable view is the analysis which describes Ireland as either ‘colonial’ or ‘postcolonial’. In what follows it will be argued that this approach is incorrect, and any understanding based on it will be misleading. A more accurate and more helpful approach is to set Ireland, both north and south, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in its European context."[15]

In 1993 we have Liam Kennedy writing,

Historians of Ireland, with the notable exception of writers in the "green" marxist tradition, have generally found colonial concepts of limited or little value in charting the course of social and economic change in Ireland after 1800.[16]

This piece by Kennedy was cited in the Ireland section of the article, but the editor misstated Kennedy's views (more on this below).

In 2005 Shaun Richards writes,

Prior to developing a postcolonial reading of [Brian Friel's] plays it is necessary to acknowledge some significant problems in reading his work through what might be described as an unreflective application of postcolonial theory. As noted above, the legitimacy of colonial/postcolonial readings of Ireland is refuted by historians. (p. 268[17])

In 2015, in a review of the Oxford handbook of modern Irish history, Mary Daly of UCD cites Stephen Howe on colonial/postcolonial theory (from the historian's perspective):

"..the early writings about Ireland from a post-colonial perspective — mainly by literary scholars — which attracted considerable criticism from historians, have been superseded by ‘a fast-growing literature’, which pays attention to ‘complexity and nuance’." (p.516 [18])

In the Fall of 2020, in a panel discussion on "Decolonising Irish history" (a cross-disciplinary project that's still ongoing), historian Ian McBride (Oxford) made the point that,

"When we turn to Ireland, of course the idea of decolonising Irish history divides into two: And that's because the Irish think of Empire as something that was done to them, while historians increasingly think of Empire as something the Irish did to other peoples." (commentary begins at 14 mins[19]).

What's also significant about this is that these historians all specialize in different areas of Modern Irish history (Liam Kennedy, for example, is an economic historian, while Brian Walker's research focuses mainly on Modern Irish political history), and yet they all independently agree with each other.

Earlier I mentioned that colonialism/postcolonialism in Ireland has non-European implications, that literary critics sustain the application of this theory to readings of Ireland by systematically removing the Irish out of Europe and placing them in the position of Africans, Indians or Native Americans. For the postcolonial period in Ireland (post-1921) the analogy then frames Ireland's economic and social position in the context of overseas colonies that had gained independence from European powers (countries that are often referred to as 'Third World').

In the Ireland section of this article you will read comparisons between the Irish and the indigenous peoples of the Americas. At end of the first paragraph the editor writes,

"Many scholars have drawn parallels between: the economic, cultural and social subjugation of Ireland, and the experiences of the colonized regions of the world[61]"

Citation 61 is the Liam Kennedy article I cited at the beginning. Except Kennedy never makes any comparison to "colonized regions of the world" (read "non-European").

The whole point of Kennedy's piece was that it was a refutation of the postcolonialist claim that the economic status of southern Ireland at the time of partition was on par with "third world countries". And he does this by publishing a range of economic metrics showing that Ireland's economic development during the independence/partition period was on level with European norms, and very far removed from the "third world." At one point he describes the analogies between "internal" European colonies and overseas colonies like "Namibia" as "nonsense strutting on theoretical stilts." (p. 115[20])

But readers wouldn't know this reading the article, would they? What this editor likely did was cherry-pick the parts of Kennedy's analysis where he is framing the position of the postcolonialists, right before he challenges them. But the fact that Kennedy challenged this supposition is not mentioned in this section (why cite Kennedy at all if you're not going to publish his views?)

The only other historian cited in this section was Stephen Howe, but here, too, readers are given no indication that Howe has been one of the most vocal critics of Irish postcolonialism.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Comfort Women

It is a well-known fact that "comfort women" have two opinions: "licensed prostitutes" and "sex slaves." However, in the current article, the first paragraph says "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army…　and editor is eliminating the "licensed prostitutes" claim on this basis. To maintain neutrality, this paragraph should be changed to, for example, "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls to provide sexual services to the Imperial Japanese Army.... The discussion on both sides regarding this rewrite has been exhausted on Talk. I believe that this article violates 5P2. Eyagi (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You're a WP:SPA whos opinion has been unanimously opposed on the talk page. No change is happening. The best thing for you is to stop editing and cease wasting the time of people who are actually here to contribute to Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not think your comment is appropriate for this board. Please explain specifically the basis and reasons for your claim and post them on the "comfort women" talk. Eyagi (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your continued presence on this website is appropriate either. When you've been told "no" the correct answer is to just to stop, per WP:IDHT. Obviously you just think by writing more and more text and continuing to badger people eventually you will get your own way, but that's not how Wikipedia works. You obviously have no other purpose in this website other than to WP:POVPUSH about this one particular issue. The sooner you get lost the better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Eyagi: If you believe more outside opinions would be valuable for this suggested change, you are welcome to start a Request for Comment on the issue. But you are advised to accept the outcome of that if the consensus is against your proposed edit after the RfC is closed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I understand your comment. I will post RfC. I am confusing by Hemiauchenia's comment. Eyagi (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a well-known fact that "comfort women" have two opinions: "licensed prostitutes" and "sex slaves." That may be true in a technical sense, but the vast majority were forcibly prostituted by Japan during the time period in question. The two "sides" are no where equal or even close. Zaathras (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read the talk before commenting. Your claim has already been discussed in Talk.Eyagi (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Beergate

Reliable sources show that Beergate emerged as a controversy out of debates about Partygate, and continues to have that context. Both refer to allegations about earlier events, the first disclosed and questioned was the Durham event which did not develop into a controversy until around nine months later when taken up as a response to Partygate allegations. At Talk:Beergate#Partygate's significance? discussion was derailed by personal attacks, at Talk:Beergate#Relationship to Partygate I put together sources which were dismissed by DeFacto, who made unsourced claims that "Partygate is one thing, Beergate is another. The two involve different places, different people, different police forces, different circumstances, and have almost nothing in common other than the two leaders have been accused of breaking Covid lockdown regulations, and both denied the allegations with similar defences. To knit them together, in the way you appear to be trying to do, is total OR with no basis in the reliable sources". In a series of edits DeFacto then drastically restructured the article out of date sequence to imply that the article is about Durham police investigations rather than the emergence of the controversy, which was demoted to a section near the end of the article. In my view this contravenes NPOV Article structure policy. Layouts are now being discussed under Talk:Beergate#Article structure. Input will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 13:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Book of Daniel

Dispute over whether a particular claim should be stated in the narrative voice of the article vs. specifically attributed as the view of a particular scholar:

• "Without this belief, Christianity, in which the resurrection of Jesus plays a central role, would have disappeared…"

vs.

• "Daniel R. Schwartz asserts that without this belief, Christianity, in which the resurrection of Jesus plays a central role, would have disappeared…"

with other wordings of course being possible; several have been suggested. I'm a party to the dispute, so I'll leave it at this here. You can look at the recent history of the article and at Talk:Book_of_Daniel#Over-strong_assertion. - Jmabel | Talk 02:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

From Christianity article

Christians consider the resurrection of Jesus to be the cornerstone of their faith (see 1 Corinthians 15) and the most important event in history.[49]

Source-Hanegraaff. Resurrection: The Capstone in the Arch of Christianity

So, while only one source may be listed in the Book of Daniel article, it is clear that at least one other source, plus Corinthians agrees with the general sentiment. The pope also considers this a critical part of Christianity. Absent a source saying otherwise, I don't see why attribution would be required. Slywriter (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It definitely cannot be stated as fact in Wikivoice as it is a speculative statement ("without this belief, Christianity wouldn't have flourished"), so some type of attribution is needed. If the statement could be worded "Christianity flourished on the belief that...", that's a more factual one and would not need attribution (though obviously in-line sourced). --Masem (t) 03:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in religion is undisputed fact. It's not undisputed that Jesus existed historically, and it's certainly not undisputed that he rose from the dead. Everything is opinion - personally I feel that Jesus probably did exist, but that doesn't make it a fact. For this reason we don't bother prefacing every statement with "according to X..." The idea in our article is put forward by a reliable source, without equivocation, and introducing an equivocal "according to..." gives the misleading impression that there exists some other opinion.Achar Sva (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this is a consensus opinion among academics. It should be directly attributed to the author. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The statement being made has nothing to do with the "faith" (belief in what's written in the Bible) that, as you say, we normally don't question or require attribution. The statement is a non-faith based claim related to the growth of Christianity based on one aspect of the faith, and that is a historical aspect that either is clearly fact or needs attribution if it is speculation by theologists/historians. Masem (t) 12:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a bigger problem with the paragraph, in my opinion. It starts off by stating basically that the ideas of resurection and immorality were mentioned in Daniel. But the problem is they mention resurection generally, not resurection of Jesus. The influence part of the paragraph deals with the resurrection of Jesus, but nowhere does the paragraph provide any evidence that the book actually influenced any of substatial christian thought. The idea of resurection is much different than the resurection of Jesus, and even if it weren't, it still remains that we make a claim that is not supported by any sources, at least mentioned Bedfordres (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should have some speculation from an alternative history stated as fact. It is not in-world even like Daniel not being eaten by the lions. Anyway I think religious people are quite easily capable of coping with holes in their belief systems! NadVolum (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hebron- slant is obvious, not neutral

This article on the city of Hebron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebron#CITEREFCohen1985 seems to be skewed in the direction of the Arab population. Among other things, Jewish residents are constantly referred to only as settlers, when some of them had homes there (until their massacre and expulsion) for many thousands of years. In addition, the language used to describe the ongoing 'civil unrest' is notably slanted, see below:

A violent episode occurred on 2 May 1980, when 6 yeshiva students died, on the way home from Sabbath prayer at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, in a grenade and firearm attack. The event provided a major motivation for settlers near Hebron to join the Jewish Underground. On July 26, 1983, Israeli settlers attacked the Islamic University and shot three people dead and injured over thirty others.

Look at the difference in the language here: "A violent episode occurred" - as if it happened, with no one causing it-- on 2 May 1980, when 6 yeshiva students died - instead of were murdered--, on the way home from Sabbath prayer at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, in a grenade and firearm attack-- atack by whom? No responsibility is attributed, it just happened.

Then: " On July 26, 1983, Israeli settlers attacked the Islamic University and shot three people dead and injured over thirty others." -- here, the settlers attacked and shot. On reviewing other articles on the subject, I discovered that the Hebron Mayor mentioned in the article ["Hebron mayor Mustafa Abdel Nabi invited the Christian Peacemaker Teams to assist the local Palestinian community in opposition to what they describe as Israeli military occupation, collective punishment, settler harassment, home demolitions and land expropriation."] was one of those actually convicted of the Yeshiva students' murder noted above, but he was released in an Israeli prisoner exchange and is now honored by his community, when he should be in jail for murder.

In fact, upon further reading here, I also note that this paragraph has much more of a passive voice when discussing what Arabs did to Jews and even observers: "Over the period of the First Intifada and Second Intifada, the Jewish community was subjected to attacks by Palestinian militants, especially during the periods of the intifadas;" ' which saw--which saw?? ' 3 fatal stabbings and 9 fatal shootings in between the first and second Intifada (0.9% of all fatalities in Israel and the West Bank) and 17 fatal shootings (9 soldiers and 8 settlers) and 2 fatalities from a bombing during the second Intifada, and thousands of rounds ' fired on it from the hills--from the hills? the land shot them? ' above the Abu-Sneina and Harat al-Sheikh neighbourhoods. 12 Israeli soldiers ' were killed '--by? Why do all of the Jewsih references say "X did this" but the arab ones say "oh, it happened to them? (Hebron Brigade commander Colonel Dror Weinberg and two other officers, 6 soldiers and 3 members of the security unit of Kiryat Arba) in an ambush. Two Temporary International Presence in Hebron observers were killed by Palestinian gunmen in a shooting attack on the road to Hebron --at least here it says who killed them, but it's still a passive voice.

Review your articles if you really want to be neutral. 2601:C8:C200:E130:90BC:7714:BE49:B937 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

A single contribution account and not a source in sight, just opinion beginning to end. Can this be closed please, editor may make edit requests at the article talk page if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Good —

• Settlers' refers to the inhabitants of Israeli settlements established c. 1967 — they are different from the Jewish population who live in the other parts of the city. There are no instances of unrest anywhere in the article.
• It is perfectly neutal to claim that people died in an attack, since were murdered is redundant. I have revised this sentence anyway to include the perpetrator, Al Fatah.
• It is unclear what concern the IP has about the article's coverage of the 1983 attack. Most of the paragraph is a muddled moral opninion about objective details of the event — righting great wrongs is a big no-no.
• Passive voice is appropriate here since it is already clear from context that the killers were Palestinian gunmen, so the use of active voice will only overemphasize the blame. Most other uses of passive voice are in similar contexts.
  As for the alleged correlation between the killer and the use of passive voice, one sentence concerning a Jewish killer is about a notable attack where the killer (Baruch Goldstein) is notable in his own right, so there is no harm in using active rather than passive voice. In the sentence about the 1983 attack, putting the perpetrator second would divorce them from the date and place of the murder, which establish background and are awkward to put at the end of the sentence. These details cannot be established from context, as the previous sentences are about an unrelated event. As for.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Lamont's citation at MobileSyrup

Does the following statement represent the WP:BIASED citation fairly and without editorial bias? (Special:Diff/1096776490)

In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use."

