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

Acupuncture's relative popularity in Europe

Resolved

 – Happy to find a better source to keep everyone happy. Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) (as thread-starter), 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Can the statement "Acupuncture is one of the most common alternative medicine practices in Europe" be properly sourced to a monograph on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Policy in Canada (Ramsay 2009, p.45), which says "The three most commonly used alternative therapies in Europe as of 2007 were homeopathy, acupuncture/[TCM], and herbal medicine"?

That the source is RS isn't disputed, but there are other objections (my responses follow):

• That the statement is argumentum ad populum.
  • RESPONSE: Argumentum ad populum takes the general form "X is popular, therefore it is good/true", but here we are only citing a sourced statement "X is popular (and that only relatively, among alt-meds's in Europe)"
• UNDUE: "The source is about Canada and the content is about Europe. That is already a red flag that cherry picking is going on."
  • RESPONSE: There are no other known "sig views" on the subject of which are the most popular CAMS in Europe, so there's no UNDUE problem and no cherry picking.
• UNDUE: "European Acupuncture was part of a list an not even mentioned by itself."
  • RESPONSE: Cf. above, there are no other known "sig views", so being mentioned by itself or as part of a list makes no difference where NPOV is concerned.
• UNDUE: "The wording was almost a complete rehash of the source. If that is the best paraphrasing you can do then probably you are doing something wrong."
  • RESPONSE: Irrelevant; as long as there's no copyvio, closeness of paraphrasing isn't a problem for NPOV or anything else.

Discussion is at Talk:Acupuncture § Popularity in Europe but I think the above about covers it. Editors have declined to discuss further, hence this post. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 18:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest means that you should not be involving yourself in Acupuncture or related articles. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I do not have one according to the recent RfC which has closed with a "No" finding (three admins closing). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The source seems questionable to start. Is there some discussion on its reliability already? --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No, not so far. Is Fraser Institute not ok? For an assertion this uncontroversial (of course acu is popular as CAMs go)? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The source looks extremely in-world. Taking that bit of information from it, presenting it out of the context of the source, and putting it in Wikipedia's voice seems questionable. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Looks like a flimsy source, and the use smacks of WP:ADVOCACY, so not NPOV. What we need is a reputable independent source giving some context to why acupuncture is "popular" (assuming that's true) in Europe - and of course in health matters "popular" is often synonymous with "dodgy" (see popular diet). Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Popular among CAMs (as noted 2x previously). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 02:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

As is too often the cases in this area Middle 8 is misrepresenting the discussion for his own ends. When he wrote that the source "RS isn't disputed" what he should have written is "RS hasn't been disputed". Why bother fighting about the RS value of content that is undue anyway?AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Topic ban please. Middle 8 has wasted hundreds of hours of the community's time pushing back against his relentless attempts to boost his admitted commercial interest in acupuncture. I think ost of us are completely bored with this by now. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Said one of the editors who wasted so much of the community's time on a gratuitous RfC that was never going to get the desired result (although I was surprised it actually boomeranged, but at least now there's no excuse for further such drama). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The entire source of the problem is your relentless attempts to boost your financial interests by editing Wikipedia. Stop doing that, the problem goes away. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like that "obvious COI". --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 00:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If there are no other significant views then there are no significant views at all. If the best you can come up with is an aside, in a list, where the source is about another country on another continent, from a think tank then you are cherry picking and not representing a significant view.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"If there are no other significant views then there are no significant views at all." -- the logic underwhelms. You can't cherry-pick without there being other cherries (sig views) to pick from. Editors are making the mistake of assuming that the claim being made is at all controversial (news flash -- some CAM's are more popular than others -- but maybe the news hasn't made it all the way out to Boise). But whatever, happy to find a better source. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC); undo improper revert of non-personal-attack but also strike as courtesy and to de-escalate, 16:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If you are happy to find a better source then why did you even open this discussion? AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Adding back the personal attack is a funny way to de-escalate.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Because I thought we might get fresh eyes. But alas. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 16:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

For my own amusement I tracked down where this supposed information originally came from. Its a pretty good illustration of why we should use think tanks with care. AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I have to say that the idea that anything "boomeranged" as it's understood by Wikipedia, is an utter joke. You are presumably referring to the RfC in which the question was (duly) asked, "Do practitioners of alt med have a COI when editing topics within their field"? I personally believe that they do and that they should be kept away from those articles with a large club, but I voted "no" in the RfC because Wikipedia COI policy must be kept flexible in cases where experts contribute to a field, and that the recursive impact on policy would out weigh the benefit of further distancing practitioners of fake treatments from the articles they want to whitewash. That being said, I also voted no because we have more than sufficient policy based reasons to prevent articles from being whitewashed by SAPs. Nothing boomeranged here. Wikipedia prior to that RfC was intolerant of efforts to unduly add spurious material to medical articles, and it still is. If you want to see what boomerang means, keep wasting time thusly. Edaham (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ User:Edaham - I mean boomerang in the sense of "backfire" (in contrast to the so-to-speak "misfire" of a no-consensus finding, which I anticipated). I don't mean it in the sense of WP:BOOMERANG and agree it shouldn't be taken that way. As for "wasting time thusly", not sure what that means, but FWIW I don't believe that posting here was a waste of time under the circumstances. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 03:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

References

SPA activity from User:Heveeobjex

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

---

User:Heveeobjex continues to demonstrate questionable WP:SPA activity on the subject of Ron Nirenberg and articles related to him, especially 2017 San Antonio mayoral election and 2019 San Antonio mayoral election. He continues to replace a valid cited image of Nirenberg already uploaded and properly licensed to Commons with one he claims he took or another image he claims to have taken but has conflicting metadata. He has continued to display COI issues with other edits on these topics as well. His issues were discussed on the talk page of Ron Nirenberg about 6 months ago but he stopped editing at that time and has only recently resumed. His activity is questionable at best. Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the account. I can't see any good faith explanation for edit warring to add images with dubious copyright, combined with no edits to any other area of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Talk:Venezuela#POV_-_food_waste

the Venezuela article describes reclaimed food waste as garbage. I believe this to be POV pushing. The international political situation in Venezuela is currently volatile and so the article is locked so i cannot mark the relevant section with a POV tag. I believe the labelling of reclaimed food waste as garbage to be politically motivated in order to further inflame the situation.

Australia is one of the most highly ranked countries in the world for standard of living on the OECD rankings yet Woolworths has donated an average of a million kilograms of 'food waste' a year for distribution by charities. a report from the Australian Government stated, "Food rescue organisations contribute to reducing wasted food that is suitable for human consumption. In rescuing food that would otherwise be thrown away, these organisations provide those in need with a meal, partly addressing food insecurity. A range of people access food relief in Australia. The number of people receiving food relief is high. One food relief organisation reports that each month 652,000 Australians receive food relief, with over 27 per cent of these being children." It can thus be concluded that food deemed suitable for human consumption remains food and not garbage. the USDA further explained the reasoning behind the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 and encourages the distribution and consumption of "food waste","Donations of non-perishable and unspoiled perishable food from homes and businesses help stock the shelves at food banks, soup kitchens, pantries, and shelters. Donations of perishable prepared foods, typically collected from restaurants, caterers, corporate dining rooms, hotels, and other food establishments, also play an important role in feeding families in need..." yet nobody is claiming that there is a humanitarian crisis requiring immediate military intervention in the U.S.A. or Australia because their citizens are forced to eat garbage.

