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

Fringe source in WWII bio article

I would appreciate third party input on the matter. A disagreement arose about a citation currently present in the Ernst Lindemann article; here's the diff.

The publication in question (Range, Clemens (1974). Die Ritterkreuzträger der Kriegsmarine (in German). Stuttgart, Germany: Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 3-87943-355-0.) has been described as neo-Nazi in this discussion: User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2016#Neo-Nazi publications.

The citations supports the subject's numerical position among all the other recipients, namely that he was 94th:

"Lindemann was the 94th recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in the Kriegsmarine.Range 1974, p. 116."

I consider the material to be trivial, while the source being used is highly questionable and unsuitable for a Featured Article, which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work. However, I'm unable to convince the other editor. The related discussion can be found here:

• Talk:Ernst Lindemann#Neo-Nazi publication.

I have notified the other editor here: diff.K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This individual has tried to label all books published by this house as Neo-Nazi, without offering a shred of evidence the authors are engaged in this kind thing. This latest round is symptomatic of his behaviour. His attacks on the German-related articles, specifically related to World War II, looks like a crusade. I am pleased that a score of other editors have helped rebuff his attempts to project his own views on to these articles. The fact that he will dispute such a small (but not trivial) detail is typical of his unhelpful and destructive "contributions". Dapi89 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's not turn this discussion into personal attacks, shall we? (To report editor behaviour issues, pls see: WP:ANI).

As it happens, some articles on German WWII personnel contain indiscriminate amounts of information; ps see this recent discussion: Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel#Intricate details, where sections of the article are described by another editor as meticulous investigations of insignificant details.

In the case of the Lindemann article, such intricate detail is cited to a highly problematic source. I consider this information to be superfluous (along with editor Ian Rose who has commented on Talk), and I'm seeking third party input on the matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I see a couple of questions here, one is sourcing, and one is inclusion. A quick glance seems to indicate that the source is a published book, presumably not a self-published book, and probably meets wp:rs criteria. More to the point is whether the statement of receipt the award is wp:sourcable. It looks like a pretty straightforward statement and I don't see it's veracity being contested.

The next question is whether to include it in the article. One might interpret some guidance on this from WP: NPOV but I'm thinking not. So then it comes down to editorial discretion. In that area it is a matter of opinion, and mine is that a sentence on receipt of an award like that is appropriate for an article on that person. North8000 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification -- the matter of the award presentation is cited to other sources. Range is used to cite that the subject was 94th such recipient in this branch of service. This is is not remarkable as he was neither the 1st nor 4th, for example. I clarified above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This is another strand of a larger problem with Coffmann: a very narrow view of what is and isn't notable. Would he care to venture a guess, as to how many captains were awarded the KC for the command of a capital ship in battle? Dapi89 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

How does this relate to the current discussion on the need for the article to include that the subject was 94th recipient? Please help me understand. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Range, born 1955, is a former Bundeswehr officer turned journalist and well known for his far right political stand. His recent publications have been thrashed by historians for inaccuracy, bias and distortions of historical facts. Rainer Blasius alikened Range's "biographical dictionary" of former Wehrmacht officers in the Bundeswehr to the romancing attitude of Der Landser. [1] I do not think that his very early work was much better.--Assayer (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

"Part of a larger crusade"

I consider the information on the Rudel article that user K.e.coffman has considered "trivial" to be actually at least as important, if not more so, than the subject's WWII service. So if a recipient of an award was 94th, so what? If he was 10007, so what. As for including whether someone was the 94th or the 93rd, can you tell me why this is NOT relevant? We note that a person graduated 286 in a class of 500, is that any less relevant? This is part of a larger "crusade", I suspect, to discredit a series of articles about military personnel in WWII in Germany. The service of Germans in their country's war is a fact. The award of medals is a fact. This are not alternative facts, regardless of who publishes the information. The "romancing" of WWII German military personnel may itself be questionable, but this does not change the facts about their service. auntieruth (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Since we are back to the topic of who may or may not be campaigning, I would appreciate if editor Auntieruth55 would clarify the exchange below, as it could be perceived as a coordinated action in support of promoting a MilHist article to Featured status:

• "We need to deal with this. Coffman is disrupting what I thought was a resolved issue, this time at the Featured level. will you email me please?".

We who? What was the outcome of this discussion? And did it have any impact on the voting at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)/archive1. Answers to these questions would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've notified the editor here: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The outcome was that one person got some sleep and played cricket with his kids, and I graded some papers. No one has clarified for me what the outcome of the previous discussion was. I'm still wondering about that and why you are so anxious to discredit these previously approved articles! auntieruth (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• I am interested in evidence as to the status of the publishing house and the author; I have not found any though this is sometimes difficult to track down with German publishing houses. I am troubled by a few things--User:Dapi89's accusation of a "crusade", a charge repeated by User:Auntieruth55, whose scare quotes do nothing to alleviate the lack of good faith. And I don't understand a few of the comments in this last section--"So if a recipient of an award was 94th, so what?" doesn't make a lot of sense after it was stated that the information is "at least as important" as the person's service. And that someone graduated 286 in a class of 500, I have never seen that noted in an article, though I grant that I don't MilHist much. Anyway, I've seen K.e.coffman's work, and I have never had a reason to doubt their good intentions; I would appreciate it if you all could drop the "crusade" language, since it only discredits the person using the term. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The 'so what' I believe is in reference to it being an uncontentious piece of information. The fact he is recipient of the award is not in doubt, Coffman however is saying the sourcing provided is not reliable to state the fact that he was the '94' recipient. Ultimately unless you are the first or last recipient of almost all awards, you are just a link in the chain of winners, so it really is not important if they were 94th, 95th, 105th etc. If the fact of the award is not disputed, I have not seen any evidence above the source is not reliable to say they were the 94th. If they are a right-wing publisher, then you can expect them to have done some research on right-wing figures. Its not beyond the realms of feasibility they might puff up subjects *where there is a benefit in doing so*. I cant see any reason it would be biased or romanticising to say "Subject X was the 94th recipient of award Y" over "Subject X was the recipient of award Y". Where is the motivation? If people are going to argue a source's political stance influences their reliability, you need to actually make a credible argument there is a *reason* for them to publish unreliable material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't dispute your statement, User:Only in death--and at any rate, the rank is not the most important matter. You are right in that a right-wing outfit can be trusted to do their homework, but that same outfit can also be trusted, probably, to skew the facts whenever appropriate, as I have found in many Nazi and neo-Nazi accounts of German history. The basic statement "person X got a medal", sure, I suppose. But I'm really more interested in the evidence for the supposed POV than the medal. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Drmies should be aware there a quite a number of editors that feel that way. Dapi89 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to tell her that, Dapi; no doubt Drmies will tell you that COIN is not the place to address this topic. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it up? Dapi89 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't, Dapi89, you did. I'm only saying that those matters are not for here. Now kindly drop the attempt to blackball your opponent. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: The source (Range) is described above by editor Asssayer: Range, born 1955, is a former Bundeswehr officer turned journalist and well known for his far right political stand. His recent publications have been thrashed by historians for inaccuracy, bias and distortions of historical facts. Rainer Blasius alikened Range's "biographical dictionary" of former Wehrmacht officers in the Bundeswehr to the romancing attitude of Der Landser. [2] I do not think that his very early work was much better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• K.e.coffman, I read that article yesterday or the day before (I think it's linked from the German article on Range?), and it's not enough for me to make such a condemnation that the material would be unreliable, though it's clear that the tone of his writing is indeed ... fishy. A source to use with care, a source whose judgment calls should not be repeated in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Drmies....nah, I didn't. Dapi89 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand: That book by Range, published when he was only 19 years of age, is bad. It's biased to the extreme (Range uses peacock words to describe Lindemann in nearly every sentence: vorbildlich, besonnen, erfolgreich = exemplary, considerate, successful) and it does not contain much information anyway. I cannot imagine that a historian would refer to that work while writing about Lindemann. The same information, that he was the 94th recipient, could easily be referenced with Manfred Dörr (1996), Ritterkreuzträger der Überwasserstreitkräfte, vol. 2, already being used in the article. So, as was pointed out very early on, one question is sourcing, the other inclusion. The first could be resolved quickly, although I am not sure, if there isn't an interest to keep Range as a source anyway. The second touches upon WP:DUE. These kind of articles, i.e. articles dealing with Knight's Cross recipients, are stuffed with small details. Those details lend authenticity to a narrative which actually distracts from the violence of war. The article features a whole chapter on the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, but skips over the fact that Lütjens and Lindemann, following Erich Raeder's order, were responsible for the hopeless final fight and thus for the death of most of their crew. (Holger Afflerbach: "Mit wehender Fahne untergehen". In: VfZ 49 (2001), p. 609.) Sure, that's the usual German military glory stuff of Wikipedia. But if "romancing" is to be critically discussed at some point, it has to include a discussion of how "facts" are selected and how they are presented. Such insight is completely missing with many of the MilHistProject.--Assayer (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

My original statement in the thread was: the material [is] trivial, while the source being used is highly questionable and unsuitable for a Featured Article, which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work.

