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

Love Jihad

Every editor knows that jihad is completely related to Muslims.

Even Wikipedia page states that: Jihad (/dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎, romanized: jihād [dʒɪˈhaːd]) is an Arabic word which literally means "striving" or "struggling", especially with a praiseworthy aim. In an Islamic context, it can refer to almost any effort to make personal and social life conform with God's guidance, such as struggle against one's evil inclinations, proselytizing, or efforts toward the moral betterment of the ummah, though it is most frequently associated with war. In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers, while modernist Islamic scholars generally equate military jihad with defensive warfare.

Where in the Jihad article, is it written that Jihadis can be Hindu nationalists, Hindutva groups, and Hindu fundamentalists?

In the article Love Jihad, editors entered a section 'Reverse Love Jihad' (where the accusation is against Hindu groups) saying "there is an academic source, and academic sources are better than Indian media sources". I agree with that statement. But, are all academic sources better than all newspaper sources?

This is a very ridiculous thing that, the word Jihad is used to describe some acts by Hindu groups. The academic source that they use is written by Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik from Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). This source cannot be neutral. As a Muslim academic from a Muslim university, cherry picks media reports to say 'Reverse Love Jihad' is a reality. If anybody reads the report by Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik in detail, he will find that the 'reverse love jihad part' is written from a media report by 'www.dnaindia.com'. But when the same 'www.dnaindia.com' will report about 'Love Jihad', then the academic will not support it. And neither will the editors editing the article.

This article by dnaindia.com is used by both Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik and editors to support Reverse Love Jihad However Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik will not support these reports by the same dnaindia.com. , , .

AMU was originally Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College. this university was established only for Muslims. Sir Syed Mosque is inside the university. They have a pro-Muslim bias, and their sources can't be used as neutral sources in articles related to Hindu-Muslim religious conflicts.

• The AMU students worked as foot soldiers for the Muslim League during its election campaign in the 1945-46 elections that became a referendum on Pakistan.
• (The University of Texas at Austin) The educational institution at Aligarh, founded in 1875, had long been concerned with cultivating a sporting, activist, masculine identity among its students; Muslim League leaders further empowered that identity as they recruited students for election work in support of Pakistan. The students embraced the values of the demand for Pakistan that appeared to be consistent with the values engendered at Aligarh.
• The solidarity agenda: Aligarh students and the demand for Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3a80:1a4e:6973:508f:f274:6b9:e6c3 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC) — 2402:3a80:1a4e:6973:508f:f274:6b9:e6c3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

• Be more concise or nobody will answer you.

"Love Jihad" is, as the article says, an Islamophobic conspiracy theory, rather than an aspect of the Islamic theological concept of Jihad. The section of "reverse love Jihad" actually cites proponents of this activity who wish to conduct such a "jihad" despite being Hindus. It seems to be well-sourced and framed neutrally, so I don't see any substance to your objection.

If you think I'm missing something please answer (briefly) outlining the specific problem you have with the neutrality of the text in the article as it stands. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I am good with the neutrality of the language on the page. It might help you to differentiate 'Jihad' an Arabic word/concept (which has crept into English) from 'love Jihad' a not Arabic phrase/concept. We are not saying any of this is true, just that the words have been used and this is what is meant by them. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Aligarh Muslim University linked sources are not neutral sources for articles where there are accusations against Muslims. I am not aware of any Tel Aviv University's Jew professor's academic sources, are used for writing any Wikipedia article linked to Israel Palestine conflict. It has been explained above that students and teachers of AliGarh Muslim University will have a pro-Muslim mindset. --Count Of The Baskervilles (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah... I think you’re just being bigoted... If I though your argument was based in our NPOV policy I would address it as such but it clearly isn’t, these are your own personal issues that you’re pushing on wikipedia and you need to stop. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

When editors don't accept newspaper sources, which mention something they don't like; but accept the same newspaper sources when they mention what they like; that is also bigoted. There is only one academic source that accepts Reverse Love Jihad, and that is from AMU. Historically it has been a Muslim university as linked in the first post. And why would that Reverse Love Jihad section be forced into the Love Jihad page, when both the cases are shown differently. Love Jihad is written as a conspiracy theory. Reverse Love Jihad is written as real. Why did this reverse love jihad's academic source did not come from any other university? I will not accept that Aligarh Muslim University can have religious bias, as others will call me a bigot. As long as Muslim University sources are included in this type of articles, this is not NPOV. Remove Muslim University sources and find some other non-religious university sources.

I don't what extra things you people need to see to understand this. Check their faculty and important posts. from their official website. . Faculty of Agricultural Sciences-Mujeebur Rahman Khan, Faculty of Management Studies and Research-Jamal A Farooquie, Faculty of Arts- Syed Mohammad Hashim, Faculty of Engineering & Technology- Pervez Mustajab, Faculty of Theology- M. Saud Alam Qasmi, Faculty of Medicine- Rakesh Bhargava, Faculty of Commerce- Imran Saleem, Faculty of Social Sciences- Nisar Ahmad Khan, Faculty of Life Sciences- Wasim Ahmad, Faculty of Unani Medicine-F.S.Sherani, Faculty of Law- Mohammad Ashraf, Faculty of Science- Mohammad Ashraf, Faculty of International Studies- Jawaid Iqbal, Registrar- Abdul Hamid, IPS, His Holiness Dr Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, Prof. Tariq Mansoor is the Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University, Finance Officer and Professor- Mohd. Mohsin Khan, Controller Of Examination and Associate Professor- Mujib Ullah Zuberi, Proctor- Mohd. Wasim Ali, Public Relations Office- M. Shafey Kidwai. I can what is available on their official website. Other than Rakesh Bhargava from Medicine, their entire university members are Muslims. And their religious history is also mentioned in the beginning.

