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.

Sections older than 21 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112

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

American Legion

American Legion has some POV problems. I have tried to fix many of them, but I do not live in the USA so it would be nice if someone who does can take a look at it.

Polygnotus (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. Polygnotus (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about material at Sigma Nu

More participation at Talk:Sigma Nu#Inclusion of Mateer would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll have a look. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabor and Ataturk

This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It has never been resolved.

Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 autobiography Zsa Zsa Gabor: My Story. This alleged liaison has been in the public discourse ever since. Some additional references:

"Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.

A couple of editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. Removing this information violates WP:NOTCENSORED. I have restored it for the time being, but it's bound to get deleted again unless more editors enforce having the content retained. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two days and still no feedback. As expected, my additions to Ataturk and Gabor's respective pages were reverted. This violates WP:NOTCENSORED, does it not? The reverting editors have argued against including the information because it is a claim not a fact. We're talking about a relationship from the early-to mid-'30s, long before tabloids and social media existed. Ataturk has been dead since 1938. So of course there aren't going to be receipts. Gabor's account is the only thing to go by, and many publications have long accepted it. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been 17 days and still none of you have joined the discussion. Please give input so this debate doesn't go dormant yet again. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existential risk studies

I need some editor to review if there is a NPOV issue in Existential risk studies, the mark has been added after an exhaustive discussion but I dont think the contesting editors have succeed in providing any reliable source contradicting the current representation or indicating any single sentence that goes against sources and would need reformulation. Thanks. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, no, there is no significant NPOV issue in the article. There is a Debate section (which could be renamed to Criticism) that focuses on cricizing the concept, and the article is in substantial part based on a source that is independent and critical to it: Beard and Torres 2020. NicolausPrime (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Oyakhilome

Faith healer, prosperity preacher, conspiracy theorist and weirdo. Polygnotus (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese State Media

Forgive me if this is covered elsewhere, I could not find a discussion.

User:Aquillion proposes "If a source is generally unreliable then it usually isn't reliable for establishing WP:WEIGHT, either, which makes it very difficult to use for anything nontrivial without a secondary source." This is from Global Times as primary source for editorial comment on WSJ controversy

However this seems be assuming Chinese State media operate like Western media with some room for editorial independence, and so their editorial stance does not mirror the state. As covered in Party media takes the party's last name, China's media does not operate that way: "All the work by the party's media must reflect the party's will, safeguard the party's authority, and safeguard the party's unity, They must love the party, protect the party, and closely align themselves with the party leadership in thought, politics and action."

The alignment of State Media to the party view is why journalists covering china cite Global Times, and why I have used their articles as secondary sources. I feel it would be better if Global Times were to be cited as the primary source for its opinions, despite the publications depreciation and unreliability for factual claims.

More generally: as China's state media speaks for the state, can it be assumed that there is no WP:WEIGHT on sources like Global Times if the Chinese state view is important? Is there a wikipedia policy that guides the use and interpretation of media sources in different regions of the world to reflect their different environments?

14.201.39.78 (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the amount of stuff that is published by the Chinese state media. Yes, of course they ultimately take marching orders from the government, but the directness with which any individual thing they say reflects a specific instruction from the government varies; and the extent to which something reflects a major position taken by the Chinese government vs. some middle-manager or a rando editor of no real significance shrugging and going "I guess saying this is what will put the government in the best light" also varies. Not everything comes from the top. My objection is that highlighting something carries the implication that it's important in a way that it might not actually be. If people are allowed to take every random quote from anywhere in the massive amount of material published by the Chinese state media and implicitly present it as the Chinese state position, we're effectively allowing editors to weave their own narratives about what the Chinese state position is, because they can pick and choose what they're highlighting. They may not even realize they're doing this; to them, they found some key thing that nobody else noticed and are now spreading the news. But that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work - if some quote is truly a revealing key aspect that sheds light on the overarching direction of the Chinese government, some secondary source will have discussed it in that way. Of course WP:WEIGHT is more complex and situational than even WP:RS, so I'm not saying it could never be used, just that it's important to be careful to avoid a situation where we have editors basically creating new takes, stories and narratives and inserting them into articles by choosing what they highlight from the vast amount of primary material available on a topic. --Aquillion (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aquillion. I think you are saying that depricated State Media is sometimes citable on Wikipedia. Editors should not have the discretion to choose, but should look to existing use by trusted secondary sources. Having a secondary source use the citation and describe the citation as being the view of State Media will indicate WP:WEIGHT to other Wikipedia editors. Depricated state media opinions are not citable in general though.

If that's correct, then you have convinced me.