A proposed revision of this statement was (diff):

In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use", but "GrapheneOS has so far been one of the easiest privacy experiences I've tried".

According to Special:Diff/1096788266 which undid said revision: Ease of installation has been over-emphasized enough already. Deleting added over-emphasis. The current full statement in the article is:

In 2022, Jonathan Lamont of MobileSyrup, in a review of GrapheneOS installed on a Pixel 3, after a week of use opined GrapheneOS demonstrated Android's reliance on Google. He called GrapheneOS install process "straightforward" and concluded to like GrapheneOS overall, but criticized the post-install as "often not a seamless experience like using an unmodified Pixel or an iPhone", attributing his experience to his "over-reliance on Google apps" and the absence of some "smart" features in GrapheneOS default keyboard and camera apps, in comparison to software from Google. In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use."

The proposed full statement was:

In 2022, Jonathan Lamont of MobileSyrup, in a review of GrapheneOS installed on a Pixel 3, after a week of use opined GrapheneOS demonstrated Android's reliance on Google. He called GrapheneOS install process "straightforward" and concluded to like GrapheneOS overall, but criticized the post-install as "often not a seamless experience like using an unmodified Pixel or an iPhone", attributing his experience to his "over-reliance on Google apps" and the absence of some "smart" features in GrapheneOS default keyboard and camera apps, in comparison to software from Google. In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use", but "GrapheneOS has so far been one of the easiest privacy experiences I've tried".

I doubt it's fruitful to discuss this at Talk:GrapheneOS, so I'm bringing this to attention of NPOVN and the editors. (Legal attribution: Statement from the GrapheneOS article, authors Special:Contributions/84.250.14.116 and User:Yae4.) 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Took the liberty of highlighting repetitions of similar phrases on "ease" of install, which the OP wants to add again. Also noting lack of consensus on reliability of this source, which the author's own words called a "post", and appearance of "advert infested click bait" group blog quality. The OP here is insisting on keeping their preferred questionable quality sources, while preventing the usage of WP:PRIMARY sources almost entirely, which is a related issue. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

For the latter statements: See Talk:GrapheneOS#Jonathan Lamont's review at MobileSyrup for my review of the source. The place to discuss reliability of sources is WP:RSN, editors should focus on neutral point of view here. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussing how to neutrally present information from an unreliable source is a waste of time, and as you know, there has been little uninvolved editors interested at WP:RSN recently for other similar discussions. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

References

NAMBLA

Comments are welcome here. An editor is arguing that our article is politically biased against the North American Man/Boy Love Association. They also made edits to the article itself, which were reverted, but then they tagged it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

My explanation on the talk page contends the page is biased in numerous ways for and against numerous individuals and points of view referenced, not just those of the organization. Please see the talk page for more details. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed the tag again because I think their argument is baseless and that they don't understand what NPOV actually is. I suggest it not be readded unless someone (preferably with more experience and who actually understands our policies) can present a compelling reason why it's needed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

A user has removed the Political POV warning tag from the article prior to the conditions for removal being met and without allowing time for discussion. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion isn't necessary when there is a clear consensus that the tag is spurious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, you are the only one who is claiming this problem - if you wee to add the tag to say, St Donat's Castle it would also be removed because there is no evidence it applies. Your opinion that it's non-neutral does not jive with our policies and guidelines. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I presented extensive evidence and reasoning on the talk page of the article with reference to wikipedia policies and was intending to write a reply to the preliminary arguments others posted. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Except you didn't. You presented your opinion which no one agrees with and in fact, several people ardently disagree with and explained that you are trying to weaponize a policy you clearly do not understand. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I did. Please do not make misleading and inflammatory claims. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You literally just added youth rights to the infobox despite the fact that there is nothing discussing it whatsoever in the article or in reliable sources. You don't seem to understand how this works and you haven't presented a single argument with sources to back up your claims. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That was a cited addition. Here is a quote from the source, which for your information was already used as a source for other claims in the article. You should not speak about what is or is not stated in reliable sources without having read them.

"NAMBLA did not focus its

attention on sexual rights alone. It advocated a comprehensive program to liberate and

empower youth, opposing circumcision, corporal punishment, and any coercion of youth.

Its Web site (www.nambla.org) has proclaimed its support for greater economic,

political, and social opportunities for young people and its denunciation of the 'rampant

ageism that segregates and isolates them in fear and mistrust.'" Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Their mission statement is worthless, as I pointed out on the talk page. Not to mention it doesn't state anything specifically about "youth rights". We call things what they are here and NAMBLA is explicitly defined by every reliable source as a pedophilia and pedastry advocacy group, not a youth rights advocacy group. It would be like describing the KKK as a racial equality group. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the talk page, that quote is not the mission statement of the organization but a part of the description of the organization given by the RS referenced. As I also wrote there, "a comprehensive program to liberate and empower youth" - again the description by the RS, these are not words from the organization describing themselves - is practically the definition of youth rights/youth liberation. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

and as I've pointed out, you're wrong and your transparent attempts to whitewash the article and push pro-pedophilia POV without sources is well noted. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You are free to read the section on NAMBLA in that source, which is available online for free, for yourself. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have blocked this user for disruptive editing, among other issues. While the article may need some work, they seem more here to promote a problematic POV. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• I have reverted changes made at the article French petition against age of consent laws by the now globally locked editor Epistemological biker as some were clearly biased – changing a comment about relationships between teenagers to adult/child relationships, for example. Unfortunately, I didn't finish the edit summary before accidentally hitting return. I don't know if there was anything useful added / changed, I just took it all out. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

NPOV issues in some sections at Space Race

There seems to be an NPOV issue in Space Race in which there are concerns that some or all of that article may be unjustifiably skewed towards pro-USSR/Russian viewpoints. Attempts to rectify the issue had been made by me and others, such as the addition of this edit out of the belief that they are of pertinence to the presentation of the information within this article.

Unfortunately, around two editors had reverted those under the very vague reasons of "unencyclopedic", "trivia" or "not suited here", and as it reached 3RR I first attempted to reach one of the reverters at talk page to discuss the issue, but found out that it was semi-protected. Thus I'd had initially brought the issue to the article talk page for discussion or solicit third opinions from subject matter experts.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Race&diff=1096178509&oldid=1096115562

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Race&diff=1096429619&oldid=1096427505

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Race&diff=1096430709&oldid=1096430480

As the discussion went on, I proofread the article once again and found out more issues:

• The "Origins" section gives more coverage to Soviet rocket development whereas American ones like Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT were left out, the latter makes the statement This left the United States as the only one of the major three World War II powers not to have its own rocket program, until Von Braun and his engineers were expatriated in 1945. inaccurate.

• Within the Robotic lunar probes section, the Soviet's Luna mission were given relatively meticulous attention (such as failure attempts) and America's early Thor-Able probes in the Pioneer program were ignored. At a glance readers would take that US has less failure rate that the USSR, but deep down it gave another wrong impression that US has a late footing than Russia and "didn't try hard enough" in terms of lunar probes launching attempts whether successful or not.

• The Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine in the "See also" section, which should just be in namesake satellite page as it's a bit out of scope in this article, appears to be something that "spikes the football" for Russia, in spite of original editor's intentions when adding the link to here. Fixed

• By standards which the editors in that discussion had used in this case, the following passage in the article is conceivably "trivia" or "irrelevant" as well:

Valentina Tereshkova, was launched into space on Vostok 6 on June 16, 1963,[90] as (possibly) a medical experiment. She was the only one to fly of a small group of female parachutist factory workers (unlike the male cosmonauts who were military test pilots),[91] chosen by the head of cosmonaut training because he read a tabloid article about the "Mercury 13" group of women wanting to become astronauts, and got the mistaken idea that NASA was actually entertaining this. Procedurally dropped due to WP:BURNOUT related to Chronic Covid Syndrome.

At least for me, it fails Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance as it is skewed towards pro Russian viewpoint, no matter how subtle it is. In a larger way, it could invite animosity among WP:READERS in the context of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

They could get an impression that USSR/Russia's achievements were overrated or bloated to the detriment of the US, even though there is a dictum in the FAQ at the article talk page header stating that the race resulted in a tie and no one "won" the race. As a result some of them would go dig deeper and find out that there are nuances or caveats behind those achievements and proceed to either edit the page or just make a fuss about it. If it's reverted or so on then they could easily switch to the latter, where it could very well become something like the Streisand effect and produce a perception that Wikipedia violated WP:NPOV conventions by "secretly loving Russia" in here which I fear could produce net harm to the project in the long term.

As the discussion there had headed into a deadlock, with no input from subject matter experts as of yet, I have decided to raise this issue at this noticeboard. Any help would be appreciated in resolving this NPOV issue. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Deadlock is certainly one way to describe all other editors agreeing your edits were poor. Andyjsmith gave a particularly well-worded explanation here, which I suggest reading again given your repeated assertion that explanations have been vague. CMD (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

In light of your helpful advice to read his statement again while checking the sections where the proposed edits about the Ranger probe and Ham the chimp is at, I've found out that the use of the word "first" was less prevalent than expected, thus I'll be happy to drop the two proposed edits, for now.

However, as for the third proposed edit regarding Alan Shepard, I think it should be okay if we slip in a brief statement that he landed while inside his spacecraft while leaving the extraneous lines into articles that which are "in-depth", such as the adjacent Timeline of the Space Race, where a longstanding consensus including even subject matter experts exist to uphold and preserve the passage which in turn helps maintain WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Example.

It remains to be seen how the newfound other NPOV issues listed in the bulleted points above will be handled. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Just made a strike on a bullet point due to this edit.204.15.72.92 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Switching to other marking options. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

First human spaceflight

The dispute has by now extended to Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race where after a short RR, me and User:TompaDompa had temporarily restored the following passage while marking it up for discussion.

First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft and thus the first complete human spaceflight by then FAI definitions.

Relevant references:

• http://www.techrepublic.com/article/geek-trivia-a-leap-of-fakes
• https://www.seeker.com/gagarins-falsified-flight-record-1765739082.html
• https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/why-yuri-gagarin-remains-first-man-space-even-though-he-did-not-land-inside-his

The side advocating the removal claimed their rationale on the grounds of WP:MINORASPECT, although there was long and implicit consensus to preserve the passage before today. Conversely, me and perhaps some others like subject matter expert User:JustinTime55 who had upheld the passage because FAI rules at 1960s required takeoff and landing inside spacecraft. In this case, distinction matters and it would violate WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and become a case of WP:POVDELETION if the fact was left out.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_Space_Race&diff=753862145&oldid=753803108

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_space_exploration&diff=787659288&oldid=787604255

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_Space_Race&diff=prev&oldid=787604332

Taking account of other editors' concerns about WP:MINORASPECT while mindful of Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance where suppression of information risk making more problems rather than resolution, I had attempted to relegate the passage into a Template:NoteTag which can be seen here. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Do sources on the history of space exploration and the history of the Space Race (respectively) give significant weight to the distinction of being the first astronaut to land inside the spacecraft? I took a quick look at some such sources ([21][22][23][24] and [25][26][27][28][29], respectively) and they did not, but that could of course have been a non-representative sample. However, if they do not, this is a WP:MINORASPECT that should not be included because An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

I'll also note that https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/why-yuri-gagarin-remains-first-man-space-even-though-he-did-not-land-inside-his (cited above) says The conclusion of the delegates was to rework the parameters of human spaceflight to recognize that the great technological accomplishment of spaceflight was the launch, orbiting and safe return of the human, not the manner in which he or she landed. Gagarin and Titov's records remained on the FAI books. and as is true with any sports organization, the FAI reserved the right to reexamine and reinterpret its rules in light of new knowledge and circumstances. Yuri Gagarin remains indisputably the first person in space and the concept that the first cosmonauts had to land inside their spacecraft is a faded artifact of the transition from aviation to spaceflight. So going by that source, the assertion that Shepard's was the first "proper" spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view that must not be included. TompaDompa (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Taking reliability issue aside, Russian state media agency TASS had described that the view was even held by NASA which then attempted to get FAI to not recognize Yuri Gagarin as a cosmonaut and instead be referred as a parachute jumper.