My objection to the neutrality is that Aligarh Muslim University is not a neutral source for Hindu-Muslim conflict related articles;

Unless, Wikipedia accepts University of Tehran's academic sources for Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, or Wikipedia accepts Myanmar university academic sources to write Conflict in Rakhine State (2016–present). --Count Of The Baskervilles (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Benevolent Dictators?

There's currently a dispute on benevolent dictator between several editors as to whether the page should contain examples of particular dictators who were benevolent.

I think that to presume a dictator can be benevolent is a big NPOV violation in the first place. Furthermore, most pages do not have lists of examples: woman doesn't have a list of women, for example. Unfortunately there aren't many people commenting over on the article talk and I think the NPOV issue is the main one so I brought it here. Loki (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

But also the woman article has examples. I agree that better sources are needed, but the reader should at least see an example of so-called benevolent dictators. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Per Paradise Chronicle. I'll add that 1) there are a lot more women than benevolent dictators, and 2) to presume that a dictator is necessarily un-benevolent is bias. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Banedon (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That article is appalling and needs a complete rewrite. The "benevolence" of the Shah of Iran being my particular favourite, where we come perilously close to actually saying "he made the trains run on time". I think no article at all would be better than this pig's ear. The article needs to be neutrally worded and based on academic sources which identify the history of the concept and its ideological use. The opinions on individual "benevolent dictators" (such as the bloody-handed monster Pahlavi) also need explaining with attribution and criticism.

As of now I have NPOV tagged the whole disaster area, perhaps it's worth starting the whole thing from scratch. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Los Angeles Police Department

More comments are needed at this discussion at Los Angeles Police Department. A few things are being discussed, one of which is that a couple editors want to put the Controversies section as the first thing after the History section. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 Canadian federal election

Question on whether the article content in 2021 Canadian federal election is compliant with the Neutral Point of View policy, concerning the exclusion of the People's Party of Canada in the "Campaign" section. See Talk:2021 Canadian federal election#People's Party Platform for discussion context and the diff that started the discussion. Multiple editors are defending the exclusion of the party from the "Campaign" section on the basis that there is a project/page consensus that parties without an incumbent seeking re-election are excluded (the first reason was lack of pdf format, second reason later was lack of an incumbent after dismissing my suggestion that the published sources should guide coverage). However, in this case, this particular party is receiving national media attention in roughly proportion to other major parties. There are other sources covering their campaign, but most directly CBC News compares the their platform alongside the other 5 major parties, but their inclusion was (as linked above) undone. Similarly, their non-invitation to the debates received proportional national media coverage as the invitation of the other parties CBC News CTV News Global News but their "Not invited" is excluded from that sub-section. So, is this national media attention to their campaign (which appears to be not minor) sufficient to justify their inclusion in the "Campaign" section based on NPOV's WP:PROPORTION's "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." or WP:DUE's "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." or is this multi-editor agreement really sufficient to limit coverage? maclean (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Longstanding procedure with all Canadian election articles. Since many parties vie for seats, only those that held seats at the end of the parliamentary session are included in platform articles, even if they occasionally receive some media coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the WP:DUE wording "a distinct (and minuscule) minority" applies to this attempt to change established editorial policy that predates the existence of the PPC, a party that represented 1.6% of the vote last election and in some polls is at the same position they were at the same point last election, when they received a similar level of media coverage.

I suspect this to be yet another attempt by a PPC supporter to have the federal election match their perception of the party's exceptionalism, albeit one that is more neutrally worded than most. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the PPC does not belong, as per WP:UNDUE. The PPC is just one of a large number of minor Canadian political parties that get occasional media coverage, but have no MPs and are not forecast to elect any again this election. See https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/ for one such forecast. The set of articles dealing witn the 2021 federal election have seen some fairly obvious COI editing to try to use Wikipedia to promote this party and this has been noted and removed by a large number of non-COI editors. - Ahunt (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

If the PPC win (at least) one seat in this federal election & hang on to it, the entire 44th Canadian Parliament? We'll definitely include the PPC leader & party in the infobox of the next federal election and the PPC's platform. We won't do neither, for the 2021 federal election, however. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

If the Green Party end up in the PPC's current situation, then next election they'll be treated as the PPC are now. Conversely, I assume either one losing out this time and then entering the house via byelection would get them treated as elected parties for the next election's articles. It's never come up but that seems appropriate. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

So it doesn't matter how much coverage the party's campaign gets during this 2021 election in secondary sources, the Rule is they cannot be in the campaign section of this 2021 election's article because they didn't win a seat in the last 2019 election? Even though there are neutral secondary sources describing their impact on this 2021 election [1], that is disallowed content? maclean (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And the term "disallowed content" is hyperbole; no amount of cherrypicked media content changes their status as an unelected party. No amount of sympathy or antipathy for the party's position changes that simple fact. They are not exceptional to anyone but their supporters. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I would include them. While they will be lucky to win one seat, their current polling at 6.3% of the vote is virtually tied with the Bloc and almost double the Green vote making them significant to the election. Sources on the election routinely mention them. Articles about elections routinely mention extreme right parties that get several percentages of the vote and diminish the chances of traditional right-wing parties.

The article 1935 Canadian federal election mentions the Social Credit, CCF and Reconstruction parties, all of which were new and won respectively 4%, 9% and 9% of the vote. The 1993 Canadian federal election mentions the Reform Party, which won one seat.

TFD (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• There are obviously limits on how many parties you should include, but why is how many seats they won last time a better metric than polling? If a new party were to enter the race and be polling at say 50%, would they really be excluded because of a strict commitment to an arcane rule? Going off 338Canada, they are at about 6% (a percentage point below Bloc Quecebois and three above the Greens).

