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)

Catalan supremacism

I have created an RfC on an article talk page, largely translated from Spanish language wikipedia which has created a lot of aggro, in context of current political tensions in Catalonia because it is about the history of racial supremacist thought in early and late Catalan nationalism. I am doing my best to resolve issue of article which I created and is very extensively sourced. The debate currently pertains to the title and lead. I would request editors to comment after reading body of article extensively and judging on whether the sourcing supports the name and content of lead of the article (also whether it is POV, evidently). This is a complex matter so would suggest thorough review of body of article and discussions on talk page before providing comment. It is a new article and I'm a relatively new wikipedian and the more editors involved the better, to guide us on policy.Sonrisas1 (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The very name of the article is unreferenced, there is no primary sources anywhere, and the references added are all secondary sources, most non-scholar, many unsigned, and don't use the very words "catalan supremacism", so there is a clear bias and lack of reliability. The author is been asked to name in the introduction the people who labeled and the papers on which they developed this theory, and to clarify many secondary sources that aren't about "catalan supremacism". --Panotxa (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If it is a translation it is material whether it is based on the Spanish article and whether it is labeled as such on the talk page. Special rules may apply if so. If it's a faithful representation of a foreign language article it still needs, eventually, to meet the standards of the English wiki, but please let him get the translation done, then fix the references; this often needs to be done in two steps as the reference syntax also requires translation. This assumes he is still working on the article. If not, yes, it should have references; feel free to use the cn tag at will. Elinruby (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Adoption of non-neutral terminology in WP's own voice, at Rape myth

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Rape myth#Improper tone and approach; some additional editorial input (especially from NPOVN regulars) would be of value, since the discussion has turned circular and only involves two editors, but is rather important for this article. The threads immediately below it may also be of interest, though they also involved WP:NOR concerns as well as neutrality ones. This is an old and kind of languishing article that recently got a lot of focused attention, but from too few parties.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This still needs help from uninvolved editors. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Parliamentary report in to antisemitism

This is becoming problematic [3], in essence Jackobson is commenting on one report, but it is being included in a section about another report. In addition only one parties issues with Antisemitism is being criticized outside of the parliamentary report withing this section [[4]. Despite the fact the reports does not single out one party and in fact says they are all equally guilty.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

83% of Jews think said party has an antisemtism tolerance issue [5] [6]. And several media sources have been covering antisemitism issues, in depth, in regards to this party - whereas coverage of other parties is much less pronounced.Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

What has this to do with the parliamentary inquiry?Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Didn't this subsequent report originate from that? There might be merit to rearrange the sections headings and expand coverage of the inner-party issues in said party.Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Lets allow others to chime in, we can have this discussion on the talk page. Feel free to suggest it there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Note to casual skimmers: this is UK politics Elinruby (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Is asserting Jack Letts was arrested neutral wording...

Letts is muslim convert from the UK, who traveled to Syria, who is now in the custody of a quasi-independent Kurdistan.

How did Letts come to be in Kurdish custody? Last May some accounts said he surrendered. Other accounts say he was captured. All accounts concurred that the Kurds considered him a combatant.

His family claims he had regretted ever traveling to Syria, and had been trying to escape for some time.

One of the contributors to this article amended the article to say Letts was "arrested", and that he had been "charged".

So, there is some confusion as to his exact status now, and his status when he was apprehended.

I think there are lots of ways that we can write about Letts, without taking sides, by using non-neutral terms like "arrested".

I said so, on the talk page.

There were a flurry of RS on October 28th, that reported Letts had been "charged". The contributor who wants our article to simply state he has been charged, without explicitly attributing this description to an RS also insists that ALL the RS report this. But they aren't reading the reporting thoroughly. One RS, the BBC, reported Letts had been charged, based on a statement they said they had been given by (unnamed) Kurdish officials. All the other RS merely reported that the BBC was reporting he had been charged, based on the statement they had been given. The BBC hasn't shared that statement, and the Kurds did not make it public.

I think this means the assertion is not official, and should only appear in our article with explicit attribution.

What the Kurdish spokesmen have said is that they consider Letts a POW, and are holding him consistent with the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and other human rights agreements.

I pointed out, on the talk page, that if we took the actual public Kurdish spokesmen at face value, that the Kurds were holding Letts as a POW, he could not be charged. The Geneva Conventions do not allow POWs to face charges. When a combatant is captured, or surrenders, he or she is supposed to be treated as a POW, which allows the captor to hold them, for the duration of hostilities, but prohibits them from charging them, or punishing them, for participating in hostilities. At least charges and punishment are prohibitied so long as the combatant was a lawful combatant. Fighting while wearing civilian clothes, or committing atrocities, like killing civilians, or killing prisoners, allow someone to be stripped of POW status, and they can then face charges. Every individual who was once treated as a POW, who then faced charges, was first stripped of POW status.

That other guy has claimed, several times, that I am lapsing from original research. I vigorously dispute this. The policy against original research controls what we put into article space, and what I put into article space was completely compliant. Some issues are complicated, and require discussion, on the talk page, or other fora, like this noticeboard. No, no RS has made the point that if the Kurdish spokesmen continue to describe Letts as a POW, they couldn't have charged him., at least not while respecting the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. But I am not arguing that this point be inserted into article space. Rather I offer it as one further factor to consider when considering whether to say he was arrested, as opposed to some of the more neutral alternatives, like saying he was "held", or "apprehended", which could apply to both a civilian arrest or a military capture. Geo Swan (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor who knows nothing about the circumstances Letts is in and in fact never heard of him until now. But it seems to me on a reductionist level that saying that someone has been arrested could be construed as a BLP issue and so at a minimum requires attribution in a footnote, and spelled out in the text if anyone with any credibility at all is questioning this narrative. This may be a question of how much weight to give given sources, not sure. It also strikes me that it's not a nation state holding him so "charges"is an odd terminology. Which news sources are saying something else, that the other editor isn't reading? And where is he or she? You did notify them, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) -- 05:25, 2017 November 11