• https://tass.com/science/868892

In this respect it is not really a fringe view, but rather something that had made it to mainstream but underreported, due to the falsification and suppression of information on this aspect by the former Soviet Union.204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed "First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft and thus the first complete human spaceflight by then FAI definitions." and its associated references from both Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race as per WP:FALSEBALANCE. This is definitely a minority / fringe view and should not be included in either timeline. The only reason this requirement was on the initial Fédération Aéronautique Internationale rules is that it was a carry-over from aviation, the FAI subsequently amended these rules that make it clear this issue was irrelevant to Yuri Gagarin's achievements, refer to this reference for the complete explanation. This issue is already explaned on the Yuri Gagarin, however it would create a WP:FALSEBALANCE to included it in an other article, particularly the "Timeline" articles.Ilenart626 (talk)

The sidebar in the often-invoked WP:FALSEBALANCE contains a passage from BBC Trust's policy stating that This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.

In fact, as said before the view was the direct product of 1960s FAI rules, rather than some hodge podgey theories drawn up by some tin foilers like flat Earth believers. Implications or conclusions by virtue of classical textualism had been drawn from the interpretation of the FAI rules through reliable sources like the Tech Republic and Discovery Channel's Seeker (media company), although at that time as you mentioned, FAI gave in and retroactively mark him as the first man to fly in space out of pure practicality, mostly because many other spaceflights had already occurred by the time the scandal was uncovered. If TASS is to be believed, NASA had at one point attempt to use the grounds to persuade FAI to refer Gagarin as a parachutist. Even today, the view still appears in discussions related to Yuri Gagarin.

Because of these, the information that was embodied in the passage clearly falls into the quoted BBC Trust's policy as above. However, for now within the list articles I think it would be more appropriate to make it into Template:NoteTag, with an option of revisiting this to see whether to restore to a full blown text after half a year. This is because, from an eventualist lens, the ever increasing unpopularity against Russia due to the invasion of Ukraine can plausibly cause views expressing skepticism against Russian achievements in general, such as the one being discussed here, to be re-popularised and ending up on mainstream opinion, just like WP:CCC. This is not helped by the recent fact that Russian cosmonauts had displayed separatist flags on the International Space Station. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The ability to perform a soft and safe landing of the descent capsule was quite an important technological distinction at that time, as well. It's why there was a longstanding and implicit consensus to preserve the passage for more than five years until now. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Just think about this perspective; it is the equivalent of Charles Lindbergh deadhanding his plane to Paris while bailing out onto a ship somewhere near the Irish coast. There was even an investigation by FAI itself on whether to disqualify Gagarin before budging out of practicality. In the grand scheme of things when covering events in the era where technological achievements and feats are showcased by either side of the Atlantic, that passage goes right into something we call a MacGuffin at least. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Astronautica, despite some inaccuracies since it was not really up to date, had a footnote directly in Gagarin's entry of its manned spaceflight list page mentioning the caveat that he bailed out of flight with the implication that the record would be rejected by the FAI in normal circumstances. Keep note that the almanac was endorsed by the American Astronautical Society's History Committee in terms of credibility while NASA regularly refers its readers to it. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

NASA website describes Gagarin's flight as the first human spaceflight. TASS is not reliable to state that NASA actually considers his flight a parachute jump.

The story about FAI rules technicality is classified by TechRepublic as 'geek trivia', which it probably is.

On the substance of the matter, neither Shephard's Mercury-Redstone 3 or most of the modern spacecraft such as Soyuz and Crew Dragon are capable of performing a controlled landing in the sense old FAI rules required: the last phase of the flight is parachuting followed by an impact. PaulT2022 (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Except that, unlike the other examples you've brought up, Gagarin ejected himself out of the spacecraft before touchdown. As said before, this is an equivalent of Charles Lindbergh deadhanding Spirit of St. Louis to Paris while bailing out onto a ship somewhere near the Irish coast. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The NASA link which you've posted here said that This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers. Visit NASA.gov for current information, just as a note. According to the page, textually speaking, they merely state that Gagarin was the first to orbit the Earth.204.15.72.92 (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

From a quick Google books search, I was able to uncover the following:

• The Race: The Complete True Story of How America Beat Russia to the Moon by TIME correspondent James L. Schefter. Page unknown.

The problem was, under FAI rules, a pilot must stay with his ship from takeoff to landing. ail out and it doesn't count.

• Human Spaceflight by Joseph A. Angelo. Page 24.

Years later, when Russian officials admitted that Gagarin had ejected from the Vostok 1 spacecraft during descent and did not land in the same craft in which he started his journey, some FAI officials raised a technicality that questioned the official status of his “first-in-spaceflight” record. Founded in 1905, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) is the world organization responsible for setting standards and keeping records within the fields of aeronautics and astronautics. In 1961, the FAI rules required that a pilot (that is, an astronaut or cosmonaut) must land with the spacecraft to be considered as having achieved an official spaceflight worthy of entry into the FAI book of records.

It was the second source stating that it was FAI officials and not average Joes that raised the technicality of his "first in spaceflight" record. That itself says a lot. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's a document by James Oberg which has just been found.204.15.72.92 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• http://www.jamesoberg.com/red_star_in_orbit_04_Gagarin_only.pdf

This uncertainty came to a head in Paris three months later, when the International Aeronautical Federation, or FAI (the acronym for the French name), convened a meeting to certify the world records being claimed for the flight. A longstanding FAI rule could have meant an embarrassing propaganda defeat: to qualify for any new world flying records, a pilot must take off and land in his aircraft or spacecraft. The rule book was quite explicit on this point.

As it turned out, the Vostok capsule was equipped with an ejection seat, which served to catapult the pilot clear of the booster in the event of a launch failure. The same system was to be used during the final descent to earth, since the three-ton spherical landing capsule did not pack a parachute large enough to ensure a gentle (or even a survivable) landing. The pilot was supposed to fire the ejection seat at about 10,000 feet and come down separately. Gagarin had almost certainly used this method.

In Paris, the FAI director-general confronted the Soviet delegate with the crucial question: “Where was the pilot on in return in relation to the space vehicle?” Perhaps sensing a plot to deny the Soviet Union its rightful recognition, the Soviet spokesman loudly protested: “Ask the Americans if the U.S.A. believes that these records claimed for Gagarin were actually made. All the people of the world have already endorsed Gagarin’s flight and have accepted it as fact.” The wrangling went on for five hours, with the FAI officials demanding documentation that Gagarin had landed inside the ship and the Soviet delegates denouncing such requirements as obstructionist and insulting.

Finally, as dinnertime approached, the FAI officials gave in and agreed to certify the Soviet version of the flight that Gagarin had been inside the capsule. Subsequently, when foreign newsmen asked for evidence that Gagarin had landed inside the ship, Soviet officials would point to the FAI certification as independent proof of their claims. But as the proverb goes, nobody has a good enough memory to be a successful liar. A year later cosmonaut Popovich was asked how he landed, and without checking he blurted out, “Like Titov and Gagarin, I landed outside the ship”; in 1964 the three-man Voskhod capsule would include a small retrorocket to cushion the final landing, and boastful Soviet space officials would point to it as “the first time that a crew could land in its ship.” Ten years later a book by chief Soviet space correspondent Evgeny Riabchikov would describe how the Vostok came down in a plowed field while Gagarin himself came down in a pasture near a deep ravine.

Still, that isn't 1971 yet, when the full details of his landing came out.204.15.72.92 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph from Human Spaceflight by Joseph A. Angelo. Page 24 continues with Despite the subsequent FAI record challenge based on a technicality within the rules, Gagarin's mission and marvelous accomplishment is still almost universally recognized as the first human spaceflight.

More importantly, none of the sources you've provided state that Shepard performed the first human spaceflight. They say that based on a technicality, in the opinion of authors (but not FAI), Gagarin's flight should've been disqualified from being recognized as an official record. This is different from the statement made in this edit.

What these sources would support is a footnote stating something along the lines of: Some authors speculate that in the case if FAI were to reject Gagarin's record based on a technicality, Shepard may have been considered to perform the first spaceflight.

We don't have a way to know whether FAI would've accepted Gagarin's record if they knew about bailing out, and neither whether Shepard's landing would've been considered the record by the same rules. Its all pure speculation and should be presented with appropriate wording and weight.

I agree with the opinion of editors who stated that its UNDUE, however, inclusion of a footnote about existing speculation could be useful for readers that share IP address's opinion about expressing skepticism against Russian achievements in general. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a great start! Furthermore in page 109 of Nicholas de Monchaux's Spacesuit: Fashioning Apollo, the following passage was shown:

The particulars of this process, and the fact of Gagarin's separate landing, were not revealed until 1978.

A reference tag was marked on the sentence within the book. Since according to the sources so far, the FAI had questioned the veracity of Soviet's record for two times, specifically after Titov's flight and during the 1970s, I was wondering whether it could lead to sources that can confirm that the latter had happened. I'll see if my local bookstore has the book this weekend.

On the articles, the proposed note tag text can also be worded as,

Some sources speculated that per the interpretation of FAI definitions in 1961, Shepard, rather than Gagarin, may have been considered to complete the first human spaceflight mission. This is due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. However, later on FAI eventually recognised Gagarin as the first human to fly into space due to practical reasons.

204.15.72.92 (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

However, later on FAI eventually recognised Gagarin as the first human to fly into space due to practical reasons. - every word here is a misrepresentation:

1. FAI recognised Gagarin's flight from the beginning

2. sources don't doubt the Gagarin was the first human to fly into space; they discuss whether FAI should've recognized this as a specific type of a record

3. 'practical' reasons that made FAI consider Gagarin's flight the first flight is an entirely unfounded speculation

What this sentence probably should say instead is something like FAI later changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished (paraphrasing the penultimate paragraph from here)

PaulT2022 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

So the text would instead be Some sources speculated that per the interpretation of FAI definitions in 1961, Shepard, rather than Gagarin, may have been considered to complete the first human spaceflight mission. This is due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. However FAI later changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished.

Thanks. I'll wait for comments from others about this proposed solution before putting those onto the Timeline pages while moving on to discuss other issues in Space Race, including the omission of Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with 'however': it implies a contradiction, whereas sources say the rules were updated to reflect differences between piloting spaceships and airships.

I think 'the interpretation' is also inappropriate: clearly its not the only one as FAI interpreted them to recognise Gagarin's flight instead of Shepard's. Probably should say 'per formalistic interpretation', 'per alternative interpretation' or something similar.

Ultimately, sources see this as a WP:FRINGE viewpoint and while I see a merit for its inclusion in a footnote, it shouldn't be described as anything different from what it is; definitely not as a some sort of truth kept secret by FAI as implied by the proposed wording. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hence, the passage would be Some sources speculated that per formalistic interpretation of FAI definitions in 1961, Shepard, rather than Gagarin, may have been considered to complete the first human spaceflight mission. This is due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. FAI later changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished. They would be a note tag attached to both Gagarin's "first human spaceflight" and Shepard's "First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft" in those Timeline articles. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a source to state that the Shepard's flight would've indeed been the one recognised instead? Not being picky, just realised his flight was suborbital, so its not automatically obvious that it would've met the criteria. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:BLUESKY would apply here as Shepard's flight was directly after Gagarin's making the former the second man in space, which has the logical implication of Freedom 7 being the first spaceflight instead had Vostok 1 been disqualified. Temporarily taking aside all these, presently it's a known and well established fact that he landed within his spacecraft whereas Gagarin did not. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Not only its well established, but its been reported by New York Times in "SOVIET CLARIFIES GAGARIN'S FLIGHT" 8 May 1961 p39, two months before FAI acknowledged Gagarin's records. The implication that Shepard was therefore first to fly to space because of landing method used by the Soviets never surfaced at the time. To the best of my understanding, none of the sources linked above makes such connection either. PaulT2022 (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately, the sources say that the idea that Gagarin did not make the first crewed spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view. Whether this was controversial decades ago is irrelevant—it isn't now. The idea that it was the equivalent of Charles Lindbergh deadhanding his plane to Paris while bailing out onto a ship somewhere near the Irish coast is the personal opinion of an editor, which carries no weight here. It is not appropriate to include this fringe view in the articles, not even in a footnote and not even if we clearly describe it as a fringe view. Debunking it unprompted would be legitimizing it (as worthy of being explicitly debunked) to an extent that is simply not justified by the sources we have. As Ilenart626 noted, this is covered at Yuri Gagarin#Vostok 1, which currently says:

At about 7,000 metres (23,000 ft), Gagarin ejected from the descending capsule as planned and landed using a parachute. There were concerns Gagarin's spaceflight record would not be certified by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), the world governing body for setting standards and keeping records in the field, which at the time required that the pilot land with the craft. Gagarin and Soviet officials initially refused to admit that he had not landed with his spacecraft, an omission which became apparent after Titov's flight on Vostok 2 four months later. Gagarin's spaceflight records were nonetheless certified and reaffirmed by the FAI, which revised its rules, and acknowledged that the crucial steps of the safe launch, orbit, and return of the pilot had been accomplished. Gagarin is internationally recognised as the first human in space and first to orbit the Earth.