Every news outlet I've been able to find that gives a general overview of the parties mention all six (the five we mention plus PPC).[2][3][4][5] What makes Wikipedia any different? I don't see there being any good reason for us to break with all of the reliable sources on something like this. The election is two days from now, though, so I suppose it makes little difference now. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Fala Chen

Can an administrator help with some of them edit vandalism on this page? There’s been a few ip users over the past couple of days who have been making fairly non-neutral point of view edits to the article. (You can refer to my edit summaries there for further context) Estnot (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicle

I would appreciate extra eyes on The Jewish Chronicle article. See talk page discussion on whether the article is slanted to recent events and on whether criticisms from a blogpost are noteworthy enough to be quoted. I a concerned that the skew towards recent events and toward criticism, much of it weakly sourced, makes the article less than neutral. On the other hand, only two editors have weighed in, so perhaps this is a case of "I don't like it" on my part. I think extra editors' views would be very useful. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I will take a look, I was actually thinking of bringing this back to RSN given all the trouble it has had recently.Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

One of my concerns is that skewing the article's POV will in turn skew an RSN discussion if there is another. See this talk page section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I would support taking the JC to the RS again, given its awful recent record and the way a considerable number of users commented on the past record of the JC despite that not being part of the RS discussion. Also the sock issues played a part. User DeltaSnowQueen supported this too in the discussion page.

As for neutrality, I find it hard to accept that entirely factual and neutrally worded statements (accepted by BFB as being such) should be excluded from an article in order to avoid "skewing" a future discussion on RS noticeboard. I could understand such an argument if BFB considered them inaccurate, but at no point has he claimed this. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The source which is described as a blog is not, it is an article hosted on a university website written by Wendy Sloane a professor of Journalism dealing with their specialist subject. It is entirely correct to include this information.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I know this is a side issue, but the section of the uni website it comes from is called "Expert Commentary" and it looks like a blog to me: https://www.londonmet.ac.uk/news/expert-commentary/ Calling it that is probably a bit demeaning, but it probably has WP:NEWSBLOG type status in RS terms. I'm not saying it is inaccurate (although there are glaring errors in the article, like misnaming the Community Security Trust, Jonathan Freedland and Hadley Freeman), just that the particular quotes from it are undue. If editors think it's a due source, I think it'd be better to say something like "Wendy Sloane, Associate Professor in Journalism at London Metropolitan University, noted that threats to the paper's survival during the Covid pandemic had been met by sadness and some jubilation, with journalists Jonathan Freedland and Hadley Freeman expressing sorrow and some Labour supporters, such as Andrew Feinstein and Mira Bar-Hillel, welcoming its demise and speculating that libel payouts were impacting on its finances." Wouldn't that be more NPOV? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the current text is substantially factually different from what you propose, though it contains a lot of information that is irrelevant to a section entitled "Criticism". But it seems a bit strange to suddenly be discussing wording here, the article talkpage would surely be the place to have begun discussions. Boynamedsue (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Sloane, I do not feel that attribution is required for factual information published by an academic on an academic website, but we could discuss that first at the talkpage as is the correct procedure. Boynamedsue (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Apple cider vinegar RfC

There is an RfC on Apple cider vinegar dealing with whether the sources say there is "no evidence for any health claims" or "insufficient evidence for any health claims". MarshallKe (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Is content sourced to a particular article published by MichaelWestMedia and APAC.news due for inclusion in Australian Strategic Policy Institute?

On Australian Strategic Policy Institute there has been a dispute about the inclusion of content sourced to a MichaelWestMedia article written by Marcus Ruebenstein. The article is currently used to support the sentence, In August 2021, Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein wrote that "sockpuppet" accounts and accounts that appeared to be linked to ASPI had edited its Wikipedia article.

To give a history on the disputed content:

• The article and its reference were first inserted into the article on August 20, was removed from the article on August 21, was added back to the article by an IP, then removed removed, and then added back to the article on August 22, after which a tag for a better source being needed was added.
• On August 22, a discussion was opened on the article talk page. There has not been any closing summary of the discussion added yet, though based on my read through it, it didn't look like a consensus was achieved to include the disputed content.
• The page was protected by El C on August 22, leading to this back-and-forth stopping until the protection expired.
• After the protection expired, the content was removed and challenged per WP:DUE again on August 30, and then on the same day re-inserted, re-removed citing WP:BURDEN, and then incorporated into the article in a different form all by the end of the day.
• On September 1, the disputed content was cut-down and modified to include to the article being published on APAC News. This second reference was removed as redundant, but then restored by the same editor who inserted the second reference.
• On September 3, the disputed material was removed and then restored.
• On September 20, I challenged that the content was WP:DUE and removed it.
• On September 23, the disputed content was restored, with the comment "see talk".
• On September 24, the content was removed and then re-inserted.
• On September 25, the disputed content was removed and subsequently re-inserted, with the re-inserting editor arguing that the content "has been pretty stable" and citing WP:BRD.

I don't want to extend this reversion cycle any further, especially given that editors (including myself) seem to no longer have an agreement over what the stable version of the article was. Discussions on the article's talk page don't appear to have been able to reach consensus. So I'm appealing to this noticeboard to help resolve the dispute, via the RfC opened below. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?

Question: Is it WP:DUE to state in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article that In August 2021, Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein wrote that "sockpuppet" accounts and accounts that appeared to be linked to ASPI had edited its Wikipedia article, based off of the two references (1 2) present?

• Option 1: No, it is not due.
• Option 2: Yes, it is due.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?

• Not Due. In my understanding, it's atypical that a standalone opinion piece from a minor outlet would be due in an article, except when that opinion pieve is either referred to by a reliable secondary source or written by a relevant subject matter expert. In this case, the article was originally published by MichaelWestMedia and republished by APAC.news, so it might superficially appear that such a source exists. However, this isn't the case.

