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

Grenada

Grenada winter 1973-1974 became “Independent” from Great Britain. Yes? No? Hmm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:1E01:2500:0:0:0:192B (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

From what i can find in the source below, it looks like they became independent in 1974 yes.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230609952_1 Melancholyhelper (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 inclusion of letter by economists opposed to the act

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 article includes a reference to an letter written by "126 economists" supporting the law. On the talk page there has been a debate about the inclusion of a second letter signed by "over 230" economists who oppose the bill.[1] The argument against inclusion is based on sourcing, primarily that Fox News is not reliable for this claim [2]. Additional sources have mentioned the letter include Reason [3], Detroit News (oped) [4], NJ local news outlets [5], ABC local [6] and a number of right leaning political sources. Additionally, several members of the house committee discussing the bill mentioned the letter [7]. I think this is a NPOV issue because the article mentions the letter of support without mentioning the letter in opposition. This is not a case where we would use one or the other, only mention that economists are on both sides of the issue. Looking for input, thanks. Springee (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of including sources which aren't WP:RS? They don't help your case they just make people wonder whether you can competently identify a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources are reliable and in this case the point is to show that economists didn't universally support the bill. Presenting only one side when it was clearly a debate is a NPOV violation. The bill was passed 51-50 in the senate. Do we honestly believe that such a close call wouldn't have some type of opposition beyond simply politics? Springee (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A vote split strictly along partisan lines isn't really evidence of any basis of opposition aside from partisanship, I'd say. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A fringe talk radio program on New Jersey 101.5 is not a WP:RS. In the ABC Local piece the relevant information is in a quote from a politician, ABC doesn't actually say it or support it which means that its can't be used as a source for that information. Opinion pieces by non-experts are not WP:RS. Either you're playing a joke on this noticeboard and you know that those aren't WP:RS or we need to go to ANI where we can have a serious discussion about a lack of competence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

However, Reason is a green source and Fox is yellow. The primary concern with Fox is a fear they aren't careful with facts related to political topics. However, in this case the letter can be verified and with C-span transcripts we can see that it was discussed as part of the debate related to this bill. The question becomes, why are we picking sides vs providing both sides in proportion? If we say "X exists to support this" why not "X exists to oppose it"? Springee (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not asking about Fox and Reason. I'm asking whether or not you can competently identify a reliable source and I'd like a straight answer. This is a noticeboard, not your talk page and you are expected to conduct yourself accordingly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Reason is a green sources per RSP. The Reason article is not an OpEd, neither is the Fox article. The others are additional sources that mention the letter. Not that is should matter since Fox and Reason should be sufficient to say "This letter exists" which is the very low bar in question. Springee (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If a source isn't WP:RS it has no bearing in a NPOV discussion, NPOV is only about what has been published in WP:RS. Do not bring non-RS here and present them as RS again, you have been warned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

First, sources that haven't been previously discussed aren't assumed reliable or not. Second, we can discuss and consider a range of sources. This is especially true when the basic facts are not in dispute. Springee (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Reason is indeed listed in green on the table, but the key text of the consensus IMO is Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. You say that the citation you have offered is not an opinion piece, but it consists largely of opinion rather than factual statements, e.g., inflation... isn't actually reduced just because the government artificially lowers the consumer cost of a few items, more government spending will only make inflation worse in the long run, and The behemoth bill is full of questionable spending. None of these represent factual reporting; they are all unattributed statements of editorial opinion. So this piece is no more usable when it does cite third-party sources than any other editorial from a biased source would be, e.g., not at all. Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

We aren't using it for the commentary/analysis part. It's being used for a factual claim. Also, I've since found another source to support the existence of the letter.[8] Springee (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the recent discussion about Reason clearly didn't find it to be reliable. I'm not sure why it is still listed in green on the table, but it is likely simply an error. EDIT: In fact, you yourself opined for option 2 in that discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion you linked to wasn't a RfC. However, it does highlight the issue of how do we deal with sources that do a lot of commentary based on good facts. The general consensus seems to be we treat them as reliable for the facts but attribute for the commentary. The question is should that be a green or yellow rating? Since this is a case of reporting facts we can trust it for the factual existence of the letter. Springee (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: we can trust it for the factual existence of the letter - that isn't the way WP:RSOPINION currently works; it distinguishes out editorial content at the article level and says that it is inadmissible for facts. At the article level, this source is clearly opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

But analysis isn't "Opinion". Also, this is, like many modern cases, an example where we have a source that mixes factual reporting with analysis/commentary. It's not a straight up OpEd article so those rules don't apply. This is an area that perhaps needs better clarification through wp:RS. Note that this is not a typical editorial where the opinion of the writer doesn't reflect that of the editorial staff etc. This is content that goes through the standard editorial process. Springee (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't have the word opinion in the header, doesn't mean this isn't an opinion piece under WP:RSOPINION. Andre🚐 01:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because a source uses analysis/commentary doesn't mean the whole article is an opinion article per RSOPINION. Springee (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth noting that in your RfC most editors appear to feel that there is weight for inclusion of the letter. It appears those editors didn't feel that the combination of Fox Business News and Reason failed as a RS. Springee (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That is worth noting, but the RFC has only been running for 2 days. Andre🚐 02:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

True, but 9 editors thus far feel the sourcing is sufficient. I can't say if they feel Fox alone is sufficient or Reason alone or the combination but when nine editors have said yes, even if nine more come along and say no, we need to ask how we should handle cases like this in the future. Since we have a lot of sources that mix commentary and factual reporting, even well respected source like The Atlantic, I think it would be helpful to have further clarification when something is treated like an OpEd vs a mix of factual reporting and commentary. It might make something good come out of our arguing :D Springee (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There is also another Fox Business News article on this where Schumer was reportedly asked about the letter. However, given that it is a Fox article related to politics (yellow under WP:RSP) like the other one mentioned above, it wouldn't be reliable enough to include in the article. JetGreen40 (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I already started an RFC on the page for this question, so I don't know why you started this thread. As mentioned your sources for the "230" letter are opinion or unreliable. Whereas the "126" letter is attested in a number of reliable sources. Andre🚐 14:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Look at the timing. I was writing this before you posted your RfC. This came out after simply because I was searching for posts. Springee (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1Xbet NPOV

Hello, I have started a discussion on this page’s talk page [9]. However, I wanted to open the discussion and get others’ opinions. I believe this page violates NPOV and reads as though the author may have a vendetta against the company. The article is predominantly negative information split up into three sections; there is only one other section with two lines that states the company’ sponsorships. Comparing this to other pages within the same industry, it really stands out. As you can see these pages are very different, with controversies not being dominant and company information/development information and history featured prominently. Although I can see this page has had issues with sock puppet accounts, I still do not feel that this meets the definition of a NPOV page.Melancholyhelper (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean from a cursory review--though I think Russian fluency (well beyond my nine or ten words) would be a big help. Paging Ymblanter--just in case he can spare the time. Will try to do what I can as able. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I checked the two Russian sources cited in the article, they seem to say what the article claims them to say, and they are reliable. Let me know if translation or reliability review of further sources would be needed. Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Dumuzid (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, the changes Dumuzid committed has removed some unfounded content. However, I still believe there is a NPOV issue as the majority of content on the page has a negative bias. Do you think it is worth either considering the page for deletion, or building it out to be more neutral? Thanks Melancholyhelper (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Films with Harry Styles

