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

Historical Vedic religion

Historical Vedic religion is too euro-centric in its bias. It only references Western scholars. Unfortunately much of western scholarship on Indian history is built on layers of colonial bias. To make an article on India neutral and unbiased, it must cite modern Indian scholars in equal measure if not more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demystifiersf (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

At Talk:Historical Vedic religion#POV-check: Eurocentric bias, Demystifiersf is making a false distinction between western and South Asian scholars, based on geography and ethnicity, and making an unsubstantiated and polemical accusation: "A lot of these scholars suffer from a eurocentric bias, a lot of it a hangover of the colonial times." See Template:POV:

"An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant."

That's what this article does: using high-quality sources. In the absence of any reliable source showing widespread academic doubt about the neutrality and the colonial bias of the specific authors being used here, and the absence of concrete examples of reliable south Asian sources, tagging this section with a POV-tag is misplaced and disruptive. By the way, Singh seems to be a south Asian scholar, just like B. S. Ahloowalia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Demystifiersf: please explain and substantiate concretely how David Anthony has an eurocentric bias, has a hangover from colonial times, and which south Asian authors are on a par with him. Same for Gavin Flood, Geoffrey Samuel and Alf Hiltebeitel. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The suggestion that Western scholarship such as David Anthony Gavin Flood, Geoffrey Samuel and Alf Hiltebeitel is of absolute High quality and no Indian researcher/historian in 5000 years of history measures up to his status is inherently biased. The origin section makes very little reference to Indian scholars. The information citing Singh is almost obvious and trivial, not a substantial one. The vast majority of this article and most substantial claims in the article come from Western citations. To deny the impact of colonialism is racist, since western scholarship has monopolized most academic scholarship in these topics especially studies written in European languages in Western Universities. Historical records and works of Indian historians in native Indian languages have no representation here. While this was alright in the past wikipedia provides an opportunity to undo that bias.

It is also well known that many Westerners have had a tendency to aggrandize Aryan culture and Vedic heritage since colonial times(the third Reich was a classic) and tried to deprive and distance present day Indians from their own ancient culture.That motivation still persists in the interest of several Western indologists today and many still cite works of colonial English/German language Indologists. To bring a neutral perspective on true Aryan history, especially Indo-Aryan history the perspective of Indian scholarship is essential and the countless academic institutions of India produce enough scholars fully capable of bringing that perspective, albeit not all this information may be in English.

Until that perspective is sourced and this article is fixed, this article will remain biased and should be open to discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demystifiersf (talk • contribs) 22:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please substantiate concretely, with the use of reliable sources, your allegations against western scholars, and provide reliable Indian sources if you think those are missing. See my question on Anthony, Flood, Samuel and Hiltebeitel. Also, if you think that there are relevant views missing (since that's what an unbalanced article is about), please explain which, with reference to WP:RS. And don't misquote me; I don't say there are no reliable Indian sources; I'm asking you to provide them. Otherwise, don't use Wikipedia as a forum for your personal opiniins; see WP:NOTFORUM. Note also that at the English Wikipedia we use English sources. And be carefull with accusations of racism; such accusations are not helpfull; see WP:PERSONALATTACK. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

NB: your Nazi-argument is crossing a border:

"It is also well known that many Westerners have had a tendency to aggrandize Aryan culture and Vedic heritage since colonial times(the third Reich was a classic) and tried to deprive and distance present day Indians from their own ancient culture.That motivation still persists in the interest of several Western indologists today and many still cite works of colonial English/German language Indologists."