Based on a quick Google, I do see both "POV" and "charges"; There would seem to be some confusion as to his status, and plenty of controversy. Since we aren't able to magically determine what happened and which version of events is (most) accurate, and aren't supposed to do this anyway, this article should imho address his status as an open question, with careful attribution as to who said what. His parents say he was a bystander and the UK government called him a terrorist, in addition to what the Kurds are saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) -- 08:39, 2017 November 11

• Thanks for the reply Elinruby. The individual who first asserted Letts had been arrested has walked that back (thanks!). But they continue to maintain that he has been "charged".
• On October 28th the BBC acquired an unpublished document they called a "statement". Based on this unpublished document the BBC reported that Letts has been "charged". Specifically they reported he "had been charged with being a member of the so-called Islamic State."
• As above I have argued that it was essential to attribute the assertion that Letts had been charged to the RS that made the claim.
• My respondent keeps claiming it is not necessary to specifically attribute the assertion to the BBC, and they have trimmed my attempts to provide proper attribution.
• They have argued it is irrelevant who first reported this, as other RS repeated the assertion, in the days that followed. But, the trouble with this argument is that most of the other RS who repeated the assertion either explicitly informed readers that their reporting was of the BBC claim. They did not name any other source for this assertion. In particular a Kurdish spokesman did issue a statement about Letts, around this time, but she said nothing about Letts being charged, insisting rather he was being treated humanely, and consistently with the Geneva Conventions.

  The RS which did not explicitly attribute the assertion to the BBC rather shamefully plagiarized the BBC article, printing practically word for word cut and pastes of the BBC reporting, which did not mention the BBC.

• It has been almost four weeks since the BBC first made the assertion Letts has been charged. They last repeated this claim on November 2nd.
• Like the rest of us wikipedia volunteers, I am not an RS, so my interpretation does not belong in article space. I think I can state here, however, that I think the BBC's assertion is dubious, for several reasons. The more time passes since the BBC first published the claim, the more dubious their reporting becomes, since no Kurdish official has gone on record to confirm it.
• In my opinion, that other RS repeated the BBC assertion is irrelevant. If the BBC had published the statement they acquired, then other RS could ask their own translators to translate it, could call on their own experts to explain what it meant. But, so long as the BBC sits on the document, no other RS can have an informed opinion on what it means. That means the assertion Letts had been charged comes from just a single RS.
• As I have noted, elsewhere, if we take the on-the-record assertions of Kurdish officials, that Letts was being treated according to the Geneva Conventions, they would have had to convene a "competent tribunal" to official determine he had lapsed from the criteria for the protection against prosecution that POWs have, before he could face any charges. If they were really complying with the Geneva Conventions they would have published the results of the competent tribunal.
• I am not an RS, so the explanations I provided here, as to why the claim is dubious, don't belong in the article. But I don't think any experienced contributor would try to defend the assertion he had been charged as a solid fact, not a dubious claim. The claim certainly doesn't belong in the lead sentence. Geo Swan (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Im sorry Geo Swan, every source, including the BBC says he has been charged. Not detained etc, but charged. So that is what the article should say. I literally have no idea why you keep saying that every other report is a copy of the 1st report of the incident by the BBC. Firstly, they are not, secondly, every story or news article has to have one agency that reports it first, thats easy to understand. Anyway, the report says "charged" in every source I can find, so really cant see what you complaint is? Simply-the-truth (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Quoting you" I think I can state here, however, that I think the BBC's assertion is dubious". That is your npov opinion, it may be correct, it probably isnt. But the fact remains that this is what "you" think of the situation. That is why on wiki we simply quote what the source says, as in this case. We dont push our own pov as you seem to be doing here? I really am trying to work with you on this Geo Swan, but it really does seem that you want to make the article say what you think it should say, all I am doing is using relevant sources. And now as well I see you complain that the word "arrested" was removed from the lead. This was because YOU ASKED FOR IT TO BE REMOVED, others disagreed but you kepy quoting the GC (which arent relevant whatever you say for many obvious reasons) so the word arrested was changed. Now you say this was better!! Simply-the-truth (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sigh. I am already working on too much so I am not going to count sources for his status, but you may need to do this to resolve the matter. I think I am correct in saying meanwhile that while the BBC is generally considered RS -- assuming this was a news story and not an editorial or op-ed -- it still just boils down to one reporter, if everyone else is quoting them as an attributed news source, ie, has not verified with independent reporting. I hope this suggests a way forward. You both sound very frustrated. Elinruby (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• There are uncited statements that could be considered defamatory. Elinruby (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• I don't know a great deal about the topic, but on the article talk page, Simply the Truth user posted 7 UK newspaper articles all claiming that Jack Letts was charged with being a member of ISIS by the de facto government of Northern Syria. It's generally sourced to a statement made by that governing authority, and additionally he himself was interviewed back in June, confirming at least that they did hold him in prison at some point. I can see why the statement about charges might be more delicate, but at we could be a bit more clear about where his is and who claims to hold him. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Well, I see the issue; I removed some unsourced material and the removal was reverted with an edit summary saying there are five sources for the material. Fine then, let us provide them. I personally don't care --at all-- whether the man was or was not a fighter or is a prisoner of war or a duly arrested terrorist. I don't have any stake in this at all. But the article as it sits is inadequately sourced and says he was radicalized but ran away in battle. How is this not a BLP issue? Not to mention RS and NPOV? He denies all this. The current article is very close to libel, in WP's voice. If RS support the statements then we should attribute them, and to something more specific than "October 2017 reports", which could be the Daily Mail and the National Enquirer for all we know. Elinruby (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Question about calling a group of artists Jewish.