Regarding two films featuring Harry Styles, Don't Worry Darling and My Policeman (film), I would like feedback about each article's "Reception" section and how much they write about Styles compared to other aspects of the films. Two editors involved with these articles, Sunshine773 (talk · contribs) and Felinefixesthings (talk · contribs), have only edited these articles and have primarily made edits in regard to Styles. I started a discussion at Talk:Don't Worry Darling#Reception and Styles, but these two editors tried to remove my comments in which I pinged them about my concerns (though not my original message). Asking editors here to review these articles and determine how WP:NPOV should be applied. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are you singling me out? Those sections have contributions from several users. I removed your inclusion of my username because you would not stop messaging me in talk and the article page. I left all your concerns and the explanation of your edits. I removed only my username because you would not stop messaging and pinging me. Those sections both have several contributors who added reviews and information, and have all the cited backing sources along with relevance to other actors in the films and the overall reception to the films. I didn't even touch your reversion edits, but can see you made threats to report people trying to. There is no conspiracy. Lots of contributors added review quotes and info. I even see in your edits that you removed language about other actors that weren't Styles. Have a good day and stop harassing me is all I can say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine773 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I pinged you because you edited huge chunks of text regarding Styles here and even more here. Do you really not see a problem in getting the paragraph about Styles to 621 words when the first overall paragraph and the second Pugh-focused paragraph only total 274 words? Just looking at that version, the undue weight is blatant. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, that section is made up of the contributions of several users, not just me. The section would naturally be longer as Styles' performance was met with mixed reviews so users included both positive and critical reviews of his performance and his role in relation to Pugh especially. Reception to Pugh was uniformly and consistently positive. The inclusion of multiple reviews for Styles reflects how most top critics focused on his performance particularly, and it also supports the statement in the reception section that the response to his performance was mixed. Many of those reviews were also a comparison to Pugh and how well she performed in relation to Styles. Also, I did not touch your revisions. I removed my username because I was bombarded with several messages from you in just minutes. I understand the Talk feature better now. I did leave your comments and concerns as I mentioned. I removed my username because it was borderline harassment as I hadn't touched your reversions. Again, have a good day and please leave me alone. Sunshine773 (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I won't ping you again, but please see my comment at Talk:Don't Worry Darling#Reception and Styles about why exactly the amount of text focused on Styles is undue. All reviews will touch on many different aspects of a film, and WP:BALANCING is a concern. It is possible to have a section being too imbalanced in focusing on one aspect much more than any other aspect. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

As I also outlined, several of the included reviews were comparing him to Pugh and indirectly or directly praising her performance in relation to his. So it was a dual sort of review. The bulk of top critic reviews honed in on his performance as a newcomer - whether positive or critical. That leaning is reflected in the summary and citiations of reviews. Intial reviews I saw and citied from Rotten Tomatoes were more critical or neutral, and especially focused on Styles' performance above that of others. Users added additional reviews that were released subsequently to demonstrate several positive receptions of his performance. I was adding reviews in early stages and the crtics' language praising Pugh was already there in the reception section (and I left it untouched). I supported and left ALL of the positive performance reviews about Styles' that other users added to my start. The reception section on a new film is going to be fluid and changing as new reviews come out. I did not censor the addition of any positive reviews. And it's not fair to go back to early editions to suggest bias or vendetta against Styles as reviews were still coming out and I had initially included the first batch of top critic reviews. Several of the reviews I included for his other film had extended references to Corrin and Dawson, and the overall reception to the film as a whole. Reviews for DWD tended to strongly focus on his performance and that's reflected in the contributions of several users to that section. And again, I didn't undo your reversions but I do agree it was a bit authoritarian considering how many users contributed to that section. I am newer to editing Wikipedia and started with a focus on one film my coworkers talked a lot about as they are fans of Pugh. I was then interested to see if Styles faired better in his next movie that comes out just weeks later. I spent time reading reviews of MP to see if his performance was received more positively than DWD so I decided to add the reviews I saw to the reception section for that movie as it was empty when I looked (including quite a bit about Corrin, Dawson, and the overall film also as I mentioned). There is no grand conspiracy or hatred of Styles. I don't know him. I think if I was so biased against him as you imply, I would spend a lot of time editing his page, album, etc. I have nothing against him and know little of him beyond the films my coworkers kept asking me to see with them. Goodbye and good luck. Sunshine773 (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Erik: I could be mistaken, but judging by your comment, I have a feeling that you suspect sockpuppetry. If that's the case, filing a SPI won't hurt. M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  It could be that, or simply a case of the Harry Styles fan base focusing on topics related to him. I don't know how much suspicion is warranted to proceed to have a SPI. Maybe if there is intransigence in response to addressing the duly-weighted content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please actually read my response and view ALL the contributions by several different users to those articles (both positive and critical). You are slinging unfounded accusations. Have a good day. Sunshine773 (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Sunshine773: Was this reply meant for me? M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Pinging again, in case the first one didn't work @Sunshine773 Could you please answer my question? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Since you keep ignoring my question, i would live up to the slinging unfounded accusations and file the SPI myself. M.Bitton (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, not immediately replying to your comments is "ignoring?" How is my nonresponse to a talk comment grounds for SPI? Astounding and very biased. This matter was concluded on another talk board for the movie article. Have a good day. Sunshine773 (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Erik - regarding our discussion on fairness and objectivity, how is it acceptable for another user to threaten SPI when I did not respond to their comment within an hour? Sunshine773 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is genuinely unconscionable on your part. You filed an SPI because I did not respond to your comment with an hour. You commented on my interaction with Erik to imply that I was violating Wikipedia TOS and I told you to read my other comments and look at the contributions of other users to those articles. Me not immediately responding to your comment is NOT grounds to threaten and actually file an SPI. Sunshine773 (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Nope, I filed the SPI in reply to your slinging unfounded accusations comment and your refusal to reply despite multiple pings and the fact that you were active at the time. M.Bitton (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  You just admitted to how arbitrary it was. I was resolving the conflict with Erik on a talk page for the movie. Sunshine773 (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's just an investigation (to prove your innocence and prevent others from "slinging unfounded accusations"). M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, it was a tantrum response. I've only been an editor with a username for a few days (used to do IP only), and I cannot believe how toxic and aggressive the climate is. Sunshine773 (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Erik that the Don't Worry Darling reception section developed into an NPOV problem due to overfocus on criticism of Styles. I don't see that same issue with My Policeman, only because the bloat was across the board and not focused on Styles. Both sections should be trimmed, or kept trimmed. Overall, I think MOS:FILM needs firmer guidance on how to assess the corpus of reviews, pull out themes across reviews, and summarize those themes with occasional quoting of example reviews. The pattern of 'Reviewer X said "lengthy quote". Reviewer Y said "lengthy quote."' is unhelpful to readers and unencyclopedic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Honestly, it's never easy to write critical reception sections. Since all reviews are individual, it can be WP:SYNTH to try to find for ourselves the common trends. Sometimes we have sources that can identify these trends that we can follow to strike the right balance, but these are not always available. We do have some ideas for Don't Worry Darling, though, being discussed on the talk page. In regard to Styles, the main trend is that his performance is "debatably entertaining", but it is a trend secondary to others like Pugh's performance and the cinematography and the visual style. (We could use full paragraphs on the last two...) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Definitely not easy! I think there's room for summary that isn't SYNTH, and even more room for talk page discussion (where OR is fine) leading to reasoned choices about which viewpoints are due. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Note: Sunshine773 and Felinefixesthings have been blocked for sockpuppetry. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Broz Tito dictator