See Godwin's law ("there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned Hitler has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress"), and refrain from such statements. Instead, start reading Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel and Language, to get an understanding of what you're comparing with Nazism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Demystifiersf, your attempt to paint all western scholars as advocates/collaborators/whatever of the Third Reich is itself a racist remark. There is nothing in any Wikipedia policies that makes distinctions based on nationalities of scholars. All that matters is whether they are reliable as per WP:RS. Please strike that remark, and get down to the hard business of demonstrating the supposed "euro-centric bias" that you claim. Without that, you have no leg to stand on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Kautilya3 here. The language or origins of the sources we use is generally, at best, of dubious relevance to our content, with the exception that sources written in English, being written in English, are easier for most of us to read and verify. In a case like this, where there is an indication that some perceive some form of Western bias, the best thing to do would be to find some non-Western reference sources of some sort which present the information differently. And I do think that there are at least a few fairly good reference sources on India and early Indian religion.
• If, however, what might be being argued here is that Western sources might not give the same degree of credibility to some sometimes dubious claims still held by Eastern sources or individuals, unfortunately, too bad. Mormon studies as a topic generally reflects the views of Mormons when they disagree with the less "believing" Western scientific community too. In cases where belief and academia or science disagree pronouncedly, we go with the scientific, historical, or independent academic view, not the believers' view.
• And I say that as a Western Christian who has some serious doubts about the scientific views of creation and human evolution. Unfortunately, very few in the academic community share those reservations. In cases like that, we just have to learn to live with it. Science isn't expected to be able to prove and/or disprove all matters of nonscientific belief anyway. John Carter (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

British Empire NPOV tagging

There is currently an NPOV dispute regarding the British Empire article. This same dispute has surfaced several times in the past, such as the article FA review back in 2010 and this talk page discussion back in 2014. The dispute is over whether the article covers the legacy of the British Empire properly, and whether it should cover some other aspects of the British Empire besides a narrative of its history.

Three users (including myself) from one side of this dispute have been adding an NPOV tag to the top of the British Empire article. Three users from the other side have been removing it, claiming there is no NPOV dispute and we need to make a case before we can place an NPOV tag. Take a look at Talk:British Empire. We have done that. We have had a 9000 word discussion about neutrality on the talk page. 6 of the 11 sections currently on the talk page were created by the three of us to discuss the NPOV issues.

Yet the other side simply says there is no NPOV dispute and we are not entitled to tag the page. Here are the dispute participants:

NPOV tag adders

• User:Quality posts here
• User:Alfie Gandon
• User:Bertdrunk

Removers

• User:Snowded
• User:Wiki-Ed
• User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick

Other involved parties (did not edit NPOV tag)

• User:Wee Curry Monster

Can I get some affirmation that there is an ongoing NPOV dispute and we are allowed to tag articles we think have NPOV problems with NPOV tags?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Quality Posts Here has neglected to explain the nature of the dispute fully: the aspects he wants to expand upon are specific themes (genocide, racism, exploitation etc) which are notoriously controversial. The (featured) article is a Level 3 overview, adopting a narrative approach - describing what happened and avoiding modern value judgements. Arguably there is a case for adding a few sentences to describe lasting effects on native populations, but this would have to be done with due care. For an example of the kind of 'neutral' content User:Quality Posts Here would like to add the reader may wish to check his user page. This kind of unbalanced synthesis is not - in my view - suitable for Wikipedia.

To resolve this we have suggested User QPH focus on drafting verifiable, neutral sentences (rather than lengthy paragraphs) and to test these on the talk page. Rather than do this he and others have focused on trying to add a NPOV tag. The article was locked for a week to prevent the disruption it caused. Now that lock has expired and he is returning to the charge.