There is no dispute on this topic, at least not yet. But I would like some guidance from any editor with an opinion, please, on the following question. In editing the Annees Folles article, I found many references to a group of painters from Eastern Europe who were all refugees in Paris from pogroms in their home countries, variously called School of Paris or Jewish School of Paris. Their Jewish origins are noteworthy because this is how they came to meet. But should it be the first thing that comes to mind about them? Even if it was what they were called at the time? (1920s-30s) This is really more of a policy than a weight question, I think. The page is currently called School of Paris, but I am wondering whether it should actually be Jewish School of Paris. Elinruby (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If RS note it so should we. If however it was not their official name (for example) but one applied by a few RS we should attribute it. Also were all members Jewish?Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. That is the right question, of course... exactly who uses it and how. My current impression is that this is what they were called at the time, but the appellation came to seem inappropriate. The article as it is currently written blurs this by using the term emigres but I'm here to tell you that that's me not being sure how to handle this. The article has seen work from other people since, I see now, so I should post on the talk page about the discussion here. But yes, at least at first they were all Jewish and fleeing pogroms in Eastern Europe. The point needs more research as well, but since similar questions occurred to me (history vs perpetuating stereotypes) concerning a Nazi art installation in occupied France I'd like to discuss the general principle in addition to to this particular article. I'll come back to this post with more detail. Right now I'm trying to figure out why the Annees Folles link above is redirecting to Roaring Twenties. We thought we fixed that.Elinruby (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In researching this I discovered that the history of this broadly follows the pattern for other art movements of Paris at the time. Before the turn of the century it was mostly French and mostly in Montmartre. After World War I there was a School of Paris that was mostly foreign, heavily Litvak, Lithuanian, and Hungarian. Many if not all of them were Jewish, although not all of their Wikipedia articles mention fleeing pogroms so I guess I should avoid that as a generalization, at least pending research. It seems the appellation Jewish School of Paris was derogatory, or at least was intended to be. After World War II, which scattered everyone, there was also a School of Paris, which was more cosmopolitan, with both French and foreign members who were not necessarily Jewish. There is plenty of need here to flesh out School of Paris, which was also a group of medieval manuscript illustrators, so I would like to leave the question open for comment, as I am still unsure how to proceed, but I have discovered that French Wikipedia has lengthy article on both School of Paris and Jewish School of Paris, so I will start with some translation. Elinruby (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Epistocracy

• Draft:Epistocracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May be a POV fork of Noocracy to which mainspace Epistocracy redirects (please see my concerns at Draft talk:Epistocracy). It's unclear to me if this should be used to improve the mainspace article or if it should become a redirect, or nominated at MfD. More eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 21:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Status of Taiwan

Recent edits made to Visa policy of China by User:Nixiao1983 did not meet the consensus reached in 2012 and the user came with a potentially biased view that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China. The original intent of the article is not to take sides on the issue, but to highlight Taiwan's special status in China's relevant visa policies and laws. The user had explicitly stated that they think Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China.

My question is what we, as editors, can do to maintain NPOV in non-politically affiliated articles while avoiding self-censorship to ensure that Wikipedia is not influenced by a political entity. Looking forward to hear your thoughts. C-GAUN (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

A 2012 consensus is a bit old. And editors can have a POV (including holding the Chinese POV that Taiwan is a province of China). If there were an article that should take the Chinese POV - this would be it (as it is about the Chinese visa policy that, as expected, operates per the Chinese POV). There is no recent article talk page discussion (since 2016) - everyone involved just edited this on the article itself.Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Editors can (and inevitably do) have a point of view, but the challenge at Wikipedia is to put one's own point of view aside to write from the WP:NPOV. In the case of the China/Taiwan issue, clearly there are those who will hold that Taiwan is and always will be a province of People's Republic of China (PRC). And there are others who will hold that Taiwan (ROC) is a de facto independent state. The point here is that the community reached consensus on this issue, and nothing has changed in the status of the two entities since that consensus was reached, so nothing should change in how we write about these entities. It is neutral to present the PRC's view of Taiwan (in this case, regarding the travels and travel restrictions of people from Taiwan to mainland China) as PRC's view, but it is not neutral to present those views as the only fact. So, it is neutral to say that:

The PRC views Taiwan as a province, and therefore does not consider travel from Taiwan to the mainland to constitute international travel.

but it is not neutral to say

Since Taiwan is a province of the PRC, the PRC does not consider travel from Taiwan to the mainland to constitute international travel.

A subtle difference, but an important one to maintain. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the consensus dates back to 2012 makes it stronger not weaker IMO. We should stick to it, unless there is a new consensus of course. Please note that I am not making any comments on the status of Taiwan, this is not the right place to discuss that complicated matter. I am just saying that if there is an existing consensus it should be respected. Of course this does not mean that it can't be challenged but this can be done only by discussing on the talk page, not by trying to push the new content into the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• I agree: old/stable version must be restored per WP:BRD and WP:NPOV. Actually, this series of edits was an obvious nationalist POV-pushing by an SPA. That account [7] should be blocked. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't Taiwan consider itself a province of China? TFD (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan might officially consider itself a province of China, but it definitely does not consider itself a province of the PRC. There's also the major difference between official declarations and actual policy. Taiwan formally claims rightful sovereignty over the entirety of the Qing Empire (including land in a half dozen modern countries), but in practice the government completely ignores those official claims. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The Historical Status of China's Tibet

This article is about a book published in China. There is a discussion at Talk:The Historical Status of China's Tibet#Neutrality concerning the neutrality of a sentence in the lead section:

Problematic text:

• The book revises the history of Tibet to claim that it always belonged to China.

Proposed replacement:

• The book presents the official Chinese position on the legal status of Tibet.