Thusly, I argue that editors should refrain from using inflammatory language such as describing reclaimed food suitable for human consumption as garbage as it violates wiki policy by distorting the information at hand and POV pushing. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe that wording here means the noun form of "garbage", being trash, disposed-of food, etc. that has ended up in trans bins, waste dumps, etc, as opposed to "bad tasting food" eg "this food is garbage". A spot check of sources shows clear patterns that many VZians are forced to turn to trash dumps and the like to find food, and so while that certainly would meet a broad definition of "reclaimed food waste", it still is from garbage piles. I do not see anything with VZ that is comparable to the reclaimed food programs in Australia. --Masem (t) 01:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

from the Venezuela article, "...resorting to eating wild fruit or garbage..." I believe they are using it in the noun form.

the exact wording used in the poll is, "mediante residuos de comida que desechados por establecimiento commerciales". chile uses the same terminology in spanish to refer to food waste fit for human consumption. they are drafting laws to forbid companies from throwing away food waste fit for human consumption. I can get you a stock picture of my hands in a trash bag for you to look at with the australian reports if that makes them easier to compare. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The only time garbage is mentioned in the article is when referring to people literally eating directly out of garbage bags, not referring to food donations. There's no "political inflammation" or "distorting information", just recording exactly what reliable sources are saying. 199.247.42.202 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Laylaor

More eyes needed on Special:Contributions/Laylaor. He/she advocates an antiquated POV, which has been debunked by WP:RS/AC for many decades, see https://web.archive.org/web/20011110114548/http://lib1.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals

This article reads like it has been written by PETA themselves, and tends to euphemise the criticism while over-emphasizing PETA's points of view. I am not that great at content creation, nor am I the best at rearranging things to fit where they should be within the policy of WP:NPOV. I would like some help in ensuring this article follows the due principles of WP:DUE, rearranging/editing titles, addition and removal of content that does not mean its proper due weight, among other things. Thanks. I believe perhaps a start would be to revert to/take content from this revision, given this version has a lot less NPOV issues, and seems more balanced. Here's a comparison between this revision and current.Tutelary (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nicolás Maduro

Our article on Nicolás Maduro currently states:

Some commentators note he has gradually consolidated enough power to become the country's de facto dictator.

In prior revisions, this was phrased more directly, e.g. the first line being

Nicolás Maduro Moros is the de facto dictator of Venezuela.

Both statements have been cited to a welter of variable-quality sources, including op-eds, Forbes.com contributors, some RS that only use the word "dictator" in the headline, and two RS that support the description (Vox, WaPo newsblog). There have been several disputes on the talk page regarding whether the word "dictator" is a neutral, appropriately-weighted description — more eyes would be helpful. —0xf₈e₈ (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC) _{(edited by 0xf8e8 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC))}

The main discussions on the talk page are here and here. The introduction of the phrasing was here, citations added here, attempt to change the phrasing here. —0xf₈e₈ (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

• Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP has a number of issues, the most glaring being the clear bias in the language of the lede. A handful of editors who do little to hide their personal disliking of the article's subject have insisted on using loaded words such as "conjecture" to describe his ideas, and have repeatedly tried to quiet discussion on the matter of neutrality by removing the NPOV dispute notice from the article. They have also reverted edits that attempt to add more biographical information to the lede, summarizing the course of the subject's career as a mainstream scientist and as an author and parapsychology researched outside of the scientific mainstream. Even an edit which changed to phrasing of "New Age movement" to "New Age circles" was reverted, despite the fact that the New Age article itself states very clearly that there is no scholarly consensus that there is any such movement at all, rather than simply a cultural milieu. Likewise, an edit which quotes the source stating Sheldrake's lack of alignment with some New Age interpretations of his ideas was reverted, leaving the impression that Sheldrake is in lockstep with New Age thinking as if it were a political movement.

I am not debating that Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance is considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience, nor have others I've seen object to the wording of the lede. It should be characterized as such, and is already well-sourced. What I am objecting to is the lede's singular focus on morphic resonance, and its repetitive, editorialized treatment of the subject. The article is about the individual, not simply morphic resonance. As such, it is reasonable to summarize his life in more detail. Likewise, it is perfectly legitimate to clearly state the rejection of morphic resonance by the scientific community and the reasons for it without using contentious language to do so. Certainly, discussion of the neutrality of the article should be allowed to carry on until their is consensus. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Diffs summarized below:

• third removal of NPOV discussion notice
• second removal of NPOV discussion notice
• first removal of NPOV discussion notice
• reversion of edits adding more biographical information and using more neutral language to discuss scientific community's rejection of morphic resonance
• later reversion of more modest edits, which simply made the language more neutral by replacing "conjecture," changing "New Age movement" to "New Age circles," and removing repetitive statement that morphic resonance lacks scientific acceptance

HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• There is no "issue" here. Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" is reckoned to be bollocks by the relevant professional community, and his epic butthurt over this has spilled over onto Wikipedia. He basically asserts that support from new-age hucksters like Deepak Chopra is equivalent to support from replication of experiments by the scientific community. He is wrong. He has been agitating about this for years, and has not become any less wrong over time. Describing "morphic resonance" in more flattering terms is not "more neutral"< it is a disservice to our readers, because it is bollocks. Sheldrake knows it is bollocks, because his steadfast adherence to his sill idea has caused him to be effectively sidelined by the scientific community. It's as scientific as homeopathy or creationism - two other areas where we get endless querulous demands to treat bollocks as fact in the name of "neutrality". Editors are, of course, allowed to dislike a wrong thing being portrayed as wrong, but they are not allowed to tag an article as non-neutral because the reality it reflects is not to their liking. The OP needs to apply the {{POV}} tag to the real world, not to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 06:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• (ec) This noticeboard doesn't work well with a generic complaint. It would be better to focus on one or two specific issues regarding actionable proposals to change text in the article, with reliable sources. Then ask whether the proposed text would be an improvement per WP:NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Johnuniq that there really is nothing here warranting a separate discussion on this "NPOV" thing, but I also agree with HappyWanderer15 that the lede of the article is terribly written, with unnecessary repetition of the (accurate) "pseudoscience" label on every mention of morphic resonance. But, Wanderer, you describe "conjecture" as a "loaded" expression: I can only guess you have no scientific training at all, and imagine this in a "popular" sense. In fact if anything the word is much too generous: a conjecture is normally a coherent, plausible claim, for which the evidence is not yet conclusive. Sheldrake's rambling is nothing like this. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the sampling of viewpoints available in WP:RS shows that the opinion of morphic resonance as pseudoscience is pretty common. The ratio is like 99:1. SO I think inclusion or repetition of these opinions in the lead is perfectly cromulent with WP:Policy.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTJOURNAL sums up well why I object to the use of the word "conjecture." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest the following wording for the lede. You make a valid point, Imaginatorium, that "conjecture" is not a loaded expression in scientific circles. But it's worth noting that Wikipedia is written for a general audience who can easily read it as loaded. It is for this reason that FRINGE articles, we don't say things like "Skeptics say. . ." or label individuals as "skeptics." There is nothing inherently pejorative about the word "skeptic," but it can be read as such by the general public. I wish I had more to say in response to Guy, but unfortunately his uncivil response fails to address any of the issues I raised.:

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,. He worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973 and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in India until 1978. During his time at Cambridge, Sheldrake and Philip Rubery developed the chemiosmotic hypothesis of polar auxin transport.

In his 1981 book A New Science of Life, Sheldrake proposed the idea of morphic resonance, which posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and that "natural systems... inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind". He proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as precognition, telepathy and the psychic staring effect as well as idiosyncratic explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.

Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterised as pseudoscience.. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency between the idea and data from genetics and embryology. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.

While morphic resonance lacks scientific acceptance, it has found support in New Age circles from individuals such as Deepak Chopra. Sheldrake's ideas regarding the philosophy of science, especially his critique of scientism, have been praised by Mary Midgely.