I should add that while only three editors may have reverted the NPOV tag there have been at least five others supporting those actions.Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I got down to the section 'Genocide of indigenous peoples' and realised I had no wish to read any more. I am pretty sure from reading that userpage that I dont think they should be editing an article on the British Empire. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A quick read of Quality Posts draft on his user page indicates the problem - synthesis and OR to make a point. No case made on the talk page, its fly by tagging. S/he should make a case for specific changes on the talk page and not threaten to make mass changes when s/he knows they are likely to be reverted ----Snowded ^TALK 06:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I have made the case for specific changes. What do you mean by 'fly-by tagging'? Alfie Gandon (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove the NPOV tag but support removing it 100%. For an article to be a Featured Article, it goes through extensive peer review, were there any NPOV problems it would never have achieved that. The tagging is not being used to draw attention to an issue, its been used because editors are not prepared to use WP:DR and are gaming the system to force the changes they want into the article - including threats to force a FA review to remove the FA status. All of the changes I've seen so far are detrimental to article quality. The material they're seeking to impose on the article is not neutral e.g. [1] The violent expansionism and racial beliefs of the British Empire had a severely negative impact on the indigenous population. There are multiple examples of WP:OR and WP:SYN in what is proposed new section, WP:OPINION is presented as WP:FACT throughout the new section, e.g. one authors opinion that the British are racist. And the editors are fond of expressing opinions such as "There is no academic debate about whether the British Empire was racist. " This posting here is yet another example of forum shopping in a campaign that I fear is destined to end up at WP:ARBCOM but not until a great deal of editing time is wasted unproductively. As Only in death observed quite adroitly from reading that userpage one quite quickly concludes they shouldn't be editing British Empire and in fact I'm not sure they should be editing full stop. WCM_email 16:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We are currently engaged in dispute resolution. The NPOV tag should show readers that. Three editors believe there is an NPOV problem. Just because a greater number disagree doesn't mean the dispute doesn't exist. If the dispute exists, there ought to be a tag. It's strange to want the NPOV tag removed from the British Empire article, while you added one yourself to the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples article that I have been gracious enough not to remove. I don't deny you dispute the neutrality of that article. Yet you are saying to the three of us on the British Empire page, "you are not disputing the neutrality of the article" despite our insistence that we are. How do you justify that?--Quality posts here (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You're not engaged in dispute resolution as far as I can see. You have yet to explore discussion on the talk page to the point where that would be appropriate. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party. How are we not discussing it with the other party? WCM put an NPOV tag on the genocide of indigenous peoples article with just a 1400 word discussion. Our discussion on NPOV in the British Empire article has now exceeded 10,000 words, yet you say we are wrong to place an NPOV tag? When will it be right? When we have written 50,000 words? 100,000? I don't see how you can look at the British Empire talk page and say there is no neutrality dispute occurring. The fact that three separate editors have tried to tag the page with the NPOV dispute tag is further evidence of that.--Quality posts here (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

An un-involved observation. Its seems to me, that if there's a dispute of the usage of a dispute tag on an article, then that in itself is a sign of a dispute over an article's content. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I like this logic, if I put a random POV tag in an article does it suddenly become an article whose POV is in dispute?Slatersteven (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

By definition, yes. When you place the tag, you dispute the neutrality and overall perspective of an article. Currently Category:NPOV disputes includes 6,864 articles with such disputes. Dimadick (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a trolls charter (hell a POV pushers one as well). Want to disrupt a page you do not like, NPOV it. Hell I have seen this happen multiple times over at the BNP page whenever some right winger decides he wants to play politics on Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A person placing a tag is supposed to set up a discussion thread which can navigated to by clicking on the link the tag. It is supposed to explain what they consider to be the problem. If they don't do that, it is appropriate to remove the tag. But unless there is agreement that the article is biased, then there is no reason to keep the tag, even if the editor continues to argue there is. I note the tag was linked to Talk:British Empire#Not of featured article quality. That is no reason for the POV tag. TFD (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Third Way article

This is about the article Third Way, which I consider POV. On the talk page there were many attempts at generating discussion, all ignored. This is the latest. For example a years-old proposal of a secondary source has lead to no talk at all. My opinion is that there are other views: rightist or green, that are also to be included in the article. The best source could be Steve Bastow & James Martin: Third Way Discourse. Honestly, "Third way" seems to be at least partially a political marketing brand, however, there could be a useful collection of the different ideologies that can be described with it, or the adherents of which described themselves with it. Currently the article seems to serve as an advertisement of only one of these ideologies. 193.224.72.252 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and articles should be about discreet topics. That's the problem with the article. TFD (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of accolades received by Carol (film)#Accolades on this page

To keep track of all nominations and wins -- (because although the total sums can be included in the infobox, only organizations and associations with Wikipedia pages can be included in the table of accolades) -- a record of same was kept in the Talk page. This record supported the total sums. User:Tenebrae deleted this content, called it "violative" and a "serious breach of Wikipedia policy" (Revision as of 15:21, 11 December 2016).