That is the proper place and manner to cover this information. Sources on the topic of the articles at hand—the history of space exploration and the history of the Space Race, respectively—generally do not cover this aspect from what I've seen. That makes it a WP:MINORASPECT which is not to be included because it would be giving it undue weight. The same goes for Shepard being the first astronaut to land inside the spacecraft—it's a WP:MINORASPECT which is not to be included. At best, we can place {{FAQ}} on the talk pages (see Talk:September 11 attacks for an example of how the template can be used). If we do so, it should say something like:

Q: Didn't Alan Shepard technically make the first human spaceflight?
A: No. This idea stems from old Fédération Aéronautique Internationale rules carried over from aviation stipulating that the pilot had to land inside the vessel, while Yuri Gagarin parachuted out of Vostok 1. The FAI decided to certify Gagarin's record and amended their rules to not require landing inside the spacecraft as they judged that landing safely was the important part. Gagarin is almost universally recognized as having made the first human spaceflight, and the conception that he did not is a WP:FRINGE view.

What do you think about this, PaulT2022? TompaDompa (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@TompaDompa I agree completely with WP:FRINGE / WP:MINORASPECT. Not only its minor, but the implication that if FAI were not to recognise Gagarin's records would imply that he didn't fly to space is unsourced, as far as I understand. (FAI doesn't recognise primacy in the space race or the fact of the space flight; and Gagarin's flight was orbital, far above the required altitude and likely tracked by the US tracking stations. So it would've only affected FAI recognition of the altitude/duration of an orbital flight record.)

Having said that, the problem is not it was controversial because of the bail out decades ago (it wasn't - see this contemporary NYT article from 8 May 1961 for example), but that it became controversial now, because there are people eager to debunk Russian claims and achievements assuming that they're potential lies. (For example: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022/03/yuri-gagarin-gets-memory-holed-by-american-space-advocacy-group https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/12/putins-schoolboy-hero-inspiring-invasion-ukraine/)

James Oberg's quote above is alleged to be from the 70s. However, he himself mentions in the PDF that he reworked his article and book, and the part quoted above seems to be plagiarised from The cosmonaut who couldn't stop smiling by Andrew Jenks, pp.148-150, published in 2012. Jenks attributes the entire story about FAI concerns to his 2007 interview with a local teacher from Saratov, who also happens to be an amateur historian interested in the space race. Jenks also references two local untraceable newspapers without naming article authors, so its conceivable that they're written by the same teacher. Seeker article appears to be a rewrite of either James or Oberg (judging by the narrative structure). The rest of the sources who mention FAI being at odds about recognising Gagarin's primacy in space don't reference where the story comes from; it is possible that they're basing it on Jenks, as no pre-2007 sources that would talk about this controversy were presented.

I think that explaining why Gagarin is named/listed as first in space would be useful for readers who come to Wikipedia after reading fringe theories. Agree that its best if it would not be phrased as debunking because of legitimisation concerns. And definitely not in the proposed wording that would imply that FAI stole space race victory from Shepard.

Perhaps a contemporaneous source can be found that would say that FAI reaffirmed the Gagarin's flight eligibility after reviewing the landing method? Linking it as a reference for anyone in doubt would be better than a custom footnote. If such source doesn't exist, then its really problematic for adding anything as the only source I was able to trace is the teacher from Saratov mentioned by Jenks, and the rest appear to copy from him. None of them really makes a clear connection that if Gagarin's records wouldn't have been recognised by FAI, primacy of his flight would be somehow invalidated. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

James Oberg's book Red star in orbit which was published in 1981, contains the exact long passage regarding the confrontation between FAI officials and Soviet delegates at page 55. The Encyclopedia Astronautica was more explicit that Gagarin would not qualify for all the FAI spaceflight records as the 1961 sporting code mandated every flight, including spaceflight as something which must involve the presence of pilot in their craft during takeoff and landing. It was interpreted by the Tech Republic that:

Thus, he did not "legally" complete a piloted flight under the guidelines of the FAI, the international aeronautics governing body.

Moreover, according to those sources, the records of both Gagarin's and Shepard's were examined at that time, while Smithsonian noted the following:

If nationals from two different countries claim a record, it is the FAI's job to examine the submitted documentation and make a ruling as to who has accomplished the feat first.

With above, the note tag would serve as a Macguffin in those articles. Besides that, landing safely while inside the spacecraft is an impressive feat on its own, particularly given the context of that era and the Charles Lindbergh analogy. "First in space" or "First to fly into space", and "First to complete spaceflight", although similar at a glance, can carry a different meaning. It's not just something like whether Pluto is a planet; rather Gagarin was only a hair breadth from being disqualified before FAI gave in. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The point you're missing is, as evident from the contemporaneous publications, as well as FAI website, it certified three records for Gagarin's flight: duration of orbital flight, greatest altitude of orbital flight and greatest mass lifted in orbit. It certified two records for Shepard's non-orbital flight, in two different categories, for a sub-orbital flight. FAI never certified the record for who was first to fly to space.

You've supplied sources that say that because FAI recognised Gagarin's records, his primacy in space is unquestionable, and that the Soviets made contradicting statements about his landing to secure FAI records regardless of its ruling. There's no question about it. However, after reading all sources carefully, I can't find anything to support the claim that were his three orbital flight records not to be recognised, Shepard would've been considered the first man in space instead. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What we have is a WP:FRINGE view and a WP:MINORASPECT. Everything else is beside the point. I'm removing the fringe/undue material from article space. TompaDompa (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, @TompaDompa: please do not close the discussion yet as it hasn't run its full course. Presently there are only five participants which would be far from fulfilling a quorum, especially when subject matter experts such as @JustinTime55: hadn't weighed in yet. In fact, according to page history he had restored or upheld the passage in 2016 while the information had been staying up on the page ever since with longstanding WP:SILENTCONSENSUS, until now.

Prematurely closing this discussion would be akin to saying a given political candidate had won the election when there are uncounted postal votes that could result in a loss or a tie. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now you're just straight-up WP:WikiLawyering, and poorly at that. I didn't close the discussion and Most conversations do not need to be closed. per WP:WHENCLOSE. Silence is the weakest form of consensus per WP:SILENTCONSENSUS and it has now been challenged—several editors here agree that this is not appropriate to include. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. per WP:ONUS. You are promoting what is per the sources a WP:FRINGE view in article space. TompaDompa (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, it would be more precise to state that it is (or was) a significant minority view rather than a "fringe" opinion, as it was the FAI officials that raise the technicality to the Soviet delegates. This states that Views held by a significant minority should be included, but should not be given as extensive coverage as majority views. To do so would overstate the extent of controversy. Aside from those, one thing which I notice that was overlooked from this discussion so far is that there is subtle yet significant etymological differences between "first man in space", "first human spaceflight mission", and "technically completing the first human spaceflight mission". It is not helpful to move the goalpost within this context, such as conflating the three altogether. I will make a table here to explain it easier.

Question	Yuri Gagarin	Alan Shepard
First person to cross the 100km Karman line boundary and into space?	Yes.	No.
First human spaceflight mission (irrespective of outcomes or technicalities)?	Yes.	No.
Technically completing the first human spaceflight mission by 1961 FAI definitions?	No. He ejected out of his spacecraft before landing.	Yes. He was in the spacecraft all the time.

The sources simply implied Point 3 based on the formalistic interpretation of 1961 FAI rules. Moreover, aside from WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:CHILDPROTECT (due to an unfortunate fact that a thread attempting to do p*do advocacy is just above this Outpost Tavern), there is an interesting caveat in WP:NPOV in the form of WP:NONAZIS prohibiting views that attempt to whitewash Nazi Germany, Nazism and the likes from appearing on Wikipedia, presumably broadly construed. It is more than the simplistic discontent among readers.

As time goes on, we may very well see the editing community outlawing any edits or views that promote Russocentric totalitarian beliefs like Rashism or Russkiy Mir (Russian world) in the same fashion as above. When it happens any contents within any topic that is deemed too slanted towards pro-Russian viewpoints will be up for challenge, as with concurrent to the discrediting of Russophilic ideologies, a section in WP:NORACISTS states that racists generally believes in That their culture is superior to others and editors would want to err on the safe side, particularly given the association of Gagarin mythos by Putin with his war and Russia in general, and the display of separatist flags by Russian cosmonauts within the International Space Station.

This is entirely similar to the Midas Curse. In fact as per this Vanity Fair article which is already put here, the beginning had already started. Hence, if we remove the passage in the name of fixing "false balance", more likely than not we'd be ending up reinventing the wheel and end up on the starting point once again which by all means is going to be unnecessarily disruptive to all of us. Considering that the retention of passage in full may be akin to fighting fire with fire and causing undue weight, at this time the rewritting of passage into something as anodyne as possible and subsequent relegation into a note tag may be the least bad solution out, within the situation that is like between rock and a hard place.

I digress, indeed. But the gist is circumstances may wildly change so much that it would be better not to commit the sin of omission of throwing the baby out with the water. In the meantime only First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft would remain as main text within the articles, because what's the point of having to eject from spaceships like Soyuz or Dragon every time when there is a room of improvement to eliminate this major discomfort? It's an impressive and significant technological advancement on its own, despite being a "one small step".204.15.72.92 (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Technically completing the first human spaceflight mission by 1961 FAI definitions? - this is unsourced, as there's no reliable source that states FAI ever recognised who made the first human spaceflight (besides the Angelo's childrens' book written by a non-expert), and its trivial to verify that FAI indeed didn't make such judgement.

I retract my previous statements about merit existing to include this speculation, which indeed could've been there because of Russocentric concerns. As it stands now, its a speculation by two editors, not supported by a known reliable source. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The mentioned Tech Republic source stated that Gagarin Thus, he did not “legally” complete a piloted flight under the guidelines of the FAI, the international aeronautics governing body". But at this stage, I'd be happy to rewrite the proposed notetag into a more anodyne manner.204.15.72.92 (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

How about nixing the explanatory footnote and instead using the {{FAQ}} template in the manner I suggested above? TompaDompa (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Thanks for the creation of the FAQ pages; don't forget Timeline of space exploration and also Space age. We're still in the process on whether to go a little bit WP:IGNOREALLRULES to move the Tech Republic and/or Smithsonian citations to the respective Gagarin's sections, given that most readers don't really bother to click the link to the talk page and the wider context which I think I had repeated ad infinitum here.204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This is getting rather tiresome. No, we're obviously not going to WP:Ignore all rules to go out of our way to get people to read WP:FRINGE views. If people don't read the FAQ debunking a WP:FRINGE theory unless they are looking for it because most readers don't really bother to click the link to the talk page, that would in fact be a feature rather than a bug. By trying to get people to read about a WP:FRINGE view, you are promoting a WP:FALSEBALANCE—surely you must realize this? TompaDompa (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea, for now. Besides that, it might be helpful to put the Tech Republic and Smithsonian links into the Yuri Gagarin sections of both the Timeline articles where they would just be a "further reading" directing users to outside resources that contains the view while simultaneously affirming Gagarin's "first in space" record. That would be anodyne enough to allay concerns of "pro-Russian whitewashing", while adhering to WP:DUEWEIGHT. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm against as these articles don't say what records FAI was involved with, effectively spreading disinformation by omission. For anyone interested, contemporaneous NYT article specifies, some digging on FAI website allows to find answer as well.

It happened just about the exact time the events in Oberg's long passage happened. Note that there was still only circumstantial evidences that Gagarin jumped. According to Stephen Walker's book Beyond: The Astonishing Story of the First Human to Leave Our Planet and Journey into Space, there were even initial newspaper reports in Saratov that Gagarin jumped, only to be destroyed by the KGB. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Correction: The information somehow leaked out through the Iron Curtain and picked up by some Italian newspapers mere days after Vostok 1. RadioTV Svizzera's journalist Paolo Attivissimo has a Twitter thread of it with translations. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that inclusion of these links is against WP:EL guideline. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Categorically disagree with Not to mention that inclusion of these links is against WP:EL guideline. WP:ELYES states that Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. The Smithsonian article in particular could be an ad hoc FAQ for readers, not unlike as proposed by Tompa.204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with PaulT2022 here. Don't link to sites hosting WP:FRINGE views as "further reading", obviously. TompaDompa (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The Smithsonian citation which in addition of being far more reliable than Tech Republic, is more anodyne than the latter. It has mentions of the controversy, but ultimately affirmed the fact that Gagarin was the first in space. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this source doesn't have mentions of the controversy, but ultimately affirmed the fact that Gagarin was the first in space. Rather, it clarifies that there is no controversy—that the idea that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view. We shouldn't try to inform readers about WP:FRINGE views they are not already aware of. I added the link to the FAQ, because that's the appropriate place to put it in this context. TompaDompa (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding you are promoting a WP:FALSEBALANCE—surely you must realize this?, maybe. However the WP:FRINGE invocation that's now being thrown around like a shibboleth also contains the BBC Trust policy that This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.

