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

Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Discovery project)

I don't think that this edit[1] is NPOV. It assumes without evidence that Heilman is telling the truth and Jimbo is telling a lie. (See extensive discussion on Jimbo's talk page). Could someone take a look at the entire article and make sure that it does not favor any one POV (including mine, of course)? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV is concerned with making sure that sources are neutrally reflected in articles. NPOV is not about creating false dichotomies between two points of view, and making sure that both are given equal representation. As a matter of fact, part NPOV called WP:FALSEBALANCE talks about not doing this. That being said, the link I followed on the article lead to a page in a foreign language, so I couldn't verify whether the edit in question neutrally reflected the source. I'm also not sure about how foreign language sources should be treated in terms of reliability and verifiability, since they need to be translated which could be considered original research. Scoobydunk (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No its never considered original research, because that would be really really silly. Foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable if they qualify as reliable per WP policy. AGF means you assume any user who has translated the source is being truthful, absent contrary evidence. There is usually a foreign language speaker around to get a third opinion anyway. English language sources are preferred obviously for the ease of maintenence by the general editing population, however in some areas the best sources will be in the native nationality. For example if we required English language sources for 16th century Hungarian philosophers, it might be a bit hard to find. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV issues with text about alleged beheading footage in Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography article

This post is related to discussions on the talkpage Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri for the Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography article. (see (1/2) for reference articles within brackets ) Articles often mention both medial reports from 29 July 2014 about Muhahxeri allegedy appearing on beheading footage from Syria [17] and a warrant from Court of Ferizaj and Interpol from the 6 September 2014 in the same articles but they don’t claim that the warrant is issued for the alleged beheading footage [17]; ‘The demand comes from the Basic Court of Ferizaj, which has issued a warrant for Muhaxheri after he is accused of terrorism and organized groups to go to Syria and Iraq’ [17]'. Published court records on 15 January 2016 only mention text messages as evidence for recruitment.[65] The question is about formulation of medial claims in regard to NPOV; avoid stating opinions as facts; shouldn't ‘On 29 July 2014 Muhaxheri uploaded photos to a Facebook page where he is seen beheading an unidentified young man in Syria.’(1/2) (2/3) be stated as 'According to Balkan media, on 29 July 2014 an individual posted two (2) images to a Facebook page under the pseudonym "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" that, to some extent, give the impression of a man having beheaded an unidentified young man.' or something to the effect of a neutral statement where it's mentioned who's claiming it?

(1/2)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&diff=prev&oldid=700631550 (2/3)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&diff=prev&oldid=700798610

KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC) fix; the part about court documents is from 15 January 2016 and not 15 January 2015 (type - o)KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC) and NPOV - link KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC) shortened KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This is WP:Forumshopping. I have in vain tried to explain to User:KewinRozz that it is not a good idea to open an RfC and rising the same question on this noticeboard at the same time. Since the RfC was posted first, I suggest that this thread is speedily closed with a link to Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri#Regarding NPOV on alleged beheading footage. The posting is confusing enough as it is without having it duplicated. Regards! --T*U (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I've already replied to your claim about WP:Forumshopping. 'Since the RfC was posted first, I suggest that this thread is speedily closed with a link to'. You've already commented on the Rfc about the edit, as is forthcomming by your comment on the talkpage and also by my reply to you yesterday. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: The RfC that User:KewinRozz says that I have commented on, is an earlier RfC that now has been withdrawn. What I am concerned about is the new RfC that is identical to the posting in this thread here. --T*U (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if "withdraving" it, no, it's not an Rfc about an edit that hasn't been discussed on the talkpage or that you haven't commented on KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No question was asked here, therefore the only way I can take this is as an invite to go to the RfC. At the RfC I don't see any straightforward question being asked either. The proposer needs to say what the problem they see is. For an RfC there should be a short neutral description at the beginning of the dispute. That needs to be put into the RfC otherwise it will be a waste of everybody's time like this here is. Dmcq (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dmcq, it could be shortened to a short neutral description by asking just about the reformulation of the statements on NPOV. I'll edit it.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub POV-pushing and personal attacks on Henry Kissinger

User:Guccisamsclub has inserted the following contentious claim into the Kissinger article: "According to Ben Kiernan, [Indonesia's] invasion and occupation [of East Timor] resulted in the deaths of nearly a quarter of the Timorese population from 1975 to 1981." This material is sourced to Kiernan's Genocide and Resistance in Southeast Asia: Documentation, Denial & Justice in Cambodia & East Timor, in which Kiernan argues that Indonesia's atrocities during the war in East Timor are "proportionally comparable" to the (peacetime) mass killings perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia from 1975-1979. This material is related to Kissinger only in that Kissinger accompanied President Ford on a trip to Indonesia shortly before the invasion, and the two men told the Indonesian president, Suharto, that the U.S. would not object to Indonesia's plan to invade and annex East Timor. The U.S. maintained close ties to Suharto's government for decades during the Cold War, while the largest share of deaths in East Timor may have occurred under President Jimmy Carter, who continued to arm Indonesia despite his reputation as a global champion of human rights. (Carter would later claim that he had not been adequately briefed on the subject.) While the Indonesians certainly committed atrocities in East Timor, however, there is strong reason to doubt that those atrocities were in fact comparable to those of the Khmer Rouge:

• The estimate that "nearly a quarter" of the population perished from 1975 to 1981 assumes approximately 170,000 deaths occurred in this period. However, the comprehensive Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR)—which is considered more reliable than the earlier indirect estimates based on flawed census data or simply experts' intuition—has documented only 102,000 deaths spread throughout the entire period of civil war and Indonesian occupation in East Timor, from 1974-1999. Although this is considered a "conservative minimum" estimate, a figure as high as 170,000 for 1975-1981 alone is extremely unlikely, as it nearly equals CAVR's hypothetical maximum of 183,000 for the entire 25-year period. (The theoretically possible 183,000 is composed of the following "population deficits": 129,694 from 1975-1980, 27,499 from 1981-1990, and 26,780 from 1991-2000. However, many of these "missing persons" were not dead but simply evaded detection in censuses or were never born at all.)
• In "How many deaths? Problems in the statistics of massacre in Indonesia (1965-1966) and East Timor (1975-1980)", Robert Cribb writes that "a closer examination of the demographic data on East Timor" suggests a death toll "in the vicinity of 100,000", and also compared East Timor to Cambodia, noting "there is a remarkable shortage of detailed testimony on Indonesian atrocities, except in the initial assault on Dili" and East Timor "does not appear—on the basis of news reports and academic accounts—to be a society traumatized by mass death ... the circumstance leading up to the Dili massacre of 1991 ... indicate a society which retained its vigor and indignation in a way which would probably not have been possible if it had been treated as Cambodia was treated under Pol Pot."
• What happened in East Timor was a war, with thousands of Indonesian soldiers killed. During the early phases of the conflict, a significant percentage of the violent killings—up to 49% (page 6) in 1975—were committed by the anti-Indonesian Timorese resistance.

I am not sure that NPOV requires that we cover the death toll in Kissinger's WP:BLP. In fact, for many years it was not discussed, suggesting a quiet consensus to that effect—but that all changed when Bernie Sanders condemned Kissinger in a recent Democratic debate, inviting a number of drive-by editors to insert into the BLP whatever criticisms of Kissinger they could find. Even if the failure to mention the death toll was a serious omission, however, what is the point of cherry-picking a given percentage of the population that the death toll represents? Clearly, Guccisamsclub wants to portray the atrocities in East Timor as demographically exceptional, though the case for this is doubtful, and the choice of venue a poor one. (It's worth noting that East Timor is the only war/atrocity quantified in Kissinger's biography, with the exception of the American bombing of Cambodia, which he was intimately involved in. For example, the Cambodian genocide itself is not quantified, let alone in percentage terms, nor is the Pathet Lao's post-1975 campaign against the Hmong—even though both likely surpass Indonesia's crimes in East Timor. Similarly, the thousands killed by the U.S.-backed right-wing dictatorships in Chile and Argentina are not enumerated. What makes East Timor so extraordinary? Consider as well that not even Suharto—let alone other biographies of Western officials—makes any such claim regarding the percentage of the Timorese population killed.)

Nevertheless, I have proposed a compromise version of the "East Timor" section here, which includes Kiernan, Cribb, and the authoritative CAVR. As expected, Guccisamsclub quickly reverted the compromise with the nuanced and judicious edit summary "rv blogger". (Unfortunately, the bulk of Guccisamsclub's comments in our discussion of the matter consists of these kinds of personal attacks, suggesting why outside input will likely be necessary to reach an enforceable agreement: Guccisamsclub has accused me of being "hysterical", "wasting everyone's time", "cherry-picking", engaging in "ethnic hucksterism", being "supremely arrogant", "play[ing] little professor", and "doing preventive propaganda" while refusing to address my substantive argument on the grounds that "I'd be happy to pick a few holes in your story here too, as I've done in the past [referring to disagreements we have had on other, unrelated articles]. But I don't think your story has any bearing on the article or wikipedia policy." He has also accused me of considering "what happened in East Timor" to be "a footnote", based on my comment that Kissinger's personal involvement is a "footnote in Kissinger's career".) Beyond the edit summary, I can only guess that Guccisamsclub may have reverted me for the following reason, which he enunciated on the talk page several days ago: "I don't see any particular reason to prefer Cribb or CAVR to Kiernan. I think it's important that readers get the full range of estimates and caveats, but ... I am reluctant to accept your right [emphasis added] to dictate what that range should be." (Note how Guccisamsclub avoids explaining why Kiernan is preferable and should be the only source—or why we need to include Kiernan's percentage and comparison with Cambodia—and the ownership mentality evident in the comment regarding my "right" to edit the page.) Buried within the lengthy series of vituperative personal attacks, Guccisamsclub has also asserted that there is an important distinction between my "explicit comparison" with Cambodia and his implicit comparison, and strongly condemned me for mentioning on the talk page (though certainly not in the article itself!) that Kiernan's work on Cambodia has been criticized for understating the death toll (a very real topic—consider Kiernan's role in Cambodian genocide denial).

TL;DR: Which of these three proposed versions of the "East Timor" section in Henry Kissinger is most neutral: The long-standing consensus version, Guccisamsclub's version, or my version? Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

1. I reverted TTAAC over and over because:
   • First, he tried to remove the reliably sourced information entirely, arguing that:

     -that it was a "very minor footnote" in Kissinger's career, despite the fact that Kiernan discussed Kissinger's role extensively in the book. The "footnote" argument simply reflects TTAAC's political priorities, not any serious consensus about the consequences of the invasion being unimportant to Kissinger's legacy.

     -that is was dubious and exaggerated, despite the fact Kiernan's estimate was well-supported and fit squarely within the accepted range of serious estimates (neither a minimum nor a maximum). If TTAAC wants his contentious arguments (that the true death toll was closer to 100,000, that East Timor is not "demographically exceptional", that it was decidedly more a war than a genocide) to be taken seriously, he should get published it in a peer-reviewed journal. Then we can cite him - though it will still be a drop in the bucket and will not alter the balance of existing scholarship. Anyone can play professor on wikipedia - bluster is all it takes.