Certainly, APAC news's republication of a MichaelWestMedia can't contribute towards the reliability of the piece; after all, "APAC News" was created by Reubenstein in October of 2019 and is still run by him (see footer), so it's totally non-independent of the article's author.

After looking into the sources a bit, I'm unsure of the extent to which, and the previous discussion on the reliability of the sources did not appear to gain a consensus on the extent of the reliability and independence from relevant parties. It appears that MichaelWestMedia might not clearly mark what are opinion pieces as opposed to what is straight reporting (see this example of an unlabeled opinion piece, or this one, or this one, etc.). Given the listing of the article as opinion on its "APAC News" (self-)republication, I would think it most reasonable to consider it so (especially since Reubenstein both wrote the piece and edits the website).

I'm also don't think that Reubenstein is an expert on the topic of Wikipedia sockpuppetry or internal functions, which is evidenced by the numerous errors in the article about how Wikipedia functions and most egregiously evidenced in verifiably inaccurate claim regarding the identity of the suspected sockmaster of Telsho. Additionally, according to an article in the South China Morning Post, Ruebenstein's articles about Australia-China economic ties have been republished by China’s state media, and he has made several appearances on state-run China Global Television Network. He appears to (archive) have written content for China's state-run Xinhua News Agency as recently as June of 2020. The APAC news website footer (archive) explicitly notes that the APAC News website is not blocked in Mainland China. Considering the current state of affairs regarding China and ASPI, I'm not sure that using an opinion piece written by a Xinhua writer and frequent CGTN commentator for facts in the article is a great idea, especially when there are clear factual errors present in the article.

All in all, I'm not convinced as to the reliability of the publisher and the author as a source for facts on this topic, I'm rather certain that the article is an opinion piece, and I believe that the inclusion of the website's claims is undue in the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is this on the NPOV noticeboard? This clearly belongs on the article talk page. Michael West Media is a relatively prominent source of news and current affairs reporting in Australia which meets our standards. The content in the article for which the Michael West Media article is a reference is easily verifiable by Wikipedia editors, and reflects a notable perspective on the article subject. This is clearly another desperate attempt to remove criticism from the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems a case of both WP:STICK and forum shopping. Searching the Australian version of The Guardian for "Michael West" Australia returns a fair few stories where The Guardian has cited this news website, which indicates that it's a reliable and noteworthy source. The material here is one sentence, so it's not like it's excessive! Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

When there's a no local consensus after extensive discussions, the next step is to bring in outside opinions to try to work out a consensus. You're right, I should have raised the RfC on the talk page by that very same policy, and I would be happy to move it over to the article talk if there are no objections from you and the other editor who has commented thus far. That being said, this is literally the noticeboard to discuss neutral point of view, which is what WP:DUE falls under. To the best of my ability, I've informed every editor who made a related edit (in the talk or in the article itself) that this discussion was taking place here, and I've left a note on the article talk page. And, yes, one sentence given to a random opinion piece from a non-reliable author is one sentence too many. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: I have no issue with there being criticism in the article, and I've removed stuff from the article that seemed like advertorial puffery. The insinuation that I am desperately trying to remove criticism-quo-criticism is unfounded; my problem, as I've explained above, is with the particular source being an opinion article from a non-subject expert author. My own looking through sources doesn't appear to show that MichaelWestMedia is a relatively prominent source of news and current affairs reporting in Australia, and the very fact that there are basic errors that any real Wikipedian can verify shows doesn't indicate that the site places a premium on fact-checking. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You're not going to get anywhere with stating that the reference is an "opinion piece", as Wikipedia extensively uses opinion articles from reliable sources to support the inclusion of factual information. The content in the Wikipedia article is factual, not opinion. The error that you claim is in the Michael West Media article has nothing to do with the Wikipedia content that relies on it. Continuing to claim the source is not reliable is beating a dead horse, it's been shown that other reliable sources rely on Michael West Media, which is the easiest test of reliability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

But Michael West Media is not a reliable source... Unless you can point to a consensus that says otherwise the horse is definitely not dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The article talk page, for a start. It has been explained multiple times that Michael West Media has been relied upon by The New Daily and Guardian Australia, both of which are already considered reliable sources. There's not a particularly high barrier for it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the article talk page... If you really think otherwise please quote and/or link it. If you want to establish MWM as a WP:RS might I suggest you open a discussion at WP:RSN to do so instead of making that argument here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no need to do that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No you don’t need to do that, but if you don’t do that and continue to claim that there is consensus for reliability then you would continue to lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

No, the reliable sources noticeboard is not usually relevant to talk page consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not due per WP:NOTNEWS. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if the question should be whether this is "due" or "not due", but this isn't new for Wikipedia – Saskatoon_freezing_deaths#Censorship_attempts and this Reuters report are some examples. Nevertheless, it definitely seems highly suspect that sockpuppets have tried to prowl the article of material that they found undesirable in their view. It may seem useful to keep the report based on the extraordinary circumstance. Otterslort (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Otterslort: its not a report and the forensics (if one can even call them that) on it are sloppy to the point of being unusable... For instance the sockpupper Telsho is attributed to Waskertoon when they’re actually suspected of being a Ineedtostopforgetting sock. Those sock farms have completely different political outlooks which render’s the conclusion the author draws from their misattribution of Telsho mistaken (to be polite). What extraordinary circumstance would you be referring to? The author’s incompetence? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says nothing about which users are the sockpuppet accounts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not due, unreliable source and unreliable/non-notable author... Also appears to have been published as an opinion piece on the author’s blog ("APAC News"). Note that the Author labels their own work as commentary (Section heading is “Comment, News") but Michael West Media doesn’t... Thats an issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Though they are practically the same piece, inclusion of the content relies upon the Michael West Media source (which is a sufficient source), not the APAC News source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be relying on both sources not just MWM [6]. Did you not mean to use APAC as the source as well? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