In my view the phrase "revises the history" makes a judgement on the content of the book and is clearly not neutral. The sentence could also be interpreted as taking sides in the Tibetan independence movement issue. user:Farang Rak Tham supports the existing text, and cites WP:FRINGE. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for addressing this here. The word revises is in itself neutral. The question that should be asked is whether the sources cited in the article support it. I believe that the sources in the article support it, since the sources in the article point out that the book which is the subject of the article does not agree with mainstream scholarship. Apart from WP:FRINGE, there is also WP:DUE which must be taken in consideration.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Please allow me to ping all the editors that have once commented on the article's talk page, not excluding anyone: O1lI0, Elnon, My very best wishes, Tiger Chair, Anmccaff, Popolon.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• In the meantime, a check on Wikiblame shows that the sentence about revising was introduced by My very best wishes. I am now asking him to explain his edit.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Please see talk page of the article. Based on description in sources and the book itself, this is a propaganda publication by Chinese government, and it qualifies as a historical revisionism. I do not see any neutrality problems with current lead. Saying that, I also think the book is not really notable. The content should be merged elsewhere, and the page made a redirect. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, have any secondary sources described this book as revising the history of Tibet? If you can't point to any I'm not sure this is a neutral, factual description of what the book does. Silly as the book may be, what is the harm in the proposed replacement text? How is it less accurate? Seems like the "problematic text" tries too hard to make a point. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure the source tells "revising". Rephrased. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I should clarify why I react strongly to the words revises the history. They can be read as meaning Historical revisionism, whose article says The term "revisionism" is used pejoratively by people who charge that revisionists are deliberately distorting the true historical record. This meaning may not have been intended, but it is a reasonable interpretation of the words. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

According to description on the page [8], it does revise previous work in the field. However, this needs to be stated explicitly in RS. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing about this book in RS because the book is not notable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Paul Lane

• Article has various sections of disputable neutrality and questionable of Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbq430 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Monkey selfie copyright dispute

At issue is the following passage at Monkey selfie copyright dispute#background.

As of 17:34, 17 November 2017 the passage read:[9]

Since 2008, British nature photographer David Slater had travelled to Indonesia to take photographs of the critically endangered Celebes crested macaques. His first description[citation needed] of the monkey selfie incident was published on 4 July 2011 in The Telegraph, after the "crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away". Slater said that "He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back".[7] Slater later stated in an article in Amateur Photographer published 5 July 2011, that his camera had been mounted on a tripod when the primates began playing around with a remote cable release as he was trying to fend off other monkeys.

Slater gave further description in his website and other media accounts saying he and a guide followed the monkeys for three days, gaining their trust on the second day.[9] It his attempts to get photographs of the monkeys, he found the they were fascinated with the camera and the camera gear and kept playing with it, but they also kept trying to run off with the camera. Slater further stated in a August 7, 2014 Amateur Photographer follow up article that "I wanted a close-up image but I couldn’t do it. They were too nervous so I had to get them [the monkeys] to come to the camera without me being there and get them to play with the release, which they did"... "They were looking at the reflection in the lens which they found amusing..."

but the passage now reads:[10]

Since 2008, British nature photographer David Slater had traveled to Indonesia to take photographs of the critically endangered Celebes crested macaques. Descriptions of the monkey selfie incident was included a 4 July 2011 in The Telegraph article titled "Monkey steals camera to snap himself" where Slater described a 3 day period of interacting with the monkeys, how they became fascinated with his photographic equipment, and how one male accidentally triggered a stolen camera. Slater gave a further clerification[sic] in an article in Amateur Photographer published the next day, stating that reports that a monkey stole his camera shot the self-portrait were incorrect, the portrait was shot when his camera had been mounted on a tripod with the primates playing around with a remote cable release as he he fended off other monkeys.[8] He also noted in a 28 July 2017 Vice Magazine interview Slater said that he noticed news outlets were miss-reporting how he obtained the selfie but he went along with it because it was "a bit of fun and some good publicity for the conservation cause".

Slater gave further description in his website and other media accounts saying he and a guide followed the monkeys for three days, gaining their trust on the second day.[10] In his attempts to get photographs of the monkeys, he found the they were fascinated with the camera and the camera gear and kept playing with it, but they also kept trying to run off with the camera. Slater further stated in a August 7, 2014 Amateur Photographer follow up article that "I wanted a close-up image but I couldn’t do it. They were too nervous so I had to get them [the monkeys] to come to the camera without me being there and get them to play with the release, which they did"... "They were looking at the reflection in the lens which they found amusing..."

In my opinion, the second passage fails NPOV. It removes what the source (The Telegraph} actually says ("the crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away") and removes the direct quote from Slater ("He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back"). Clearly this is an attempt to make the page say that Slater's later, changed story (which he started telling after the copyright was challenged) is true and that he never told his original story (which he told before the copyright was challenged). He does, of course, have a strong motive to change his story -- to support his claims that he took the picture and that the monkey didn't.

I would also note that we have a source that says "{Slater] has since changed his story to make it appear that he had more of a role in the photo, but that was not his original story at all"[11]

I would like to see some uninvolved eyes looking at this issue. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Slater did not change his story, this is simply a case of sloppy reporting. Compare the 4 July 2011 Telegraph's "Monkey steals camera to snap himself" story[12] to a Daily Mail story that predates the Telegraph's[13] re: "It soon attracted the attention of an inquisitive female from a local group of crested black macaque monkeys.... Fascinated by her reflection in the lens, she then somehow managed to start the camera. The upshot: A splendid self-portrait." The Telegraph seems to be a sloppy copy/paste plagiarized version of the Daily Mail story. In the Daily Mail we can see the selfi incident and the "male stealing the camera" incident are two different events.

A claim that Slater changed his story after the controversy arose over his claim of copyright is also wrong. A 5 July 2011 Amateur Photographer story[14], a day after the news stories and (a week?) before there was any controversy has the headline "A photographer who says he witnessed monkeys taking pictures of themselves, tells Amateur Photographer (AP) that much of the media coverage has been exaggerated." and states "David (Slater) explained that his camera had been mounted on a tripod when the primates began playing around with a remote ‘cable release’ as he was trying to fend off other monkeys......The photographer is keen to stress that the monkeys ‘didn’t run off with the camera or anything like that’..... Commenting on today’s media coverage(article links the Telegraph article) of the pictures David said: ‘There has been a slight exaggeration."