Josip Broz Tito (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I insert sources which affirm crimes made by dictator Broz Tito and always some accounts remove valid sources: the problem is that among disruptive accounts there is also Australian user who is an administrator. Administrator is Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) who always removes reliable sources and his article's disruption is blatant. In recent edits, I insert three sources but all three were removed by Vipz (talk · contribs) and Australian account and were restored by Zipezap (talk · contribs): in past I contact Peacemaker with several messages in his personal discussion and I send e-mail but without positive result. The article regarding Slav dictator Broz Tito was disputed with various tags in head of text and we already discussed about three sources inserted by me but Peacemaker always removes reliable sources which affirm crimes made by dictator Broz Tito. I request stop of blatant disruption by Peacemaker probably for his personal political opinions for dictator. Forza bruta (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a complaint that other experienced contributors don't agree with your preferred content. What dispute resolution methods have you used in any attempts to resolve this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

the problem is political POV of an admin who is blatant pro dictator because probably he likes dictatorship and I made all every single attempt for neutral version of article: in fact, without sources inserted by me, a reader does not understand why Broz was dictator and he was responsable of mass killings because he ordered mass killings of prisoner of war after world war II. In related article's discussion you can see huge list of users who affirm POV version, which was sourced in past but sources about dictator's crimes were removed by some Croat accounts and Peacemaker who seems in direct contact with them probably by e-mail.--Forza bruta (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

If you really think the issue is a particular contributor or administrator imposing content against policy, you are posting in the wrong place: conduct discussions belong at WP:ANI. Frankly though, I'd advise you to come up with much more in the way of verifiable evidence of misconduct before starting a thread there, as vague allegations accompanied by speculation about collusion are unlikely to convince anyone, and may well backfire. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in looking over the edits, the real problem is that your spelling and grammar is not up to par with what is expected of contributors to the English Wikipedia. Regardless of the content, I would have reverted on that basis alone. ValarianB (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

last actions of dictator's supporter.--Forza bruta (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You are achieving absolutely nothing here. Nobody is going to take any action on the basis of vague allegations of misbehaviour, posted on the wrong noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggested you discuss it and the reliability of your sources, on the talk page. That is where this should be discussed. If consensus cannot be achieved there, some sort of DR should be undertaken. This continual edit-warring over it isn’t going to end well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The current phrasing is consistent with how he is described in neutral realiable sources. See for example, his Encyclopedia Britannica article, where he is described as a "revolutionary and statesman."[10] Calling other editors pro-dictatorship or pro-Croat when they disagree with you are personal attacks that you should avoid. I don't see the connection incidentally between being pro-Croat and supporting Tito. TFD (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

In Encyclopedia Britannica in section "The conflict with Stalin" you read: Tito consolidated his power in the summer and fall of 1945 by purging his government of noncommunists and by holding fraudulent elections that legitimated the jettisoning of the monarchy. You can understand fraudolent election because Josip Broz controlled election using violence. The accounts, which always remove reliable sources about crimes by dictator, are almost all from Croatia and Serbia, but are few accounts: I consider four accounts versus about 20 accounts which put sources which affrm crimes by dictator but Peacemaker always endorses accounts which make disruption removing valid sources already discussed in related page.--Forza bruta (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Take content disputes to the article talk page. If they can't be resolved there, use dispute resolution. If you have actual, directly verifiable, evidence of misconduct, take it to WP:ANI - but expect your own behaviour to come under scrutiny if you do. This matter isn't going to be resolved here, and the manner you are attempting to do so is becoming tendentious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I just replied and my presence here is finished.--Forza bruta (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Laurens van der Post

• Laurens van der Post (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No dispute here, but I was wondering if a certain fact should be included in the lead of article or not. As came out when his biography was published in the early 2000s, in the early 1950s, as a 46 year old man Post impregnated a 14 year old girl who was supposed to be under his care. This fact is prominently mentioned in the coverage of the biography. The lead is kinda short and really needs to reworked anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Michael Shermer

• Michael Shermer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article to me reads more as a shrine to Shermer than than a summary of Shermer. Large amounts of content are sourced to Shermer's own writings or interviews (e.g. primary sources) suggesting cherry-picking or showcasing in a disproportionate manner (WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BALASP). The article was previously discussed at BLPN, touching on some similar issues, but most of the current content is more of a NPOV issue than BLP. I have tried to remove material I found overly promotional or excessively detailed (e.g. diff 1, diff 2) but was reverted by Nightscream. The sections I feel most unbalanced or indiscriminate are Personal life and Media work and appearances. Are Shermer's thoughts on gun control or capital punishment truly noteworthy and needing their own subsections, or are they just arbitrary opinions plucked from a vast sea of interviews and writings? Is a list of every television, radio, and podcast appearance appropriate for a person of this sort? While this post is about Michael Shermer's article, I feel it exemplifies issues in several articles on notable skeptical figures (e.g. Steven Novella, Kylie Sturgess) that are written in an overly sympathetic or promotional tone, which serves to trumpet rather than summarize, scraping together every podcast, blog, or radio interview to implicitly or explicitly promote the subject's own views. Let me be clear I am not accusing anyone of COI editing in this or any other article. Additional opinions are welcome. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

First, noteworthiness has nothing to do with the inclusion of content. Noteworthiness -- or notability, as it's usually referred to on WP -- is the test for whether a subject merits an article, as it explicitly states at the top of WP:N.

Including major media appearances/filmography of media figures in their articles is both reasonable, and a standard practice. Blanking them is not.

Shermer expresses, in both his writings and in his media appearances, his views on controversial topics, including political ones. Including this information in the articles on such figures is also reasonable, and standard practice.

I do not see how either of these latter two things has anything to with WP:NPOV, much less a violation of it. Nightscream (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Nightscream, under your analysis, if Shermer were to blog about what he had for dinner it would be presumptively due for inclusion in the article. I tend to agree this is a violation of WP:NPOV, or, more properly giving WP:UNDUE weight to Shermer's own thoughts. I don't mean to malign the man, but if reliable sources don't pay a lot of attention to his ideas on gun control, neither should we. As ever, reasonable minds may differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, key about BLPSPS is that we dont want to give unduly self-serving coverage. Unless he was specifically called out by secondary sources for his stance on gun control, including what he claims is clearly unduly self-serving. On the other hand, if secondary sources call out his stance on gun control, limited use of his BLPSPS to explain his position would be reasonable. Masem (t) 04:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Nightscream, WP:N (subsection WP:NNC) states: Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we don't include content merely because it is true, verifiable, or because some people find it interesting. Per WP:WEIGHT we cover aspects of subject, as much as possible, in proportion to the weight given those subjects in reliable sources. We should care less about what Shermer thinks or has verifiably done, and more about what he is known for doing or thinking, as demonstrated by significant third party coverage. A subject meeting notability criteria doesn't mean carte blanche to throw in every factoid about it. Imagine if we merely repeated the arbitrary opinions of politicians from their twitter posts or books, or the unfiltered musings of terrorists or conspiracy theorists. We'd need good reason to include such content (beyond "it's true, s/he said it"), and the same rationale applies here. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

"If Shermer were to blog about what he had for dinner..."

What he had for dinner does not represent a controversial political issue, as I mentioned above.

"We don't include content merely because it is true, verifiable, or because some people find it interesting."

Agreed.

I never said we did.

I did, however, describe why I think we do include such things. Do you think you could respond on that basis?

I agree with issues of due weight and balance, but again, this has nothing to do with NPOV, so I don't know why you keep bringing that policy up. Do you actually understand what WP:NPOV says, or are you just repeating it like some kind of mantra?

If the issue is that we need more secondary source coverage, then I agree. My editing practices have evolved over the years in such a way that I've become more cognizant of this need, but then this could mean that we need to see if there are such secondary sources that illustrate how his views pertain to his public life, in particular his public statements, media appearances, etc., in which he expresses those views.