We can use both but the Michael West Media source is required. I didn't add either source into the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Huh, am I reading that diff wrong? Because I would swear that the diff is of you adding the info and *both* sources to the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Onetwothreeip is saying, for whatever it's worth, that they didn't originally add both sources. Onetwothreeip has repeatedly ensured that both blogs are used in the article when other editors have removed one. [7] Cjhard (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This story was also covered here on John Menadue's blog in a piece written by Ian Cunliffe. It is still just a rehashing of the Reubenstein article though and the blog is not the most reliable but does seem to have some editorial standards/oversight. Unfortunately, this story is probably not appropriate for inclusion without wider and more reliable coverage. I say unfortunately as I think the story is hilarious, probably true and is most certainly rife across WP. We have to stick to good sources though. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  One reliable source is enough for the majority of content that appears on Wikipedia, and the Michael West Media source is sufficient. This is a discussion for the article talk page though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the way this has been brought to RfC is strange and, if I didn't assume good faith in all fellow editors, would appear to be an attempt to exclude people who were already discussing this on the talk page. This has still not been mentioned on the talk page and no one involved in the discussion was pinged. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging as yet uninvolved editors from the Talk page Burrobert Ultranova1337 Cjhard Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vladimir.copic: just FYI those are involved editors not uninvolved editors, not an issue just thought you should know. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: thanks. I clearly mean they are as yet uninvolved in this RfC which took the discussion off the Talk page into a different forum. Otherwise I would have tagged every single other WP editor. Thanks again for your help. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Due. MWM is a popular but smaller outlet in Australia. It's more popular among younger, more informed Australians. Further, it's clear that some editors of the Wikipedia article (including some here, won't mention names) are potentially sinophobic, and favour articles that aren't neutral, and that hold biases against China. TLDR; Possible shills could be in our midst. Ultranova1337 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Noting that we should avoid assuming bad faith, I very much agree that this is the kind of topic that will draw out people who aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. With that in mind, has anyone here noticed that the editor who added the contentious content is a single-purpose account that has NEVER edited on anything else before or since? This is an embarrassing failure of administration. Cjhard (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and so what? I've only committed a change once, everyone has a first time. Anyone can contribute to an open source project. Gatekeeping much? xD Ultranova1337 (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: No, it is not due. These are blogs. Cjhard (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: Not due. As per above, weak source(s) as obvious from the inaccuracies in the reportage about Wikipedia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: Not due. This is not a significant enough opinion. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Just as an FYI to everyone here, since there are now editors making very brief comments here, there isn't an outcome of this discussion that would have any binding effect on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article. If you want your view to be represented in the content of that article, I encourage you to join discussion on the article talk page. Writing "due" or "not due" in bold on this page doesn't actually do anything. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Payitaht: Abdülhamid

As tentatively touched upon in one section of the article, this Turkish TV series is grimly antisemitic and anti-Western in POV. The article's plot summaries (poorly translated) are very much in-universe, and could be read as assuming the accuracy of the series' extremely revisionist caricatures of various figures in world history, Jewish and otherwise. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

In General: I would expect all plot summaries to contain no editorializing. For example, a page for star wars need not say the empire is 'bad' and one for 'Gone with the wind' should not have fact checks of every sentence. It can also be useful to think about political books by contentious authors.

In specific: Quote from page "Edmund Rothschild, born in France in 1845, is a member of the Rothschild Banking family; he is a very rich Zionist Jew. An extremely intelligent, cunning, and cold-blooded character, he is an identity that worships money and power like all Rothschilds, sees the world as his own playground, and believes that everything exists to serve him." Not great is it. But the only bit that I see as out of line for wikipedia would be "like all Rothschilds" as it it could be read as real world editorializing. I would need to watch the show to be confident. Is it 'in universe' wrong or is it offensive? Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Socialism

There is a very heated debate at Talk:Socialism on whether the article is NPOV or not, that would benefit from more editors' eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

AUKUS

The AUKUS article doesn't seem to have a NPOV and seems to be somewhat biased towards France and Europeans, and it feels like it has a very negative POV towards Australia, the US and UK. I don't think it has a NPOV and it would benefit from more editors' eyes. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem is WP:RECENTISM… the media has not covered AUKUS all that much - until the French reacted to it.

However, because the French reaction was covered (heavily) by the media, that reaction is given a lot of WEIGHT in the article. It definitely needs to be mentioned, but I can see the argument that we give it UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There's been other media coverage as well. Definetly there is far too much undue weight to the French/European reaction, and also the submarine component of the pact.178.202.82.89 (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There is definetly far too much undue weight to France and Europe. It needs some experienced editors to help make it NPOV and remove any bias. The current editors mostly seem to be from European countries as well which I don't think is helping with the NPOV. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In the last few days editing has been dominated by bias against the French view. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The AUKUS situation is the type of place that WP:RECENTISM is a good thing to keep in mind. It may be better to hold to basic facts and keep various reactions that have no bearing on the situation (such as several of those listed in "Other Countries") out of the article for the present until the issues around the deal have died out and a more calm review of what the situation is can be made. In the short term, that likely will mean what France's actual response (in terms of the actions they took) will be a dominate part of it, but we should be documenting the objective facts of the controversy and hold on subjective aspects (opinions from other countries if the deal was proper or not) until we have a clearer picture in the future. --Masem (t) 18:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A reference from the French government that clarifies the nature of the partnership was replaced to impose the editor's narrative. Technical details explaining the advantages of French nuclear submarines and unplanned deficiencies of the US designs were also removed. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Julian Assange kidnapping plans

There is a discussion about disputed content in the article Julian Assange in which NPOV is ostensibly a factor at this noticeboard. Cambial foliage❧ 23:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Should BDS activists be used to define Zionist Orgs?