He claimed in the Talk page (topic: Accolades on this page) that it was "disallowed content". Although he was asked to provide the exact section of the WP policy where such content is specifically disallowed in a Talk page, he has not.

I am requesting input from neutral parties regarding the deletion of this Talk page content and whether Wikipedia does or does not conclusively disallow it. And if there is no clearly defined and fixed Wikipedia policy, then the deleted content should be restored. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do come to that discussion. I'm tired of Pyxis Solitary's name-calling and inability to abide by WP:FILM guidelines in order to turn the page into a fan page.. I would also ask editors to look at the section below "Accolades on this page", titled Talk:List of accolades received by Carol (film)#Gushy tone and other vios. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A discussion in WT:FILM regarding edits made by User:Tenebrae is also underway in Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Rolfing

Can we get some unbiased contributors? It seems is not neutral like Acupuncture. The page is controlled by anti-Rolfing contributors. Example "In general serious people do not bother discussing nonsenses like Rolfing because they have better things to do." Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC) --Mikehenke (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Note this has been to WP:FT/N several times, had an RfC, and recently been the subject of a failed DRN attempt. The page has recently been given extended-confirmed protection following an influx of WP:SPAs perhaps due to off-site recruiting. Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I personally cant take this topic seriously because the name conjures up the image of the piano-playing muppet in a doctor's coat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Featured list discussion on Knights' Cross winners

Part of the discussion includes matters pertaining to WP:NPOV. Additional input from participants of this noticeboard would be welcome:

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)/archive1

For specific concerns, pls see:

• FLC: Comments by K.e.coffman.

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sunni Tehreek‎

The article has been whitewashed by TheRexIsRising. It now holds that Pakistani blasphemy laws are "sacred" (I kid you not). Can I get some eyes on that article, please? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Libertarian Republican

More eyeballs are needed at Libertarian Republican; a user has repeatedly inserted and reinserted contentious original research claims into this article without a citation to any reliable source. (The user is also inserting citations to the Libertarian Party platform and to a libertarian advocacy website, but even these (unacceptable) sources don't support the claims made — in fact, they don't mention Republicans or the Republican Party once). Neutrality^talk 23:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Authoritative source

Not sure if this is the right place.

There is a wording dispute here [2] over terminology. One of the arguments is the concept of using only what "the main sources we use" say [3]. This has been followed by the idea that the sources we are using the the article say X, so we should say X (apparently irrespective of what other sources say) [4].

So my question is, if RS say X and Y which do we go with? IS it valid to argue that because our chosen "authoritative source" says X then (no matter what other sources say) it is we go with that?

(note this is not an RS issue, or even an issue of just this page, rather it is about the general concept).Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wording issue: Invasion vs Conquest

In Talk:Japanese_invasion_of_Taiwan_(1895)#Rename_the_article_title, there was a discussion about a wording issue. My opinion is that "invasion" implies that the territorial sovereignty did not belong to Japan and has POV issue. Therefore I proposed redirecting the article to "Japanese conquest of Taiwan", but three other editors did not agree with the redirection. I haven't heard that they explain how not POV "invasion" is, though. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wording issue: Republic vs Polity

In Talk:Republic_of_Formosa#Description_-_republic_or_government_or_others, there was a discussion about a wording issue. My opinion is that word "republic", which is being used in the article for referring to the Republic of Formosa, implies statehood and has POV issue, and thus can mislead readers into believing the Republic of Formosa was really a state. I proposed changing the word to "polity", but an editor did not agree with that. Your opinions are appreciated. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump Russia dossier

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.