For example, is a debate at the USD Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy relevant? What about an interview at WXXI News? Also, isn't he known for the columns he has written for major publications like cientific American, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Guardian, etc? Isn't finding more secondary sources more reasonable here than wholesale removal? Nightscream (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Nightscream, I apologize, as this clearly means a lot to you, but I cannot support keeping the material in, hoping to substantiate it per Wikipedia policy later. Of course, if you happen upon support at a later date, it can be re-added, but for the time being, I see a pretty clear consensus among people who have commented here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, does this include the filmography/media appearances list? Nightscream (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

For me it would include that whole section, Nightscream, but I won't speak for anyone else. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Self-promotional material and puffery should be removed, regardless of subject. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

How is it "self" promotional?

Again, is it or is not standard for articles on media figures to include a filmography or list of TV episodes they've been in? How is that section different? Nightscream (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts -- actors are notable largely for their roles; Shermer is not notable primarily as an interviewee. Even if we were to accept this, the list seems duplicative and overlong as it exists. Seeing how there seems to be a rough consensus here, I will be making some changes (much) later today, unless there are objections. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

In the first place, his role as host of Exploring the Unknown was also deleted. Is that right?

As for his interviews and media appearances, isn't he notable for that? Those appearances constitute the very converage on which notability is predicated. Nightscream (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what has happened on the page recently, as I wanted to give things a chance to play out here. As to media appearances, no, I do not think that's the basis of his notability--that would be his own thinking and writing. Imagine if for a famous actor we included not only roles, but also interviews, media appearances, and press junkets. This entire place would be overrun by minutiae (well, more so) in an instant. I would certainly encourage you to go to bat for appearances you consider especially notable, but a mere "he was a talking head here" or "he showed up on this interview show" would not make the cut for me. As ever, reasonable minds may differ, and consensus may be against me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

History of Ireland (1801–1923)

The History of Ireland (1801–1923) article is characterised in the lede as "a period of British rule". What, pray tell, is "British rule" supposed to mean other than a colonial arrangement? Ireland was an equal member of the UK from 1801 -1922, with the same political and legal rights as England, Scotland and Wales.

As is often the case in Irish history spaces, this article is basically a little fiefdom where a handful of editors get to control what sources are used and how the discussion is framed and presented to readers. And they've done so in one of the most unobjective, non-neutral ways I've ever encountered on here.

Some examples, in the first section they write:

"the passage of the act in the Irish parliament was finally achieved, albeit, as with the 1707 Acts of Union that united Scotland and England, with the mass bribery of members of both houses, who were awarded British peerages and other "encouragements"."

This whole argument about "mass bribery" and fraud, while popular in Sinn Fein/nationalist circles, has been described by other scholars as one of the core myths of modern Irish history. Emmet Larkin, for example, has argued that the political negotiations in the runup to 1801 were typical for that day and age (not anything sneaky or underhanded), while the terms of Union were relatively generous to Ireland[11]. Of course scholars like Larkin don't get a voice in this article.

Another example at the end of the first section:

"The British Administration in Ireland – known by metonymy as "Dublin Castle" – remained largely dominated by the Anglo-Irish establishment until its removal from Dublin in 1922."

This is so misleading as to be almost entirely fictional. Dublin Castle played only a ceremonial role during the Union, while Ireland was governed directly from Westminster. Even ignoring the fact that "Anglo-Irish" is nothing but a clever way to deny that certain people were Irish 200 years ago (often in contradiction to their own writings), from 1829 on there was no religious bar to standing for Parliament. There were actually far more (Catholic) Irishmen politically enfranchised in the 19th than in the 18th Century, when Ireland's parliament was controlled by an Anglican aristocracy (the same one that was "bribed").

There's a lot more but I'm trying to make this as brief as possible. Just looking at the titles of the sections in this article, most of the space is dedicated to the Famine and "republican rebellions", despite the fact that Ireland was not in rebellion in the 19th Century, and the Famine was only 5 out of 120 years of history. Almost all the major aspects of Irish political, economic and social history for this period have been left out of the article, in favour of a slanted and highly distorted version of events. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem with your fairytale about equality is that England had a far larger population than Ireland and had no sympathy for the people so it was basically British rule. This was essentially what went wrong with democracy in Northern Ireland too. If it hadn't been part of the United Kingdom the loyalists would have been in control okay - but it would be a quite different situation than what happened where they could call on British forces to enforce their democratic majority. NadVolum (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

During that time period the country was called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Therefore Ireland (like England, Scotland & Wales) was a part of the United Kingdom. I'm in agreement, that "British rule" appears to be an inaccurate statement. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I remember as a young person seeing various variations of No Dogs No Blacks No Irish in B&B windows in Coventry, children or coloureds being very often included. You really believe there was equality rather than British rule with that attitude and an overwhelming population advantage? NadVolum (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

As to colonial administration have a look at Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet who was in charge of alleviating the famine in Ireland. NadVolum (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems a great stretch to me to imply Ireland wasn't ruled by Britain and was on an equal footing with E & W + S, which I think opening exclusively with the formal status as annexed to GB implies. I don't think there's any serious scholarly dispute that British/Anglican elites ruled Ireland during the period. I also suspect (but am not certain off the top of my head) that describing it as a country of the UK is anachronistic, which we do in both the lead twice. There's lots of scholarly literature about the colonial/imperial aspects of British rule in Ireland including this particular time period (the response to the famine, economic (and other forms of) discrimination against Catholics, large-scale migration internationally etc.). Jr8825 • Talk 13:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not to say Ireland formal status wasn't significant, I don't think it should be neglected or removed - a lot of historians' have written about Ireland's position as simultaneously both part of the British "core" and as the closest part of "external" British rule. I simply object to removing descriptions widely accepted by historians, such as "British rule". Jr8825 • Talk 13:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Trumpism in Canada

The Trumpism in Canada article reads more like an argumentative POV essay than a neutral encyclopedia article and could use some eyes. X-Editor (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What a nightmare! The fundamental problem with the article is that the topic is not clearly defined. Is it about Canada's equivalent of the Radical right (United States), Canadians who openly support Trump or comparisons of some Canadian politicians today to Trump?

Perhaps the best approach would be to split the article.

TFD (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like an awful lot of synthesis to me. Political labels are always tricky to deal with, but applying a label to describe a personal political style to a different context and country? I doubt many political scientists are seriously describing Canadian political phenomena as "Trumpism", rather they're drawing comparisons. There are lot of decent-looking sources so I don't think it's an entirely WP:TNT case, I agree the best solution is splitting. Some of the sources are describing Canada in the context of Trumpism more broadly and belong over at Trumpism#Beyond America#Canada, if they're not already summarised there. The rest probably belongs at an article on populism/right-wing nationalism in Canada, or maybe even just summarised at Politics of Canada. Jr8825 • Talk 19:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this even a real topic or is it just a collection of ideas first assembled for Wikipedia. That is, the individual parts may be RS'ed but the topic itself is OR.

United Kingdom as "sovereign country"

I have opened an RfC concerning the description of the UK as a "sovereign country" in its lead paragraph. Neutral editors are encouraged to carefully consider the question, to read some of the existing positions in the survey, and to leave their own comment either opposing any change or supporting an alternative. Thanks! Angry Candy (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Should Fascism have a section on Putin's Russia?

The article is mostly about historical Fascism (1922-1945), the period when they came to control most of Europe. That reflects the emphasis of textbooks on Fascism.

Since the collapse of Fascism in 1945, it continued in a number of successor parties throughout the world. The term has also been applied to various Asian, African and South American dictatorships and used by some to describe West powers, such as the U.S. Most recently, a number of political figures and commentators have used the term to describe Trump and Putin.

I think the article should concentrate on historical Fascism and leave successor parties and things compared to Fascism to other articles. Fascism is a such a significant topic in itself that post-Fascism should be discussed in other articles.

Since post-Fascism itself is a huge topic, I don't see why one specific claim (Putin's Russia) requires an entire section, while more plausible examples don't.