I debated between the RSN and NPOV, and ended up here. Here's the primary source in question:

The Israel Lobby and the European Union

Of the three authors of that paper:

• David Miller - Has been publicly accused of anti-semitism (link)
• David Cronin - Blogs for the Electronic Intifada
• Sarah Marusek - Is a Pro-Palestine activist

And the discussions that have happened so far.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:StandWithUs#Non_reliable_sources_-_should_be_removed
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:StandWithUs#Sources_biased_against_group_do_not_belong_in_lead

I'm under the contention that in the context of writing about Zionist Orgs, BDS activists and writers for Electronic Intifada writers should be seen as hostile, and their writing should be seen as an opinion, not factual.

This source has been used to define StandWithUs as "right wing" and is currently being used to criticize the organization in the lead: "Reportedly SWU work closely with the Israeli government, do not believe the West Bank is occupied and support Israeli settlements"

Bringing in @Selfstudier: for a contrary view.

This same issue exists with other sources on the same page, with self-proclaimed BDS activists being used to define StandByUs. I suspect that this problem will come up again on other pages. So I'd like to see if we can get a clear resolution.

So I'd put it up to a vote:

• Option 1: In the context of Zionism, the source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: In the context of Zionism, there is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: In the context of Zionism, the source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: In the context of Zionism, the source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

An accusation of anti-semitism does not make it so, and an academic's professional output can't be disregarded on the basis of their personal activity, including participation in BDS. But it isn't exactly controversial that StandWithUs is right wing. The Forward: Rothstein rejects the claims of critics who say this constitutes a right-wing agenda. But a close look at SWU’s learning material and talking points reveals a right of center narrative on issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Haaretz: The Prime Minister's Office will pay the right-wing Israel-advocacy group StandWithUs just over 1 million shekels ($254,000) to help it push the government's political line this year via social media, the Israeli media website The Seventh Eye reported on Tuesday. Waxman, Dov (2010). "The Israel Lobbies: A Survey of the Pro-Israel Community in the United States". Israel Studies Forum. 25 (1). Berghahn Books: 10. ISSN 1557-2455. JSTOR 41805051. Retrieved 2021-09-29. includes StandWithUs in its list of right wing pro-Israel groups as well. nableezy - 20:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Well it would be interesting to turn the question about, wouldn't it? Should Zionist orgs (what is a Zionist org, anyway? Do you mean pro Israel?) be used to define BDS? Because if not, there is a lot of stuff I can go delete on the BDS article. I made it clear on the talk page of the article what I think, for each of the reasons you gave above for discounting the authors, my considered response would be "so what?" If bias is the only argument, you would need to demonstrate an active and strong bias and I see no evidence of that up to now. I say option 1 for this source absent any further evidence. "In the context of Zionism" is a false premise, the source is commenting on SWU, not "Zionism".Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Flip it around? The BDS article has a single sentence in the lead and it begins with the phrase "Critics say that...".

That's how I've been advocating that these sources be used, and it's the model for how BDS activist descriptions of Zionists and pro-Israel orgs should done across the site. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A "model" is inappropriate, every case is different and depends on what the sources say.Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This source is clearly a work of advocacy - it is sponsored by EuroPal Forum, described as "an independent organisation advocating Palestinian rights", and funded by "Friends of Al Aqsa" whose golas are (among other things), "Putting pressure on the British government" and "Mobilising international condemnation for Israel’s apartheid policies to be manifested through the boycott of Israel". It may be usable for the authors' opinion, but that's about it. It can't be used to state things as facts in Wikipedia's voice. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

We are discussing the issue here, you don't get to comment here and then go enforce your opinion at the article, please wait for the conclusion of the discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You introduced controversial material into the lead, and it was challenged and reverted. Now we discuss. That's how it works. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

We were already discussing it. (btw, BRD is not a policy because you still need a proper reason to revert something).Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The reason was given above: we can't use highly biased advocacy sources to state things as facts in the lead. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I generally dont think we should use ones political opponents to define them, but you cannot dismiss an academic work on the basis of the academics politics. I didnt really look at this specific source, and if it is advocacy then it should not be used as anything other than opinion. But for the content, which I think this board is concerned with, it is easily sourced to third party non-opinion sources that StandWithUs is right-wing. And that isnt a NPOV violation to say so absent sources that actually say that it is not. nableezy - 22:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not academic work, though. It is advocacy, funded by an advocacy group and published in a non-peer reviewed medium. It's written by people who happen to be academics, but that does not automatically make all their output "academic work" as that term is used here. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's the "right wing" thing he is complaining about, I resolved that with a ToI link saying SWU is right wing, which is not a criticism anyway, just a fact.Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: This source is used six different times on the page. It may be used on other pages too.

It seems that it is indeed advocacy, so I'd like to see if we can get agreement on the following:

* This source should be considered generally unreliable in terms of describing Zionism, Zionists, and Zionist Orgs

* It should be used sparingly in that context

* It can only be used in that context for opinions which are spelled out as criticism, not factual content. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Are we not voting anymore? The six times should be easy to fix, at least two of them are lead cites for things already cited in the body.Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'd avoid David Miller due to his promotion of conspiracy theories related to the Syrian Civil War. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• 'Option 3. Very biased, some embroiled in antisemitism controvesies, and with conflict of interest in regarda to their BDS aftivism. Best avoided, unless showing a viewpoint of an opponent of Zionism is due.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