   • Having gotten nowhere with the first strategy, he inserted a massively undue quote which compared East Timor favourably to Pol Pot, giving it far more weight than its author likely intended. For that, he got reverted by two editors. Comparative genocide - especially in the form of flippant and politically-motivated whataboutism - was clearly outside the scope of the section. Next, TTAAC blatantly cherry-picked two sources (Cribb and CAVR/HDRAG) with the very lowest estimates, and inserted them as a "compromise edit". That was a POV-push aimed squarely at critiquing Kiernan's work on both Cambodia and East Timor, while presenting the Timorese genocide as being less bad than some comm-ies would have you believe. As his last edit summary illustrates, TTAAC hardly intended the edit as a genuine "compromise"; instead it another in a long line of unconstructive/pointy edits to "serve a purpose" related to his own political struggles here on wikipedia.
   • One alternative is to change the time-frame and to cite Kiernan for 1/5th (145-150K) from 1975-1980, since that's the one that Kiernan discusses most. The difference between 1/4th and 1/5th is negligible, as far as I am concerned.
2. I don't think anyone besides TTAAC and myself really cares at this point, but shouldn't we invite CJ Griffin for comment based on this and this?
3. I promised to "poke a few holes" in your story. I'll put something to that effect on my blog ... er talkpage shortly. I suggest you refactor your post as well if you want anyone to read it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Cribb's qualitative and quantitative analysis are literally his entire argument, and the quotes are representative. Guccisamsclub brought up the politics of comparative genocide by citing Kiernan's work on comparative genocide, rather than the authoritative CAVR. My compromise edit was, in fact, intended as a genuine compromise; when I wrote "If this is reverted by Gucci (as there is a good chance it will be), it will still serve its purpose", I meant that I could then propose my neutral summary as an option here and thereby expose Guccisamsclub's edit warring and intransigence. (What could I possibly gain by openly admitting to tendentious editing?) There is, as a matter of fact, nothing in said compromise edit "aimed squarely at critiquing Kiernan's work on Cambodia", as anyone can check and plainly see. I will not respond to Guccisamsclub's personal attacks. TL;DR: I believe any unbiased observer who compares the three versions of the "East Timor" section linked above will see that mine is the most neutral, and welcome input on the matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if disguised your POV (based completely wrong info, I might add) you'd have a stronger case. Or if you did not insert the 4,000 estimate for the victims of the bombing of Cambodia - one of the biggest bombing campaigns in history. You appear to use numbers simply as ideological props.Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This digression is irrelevant, but if anyone cares, Guccisamsclub is referring to this edit, based on this source, which was added by his ally C.J. Griffin, and tells us: "[According to retired Air Force intelligence officer Earl Tilford,] the Air Force ran many missions simply to keep a higher profile in the military budgeting process. More sorties were taken as proof of military importance. Tilford recalled repeated bombing runs of a lake in central Cambodia. The B-52s literally dropped their payloads in the lake. The sole purpose was to keep the mission count high. The upshot? The total tonnage might have little relation to the damage inflicted. In addition, Tilford said most bombs were dropped in remote, thinly populated regions. "I would say 4,000 to 5,000 civilians at most might have died," Tilford said. "That's a guess based on a knowledge of targets, of the topography and that there were just not that many civilians in those areas."" (Craig Etcheson, former chief of investigations for the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, gives a similar estimate of "probably more than 5,000".) C.J. Griffin simply cherry-picked the highest estimates of 50,000-150,000 and ignored the rest.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning

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

---

All info on the Peyton Manning article concerning the subject's highly publicized scandals has been completely removed. Previously this content was in a "Controversy" section, but was moved to a section entitled "Off The Field" after a consensus to do so was met. This is a fear, shared by me and at least one other editor, that the page may be being cleaned by PR representative of Peyton Manning; there is no proof of this as of yet and we have agreed to assume good faith, but this is a fear of ours. Also, there are multiple users which have disputed the neutrality of this article since the removal of the content of the scandal, but there have been a couple of users which continue to remove the POV tag from the page.

I understand that we need to come to a consensus on how to add the info on the scandals, but it clear that the article violates WP:NPOV if there is no information on the scandals at all. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that the undue weight given to these events violates WP:BLP. I have tried to err on the side of caution when dealing with these issues. The lawsuit was settled long ago and the HGH issue was never proven. I used my editorial judgment and removed a 16,000 byte section in order to try to incorporate the material into a smaller and more focused section. Peyton Manning is notable as a football player, not as a participant in a settled suit from the 90s and not as an alleged user of HGH. Wikipedia is not news, and the excess weight given to these events is not encyclopedic. Assumptions of a PR firm's involvement are a clear violation of good faith. Please note that User:ParkH.Davis has now reverted the article 4 times ([2], [3], [4], [5]) instead of trying to discuss this on the talk page. ParkH.Davis was also blocked 2 weeks ago for the same behavior. Some experienced, outside eyes would be appreciated on this article. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It does not violate WP:BLP to discuss a subject's controversial past, especially when it is well sourced by numerous reliable sources. Manning is being investigated by the USADA, the NFL and the MLB as we speak for using HGH, so you can't just sweep it under the rug. Manning's name was recently mentioned in a lawsuit against the University of Tennessee concerning the institutional sexual abuse committed by the school's athletics departments. Also, the whole point of a Wikipedia article is to record a subject's history. It is exactly because the scandal happened that it should be at least mentioned in the article.

I made clear that Leo and I have no proof whatsoever that Manning's PR is involved in the editing of this page; I only said that it is a fear of ours. I have been in the process of discussing this issue on the talk page for almost a month now.