TFD (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably worth linking to the current discussion on the article talk page, no? Talk:Fascism#Post-Soviet Russia. Suffice it to say, several of us disagree with the way TFD has framed the issue. Generalrelative (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that TFD brought it here because the participants in the talk page discussion disagreed complete with his argument about WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, and he has no consensus (3-1 against him). Bringing an argument about WEIGHT to NPOVN is tantamount to saying that your opponents in the discussion you are not winning hold a specific POV, and are editing with that in mind, a rather POINTy and sidelong NPA-ish stance. In actuality, no one there has argued that Russia is fascist, they have simply argued that there is considerable disagreement among the experts about whether it is or not, and that dispute is therefore a legitimate topic for a survey article about fascism in general, not -- as TFD would have it -- about fascism in history.

This does not belong here, and should be closed as usurping an open and ongoing talk page discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Amended as WEIGHT is part of NPOV policy, something I had forgotten. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd also point out that TFD opened this report is lieu of opening an RfC on the talk page, as I suggested he do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

For those who wish to include a subsection on Putin's Russia, how much content exists and from a weight POV can it really justify having its own subsection? Other than perhaps a paragraph stating that Putin's form of authoritarianism has aspects that are like classical fascism (and presumably other aspects that are not), what is it about his regime that needs describing in order to form a better understanding of fascism? Springee (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Answered on article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned by Mitchell A. Orenstein in s book review of Is Russia Fascist, "Many reputable scholars and public intellectuals have drawn parallels between the Putin regime, its actions, and European fascism, including Snyder, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alexander Motyl, Vladimir Inozemtsev, Gary Kasparov, Anna Politkovskaya, Madeline Albright and Hillary Clinton."

My observation was that these are experts or commentators on Eastern Europe, not Fascism, and the view is rarely if ever mentioned in books and articles about Fascism per se.

Russia of course has been in the news due to deteriorating relations with the West and accusing them of Fascism follows a long tradition of comparing opponents with Fascism.

TFD (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at the article, the Contemporary fascism (2008–present) subsection does stick out compared to the previous couple of subsections. International impact of the Great Depression and buildup to World War II and World War II (1939–1945) seem to want to weave a narrative about global spread with an understandable focus on Germany and Italy (although some of the WWII military details seem off-topic). Meanwhile, Contemporary facism has three small subsubsections and three different See alsos (two of which are the same country?). There's no narrative here and its hard to see how the various information fits into the wider context. The talkpage debate seems to suggest that Putin under Russia is significant in modern scholarly coverage of facism in general; if so, that doesn't really come through in the current text. If the debate affects the definition of Fascism, shouldn't that be integrated into the Definitions section? And as for what the 2008 onwards subsection should be (and is 2008 just because of Golden Dawn?), it would be nice to have a more holistic narrative much like previous sections. Having two tiny sections covering Golden Dawn and Russia begs the question of how they are connected, and I'm reasonably sure there must be a substantial body of literature that explores the links between these two and between other groups in Europe and perhaps elsewhere. That wider exploration is hard to do if the section is effectively turned into a list. CMD (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This section is in a bad condition and therefore should either be rewritten entirely, balanced and attributed or removed.

Fascism is often associated with radical nationalism and racism which does not apply to Russia that consists of more than 100 ethnic groups and cultures. Putin did not promote a "master race", "racial purity", hatred towards the "other", nor did the Kremlin's propaganda, which are essential part of fascism definition. Below are two different definitions to fascism from two different sources, the first one being from Wikipedia's article itself, which the aforementioned section is from:

"Fascism's extreme authoritarianism and nationalism often manifests as belief in racial purity or a master race, usually blended with some variant of racism or bigotry against a demonized "Other", such as Jews. These ideas have motivated fascist regimes to commit genocides, massacres, forced sterilizations, mass killings, and forced deportations."

"To unify a country, fascist movements propagated extreme nationalism that often went hand in hand with militarism and racial purity."

Tendentious WP:cherry picking is aimed to pass certain POV is prominent in this section.

The last thing that I don't understand is why Russia is the one that has to be mentioned in this article? We have a lot of other models around the world that can represent fascism in a better way. If there is no good, clear, and logical reason behind choosing Russia in particular, then this section should be removed. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• One of the key problems is that we've extended the meaning of fascism to be so broad as to be essentially meaningless and entirely redundant with "nationalist" or "authoritarian". When the term is so broad as to be entirely synonymous with other, more established terms, then what's the point? --Jayron32 12:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards exclude here. This seems like more of a tangent than something that strictly defines the topic. As CMD mentioned, it comes across more like something that editors want to include vs something that is inherently part of the topic. I'm not strongly against having the content in there but if it does stay in, it should be better integrated in terms of explaining what fascism is/isn't. Springee (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree....we would need much better sources then what is currently there for inclusion of this nature. This is actually come up a few other times on other pages and always has been dismissed. As the vast majority of academics call Putin's regime something much different. Moxy- 03:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Describing Genspect

I'm advertising the Talk:Genspect#RFC here. The question reads, "Should we describe Genspect as anti-trans in the lead?" Crossroads ^-talk- 16:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Intelligence Quotient

Sure enough, OP blocked as a sock of Mikemikev. Generalrelative (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rather blatant violation of policy. On the talk page a clique of editors continuously refer to a consensus to justify source selection, where the consensus is among a group of Wikipedia editors, rather than found in the academic literature. They appear to have policy backwards. I would also note page ownership issues such as non-admins striking and collapsing comments they don't like, although this isn't the place to address this. Emotional Ballerina (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Given that you are a brand new account, people are bound to think that you are a WP:SOCK and dismiss your opinion, given the historically high of level of sockpuppetry in the topic area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Editors there also dismissed concerns with ad hominem rather than address policy violation. Emotional Ballerina (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC) I'm concerned that, with only one actual comment in the linked discussion, this is an attempt at WP:GAMING the system through wikilawyering, without having made a good-faith attempt to build consensus to claim it has failed. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Your concern would not be disgustingly hypocritical if one of the editors violating policy had not struck my comment and collapsed the discussion. It seems clear that outside eyes would help here. Emotional Ballerina (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC) (ec) Your [EB's] edit was collapsed because of suspected sockpuppetry, since at that time it was the only edit that had been made from your new account. That was not ad hominem and it was not because they "don't like" the edit. Please don't make false accusations against editors you disagree with. NightHeron (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Why not take this to an administrators' noticeboard if you are genuinely concerned about editor behavior? For the rest of us, I would strongly suggest that WP:DENY is the appropriate course of action when dealing with an obvious LTA who is very likely Mikemikev. Generalrelative (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC) The editors involved appear to not want this issue addressed by the NPOV noticeboard. It is not difficult to imagine why. Emotional Ballerina (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC) The editors here don't want to address it either, can't imagine why. Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Please speak for yourself. I trust at least some editors at the NPOV noticeboard are concerned with applying policy rather than giving cliques free rein to ignore it. Emotional Ballerina (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Could you please follow what is outlined at the top of the article (just above the red text)? M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC) There has in fact been extensive discussion about this issue on the article's talk page, but the main editors objecting to the article's current wording were myself and Ferahgo the Assassin, not Emotional Ballerina. I was not intending to pursue this issue any further, and I share others' suspicion that "Emotional Ballerina" is a sock puppet, but now that the issue has been brought here we may as well discuss it. The question is whether it complies with WP:NPOV for the article to say "no evidence" in Wikipedia's voice, when there are three sources that more or less support this wording, while other sources disagree. Sources discussed there that say no evidence or scientifically unsupported include The Black-White Test Score Gap, this paper, and this blog post. Sources discussed there that say no direct evidence include Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns and Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments. Sources discussed there that describe indirect evidence (Hunt calls it circumstantial evidence) include Flynn's book Race, IQ and Jensen, Hunt's book Human Intelligence, Rindermann's book Cognitive Capitalism, Warne's book In the Know, and this paper from The American Journal of Psychology, which is also by Warne. The Hunt and Rindermann books were previously discussed at the RS noticeboard, which found them to be reliable sources as defined at WP:RS. When there is this type of disagreement between equally reliable sources, I would prefer that the conclusion of only one set of sources not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Not entirely excluding the view presented in the third group of sources also is what would be expected by Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Parity of sources. That said, I also encourage other editors to read my comment here. As I described there, recent discussions on Twitter and in the media show that the public is losing trust in Wikipedia's ability to adequately cover controversial topics, and while very few of these discussions directly mention this exact statement in the Intelligence Quotient article, a lot of the recent decline in Wikipedia's reputation has been because of these sorts of statements. If others would prefer to continue doubling down on the approach to controversial topics that is causing this decline, I would be okay with that outcome too. --AndewNguyen (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC) This is a badly distorted version of earlier discussions by an editor who has opposed the outcome of two RfC's on Race and intelligence. Both RfC's reached a consensus that the view that certain races are genetically inferior to other races in intelligence is a fringe POV. Several dozen editors participated in those RfC's and many related discussions. In particular, sources supporting the "no evidence" statement have been discussed at length. For more details, see the FAQ at the top of the R&I talk-page. This shouldn't have to be relitigated yet again. The refusal to accept concensus and forum-shopping by a small number of editors is disruptive. NightHeron (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this article as bad as it seems?