So:

• The claim in As of 17:34, 17 November 2017 "His first description[citation needed] of the monkey selfie incident was published on 4 July 2011 in The Telegraph, after the "crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away"" is wrong: its not Slater's description, its a sloppy reporter's incorrect description and its contradicted by another source (Daily Mail, not Slater).

I also note an editor's history here of comparing and contrasting historical contemporaneous media reports and deriving meaning from photographs(diff) to WP:SYNTH a story about Slater's veracity instead of citing secondary sources that make that claim, that is specifically WP:OR. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Just thought I would note that the story was covered on This American Life today (or at least that segment was broadcast on KQED today). Slater is quite clear that the monkey was female, which has ramifications for the lawsuit against him by PETA. Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Fountains of Bryn Mawr and myself are not the "uninvolved eyes looking at this" that I requested. and that the above arguments have already been posted on the article talk page. What is the point of duplication the arguments here? Again. may I have someone who is not already involved look at this please?

Fountains, is it your contention that The Telegraph fabricated the "He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back" direct quote from Slater? And that we should believe The Daily Mail instead? See WP:DAILYMAIL. Or are you claiming that someone can "get his camera back" even though the camera was never taken from him? Why are you supporting the deletion of the "by the time I got my camera back" direct quote? The deletion looks like a NPOV violation to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the source for the quote "by the time I got my camera back" being linked to the camera being taken away form him? the Telegraph sources does not say it was taken form him, just taken over. This all looks a bit Synthy to me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

" Monkey steals camera to snap himself "

" A macaque monkey in Indonesia took a camera from a wildlife photographer before snapping himself in a variety of poses. "

" The primate went to investigate the equipment before becoming fascinated with his own reflection in the lens.

And it wasn't long before the crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away sending award-winning photographer David Slater bananas.

David, 46, said: 'One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy.

'At first there was a lot of grimacing with their teeth showing because it was probably the first time they had ever seen a reflection.

'They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button.

'The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it. At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to watch.

'He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet.

'I wish I could have stayed longer as he probably would have taken a full family album'. "

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8615859/Monkey-steals-camera-to-snap-himself.html

It is Synthy because your first quote is not from Slater. Thus whilst it is true the media changed the story there is no evidence he did. Thus this must be attributed not the him, but to the source "IE the Telegraph claimed".Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

So you are now claiming that a statement ("He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet") surrounded by quotation marks and preceded by the words "David, 46, said:" is not a direct quote from Slater? Care to explain your reasoning? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• To be honest we should just delete the article. After Jimbo's antics at wikimania he has tainted the appearance of neutrality irrevocably. Whatever we put in it, there will be accusations of bias. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You can shout it is you like, it does not alter the fact he never said the Monkey sole his camera, also you altered the quotes you posted as well. So produce a quote by Slater saying the monkey stole the camera.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no requirement that all material in Wikipedia articles be supported by direct quotes. The standard is "reported in reliable sources." I do want the direct quote about him getting his camera back to be put back into the article, preceded by "Slater said" and where and when he said it. The reader should decide what "by the time I got my camera back" implies. I also want some variation of the claims claims "Monkey steals camera to snap himself" "A macaque monkey in Indonesia took a camera from a wildlife photographer before snapping himself in a variety of poses" and/or "the crested black macaque hijacked the camera" put back in, preceded by "The Telegraph reported..." and when they reported it. You have given no valid reason to deleting this properly sourced material, and your instance that it stay out of the article is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

As I understand the dispute it is over whether he changed his story, based upon a source quoting another source (in effect) as if the Daily myths statement was his. I have no issue with giving the Telegraphs version (attributed, of course), I have issue with claiming (at all in fact given the doggedness of the sources) claiming he changed his story.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure who is being shouted at here, Slatersteven didn't edit and I have been lurking elsewhere. Actually been expanding the article using sources already cited. Looking through all the publications that initially published stories (paraphrasing an initial press release?) - they all vary in what they reported, and contradict each other as to how the selfie was made. That puts us at WP:YESPOV #2 "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" - we can't state (or imply) one version in Wikipedia's voice. At no point in any of the sources is it stated the "He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet" was the time the selfie was shot. The Newsweek source says the theft of a camera resulted in "A few frames of green-and-brown forest blur". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry it was not a reply to you.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

When someone makes the false claim that that what is in a source is not in that source, quoting the source with the sections in bold is perfectly appropriate behavior. Nor is it true that all uses of bold are "shouting". Using bold for emphasis is a part of standard English usage. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, please go to [ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8615859/Monkey-steals-camera-to-snap-himself.html ].

See that direct quote ("He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back")?

See those sourced claims ("Monkey steals camera to snap himself", "A macaque monkey in Indonesia took a camera from a wildlife photographer before snapping himself in a variety of poses", "the crested black macaque hijacked the camera")?

See the two images at the top of the article? (including the Monkey selfie we are discussing?)

Do you imagine that that particular image engaged up at the top of that particular article by random chance? Your reasoning is becoming more and more tortured.

Also, nobody here is trying to state seriously contested assertions as facts. I simply want to state that The Telegraph' said X and that David Slater said Y to The Telegraph retaining the rest of the section where we document what other sources said and what Slater told those other sources.

You want to delete properly sourced material because it does not support your POV that the monkey didn't take the camera. I just want to report what is in the the sources, with no interpretation by Wikipedia editors added. That's what WP:NPOV requires us to do.