It is clear that WP:NPOV is being violated as there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of Manning's scandal in the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The entire Controversy section was removed with expectations of talk page discussion on what information should be added back to the page. The "controversies" were of course covered in multiple reliable sources but the previous section gave undue weight to these issues, which if to be restored need to only be mentioned not covered extensively. The HGH allegations are just that, allegations and have not been proven. Suspecting that a PR firm is protecting Manning's page is not assuming good faith. Meatsgains (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Consensus was made to move the content to an "Off The Field" section, not to remove it altogether. It is censorship to completely delete all of the content about Manning's scandals. There is no way for this article have an NPOV if the scandals aren't even mentioned. Also, virtually all of the coverage given about Manning by reliable sources recently have been about his scandal, how is it "undue" to give the same weight to these scandals that reliable sources are giving to them? ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I never said consensus was to remove it completely. It was removed so we could discuss and reach consensus on what pieces of information should be restored. You just said yourself that coverage of Manning recently has been about his scandal, so I suggest you take a look at WP:RECENTISM. Meatsgains (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If there was no consensus to remove it completely, then why has it been completely removed? Consensus was to move the content, not to remove it. The sex scandal has been on going for the last 20 years and the HGH use happened in 2011. There has been a recent barrage of reliable sources discussing these scandal and as Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources, say, there is no reasonable way that the scandal content can be censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User:ParkH.Davis It is clear that these incidents should be mentioned. They should not constitute such a large portion of the article. I removed them entirely because having such a large section devoted to these issues constituted a BLP violation. Therefore let's err on the side of caution. We need to build the additions collectively on the talk page. I suggest we all take a step back and wait for uninvolved editors to weigh in here. Rehashing the same arguments here does not help anything. Please do not continue to edit war.Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I know that it is clear that the scandals should be included. That is why I am so baffled as to why they have been completely removed from the article. The content in question does not violate WP:BLP as it well cited by numerous reliable sources and given the same weight that reliable sources have given it. Even with the content in question, 95% of the article has nothing to do with the scandals. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

News organizations mostly cover current events. No reliable sources are writing news stories about Manning's previous Super Bowl win, or SEC championship, or any of the other events that have led to his notability. We do not build articles based on what current reliable sources tend to cover or weight. I will refer you to WP:NOTNEWS. I will quote the relevant bit here "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." Please use the article talk page to address the best way to insert these incidents, keeping in mind the policies described above.Mr Ernie (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on solely on what reliable sources say. Anything else is original research. 20 years of coverage for a sexual assault is not "routine news reporting", it is a major event in the subject's life. Manning is being investigated by the USADA, the NFL and the MLB for his GH usage, this also appears to be a major event in his life. The full controversy section makes up a very small portion of the entire article and is at the very bottom. The vast majority of the article is devoted to his football career, which makes sense as that is what he is most known for. There is no reason for these scandal not to be at least mentioned. I still do not understand why all mentions of either scandal were completely removed from the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning is notable as a football player, not as a participant in a settled suit from the 90s and not as an alleged user of HGH. I strongly dispute that. A quick search on any part of Google (news, books, or the web) turns up scandals as the overwhelmingly highest-profile coverage of him. I feel that part of the problem here is that fans (who are mostly familiar with him through his other accomplishments) might not realize that even those high-profile accomplishments ultimately pale before some of the scandals he's been involved with. I would argue that the majority of the text in the article could be about his scandals and it still would not violate WP:NPOV based on the level (and, at this point, the duration) of coverage they're getting. Certainly suggesting that they could be omitted entirely and still produce an article that would satisfy WP:NPOV is implausible. At this point, I am comfortable saying that he is more notable for his scandals than he is for anything else. At the very least, I feel that the controversy section should be restored; people can work on incorporating it into the article in a more useful fashion, but I absolutely don't feel that your removal of it was defensible. --Aquillion (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand what you're saying: You believe that Peyton Manning, SEC championship winner, 2 time Super Bowl Winner, holder of all kinds of professional football records, etc, is more well known as a participant in a locker room prank gone wrong incident turned settled lawsuit as a teenager and as an alleged user of HGH? This is EXACTLY the reason we have and are guided by WP:NOTNEWS. Of course current coverage is about current issues. Nobody would be writing articles about his football accomplishments at this time, because they're already written. I will AGF, but I've seen you pop up in various areas always pushing the same POV. It's getting tiresome at this point. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Your categorization of the sexual assault scandal as a "prank" is categorically false and not backed up in any way by any reliable source. The "prank" hypothesis has been completely discredited and the event itself has been reported on my numerous reliable sources as a "sexual assault". Most of the mainstream coverage on Manning done by reliable sources is on his scandals. Football fans seems to forget that not everyone is a football fan. Wikipedia articles are not fan pages, they are supposed to give a full and accurate overview of a subject's history. Completely omitting all references to manning scandal clearly violates WP:NPOV. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Here is an article, WRITTEN IN 2011, that reflects exactly Ernie's view with also a kind of futuristic vision: http://deadspin.com/5842474/what-if-hgh-could-cure-peyton-manning. And here is another talking about the trainer's case: http://deadspin.com/how-tennessee-s-sexual-harassment-allegations-caught-up-1759118435. Yes, Deadspin is a progressive web media, but it's the same site which published the Manti Te'o's girlfriend hoax and Greg Hardy's assault photos, so it's a quite credible media.Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't cast aspersions. And no Deadspin is not a credible source of anything - please see WP:RS. And don't interject your statements in between other threaded statements. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• First: it's not an aspersion, it's a letter to the editors asking what do they think could happen with Manning's health as he has been one of the faces of NFL (in the first half, I forgot to mention it and I apologize for that), and I mention it because you mention Manning's reputation. I don't need to say a thing about the second link. Second: Of course men, of course, whatever you say. Your WP:RS criteria doesn't apply here as, for example, the Super Bowl 50 article actually has a Deadspin citation... on the top, and that among other cases. And of course Deadspin can be sensationalist sometimes but just as much as ESPN or Fox Sports, but if your criteria about sources is so limited, IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM AND I WON'T MENTION IT FURTHER. And third: my interjections are because sometimes users don't read or putting below statements make themselves irrelevant, but if that's how Wikipedia works I won't do it anymore. SORRY FOR GETTING OUT THE TOPIC FOR THE REST. Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have struck my wording. Thanks for pointing it out. The University alleges that Manning was only included on the recent lawsuit to generate publicity. I believe this is important to consider. (http://www.knoxnews.com/sports/vols/football/ut-asks-for-peyton-manning-claims-to-be-removed-from-federal-lawsuit-2c79f911-0695-1eed-e053-0100007-369895141.html) Mr Ernie (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction. The recent Tennessee lawsuit has nothing to do with this or Manning and was never even mentioned in article before. The content in question directly discusses Manning's own scandals and the events surrounding them. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have checked the Talk:Tom Brady page and when Ballghazi happened there was a similar discussion but with worst fights. It's disproportionate to compare both cases but finally a part of Brady's scandal was include in his BLP (I think it was because there was a main page for Ballghazi). I'm in faith that an accurate section of Manning's controversies will be presented soon, and as ongoing information is published, I consider some part of the original information should go to the Tennessee Volunteers football page and not in Manning's bio. I think the section "Off the field" is the most accurate. And I can apologize for writing about a potential PR staff involvement despite I clearly said there was no accusation and it was just a comparison with past cases. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. There is an entire article dedicated to Deflategate, but there is not a single mention of Manning's scandals anywhere on Wikipedia. Would it not be fair to create an article dedicated to Manning's scandals? ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sepp Blatter's article is full of discussion about his scandals and controversy. Why is it appropriate for other figures, but not for this one? I agree with Dsaun100 that this policy is being inconsistently applied. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It does no good for the editors of that page to come here and bicker with each other. The purpose of this page is to get outside input on a content dispute. FWIW, my interpretation of the rules is that this is a WP:BLP dispute, not NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Which aspect of BLP does this fall under? My understanding is that under BLP, controversies can be discussed if they are backed up by reliable sources. My personal objection, however, to deleting the content, is that the NPOV of the article will be compromised if it is only presenting arbitrarily positive info or downplaying the significance of the scandals. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Some mention of these controversies should be included on the page, and so far it seems that this can be worked out on the talk page. What I don't understand, though, is why the tag has been removed repeatedly, even though there is an actual ongoing discussion of the problem and no consensus to omit the subject entirely. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