The larger question is, should Wikipedia promote articles that contain a highly selective set of facts and are largely sourced to, let's say, specialised literature (militaria / phaleristics / WP:QS and / or fringe sources, up to & including neo-Nazi publications)? For a related discussion, please see: Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel#Intricate_details & Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel#Sources (with the same editors, actually). Or, for a more humorous take, see:

• User:K.e.coffman#"His nose is long and straight"
• User:K.e.coffman#Outstanding Achievements in Euphemismia

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again, scrapping at the bottom of the barrel. Words like "exemplary, considerate, successful" does not make the source biased. They are observations.

And what does Coffmann mean by "selective set of facts"? Are there any "alternative facts"? What does this 'Trumpist' speak mean? Are there conflicting sources?

::::I think it is obvious to any passing observer that these two individuals are intent on causing fights over the most trivial matters. K.e.Coffman seems to think that "anti-shipping" (maritime interdiction), "air raids", "sorties" and "missions" are also Nazi euphemisms. Now that is funny. Dapi89 (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading this thread was a headache. Everyone, please keep to the point. '94th' is only published in one book, that book is not a reliable source, and so '94' should not be included. There is no reason to discuss triviality or notability of the fact, or predisposition of editors. There is nothing in WP:RS that discusses pulling facts that are probably true from unreliable sources just because the unreliable source is unlikely to fabricate that particular point. WP:RS is clear, the source must be reliable for the fact to be verifiable. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Does this source have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? If not, strike the 94, and move on. 2604:6000:7B0E:8C00:B91F:4407:3AF6:3B15 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Tranny

How should we define the word Tranny (slang) in the article?

• The Cambridge Dictionary says the word is sometimes offensive,
• Merriam-Webster calls it sometimes disparaging,
• the Oxford Dictionary describes it as offensive, informal
• Macmillan Dictionary describes it as informal
• Longman Dictionary also calls it informal
• Dictionary.com says it is a a contemptuous term
• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language considers the word as offensive slang

At the moment of writing, the term is described as a derogatory and offensive slang term in the Wikipedia-article, and uses the last two dictionary-definitions as a source. However, given the descriptions in the other five dictionaries, I believe this doesn’t give the complete consensus among the term. Thus, I wonder: can any expert in the POV-field shine a light on this? See also the Laci Green-article and the discussion over there, where I came aware of the Tranny (slang)-article. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I count two that do not say at all that it can be an insult.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone read the history section of the article? And why are we only paying attention to dictionaries and not the other sources given? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

RE: Laci Green: Green agreed with those who criticized her for using the word in 2012, and apologized for it. There was no dispute between Green and her critics over whether or not tranny is offensive. It was more to do with how women on YouTube can't cross anybody without being targeted with death threats, another issue entirely. This Wikipedia dispute is an effort to describe a controversy in a bio of Party A, on a point which Party B agrees with Party A. Apropos of nothing, a Wikipedia editor wants to insert the opinions of Party C, who wasn't involved with either A or B, to say that C thinks A and B are both wrong. We don't write BLPs in a way that sets them up for ambush and sniping by phantom critics: people who never criticized the the subject of the article, who may have never heard of the subject of the article, but whom Wikipedia editors have unearthed and brought into it for reasons of their own. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the definition at the top of the article is redundant. I think the words "derogatory and offensive" in the first line can be removed without softening the article or compromising clarity. Bradv 18:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleting the words is equivalent to Wikipedia taking one side over another in a disagreement over what mainstream standards are. It's a mistake to act as if that would be taking a neutral position. The article describes two points of view: one that the word is acceptable, or neutral in tone, and the other that says it is offensive, meaning not neutral but rather expressing contempt and disparagement for trans people. One side consists almost entirely of drag queens age 40+ who are on television, and the other side consists of several dictionaries, the NYT style guide, GLAAD, and the Facebook community standards. Wikipedia's policy is to accept as fact the consensus of mainstream, modern authorities on question like whether the world is flat or round, or climate change is real or a fake conspiracy made up by Al Gore. It's obvious from the history described in the article that the status of this word has changed over time, and certain dictionaries haven't been updated recently, and some individuals don't wish to change with the times. Which is understandable, but that's not how Wikipedia works. If anything, we devote too much space to the minority view that tranny is not offensive, but at least it is clear to the reader why precisely the meaning of the word has changed, and exactly when that happened. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Without the words "derogatory and offensive", the lede would read:

Tranny (or trannie) is a slang term for a transgender, transfeminine, transsexual, transvestite, or cross-dressing person. During the early 2010s, there was confusion and debate over whether the term was a pejorative, or was still considered acceptable, or even a reappropriated term of unity and pride. By 2017, the word was banned by several major media stylebooks and considered hate speech by Facebook.

You would read that as picking one side over another? I think that meets the very definition of neutral point of view. Bradv 20:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Removing those words would violate the third point at WP:WikiVoice, "Avoid stating facts as opinions." It would violate WP:UNDUE by treating a minority point of view as the consensus, creating a false equivalence between the overwhelming weight of highly respected, mainstream authorities that represent a broad community standard, and a relatively miniscule and atypical group. They can't even be called a representative cross section of all trans people; they are only celebrity drag queens above a certain age (who deserve respect, sure).--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I pointed out with the dictionaries that there is no "overwhelming weight of highly respected, mainstream authorities" to state as a fact that the word tranny is offensive. Unless you think that the majority of dictionaries is made by drag queens age 40+ who are on television, your point is invalid. WP:V states that: "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." The dictionaries I mentioned above are reliable sources. They disagree on the topic. Therefore, we should give each side its due weight. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• The word is derogatory and offensive. If we have a Wikipedia article about it, then our article needs to say as much. If we fail to note the term's derogatory connotation, then we're being non-neutral; we're editorially suppressing an important aspect of the subject. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And concerning Laci Green: I already said there WP:NPOV tells us that a neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone. Thus, calling the disputed term "pejorative" and "offensive" is not impartial and should be removed. Moreover, as WP:PUBLICFIGURE says: BLPs should simply document what these sources say. In the Daily Dot-articles, which are the sources for this affair, the terms "pejorative" and "offensive" cannot be found. Thus, the only choice we have is to avoid use of those words and stick to the facts. And since WP:BLPSOURCE dictates that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion (emphasis not mine) we should remove the terms asap.Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's not contentious. There is solid agreement among English speakers today that the word is offensive. A non-fringe minority disagrees, and I think Kate Bornstein's reasoning is sound and she makes a compelling argument. But that argument didn't take. It's a fabrication to imply that the meaning of 'tranny' is controversial with regards to Green. Both Green and her critics in this instance agree that she should not have used the word. Why don't we just change the bio to say that she was criticized by trans activists who said the word is offensive, and Green agreed that it is offensive, and apologized. The Laci Green bio isn't about the topic of Tranny (slang), so we don't need to obsess over it. The only reason this incident is mentioned is the harassment and death threats she received from unidentified trolls. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't "want to obsess over it;" I want a good article. Please, tell me why WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV can be dismissed in the Green-article because someone on typepad.com says something? Let me quote WP:PUBLICFIGURE:

Public figures

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

* Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."