HappyWanderer15 (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Strong Disagree. Your version of the lead inflates proponents and supporters of Sheldrake like Midgely above and beyond the proportional existence of these proponents as represented in third-party WP:RS. It also inflates the positive aspects of Sheldrake's career in a similar manner. To change the lead to what you have shown above would be a massive POV violation and would merit a RfC, which I am pretty darn sure would oppose what you're proposing.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that show that he is not simply a crank who is universally reviled. He has his supporters in academia, if not in science. See the reference to Midgely above, as well as Martin Cohen here. "Rupert Sheldrake" is not synonymous with "morphic resonance." He has other ideas beyond it, which have been found relevant enough to be given a forum at universities, and which have received support from people outside of the New Age world. The current lede fails to recognize that. I'm happy to have a RfC on the matter. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what non-scientists think of his theories. What matters is what experts on those theories or in adjacent and relevant fields think. And those experts almost universally revile Sheldrake as a pseudoscientist. Would you have an expert on tomato biology be in the lead for a prominent physicist? No. Midgely and Cohen are not experts on science, they are critics of it wholesale. If you are interested in a RfC, I suggest you set one up. But I predict you'll likely be pretty unhappy with the outcome.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that philosophy of science is a very relevant field to the subject matter. Can you explain why you believe that it is not? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It's relevant enough for inclusion in the article, but not relevant enough for inclusion in the lead. That's because these proponents you're citing are a drop of oil in the ocean. They represent fringe opinions themselves. Could you show me bona fide WP:RSes that say Midgely or Cohen represent a viewpoint held by many tens of thousands of biologists or even philosophers? Or that their opinions are echoed as majority viewpoints in their respective institutions or fields? Even in Philosophy of Science circles, these two are out-voted. They're viewed as fringe.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Just because Daniel Dennett calls someone "fringe" does not make it so. But taking what you are saying at face value, there can be no justification for including Deepak Chopra so prominently in the lead. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

you see, Daniel Dennett actually is a widely accepted expert on the philosophy of science. And his viewpoint is also in line with consensus. But to take your Chopra point, Chopra's opinions are repeated in many multiple WP:RS. And he is a well known and heavily described supporter of Sheldrake's. Chopra basically made his career. I don't think you're quite understanding what I mean when I say "proportional coverage." To only cover the negative aspects would also be disproportionate, so we have to include positive and negative treatments of Sheldrake in the ratio of their coverage in secondary and tertiary sources. And Chopra is cited incredibly often as a supporter of Sheldrake, so his opinion belongs in the lead. The coverage of his opinion so widely and frequently is what makes his opinion more necessary for inclusion in the lead than Cohen's or Midgeley's. They are way way way less notable than Chopra. Deepak Chopra is basically a household name.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The main problem with that is that Chopra is a well-documented proponent of bullshit. His sciencey-sounding waffle is best summed up in the legendary question from Mlodinow: I know what each of those words means, but I still don't think I understand what you mean. Sure, we can say that Chopra supports Sheldrake, as long as we do it by reference to reality-based sources that give the context that Chopra has no actual clue about the science. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

References

First this is not the venue to propose a change in the lede. Second, no. Sheldrake is known primarily for his morphic resonance bollocks. As a scientist, he is not notable at all. Your proposed lede presents him as a substantial authority with a minor weakness for a silly idea. In fact, he is someone with a major weakness for a silly idea whose silliness was taken slightly more seriously than it might have been because he wasn't an obvious idiot. He would not meet WP:GNG other than for the commentary around morphic resonance. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but we are supposed to treat readers as adults. Anyone with the tiniest experience of woo can tell what is going on from the first assertion: he is a researcher in parapsychology. You or I might prefer "researcher" in quotes, but it is not important. It is, however, important to note that Sheldrake is not a "Youtuber" type, hypothesizing on the basis of an armchair course in reading the Daily Mail, but is someone who started with a respectable, if not particularly distinguished career in science. Anyway, I agree that this is not the place to discuss the text, so let's do it on the talk page. I think Wanderer's start above is quite reasonable. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This suggestion for the lead seems reasonable to me, thanks. It allows the reader to make up their own mind about the subject based on scientific evidence, rather than pushing the editor/s personal POV on the subject and repeatedly slam-dunking Sheldrake. The current use of the word "conjecture" appears to be in the editor's own voice (if you substitute the word "woo", to give "who proposed the concept of morphic resonance, woo which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.", then that is more apparent). Conjecture, in common or legal usage is synonymous with "mere conjecture" and can be seen as being dismissive. Noun: "A hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)". Verb: "To believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds". That may be true, but it needs to be the scientists and not the editors stating such a view. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 12:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "bollocks" (see above), when you edit on wiki, you need to take off your own hat and don your wiki hat. Esowteric+Talk 12:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it! Looks like I'm outvoted here. I bow to the new religion. Esowteric+Talk 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I commented out the broken references because all those ugly red error messages made the page unreadable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears there are SOAP and POV problems with giving his books so very much weight. The article should be about the person. A section on his ideas, drawing strongly on what he expresses in his books, would be an appropriate substitute. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I have no problem with that, as long as the books are discussed in reliable independent secondary sources (i.e. professional reviews). Guy (Help!) 11:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ... and as long as such substantial edits do not skew the article in the opposite direction, toward evangelical scientism. Esowteric+Talk 11:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Scientism is a word used almost exclusively by cranks trying to establish that bullshit has equal standing with science. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Even mild familiarity with philosophy of science, or a cursory glance at the article, show your claim that it is used "almost exclusively by cranks" is, to use your word, bullshit. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh spare me the argumentum ad Kuhniam. You know what I mean. Google scientism and you see a flood of woo-mongers looking to excuse away their pseudoscience. Yes it has a technical meaning, which is barely used in informal discourse. And its formal meaning - that science is the ultimate arbiter of fact - is in fact Wikipedia policy where objectively testable claims are involved. See WP:CHARLATANS. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a redlink. Did you mean your essay WP:Lunatic charlatans? Esowteric+Talk 15:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

With respect, if we applied your essay to another field of expertise, isn't the "TL;DR" of what you suggest akin to saying "As a political scientist and ultimate arbiter of fact, I treat libtards with the utmost fairness, integrity and objectivity"? Is it a case of "all is fair in love and war"? Whilst I very much appreciate the utility and need for healthy skepticism, I (personally) have qualms about the glorification and militarization of systemic bias on either side, (and I say that having worked in minor roles in physics, electronics and computing, not as a "woo-monger"). Esowteric+Talk 11:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No, because (a) political science isn't science and (b) "libtard" is a meaningless pejorative that boils down to "person whose ideas I cannot refute so I will throw an insult instead", whereas pseudoscience has a precise technical definition. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Not sure how the deletion of the interview on BBC Radio 3 comes under "rm primary and fringe sources", however, though granted this was in External links and not in an Interviews section. This is like a slow, painful Death by a Thousand Cuts. Esowteric+Talk 14:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Clearly the BBC is not a primary or fringe source. There is a clear effort here to only allow sources with a particular ideological bent, with opinion pieces like this being cited in the lede. User:JzG has shown himself to be far from impartial in his assessment of sources in his many angry tirades against the subject of the article. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

      Impartiality is not as relevant or important as competence (see WP:CIR), with which it is negatively correlated in cases of fringe science. And "scientism" is not much more than a buzzword employed by anti-science activists. Please refrain from using reasoning that essentially burns down to the dogmatic "editors have to think like me!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

    • An interview is a primary source. Anything where Sheldrake gives his opinions without the censor of third party commentary is also, by definition, fringe. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @HappyWanderer15:@Esowteric: Listen, until you set up a RfC, there is no utility in discussing any of this with either of you. You think this is a tirade against your POV, I and several other editors strongly disagree. I have no interest in feeding trolls, and the longer you go without doing the things any good faith editor would do, the harder it becomes to believe you have the best interests of the project at heart.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, this is HappyWanderer15's baby and it's up to them; I've said my bit about NPOV (not only in action but in professional attitude) and appreciate all your responses. Esowteric+Talk 17:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Lobbyist Patrick Moore described as "environmentalist" in Article Title

Former Greenpeace president and current industry lobbyist Patrick Moore's Wikipedia article is titled "Patrick Moore (environmentalist)". Looking at the talk page there, this page could use more eyes, particularly given recent coverage from entities like Fox News (title: "Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit’"), and because Moore or someone connected to him has been active on the article, no doubt influencing the article's current title. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Patrick Moore (environmentalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The FoxNews ref looks extremely poor and probably should not be used at all.