On a related note: if, as you claim, Slater took the photos, then they would be about as valuable to him as the hundreds of photos of moneys that everyone agrees that he took personally, all of which together according to his own words did not bring in enough revenue to support him as a wildlife photographer. The sole reason this particular picture is valuable is because a monkey stole his camera and snapped a selfie. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

When someone makes the false claim by using just one source, ignoring all others, and putting it in Wikipedia's voice, well, that is a problem. When The Telegraph says X, The Guardian says Y, and the Daily Mail says Z then we don't cherry pick to make a claim. Its pretty simple. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

When The Telegraph says X and The Guardian says Y we report without commentary or interpretation that The Telegraph says X and The Guardian says Y. We don't delete what the Telegraph says because we don't like it. And we don't report what The Daily Mail says under any circumstances. This was decided at WP:DAILYMAIL. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

To add, given that Slater was alone for all this, then what the Telegraph or DM claims to have happened (that is not paraphrasing Slater's own words) is useless - they weren't there. And to be more specific, as I mentioned above, we'd be engaging in OR to try to compare and contrast what Slater claimed during the different stages of the copyright dispute, without a secondary source that notes the story changed. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Does avoiding comparing and contrasting require deletion of what The Telegraph reported? I agree that any additional interpretation, whether it be "changed his story" or "later clarified" should be left out, but can't we simply report what The Telegraph said and the Slater quote from The Telegraph, along with the existing claims and quotes from Amateur Photographer, Vice, etc?

The reference and quote in question are now back in the article with no action on my part, so it looks like raising the NPOV issue here had a beneficial effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Joe Clifford

Some time ago, a tag was added disputing the neutrality of this article, which I contributed. It is not clear what the issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given, although I have asked the tagger and followed up. No discussion has been added to the talk page. Rory1262 (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

From Template:POV#When to remove:

You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

I generally wait two weeks before removing such tags, just to make sure that everyone has a chance to respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't tell either, unless someone is trying to express BLP concerns and doesn't know how. Are those sources RS? In any event I agree that it's still November. Perhaps a question on the talk page, just in case someone is watching the article, not this list. Elinruby (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I added a question on the article's talk page as well, thanks. No response yet there either. When the article was first approved, a reviewer asked for a good bit more to meet standards of notability. Rory1262 (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd welcome some more more impartial input. According to the person who added the tag questioning neutrality, "The article as it stands is the sort of thing publishers put out as PR." I am merely a reader of Mr. Clifford's work, and I sought to keep the tone restrained. I don't find the explanation satisfactory, but I'd prefer not to remove a tag when I am the article's author. Rory1262 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

In response to the Bundy Standoff article

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is In response to the Bundy Standoff article.The discussion is about the topic Bundy_Standoff. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:ED40:86EE:8769:A539 (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I've deliberated with a user named NorthbySouthBaranof, and we have failed to come to a consensus on the Neutral Point of View subject. There are numerous points in this article which did not receive reference, even when asked for. I am not happy with this, but I am willing to allow it if we can maintain the disputed NPOV disclaimer at the top of the page. I will not accept anything less.

Me and Baranof discussed property ownership legalities, and came to a temporary conclusion, although I do not see how powers exercised by the Federal Government, when met in dispute by state authorities (The state militia, primarily), are relevant when the dispute has not been resolved yet. I feel this is worth a mention, but as I understand, Baranof is the only user on the entire Wikipedia website allowed to edit this page with lasting success. This is a bit childish to say, but a fact nonetheless. I am willing to let his revision pass because I am still inquiring into the legal wording. As we all know, if it ain't constitutional, it don't matter what laws people pass (Save for the Supreme court), it doesn't fly. I do, however, request access to edit the article in order to correct the misinformation regarding the militia. As many of you know, Article I Section 8 raises the militia, and 10 U.S.C. §311 (Formerly 311, seemingly this has changed in recent years to 10 U.S.C. §246) ties this standing power into the National Guard, which is therein primarily under the command of the Governor of the state, unless raised elsewhere by the President or Congress as per the Constitution. This standing power was there without command by the Governor of Nevada, and so therefore it should be noted and embellished upon, instead of diminished.

Unless, of course, bias is welcome. In that case, I could say a great number of absurd and offensive things off the cuff, too. At any rate, please review the case, and the last 20 revisions. I will maintain the NPOV dispute link.

EDIT: I will edit by saying that I have made changes in the past with every sentence ending in a reference, and yet still all were denied at the hand of Baranof.

EDIT2: Hopefully I got the inform editor code right... - Percy— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:ED40:86EE:8769:A539 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV disclaimers are expressly not permanent "scarlet letters" which can remain on an article indefinitely; once the dispute is concluded, the template must be removed.

Given that you've admitted that your arguments relating to federal ownership and management of public land were incorrect, it's not clear right now what changes you desire to make to the article; could you be more specific and provide reliable sources to support the changes that you're proposing? You have not posted any such sources on the talk page, which makes it difficult to have a good-faith discussion. All content in Wikipedia must be verifiable in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: This was the document I wanted initially but couldn't find it, just use it as a corroborating article - http://cloudfront-assets.reason.com/media/pdf/Sovereign_Citizen_Extremist_Ideology_2-5-15.pdf

This is going to take a long time to gather paperwork and other such reference materials, but we can start by removing the term "Sovereign Citizens Movement" entirely and adding a section regarding the concept. I've already explained to you that there is no "Sovereign Citizens Movement", in that people who are categorized as such by the authorities do NOT call themselves that. I have yet to see someone in this group of people call themselves part of it, and in fact only see them call themselves part of their own group's name (American Militia Freedom Forces, among others mentioned in the article). It is clearly offensive to them, like the term "Deplorable". Not like they don't call themselves part of a movement, per se, but we ARE being pragmatic here, and it's only right on their behalf to be 100% factual. Anyway, here's this document to prove it, go to page 2 under the "Emerging Threat" header - https://www.chds.us/c/resources/uploads/2015/07/NPS.CHDS_.Welch_.PlanningBudgeting-memo.pdf

The whole document is worth a read. You can find a hundred more by plugging in "DHS sovereign citizen movement pdf" into Google's search engine. If I may quote my document, "The Sovereign Citizen Movement is categorized as right-wing extremism, a broader category, defined as 'individuals and/or groups suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, free of taxes, believe in conspiracy theories that involve great threat to personal liberty and a belief one’s life is under attack.'”. Shall I continue to try and prove a point? Anyway, I'll get back to you on the Militia thing, as I want to treat it as you treated mine, so we'll technically have to wait until the Bundy trial is over to be the most accurate. - Percy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:5C6E:3D0B:99DA:B98D (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That people in the movement don't call themselves "sovereign citizens" is of no consequence. If reliable sources call them that is sufficient for our purposes. See, for example, articles on white supremacist figures such as Richard Spencer - we call him a white supremacist, but note that he objects to that label. His objection does not override the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. Our articles are based on what is published in reliable sources. That you personally disagree with the term is of no consequence here. Once again, we cannot solve your problem with the sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I would add that if there is a source or sources for a specific statement by any of the people involved in the standoff that they reject the categorization of "sovereign citizen" we should include a mention of that rejection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Baranof, it's defense against foreign or domestic tyranny FIRST, wrong or right. Rules governing BLM and other land management policies LAST. Yes, I'm remembering the Property Clause. Yes, the Property Clause and the Militia Clause(s) come into effect at the same time. No, that doesn't include independent direction by the director of the BLM. Shall we debate the Chicken or the Egg riddle?