This is exactly what is the case here. And, as no reliable source in the article that links to the incident says it was meant to be pejorative or offensive, those words should stay out. I fail to grasp why it so important to keep on insisting she made an "offensive comment", while she states that she, at the time she used it, "had not the slightest inkling of how the word is used to dehumanize nor its place in the cycle of violence against transfolk." Maybe we should just insert her apology, as well as the "“Hi Laci. Why do you use the word ‘tranny’ in your video about Haters from 2009? … You really shouldn’t be using that word as a cis girl and it’s really disappointing for the people who look up to you.”-comment that started the fuzz. That would at least give a better view of the situation.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

"Please, tell me why WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV can be dismissed". This is a loaded question that contains unjustified assumptions. One of us is misreading these policies. You're equating Green's reputation with the reputation of the word tranny. That is absurd. It is a fact that tranny is offensive, and we are indeed sticking to facts. Nothing about this incident is even defamatory to Green because she handled it appropriately. Public figures apologize all the time for not getting the memo on changing social mores, and it's not a big deal. It's the people who harassed and threatened her who made this inot a big deal and that is not a reflection on Green.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I do believe it IS a reflection on Green. Now, the article says that Laci Green uses pejorative terms and makes offensive comments towards transsexuals, making her look like a transphobic, which violates the rules I've mentioned above, and is not a fact. Thus, I believe it is you who misreads the guidelines. I really hope some NPOV-expert will take a look at this. Then I will continue editing articles on 18th-century British clergymen, which do have less issues like this one.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• MastCell has it right. The term is derogatory and offensive. That is what our sources say. A number of editors seem to be deciding they can attribute viewpoints to sources because of what they don't say. This is original research. Sources may not mention this aspect of the term because it is either too obvious to mention or not an aspect they choose to cover. Alexbrn (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn, thanks for your input. However, your reasoning A number of editors seem to be deciding they can attribute viewpoints to sources because of what they don't say. This is original research is not a valid one.

After all, the first two dictionaries I quoted DO say it. The Cambridge Dictionary says the word is sometimes offensive, while Merriam-Webster calls it sometimes disparaging. Thus, your appeal on original research falls flat, and the wikipedia-article stating that the term “Tranny” is derogatory and offensive by definition is POV-pushing. After all, I do not know of any dictionary that says that the world is sometimes round. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment It seems like we should follow the structure of other entries for pejorative terms: say it is pejorative/offensive/derogatory or (generally considered pejorative, if that's acceptable), and then discuss the nuances of the issue further if necessary in later sentences. To the extent that there is a debate about this, it appears to involve whether its acceptable for use by people within the LGBTQ community, which isn't the same as debating whether it is generally offensive for everyday speech. That's a debate that exists for lots of pejorative terms (ex), but it doesn't stop us from calling those words pejorative in Wikipedia entries. The whole notion of reappropriating a term implies that the term is already considered offensive and derogatory.Nblund ^talk 00:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment Just from looking at the lead, it seems like the "derogatory and offensive" bit in the first line might be unnecessary, since the next two sentences make it very clear that this is a controversial term that many people think of as a pejorative. Also, dictionaries can be useful, but they absolutely cannot be a definitive source on whether a term is derogatory - there's rarely any kind of definitive answer to these questions that fits under a single dictionary definition. Same thing with newspaper style guidelines - all those do is reflect the opinion of those newspapers' editorial boards, they aren't authorities on wider societal usage. More specialized sources would probably be better for that determination. I assume that "tranny" has a quite a few papers or even books dedicated to its use, those should probably be the go-to sources on whether the term is considered derogatory, who considers it derogatory, and in what contexts. The definition in the lead is supposed to reflect the entirety of the article, but since the article is just a stub, that isn't really helpful here. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you are right. Could you also give your take on the Laci Green-discussion? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we typically avoid citing dictionaries. There are plenty of reliable sources which describe tranny as widely perceived as a slur, pejorative, derogatory, etc.:

• GLAAD
• VICE
• GLSEN
• Advocate.com
• Independent.co.uk
• Pink News 1 and 2
• ABC (Australia)
• UC Davis.edu
• Cosmopolitan
• The Guardian

Unless we have plenty of sources (not sources about individual opinions like Ru Paul's), I cannot see how we'd remove that it's offensive/derogatory. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this. Generally speaking, I feel dictionaries are not good sources, since they provide no context. Different dictionaries are also written for different purposes and audiences, which isn't really something that can be easily parsed into an article. Especially for a well-known word like this, it should be easy to find more in-depth academic coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Crimea as a sovereign state

Here is link to relevant discussion. User:XavierGreen insists that Republic of Crimea should be included in the list of sovereign states. However, according to majority of RS and international consensus, that was an Ukrainian territory recently annexed by Russia. According to "Russian position" this is now a federal subject of Russia. According to "Ukrainian position" this is still a part of Ukraine. Neither claims it to be an independent state. Russia did claim it was an "independent state" during several days when Russian special forces occupied the legislature of Crimea, but this is hardly a reason to include the "Republic" into the list of sovereign states, in my opinion. More opinions are welcome. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not on the list of sovereign states, its on the page list of sovereign states in the 2010s page. The page is part of a series of pages which list all of the sovereign states to have existed throughout history. As such, it is irrelevant what the present situation in Crimea is. For a few days in 2014, Russia officially recognized Crimea as a sovereign state. As such it meets the inclusion criteria for the page, as all states with limited recognition are included that are recognized by at least 1 UN member (which Russia is), in consideration of the constitutive theory of statehood. There are a host of other similar examples which are included in this series of pages, from Northern Cyprus which is recognized only by Turkey to the independent Bantustans which were recognized only by South Africa [see list of sovereign states in the 1990s. In recognition that such states did not have widespread recognition during their existence, polities like Crimea are clearly marked on these pages as having limited recognition or in some instances like Somaliland and Azawad no recognition. As such, i don't see any issue with NPOV, since all the page states is that Russia recognized the independence of Crimea and the the rest of the world considered it to be a part of Ukraine during the brief time it claimed Independence.XavierGreen (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying it should not be included in the list of sovereign states in the 2010s page, as should be clear from the link to discussion. This is because it was not a sovereign state in 2010s. The question is about Crimea, not about Northern Cyprus or whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The sovereignty of Crimea in the 2010's depends on who you ask... in the opinion of Russia, Crimea was indeed a sovereign state. Now... the list's inclusion criteria apparently requires recognition by only one UN member state for inclusion (and Russia is a UN member state)... so, technically, Crimea does qualify for inclusion on that list. The only way to remove it would be to change the lists inclusion criteria (and we can discuss that if you want)... but under the current criteria, Crimea qualifies and should be included. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I must be blind, I cannot see Bantustan on these lists. Also I would like to see where consensus was achieved for the idea that only one UN member needs to recognize them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bantustans were the republics of Venda, Ciskei, Transkei, and Bophuthatswana. They are each clearly listed on the list of sovereign states in the 1990s, list of sovereign states in the 1980s, ect. You can find the discussions surrounding the consensus for the current inclusion criteria for the various lists of sovereign states pages in the talk page archives of the main list of sovereign states page, they have been compiled into 8 archived talk pages here], the side bar links to all 8 relevant archived pages.XavierGreen (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, you need a consensus of reliable sources telling literally this: "The Crimea is/was a sovereign state", not that "Russia claimed a certain territory to be a sovereign state" (at the time it was de facto occupied by Russia). Same can be said about any other country included to the lists (such as Cypus or whatever) , but this is slightly outside the scope of the discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I am sure we could find Russian language sources saying that Crimea was sovereign, so that isn’t a major issue. The issue is that you don’t like the criteria for inclusion in the list. To be honest, neither do I (I think we should require at least two UN recognitions) but we have to change the criteria if we want to change inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course there are Russian language sources telling it was independent for a few days (which contradicts to many other Russian language sources, including other claims by the same government), however there is a very clear consensus of RS in general that the event of joining Crimea to Russia represent annexation of Ukrainian territory by military force, rather than joining Crimea as an independent state to Russia. I do not mind using some informal criteria for inclusion (such as support by "n" UN states), but only in cases when this does not contradict WP:NPOV - as in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Under the constitutive theory of statehood, it does not matter what the defacto situation on the ground is, military occupation or otherwise, instead recognition is the sole factor considered. South Ossetia, Transdnistira, Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh, and Northern Cyprus are all under varying degrees of "occupation" by other states pursuant to some sources, yet they are included here as they either are partially recognized like South Ossetia or satisfy the declarative theory of statehood like Transdinistria.XavierGreen (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If it was/is under occupation is completely irrelevant. This territory simply was described as something different from "a sovereign state" by majority or sources. That was claimed only by kremlin.ru and other sources that make a reference to kremlin.ru and tell "yes, this is something claimed" by kremlin.ru, rather than telling "yes, that was a sovereign state". Do you have any 3rd party secondary scholarly sources telling "yes, it was a sovereign state"? Whatever you are trying to conclude from the constitutive theory of statehood (there are many other theories) is actually WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That Russia recognized Crimea as an independent state is a fact supported by a host of sources on the topic. For examples see [[3]], [[4]], [[5]]. Recognition is the sole qualifier under the constitutive theory of statehood.XavierGreen (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it did not qualify as a state according to any theory (per sources and expert opinion) - see comment by K.e.coffman below. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