*Option 4: And not because I'm pro-Israel. Activist sources (and even activist non-specialist academics) should be considered unreliable on any political, social or historical topic. They are a main reliability issue faced by wikipedia: '"Oh but assistant professor in critical dance theory from Omaha community college says that X happened - we NEED his opinion in the Lede."' It is a major flaw in the project. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Non ecp editors not permitted to participate in internal project discussions related to IP area.Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Judging by the !vote options, it's clear that this is not an WP:NPOV issue, or at least, it's not formulated as such. I suggest you take this to WP:RSN. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @M.Bitton: I did a search. The source is used multiple times on StandWithUs, and only used as a reference on one other page as a trivial reference. So far, only Selfstudier seems to be defending it as a reliable source. Nableezy was somewhat equivocal saying _if_ it's advocacy it should go away. Is there really a need to rehash this entire conversation on RSN, or can we just move toward closing it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Bob drobbs: Closing it won't change the fact that even if consensus is achieved here (it doesn't look that way), it will be invalidated by the inappropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @Selfstudier: Are you willing to agree to remove the content from this source, and replace it with content from other sources? Or are you going to insist that this conversation continue and be relocated to WP:RSN -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• @Bob drobbs: As I said on the talk page I have been collecting up source material from here and there, it is only recently that I have taken an active interest in the matter, previously I was only really concerned with the "right wing" business. The material has already been reverted out of the lead by another editor with the result that the lead currently reads like an ad so the case is not so pressing, since you yourself were the person who moved the material into the body from the lead and it seems reasonable therefore to assume that you agreed with the content at the time, you just didn't like it being in the lead. Frankly, the attempt to turn the lead of this article into a puff piece for the org is disturbing, afaics this org is way worse than the source you are complaining about here, I would never under any circumstances use them as a source for anything, most of their sps claims are refuted by reliable sources and I intend to add them. It is up to you to decide whether to take the matter to RSN which was what I had suggested in the first place, I don't really know why you brought it here.Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Selfstudier: The latest version of the page has the content removed from the lead, included in criticism, and it has David Miller spelled out as one of the authors with a link to his page. I'm happy with that if you are. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Bob drobbs: It is what it is, I will edit the article if I see a need to, just as you have been doing, whether or not I agreed, right? Selfstudier (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The political views of writers has nothing to do with whether their facts are accurate. Facts and opinions are different things. As Sen. Pat Moynihan once said, while we are all entitled to our opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. And anyway, what ideological positions would you consider acceptable? Would a Zionist source be acceptable? Or do we need to find sources that express no opinion? Are we supposed to carry out ideology checks on all writers? There is nothing in policy and guidelines to support such a position and it would become very unwieldy. TFD (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Someone above described it well -- "I generally don't think we should use ones political opponents to define them.... Though, I'd take it further and say that we should only use one's political opponents to define them as a last resort. But that's just my opinion and I've learned it's not against the rules.

I do note that on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions page, claims that it's anti-Semitic, from the ADL (a reliable source) are phrased as "Critics say..." instead of writing them as fact ("BDS is anti-Semitic"). That seems 100% correct to me. Would you suggest changing that?

Moving on, the source in question has other issues. It seems the reason we can't get agreement to label it as "advocacy" is only Selfstudier's obstructionism. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The ADL says in "Is BDS Antisemitic?" which is used as a source for that conclusion:

Many of the founding goals of the BDS movement, including denying the Jewish people the universal right of self-determination – along with many of the strategies employed in BDS campaigns are anti-Semitic. Many individuals involved in BDS campaigns are driven by opposition to Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state. Often time, BDS campaigns give rise to tensions in communities – particularly on college campuses – that can result in harassment or intimidation of Jews and Israel supporters, including overt antisemitic expression and acts. This dynamic can create an environment in which antisemitism can be expressed more freely.

And, all too often, BDS advocates employ antisemitic rhetoric and narratives to isolate and demonize Israel.[8]

The reference to self-determination is taken from the the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism.[9] The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism for example does not support this and in fact says that BDS is not anti-Semitic. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) does not mention this in its article about anti-Semitism and does not list BDS as a hate group.[10] Ironically, David Feldman, Director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism, who is cited as accusing David Miller of anti-Semitism is himself controversial. On the day the article appeared, the Pears Foundation removed their name from the institute because of Miller's dispute with the IHRA about its working definition.[11] In this article, Feldman says it is unclear whether BDS meets the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism since it says that among other things opposition to the Jewish right to a homeland “could, taking into account the overall context,” not meet the definition.[12]

While I am not saying BDS is right, I am saying that whether or not it is anti-Semitic is disputed. Bear in mind that it supports equal citizenship for Jews and Palestinians in a secular One-state solution. While it may be subtle anti-Semitism, it's not in the same league as holocaust denial or other blatant anti-Semitism.

You mention that there may be other issues, but the poster chose to focus on this one. They should have said, "Is this an article by experts, which meets rs, or is it by activists, which doesn't." When someone asks a question by putting in every possible argument, I will oppose it if any of their claims fail. One should not present multiple arguments in the hope that one of them will stick.