EDIT: Also, there is this:

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. - Percy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:906A:6B10:111:850D (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Sovereign citizens do not call themselves sovereign citizens for the same reason nutjobs don't call themselves crazy. They are defined by their ideology and methods not by what they call themselves. The average sovereign citizen has latched onto an ideology in order to (usually) get out of civic responsibility, avoid punishment for a crime, avoid taxes etc etc. Its self-interest. Its not a concerted movement in the way say, a charity or advocacy group works, but when individuals or small groups of people latch onto the same method and ideological stance in order to effect the same outcome (usually, I shouldn't be in court), it is a movement nevertheless, even if only in political thought. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not expect you to use the term "crazy" that literally, Baranof. I'm not impressed, honestly, I thought the idea was to be pragmatic. I'm going to use the term SCE frequently to help people understand from here on in. An SCE can be a part of the Militia, but the Militia has it's own mandate to follow. The procedural norm of the SCE in question is not equivalent by default to the Militia body to which he/she belongs. The Militia, by default, cannot possibly be in true conflict with law enforcement because they are both doing their job at the same time. Any act by a member of the Militia body which initiates true conflict with law enforcement is the only one guilty of doing so, and, if reason is manifest to suspect it, the leadership of the Militia is held accountable for enabling the behaviour. It's simply a logical impossibility for true Militia members to initiate that conflict. Keep in mind that the reality of THIS situation is that the Bundy's contacted the Militia themselves for help, through a series of social media distribution bursts. This continued up to May 16, 2014. Through those bursts, potential SCE's were given the opportunity to potentially target law enforcement officers on scene (More is searchable via #OperationTorchLight). That is the truest form of the issue you can fathom, and to say you aren't lumping Militia members doing their duty with all the SCE's and the SCE wannabe's is absolute foolishness.

And if you hate them acting on their own so much, and doing their duty to the country as National Guardsmen, Baranof, where the f*** were you shouting at them to stay the f*** away from helping in Hurricane Harvey relief? - Percy

Why are you attacking me for comments made by someone else? The above post is by User:Only in death, not me. As a new Wikipedian, you should probably learn how to read a talk page (along with learning our sourcing and editorial policies) before engaging in extensive, contentious issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I did. I apologize for firing through that read. The rest of my point remains. As far as the rest of what User:Only in death said, that is in fact how certain SCE's operate. Again, not all of them are the same, much like you and me and everyone else. My heart bleeds for the victims who receive the information as YOU intend it. Other than the article itself, you're the only one in BOTH talk pages trying to say that being an SCE is a prerequisite to being in the Militia (Though death alluded to it). I'll go back into the history and see who added it, so if you're just feeling upset because you're stuck between mine and that next guy's writing, I apologize for that.

To be frank, I don't think it's justified to ask me for something contradicting the existing statements when there is nothing referenced in the current version of the article to contradict mine. That being said, can I at least have some substance with your next rebuttal? I really don't want to have to dig through Facebook and other media archives for evidence of contrast between instances of human existence in terms of the SCE/Militia relationship before you do. You need only look on this page for the general understanding. - Percy

I have never argued that you have to be a sovereign citizen to be in a "militia," so I'm not sure what the point of that is. There is a source cited which says certain specific named militia groups were rallied by Bundy's use of sovereign citizen rhetoric, but that's a properly cited factual statement and if you disagree with it, there's nothing we can do unless you have a reliable source which rebuts it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

And of course, I told you that myself without seeing it in the article. Anyway, this needs to be changed RE our discussion:

"and in interviews he used the language of the sovereign citizen movement, thereby gaining the support of members of the Oath Keepers, the White Mountain Militia and the Praetorian Guard militias"

Just to be clear, the article cited reads as follows:

"In interviews, Bundy had used the language of the 'sovereign citizen' movement as a rallying call, beckoning passionate support from members of the Oath Keepers, the White Mountain Militia and the Praetorian Guard."

On the Cliven Bundy page, using the SAME source, it says the following:

"Bundy had asked for the support of members of the Oath Keepers, the White Mountain Militia, and the Praetorian Guard."

I get it. They say it, you're obligated to listen, because it's The Guardian. But after all I've told you, you're still going to allow that source to be credible? Granted, The Guardian got alot right, but they messed that one up big time. At any rate, I cannot win this argument. I don't have millions of dollars at my disposal. Be thankful for that, so you can have your time in the spotlight as moral decay erodes the fabric of that which you love, because these people who want the ratings from explosive language and cutting edge graphics don't care enough about you, the reader, to be objective. It just hurts to see such baloney propagated by good people. You should tell the FBI, maybe they'll put an investigation on me, because I swear to god I must be one of the worst SCE's for talking all this nonsense, right? Not bloody likely.