All of this avoids the core issue... which is: given Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, what should Wikipedia use as an inclusion criteria for these lists? Is recognition by one single state ENOUGH, or should we require more than that? If more... then what should we require? Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the general guideline for the lists is Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria (please correct if I am wrong). But this is not so simple. There are different criteria what a sovereign state is - see Sovereign_state#Recognition. Picking up a single statehood theory and neglecting all others (as XavierGreen suggests) is contrary to WP:NPOV. Most important, this should not be just one source which tells that something belongs to a list. There should be a consensus of sources. For example, we should place something into List of conspiracy theories only if it was defined as such in majority of RS, rather than in a single popular history article. Same about categories. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

One's enough for me, provided the recognizing state is recognized by at least one likewise recognized state. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, December 7, 2017 (UTC)

I haven't gone through the entire archive of the discussion of criteria for list of sovereign states, but it seems that there exists an editors' consensus for the best criteria of selection based on relevant reliable sources. Under List_of_sovereign_states#Criteria_for_inclusion, The Republic of Crimea meets the standards for a sovereign state that existed in the 2010s - reliable sources agree it was recognized as a state by one UN member state (Russia) for a period of several days before it signed a treaty of accession. A universal metric for inclusion, based on reliable sources with expertise in international relations, seems like it satisfies neutrality. And it's not like the article is claiming the Republic of Crimea is equivalent to France - it says right in the entry "from 17 March 2014 to 21 March 2014" and "Partially recognized de facto self-governing entity. Claimed by the Ukraine." Three entries above Crimea are Azawad and Bangsamoro Republik, which each lasted a period of several months and were never recognized by a single country. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that participants have developed some criteria for inclusion that can probably be defined as "a weak constitutive theory of statehood" (see here (some recognition is required). However, there is a question: are these "rules" consistent with WP:RS and WP:NPOV - in general and with regard to specific cases? For example, I am looking at this scholarly source, and it tells:

As Russia’s position with regard to Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia (and Armenia’s position with regard to Nagorno-Karabakh) is similar to that of Turkey with regard to the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, these recognitions are insufficient in order to indicate the statehood of these territories. Like the TRNC, these territories are not independent states. The situation of Crimea on March 17, 2014 was identical [88].

My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

There are two prevailing modern theories regarding what constitutes a sovereign state under international law, the constitutive theory and the declarative theory. Just because a polity satisfies one theory of statehood does not mean that it satisfies the other. For example Estonia from 1940 to 1991 controlled no territory, but was recognized as independent by several western states. As such, during that time period it qualified as a soveriegn state under the constitutive theory since it had recognition, but not under the declarative theory since it had no territory. In order to maintain a neutral stance, the various list of soveriegn states pages list entities that fall under either of the two theories. The very nature of these states with limited recognition often leads to politically charged debates about their legitimacy (virtually every ethnic Georgian will deny that Abkhazia is a sovereign state for instance), but whether or not they are legitimate in everyone eyes is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not it should be listed on these pages or not. Regardless, the fact that they are states with limited recognition is reflected in the fact that they are listed in a separate section below those states which have wide international recognition.XavierGreen (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Including country X in the main Table of the List of sovereign states assumes this is a sovereign state (currently this is just UN members and observers versus other sovereign states). If they are not sovereign states, they should be included either in footnotes or in a separate page with a different name. Same applies to any other lists.My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And your point about "politically charged debates" is certainly valid. That's why we should use independent 3rd party scholarly sources in these cases, specifically about country X, rather than claims by participants of the conflict. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

To eliminate states with limited recognition from these pages creates a blatant NPOV issue. The current inclusion criteria were created specifically to address the NPOV issue. As I stated before, the current inclusion criteria were formulated after literally years of disputes and formal dispute resolution actions, there seems to be utterly no consensus to change it. If you want to completely eliminate them from the page or reduce them to a footnote, i suggest that you open a formal RFC on the main list of sovereign states page.XavierGreen (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure about the RfC, but with respect to Crimea this could be a simple sourcing/NPOV issue. I gave you an example of a scholarly RS, which discusses the issue in a great detail and comes to conclusion that Crimea was not a sovereign state. Can you please, provide any other scholarly RS that discusses the issue in a great detail and comes to conclusion that Crimea was a sovereign state, as opposed to simply documenting claims by sides of the conflict? My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Question - Is WP:UNDUE a factor here? By including a territory that is recognized by only one governent (and not recognized by any other) are we giving undue weight to an internationally fringe viewpoint? Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. Moreover, this is like mixing apples and oranges together. If you look at "Other states" at the bottom of main Table in the List of sovereign states, this is a strange mixture. Some of them are recognized states, but simply not UN members. But others are unrecognized states or more politely, "states with limited recognition". Perhaps they should be mentioned on the page, but only in a such way that distinction is clear, for example in footnotes, and definitely outside the Table. Telling they are merely "other" (non UN member or observer) states is contrary to international consensus and undue. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The whole reason why they are listed in a separate section is to distinguish them from the UN member states and observers, thus your point is moot.XavierGreen (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

No, the unrecognized states and recognized states are mixed together in the same section of Table as "other states". However, this thread was about Crimea, and I think Blueboar was right: including it in the Table (as you did) was undue. My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• After looking at RS, it appears there are two very different types of states: (a) well established states like Taiwan that are simply not recognized by a bunch of countries for whatever reason, but recognized by a large number (usually a majority) of other countries, and (b) puppet states that have been created by a military intervention of another state and did not achieve independent statehood (could not exist on their own). This is just a few states named explicitly in the quotation above. These "states" are marked light yellow at the bottom of the Table in the List of sovereign states. They have very limited recognition and do not take any part in the work of UN. I would suggest putting these seven state to a separate Table on the same page and entitle it like "States with very limited recognition" (if "Puppet states" sounds too assertive). End of story. One could post an RfC about it if needed.My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Among the entities that you claim "have been created by a military intervention of another state and did not achieve independent statehood (could not exist on their own)" are multiple entities for which this is manifestly not true. The whole point of Somaliland is that it does exist on its own, without the support of any external government.

You are widening this thing beyond Crimea into an area where it makes no sense to do so, trying to rule out several far more clear-cut cases in the process. You do so by using a distinction purely of your own invention, not in any way backed by WP:RS.

Let us be clear though that there is a difference between List of sovereign states, dealing with the situation now using deliberately conservative inclusion criteria, and List of sovereign states in the 2010s, which can take a longer view and can judge matters with the benefit of hindsight. Nobody claims that Crimea was independent for more than a day or two. On an article that spans a decade, it is perfectly appropriate to ask whether we should include treat such short-lived entities so similarly to entities that lasted the entire period. This is not something we can realistically do on the list of sovereign states which documents only a snapshot in time. Kahastok talk 14:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I am simply telling why BlueBoar was right: we are giving undue weight to an internationally fringe viewpoint(s). You tell: "Nobody claims that Crimea was independent for more than a day or two." No, according to quotation above, these states (and Crimea) were not at all independent states. But the quotation does not tell anything about Somaliland, so maybe it is in a proper place - I have no judgement.My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And according to other sources they are sovereign states. It should surprise nobody that the legitimacy of a state whose legitimacy is disputed is disputed.

I'm not discussing Crimea here. Crimea always was a bit of an edge case at most. These aren't, particularly. We can be clear per the sources in List of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition that they are all generally regarded academically as states according to the declarative theory of statehood. Yes, that's disputed as well. Arguing that any claimed state whose status is disputed should be removed from a list of claimed states whose status is disputed is absurd. Kahastok talk 16:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

What "other sources"? So far you provided none, here and on the article talk page. Of course I am talking about 3rd party scholarly sources, not about opinions by officials of the involved countries, such as Russia, Georgia, Turkey or whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Of all the sources that have to be considered to establish WP:WEIGHT, the views of the governments of the world, while not the only important views, are very clearly and very obviously the most important views. The fact that you do not like the conclusions of sovereign governments does not mean that their opinions do not have to be respected.

The sources are in the articles I have pointed you at. That you choose not to find them doesn't mean that they are not there. Kahastok talk 17:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I quickly checked some of them, and they do consider such "states" rather problematic [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Which is why they're listed separately. So far as I can tell, your proposal is still that we should remove or separate all these states because you want to. I asked you for the basis on which you were planning on dividing your two categories and you said, no, screw the inclusion criteria, we'll just remove them.