The bad thing is it is going to be in the eye of the beholder. In most times editorial disputes such as this can be affected by Wikipedia:GEOBIAS too. No offense, for example in America they would feel that the edit must be present in any form to maintain NPOV, while in Russia more might think it's extraneous or unnecessary "revisionism", and all of the rest could be a tossup, including apathetic attitudes like "meh, I don't care".

For the moment, I think we can soft close this discussion and move to the next topic of the inclusion of Qian Xuesen and GALCIT into Space Race, with the possibility of a re-opening at any time in case of changed circumstances; examples being the decision of Justin or other subject matter experts to weigh in, change of authoritative spaceflight timelines info (i.e. Britannica) to include the technicality amidst the rising anti-Russian sentiment, access to sources such as records from FAI or NASA that are not initially covered here which support the inclusion of the passage, or the expansion of WP:NONAZIS to prohibit the pushin pro-Russian ideologies of all spectrums. This is not to mention the possible concerns of "minority rule" on the Timeline and the space age large-traffic articles.

Move to the next? 204.15.72.92 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per the sources, the idea that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view. "Yuri Gagarin remains indisputably the first person in space and the concept that the first cosmonauts had to land inside their spacecraft is a faded artifact of the transition from aviation to spaceflight." and "Despite the subsequent FAI record challenge based on a technicality within the rules, Gagarin's mission and marvelous accomplishment is still almost universally recognized as the first human spaceflight."—mind you that these are your sources that you brought up. Whether there was some controversy several decades ago doesn't matter—the idea that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view now.

With regard to Shepard being the first astronaut to land inside the spacecraft, sources on the topic of the articles at hand—the history of space exploration and the history of the Space Race, respectively—generally do not cover this aspect. It's a WP:MINORASPECT which is not to be mentioned in these articles. If you disagree with that, demonstrate that this is incorrect by citing sources on the topic of the history of space exploration and the history of the Space Race which demonstrates that this is in fact something the sources consider to be a significant aspect of these topics. TompaDompa (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

By the same logic as you had put forth, First interplanetary escape without undercarriage cutoff.[clarification needed] would be FRINGE-y as well. However obviously that would be not germane in the discussion here due to it being in different era. Besides, WP:NOTPAPER may be of relevance while Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space and balance detoured that Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers.

Otherwise, I'm more than inclined to put in the mentions of Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT into Space Race, assuming that there's a go from all of you.204.15.72.92 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the scope of this discussion isn't really limited to Gagarin and Shepard alone; the topic include other pro-Russian POV issues such as the omission of Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT. However as recently COVID hit me and I'm still grappling with neurological issues, I may leave this all entirely to the community to run on its own after the issues regarding Gagarin and Qian Xuesen were resolved.

Fine. I rewrote the proposed tag ground up into the following:

Some sources reported that Vostok 1 did not meet the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale's requirements of establishing records due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. FAI changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished.

Otherwise, taking PaulT2022's suggestion, for this time I will put the Tech Republic link and some of the rest into the Timeline articles, this time as a citation on Gagarin's "first human spaceflight mission" or so, while removing the text from Alan Shepard's section which according to page history has been there for about five years. 19:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

204.15.72.92 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I kindly request not to attribute to me what I haven't said.

My opinion is the entire FAI rules argument cannot be used to speculate who could've been considered first in space unless a WP:RS presented to establish the relevance of FAI rules to Gagarin being recognised as the first human to fly in space (TechRepublic author doesn't make such judgement), at which point an informed discussion on WP:FRINGE viewpoint inclusion can be held. As of now, the proposed edit is an unsourced speculation and I'm against it per WP:VERIFIABILITY. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I kindly request not to attribute to me what I haven't said? Sure, however as the old saying goes, you can't unring a bell. Please keep that in mind next time.204.15.72.92 (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The "citation" option would not really involve the (re) addition of information per se onto the two articles per se; rather it would just be a "further reading" which directs users to outside resources that contains the view while simultaneously affirming Gagarin's "first in space" record. That would be anodyne enough to allay concerns of "pro-Russian whitewashing", while adhering to WP:DUEWEIGHT.204.15.72.92 (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hang on! The Seeker article implied that If Gagarin and Titov both ejected before landing, the Soviet Union would lose its spot in history as the first nation to launch a man into space. But I guess it's late now. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The article then goes on to say the FAI held a special meeting of delegates to reexamine Titov's records and reconsider Gagarin's. The result of the meeting was a change to the parameters that defined spaceflight rather than a change to the records. The parameters switched to focus on the payload launched; this technical achievement mattered more than how the astronaut or cosmonaut landed. That Gagarin had orbited the Earth was the real achievement, and both his and Titov's records remain in the FAI's books. and After the decision to keep Gagarin's record intact, the early Vostok landing system went from a controversial issue to a historical oddity of the transition from flight in aircraft to spaceflight in capsules. In other words, there is no controversy and there hasn't been for decades. The idea that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view. It's time to WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

FTFY: there is no controversy and there hasn't been for decades yet. But fine, I'll move on to the next section for now.204.15.72.92 (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Seeker article has factual inaccuracies: if two nations were going to vie for the record of first in space, the FAI should have clear rules to determine a winner. The result of the meeting was a change to the parameters that defined spaceflight rather than a change to the records. The parameters switched to focus on the payload launched; this technical achievement mattered more than how the astronaut or cosmonaut landed.

These parameters were the ones claimed by the Soviets from the beginning and certified by FAI before the Titov's flight; FAI never made a determination of who was first in space.

Given the contradictions with secondary coverage in NYT and primary documents from FAI, I don't think this Seeker article can be considered to be a WP:RS per WP:REDFLAG PaulT2022 (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an NYT subscription, can you please quote the relevant passage from it? 204.15.72.92 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Its a very short note, says that FAI certified three orbital flight records for Gagarin (added here) and two for the sub-orbital Shepard's flight. Published on 23 Jul 1961.

I suppose FAI website should have the details about what records and when they've certified in open access. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Although the atmosphere was so tense because of the charged nature of the underlying issues, I feel grateful to learn about a quirk that Gagarin's record of attaining highest altitude in elliptical orbit through a one-man spacecraft remains unsurpassed. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

204.15.72.92 endlessly arguing with walls of green text does not change the fact that you are pushing WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE issues. Suggest you get a life and stop wasting editors time with your nonsense. Ilenart626 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggest you to refresh yourself with WP:CIVILITY as get a life can often be construed as appearing to ridicule another editor's comment.204.15.72.92 (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the text below as their is no consensus for adding this Wikipedia:Fringe theories to the talk pages of Talk:Space Age, Talk:Timeline of the Space Race

and Talk:Timeline of space exploration. Two editors is not a consensus.

Ilenart626 (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Given that you had performed these unwarranted reversions despite that this NPOVN discussion favoring the use of FAQ explainer talk page headers which was added by me and @TompaDompa: in the affected pages:

1 2 3

I'm not sure how that would be different from disruptive editing.204.15.72.92 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggest you review Wikipedia:Consensus Ilenart626 (talk)

Sure, the WP:CONLEVEL states that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. However, it can also be argued from the other way that this discussion has only a participation of a handful of users without inputs from actual subject matter experts and the rest of the editing community, therefore looking more or less, to paraphrase a quote from For All Mankind (TV series), an "orchestrated discussion". To illustrate more, the page views of the articles stand in the thousands. Moving from that, it's helpful to read this too. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Again you are introducing irrelevant information. I also note that you have reverted my edits and as per WP:STATUSQUO these should be removed until we have Wikipedia:Consensus Ilenart626 (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Once more WP:STATUSQUO states that "During a dispute discussion, you should not revert away from the status quo ante bellum until a consensus is established. Instead of reverting, insert an appropriate tag indicating the text is under discussion. If a dispute arises regarding which version is the status quo ante bellum then be the adult in the room and don't revert. Tag instead". This means that the affected pages are restored to versions like this on an interim basis, pending the outcome of this discussion.

Don't throw stones inside glass houses, next time. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm, English not your first language? The term status quo ante bellum is a Latin phrase meaning "the situation as it existed before the war". This means we go back to what the articles say before you added your fringe theories

Ilenart626 (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

According to page histories, the text had been present there for about six years by virtue of silent consensuses, along with subject matter experts such as this. At this stage, to pretend otherwise reeks of WP:JDLI.204.15.72.92 (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not terribly attached to the FAQ—it was mainly an attempt at a compromise to get the WP:FRINGE view out of article space. I don't mind the FAQ being removed. I do however very much mind 204.15.72.92 reintroducing the WP:FRINGE view to article space. You know this is a WP:FRINGE view. You agree that this is a WP:FRINGE view. There is no disagreement here about removing the WP:FRINGE view from article space—the disagreement that remains is whether the FAQ should be on the talk pages. Re-adding the WP:FRINGE view to article space at this point is purely WP:Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. TompaDompa (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

At this point I'm okay with the text omitted from the article space of those three, simply because the time is not right yet. However the WP:POVDELETION state that Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted, which is very likely behind the rationale of putting up the FAQ templates. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the rationale behind the FAQ is that there is an editor who promotes WP:FRINGE views who also engages in WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT behaviour that makes discussing the issue extremely time-consuming and patience-trying, and the hope was that the FAQ would function as a compromise that would bring that to an end. I don't think you fully appreciate just how disruptive you are being. As Chipmunkdavis said in the section above: Deadlock is certainly one way to describe all other editors agreeing your edits were poor. Please WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I was actually in acceptance the FAQ compromise when I restored the template after he barged in to remove it under the grounds of WP:STATUSQUO. In fact, prior to that I was going to move on to discuss GALCIT and the lunar probes passages on Space Race.204.15.72.92 (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

For the rest, the status quo ante bellum of Timeline of the Space Race and Space Age appear to be this and this respectively.204.15.72.92 (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

And the consensus here—which includes you—is that the material under discussion is WP:FRINGE and should not be included. Stop it with your disruptive WP:WikiLawyering, WP:I didn't hear that, and WP:Bludgeoning behaviour and instead WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I accept my responsibility, despite presently having Chronic Covid Syndrome at the moment. However, I think that Ilenart626 should not be acting too rash either by removing the FAQ template and instead offer his comments on the discussion first.

In fact because of the charged nature of the issue I had at one point considered asking uninvolved administrator to start an WP:RFC to solicit opinions across editors who're familiar with the subject. But fine, I'll head toward the FAQ compromise as originally agreed upon then. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The FAQ compromise was not originally agreed upon. I proposed it, but as I said I don't mind the FAQ being removed. You are in favour of including it. Ilenart626 is opposed. I'm not entirely sure what PaulT2022 thinks. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with him that it's probably better off at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group, although the WikiProject looks a little bit stale, with a defunct link in its resources section that now leads to something that's probably infested with malwares. Unfortunately I'll have to wait for others as IP address editors do not have page creation or move rights.204.15.72.92 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitely agree that this edit that  204.15.72.92 reintroduced in the Space Age article is Wikipedia:Fringe theories and should be removed. I also believe the FAQ above should also be removed, but happy to wait for input from other editors Ilenart626 (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The old FAI rule, despite being perceivably pedantic, made sense in context though. They keep aviation records. If a person was the first to attempt flying across an ocean, say the Atlantic or the Pacific and crashed upon landing, the attempt is considered as a failure, even if he/she technically went from an end to another. Context matters and that's why the "asterisk" should be here to stay, even as a FAQ template relegated into talk page. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The edit should be removed as unsourced due to lack of WP:RS.

Where FAI is referenced (such as proposed FAQ or wording of Yuri Gagarin#Vostok 1), the vague "Gagarin's record" must never be used, as it might refer to a logbook entry or to the Soviet claim of Gagarin's three world records filed to FAI for example. It should be clear what records the concerns voiced in the sources affect.

If an FAQ is made, it probably should be maintained under Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group rather than one of the pages.

A possible way to resolve IP addresses's concerns about confused readers not understanding why Wikipedia claims that Gagarin was first in space, is to add a reference to a neutral source that clearly establishes Gagarin's primacy as the first person to fly to space by focusing on what was achieved, such as https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/56718196 PaulT2022 (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That would be a much more appropriate solution. The WikiProject Television's FAQ page looks set to be a useful example. While for the moment it would look very much like a stub page since there is only one question, it can be used as part of a standard operating procedure to clarify for the readers on any discrepancies in records or so on that may arise in the future, especially with the present revival of interest in space exploration. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The controversy was not mentioned in the BBC article, although BBC itself has other language reports briefly mentioning it while closing it with "the FAI approved Gagarin's spaceflight records" and "first to travel to space", not to mention the title itself.204.15.72.92 (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-56716051
• https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/science-56717342

Speaking about the controversy itself and just to explain more of the context, this would be akin to the case of Ferdinand Magellan. Despite dying in the Philippines in the middle of the circumnavigational expedition, he was widely reported in textbooks as being the first to circumnavigate the globe for many years. Now the National Geographic and History Channel had came out to ask people to think again and that someone else may deserve the true credit for being the first person to circumnavigate globe.