The title appears a POV and NOT violation. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Titles generally apply to what a person is, not what they were (unless dead). Its a very hard argument to state that Moore is an enviromentalist *now* given he disagrees with pretty much every environmentalist position. It would be like Donald Trump declaring he was a socialist. Is there a disambiguator that reflects his more recent work? Lobbyist? Paid Speaker? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Why not simply use his middle name (or initial) as a disabiguator? Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I vaguely recall there is some MOS issue about that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I would just do that. Even if the general practice were to not do that, in this case the problems with the potential qualifiers make it reasonable to make an exception. It's not wrong to use a middle name or initial he actually has and at least sometimes uses. -sche (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Would activist work?--2600:1702:280:ECE0:C136:9C13:1EA8:6FF3 (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead Section of Yazid I

There is currently a dispute, mainly focused on NPOV, between me and User:Snowsky Mountain. A few points of contention have been resolved, but the main issue remains. Specifically, what the above mentioned user wants a part of the lead to be is this:

Born in 647 to Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and Maysun bint Bahdal, Yazid grew up with his maternal tribe, the Banu Kalb. Some time before his death, Muawiya made Yazid his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of the Hasan-Muawiya treaty. The nomination was opposed by a few prominent Muslims from Hejaz, including Husain ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar. [Paragraph Break] Upon Muawiya's death in 680 CE, Yazid assumed power. He demanded pledges of allegiance to him, including from those who had opposed his nomination. Husain, the grandson of Muhammad, refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid, as Yazid was considered an illegitimate ruler and corrupt. (It's important to note here that many sources specifically list Yazid's corruption when mentioning Husain's refual to give allegiance. --Snowsky Mountain) Husain went towards Kufa but was stopped at Karbala. Yazid's army killed Husain and many of his companions in the ensuing Battle of Karbala, after which they took many of the remaining members of Husain's family as prisoners. This sparked widespread outrage against Umayyad rule. Later, in 683 CE, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and his supporters rose up against Yazid's rule in Medina. After first trying to bribe and then arrest ibn al-Zubayr, Yazid sent his army to Medina; the ensuing Battle of al-Harrah led to the city being plundered. Later in 683, Yazid's army lay siege to Mecca. The weeks-long siege led to the Kaaba being damaged by fire and finally ended when news arrived of Yazid's death.

I consider this in violation of NPOV, as the user is arguing for what is a religious belief to be presented as fact. While I argue that religious views be presented as religious beliefs. To me the balanced version of the said para, is this:

In 676 (56 AH), Muawiya made him his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of Hasan–Muawiya treaty. A few prominent Muslims from Hejaz, including Husayn ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar, refused to accept his nomination. Following his accession after Muawiya's death in 680, Yazid demanded allegiance from these three, but only ibn Umar recognized him, while the other two refused and escaped to sanctuary of Mecca. When Husayn was on his way to Kufa to lead a revolt against Yazid, he was killed with his small band of supporters by forces of Yazid in the Battle of Karbala. Killing of Husayn led to widespread resentment in Hejaz, where Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr centered his opposition to rule of Yazid, and was supported by many people in Mecca and Medina. After failed attempts to regain confidence of ibn al-Zubayr and people of Hejaz diplomatically, Yazid sent an army to end the rebellion. The army defeated Medinese in the Battle of al-Harrah in August 683 and the city was given to three days of pillage. Later on siege was laid to Mecca, which lasted for several weeks, during which the Kaaba was damaged by fire. The siege ended with death of Yazid in November 683 and the empire fell to civil war.

Detailed arguments can be found at the talk page. A look at the body of the article, of which the lead is supposed to be concise summary, might help in assessing whether I am being biased or the said user. Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: The first version splits the contents across two paragraphs, while the second version only uses one paragraph. (I added the contents of the first paragraph in the first version to give a more clear view of what's being proposed). Also, the first version has references to support the content; those references can be found on the talk page. I can also add them in here if anyone would like to see them. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Another update: Just wanted to list problems that I had mentioned on the talk page (as well as one other point I hadn't mentioned before) with respect to the second version:

• It has POV issues - it says that "prominent Muslims...refused to recognize his authority" and revolted against Yazid. However, it does not state why Husain did not pledge allegiance to Yazid. Leaving out this information would make this article one-sided and violate the NPOV standard.

Wrong. Plz re-read it. AhmadLX (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• It does not mention Yazid's early life before his rise to power.

That was agreed upon in the first para. It is not the issue here. Issue is second para. AhmadLX (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• It says that Yazid tried to pacify Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr "diplomatically," but the article contents say that Yazid tried to first bribe and then arrest him.

Yes he sent him gifts, and then invited Medinese delegation to Damascus. That is diplomatic means, and it briefly describes all that in one word. Brevity is required for lead. AhmadLX (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• It appears to limit the political aftermath of the Battle of Karbala and the killing of Husayn to only the revolt of Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr's uprising, which is historically inaccurate -- see Mukhtar al-Thaqafi, for example.

Is that what you have been arguing for at the talk page? AhmadLX (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• It has grammatical mistakes. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe there are some in my version, but there are certainly in your version e.g "...news of arrived of...". But this has nothing to do with issue at hand (npov). AhmadLX (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed that. As we agreed on the talk page, let's let neutral, third-party editor(s) weigh in. Snowsky Mountain (talk)

@AhmadLX and Snowsky Mountain: I'm willing to weigh in, but this discussion is fairly disorienting for someone not intimately acquainted with the topic. It sounds like the two of you have various disagreements on multiple points. I would recommend trying to resolve them one by one, and if there's a particular point on which you can't reach consensus, you're welcome to summarize the disagreement in a separate talk section and ping me. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

User:AhmadLX and I have been discussing it for a while on the article's talk page (Talk:Yazid I), and we seem to be at a deadlock. I should note that I did decide to remove the word "prominent" from a certain place in my version, which User:AhmadLX had been opposed to (I noticed the word "prominent" had been used twice), so perhaps that could move things along. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

AfriForum

AfriForum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs work - it's obvious that the lead is inadequate, using 8 sources to establish that AfriForum is an organisation and being partially mission statement and certainly not a summary of the article. However the issue that I'm bringing here is text that an IP insists must be in the article because "Wikipedia is not the place for slander and defamation."[1] User:Grayfell reverted an earlier addition, and I reverted twice. The IP, user:197.245.16.108 complained about the removal on the talk page but never responded to my comments on the text before reinserting it.

Here's the text I reverted and the comments I made:

"AfriForum has laid multiple successful complaints with the South African Press Ombudsman against News24, Mail & Guardian and The Huffington Post SA, several prominent local media houses. The Ombudsman found all of the aforementioned outlets to be in serious breach of the South African Press Code and each organisation was ordered to publish a public apology to AfriForum. The complaints related to "misrepresentation, distortion and suppression of the facts" relating to statement's AfriForum has made and the failure to "take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly" by stating that AfriForum supports the white genocide conspiracy theory, despite AfriForum having consistently stated that the organisation does not believe white genocide is occurring in South Africa."

My comments:

The first finding in the sources states: "News24 was in breach of Section 7.2.4 of the Press Code for stating that AfriForum did not offer a single solution, while Roets did so – albeit in response to a question. This section says: “[Comment or criticism is protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it] has taken fair account of all material facts that are substantially true”. The rest of the complaint is dismissed." I suggest editors read the entire report.

I don't think SA Promo is a reliable source here. I'm not sure that the media apologies are reported adequately. "Multiple successful complaints" is incorrect so far as I can see. The complaint about New24 was only upheld on one issue, the statement "that it did not offer a single solution to the issue of land restitution".

The other complaints were:

“Roets’ submission – which he tweeted and which is available on AfriForum’s website – does not explain why he believes that white people never ‘stole land’ (besides just claiming that they never did) nor does it offer any clear or sophisticated argument about Section 25”; and “At one stage Roets sat grinning while black MPs spoke of their families’ experiences under apartheid, wars of dispossession and how his attitude merely served to harden some attitudes.” The organisation adds that: News24 manipulated an edited version of a video in which he had presented AfriForum’s submissions to the Constitutional Review Committee in such a manner so as to portray it as the truth to corroborate the false and untrue accusations; and the reportage has caused it serious reputational damage."