If there's no basis on which to split the list we cannot split the list. Unless you're willing to break a whole series of basic content policies - WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and suchlike - solely because of your own personal preferences. Kahastok talk 20:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

After looking at this more carefully, I think the list should not be split, but the entities which do not belong to the list should be simply excluded. That does not prevent mentioning them in footnotes as something that hardly belongs to the list. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude Crimea -- I searched for ["constitutive theory" Crimea] and got the following:

• “The more popular declaratory theory of recognition considers the effects of recognition to be merely declaratory: they evidence a pre-existing fact, namely that X satisfies the criteria of statehood, or is part of state Y. The constitutive theory deems a territory’s international status to be dependent upon the recognition of others” (emphasis mine). If Russia was the sole state to have recognized Crimea’s independence, it does not appear to meet the criteria for multiple states recognizing such. [7]

Here’s a blog post by a legal scholar that addresses the topic directly:

• ”It seems unlikely that Crimea would be considered a state on March 16, regardless of the theory one employs.  At the time of the signing, Crimea had apparently been recognized only by Russia, precluding statehood under the constitutive theory. And having asserted independence from Ukraine for no more than three weeks prior to the agreement, Crimea had not developed the capacity to function as a state, precluding statehood under the declaratory theory.” (Emphasis mine) [8]

It looks like the criteria applied in the article (one-state recognition being sufficient for meeting the constitutive theory of statehood) is insufficient or that Crimea should be removed from the list (or both). K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I think it boils down to the following question: Should we include a territory X into the list of independent states if there is no consensus of scholarly RS that X was an independent state?. This is a very general question applicable to all lists and categories in the project. This is really important because by including something to a list we claim in WP voice that something belongs to the list/category as a matter of fact. By including someone into a "list of agents" we claim that someone was in fact a spy. By including something to a "List of conspiracy theories" we we claim that something was in fact a conspiracy theory. By including Crimea in the "List of sovereign states" we claim that it was in fact a sovereign state. At the very least, we need consensus of RS that it belongs there. But I am not sure how to proceed. Is not it already in the policy or guidelines somewhere? If not, this should be probably posted as a very general RfC about all lists and categories in the project, but where? My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If we do not include states that are disputed, we must remove China, both Koreas, Israel, Cyprus and Armenia from every list of countries, since all are disputed. The fact that you don't like the consequences of your proposals does not make them not consequences of your proposals. And you cannot claim neutrality while rejecting out of hand the most pertinent POVs in these questions: those of the states, whose opinions actually make some difference to the situations in question. Kahastok talk 17:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No - because none of the scholarly sources mentioned above tells that China, Koreas, Cyprus and Armenia were "not independent states" or countries with "disputed statehood". These sources specifically mentioned only 6 or 7 other territories (practically the same in both scholarly sources). Someone else claiming a territory of another state X does not mean that state X is " not an independent state" or has a "disputed statehood", according to these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You are seriously suggesting that the only disputed states in the world are Abkhazia, Arsakh, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, South Ossetia and Transnistria.

You are seriously arguing that Iran, Syria, Lebanon all recognise Israel as a legitimate independent state.

You are seriously arguing that North Korea recognises South Korea as a legitimate independent state - and vice versa.

You are seriously arguing that PRC recognises Taiwan as a legitimate independent state, and vice versa.

No. We all know that that's not how it works.

The fact that a source discussing a few chosen states does not mention other, separate, situations does not mean that we are free to ignore other situations without breaking WP:NPOV. On the other hand, your attempts to divine out of thin air some fundamental difference between those seven on one hand, and the other entities such as SADR and Taiwan (both generally unrecognised) on the other, is pure WP:OR. Kahastok talk 19:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, these sources name only 6 or 7 specific territories. You are using a misleading terminology, "disputed state". That can mean a lot of different things. The situation is very different for different states. They should be considered on a case to case basis, just as items of any other list. I am simply telling that we should not include a territory X into the list of independent states if there is no consensus in scholarly RS that X was an independent state. Same logic should apply to all lists and all categories per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Just to clarify, the 2nd source is book The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States By James Ker-Lindsay, Oxford University Press, pages 39-59. It tells about seven specific states (same states as above + Kosovo) calling them "unrecognized" or the "territories" with "contested statehood" (no, Taiwan was not one of them!). My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not true. There is zero difference between Greece's non-recognition of Northern Cyprus and Iran's non-recognition of Israel. I am using the words "disputed", "contested", whatever (your terminology) according to their plain English reading with no meaning added or subtracted. Northern Cyprus is disputed. Israel is disputed.

That you can find a source saying that a disputed state is disputed is unsurprising. That you try to remove a disputed state from a list of disputed states because the state is disputed is bizarre.

You say, "They should be considered on a case to case basis, just as items of any other list". But WP:SAL is clear that on any stand-alone list we have to have unambiguous, objective selection criteria backed by reliable sources. Which we have. It is not the title that defines the list, it is the selection criteria that define the list. We need to determine on a case-by-case basis whether they meet the selection criteria. Which we do. Not the title. The selection criteria. And then, for neutrality, given the disputed nature of some of the entries, we need to acknowledge the disputes where they exist. Which we do, in special columns and bright colours and through the division between UN member states and other states.

But you are trying to undermine those criteria. You're trying to say, we should have all the states that meet the criteria, except for some of the ones that are disputed. On what objective basis? None. You found this source that mentions that these ones are disputed so you want them removed. In reality, this source is relevant - but only in that it demonstrates clearly that these seven meet the criteria (through the declarative theory of statehood), and therefore must go in the list.

So, you're trying to remove the objectivity, you're trying to add ambiguity, you're trying ultimately to undermine the selection criteria and with them the reliable sources that back the selection criteria. In doing this, you use your own WP:OR to fundamentally undermine the list and the quality of the article. Kahastok talk 20:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Which scholarly sources tell there is no difference between Israel and Northern Cyprus? But regardless, this is not a question under discussion here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please provide your source that contradicts what I said, that "there is zero difference between Greece's non-recognition of Northern Cyprus and Iran's non-recognition of Israel". This would seem to be little more than a statement of the obvious, though you seem not to accept it.

But no, the question under discussion is whether it is appropriate to undermine the List of sovereign states' current objective and unambiguous selection criteria, that are based on reliable sources on the theories of statehood, solely because you found a source that demonstrates that disputed states are disputed. Kahastok talk 20:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- the source I listed above states that the circumstances around Crimea preclud[e] statehood under the constitutive theory. Crimea should really be removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for providing good sources, K.e.coffman! They help a lot to clarify this question. My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Arguing that a single source should upend consensus is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Especially when the entire point of the inclusion criteria is to make sense of contradictory sources. That's what "disputed" means. Also, this discussion should really go to Talk:List of Sovereign States. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion about Crimea is on another talk page, not Talk:List of Sovereign States. There was no consensus about including Crimea whatsoever. Quite the opposite.My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There was a consensus to include it, in fact if you look through the edit history of List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_2010s, its quite apparant that you were the only editor removing it from the page, while others besides me had reverted your removal.XavierGreen (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion above, I have created an RfC about this subject [9]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Central America, the CIA, Iran-Contra etc

Another general post and/or request for additional eyes: I have been working on the history and politics of Honduras and Panama, and have discovered acres of possible problems in a number of the articles about specific events -- the US government for example almost intervenes with the best of intentions, and Central American countries tend to have a "constitutional crisis" not a coup. Aid was described in one article as "controversial" while Google Books indicates that the controversy didn't stem from illiteracy or resistance to progress and technology, as the Wikipedia article might be read to imply, but rather that the development dollars were going straight into the private sector without passing through the Treasury of the recipient country. For example. I have seen similar problems in the articles related to food for oil, come to think of it. Many of the top-level articles such as History of Honduras and associated pages are word-for-word imports of the CIA factbook for that country. I can see the value of the resource but naturally accounts of covert operations in the area are somewhat self-seeking. Help from Spanish-speaking editors who are already familiar with the history would be particularly welcome Elinruby (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It might be useful if you linked to the articles you think have issues, so we can see what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

History of Honduras is the one I am working on right now but the problem exists to some degree on most of the related linked pages to some degree and appears to be systemic. But ok, I will add some more wikilinks as I work back and forth. To be clear, the issue is more weasel words than total falsehood, but surely there are other sources for 19th century history than the government of a country noted for its many military incursions in the region. Elinruby (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

We have both a 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and a 2009 Honduran coup d'état, neither of which I have not completely checked, but would appear on their faces to represent a POV fork. Also see Honduran fourth ballot box referendum; and I smell hand-waving in the Americas section of History of coffee. For example.