• https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/magellan-first-sail-around-world-think-again

• https://www.history.com/news/was-magellan-the-first-person-to-circumnavigate-the-globe

A more precise analogy can be found in Claims to the first powered flight. For example, it is arguable that Hiram Maxim had achieved a first powered heavier than air flight simply because during trials in 1894, the machine lifted and was prevented from rising by the outriggers. During its test run, all the outriggers were engaged, showing that it had developed enough lift to take off, but in so doing, it pulled up the track; the tethered "flight" was aborted in time to prevent disaster, with exactly the same vein used to justify Gagarin's claim. To put it simply, it left the rail, flew a little ways only to crash. But is he remembered as the first man to fly a heavier-than-air?

Moreover, Alberto Santos-Dumont rather than Wright Brothers was recognised in Brazil as the first person to make a flight simply because it's the first of their kind recognised by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. There were differing views of criteria in order to gain recognition as first heavier than air flight too and within such backdrops no doubt there's a point to be nitpicky by law and by fact records, just like the list of firsts in aviation with First confirmed manned powered flight made by Clément Ader in particular, coupled with the present wider turbulent context, not helped with this Newsweek article from two months ago alleging Gagarin of touching the Queen's leg. There'd still be the argument on whether to classify John Glenn's Friendship 7 as technically the first to complete the first human orbital spaceflight by the strict interpretation, had Shepard beat Gagarin into space. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

By now the rough consensus appeared to favor the restoration of the FAQ templates, so I had proceeded to edit the according articles' talk pages. However, those templates may be superseded if it's decided to move the information to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group/FAQ pursuant to PaulT2022's suggestions. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Rough" is certainly one way to describe the consensus with adding the FAQ. You support, I oppose but happy to see other Editors opinions, @TompaDompa: does not mind it being removed and @PaulT2022: stated "If an FAQ is made, it probably should be maintained under Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group rather than one of the pages." In other words, their is no consensus to add the FAQ to Talk:Space Age, Talk:Timeline of space exploration or Talk:Timeline of the Space Race. Therefore I am reverting your "Rough consensus" edits as their is no consensus.

PaulT2022 also made a very useful proposal to "...add a reference to a neutral source that clearly establishes Gagarin's primacy as the first person to fly to space by focusing on what was achieved, such as https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/56718196". I agree that this is worthwhile and will add this reference.

As TompaDompa has already suggested, IP address WP:drop the stick. Ilenart626 (talk)

There is an implicit consensus which would be best indicated in this improvement edit made by @TompaDompa: made immediately after Paul's feedback. Aside from that, your reversion had also orphaned the page; you'd be better off not acting too rash next time.

WP:KOOLAID said that However, speaking out against consensus and policy is not disruptive if it is done with civility, while we had already circled the wagon so many times regarding the problems that would arise if the passage was completely left out, even as a template in talk page. I'm pretty sure you have noticed the guideline stating that especially contentious content should be relegated to the talk page rather than deleted.

In fact, I was in agreement with @PaulT2022: that it is best moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group, most certainly as a subpage. By then the move and the inclusion of templates in affected paegs would not be mutually exclusive since editing those templates individually across multiple pages is set to be exhaustive without that "centralization", and likely not be as "odd" in terms of styles as it is under the subpage of the Timeline of the Space Race talkspace. To put it simply, if there is something to add to the template, they can simply edit the centralized page over at the WikiProject conveniently.

This is not to mention that despite the heated discussion between me and Ilenart626, I have to agree with the latter that this thread is not to be hard closed and instead left open of further comments from other editors and readers. This is due to the fact that there is no participation from members, particularly subject matter experts like JustinTime55 who're actually listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group. In most times this can be quite problematic as this can be construed as WP:SHAMCONSENSUS or precisely unrepresentative consensus, although to avoid filibustering it's better if we can settle on something first, in this case the move of the information to the Wikiproject FAQs, like a "checkpoint" in a game. Unfortunately I may need further assistance to perform the move as IP editors do not have move permissions 204.15.72.92 (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Otherwise, it might be possible to simply merge the FAQ onto the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group front page itself, as a "FAQ for readers". Not to mention that foreign language BBC articles like this made mentions of the controversy but ultimately closing it out with "the FAI approved Gagarin's spaceflight records" and "first to travel to space". 204.15.72.92 (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no implicit consensus to include the FAQ, and adjusting its phrasing doesn't create one. Stop misrepresenting the discussion as you have repeatedly done. TompaDompa (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding implicit consensus and stop misrepresentating the discussion, like it or not due to the improvement edit, by the views of WP:COMMONSENSE it can be broadly interpreted as being "hmm, okay" with it. As for the very latter, no, quite the opposite and not the first time. Instead, aside from the "implicit consensus", I see that you had mistaken my brief restoration edits of interim nature pursuant to WP:STATUSQUO and WP:PROCESSFIRST as disruptive, while giving no condemnation to edits made by Ilenart626. Please note that at worst it reeks of double standards and even be construed as gaslighting, which of course would not be taken kindly by the editing community. (Disclaimer: The original computer network was down so I have to use another network at another place, hence the address difference).

In light of an insight made by a very experienced editor and GA reviewer, turns out that we are not really arguing about scientific questions and instead over the semantics of a few words. Hence we have to consider the possibility of returning to the very starting point after going through a large circle, although with few modifications such as more citations in the affected pages along with the addition of FAQ in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group. The only solace would be the learning of an interesting fact where Gagarin's record of attaining highest altitude in elliptical orbit through a one-man spacecraft remains unsurpassed.

After all, I have to strongly agree with his insight as per Dictionary of lexicography By R. R. K. Hartmann, Gregory James, an encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns. Within the pages like Timeline of space exploration, the passage instead would be just like those that distinguised both successful and failed Mars probes in terms of firsts specifically Mars 1 and Mariner 4, alongside New Horizons' Last original encounter with one of the nine major planets recognized in 1981. These were allowed to stand without much fuss, making this more akin to unnecessarily make a mountain out of a molehill from that perspective alone. If this debacle occurs on Simple English Wikipedia, then you might have a point as that Wikipedia is described by Tim Dowling of The Guardian newspaper that "the Simple English version tends to stick to commonly accepted facts". 193.233.171.17 (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO this isn't a scientific question, it is a question on the mere definition of a mere word in the English language "spaceflight" and other synonyms. In most areas it goes by the common meaning of the term and IMO what Yuri did is included within that. But the article can and should cover "who was first" under other prominent definitions. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight which I had neglected in this discussion so far.204.15.72.92 (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: Although considering your insight, returning to the starting point where the passage remains on Alan Shepard's entry within the timelines looks set to be the way out, there are other legitimate concerns by the editors I've discussed with above that it would possibly confuse readers, or become a POV issue for readers living in Russia or other CIS countries. In this case I think it's also better to preserve other modifications made by TompaDompa and Ilenart626 namely the addition of more link citations from BBC and anywhere into the timeline boxes, and the so-called FAQ templates which according to PaulT2022, would be placed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group. I'd be happy if you are able to give advice on this too.

Moreover, should serious disagreements still occur after this point then I am proposing a compromise counteroffer which will involve [Wikipedia:Content_forking#Project-level_forking forking] of only summarized contents which are undisputably common facts (i.e. Sputnik, Alexeo Leonov's first spacewalk, Apollo 11) into Simple English Wikipedia, as a last resort, while leaving out intricacies like Mars 1M and the Alan Shepard passage. This would be a best of both worlds as the Simple version sticks to commons facts while the ordinary English Wikipedia favors more to the raw presentation of information. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Gargarin made the first human spaceflight, the full trip. If he felt safer or had a reason to parachute down (I haven't read the full discussion) he carried the most important object which defined his mission as a human spaceflight: himself. Mentioning it on pages is an interesting fact, but it should be worded so it does not diminish, in any way, Gargarin's pioneering accomplishment and actually promotes it (although Albert II would have something to clear his throat about). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

True, and at the same time we need to avoid unneccessary WP:POVFUNNEL given that this is essentially a semantic debate rather than scientific question, and particularly the fact that the information distinguishing failed and successful Mars probe are allowed to uncontroversially stand. Notetags will be needed, as does those clarifying link references from BBC and otherwise that were added in the meantime. An ultimate last resort would be the forking of undisputably common facts from those pages into Simple English Wikipedia. As a hypothetical and theoretical exercise I suppose that had Shepard beat Gagarin into space then we'd all be still arguing and discussing on John Glenn's "first orbital spaceflight without jumping out of spacecraft during landing" instead. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

GALCIT and Pioneer lunar probes

As mentioned, the "Origins" section in Space Race gives more coverage to Soviet rocket development whereas American ones like Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT were left out, the latter makes the statement This left the United States as the only one of the major three World War II powers not to have its own rocket program, until Von Braun and his engineers were expatriated in 1945. inaccurate. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now proceeded to make this edit on the article reflecting the existence of such program to maintain NPOV. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Passages regarding the Pioneer program had been expanded as well. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Unfortunately they all had been reverted by User:Ilenart626 under the spurious reasons of being unsourced, despite the fact that the passage pre-edit regarding the lunar probes has no sources either since it was stating the obvious.

The Pioneer program had one successful lunar flyby, Pioneer 4 in March 1959. The Surveyor program had five successful soft landings out of seven attempts from 1966 to 1968. The Lunar Orbiter program had five successes out of five attempts in 1966–1967.

204.15.72.92 (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggest you review Wikipedia:Verifiability Ilenart626 (talk)

That's a vague answer which is not helpful. Where exactly the problems are at? The proposed passages are pretty much a summary of articles such as Pioneer program, while Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed applies in this case and that of GALCIT.204.15.72.92 (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I see you have quoted an essay where Verifiablity is a Policy, suggest you look up the difference. For your proposed changes you need to provide reliable, published sources to ensure that you are not making it up.  In other words, find a source that supports your assertion in bold at the end of this statement "The United States as the only one of the major three World War II powers not to have its own rocket program until Von Braun and his engineers were expatriated in 1945,  'although civilian programs such as GALCIT (the precursor of Jet Propulsion Laboratory) existed”. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The details of the early Pioneer program probes are included in the following citations:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20090131181021/http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/QuickLooks/pioneer0QL.html (archive of http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/QuickLooks/pioneer0QL.html)
• Hess, Wilmot (1968). The Radiation Belt and Magnetosphere.

Please read Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed again, specifically Subject-specific common knowledge: Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions. To pretend otherwise would be more akin to a veiled WP:JDLI.204.15.72.92 (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The proposed passages regarding lunar probes has been restored, this time with citations. I'll be awaiting comments regarding GALCIT on whether although civilian programs such as GALCIT (the precursor of Jet Propulsion Laboratory) existed qualifies WP:BLUESKY to see how it goes. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Input invited at Talk:United_States_foreign_aid#Morality

Your comments welcome at Talk:United_States_foreign_aid#Morality NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan–China relations

Most articles on diplomatic relations between countries (and even some non-countries) follow the Country-Country relations convention (per WP:NDESC), except for Cross-Strait relations (which should be Taiwan–China relations). There have been discussions about this since 2008 [30], and there was a few move discussion [31], but the closer (H/T Natg 19) did not clarify how WP:COMMONNAME should apply (per Blubabluba9990's comments). I recently attempted to rename the page Taiwan–China Cross-Strait relations, which I thought was a good compromise, but it was reverted (H/T Derek1022). Should I request a Move Review or create another Move Request? ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@ScrumptiousFood: I would recommend a move review or an RfC. Although "Cross-Strait relations" dominates Google Ngrams results, no editors in the original RM discussion made justified WP:COMMONNAME based on usage in RS, and the WP:NPOV reasoning is questionable because China in modern sources refers almost exclusively to the People's Republic, not Taiwan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, the other diplomatic relations articles refer to it as Taiwan, and also refer to North and South Korea as such despite them not recognizing each other as countries. Articles should be consistent with each other. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You should set up a discussion thread on the article's talk page explaining why you think policy and guidelines require it to be moved. What is done in other articles incidentally is not a valid argument for what should be done in another article. TFD (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Falsification of History on Nader Shah's Azerbaijani Article

On Nader Shah's Article in Azeri language, Nader Shah is introduced as the king of "Azerbaijan, Turkistan, Iran and India":

Nadir şah Əfşar (fars. نادر شاه; Nâdir şâh) 22 oktyabr 1688, Dərgəz, Rəzəvi Xorasan ostanı – 19 iyun 1747, Qoçan, Rəzəvi Xorasan ostanı) — Azərbaycan, Türküstan, İran və Hindistanın şahı (1736–1747) və türksoylu əfşarlar sülaləsinin banisi.

which is a clear falsification of history, as he has always been known as the king of Iran/Persia:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nadir-Shah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah

There are numerous pieces of historical evidence to support this fact.