As Cla68 mentions above, this is a BLP issue, not NPOV. We chose to err on the side of caution while we worked out the best way to handle the article. It is my understanding that the NPOV tag should not be used when the consensus POV is not your POV. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but nobody (as far as I can tell) is arguing that the entire section violated NPOV. Deleting absolutely all information on a high-profile scandal like this isn't an appropriate reaction, especially when nobody disputes the basic facts. A BLP argument based entirely around some editors holding the belief that the article gives WP:UNDUE weight to what is unquestionably a major scandal seems relatively weak; clearly it's not enough to justify deleting the section, even "temporarily." You need to limit your BLP claims to more narrow and specific arguments about the parts you object to. --Aquillion (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Please help us add back in the parts that should be there. The consensus was that the section should not have been so large due to undue weight concerns. We chose to blank it while we rewrote the sections in a more appropriate manner. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please write a proposal of what they would like to see included so that we can discuss specifics and stop bitching at each other? I am in favor of keeping all of the previous section and simply moving it to an "Off The Field" section. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I encourage Wikieditors to read this article: http://time.com/4180414/wikipedia-15th-anniversary/. Moreover, there is a tag about BLP on NSNYC talk page:

So I propose the content blanked about Manning might be restored (after being rewritten) but with a same kind of tag, just until all this controversies comes to a clear point. Why? Because even if the information is really well sourced, the information is dispute is considered by several people harmful to Manning's name in sense of people could focus in short term on this controversies more than on his career, as in some point happened to Tom Brady and the New England Patriots, but this information should not be censored. The point is that we need to reach a consensus. Leo Bonilla (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The redacted claims clearly violated WP:BLP as containing statements of allegations as the equivalent of fact, in using argumentation in Wikipedia's voice about the allegations, and in being given absurdly undue weight. In addition, there is absolutely no apparent WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion of the allegations in such massive detail. A total of two sentences would reasonably cover the locker room incident (trainer's claim, Manning's denial), and the HGH incident is not even of any direct value at all, as involving a person who denied making the allegation as initially reported. And please avoid claims of "whitewashing" - WP:BLP has specific strictures, and following the strictures of policy is simply what Wikipedia requires. (iterating my belief "Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.") Collect (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ben Roethlisberger and Brett Favre's cases were also allegations and that information is mentioned in Wikipedia. Some editors are not fair and, AS I REPEAT, THAT IS REASON WHY I ONCE FELT THERE WAS 'WHITEWASHING' INVOLVED AND I ALSO ASK IF IT WAS NECESSARY MY APOLOGIZES FOR THE STATEMENT BUT NO ONE SAID A THING. And there's an column for Deadspin for Drew Magary, and even though I don't share Magary's opinion in a 100%, the column reflects the reason why some of us thought there was a PR issuse: http://deadspin.com/peyton-manning-can-eat-shit-1757781250 (sorry for the profanity). Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