Check closer. The crisis covers political disputes in Honduras which started when the President announced a number of changes in the Constitution, against the wishes of the opposition and the Supreme Court. The coup was both a reaction to the disputes and part of the wider crisis. I would not oppose merging the articles, but some basic chronology should be maintained. Dimadick (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Rfc at Bible and violence

please comment here Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Rfc

Langrial (Gujrat district)

This is a small town article. Lots of well-meaning locals, but fluff and nonsense and a complete lack of understanding of what we do and how we do it. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Pink tide

There has been a long discussion in the talk page of the article Pink Tide to try to make it more neutral. My suggestion is to make it more minimalistic with very basic information to avoid edit warrings like the article is in other languages, but in the meantime several users have try to make it more neutral to no avail. The result as you can see apart from the lenght of the article is the extremely biased and un-neutral content which makes it look more like a Conservapedia article than Wikipedia. [This] was the kind of content before massive edits to make it more neutral. But currently still has lots of problems. Examples of such: a, b. --TV Guy (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncritical use of "Aryan" in historical articles?

I was just reading our Schindler's List article, and the text the subservient position of Jewish men in relation to Aryan men stood out to me. I was sorely tempted to put quotes on "Aryan", but WP:SCAREQUOTES stopped me. At present, the only thing in the article text implying that the "Aryan race" is not actually a thing is the word being blue-linked, which is way too subtle for a Wikipedia article. What do people think? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that is overuse. I would not use them when it is clear from the context that it is Nazi terminology. The observation is sourced to Sara Horowitz, director of the Koschitzky Centre for Jewish Studies at York University. If she did not think it necessary to use scare quotes, I don't see why we should. Note too that they use the term Jewish in a non-standard way, so that would require scare quotes too. TFD (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Yeah, but an article written by the director the Koschitzky Centre for Jewish Studies at York University for inclusion in a book titled Spielberg's Holocaust: Critical Perspectives on Schindler's List and published by Indiana University Press is naturally going to have different assumptions about its readers' level of awareness of the history of that word than Wikipedia. She wouldn't need scare-quotes to indicate to her target audience that she is using a racist Nazi term for a made-up concept ironically. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The sentence being quoted strikes me as odd, since the typical ethnonym that commonly means non-Jew is "gentile", not "Aryan". I would not use it in this context unless it's a direct quote from the source. In such case, I would attribute it to the source. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Well, they denote different concepts. A non-Jewish Black person would be both non-Jew (gentile) and non-"Aryan", and the article isn't referring to subservience of Jewish men to non-Jewish Black men. But your proposed solution works; honestlt I think a direct quotation, attributed inline, would be best. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You might want to delete the entire sentence (or, rather, all this She points out that normally the woman of the house lights the Sabbath candles. In the film it is men who perform this ritual, demonstrating not only the subservient role of women, but also the subservient position of Jewish men in relation to Aryan men, especially Göth and Schindler.). Horowitz does not connect the candle lighting to the subservient role of women and definitely not to the subservient position of Jewish men to Aryan men. --regentspark (comment) 03:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Huh. You may be right. I also hadn't noticed until I gave it a closer reading just now that we weirdly change spelling from "Shabbat" to "Sabbath" in the same paragraph for no apparent reason. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A reasonably informed reader would realize from the context that the article is not endorsing Nazi terminology. The full sentence is, "[Sara Horowitz, director of the Koschitzky Centre for Jewish Studies at York University] points out that normally the woman of the house lights the Sabbath candles. In the film it is men who perform this ritual, demonstrating not only the subservient role of women, but also the subservient position of Jewish men in relation to Aryan men, especially Göth and Schindler.[59]" Besides, if you add square quotes the implication is that it is Horowitz's terminology. And don't say that a reasonably informed editor would know it is Nazi terminology, because if they know that the scare quotes are redundant. TFD (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The article says that a male voice recites the kaddish, not that men light the candle (perhaps no one is shown lighting the candles) and uses that to posit that, in the film, women "whether Jewish or Aryan, exist only as a locus of male struggle and desire"(pg. 127). So, yes, the recital of the Kaddish, rather than the explicit lighting of the candle, is used as evidence that women, all women, have a subservient role (in the film). But using this as evidence of the subservient position of Jewish men to "Aryan" ones is not clear. My guess is that the person who added this to the article probably got to this reference second hand, i.e., from some other text that used Horowitz to draw conclusions about the film. Nothing wrong with that but then the citation is incorrect. --regentspark (comment) 15:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

We we have to write form the assumption any reader might not be even be ill informed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it ok to state that someone received a revelation?

I've been having a discussion at Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories about whether we can say that Joseph Smith received the text of the Book of Mormon. Neither of those articles use that language. Part of the response to me was to say that "We don't say so-and-so said he received a revelation". 1886 Revelation says "is the text of a revelation said to have been received". But I searched for "received a revelation"[10] and find that a lot of our articles actually do use that phrase unqualified (while others qualify it). Doug Weller talk 19:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it is OK to say it is claimed, but not to use language that implies it is true.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, a reliably sourced claim can be presented as a reliably sourced claim. bd2412 T 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

We need a question whose answers provide concrete community consensus. Maybe it should be posed as two possible phrasings between which respondents can choose. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

"received a revelation" does not preclude self reception nor other possibilities.Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly the point I was trying to make on the talkpage. Maybe poorly, I don't know. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

True, but not (I would argue) in this context. Which is clearly "divine revelation".21:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Only if we state in Wiki's voice it was divine. "received a revelation" is perfectly NPOV, does not take a position, and is concise. As long as we do not add divine, or "from X", etc. it is the shortest way to phrase this.Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually I think in the context you are using it is is "had a relation", received implies it arrived from outside. Perhaps you can give a couple of examples of where "received a revelation" is not used as a "euphemism" for divine revelation?Slatersteven (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

eg "received+a+revelation"&dq=schizophrenia+"received+a+revelation"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz1o7siqHYAhVDa1AKHXIjBOoQ6AEIPDAG. Self reception is possible.Icewhiz (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sadly I cannot view it, could you provide the quote?Slatersteven (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not some unusual text refers to an individual having "received a revelation" from himself, the phrase is inappropriately ambiguous when used without qualification in an encyclopedia article. Rare ambiguous uses are not an excuse for bad writing. bd2412 T 03:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be pretty easy just to say "according to Mormon tradition Smith received a revelation of..." or similar words? Or am I overlooking something that makes it more complicated? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for the detail about whether or not a revelation was involved—that would be UNDUE for this article which is focused on evidence-based theories. The current wording 06:08, 23 December 2017 is good as it simply says that the Book of Mormon states certain things. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, as it appears this moment the text is fine. Which actually makes me even more confused as to what this is all about. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Whether or not Joseph Smith's retelling/translation of the Book of Mormon was a bona fide act of God should not be relevant to the encyclopedia's contents, especially in an article not directly related to religion. Describing it as a Mormon tradition is the correct option here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, Power~enwiki, BD2412, and Johnuniq: I actually brought it here after finding it used elsewhere[11] and I believe some of the articles in that search need a qualification for the phrase. Do others agree? Doug Weller talk 08:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with this one - [12] "At the headquarters of the Latter Day Saint in Kirtland, Ohio, Joseph Smith received a revelation from God, calling for an expedition to be raised in Kirtland, which would then march to Missouri and "redeem Zion." - as "from god" is in wiki's voice. Most of the others have claimed, said, according, etc. or are unspecified. I don't see a problem with "received a revelation" when we don't specify from whom it was allegedly received from. Note that some (or in some cases - all) of the underlying sources we're relying on may (particularly in arcane religious subjects which might only be covered by religiously oriented texts) use "received a revelation" without any qualification - redacting God/divine would OK, but adding "according to, claim, said" could be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH if we do not have a source using this language.Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I would rather it was changed to "had a revelation" as both less imprecise (in terms of context) and a more common usage when discussion "internal revelation".Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• I greatly prefer "had a revelation". That states a fact in reasonably objective terms. It is appropriate both to books of religion and to mathematical and scientific discoveries such as quaternions and Kekulé's dream. "Received a revelation" implies reception, which implies transmission, which implies an external source. It has effectively the same meaning as "was given a revelation". IMO expressions like those last should be avoided unless they are quotes from a citation. Narky Blert (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Tying Trump to Moore by excluding information

Roy Moore is an extremely unpopular political figure who recently lost an election in Alabama. Naturally, Democrats would like to tie President Trump to Moore (an accused child molester) as closely as possible.[13] That's to be expected, of course, but our BLP is improperly joining in that effort.