Moreover, in a more absurd piece of misinformation, Michael Axworthy's book on Nader Shah named "the Sword of Persia" has been translated as "the Sword of the East":

"Hərbi nailiyyətlərinə görə bəzi tarixçilər ona "Şərqin qılıncı", "Şərqin Napoleonu" və "İkinci Makedoniyalı İsgəndər" kimi ləqəblər veriblər."

I corrected these false information as follows:

https://az.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nadir_%C5%9Fah_%C6%8Ff%C5%9Far&oldid=6528735

But the corrections were immediately reverted by @Dancewithdevil, sadly. LieDetector98 (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The English-language Wikipedia has no control over other projects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation of rationales, possibly emblematic of common NPOV issues / mechanisms of POV at article

IMO one of the main NPOV forms and POV methods at articles is using wiki rules and guidelines to promulgate a differential standard of what gets into an article and what doesn't. Either tending to keep favorable and mainstream material out and negative material in or vice versa depending on the topic of the article. Somethings the smaller scale cases are more useful because they are simpler without numerous other complicating factors and I think that this is one of those. My concern about the outcome is secondary.

At the Foundation for Economic Education (which is described as a conservative libertarian think tank) article "Editor #1" added this text: "In 2018, the organization hosted its annual Foundation for Economic Education Conference (FEECon) in Atlanta, Georgia, gathering more than 1,000 attendees." and provided two sources for the material. One was a 800+ word article ( https://semo.edu/news/2018/06/eight-students-travel-to-atlanta-for-annual-foundation-for-economic-education-conference-feecon/ ) on the Southeast Missouri State University web site covering the conference and the participation of some of their students in it. The second was a short article in the Atlanta Downtown website ( https://www.atlantadowntown.com/do/feecon-2019 )briefly describing the event. Editor #2 took it out, editor #3 (me) put it back in, and editor #2 took it out again. The rationales for removal were/are:

1. That the sentence s promotional
2. That the sentence is WP:Undue
3. That the sources are "extremely poor". (IMO they are sufficient to establish the veracity / verifiability of that "sky is blue" sentence.) IMO this is an important one to analyze. Presumably it is an invoking of WP:ver in tandem with their assessment that the sources are not suitable, thus giving it the same treatment under WP:Ver as not having any source provided on challenged material.
4. That per WP:ONUS it requires affirmative consensus for inclusion. IMO this one is also worth reviewing in detail. With two editors already seeking to include it and one editor seeking to exclude it, presumably they meant that it would need to go through an additional process and one which would arrive at a consensus for inclusion. By requiring an additional process, (including editors devoting their available wiki-time to the effort) and consensus outcome (which is a sort of supermajority of arguments and opinions or an outcome heavily in favor for inclusion) this sets a two stage higher bar for inclusion.
5. That there in essence a requirement of showing that it was an important event, e.g. "mainstream RS coverage" of notable speakers and participants in order to include the sentence.

The actual points as made are in the edit summaries and at Foundation for Economic Education#NPOV Issues

For me the outcome is secondary but I would request a review of the 5 rationales whether any or all of them are grounds for exclusion at this point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think #2 (UNDUE) might be a valid complaint. The organization has been in existence since the late 1940s, and I would assume that they have held an annual conference every year since their founding. So, what makes this particular conference worth highlighting? Was this the first time attendance broke 1000? If so, is that really noteworthy? Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• The 2<->5 + 4 is a favored argument. The sources are not "mainstream" but I think they need not be for this purpose. Have the annual conferences been reported for other years as well? Is it the >1000 attendees that made it worthy for 2018? Idk anything about this org but if I was editing there, I might be tempted to put it back in possibly with slightly different wording depending on the answer to the question I just posed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• That's a useful test case, as you say, but I don't think it shows any need to modify any Wikipedia policies such as WP:PROMO, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, or WP:ONUS. In response to your 5 questions:

1. The end of the sentence does seem promotional, because it suggests in wikivoice that the organization was very successful in attracting public interest in its annual conference.

2. The sentence would not be undue if there's evidence from disinterested RS (not the two sources given) that the meeting was notable in that it attracted a surprisingly high attendance.

3. The sentence is not in the "sky is blue" category because the figure of "more than 1,000 attendees" was most likely based on an estimate by the organizers or other promoters of the event, and crowd estimates by organizers are often inflated.

4. As you write, the standard procedure in WP:ONUS and WP:BRD when an editor reverts recently added text is to open a discussion on the article's talk-page. If the article is fairly obscure without many editors watching it, as in this case, then announcements on noticeboards or wikiproject pages might attract broader participation. It should not be enough just to have one editor (editor #3) who's watching the page and agrees with the added text. Often the overwhelming majority of editors who edit or watchlist an article about an organization are supporters of the organization and agree with its advocacy role.

5. I don't see why the RS needs to cover notable speakers and participants if the point of the sentence is that attendance was unusually high, not that the participants or speakers were notable people. If, for example, the NY Times ran an article citing high attendance at FEECon as an indication of the popularity of economic viewpoints that were formerly considered to be somewhat fringe (such as opposing social security and minimum wages), then the sentence would be amply supported and not undue. NightHeron (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• @North8000 My personal overview
  • A) Mainly issue seems to be related to WP:Due or not
  • B) Your first paragraph: I do agree. IMHO besides policies Wikipedians need to develop analytical guiding tools or reference points.
  • C) "Editor #1" seems 4 plus years experience so less chance of COI so I consider it most likely goodfaith edit unless some one can prove otherwise.
  • 1) If we see over all paragraph about organizational activities it sounds like natural addition and not promotional
  • 2) If it passes other criteria, does not seem to be undue. I wish we have better criteria or tools for regular evaluation of such issues
  • 3) The second source is of partial verification-al value to say an event was planned but insufficient on it's own; The first source is almost complete only what remains is of confirmation editorial evaluation policy. 'An event was organized' is easy to accept the first source in good faith; to confirm 1,000 attendees attended needs confirmation of editorial monitoring mechanism or one more secondary source to confirm the same.
  • 4) There is more to write about WP:ONUS. WP:ONUS seems like setting unnecessary higher bar for inclusion. a) Many content inclusion policies are originated from sciences, religion and politics related content conflict raising bar for inclusion unnecessary higher for other articles, endures systemic biases against small communities not having control over media and publishing. b) In humanities articles what Wikipedia should have had is color coding to reference numbers according to reliability scale of the references c) Stonewalling is an easy and enjoyable one way job sans due responsibilities, What Wikipedia lacks is policy asking ONUS asking editors to have added substantial content in previous three months (One does not understand other's pain properly without going through similar situation).
  • Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking the same thing about the "1,000" number but it was not specifically brought up and so I didn't bring it up here. Also FYI there is a substantial discussion going on about wp:onus including that if taken as stand alone and literally it conflicts with another policy. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Opt 2 - All that needs to be said is that they host an annual conference, and if it's always in the same month & location, provide that info. If the conference itself fails N, there's no need to elaborate or include each annual conference. Atsme 💬 📧 22:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• I can see issues with some of the points above even though I think removal might be the correct choice overall.

A) Don't agree. It seems reasonably factual.

B) Agree. It may be relevant to say they have a yearly conference but it's not clear why that one conference would be highlighted.

C) They are sufficient for the claims in question in terms of establishing the facts, less so the weight.

D) True but that is a procedural issue rather than a factual one. I do generally feel that 2 for/1 against new content = leave it out but only after both sides have argued their case. If only the for side has argued their case then I think we can presume the against side was persuaded. (example: Text added. Text removed with claim source doesn't support quote. Text restored with information supporting that source does support quote.)

E) Disagree. The problem is "mainstream" won't cover everything. When we are covering lesser topics and aspects that aren't particularly controversial we don't have to rely on mainstream sources. Almost no sources I would cite for, say, the Formula Ford article would be "mainstream".

Springee (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems that 1, 2, 4 and 5 are basically about DUE. Undue positive news is promotional, editors should not agree to its inclusion and major media will not mention it. The types of sources however are RS, and are used frequently for articles of local significance. When an editor provides five reasons for exclusion, especially when one is very questionable, it can lead to excessive discussion. And yes, I think mentioning the meeting is undue. TFD (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

In this case it was only discussed on the artilcle talk by the solitary Mr. North. In general, it's pretty hard to rebut 5 for 5. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Kyle Rittenhouse article and weight

I would like to get some eyes on the recently created Kyle Rittenhous BLP. I'm concerned this article has a number of issues and may be not much more than a FORK from the original Kenosha unrest shooting (here after KUS) article. The issues start in the opening sentence where Rittenhouse is described as a "conservative celebrity". Most of the sources used to support that claim don't actually support it. Typically they will say something like his trial was a cause celebre or he was a celebrity among some "far-right" or "militia" groups. Most sources discussing Rittenhouse don't mention anything about celebrity in any form. Thus there is a NPOV question, how many sources need to make a claim before it can be the opening claim in a BLP. I'm also concerned that, based on the content of the article, Rittenhouse's media appearances etc are given far more weight vs his actions related to the shootings and the trial. I think the best action here would be an AfD with a merger of a reduced versions of some content back into the KUS article as some level of aftermath. The rest of the content seems more trivia than substance. Thanks. Springee (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I looked at it and the sources to that lede sentence look A-OK to me. I think the best way to provide proper weight would be to put 2-3 more sentences about the shootings/trial in the lede, not removing anything. It's not like it's a very long lede. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the sources and commented on their issues here [32] and in a few other spots. Almost none support the specific claim and as phrased the sentence suggests that Rittenhouse is primarily known as a type of celebrity rather than for shooting people. Springee (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, @Springee, the first sentence of the article that calls him a celebrity also mentions his trial and him shooting three people. It would be disingenuous if the article said the subject was a celebrity without any description of why. Instead, the sentence continues and describes how he initially achieved his celebrity status. And when you say "Almost none support the specific claim", there are eight RS in the cite bundle specifically describing him as a celebrity. --Kbabej (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee Notify the other editors involved in that discussion that you have brought it here please. Template is at the top of this page.GordonGlottal (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

As the editor who created the article, I'm perhaps biased but thought I'd throw my two cents in. Many, many RS refer to the subject as a "celebrity" or a very close variation thereof. It isn't one or two blogs or YouTube reactions; it's green-level RS at RSP, including: The Guardian, NBC (x2), the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, NPR, The National, and The Conversation. And those are just the sources that currently appear in the lead. I cite bundled them to not overcite, but I think eight high-quality sources are enough to "prove" a short description. If needed, I can add many more, but I think that would absolutely be overkill. I'm not sure where @Springee is finding "Most of the sources used to support that claim don't actually support it." I actually bolded the use of "celebrity" in the cite bundle so it could be easily found, and every single one of them describes him as a celebrity.

As an aside, I'm not sure Springee's concern is actually due weight; it sounds like they think this should be AfD'd, which is a completely separate issue that doesn't need hashing out here. --Kbabej (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

As I noted in my link, most of the sources (specifically the ones you reference) use either the term "celebrity" or a similar term but almost none of the presented sources (much less even a simple majority of sources that talk about Rittenhouse) claim he is a conservative celebrity. Note that even the article's short description says he is "American conservative celebrity" rather than the teen who shoot three people. Springee (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

As examples of the misuse of sources, The Globe only uses the term celebrity in their headline. Per WP:HEADLINE that makes it not usable. The WP article is an OpEd. A person interviewed by Slate said, "He’s a celebrity for many of these right-wing militia groups". Unless you are claiming "right-wing militia groups"=conservative that one doesn't support the claim either. These are examples of the sort of issues with the sources used to support this claim. Springee (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide more sources with that description; there are many out there. Is your contention with the short description those three specific sources (leaving five other RS as the page currently stands), or is it the short description overall? If you have an alternative, what would you suggest? --Kbabej (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are some examples of additional coverage: There's the City Journal that wrote the subject "has recently entered the conservative celebrity circuit" here; The Washington Post wrote "The celebrity treatment that conservatives are giving Kyle Rittenhouse..." here; the San Antonio Current described him as "far-right celebrity Kyle Rittenhouse" here; PJ Media that wrote an entire article on him becoming a celebrity under the title "Why Is the Right Making Kyle Rittenhouse a Celebrity?" here; Mother Jones wrote "Rittenhouse quickly became the perfect young, right-wing celebrity.." here; Arizona Central said he was "caught up in his celebrity" here; etc, etc, etc.