All, and I want to make it a point to say, ALL, of the content in question is rigorously backed up by numerous reliable sources. Giving only two sentences to a major event in the subject's life would still be in violation of WP:NPOV as it would arbitrarily down play the significance of the events and likely leave out large amounts of information vital to understanding the events. This does not violate WP:BLP as literally all of it is backed up by numerous well respected and reliable sources. I reported this to the NPOV noticeboard because it seems the content was arbitrarily deleted from even a small mention. Wikipedia is not censored and we can not remove or downplay content based on our personal opinions of the events. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and reliable sources are spending much time and effort in covering Manning's scandals. Manning's article should give the same weight to scandals that reliable sources are giving them. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ask yourself a simple question. Would these scandals have a wikipedia page if Peyton Manning was not a notable person? Let me give you my opinion: of course not. As such, they should be weighted appropriately with the encyclopedic topics associated with this individual, taking care to satisfy the WP:BLP requirements stated clearly by Collect. It doesn't matter how many news articles are written about these issues. As I've stated so many times, please take the time to read WP:NOTNEWS. ParkH.Davis your viewpoints are directly addressed in that policy. Just add a note about the lawsuit claims and Manning's denial and let's move on. Finally, to address your point, just because the news is covering an event does not mean we have to include it in our project. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Then ask yourself THIS QUESTION: Why Ballghazi has its own page and is part of Brady's BLP if it was proved he didn't gain significant advantage tampering balls and if the great majority of the press (in a hypocritical manner) take side with Brady when he was suspended? Let me remind you Manning is under investigation by the NFL for banned substances use as well as Alex Rodriguez was once by the MLB (I'm referring about how it started not how it ended, please), and Manning also was under investigation for his sexual harassment incident in a case against the University of Tennessee until a few days ago. Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Manning is also being investigated by the United States Anti-Doping Agency and the Major League Baseball organization. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

We should give the same weight to the scandals that reliable sources are giving, no more and no less. This has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS as this is a 20 year on going event. Wikipedia is based on reliable source and not based on personal opinions or original research; we can't arbitrarily down play the significance of these scandals or pretend that they didn't happen. If the scandals are not given the same due that they are given by reliable sources, then I will continue to dispute the neutrality of this article. This is not a Peyton Manning fan page. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not TMZ. When any scandal or alleged incident happens against a celebrity, there is going to be a systematic bias of coverage of that scandal, compared to anything else the person might have done in their life; these sources love watching a train wreck, bluntly. We absolutely must be careful for BLP to counter systematic bias generated by this type of press. (See the fact that Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations is nearly 2.5 times the length of Bill Cosby itself) That Payton has pending legal actions against him, that's a few lines but as the case is still open we should not attempt to interpolate in any manner how it might resolve and treat the subject any differently because of this. Editors that want to vilify BLP without strong sourcing to back it should recognize this is unacceptable. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources cited by the content in question are only reliable sources such as the Washington Post, the New York Times and The Nation. TMZ is not a reliable source. Please assume good faith and stop accusing others of bias. There are no legal charges pending against Manning, I don't know where you got that from. This has nothing to do with BLP, as all of the content is rigorously backed up by numerous reliable sources, the conflict is over the POV of the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Amazingly good point citing TMZ. How the Ray Rice scandal was acknowledged to the public? PUBLISHED BY TMZ!!! And here is how TMZ made the dubbed as "Most powerful man in sports" Roger Goodell look bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8qVuc32Rc. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• The video is about a mention of a Goodell's press conference by HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, let me clarify. Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• While sources like the NYTimes and WaPost are not TMZ nor engage in unscrupulous standing, they do give undue weight to ongoing cases against celebrities. There is something in human nature that we want to see successful people fall hard, and by that nature, there is a standing systematic bias that much more coverage will come to these types of events. As we are writing an encyclopedia and while meant to stay current, we're supposed to be treating topics with the long-term view. Let's say Manning is found innocent of all charges in x years from now. In that situation, the allegations would end up being reduced to a sentence or paragraph, at most, and we should not be writing on the presumption he will be found guilty, even if this is backed up by reliable sources. That's a BLP violation right there. Please note that I am not saying that no mention of the allegations should be in the article, but it should be "he's currently involved in legal matters" in a sentence or two without excessive detail on a pending legal action. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Manning was never charged with sexual assault, which is part of the story, as it appears as if the University of Tennessee may have been systemically covering sexual assault incidents, particularly those in which prominent athletes were involved. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, therefore we must determine whether an event is "due" or not based on the coverage given to it by reliable sources and not on our personal opinions as to whether or not it is "due" or not. There is no reason to downplay these scandals except to give the article an arbitrarily pro-manning POV. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. I am not interested in debating whether or not manning may or may not be guilty of any crime which he has been accused of. I am only interested in telling a full and unbiased account of the events surrounding the scandals. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• WP is not in the business of "telling a full and unbiased account" (my emphasis) of scandals particularly involving living persons. We summarize topics. And in cases of scandals involving living persons, we have to be fully aware that coverage of these in even the best RSes is skewed, and we should not attempt to try to cover that as in depth as these sources provide. Effectively, we avoid WP:RECENTISM, and should consider how this topic would be presented in, say, 20 years from now. If the charges were dropped against Manning, then that means for us a few sentences should be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• There were never charges against Manning in the first place. That's the whole point. This has been in the news for the last 20 years and a recent lawsuit has brought up the point that the University of Tennessee likely covered up sexual assault incidents like manning's to protect the image of the players involved and the University. I am tired of people not even knowing the basic timeline of events here and the basic facts of the case. This is clearly not recentism as this has been a major event in the subject's life for over 20 years. It clearly violates WP:NPOV to arbitrarily downplay or omit the details of the scandal. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and reliable sources have obviously deemed this story worthy of widespread and continuous coverage. Wikipedia is NOT censored and we cannot arbitrarily downplay events which don't align with our personal opinions of those events. Once again, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. I am not interested in having a debate about whether or not manning is guilty of any crime or not. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