These were rejected. The Finding on the video complaint starts with "This part of the complaint has no legs to stand on. Part of the finding about the complaint about reputational damage was " I am not going to blame News24 for causing “serious reputational damage”, as Roets himself – by not finding time to address solutions in his formal presentation – contributed to this “reputational damage”." Again, editors should read these in full as I can only copy part of them here.

Looking at edits just a few minutes ago by another IP, it looks as though AfriForum:Racist also has problems. It's written from AfriForum's pov, the description of its CEO Rhoda Kadalie as a civil rights activist is to say the least controversial, the description of the lawyer Mark Oppenheimer seems to come from AfriForum, etc. (the source for the paragraph doesn't back the paragraph but that may be because too many editor are quite happy to add material not in the source to sourced text). Doug Weller talk 16:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References

RfC: Should "right wing" be added to definition of fascism?

RfC is here in case anyone is interested in contributing. petrarchan47คุก 20:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

French ban on face covering

French ban on face covering is overly supportive of the ban by discussing the point of view of the dominant culture in France in many parts of the article without counterpoints. Many of the statements need to be further verified. I draw particular attention to the paragraphs dealing with violent reactions from the community. Although it does constitute rioting, there's a de-emphasis on the facts of the cases. notably, tearing a womans clothes off is likely to elicit some response from the community that shouldn't be regarded as a dramatic uprising of mujahideen who were hiding behind every bush. Verify references (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

there were no objections so i have corrected the article.

Resolved

Verify references (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 presidential campaign

Resolved

The following is allowed,

She has drawn criticism from Senator Marco Rubio and Donald Trump Jr. for tweeting 'Our future is female, intersectional, Powered by our belief in one another, And we’re just getting started'.[17]

But the following got removed again and again,

Son of incumbent president Donald Trump Jr. retweeted, "...if you think running as a parent is edgy delete your account and your campaign". In response, Gillibrand encouraged people to make monetary donations to the campaign.[18][19][20] She avoided a war of words.

It is not fair, please help. Important "Twitter Exchange" should not be censored from Wikipedia. It meets the notability requirement. I have already tried RfC, thanks. I have been warned for edit-warring. Tony85poon (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

it looks like an admin also deleted a giant list of see also links you added. they dont seem to be especially important to the content of the article. perhaps if you tied them all together in some way or wrote something about why you think those references are important then they would be acceptable.

I would suggest you shorten the description of the twitter exchange to fit with what is already on the page. something like, 'She is running on a platform of...she has drawn criticism from X jr and commentator Y.' but your references seem weak. secondnexus.com dennismichaellynch.com and causeaction.com arnt really note worthy sources. dennis michael lynch perhaps. but still it seems more like it was a clever move, using the exposure trump jr. provided to expand the exposure of the campaign. I would suggest focusing on just the key points of her campaign. remember every link posted on wikipedia is a vote for the value of that article as articles posted on wikipedia are far more likely to be cited elsewhere. Verify references (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

i have just double checked that DML link and it is just a recitation of an article on the Daily Caller. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources The Daily Caller is on the do not link list. "The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes "false or fabricated information". Most editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a partisan source with regard to United States politics and that their statements on this topic should be properly attributed." Verify references (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I will fix the Donald Trump campaign article and Trump junior articles now, coz I used the same citations. Tony85poon (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony85poon post your proposed edits on the talk page of that article and wait for feedback. Don't just throw it straight up on the page. if you post the same content that has already been rejected on a different page, you will likely get a vandalism and edit warring warning because it doesn't matter that its the first edit on that page, it will be used to argue a history of abuse.

Move to close Verify references (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Honda Ridgeline

The Honda Ridgeline article is extremely detailed, and much of that detail is cited to self-published sources such as press releases (hondanews.com), brochures and owners manuals. For example, the equipment list includes such run-of-the-mill items such as power door locks, airbags, cupholders and sun visors, and attempts to trim the list are always reverted. Editors have repeatedly brought up these issues on the talk page and some of the more egregious sources such as owner forums have been removed, however the primary author of the article continues to add excessively-detailed descriptions sourced to the manufacturer. The article could use some more eyes to ensure that we are presenting a well-balanced, independent view of the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 23:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeaaah, just glancing over the article and its references section, the number of citations to primary sources (and some sources which seem to be simply quoting primary sources) is astonishing. The level of detail, including in the lead, seems so excessive as to merit tagging it as an Template:Advert. -sche (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the excessive detail belongs somewhere else other than an encyclopaedia entry. Off the top of my head, I can think of no other automotive article that goes into this detail. I'm not saying that the content is not of value, but I don't believe it is suitable here. Shritwod (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hotpoint

Dear Wikipedia Users and Editors,

I wanted to draw your attention to my earlier post containing a correction request for one of the sections of the Hotpoint Wikipedia Page. My full post with the details of the proposed update and its rationale was initially uploaded onto the Talk section of the Hotpoint page and can be found here.

To give you more background on the initial request - the current text within the section titled “Grenfell Tower Fire” contains some inaccurate and outdated information. I would like to ask you to consider my proposal on why the section should be amended. In my earlier post, I provided sources and rationale for all of my suggestions.

Please consider my submission as soon as possible.

Please also note that I am an employee of Whirlpool Corporation and intend to help ensure the Wikipedia community has access to up-to-date and correct information regarding Whirlpool Corporation.

I do not intend to edit any sections myself, but rather want to point out some inaccuracies so that they can be reviewed and amended as appropriate by the Wikipedia community. I hope you find this helpful. For more information, please refer to my user page.

Kind regards, Ian_Peterborough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Peterborough (talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Rent regulation

Talk:Rent regulation#RfC about describing extent of disagreement There is an RFC discussing how to describe economists' opinions on the effectiveness of rent control policies. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Tagging as not neutral of article Lynching of Shedrick Thompson

The article Lynching of Shedrick Thompson, which I wrote, has been tagged by @Qwirkle: as non-neutral and of questionable accuracy. I believe both tags are unjustified and want them removed. I first brought this up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson and was referred to this Noticeboard as more appropriate. I have notified Qwirkle of the discussion here.

The issue is that the 1932 coroner's report and grand jury stated this was a suicide, not a lynching. Qwirkle maintains that to call this a lynching is not neutral and of questionable accuracy, since "the jury is still out". There is discussion at Talk:lynching of Shedrick Thompson and at the noticeboard just cited. i My position, as stated above, is that:

• There is a 2016 book from a reputable publisher, The Last Lynching in Northern Virginia, which Qwirkle has not read, which was written precisely to make the case that this was in fact a lynching, and that calling it a suicide "made no sense", in the author's words. Furthermore, the book discusses in detail the political pressures placed on the local authorities by former Virginia Governor and U.S. presidential candidate Henry Byrd, one of whose main claims was that he had (through legislation he sponsored) eliminated lynchings in Virginia. This book has been well received and the author has given numerous talks on the matter at local historical societies and similar groups.
• An hour-long 2018 documentary, which to my knowledge Qwirkle has not seen, makes the same case, that it was a lynching. While none of the principals are alive, the film interviews their descendants.
• The National Lynching Museum accepts that it was in fact a lynching and includes it in its exhibits.
• No one since the 1930s has said it was a suicide.

Given the above, I do not understand, nor has Qwirkle explained, why "the jury is still out" or why the article deserves these tags he has placed on it. If he will not accept the National Lynching Museum, a book, and a documentary as settling the question, I cannot understand his position, or what documentation he would conceivably accept as authoritative.