Please note I have not read all these sources in depth, and I'm sure some don't appear as green-level at RSP (lookin' at you, PJ Media). I'm using these to demonstrate I just quickly pulled them off Google with a cursory search. Mainstream sources regularly refer to the subject this way. --Kbabej (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• What occupation would be better to list in the lead than something like "conservative celebrity"? That seems to basically be his job -- doing media appearances in conservative conferences, podcasts, etc. There are sources cited in the article which say "right-wing celebrity" in direct, exact terms, e.g. the first one cited ("He has since emerged as a rightwing celebrity"), but also ones that discuss it in less direct/more drown out terms, e.g. the Boston Globe article, which only mentions the exact word "celebrity" in the headline/subheader, but is generally talking about that throughout the rest of the article. I don't think listing his occupation as "celebrity" in line those articles is particularly problematic. Regarding little weight on the trial itself, that's what the article on the trial is for, no? The reason a Kyle Rittenhouse biography exists is because it doesn't make sense to discuss his media appearances in the article that is primarily discussing the shootings and subsequent trial. Endwise (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I see two issues. The first is that almost none of the presented sources actually establish that he is a "conservative celebrity" thus stating it in Wikivoice is undue. As I said, most of the sources that note the celebrity aspect either say he is a celebrity to a narrower group (militia, far-right etc) or say that his position/cause/criminal defense was seen as a cause celebre presumably for people who view is actions as legal self defense or similar. It is not at all clear that "conservatives" as a group view Rittenhouse as a celebrity nor that any of the source who make that claim would view that claim as true. The second issue is if we are going to cite the thing he is most known for, the shooting is it, hands down. It's not at all clear his post trial interviews etc will survive the 10YEAR test but his roll in the shooting will. Springee (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee, did you review the sources in the cite bundle as well as the additional ones I added in this thread? Just from the ones I added on this page, they almost all mention him being a conservative celebrity. City Journal: "conservative celebrity circuit"; Washington Post: "The celebrity treatment that conservatives"; PJ Media: "Why Is the Right Making Kyle Rittenhouse a Celebrity?"; Mother Jones: "the perfect young, right-wing celebrity"; and San Antonio Current: "far-right celebrity". They literally use "conservative", or a very close variation thereof (the Right; far-right). I'd argue "the Right" is basically synonymous to "conservative" in this instance. Even if we don't agree on that point, there are still the verbatim results.

Secondly, I've asked you this on the subject's talk page at least once, and up above in this thread as well: What do you suggest as a short description if you do not agree with "conservative celebrity"? --Kbabej (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The second issue is if we are going to cite the thing he is most known for, the shooting is it, hands down -- I guess I can understand this point. Maybe we could have two sentences in the opening paragraph, one for the shootings/trial and one for his subsequent fame and media appearances? I.e. a division like "Rittenhouse is known for the Kenosha unrest shooting and subsequent trial. He now has fame/celebrity status and does media appearances."? (Obviously not in those words). Endwise (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Kbabej, I only reviewed the source in the article lead. I did see the previous discussion and it doesn't appear that sources have a consensus description when discussing his status as a "celebrity"/cause celebre etc. If they don't agree we shouldn't favor one vs the other nor put such a claim in Wiki-voice. Also, while some source will use "right-wing" and conservative interchangeably, few would agree that "far-right"=conservative. You reverted my attempt to provide a better intro [33] where I described him as the teenager known for the shooting. Endwise, I think mentioning that his case made him a cause celebre is DUE. Many sources note that he got a lot of support from people who felt he was acting in self defense and they felt his prosecution was an attack on a right of self defense (many others felt the opposite). It would be better to say he was a cause celebre for many on the gun rights side and seen as deserving prosecution by many on the other side. It is way to early to know if his fame is going to be fleeting. Springee (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise, my understanding of MOS:LEADBIO states the information for the first sentence in BLPs follows this order:

• 1. Name
• 2. DOB
• 3. Nationality/citizenship
• 4. "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." (What I take to be the short description)
• 5. "The main reason the person is notable"

To me, it seems clear cut that the short description goes before a description of why the person is initially notable. --Kbabej (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I just did a Google news search for Rittenhouse. These are the first 4 hits and how the summarize him.

• Newsweek [34], "the teenager acquitted in November 2021 of first-degree intentional homicide and four other felony charges,"
• WP [35], " who shot and killed two people and wounded a third during a protest in Kenosha, Wis., in 2020, "
• The Root [36], "The acquitted Vigilante of Kenosha"
• USA Today [37], "Rittenhouse gained national attention in August 2020 after he went to a police brutality protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and fatally shot two men while wounding another – actions he argued were in self defense"
• Fox News [38], no specific summary description of Rittenhouse.

Basically, "conservative celebrity" is a very poor high level summary of Rittenhouse. Springee (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

So, again, @Springee, what is your suggestion? You have taken specific umbrage with the description. What is your suggestion to replace it? --Kbabej (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I made my suggestion. You reverted it. " is an American teenager who became known for his trial and acquittal after he shot three men in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The circumstances of that shooting made him a cause célèbre with some right-wing and gun rights groups. " (slightly edited from it's original form) Springee (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"American teenager" is not an appropriate short description. While he initially became known for the shooting and trial, MOS:LEADBIO states the "main reason the person is notable" comes after the short description. The reason the BLP on the subject exists is because Rittenhouse is known for more than the shooting and trial, or else it would be covered under the parent article. The BLP is for coverage of the subjects life through today, not stopping at the point of the trial and verdict. Rittenhouse is notable today for parlaying his notoriety into a conservative celebrity status.

I've made my points and don't want to bludgeon the process; I'll take a step back so others have space to respond. Please ping me if needed! Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO Springee's text is much more informative, gets to the point of why he is wp:notable and why people will come to the article. (the "teenager" could be decided separately.) This is also supported by the presented review of the sources and review of what the first sentence should contain. Finally, defining him primarily as a celebrity sounds like "famous for being famous" which is definitely not the case here. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree in general with Springee's main point re: "celebrity", but the bigger issue isn't the lead but the article in general reading like a fan bio of said celebrity. Lots of quoted praise, lots of detail about Rittenhouse's activities, perspectives, etc., without the context RS typically provide. So we have The Guardian's "Outcry as Kyle Rittenhouse sits down for Tucker Carlson Fox News interview" used just to say that "Carlson interviewed Rittenhouse about a wide range of subjects" and that Rittenhouse said he wants to be a lawyer or nurse. And this cnn op ed which is clearly critical of the interview used just to extract a long quote of Carlson's praise sans context. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• My take is as follows:

1. The lead paragraph is poorly written, and noncompliant with BLP, especially considering the subject was only 17 yo at the time.
2. Rittenhouse is not a celebrity. Civil unrest neither creates celebrity nor should it be celebrated.
3. Why does the section about his early life specifically state, "He is a white American." Does he somehow change color as he gets older? What is that about? Are we now including race and religion in all WP:BLPs?
4. FACT - found not guilty of even one of the 5 charges, and that must be made clear in the lead. He shot out of fear for his life; i.e., self-defense. That should not be omitted from the lead. Per NPR: Rittenhouse had a strong self-defense case and was found ...not guilty on the five charges he faced after fatally shooting two people and wounding a third during a night of unrest in Kenosha, Wis.
5. That article needs work to get it accurate and compliant with NPOV. Skirting around and avoiding mention of what that trial determined in its verdict is an embarrassment to this project; especially one that boasts NPOV and claims accuracy.
6. When it comes to BLPs, editors need to strictly adhere to policy, and present the facts in a dispassionate tone. Ask CNN+ what they'd do differently if they could do it over - see The Daily Beast article. And the [NYTimes: CNN must now emerge from one of the most chaotic periods in its history: the firing of its top-rated anchor Chris Cuomo; the ouster of its longtime president Jeff Zucker over an undisclosed romance with a colleague; and the absorption of its parent company WarnerMedia by Mr. Zaslav’s Discovery. Viewers knew there were too many times they got the story wrong, and simply stopped watching, so yes, ratings matter. HTH ~ Atsme 💬 📧 00:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

My post was on a pretty narrow question. A broader one is to echo the same points that Atsme just made. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence about whether a separate BLP is warranted, or whether this falls under WP:BLP1E and should be covered under Kenosha unrest shooting. Rittenhouse is notable for that incident, in which he took an assault rifle to an anti-racism protest and used it to kill two people. His subsequent buddying around with white supremacists, his trial, acquittal, and embrace by the political right are potentially enough to justify a standalone article, although they're arguably extensions of the single incident for which he's notable.
  The strongest claim to notability for an independent article is Rittenhouse's celebrity on the political right. A decent number of reliable sources highlight him as a symbol of the Republican Party's fetishization and glorification of political violence against its ideological opponents. But again, that might be best handled in an "Aftermath" or "Legacy" section in the Kenosha shooting article, rather than a standalone BLP, since the themes have less to do with Rittenhouse himself and more to do with the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism and violence. MastCell ^Talk 15:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  I second that, and also would emphasize that there is no rush or time limit. We should respect his privacy and go to a standalone if his current stature and presence within the Republican right gets ongoing coverage or analysis in the mainstream. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I would add "two of them fatally" after mentioning that he shot three men. I would also place more emphasis on the shooting than on appearances before right-wing audiences, since that is his main claim to notability and the only reason he has an audience. And of course it received far greater attention in the media than his current career. The tone of the article could be less promotional. Although he was acquitted, it's questionable how he found himself in that situation. Also, as someone who chose to be a celebrity, he forfeits his right to privacy, at least to the extent that it is provided to otherwise unknown people in Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Glancing at the article talk page, why is it contentious to include that all the people who were shot had pursued or chased Rittenhouse? --Kyohyi (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

TERF and Oxford English Dictionary

Editors are invited to comment at the following RfC: Talk:TERF#RfC: Oxford English Dictionary. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes for what are figures in religion but not generally accepted as historical

For instance Asiya and Moses. Apologies if this has been hashed out before. So far as I can see, we only have the person infobox to use, but that aside, should they state unequivocally items such as birth place, place of death, and in the case of Moses nationality? Historically there were no Israelites at the time Moses is said to have existed. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox for Moses has the appearance of information about a historical personality, as does the lead until the last paragraph, where finally the term "legendary" is used. This contrasts, for example, with the treatment of Hercules and Hua Mulan, who come out of other cultures and belief systems. In those cases it's obvious from the beginning that the article is about a mythical personality. Legendary figures of the Judeo-Christian tradition should not be portrayed as more "real" than legendary figures of other traditions. NightHeron (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Quite agree, those infoboxes are misleading at best. And besides, I happen to know Moses was Egyptian. Sigmund Freud said so. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @NightHeron's astute assessment. While I do not know which infobox would be most appropriate (Hua Mulan uses "character" while Hercules uses "deity"), the Moses article is largely presented as a defined historical figure with a "legendary" qualifier buried in the bottom of the lead and the current infobox seems to lend support to that characterization. I think a different infobox should be used, and the lead restructured (though the latter suggestion may be beyond the scope of what @Doug Weller is suggesting. --Kbabej (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kbabej perhaps need a new infobox, although that might not solve the problem entirely. And thinking a bit more, it could lead to arguments about which to use. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Long ago we had something like {{Mythical figure}} for Satan or Vampire (but got merged (a problem that happens all the time) We do still have {{Infobox deity}} and {{Infobox martyrs}} - {{infobox religious biography}} {but the latter 2 have the same parameters) Moxy- 08:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps no infobox is appropriate then, and it could be removed altogether? There’s precedent for that. Satan, of course, and Faust, and I’m sure many others that are just as lengthy. —Kbabej (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Surely we can't use the nationality field for such ancient figures? That's a huge anachronism. CMD (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I note that Saul, David and Solomon use infobox royalty, which to my eyes indicate "historical people". Sorry for the Abrahamic bias. Jesus has something called Template:Infobox religious biography (which suggests Template:Infobox character for "mythological figures"), but he is generally considered historical. Samuel has infobox saint. Adam has infobox person. Abraham just infobox, that's interesting.

I would like to see a separate infobox for the "mythological" ones (to which I count Saul, David, Samuel and Solomon). Could we make an "Abrahamic figure infobox" with some decent "Intended for..." rationale, and should we perhaps start an RFC about this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Help needed for a long running dispute

There has been a dispute that has been going on for quite some time now on the 2022 Laguna Woods shooting article and the talks to resolve it have been going nowhere. Some help to break the deadlock would be great Thundercloss (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to stop accusing other editors of not reading what you're writing, and either accept there is a 2-to-1 consensus against you, or start an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I am accusing them of that because that’s the truth as evidenced by the things they are saying. Did you actually read the dispute? Thundercloss (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Good response, accuse an uninvolved editor of also not reading discussions. Perhaps, just maybe, you should accept that others disagree with you, and that possibly your position is not the correct one, and move on? No, it's the children who are wrong. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

since you’ve commented on the ani case against me, I’ll respond to your remarks here over there Thundercloss (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Launch an RFC over there then. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)