People can allege whatever they want in a lawsuit. You say UT likely covered up sexual assaults. That's an outright wrong thing to say. A lawsuit had alleged that the University did this. But until a court of law proves the allegations you can only say they are allegations. Can you understand this difference? This is the critical point to the discussion that everyone is trying to get you to realize. If I sued Nike for making my feet smell when I wear their shoes, and some reliable sources wrote an article about it, would you write that Nike makes people's feet smell bad in the Nike article? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am not interested in debating the merits of the lawsuits, any of them. This is most certainly not the forum for such discussion. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on any editors' personal opinion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• There's a part talking about sweatshops in Nike Inc.'s article. Do people still wear Nike? Oh yes! Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem looking at the removed content is that it is attempting to outline every little detail. The section that was on the doping charges is written as proseline. For a BLP this is simply inappropriate. (Note that Deflategate came up and while that has BLP considerations, it is about the case which has more than one person highlighted as possibly doing something wrong, not just the individual), so it is reasonable more details can be there). There's a way to still include this information but as BLP favors blanking contentious material about persons than including it, discussion should happen first on the talk page to figure out a succinct version that highlights the issues without going into every facet of the court case. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The events surrounding the scandals are summarized and hardly include "every little detail". This has literally nothing to with WP:BLP as all of the content is rigorously cited by numerous reliable sources. Completely censoring the article of any mention of the scandal clearly violates WP:NPOV, hence why I brought my concerns here and not to the BLP noticeboard. This is not a fan page for Peyton Manning, this is a description of his life's events. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because you have RSes (even good quality ones) doesn't mean every detail is appropriate. Keep in mind: We are a summary work, we don't try to be the last stop that someone researching a topic should use but should be encouraging readers to follow sources to learn more. We need enough of an overview to be comprehensive (that Manning had been involved in the UT situation and had been in a dope allegation must be present, I agree), but the level of coverage should be very high level. This works towards assuring we are not a newspaper, not engaging in giving undue weight to most recent events, and keeping in mind we are writing a neutral biography. Let the sources document the messy parts of both situations, but WP needs to keep out of the weeds on these, unless the situations on their own have received sufficient notability. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)\

• Every little detail isn't appropriate, but the content in question doesn't even come close to include "every little detail". The depositions for the first defamation is over 70 pages long, while there is a couple hundred words here on the entire scandal. This has nothing to do with WP:RECENTISM as this has been on-going for the last 20 years and this has nothing to with WP:BLP as all of the content is cited by numerous reliable sources. It is not our position to "stay out of the weeds". Omitting info on the scandals is POV pushing of the worst kind. Based on the extensive amount of coverage both scandals have received by reliable sources, I would say they are both plenty notable to warrant inclusion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree, skimming the material that was removed. There's a lot of excessive discussion of the complains in the original UT case, for example that can be distilled to one sentence (a he-said, she-said situation); we don't need their statements included in full, for example. If the case alone was notable (I have no idea if it is or not), there might be reason to expand there, but definitely not on a biography page. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is not a "he-said, she-said situation". As is outlined in the multiple reliable sources cited, the only witness to the event confirmed Dr. Naughright's story. It would be POV pushing to omit the fact that the only witness affirmed that Dr. Naughright had been sexually assaulted by Peyton Manning. The scandal is a major event in manning's life and has been on going for more than two decades, thus is most certainly notable for inclusion in the article. There is no reason to omit information on the scandals except to push an arbitrarily positive POV of the subject. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's been explained multiple times to you now why we can't make those claims. That witness changed his mind a few times in official narratives, and there was no official judgment about what happened. Please re-read my comments to you on your talk page and we can work at it that way. If it still doesn't make sense it may be time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• It isn't a "claim" to say that sexual assault allegations have been made against Peyton Manning, this is a well established fact. I am not going to argue with you over whether or manning is guilty of any crime or not. I am not going to drop the stick. It is clear that a major violation of WP:NPOV has occurred. There is no reason why all mention of manning's scandals should have been completely deleted from the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a forum. I am not going to discuss my personal opinion on Peyton Manning here. See: Wikipedia is not a forum. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your personal opinion seems to be quite clear on this issue; you've already been blocked edit warring over it and could have been blocked for edit warring again this week. I won't be engaging with you again because you refuse to read and understand what people are telling you. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• My only personal opinion in this discussion is that the Peyton Manning article should have an NPOV, which it is currently lacking. All I want is the article to have an NPOV, that's it. There is no reason why manning's scandals should not be at least mentioned in the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• This has nothing to do with anyone's personal opinions at all: Talk:Peyton_Manning#Lack of mention of HGH or sexual assault allegations is troubling. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this version, for example, I believe it is longer than necessary, and can be cut down 25% to 50% without losing the factual nature of the allegations and the current revisiting of the case by the 2016 actions, while the doping side by definitely at least 50%.--MASEM (t) 23:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Could please give specific instead of telling us to arbitrarily cut it by "25% to 50%"? Which parts do you object to? ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, not every single detail, I agree. But in that case, the Al Jazeera documentary ought to have a main page because other players are involved in the NOW investigations like Clay Matthews III and James Harrison apart of MLB players. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Let me remind you the main idea of my point. Ray Rice's domestic violence incident was acknowledged completely, first by TMZ when NOBODY OR ALMOST NOBODY cared about it, and before TMZ showed the video to the public Rice just had a suspension of 2 games while other players had 4 games for banned substances, Josh Gordon for example if my memory doesn't fail me. Do you know how screwed up things have to be when TMZ reports first?! So, there are situations when other kind of media like Al Jazeera America (yes, a true news outlet which is about to close) or the New York Daily News report first. Furthermore, the charges were dropped on Kobe Bryant's case but it doesn't mean people forgot it or had to forget it, and I'm talking about current days when all the madness about his last games is lived. Under our democracy Manning is innocent until the opposite is tested but his innocence doesn't mean the deletion of the investigations or his past incidents, and their respectively reporting. A recent example is Dr. Luke vs. Kesha case: there's a main page for it in Wikipedia created recently, and talking about the case, there wasn't found enough evidence to end Ke$ha's contract or to judge Dr. Luke for sexual harassment; Ke$ha is appealing and we know half of Hollywood reaction. But there it is, reported on Wikipedia. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I made a big review. First of all I apologize if I took side with anyone's opinion and it was libelous. Now let me report: this is a case when a part of an article POORLY WRITTEN creates dispute. There are parts which concern more about Al Jazeera's credibility than Manning's involvement in those issues (in part due to he is not the only athlete mentioned), at least for now. Currently, there is a part on Al Jazeera's page related to the documentary and the posteriors reactions to its publication; and by the way, the "Performance enhancing drugs allegations" title could be totally rewritten as "Mention in The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers documentary" whether in the 'controversies' or 'off the field section', or mention the event in his 2015 career year section (he gave an interview to ESPN talking about the issue) like it appears in Tom Brady's BLP with the Deflategate reference, as well as not write out on Manning's BLP parts which are included in AJ channels' pages. The part about media coverage of Manning's life MUST NOT be in the article as it concerns more the sources than the reports themselves, whichever relation Jim Nantz has with Manning should go at Nantz's BLP, and comparisons with Cam Newton's career coverage are JUST opinions which people can share or not. But I do believe the following facts should be included on Manning's article: the NFL, MLB and USADA investigations; why Manning hired Ari Fleischer; and the 911 call and the incident related. It's a considerable shorter recapitulation. Now let's talk about Jamie Ann Naughright. I think the incident related to her should be summarize with specific details of and related to the affidavit and not every version of the history, plus the 2000 Manning's autobiography reference and the posterior Naughright's sue for defamation (but no more than this specific fact) and the New York Daily News's publication. Now in that recapitulation wouldn't reduce the content in more than a 20% but I think would be more accurate than how it was. I HOPE I CAN HELP FOR THE CAUSE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Australia's Head of State?