I generally stay away from the Arab-Israeli conflict on Wikipedia (and in life more broadly). However, I recently came across a new article on an Israeli publication and briefly considered marking it for speedy as a attack page. However, the statements I perceive as attack statements are sourced to the generally-reliable-but-biased Haaretz. So I ended up tagging it for NPOV problems and needing more (and a greater variety of) sources. But it's still bugging me, and I'd like someone else to take a look at it to see if my NPOV-o-meter needs recalibrating. Abu Ali Express is the article in question. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no experience in this area either, however I think the wording could be changed to appear to be more neutral. If a contentious wording is only supported by one source, then that wording doesn't need to be included in the article or included in wikivoice at least.

I also think the article could be clearer, I read it and still wasn't sure what was meant by a "psychological warfare channel". It also appears from this discussion that one of the sources isn't reliable Tristario (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The only sources are an article in Haaretz and a blog, Tikun Olam, which may not be rs. No other media seem to have picked up on the story.

I am always wary of investigative journalism that is not picked up by other sources. Unfortunately there is no specific policy or guideline for this, but it seems that if only one reliable source has written about a subject that it lacks notability, which is a reason for deletion. In fact, I could not find other sources that wrote about the publication period.

Some of the hit piece appearance of the article could be addressed by re-wording in a neutral, non-judgmental tone.

On a minor point, signed articles in sources should be attributed to the author, not the publication.

TFD (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces, you write: On a minor point, signed articles in sources should be attributed to the author, not the publication. Could you point to a policy or guideline which explains why we should be doing this? It seems that non-opinion pieces can safely be attributed to the publication, and especially if an author is non-notable, who in our readership is going to know an author's name better than a publication's reputation? Elizium23 (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It's standard to cite authors rather than publications, although in this case we would also mention which publication they were writing for. That's just being accurate. If the author is non-notable, you could write "as reported in" instead of "as reported by." TFD (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Having only one reliable source covering it which includes their criticism of it is not a good starting point for an article from both NPOV and notability standpoints. I see that the article is up for AFD, which seems to be the proper solution here. Masem (t) 14:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Should the ideas of Male expendability be given in Wikipedia's voice?

The phrasing of Male expendability gives me pause. Discussion here The article is full of generalizations about vertebrate biology and assumptions about how that translates into human society. Most of the differences in question can be found in this change.

The main dispute is whether the article should read more like...

• Society considers men more expendable than women.

Or more like...

• Male expendability maintains that society considers men more expendable than women.

The article does have sources, but the main ones were written by a political scientist, some cultural anthropologists, and a biologist who wrote his source in the 1970s. I'm not confident that we can consider the biology in the article sufficiently mainstream to repeat it in Wikipedia's own voice. Other articles, for example Consequentialism and Coverture do not give the core ideas in Wikipedia's voice the way Male expendability currently does. I just skimmed Male as norm and I see it has language such as "Subsequent research has maintained" and "the principle claims" that I think would improve Male expendability.

The article also had the unsourced claim "Perpetrators of genocide almost exclusively target men and boys" (which I removed and the other participant did not revert). This makes me feel that other highly questionable claims may also have gotten into the text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, I read your comment and skimmed the talk page discussion. Part of the problem is that NPOV arguments are worth little without sources. What sources disagree explicitly with the sources cited in the article? What sources present others theories/explanations/facts that should be summarized in the article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I find the idea that society considers men more expendable than women a bit extraordinary when phrased in Wikipedia's voice. The burden of sourcing is on that claim.

But I agree with you in general. I looked for sources to create a criticism section for this article, but I couldn't find many that discussed male expendability at all, in favor or against. It might require access to a library with sources in dead tree format. Something like a sociology textbook might do the trick. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You might get more luck with "expendable male" than "male expendability". I'm poking around a bit at that article and it does seem like there are some uncomfortable gaps and thin spots. I encourage you to pick a particular part where the burden of sourcing is unmet, and I'd be happy to talk it out over there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: I did read the book Testosterone Rex what feels like a few months ago, and I remember the part where it offered evidence against the idea that men with access to many female partners can father many, many more children than men with one or a few partners. It cited human emperors with large harems. One of my biggest problems with the article is that it will state something about biology as if it were fact and then state a conclusion extrapolated from that idea as if it, too, were fact. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I was just now re-running my searches under "male disposability." Thanks. I think the burden of sourcing is unmet for pretty much the entire "Overview" section and most of the lede. It's more about the fact that these ideas are given in Wikipedia's voice and less about what they are. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