In particular, the Roy Moore lead says, "President Donald Trump endorsed Moore a week before the election". That's true, but Trump also previously opposed Moore in the GOP primary, by supporting Moore’s opponent Luther Strange.[14] Nowhere in the Roy Moore lead (or in the entire BLP) is there any hint that Trump ever supported Strange over Moore, because this information has been assiduously deleted every time anyone tried to mention it.[15]

At the article’s talk page, User:MrX has insisted that Trump never opposed Moore,[16] and insists that he will never acknowledge that Trump lost in his effort to get Luther Strange elected.[17] This strikes me as POV-pushing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump's support of Strange in the primary belongs somewhere in the article. It doesn't belong in the lede. The same is not true for Trump's endorsement of Moore - it belongs in both. This is both because the general election is far more important than the primary and because this difference in importance is reflected in coverage by reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 23:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps if the Roy Moore lead were brief, but it is immense and includes material that received vastly less coverage in reliable sources than the involvement of the U.S. President in the primary battle. Also, we're talking about including a mere eight words to provide context. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead is a little too long (is it so important that he served as an MP?) but not egregiously so. It's a big article so it's expected that it would have a big lead. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

So eight more words would not make much difference in the lead size. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to eat sensibly during the holidays, so please do not put words in my mouth. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump never "opposed" Roy Moore, so we cannot say that in the lead or anywhere else. After Luther Strange lost the primary, Trump wrote "Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy, WIN in Dec!"- MrX 23:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the wording "having previously opposed Moore during the primary" isn't quite right, because I don't recall Trump ever saying a single bad thing about Moore. Instead I'd add "having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary". The distinction may be narrow, but I think it's supported by the sources, who tend not to use the term "opposed". I do think this information is worth including in the lead, since it's part of the story of this election and was covered heavily by reliable sources discussing Moore both during the election and afterwards. It's just a small addition but adds some context that's important, and so much of the article is given to the 2017 election that I think this should be considered giving due weight in the lead to the topics covered in the article. Or at least it would be, but I see there's not a single mention of the fact that Trump endorsed Luther Strange in the entire article, which seems very odd. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

This is important. Supporting one opponent in a political race can't be taken to assume they oppose the other, without that being explicit language. --Masem (t) 00:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

According to the Associated Press via ABC News, “Virtually the entire Republican establishment — including President Donald Trump — opposed Moore's primary bid in September.” When a politician supports and endorses a person in a campaign, that almost always means the politician opposes everyone else in the campaign. I've never heard of a politician endorsing two people in the same campaign. That being said, the lead would be greatly improved by inserting "having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary". But I would prefer adding "having previously opposed Moore during the Republican primary". Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is a bit more complicated than that. Even while endorsing Strange, Trump telegraphed ambivalence, which some interpreted as hedging in favor of Moore.[18] bd2412 T 00:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Who interpreted it as hedging in favor of Moore? According to that article you cite, Trump said, "Roy has a very good chance of not winning in the general election. It's all about the general." He was urging people to support Strange instead of Moore. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The last line of the article says, "'Roy's going to have a hard time winning. But I will be backing him if he wins. I will be backing him, OK? I'll tell you that,' Trump hedged". Saying that you'll support the other guy if he wins the primary is not particularly ardent opposition. bd2412 T 04:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:BD2412, thanks for pointing that out. I will reciprocate by pointing out that during the GOP presidential debates every candidate pledged to support the nominee, which is standard, and does not mean that none of them opposed each other during the primaries. In any event, three editors in this section have said they’re fine with inserting “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary” into the lead. What about you? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that language would be absolutely correct to include. bd2412 T 04:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Endorsement of one candidate in an election cannot be assu!we to means the endorser opposed all others. It is quite possible the endorser is happy with all but recommends the one they think is best qualified (particularly in a partisan primary race). Yes, it is very often endorsement of one means they oppose the other, but that has to be made explicit and simply cannot be assumed. --Masem (t) 02:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Masem, political opposition is always relative. Many people who opposed Hillary Clinton relative to Bernie Sanders then supported Hillary Clinton relative to Jill Stein. As between Strange and Moore, Trump supported Strange and urged people to vote against Moore, and that’s pretty much undisputed by reliable sources, AFAIK. I’m not wedded to saying “Trump opposed Moore in the primary”, so please feel free to suggest alternative language, though I think “Trump opposed Moore in the primary” is true (not to mention supported by reliable sources like Associated Press and ABC News). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I would need to see what Trump said exactly to propose the proper language. Trump could have want Strange over Moore, but didn't care as long as a Republican got in at the end. If that was the case, it is hard to say Trump was opposed to Moore, but only preferred Strange. --Masem (t) 03:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Masem, Trump urged people to vote against Moore because Trump thought Moore would probably lose in the general election. Trump said: “Roy has a very good chance of not winning in the general election. It's all about the general.” I don’t really care how we phrase it, but the point is Moore overcame Trump’s backing of Strange. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

If that's all he said, calling that "opposed" to Moore is too strong. Something like "Trump did not endorse Moore during his primary race against Strange, believing that Moore 'has a very good chance of not winning'." - -Masem (t) 03:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, User:Masem, but it would be more concise in the lead to say “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary". I and User:Red Rock Canyon have already said in this section that that would be fine. What do you say? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it's avoiding "Trump opposed Moore". --Masem (t) 03:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone point me to a bio article on ANY other politician that mentions endorsements in the lead? If not... I would say that mentioning Trump’s endorsement in the lead of the Moore article is UNDUE. Later in the body text, perhaps... but I seriously have to question whether the lead should get into this sort of detail. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I strongly endorse any one of the following three outcomes, and oppose none of them: [1] Get Trump out of the lead, but mention all of his endorsements in the article body; or [2] put into the lead "having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary"; or [3] put into the lead "having previously opposed Moore during the Republican primary". Any one of them would be a big win for NPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Leaving it the way it is would be a win for WP:NPOV. Bigly. Trump's support for Moore, a candidate who flaunted the law, wore cowboy suits in public, and was credibly accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct, was unprecedented and was significantly covered for weeks in a large number of reliable sources. That's why it belongs in the lead of Moore's bio. Trump's initial support for Strange perhaps belongs in the lead of Luther Strange, or not.- MrX 01:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
      • The lead says, "During the Senate race, allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him...." Heaven forbid we should mention that the allegations were made after the primary was over; how could we sufficiently smear the GOP if we mentioned that?[19] And the fact that Moore was able to overcome a primary campaign waged against him by the President of the United States is less important than the irrelevant reason why Jeff Sessions vacated his seat? I don't think so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Some of those are valid points. There's another NPOV problem in the statement that "some Republicans" reversed their objections to Moore after Trump's endorsement, when in fact the Republican National Committee reversed course. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
          • The National Republican Senatorial Committee did not reinstate support for Moore.[20] Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
            • Don't confuse the Republican National Committee with the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
              • Not to worry, I don’t confuse them. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict) On the one hand these multitudes of plausible-deniability-enabling sub-groups and spinoff groups of Republicans are a fig leaf that we don't need to waste our time on, but on the other hand, we should make a reasonable effort to use reasonably precise layman's terms to describe exactly which group endorsed whom. It's important to recognize that to the man in the street, the RNC and the RSC and all the other committees are part of the Republican brand, and what they do reflects on all Republicans. What Trump says is not literally what all Republicans want or agree with, but what he says unavoidably reflects on the Republican brand and on all Republicans, like it or not. But NPOV requires that we do try to be specific about who said what. Use precise language, as best you can.

                As a rule I would avoid saying in Wikipedia's voice that "X endorsed Y", and instead say "X said Y". So don't say "Bob endorsed Jane.". Say "Bob said Jane is the best candidate for the job" or say "Bob said vote for Jane". Be literal, if space allows, and use direct attribution and direct quotes if you can.

                Also, as a rule, I think Wikipedian's should realize that it's impossible to satisfy everyone's idea of what neutrality is. These groups have deliberately obfuscated their identity and their intentions, in order to please multiple constituencies. It isn't our fault if the way we describe it isn't 100% omniscient and fair. Anyone who can write an article that is about 80% fair deserves a lot of respect and possibly even one of the good barnstars we save for editors who really did something more than just showing up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the endorsement of Moore passed the WP:10YT for the lead. This was entertaining political theater as the special election was held standalone of the usual cycle, but I do not see how this will be a defining feature of Trump or Trump's presidency - at least not at the moment. It was in the news. Two years from now we will focus on the mid-terms which is a much-much bigger and significant thing regarding the balance f power.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Something to remember... we are Takling about the Roy Moore bio article... not an article on Trump, or Trump’s presidency. The focus should be on Moore not Trump.