TFD (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think in the essence of neutrality, it would be best, as this appears to be a decent source, that considerations be given their WP:DUE and that certain controversial perspectives can be attributed. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 as BDS activists are way too involved in the subject so are not neutral. Free1Soul (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5: it's not an RS at all and shouldn't be used for any purpose. Nevermind the authors, the publisher doesn't appear reliable. This report is published by advocacy organizations (and not by a university press, it's just hosted on a university website), it says so right on the first page (the publisher is SpinWatch Public Interest Investigations, an antipropaganda nonprofit, and it's also sponsored by EuroPal Forum, a pro-Palestinian nonprofit). This is not an academic paper. Using this as a source would be like citing WINEP: shouldn't be done. We should stick to academic works and not advocacy works. Universities, not non-profits. Also this is an RSN thread not a NPOVN thread (and anyway, generally reliable/unreliable/deprecated is for publishers, not individual works). All these issues are discussed in sections of WP:RS: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SPONSORED, and WP:PARTISAN. If it were partisan scholarship it might be ok with attribution, but because it's sponsored by advocacy orgs (and published by them), it's not an RS at all. Levivich 15:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The same information has been alternatively sourced rendering this question moot as a practical matter.Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • A good example of why it's rarely worth arguing about whether a source is an WP:RS: anything a questionable source says that is WP:DUE will be easily found in other uncontroversial RSes. Because we summarize multiple RSes, DUE article content will rarely hinge upon a single RS (except for obscure subjects, which this is not). BTW I noticed StandWithUs cites a bunch of unreliable sources, like those listed as yellow at RSP. Levivich 15:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The reliance on the source has been greatly reduced in the article, and it's no longer being used to define the group. But it is still being used, so this topic isn't totally moot. (link) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • That sounds like an ordinary content dispute about whether someone's opinion is WP:DUE for inclusion which can be handled on the article talk page with the usual dispute resolution methods. But I will say this: we shouldn't cite to someone's opinion for their opinion. A source is a primary source for the opinions of the author expressed in that source. Instead, we should be citing to a secondary source (this is also written up in WP:RS). So if Person A writes Article A expressing Opinion A, we should not cite to Article A for "According to Person A, Opinion A". Instead, we need a reliable secondary source (Article B written by Person B), which says "According to Person A, Opinion A". In other words, cite Person B/Article B for Person A's opinion. The reason is that Person A's opinion is not significant and thus not DUE for inclusion unless some other reliable sources have written about it. (And this is why there is almost never a reason to cite an unreliable source for any purpose in a Wikipedia article.) Levivich 17:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I refuse to vote because framing complex issues, esp. by profiling the politics of academics, as options is unwikipedian. As with the CounterPunch RS discussion, this leads to just a con fused mess by editors with little knowledge of the area, conceptual confusion and politicking instead of the careful evaluation of source, authorial qualifications, publication venue and context, and in that case a majority ignored the fact that scores of high profile scholars and academics publish in CounterPunch. By introducing an identical vote-for-one-of-4- options also here, we are introducing a dubious practice. A huge number of our sources in the IP area come from academics with a strong POV. This goes for both sides in the dispute. The anti-Semitism slur has been thrown at virtually every scholar who has objected to the occupation, from Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein down. In rewriting the Hamas article, I accepted and used Matthew Levitt, despite the fact that his book is extremely biased. He has the credentials. Idem for Kenneth L. Marcus whose books and articles on anti-Semitism I find quite confused. One could go on for hours (I don't believe that anything Manfred Gerstenfeld wrote (voluminously) on a topic for which he was boosted as the world's foremost authority, is worth the paper it is written on. I think using him in Wikipedia is deleterious to its encyclopedic aims. Anything I read of his can be torn apart in seconds, if you have a simple grasp of history and sociology. But reluctantly we must accept him etc., as we do in Antisemitism in Europe etc.etc.) Using profiling of the politics of authors as a criterion for RS would set a dangerous precedent. We have to train editors to be grown-up, i.e. read closely and evaluate per context and rules, case by case, not create artificial criteria that simplify everything. Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The reason this particular source was used is probably because after publication it was picked up by quite a few media outlets who likely thought the "lobby" aspect made a good story. Which it did, as subsequent events demonstrated:)Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Does the french background that keeps being added to the AUKUS article have a NPOV?

AUKUS Article Diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AUKUS&type=revision&diff=1047249274&oldid=1047246896

The following background information keeps getting added about France in the AUKUS article, from reading it I don't think it has a NPOV. I think it results in a Pro France view, rather than NPOV. Does it have a NPOV?

AustraliaRodeo (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the people who keep removing it don't have a NPOV. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:AUKUS § Request for comment on Background to French Response. —2d37 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC) —2d37 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"Your papers, please" article and its inclusion of COVID-related content

Good day. I haven't posted anything here before, so please let me know if I'm doing this wrong.

The Your papers, please article may need some looking over. Aside from the only nation provided a section being the United States (despite there most probably being much more to talk about with countries like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union), the really NPOVN-necessitating section is that titled "During the COVID-19 pandemic".

I'm not against the inclusion of such a section, but with unsourced claims like that "Critics of the [immunity passport] compare such document with Ahnenpass", the section at least probably needs more eyes at the minimum, but a rework or removal would probably serve well here. --RimgailaNB (talk - they/them!) 23:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The article is misleading because the demand that people carry and show an identity document has long been standard in most countries and was not invented by fascists. The U.S., UK and some Commonwealth nations are outliers. TFD (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This is about the phrase "papers please", not every instance of the requirement of id throughout history see Identity document. Anything without a reference directly mentioning the phrase (or a miss quote of it) should be removed.Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I have found some 'Papers please' refs for the covid stuff[13][14], they seem ok. This does not solve the balance problem. So I am new here too, but it is my understanding you should try to solve this on the articles talk page first. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Apple cider vinegar adverse effects

Talk:Apple_cider_vinegar#Removed_section_about_risks_of_tablet_form

There is a talk page discussion debating what a recent systematic review concludes about adverse effects of apple cider vinegar consumption, and whether WP:NPOV and WP:DUE policy supports inclusion of these statements. MarshallKe (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: The reference in question is the following, and it may be available to view on sci-hub.st: Launholt TL, Kristiansen CB, Hjorth P (September 2020). "Safety and side effects of apple vinegar intake and its effect on metabolic parameters and body weight: a systematic review". European Journal of Nutrition (Systematic review). 59 (6): 2273–2289. doi:10.1007/s00394-020-02214-3. PMID 32170375. MarshallKe (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Fresh eyes would be helpful at the Julian Assange article -- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. There is an RfC here regarding a Yahoo News article relating to Assange. Prior discussion of the issue is found here in a long thread that gives some background on the issue and the preceding edit war]. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)