As said above, I would like those tags removed. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Arcadia Publishing. A “reputable publisher”. Does anyone need to hear anything else? Qwirkle (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Driveby opinion: National Lynching Museum sounds like it may be an expert opinion and I would be inclined to accept their judgement absent evidence to the contrary. Does Qwirkle present any evidence other than the coroner's report? Given Virginia history I do not believe it is unreasonable to discount this suicide verdict. Clearly, it needs to be mentioned of course, but other historic evidence needs to be given due weight. I am an uninvolved editor who knows nothing of the specifics so I reserve the right to revise this opinion as more facts come to light, but that is my initial reaction. Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Elinruby. -sche (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Which is to say you agree with a “driveby opinion” based on the sound of a sources name. Qwirkle (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Arcadia Publishing shouldn't be considered reputable. Reviews of their books that I found didn't indicate any glaring issues. They focus on local topics, and their books are image-heavy, but neither indicates disrepute. The specific book in question comes with a foreword by a professor of history at the University of Mary Washington. Racial Terror: Lynching in Virginia, 1877-1927 accepts the book author's research. So if there's a reason why Arcadia should be dismissed, I'd like more of an explanation than a wikilink. Huon (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This publisher primarily publishes history books and folklore collections, with an emphasis on regional history. In their own words: "For over 20 years Arcadia Publishing has reconnected people to their community, their neighbors, and their past by offering a curbside view of hometown history and often forgotten aspects of American life. Composed in a unique pictorial format with over two hundred vintage images and accompanying captions, Arcadia books animate the cherished memories, people, places, and events that define a community. From the iconic Images of America series and Images of Aviation series to Postcard Histories and so many more, these richly illustrated histories bring to life small town America." Dimadick (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Their central business is, essentially, coffeetable books for folks with very small coffeetables. “History” is often pushing it; “reminiscences” or “nostalgia” might better fit. They do print some other, less visual stuff, often under their History Press imprint. Some is good, excellent, even; some bad, execrable, even, but none of it sees rigorous pre-publication review. This isnt a reputable academic publisher; it isnt an academic publisher at all. Qwirkle (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"by former Virginia Governor and U.S. presidential candidate Henry Byrd" Henry Byrd was a blues singer from Louisiana. You have apparently confused him with Harry F. Byrd, the segragationist Senator from Virginia. His first name actually was "Harry". Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it's correct in the article. deisenbe (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If there are no modern sources disputing that it was a lynching (i.e. the only people. saying it wasn't are racist white Virginians from 90 years ago) I see no reason to question the modern historical interpretation. We are not required to give equal validity to the conclusions of a Jim Crow-era all-white jury and modern historical scholarship. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Which is another way to say you haven’t read much of the book, or even the Wiki article. Anti-lynching groups then were divided whether it was, in fact a lynching, whether it was a racist action, and whether, if it was both, it should be focused on. Qwirkle (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide documentation for your statement, "Anti-lynching groups then were divided whether it was, in fact a lynching"? deisenbe (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean aside from the author of the book you claim to base this article on, on the first cite in your article, where he writes Many others suffered similar fates, but their deaths went unreported at the time, their names unmentioned in official tallies. Thompson is sometimes included in this group–a hairline case, as the NAACP said. But he does not belong there.? Qwirkle (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Going twice, @Deisenbe:.

While we are at it, here is the principal source’s take on his own book With this new freedom, I went back to my computer and recast the story. I tried to make it complete, but now I also wanted it to be definitive. I became a prosecutor, dispelling reasonable doubt and building the case for murder. Qwirkle (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m not going to edit the article while this discussion is going on, but someone today removed a lot of the documentation. On another point, the book was published by the History Press, not Arcadia, and it is not a picture book. You can preview it here: https://www.worldcat.org/title/last-lynching-in-northern-virginia-seeking-truth-at-rattlesnake-mountain/oclc/967392546/viewport deisenbe (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I read the article and I feel that Shedrick Thompson could have committed suicide and he could have been lynched. I see no reason to think one way or the other beyond the consideration that back then in those places men like him got lynched for a lot less. In reading the article, I felt both sides were represented appropriately so the the reader would make their own decision. The only thing I would change is the name. It should be The death of Shedrick Thompson, because Wikipedia does not know what happen. I would also reduce the number of external videos and put them in external links, making sure not to link to any copyright violations. I see someone has already removed the offending section. Saying some authority "knows" it was a lynching is a argument from authority that should not be applied here. If there is no physical evidence from the actual incident or a witness to the actual incident that makes it clear one way or the other, then anything anyone says about it is just an assumption. Maybe a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Without exception, all the descendants of the principals in the video who comment on it say it was lynching. They report on what was said by eyewitnesses to it. Neither the coroner nor the grand jury, so far as records indicate, talked to the eyewitnesses (who would not have wanted to be publicly interviewed). deisenbe (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I am incline to think it was a lynching. I just do not think it is clear enough to say that in Wikipedia's voice. Descendants saying it was a lynching makes me a bit more inclined, but it is not enough for Wikipedia's voice. What would be enough? If it was revealed in an official report that the sheriff found rope on the ground that looked like it had tied his hands nearby the body or some other evidence got suppressed and was later relieved by some officer who was there who wanted to get the truth out before he died, I would say perhaps we should say it in Wikipedia's voice, but still perhaps not. It depends on who reviled the evidence and who denied it. What would really be convincing would be a Federal investigation to discover the truth, but I do not know why there would be one now. Anyone who lied about it is dead by now. Maybe the descendants could sue the state and then the evidence could be hashed out in a courtroom. If it was a suicide there would be no witnesses. Anyone who found the body after the suicide might assume it was a lynching and would not report it for fear they would be accused of participating in the supposed lynching. Maybe that is why the body was so decomposed when it was officially "found" despite a supposed large number of people combing the woods looking for this guy. I realize suicide is not likely (why did he have a rope with him?), but it is just likely enough that we should leave it open. Change the name of the article and remove the tags. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with Richard-of-Earth on this, as there's going to be no way to determine who was right, even though I personally would be sympathatic to the only rational cause being lynching. Calling the article "Death of Shedrick Thompson" would remain neutral to the point without taking either side, even if we think one side is incorrect. Even recent articles covering the book's release in 2017 still use "iffy" language to what happened. --Masem (t) 17:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. On the one hand, you have a 80-year-old verdict from state and local officials who, in a time of deeply institutionalized racism, had a vested interest in making sure that this death was not classified as a lynching. On the other hand, you have modern investigative reporting which strongly supports the idea that this death was a lynching. To pretend that those are two equally valid encyclopedic perspectives is just silly, and wrong. It's even more absurd to pretend that a deeply researched book on the lynching is somehow an invalid source, while simultaneously maintaining that a coroner's report from the early 1930's is highly reliable. This is a well-written article; it makes use of the best available sources, which are necessarily limited because of the relative obscurity of the subject; and it presents them using proper weighting and neutrality. I don't see a justification for the tagging, which seems unconstructive at best. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

To stress, I'm not saying the book was saying that, it was news sources talking about the book that still spoke of the situation in a non-absolute "it was a lynching". We are never going to know the absolute true, outside that when they found his body, he was dead. So "Death" is 100% neutral. Now, the content of the article can certain weigh a lot more on that calling it a suicide was likely masking a lynching, etc, but we cannot say in a WP factual voice that it was a lynching. --Masem (t) 18:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

While I'm holding off on making edits until this discussion is concluded, others are not, so comments above may not be on exactly the same content. There were 11 edits on May 12, for example, 6 of them by Qwirkle. deisenbe (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the real kicker is this comment by Qwirkle--"The museum has a rather obvious axe to grind". They're talking about the Equal Justice Initiative, which operates The National Memorial for Peace and Justice. They have an axe to grind? I don't even want to spell out the rather sick set of assumptions that I suspect underlie that comment; it smacks of Holocaust industry. I have not yet read any criticism of the EJI's investigations or of their methods; perhaps Qwirkle can point us to some peer-reviewed studies that indicate the EJI hasn't done their homework, or that they got it wrong in this case. Masem, we can't really even say in Wikipedia's voice that the sky is blue, but the only evidence that I see that points to it NOT being a lynching is a set of doubtful statements by some deeply implicated state and local officials. I don't know how much you know about lynchings in America, but that's a usual pattern (Devil in the Grove makes for good reading). And then we have Qwirkle, who casts doubt on the author, on the publisher, on the EJI. So, no, I think the tag is unjustified and disruptive. And to top it all off, there was this, pretty much the essence of whitewashing. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course they do. If you have a geographic display, you tend to fill it. That’s the organizational trend, and that’s true regardless of the merits of the cause. If you have a situation presented to you without obvious issues, some organizations will add it almost reflexively. Whether that is the case for the EJI, I don’t know, because they do not make their reasons for inclusion readily available.