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Who is Australia's Head of state?, which revolves around the issue of how to apply the WP:NPOV policy. Interested editors are most welcome to contribute. StAnselm (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This might best be read in conjunction with Australian head of state dispute, which provides reliable sources for both points of view. --Pete (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, there are major concerns about the aforementioned topic & related 'dispute' article, being expressed there. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV is not a main issue. This discussion concerns other policies, including original research, reliable sources, notability, weighting, content forking and plagiarism. Editors StAnselm and Pete go against the official position of the Australian government, it's parliament, courts and senior judiciary and all textbook legal opinion. They would prefer Australia to be presented in conjunction with an alternate theory and to conclude the country's Head of State is unknown. They appear to want to present Australia's top level of government as a debate. These two editors disagree with 14 other editors who answered clearly, as per the official position. Finally, no editor has expressed an objection to presenting this alternative point of view within Wikipedia, so NPOV is not really being disputed, just weighting. Travelmite (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please be very careful how you hurl about accusations of plagiarism. StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have been very careful. Articles should attribute sources and ideas to the author of those sources and ideas in accordance with the Wikipedia:Plagiarism policy. Travelmite (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Attribution of a quote at Daniel (biblical figure)

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Daniel (biblical figure)#Historical fiction as to whether a quote in the article needs to have attribution. It currently says "The Book of Daniel, like Ruth and Esther, is historical fiction," but previously it said "According to Michael Coogan, the Book of Daniel, like Ruth and Esther, is historical fiction." Which one is best, per WP:YESPOV? StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Clearly the labeling of anything which is regarded as "truth" by any religious group or religion as "historical fiction" is a matter of opinion and should be cited and sourced as such. Else we could have someone saying "The Quran is fictitious" or the like - and I suspect one can easily see where we would end up. On matters of religion, conservative wording is far superior to "I told them it is fiction" posturing. Collect (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Does inclusion of common English pronunciation deserve a "geographical imbalance" tag?

Editor Ttt74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has put a "geographical imbalance" tag on the Subaru article, claiming in the edit summary "concerning the American pronunciation over-weighting". This is the latest development in a dispute over the IPA pronunciation which started over a week ago, and has resulted in talk page discussion nearly 60% of the length of the article. In that discussion, Ttt74 has stated that s/he opposes the inclusion of what s/he calls "the American pronunciation". (It is not identified as "American" in the article; as the references (linked YouTube videos) show, it is common to both the US and the UK.)

There is no noticeboard for "geographical imbalance"; I picked NPOV as the closest, and also because Ttt74 has, in the talk page discussion, accused me of POV-pushing - that including an English language pronunciation violates NPOV.

WP:MOSIPA#Foreign names says "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first."

WP:NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

My stance is that even if the common English pronunciation is labeled as the "American" one, this is hardly any sort of bias or non-NPOV. MOS requires that we include the IPA for the English pronunciation, or pronunciations. And it would be very hard to argue that the common English-language pronunciation does not have significant usage.

The fact that there are other pronunciations used elsewhere in the world, or even in specific regions of the United States, does not preclude many, many articles from including an English pronunciation. Nor should it here. If Ttt74 finds references for other pronunciations that have significant usage she or he is free to add them.

So, my question: Is this "geographical imbalance" tag warranted by the article as it now stands? (Personally, I think it's ridiculous.) Jeh (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Your POV-pushing about American pronunciation is showing: in the talk page you said "we don't need an a common English pronunciation", and now you are saying the opposite "Does inclusion of common English pronunciation deserve a "geographical imbalance" tag".
Besides you failed to AGF when you said she or he instead of saying he or she.
The pronunciation you seem to be advocating on that article is a U.S marketing stuff and nothing more: it's just not well used by anyone else except of those people who are too influenced by the country you are living in. I don't think other instances of Wikipedia, like the german one [6], are wrong for not including their own pronunciation. Ttt74 (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)