In other words, the question isn’t whether this all was defining for Trump, but whether it was defining for MOORE? If Trump’s endorsement had actually swayed voters (and Moore had either won or lost the election DUE TO Trump’s endorsement) it would be far more relevant to highlight. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Blueboar, as you know I wouldn’t object to removing Trump from the lead. However, there is a lot of useless info in this very long lead, such as the reason why Jeff Sessions decided to vacate his seat. I hope you will not mind if I ask you this annoying question: if Trump stays in the lead, would it be okay with you if we insert the following to give a better idea of Trump’s role: “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary”? The Trump angle is basically that Moore was able to overcome Trump in the primary, and Moore was beyond Trump’s ability to help in the general election; if one of these is in the lead, I think the other ought to be too, and just including the latter makes it seem like Trump was more devoted to Moore than he actually was. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This comment reads like a pushmi-pullyu: On one end you're saying the lead is too detailed, while on the other you want to add a detail. My preference would be that we trimmed the lead waaaaay back (to maybe 1/3 or so of its current length). It would be more readable, and it might have the benefit of decreasing these political arguments. But I doubt that would fly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I hope it flies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there a source to say that Moore overcame Trump's support of his opponent in the primary? Right now, there's no reason given at all as to why Moore won over Strange. Even the article on the special election is vague/absent of why Moore won over Strange, so without that sources, you can't say Moore overcame Trump's support of Strange, making that inclusion in the lede completely inappropriately. It is fine in the body to explain that in the main (non primary) election, Trump, who had initially endorsed Moore's opponent in the primary due to concerns Moore would not win the election, endorsed Moore in the main election. --Masem (t) 17:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not suggest including in the lead any language about Moore overcoming Trump's support of Strange, though I can find sources for that if you would like. All I suggested to include in the lead is this: “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary" which you approved above. Incidentally, according to the Washington Post, "With his victory, Moore became the first Republican Senate candidate since the 2014 cycle to overcome a full-scale attack during the primary from allies of Republican leadership and the U.S. Chamber. He also won despite a last-minute push by Trump for Strange that included a barrage of late tweets and a rally Friday in Alabama." Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Massem and Boris... The entire article needs extensive trimming but (even without that) the stuff about Trump definitely does not belong in the lede. Anythingyouwant... your amended language would be fine in the lower section discussing Moore’s failed Senate run... but even that little bit is too much for the lede. I would go so far as to say that the lede should not mention anyone but Moore... mention others (Republicans or Democrats... supporters or opponents... endorsers or detractors) in the appropriate sections in the body of the text. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot of us who have discussed content disputes on the article talk page (where it's supposed to happen) would disagree that that the article needs extensive trimming and would disagree that Trump's endorsement of Moore (after the sexual assault allegations came to light) does not belong in the lead.- MrX 18:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Does this mean you’re willing to include in the lead when the sexual assault accusations came to light? Right now, the lead gives no clue because you kept that out of the lead.[21] Thus readers are now getting the impression that the Alabama GOP nominated someone who they knew had been accused of these things, which is false. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll discuss any miscellaneous proposal for improving the article on the article talk page, where those discussions belong. This noticeboard is for discussing NPOV issues that can't be resolved on the article talk page. You wanted to insert the false claim that Trump opposed Moore into the lead. We don't fix NPOV issues by adding false information to articles.- MrX 19:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You are continuously and unabashedly misrepresenting facts. According to the Associated Press via ABC News, “Virtually the entire Republican establishment — including President Donald Trump — opposed Moore's primary bid in September.” And even if you were correct, I have said over and over again that I can accept compromise language which you have refused. Just like you have refused to say in the lead that the accusations were made public after the primary campaign.[22] Please stop POV-pushing. If you won’t believe Associated Press and ABC News, then try the Washington Post, which reported that Moore “won despite a last-minute push by Trump for Strange that included a barrage of late tweets and a rally Friday in Alabama.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Mr. X and I rarely agree on much of anything, but this is one of those times. I think the lead (this is a lead, not a lede. There's a difference.) in the Roy Moore article has issues, but one of them is not including that a sitting president not only endorsed him, but actively campaigned for him. This is certainly more noteworthy than implication that he is cheating on the finances of a non-profit (why that unproven allegation is in the lead is a good question). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The finances thing does not belong in the lead because non-profit organizations don’t pay taxes and thus could not be paying insufficient taxes. There are many problems with this lead, but I thought it best to start with the biggest problem. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone claiming that they paid insufficient taxes. Tax exempt organizations are required to file a Form 990 with the IRS, and the allegation is that they did not report all of Moore's pay. –dlthewave ☎ 04:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead says, "He is also the founder and president of the Foundation for Moral Law, a non-profit legal organization from which he collected more than $1 million over five years, though a far smaller amount was indicated on its tax filings.[21]" A casual reader will assume someone was trying to pay less taxes than they were supposed to. As you say, no one has actually claimed that. Therefore I agree with Niteshift36 who raised the question of why it's in the lead, and it seems somewhat misleading for the lead (pun intended). Anyway, I didn't raise the question here, and I don't intend to pursue it, because I'm trying to focus on why the entire primary campaign is mysteriously omitted from the lead while irrelevant details are included (like why Sessions decided to vacate his seat). It was very unusual for a President to become deeply involved in a disputed primary, and then for the White-House backed candidate to lose; the last time was with Arlen Specter in 2010. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• As you can see, when I mentioned the issue, I said "cheating on the finances", nothing about paying too few taxes. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I agreed with you to the extent that you said this: "why that unproven allegation is in the lead is a good question". And I also agree with you that our reasons are not exactly the same. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors who have commented above, for their input. I have just made these two article edits that have both been discussed above, and both improve the neutrality of this BLP's lead. This is not meant to preclude further improvements, e.g. getting Trump out of the lead, or cutting the size of the lead. I slightly tweaked the second of those two edits here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

And User:MrX has predictably reverted Trump's stance in the primary campaign, and the lead now does not even suggest that there ever was a primary campaign. This is called deception. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Predicable, because you do not have consensus for adding that detail to the lead. You have one or two people sort of agreeing with you here, but several who don't. Your edit was poorly written and gave undue emphasis to a minor point. Feel free to start a proper RfC on the article talk page if you think you can gain consensus for your edit, but I think you better use a better argument than calling the status quo version "deception".- MrX 01:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Four editors here explicitly supported saying in the lead “having previously supported Moore's opponent during the primary”. So that's deception too. Yes, I'll probably do an RFC, in time. Your position that the entire primary was minor and not worth mentioning is absurd given the immense coverage of it in reliable sources, the very unusual failure of a President to secure victory for an incumbent in the primary, the paucity of words I have suggested to include, and the amount of truly irrelevant stuff in the lead (such as the reason Sessions vacated his seat). Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

MrX beat me to the suggestion of an RfC. That's the obvious next step in a case like this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)\

Okay. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Promotional pieces being added to Quba

A large piece is being added to the article on the Azerbaijani town Quba which I find promotional and WP:UNDUE [23]. My revert was reverted. More opinions, preferably on the talk page, will be appreciated--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

A question of fairness.

There is a suspiciously obsessive amount of information on Chris Langham's criminal history amounting to a witch hunt. There is an over-emphasis on accusations (never proven) of paedophila and such attention to detail of this matter that I wonder what the motives are of the contributor. Wikipedia is not a revenge tool. And contacting me directly to censure me is not in the spirit of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notmrsgrundy (talk • contribs) 12:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisaku_Ikeda -- this page is really obviously biased. It's as if a devoted follower of his wrote it -- it doesn't mention any criticism aside from a journalist, and aside from that it's all devoted to praise of Ikeda. It cites a obscure scholar who's the head of a foundation founded by Ikeda and who's books are sold on Soka Gakkai websites as proof that "Ikeda's vision for the SGI has been described as a borderless Buddhist humanism that emphasizes free thinking and personal development based on respect for all life." . It also says, in the lead, that "At age 19, Ikeda began practicing Nichiren Buddhism and joined a youth group of the Soka Gakkai Buddhist association, which led to his lifelong work developing the global peace movement of SGI and founding dozens of institutions dedicated to fostering peace, culture and education" which is cited to his own website and the same obscure scholar.

I think this article should be radically rewritten to comply with NPOV. 79.66.4.79 (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)