Perhaps Drmies could show some scholarship, or even some further explanation at all why The EJI added this name. Jim Hall has claimed that they did so based on his research. If that’s so, then they didn’t even spell the victims name right, and we have little reason to doubt Mr. Hall, who appears to like putting his cards on the table.

I can’t help whatever “Sick assumptions” your mind inclines itself toward, but really, you shouldn’t try to make your case by inuendo, hiding, as usual, behind your ability to block someone who says anything you dislike.

Finally, I dont think wikiteurs should heavy-handedly emphasis this was a race-driven thing by identifying the races of those involved in the manner Masem did. That’s nothing to do with the facts, but with a ham-handed presentation of them. Do you really think that was good writing?Qwirkle (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

On identifying the races of those involved, it seems rather obvious that at the time in the US history, racial tension in southern states were high, and the reason VA passed its anti-lynching law was to try to stop lynching of African Ameicans by whites. Lynching at that time was principally a race-based crime. Prior to what I added, the only indication directly that race was involved was the mentioned of Thompson serving in the 'colored' troops. Adding the race makings it pretty clear why this was likely a lynching from more recent sources. --Masem (t) 23:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

First, I didn’t comment comment above on your message, but its delivery, and you need to address that, (or not, as you see fit), but restating why you did it seems pointless. Perhaps the average reader could have missed the implications of the very word “lynching” in that time and place, the word “colored”, the references to the NAACP, the Chicago Defender, the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, or the word “negro” describing Thompson; I’d like to think the average reader is smart enough to pick up on that. Either way, though, I think your edit was ham-handed, if nothing else because “caucasian” for “white” is dated and much less common in many English variants. Qwirkle (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I used "African-American" for Thomspon so it did not seem right to use only "white" for those he killed, to keep on equal footing both ways. --Masem (t) 00:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems more a case for first using “black”, at least for euphony. Qwirkle (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I still think WP should be taking the middle-ground/conservative view here. Elsewhere, we have plenty of scientific theories that pretty much are treated as fact by researchers/etc. We don't call out these theories as thuthisms, but still as theories, since we don't have a conclusive set of facts to prove them right or wrong. Same concept here: barring a time machine, we are never going to know what happened to Thompson between his fleeing and his body being found. We can say that the principle belief is that it is a lynching, and that's certainly a conclusion that even Occum's Razor would tell us is the most likely case, but we cannot factually prove that. As such I think we should be careful in only the title of the article to say "Death of Shedrick Thompson". After that, the content is fair game to present the lynching hypothesis as per UNDUE, as long as we don't factually state "he was lynched". --Masem (t) 22:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Disuptive editing by Qwirkle

Please see Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson#Disruptive editing by Qwirkle deisenbe (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Morrison Academy

There's a dispute at Talk:Morrison Academy#"Creation science" about two issues of neutrality and/or undue weight. There are few secondary sources reporting on the Academy; the only ones I found (and the only ones cited in the article) are bland directory entries and some sports journalism. The questions thus are how much use of primary sources should be made regarding various topics.

1. There is currently a "LGBT and Marriage" section in the article. The sources are an ex-employee's opinion piece published in Sojourners and the school's board policies. To my knowledge, no secondary source has commented on this issue or reported on the ex-employee's criticism. Is it appropriate to have this section (or just the content, without a dedicated section heading) in light of such sources, or does this assign too much weight to the issue?
2. How much and what use should be made of primary sources regarding the school's curriculum? The sources currently used are the school's various curriculum guides and the school's website. To my knowledge, no secondary source has discussed the curriculum in general nor the level of religion put in other subjects such as science in particular.

The discussion on the talk page is long, and it seems unlikely that the editors involved can reach a consensus there. I'm bringing it here for wider community input. Huon (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"How much and what use should be made of primary sources regarding the school's curriculum?" While Wikipedia does use primary sources, they can't really be used for in-depth coverage. The relevant policy is in Wikipedia:No original research.:

• "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."
  • "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
  • "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
  • "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people;" Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Feminazi

New editor User:Rolling Phantom claims that if we don't change the article to fit his viewpoint, then that proves the feminazis are sabotaging the article. His best "source" is a thread from Quora. I've reverted twice, and templated him for NPOV violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have only this to say about my "wiewpoint" : https://www.google.com/search?q=feminazi+vs+feminist&oq=feminazi+vs&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.7635j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Rolling Phantom (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm kind of gobsmacked you've been here for six years and think either Google search or Quora are reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

LOL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, are the search results fake then? Rolling Phantom (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Rolling Phantom's sources are indeed unreliable. However, the article text seems to claim that "feminazi" is a pejorative term for both all feminists and specific feminists considered radical. Limbaugh has stated that the term feminazi refers to "radical feminists" whose goal is "to see that there are as many abortions as possible" and a small group of "militants" whom he distinguishes from "well-intentioned but misguided people who call themselves 'feminists'". However, the term came to be used more widely for the feminist movement as a whole; Per WP:LEAD, I propose the compromise solution Feminazi is a pejorative term for either feminists perceived to be extreme or all feminists as a whole based on body text. Leugen9001 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, Feminazi is a pejorative term for either all feminists as a whole or feminists perceived to be extreme could also be used. Leugen9001 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to keep the existing wording. Limbaugh indeed stated that he meant "radical feminists", which itself can be a term of abuse for people who would never describe themselves as radical; Christina Hoff Sommers used it to refer broadly to second-wave feminists around the same time.[2] The article also states, Limbaugh has used it in reference to the Feminist Majority Foundation and the activists Gloria Steinem and Susan Sarandon, and he is quoted as saying, "It's the way I look at the feminist movement".[3][4] So, clearly not just "radical" feminists then. The phrasing perceived to be extreme raises the obvious question, perceived by whom? It looks like a false balance, especially when independent sources describe the term as a pejorative for feminists, full stop.[5][6] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC) (edited 15:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC))

Feminazi is a rightfully pejorative term for extreme feminist. Other extremists may use it as a pejorative for any feminist. There are thousands of sources on this on the net. If the net isnt a reliable source, then neither is this article. There IS a difference between a feminazi and a feminist, from the wiew of normal people. Change it. Rolling Phantom (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It is correct to say the article is not a "reliable source", and it isn't meant to be, at least in terms of citing it in other articles; see Self-published sources, which covers a lot of the above search results to boot. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Large parts of the net is not a reliable source, isn't that obvious? Find the university-press etc sources in your google-search and include them in the article, if they are not there already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"rightfully" pejorative? Given that the Nazis hated and persecuted all vestiges of feminism with fervor, this particular term is uniquely unjust and vile. Your use of the term "rightfully", Phantom, tells us all we need to know about your ability to edit with a neutral point of view (and your ignorance of history). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

SYZYGY narcissism study in WP Millennials

Is the SYZYGY study measuring the narcissism of millennials significant enough to belong in the Millennials article? The study was described in a story in The Des Moines Register by intern Molly Longman. SYZYGY uses the uncommon millennial date rage of 1981 to 1998 to define this cohort.

The reliability of the SYZYGY source was discussed here on the millennials talk page, and on the RS Noticeboard here.

I propose removing the following text from WP Millennials:

SYZYGY, a digital service agency partially owned by WPP, uses 1981–1998.

A 2016 study by SYZYGY, a digital service agency, found millennials in the U.S. continue to exhibit elevated scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory as they age, finding millennials exhibited 16% more narcissism than older adults, with males scoring higher on average than females. The study examined two types of narcissism: grandiose narcissism, described as "the narcissism of extraverts, characterized by attention-seeking behavior, power and dominance", and vulnerable narcissism, described as "the narcissism of introverts, characterized by an acute sense of self-entitlement and defensiveness."