---

Claims of POV editing have been asserted by several editors for the article Talk:Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier#NPOV. The article is somewhat troublesome because the subject of the article, namely Donald Trump, has a verified track record of making sensationalist commentary on twitter and other public media which at times fails fact checking. This results in editors of the various articles on Mr. Trump having to sift through his statements and RS to determine the veracity and content of the statements, frustrating good faith editors. Unfortunately, due to Trump being a "moving target" and the frustration of the editors involved, many folks have a negative experience attempting to write about Mr. Trump. As a result the article in question has evolved into something very unflattering to Mr. Trump, with editors who just do not trust Mr. Trumps public commentary. The article also has repeatedly been quoting unverified, salacious materials which have been removed several times by neutral editors. Please assign a neutral editor to join into the conversation on the articles talk page, and assist us in closing the POV issues with this article. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What to do with the dossier is already being discussed here. I strongly suggest we keep the discussion in one place. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that since this discussion relates to POV issues with the article, not the dossier itself, which has been repeatedly removed from the article. This discussion is in response to an editor tagging the article as POV. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

After thinking about it somewhat, I think I agree that most of the articles issues can be resolved by moving the discussion to the other page since all of it is related in various ways. Apologies. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

But this is still an open issue due to the tag being placed in the article. After the main discussion closes on the BLP Noticeboard, someone needs to close out this notice and resolve the POV issue and close the discussion at Talk:Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier#NPOV. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2017 (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.

Dealing with false statements from Trump and his surrogates

Food for thought, with implications for how our policies apply to Trump (and others):

"We believe there is an objective truth, and we will hold you to that.

"When you or your surrogates say or tweet something that is demonstrably wrong, we will say so, repeatedly. Facts are what we do, and we have no obligation to repeat false assertions; the fact that you or someone on your team said them is newsworthy, but so is the fact that they don’t stand up to scrutiny. Both aspects should receive equal weight." - An open letter to Trump from the US press corps, CJR

BullRangifer (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV must be kept in mind dealing with anything along these lines. If one side said something contentious as a "fact" but without explaining the source of that "fact", we can include it as a attributed claim ("X said that..."). Similarly for non-validated counterpoints. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

POV use of the word 'miracle'?

At Talk:Splitting of the moon#First sentence of the article the sentence "The splitting of the moon (Arabic: انشقاق القمر‎‎) was a miracle attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad" has been questioned with the suggestion that "alleged" be added. We do seem to use the word without any qualification, such as at Jesus walking on water although Miracles of Joseph Smith reads " the movement is characterized by a belief that the miracles," and doesn't even mention miracle in the first sentence, despite the title. And "The Miracle of Calanda is an event that allegedly took place in Calanda". But Miracle of the cruse of oil seems to assume that a miracle took place and tries to explain it (hm, any article with a sentence ending in ! needs work). Doug Weller talk 15:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not that I have given this a whole lot of thought, but perhaps the applicable phrase would be "according to" ... which suggests neither that the alleged event actually occurred, nor that the occurrence of the alleged event is being directly challenged. These do tend to be matters of "belief", so it's really a question of whether or not the reader chooses to believe the source. Fabrickator (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, some kind of modifier needs to be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

'Miracle' is a religious designation. It either is a miracle according to the religion concerned or it isnt. That non-believers dont believe in miracles is irrelevant - putting a qualifier in essentially implies that there are actual miracles that could be verified. As an athiest, of course, there are no miracles whatsoever, but the group of events religious people term 'miracle' is up to them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. The article’s about tag says that it is about an Islamic theological issue. Within that context, I should think the word miracle is acceptable. If the article was a scientific article about the moon, that might be different. Objective3000 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreeing with this above. The article is out of the gate establishing itself as a theological issue, and thus "miracle" is appropriate in context. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think as long as it is apparent to a reasonable reader that the article is not endorsing the view that an actual miracle occurred, that it is fine. I dislike excessive qualifications in articles. TFD (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

More participation needed in RfC at Talk:Earthquake prediction

This RfC has been open for two weeks, and so far we have only a few votes. The controversy is about the appropriate weight under WP:NPOV and WP:DUE regarding several fringe earthquake prediction theories, technologies & researchers. Participants need to be willing to at least take a quick look at the sources, and determine whether there is sufficient reliable source documentation to to support including the material.