A few scholars studying matriarchal groups have written about how the male individual is not quite so expendable in these societies. Two points about those sources: matriarchies are uncommon, and the scholarly surprise shown in finding that the individual males have something closer to an equal value proves the original point that males are generally more expendable. Most sources discuss male expendability as a biological law, for instance Walter J. Ong in his 1981 book Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness, published by Cornell. In the chapter "The Expendable Sex", he says that "males are readier risk takers for a species because they have been so programmed evolutionarily, as the more expendable sex." Jean Bethke Elshtain wrote in 2000 that "...the male warrior is expendable, making men the expendable sex." Anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday wrote in 1981 about Iroquois and Igbo tribes in North America responding to the 19th century threat of Westernization or genocide by European-heritage settlers. She said, "Unknown thousands of tribal men died to protect their traditional way, but only a handful of women died in defense of the women's world. The reason for this can be found in the distinction between women as the givers of life and men as the expendable sex. Women do not continue to fight because they are not expendable for the survival of the group. Tribal men prolong the fight because their manhood and tribal honor are expressed by their willingness to die defending both." Sanday cites anthropologist Ernestine Friedl as emphasizing "the greater control men have over strategic resources because men are the hunters and the expendable sex in activities endangering lives." Sanday writes about how men are sometimes rewarded in their social body for being the expendable sex, concluding "Obviously, if women willingly embraced mass slaughter, there would be no social body to preserve." None of these writers expressed the slightest doubt that the biological imperative of sexual reproduction and the differences between the male and female bodies has profoundly informed the social construct of gender roles. They present the situation as fact. We should say it in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Even if there are no sources that are found that specifically contest that and other claims, it's a strong and broad claim (and therefore requires particularly strong sourcing for wikivoice), and not one that that is assumed to be always true in various topics in reliable sources. On top of that, as a reader I would find it more useful if more context were provided for statements like that, such as who is saying that, on what basis, and in what context. Eg. X academic argues that, Researchers of X have argued that, researchers have found on the basis of X,Y,Z that, etc. Tristario (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't find the article very easy to follow in its current form, because I think it just isn't providing me enough context for these various statements, such as the field of research (or even if it's in the context of academic research), who is saying what, how they concluded this etc. Tristario (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing issues have been pointed out, but barring that, the first one is clearly more problamtic in Wikivoice as it contends a very non-obvious fact, while the second "attributes" the idea to a specific school of thought and thus takes it out of a factual realm. --Masem (t) 05:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I would shy away from stating in wikivoice anything within the realm of social science and we probably need a discussion on whether or not it should be treated similarly to other pseudoscience-adjacent topics. MarshallKe (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"Perpetrators of genocide almost exclusively target men and boys" - worded so strongly, the claim is obviously not true. For a true genocide like the holocaust, obviously women and children are killed alongside the men (although even in that case, the regime has to deal with more scruples in the actual executors, as was witnessed frequently for German soldiers). However, there is a strong true core, with many massacres clearly focusing on males in an age fit to fight - with the Srebrenica massacre probably the most famous example. --KnightMove (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• At least from a quick skim of the sources, it seems like most of them still present it as a "hypothesis" or an "argument" rather than fully-accepted fact, eg. [12][13]. So our summary should probably reflect that caution. We should also try to avoid sourcing that doesn't reference the term male expendability or something clearly equivalent to it - a lot of stuff currently in the article seems WP:SYNTHy / WP:OR, like editors trying to make the argument for the hypothesis (or for some specific application of it) themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if it isn't true and I think it is pretty well accepted by society. I'd be a lot more interested if someone was able to give evidence it is untrue! However I think an article like that should have a better basis and it seems very badly written. Without evidence to the contrary about it I'm happy for it to be in Wikipedia's voice but it definitely needs rewriting. Some people might prefer it not to be true and everyone is equal, and I think sometimes it is better for society for us to be ignorant about our workings, I'm not keen on the way the National Coalition for Men works for instance, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored. NadVolum (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's interesting. I had a look at The Myth of Male Power and it sounds like it has some funny definition of 'power' which makes the whole thing rubbish but definitely a misogynist base book. NadVolum (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Binksternet, I clicked on the links you provided to those authors whom you say "discuss male expendability as a biological law," and none of them are biologists They're sociologists and political scientists. I was thinking about it in the car today, what Firefangledfeathers said about sourcing. Do we have a source that establishes that the biological ideas quoted in the article at present are consensus among biologists? Moose and elephant seals form harems, wolves and hyenas are more matriarchal, and none of that necessarily translates to humans.

For example, I once read a textbook on statistics. It explained about how humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, so here's how you use exponents to calculate the maximum number of human genetic combinations. The math was perfect, but the people writing the textbook forgot about meiosis!! The real maximum number of genetic combinations is many more than X to the 23rd or whatever because there's another level of complexity to the process. The textbook was a great source for an article about statistics, but a poor source for any article about genetics. WP:CHERRYPICKING

It's clear from this discussion that at least some sourcing refuting the statements in the article would be appreciated. Core to the argument is the assumption that the way "most vertebrates" work necessarily translates to modern human society. Here's what I found in a very brief search.

• First result: "Multiple recent reviews argue that animals may be just too different physiologically, anatomically, and psychologically from humans to be able to predict human outcomes." It cites at least four previous works (e.g., Cummings et al. 2014; Kola and Landis 2004; Paul et al. 2010; Tricklebank and Garner 2012) though they seem to be primarily medical. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how a society being organised as a patriarchy or a matriarchy has anything to do with the topic and the article doesn't mention it. NadVolum (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah. The article makes explicit statements like "In most vertebrate species, only a few males are required to father the next generation, and males are generally better equipped for fighting" and so implies "and that is why human societies value women more than men." The information that some animals have harems and some are matriarchal—that they have different ways of fathering the next generation—refutes that first statement. In most vertebrates, the adults are not very different from each other physically. In some, such as birds, the female is usually larger. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

How do you come to the conclusion that harems or matriarchy refute the business about only a few males are required to father the next generation? Also for most birds the male is normally larger than the female except for birds of prey. The argument about disposability of males would tend to mean the male could be smaller than the female, so one actually needs to explain why males are normally bigger. The usual explanation is males competing causes it. Though the question remains why a male tiger is bigger yet a female eagle is bigger - if you can explain that you can get famous! NadVolum (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

NadVolum, I think you and I have walked sideways into the point: Vertebrates vary considerably in the way males and females interact with each other to produce the next generation. Therefore, I can say with confidence "Most vertebrates [do this], so human society values males less" is not something we should present to the readers as established fact in Wikipedia's voice. For my own take, 1) most species don't have factors that kill male adults but not also female adults and 2) even if there were some factor, I'm not convinced most species could father a new generation with just a few males. Harem animals like moose and sea elephants could do this, but I don't think salmon or humans could. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is a complete mess. It appears, at least from the sources in the article, that this is concept that is specifically applied to humans, and has little basis in actual evolutionary biology based on the study of animals. The lead of the article should clearly reflect that. The article is not coherent as is, but is a complete random hodgepodge of seemingly random references to the concept (and other sources besides). I think this needs a WP:TNT and a complete start from scratch, if this is even going to be an article at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is a hot mess. Relevant here is the AfD from back in January which was closed as "no consensus", and where a few of us suggested TNT. Generalrelative (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a statement by a body lets say anthropologists, sociologists that acknowledge this position? Or can someone name 10 authors discussing and accepting this specific hypothesis as factual truth? (Can someone do the opposite?) Cinadon36 10:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, see the AfD I mentioned above. "Keep" !voters were reaching pretty hard to find such sources, and most of what they could come up with were marginally reliable at best. But if you want to examine for yourself, that does appear to be a rather exhaustive list. Generalrelative (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A thoughtful discussion by David Brooks of a decline of wellbeing among US men and boys appeared yesterday in The New York Times. It does not support pseudoscientific evolutionary theories about this or male grievance theories. NightHeron (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

To answer, @Cinadon36:, I think the best way to determine that would be to look at some textbooks about sociology, evolutionary biology, and gender relations, which I do not have at my fingertips at this time. A book review of Professor Daniels' work would also do, but I haven't been able to find one. I requested Prof. Daniels' book at my library, but it isn't in yet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Socionics