I propose using the story "Millennials are narcissistic? The evidence is not so simple" from the BBC to replace this information. This story also discusses the “Narcissistic Personality Inventory” which was used by SYZYGY, but instead it quotes Psychologist Jean Twenge, author of the book Generation Me, who is the "most vocal proponent of the view that young people today are more narcissistic and self-centred than in previous generations". Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Syzygy appears to be a run-of-the-mill information technology consulting company, and their analysis is not authoritative. The BBC (RSP entry) story featuring Jean Twenge is a much better source for this information. ​— Newslinger talk 03:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  While I maintain that the BBC story is a better source than Syzygy, Someguy1221's argument (below) that neither source constitutes due weight is compelling. Academic sources are preferred for scientific claims. — Newslinger talk 08:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I propose using neither Syzygy nor the BBC. The Syzygy study was not published in an actual scientific journal, and media coverage doesn't confer reliability in the field of psychology. In fact, the Syzygy study is incapable of actually proving the headline conclusion, as there is no way for them to disentangle generational effects from age effects. The right way to make this argument can be seen here. As well, care needs to be taken answering the question, "more narcissistic than whom?" That paper mentions an alternative model that, rather than narcissism increasing over time, narcissism peaked with the boomers, crashed, and is now returning to an intermediate value. As that paper mentions, it's not trivial to do a fair comparison past a certain point in time, which may prohibit a firm conclusion on that (the NPI was only published in 1979, after all). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The BBC story discusses the actual published studies, wouldn't that make it due weight? I don't think the journalist themself makes any assertions other than that the issue is "not so simple". I would think it makes sense to cite what the article writes about Jean Twenge, Jeffrey Arnett and Brent Roberts, and their respective studies and opinions. Also, do you agree that the 1981 to 1998 birth range for millennials should be removed? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, did you have any more thoughts? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

​I think you would have to find the actual study and cite that instead of the BBC story for it to count as an academic source. Yes, I do think the 1981 to 1998 range should be removed. — Newslinger talk 22:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Unproven Allegations of Sexual Abuse at La Luz del Mundo

This is more a question seeking guidance after an anonymous user made an edit to the La Luz del Mundo church article. The now deceased church leader was publicly accused of sexual abuse in Mexican media, where the church is based. The accusations were made after the statute of limitations had passed, so obviously they were never proven. How do you abide by the innocent until proven guilty principle without undermining possibly credible sexual abuse victims? BadHombres (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Same way we do everything else: Describe what sources say, without editorializing, and in proportion to their significance. Wikipedia should never say "false allegations" unless reliable sources are concluding these are false allegations. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not prevent us from documenting the allegations, if they are both significant and levied against a notable person or organization. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

IP thinks green politics means communism and stalinism

Please lend a hand verifying contribs from

• 51.7.13.118
• 51.7.20.203
• 51.7.53.5

The sample about green politics is this diff here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

He's been doing this for longer than that. I mean, fundamentally I don't think anything this IP adds can be trusted - he is editing with an agenda, and doesn't seem to have any real interest in learning what a reliable source is. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The contribs search above is for Feb 1 2019 and later. Are you saying they have been around longer than that? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you know, not as long as I thought I had seen the first time. 51.7.116.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also them, I think. I tried looking further but this is a very busy range. Okay, so never mind that part about how long. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Pretty clearly the same person. I've also run into them. Add 146.66.53.167] to the list. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

"Social Media Concerns" at Realtor.com

Hello! I've been working with Move to suggest improvements and updates to the Move (company) and Realtor.com articles. I've disclosed my conflict of interest on both talk pages, and any requests I've made have been reviewed by uninvolved editors.

Recently, an anonymous editor added a "Social Media Concerns" section to the article. I've posted a request on the article's talk page outlining how this specific detail is being given a lot of weight, compared to the reporting. Sourcing actually focuses on how Facebook collects data from third-party apps, and discusses multiple other apps. I've proposed removing the addition, or at least eliminating the section heading and incorporating text into the article's "History" section. User:SMcCandlish, who has helped with some previous edit requests for the article, suggested I post here to get additional feedback regarding WP:UNDUE.

Can any editors here help determine whether the added content should be kept, removed, or move into the article's "History" section by reviewing sourcing and contributing to the talk page discussion? I don't edit articles directly because of my conflict of interest and I am asking other editors to update the article on my behalf and on behalf of Realtor.com. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

My own vague feeling on this is that having an entire section about it is undue, but totally suppressing mention of this would likely be inappropriate too (though other products/services covered in that same WSJ piece should get equal treatment; the Realtor.com app shouldn't be singled out on WP about it). That said, I spend very little time in corporate product/service articles, so I'm not sure of my drawing of lines in this topic space.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Mooeena & Wiki:Detransition

• Detransition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mooeena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is openly gender essentialist on their user page. User added NPOV tag to Detransition article, and in its talk page immediately (offensively) denied existence of detrans community, made false and exaggerated claims against the article's content and sources (nowhere has Tumblr ever been cited), and made false claims against other editors. This appears to be a case of inappropriately and incorrectly seeing the detrans community as a threat to trans politics (anti-detrans bias, or detransphobia). It's requested that the user stop attacking other editors, to take a NPOV regarding this article's content, or to stop disrupting the editing process on this article, please. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User: BirrungPark & Wiki:Detransition

• Detransition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BirrungPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On talk page here, user likens detransition to conversion therapy, and claims it "undermines a foundational LGBTIQ narrative". When asked for clarification in subsequent diff, user offers no denial of bias or ill intention. We're not here to pit trans against detrans (or anyone against anyone). Detrans folk exist and have social, legal, and medical needs regardless of (separate from) others' rights. This is outrageously offensive and detransphobic. A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Person clearly showed up to the talkpage just to flamebait. Wikipedia has no use for editors that act that way.★Trekker (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Venezuelan blackout

Forbes recently published an article about the possibility of an attack to the power grid for political purposes. I have tried to add this reference and sourced statement to the article, and I have been reverted twice.[7][8] I don't want to get involved in an edit war. I have been reverted by the same user (User:Jamez42) in other Venezuelan articles, and his/her behaviour is deleting my sourced content. emijrp (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I explained in my edit summaries as well as in the talk page the policies the changes were based in, and I asked twice [9][10] to discuss these changes or to provide reasons countering the reasons. Instead, @Emijrp: has opened this report. Pinging @SandyGeorgia:, who can also provide more insight. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

After this report was opened, the redirects 2019 Venezuelan power grid attack and 2019 Venezuelan power grid sabotage were created. Since the names are unsources and NPOV, they should be deleted. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Why would we cite someone's blog for what is just idle speculation? So it's hosted on Forbes, big whoop. Not a reliable source. And if this were reliable under SPS, it would be attributed to Kalev Leetaru, not Forbes. And while it's hard to pin down exactly what Leetaru is an expert in, "electrical infrastructure" would seem to be outside of that. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• There are multiple problems beyond this one incident. My feedback and suggestion is on Emijrp's talk page, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• No progress: deletion of text sourced to The Guardian, and talk discussion declined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unplanned : abortion/choice terminology

Following a request at RFPP, I semi-protected this page to stem an edit-war. But can editors familiar with the wikipedia policies or MOS recommendations regarding pro-choice/pro-abortion terminology weigh in the the substance of the dispute? Abecedare (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Onel5969, Neateditor123, and J.S. Clingman: Abecedare (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Good god the sources for that article have a... well, a consistent bias, let's say. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeaaah. I removed one of the most egregious, the Daily Caller, which was deprecated per WP:RSPS. -sche (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder‎

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was recently fully protected because of POV pushing an edit warring. The fight continues in the form of edit requests on the talk page. I am completely ignorant about anything having to do with the military of Pakistan and India other than hoping that they don't nuke each other, so I would really appreciate it if someone else would look at the page and evaluate the edit requests. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Abiy Ahmed

While reasonably sourced, the article on Abiy Ahmed has clear neutrality issues, particularly in the critics section. However, I do not have enough familiarity with the subject to fix it myself.