Basically, there are three editors (myself, J. Johnson (JJ), and an anonymous Athenian IP editor) who have been debating these topics for the last six months, and creating quite a wall of text. JJ argues that the IP editor should be disqualified from participating in the RfC on the basis that he is an SPA and advocate. But then, JJ has been criticized for ownership behavior from time to time, and JJ has complained that I'm too pro-fringe, so maybe all three of us should be disqualified.

JJ has complained that the RfC is poorly framed. There are six questions, and there seems to be a consensus that two of them (posed as discussion questions) need to be thrown out. Be that as it may, I'm hoping that perhaps this RfC can settle the longstanding debate about appropriate content for this important page.

Please help!! JerryRussell (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The RfC is about including certain fringe material, including "balancing" material to rebut the mainstream view of why a particular theory or method is not accepted. Appropriate weight and NPOV are the primary bases from which such inclusions are urged, but not the only bases; it is also argued that fringe views should be given space proportionate to other fringe views. (And particularly, that over-representation of one view can be mitigated by increasing the space given to other fringe views.)

In addition to the arguments as to how Wikipedia policy should be interpreted, there is argument about "the facts of the case" regarding the actual significance or notability of several views, methods and theories by the scientific mainstream (distinct from the popular media). In this we were fortunate to have the counsel an expert to advise us of scientific opinion and resolve some of our questions. (See Talk:Earthquake_prediction#Archive_8/Ask a seismologist). However, Jerry does not accept those views, and I don't know how that is to be resolved.

The nature of the issues requires informed comment, but unfortunately the RfC provides no background, nor a neutral statement of the issues, and the "Questions" are poorly formulated. But the greatest defect of the RfC is that is not truly a request for comments (there are plenty of those already), it is a request for affirmation of views without explanations, for the purpose of collecting enough straw votes to insert questioned material.

I don't know if anyone is up to reviewing all of the background (starting from Archive 6), but anyone that might interested could start by asking any questions they have. (Not here, at the RfC.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Wind turbine syndrome

• Wind turbine syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent edits (example) use source http://www.shorelinebeacon.com/2013/08/26/citizens-call-for-caw-turbine-shutdown for definitive statements on the issue. Some patient explanations are needed. Perhaps the article was too firmly pushing the "psychosomatic disorder" line before the recent edits (I do not know), but its current text is obviously inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Background- who is what according to source and relevant custom and law

I am claiming that sourced content, backed by proven custom should not be removed without any countering source or facts proving otherwise? Let's take a hypothetical example: According to the Jus soli legal principle, applied in Argentine nationality law, any person born in Argentine acquires Argentine citizenship at birth, even though the parents have none whatsoever connection to Argentine. So could I then add the category Category:Argentine people to John Doe's Wikipedia article, if I have a source and the legal principle that state that John Doe is born in Argentine and has thus has gained Argentine citizenship? So what would the difference if I added the category Category:British Jews to the real and relevant Milo Yiannopoulos Wikipedia article, if: According to the general principle in Judaism and Jewish law, a person is automatically considered Jewish if their mother/grandmother is Jewish, which is the original and current definition of being Jewish. Furthermore from the Jewish perspective it does not matter if Mr. Yiannopoulos' has been born into another religion or embraced another religion, as long as his blood affinity is matrilineal, ( Matrilineality in Judaism). Ethnicity and religion are intertwined in Judaism and cannot be directly compared to other monotheistic religions ex. Christianity, which emphasises primarily faith and conversion. Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding Category: Yiannopoulos is Jewish - adequate sources verify this and should not be removed until proven otherwise Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)