F*** everything and everyone. I can't save this nation anymore. I'm the reason there was a standoff this big in the first place, something you won't have the priviledge to understand, and this nation is better for it for having the right to be Militia and defend their brethren. I just won't waste my breath, but I'll tell you something, Baranof, this is so stressful to see so many people making the worst mistake they've probably ever made. You're a victim, because nobody who seriously believes in your level of objectivity would be so crass as to deny the reality of publications like this one. I will say, however, that I do appreciate the wall you provided to bash my own head on, it corrected a few errors in my judgment which needed to be corrected. As for the rest of what you say, I won't comment any more. You're just not as educated on the implications of what is being said as I am.</destructivebehaviour>

- Percy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:C1:932F:BCA:7280 (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The talk page comments by the IP are interesting. Evidently they are here because of "Operation Torch Light" (presumably not the East German secret service operation concerning the Protestant Church) and see "a need to battle in the cyber environment, to defeat all enemies in the virtual battlespace, because of the victimization created by others and effected heavily by users such as yourself, though perhaps through no fault of your own." This may be more of an original research issue than NPOV. And of course this isn't the appropriate place to discuss a move. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"Operation dim bulb" is probably more accurate... but otherwise I agree. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. - Percy

• If anything, after taking a closer look at the article, its currently violating NPOV by (for example) including supportive views from people like disgraced politician Steve Stockman - published in a low-quality source known for misinformation. This is giving a false balance. I can see this was brought up on the talkpage as a problem but didn't go anywhere. I think this article in general needs more eyes on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

'wait wait wait' - state militia?? Elinruby (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Pythagoras father Mnesarchus

Editor Katolophyromai edited the 2nd sentence in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras#Life that said "His father is said to have been a gem-engraver or a wealthy merchant originally from Tyre" and changed it into "His father is said to have been a gem-engraver or a wealthy merchant,[25][26] but his ancestry is disputed and unclear.[27][Notes 3]". In his Notes 3 addition he says that ancient authors Herodotus et al said he was from Tyre and that some later authors said he was a "Tyrrhenian"

Please look into the diff page of the Pythagoras Talk page since his fellow friend meatpuppet editor took away my last response https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811537461 and if you think that Katolophyromai's edit and provided sources are neutral after reading my analysis on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalinicoFire (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Transylvanian peasant revolt

Rgvis, placed two tags in the article about Transylvanian peasant revolt, both questioning the neutrality of the article. The principal reason is that I reverted his edit ([15]), which was based on a book published in 1934 and on a tertiary source. The edits suggest that Vlachs, Hungarians, Székelys, Saxons were "on a footing of equality" with each other in medieval Transylvania, and that the Vlach peasants were treated almost as slaves because of their Orthodox faith in the same province. I think both claims represent marginal (or rather fringe) theories. (1) Social status did not depend primarily on nationality in medieval Transylvania: for instance, an ethnic Vlach knez (chieftain) was not "on a footing of equality" with an ethnic Hungarian/Vlach/Saxon nobleman or with a Vlach peasant, but ethnic Vlach noblemen were "on a footing of equality" with ethnic Hungarian/Slovakian/German, etc. noblemen. (2) The Vlach peasants' position was better than Hungarian peasants' position: while the Catholic Hungarian peasants were to pay the ecclesiastic tithe, the Orthodox Vlachs were exempted of this irksome tax, and they were required to pay it only if they settled in a land abandoned by a Catholic peasant. The full debate (including references to reliable sources) can be read on the article's Talk page. I also sought assistance from WikiProject Romania ([16]), but no members of the projects intervened. Later I requested 3rd opinion, but it was declined ([17]). Rqvis' edit clearly represent a copyright infridgement, but this problem could be solved. On this page, I sought your assistance to deal with the neutrality issue. Thank you for your suggestions in advance. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, since I am watching my own question I will try this one. This sounds to me like a dispute over fact that turns on whether given sources are reliable, so this might get more response at that noticeboard. But perhaps due weight and the preponderance of the sources may be applicable guidelines. Are there other sources that say otherwise? They do not necessarily need to be in English or online, although such sources are of course preferred when they are representative and available. Elinruby (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I think the reliability of the sources is not debated. However, both the book published in 1934, and the tertiary source represent marginal theories which cannot be verified by other reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there are other sources, too (from different authors). As regarding the year of the publishing, I personally do not know any Wikipedia rule about this aspect - not to mention, any logical sense. More of that, the article in cause already used as references so-called "old" books (first published in 1944, for instance). I am still waiting for an explanation why editing as per Wikipedia rules is not accepted anymore!? I would also like to know if editing Wikipedia projects makes sense anymore, or it has become worthless, lately. Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC))

Rgvis, would you name other books which state that (1) social status primarily depended on nationality/ethnic background in medieval Transylvania; and (2) Vlach peasants were treated almost as slaves because of their Orthodox faith in medieval Transylvania? Would you name the source cited in the article which was first published in 1944? Borsoka (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

RFC about political parties

Please look at [[18]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality on the MSG safety section

I am concerned about this section for two reasons. First, Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) says that there are inconsistent findings, not “no good evidence.” Specifically, they write, “Of five papers including six studies with food, none showed a significant difference in the incidence of headache except for the female group in one study. Of five papers including seven studies without food, four studies showed a significant difference…Because of the absence of proper blinding, and the inconsistency of the findings, we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists between MSG ingestion and headache."

“No good evidence,” implies that each of the peer reviewed studies that have found an effect are somehow flawed and that we, as Wikipedia editors, can make that determination. I have suggested the revision “Health studies have evaluated the link between MSG and headaches. However, study findings are inconsistent and there does not appear to be a link between normal consumption of MSG and headaches (Obayashi and Nagamura 2016).”

My second concern is the sentence, “Consumption and manufacture of high-salt and high-glutamate foods, which contain both sodium and glutamate, stretch back far longer, with evidence of cheese manufacture as early as 5,500 BC.” I would like this sentence removed. It has nothing to do with MSG. This article should be focused on the food additive MSG, not foods that naturally contain glutamates. Including non-additives is odd and potentially misleading. For example, the high-fructose corn syrup page doesn’t talk about the long history of humans with sugar.

Already discussed ad nauseam on the Article Talk page after it was raised at WT:MED#Monosodium glutamate and headaches. Current wording is good, as multiple editors have explained. Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)