There is a big problem with establishing a neutral point of view in a Socionics article. 1. In the first line of the article, socionics as a part of psychology and sociology is called pseudoscience with reference to 10 sources from Russia: "Socionics, in psychology and sociology, is a pseudoscientific[11] theory of information processing and personality types." A common feature of these sources is that these sources only mention once and without detailed consideration or definition of socionics throughout their text. Their authors are several philosophers (for example, in the article Zhilina V. A.; Nevelev A. B.; Kamaletdinova A. Ya. (2017) there is a record of the dialogue of three philosophers, and in the remark of one philosopher - Zhilina V. A. socionics is mentioned once without explanation or analysis), philologist ( T. Abashkina (2015), a physicist (L. Podymov (2018), a student and teacher of management without a degree (E. Ivashechkina; G. Chedzhemov (2019), who do not claim that socionics is a pseudoscience at all), and even a journalist- geographer (A. Sergeev), who once mentioned socionics in a publicist article about homeopathy (This article is erroneously or intentionally presented as the opinion of the commission on pseudoscience, but this commission made a decision only once - on homeopathy and never - on psychological sciences, including socionics). But none of these authors is a specialist in psychology or sociology. Moreover, 5 out of 10 authors of the cited articles do not have a degree in any field at all. 2. However, in On the second line, referring to 20 sources from various countries of Eastern and Western Europe, it is written that socionics is defined as a science: "A number of reference books and textbooks on psychology, sociology and other social sciences, as well as a number of researchers, define socionics as a science that studies and models the information structure of the psyche, the information interaction of a person with the world and offers an information theory of relations between people". [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28 ][29][30][31]. A common feature of these tertiary and secondary sources is that 18 out of 20 sources are written by professors, doctors of psychology, sociology and other social sciences. Almost all of them give a complete definition of socionics, as can be seen from the quotations given in the article. In fact, there are many more such sources. A search in various languages ​​(English, Ukrainian, Russian) shows that out of 7400 sources in Google Scholar, 10 dubious sources listed in the first line are all known sources that mention socionics among pseudosciences. There are simply no others, which means their extremely low weight of these sources. If you have questions about these 10 weird dubious sources, we can take a look at them in detail. Some of them are detailed on the talk page of the article. Thus, the neutral point of view in the definition of socionics is completely violated in the article Socionics. The analysis shows that out of these 10 sources, only a small number of them, once mentioning socionics critically, can be used in the "Criticism" section. Jim MacKenna (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That article has one main problem, and it's the unrelenting onslaught of absolute nonsense. I see from skimming JM's comment above that it's about something other than that primary issue. Can we focus first on the overwhelming torrent of hogwash? I cut a bunch, and there's still so much. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. But there can be a lot of nonsense, and the rule of neutrality WP:NPOV is just one. :) Therefore, I propose to start with the most important, and then we will deal with smaller details. Jim MacKenna (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure that your understanding of the word "neutral" is the same as the understanding used in Wikipedia? Many new users think that neutrality means that a Wikipedia article cannot take a position on any subject but has to give equal weight to all positions. That is wrong, see WP:GEVAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I am sure that Wikipedia is written from academically reliable sources and not from the opinions of editors. "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." As soon as I wrote about it, 20 reliable tertiary and secondary sources of academic sources were immediately removed from the article by my opponent. This is fine? Jim MacKenna (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about the stuff you kept edit-warring in without discussing at the talk page? Seems like a glass house situation to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Nobody asked me to discuss them. Do I have to ask permission for any editing? :) Jim MacKenna (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. You're a newer editor than I thought you were, and it looks like you did bring that bundle of sources up for discussion here. You don't need permission, but repeatedly adding your preferred content over the objections of other editors is edit warring, which can get you blocked. WP:ONUS is a policy that puts the burden on you to build consensus for your changes before restoring them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss any particular source, but instead, unfortunately, I see only general statements of policy and the possible disagreement of some editors with the very fact of citing 20 reliable authoritative tertiary and secondary sources. This is a very strange approach. Jim MacKenna (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I chose only independent sources. First of all, these are encyclopedias and textbooks on psychology, sociology and other related sciences. They are definitely not "from a walled garden of pseudoscientists", as MrOllie claims.  :) They were written by independent respected professors and doctors of sciences from various countries. I'll quote here the deleted MrOllie without any constructive explanation text and quote links: "A number of reference books and textbooks on psychology and social sciences, as well as a number of researchers, define socionics as a science that studies and models the information structure of the psyche, the information interaction of a person with the world and offers an information theory of relations between people. ."

But it seems that no one even wants to consider the cited sources, they are trying to immediately remove them, and all attention and priority is given to extremely dubious sources from one country, which are found at the beginning of the article. The authors of these sources do not even have specialized education in the field of psychology or sociology, which include socionics. Moreover, half of these sources were written by authors even without a degree. And this is called reliable sources? :) And again, such dubious sources completely violate the rules of Wikipedia? Jim MacKenna (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend that any interested editors have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk before spending their time on this. MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

For interested neutral editors, I can again note another evasion of my opponent from a specific discussion of the authoritative sources cited. Jim MacKenna (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the rule of neutrality.

This is a very important discussion and I feel it should not be closed. Echidna1000 (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The ongoing issue with this discussion can be summed up in the following way:

1. Minor issue. There is a seeming arbitrariness over the decision of Wikipedia's more prominent and preferred editors to select certain sources over others in making the assertion that Socionics is a pseudo-science, without providing room for counter-arguments.

2. Major issue. There is a very visible double-standard in the decision by editors to make this assertion in the opening sentence, where similar, rival theories of personality typology, e.g. MBTI, have had this matter visited in a dedicated section further down, and others, e.g. Enneagram of Personality, are presented as simply a 'model' with no allegations of pseudoscience made at all. How, for instance can Socionics be a pseudoscience, but Enneagram not be a pseudoscience?

Together, but especially due to 2, the Socionics article has been a point of fierce contention for multiple years. This is not helped by the following difficult circumstance:

3. Socionics is a complex, hard-to-access, niche field with multiple schools, approaches and interpretations, and scant material published independent peer-reviewed journals, where those who know enough about the theory to write about it often have strong beliefs about it which can amount to a conflict of interest, while those who aren't so involved in the theory and could hypothetically edit Wikipedia impartially, know so little about the theory as to struggle to collect sources in an insightful, informative or balanced way. This is not helped by a potential implicit bias in believing that a detractor of a theory is less likely to have a conflict of interest in informing about said theory than a proponent of the same theory.

I think it is totally reasonable to uphold the criticism of Socionics on the page, and even for Wikipedia to take a 'view', provided there is a transparency over how and why that 'view' has been formed from relevant, reliable sources, as well as a certain amount of humility in knowing that what is said on Wikipedia will inform the opinions of many people about a subject not many people actually know much about.However, point 2 has and continues to be the source of unnecessary animosity. Why it needs to be in the opening sentence, I don't know. No one yet has made that point clear to me. The decision to do so, without the same standard applied to similar theories like the MBTI or the personality typology article, suggests some kind of fervent anti-socionics agenda, or else, allowing one over-enthusiastic editor to make the edit that way, and then being intransigent and overly distrustful at the prospect of relocating it to a more appropriate section in the article. Echidna1000 (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

To explain the situation, let me give an example of a source from the beginning of the article, which MrOllie regularly refers to as reliable. I wrote about it on the talk page. According to WP:RS "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both". The subject of socionics, as it is written in the article, the subject of socionics belongs to the field of psychology and sociology. Therefore, I had reasonable doubts about some authors, for example, T. Abashkina (2015), links to which are given in the first line of the article. MrOllie recommended that I read the discussion in the archive. I read them and looked for information about this author.

"Abashkina Tatyana Leonidovna - Post-graduate student of the Kyiv National Pedagogical University named after N. P. Drahomanov. Sphere

scientific interests: onomastics, the theory of precedence". http://azbuka.in.ua/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/sv-14-2mb.pdf, p. 349. From this it follows that Abashkina as a philologist is not may have professional competence in the field of psychology and sociology, and she does not have a Ph.D. Therefore, according to WP:RS, T. Abashkina cannot be used to define socionics.

I don't understand how an article by a graduate student without a Ph.D. and a philologist can be used in psychology and sociology. Unfortunately, MrOllie did not answer this question, but stubbornly defends his point of view.

However, MrOllie calls this source reliable without argument. He recommends reading the discussion archives. But in those archives, he also did not explain anything. Why? And we reach a dead end, because he controls the article. Jim MacKenna (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

Accountability software has an RFC

Accountability software has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Keithgreenfan (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, I posted this here because the discussion is primarily about WP:NPOV violations.Keithgreenfan (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)