What I struggle with is the use of a single citation to meet both the user and editor expectations. Users are expecting a citation to show the quote in its original form so they can verify it and understand context, as per the discussion in WP:WHYCITE . They're not expecting to see the quote in a secondary source, which is what editors may want to establish for WP:WEIGHT. 14.201.39.78 (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion that may be of interest to those here

There is a discussion here about moving Politicization of Middle Eastern food to Israeli appropriation of Arab cuisine. Valereee (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing by User:Hystricidae21

Hystricidae21 has been adding essay-like content promoting a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist POV to various articles. I have reverted a few of his additions, but he's been at it for a whole year and, while some of it was immediately reverted, much of it went unnoticed. For example, Compulsory cartel contained several paragraphs claiming (in Wikivoice) that public healthcare was "economic totalitarianism" for the better part of a year. I have warned him on his talk page that this is completely unacceptable and asked him to familiarize himself with WP:NPOV.

Due to the extent of his activities, I don't know if I am qualified to handle this by myself. Should I just revert everything to the latest version before he made any edits? Some of his changes may be good, but there's so much to go through, and what about later changes by other people? Un assiolo (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

take it to wp:ani. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV-pushing by User:Hystricidae21 --Un assiolo (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Talk:Herrenvolk democracy

There is currently a discussion concerning whether or not it is appropriate to display the flag of Israel on this article. Experienced editors are invited to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Long

Jim Long hagiographic trash. Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) & Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)

There is a problem of neutrality in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis).

See: Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024

Since both Samasthas of AP (Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) and EK Sunnis (Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) have the same name, founder and the same history until the split in 1989, both should be presented equally, in their respective articles.

For that I humbly request you to undo this edit. Moreover both Samasthas should be named exactly the same except two letters of "AP" and "EK". What should I do to do that because there is already a request to rename (Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024)? In addition, my request to rename and move them to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) has been removed. If you would like to know more or have any doubt, let me know. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed Spworld2 about this discussion. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was not founded in 1989

The following sources say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration, which means Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was not founded in 1989 when the split happened.

The Hindu says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centenary. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
onmanorama.com says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
The New Indian Express says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
The website of MediaOne says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
The Times of India says about the inauguration of 99th foundation day of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
Manorama News says about beginning of the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
PressReader says about Kanthapuram claiming to be the original one, and about justifying with the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
Mathrubhumi says about the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
Madhyamam says about the promulgation of the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
malabarnews.com says about the promulgation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
ETV Bharat says about the declaration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus ETV Bharat like several others have accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) to celebrate the centennial.
Kasargod Vartha says about the promulgation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.

So articles on respective Samasthas should be treated equally in terms of the time of formation, the founder, and the rest of things until the split in 1989, everywhere including in the infobox. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (Samastha) was formed in 1926[1] [[2][3][4].

In 1986, under the leadership of Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar some ideological differences A new organization was formed by Separated from the Old Samastha [5]

The Old Samastha remained the same. Those who Separated from the Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (old Samastha) call it EK Samastha

But in Kerala, the Old Samastha established in 1926 is known as Samasta. In 1986, the Old Samastha Separated from and the new organization came to be known as A.P Samastha (Samastha (AP Faction)), other name like: Kanthapuram faction'

Editor @ Neutralhappy, the information in Old Samastha is written in A.P Samastha (Samastha (AP Faction)) and the year it was formed, this is wrong writing, for which news links are used without many source.

This editor (@ Neutralhappy) gives importance to this page only, (Samastha (AP Faction)) writes the entire page as advertisement WP:PROMOTION, and people write their own for the editor (@ Neutralhappy) (WP:CONFLICT). seems like ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that say about the split of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama in 1989

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama, founded in 1926 was, according to several sources (1—The New Indian Express, 2—The Hindu, 3—Scroll.in, 4—onmanorama.com, 5—News18, 6—Deccan Chronicle, 7—Dool News [Wikipedia page], 8— Southlive, 9—Samakalika Malayalam [Wikipedia page]), split in 1989 into two organisations exactly with the same name the organisation had before the split. Looking at the term split linguistically, it means all the new ones formed after the split have a shared history, thus a common time of formation. Thus both Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) are to be treated in Wikipedia equally in terms of their name, their time of formation, the founder and the rest of the matter pior to the split.

Two Samasthas of EK and EK faction Sunnis claim theirs is the real Samastha. That means both do not agree the other one is real. There is a source which says the AP faction claims theirs is the real Samastha. Perod Abdurahman Saqafi, secretary of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), says in a Malayalam YouTube video that the Samastha in the registrar office is that of the AP faction. Note that according to the AP faction, Samastha was not split but reorganised in 1989. Neutralhappy (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can see the English Wikipedia page for Samakalika Malayalam Varika here. Neutralhappy (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spworld2 clearly appears to have WP:CONFLICT since Spworld2 is presenting the view of EK Sunnis in wikivoice. That too without considering neutrality and due weight. Both Samasthas claim the real Samastha. But Spworld2 is presenting the view of EK Samastha only in Wikivoice. Spworld2 also seems to have high level of hatred towards AP Sunnis. Spworld2 has added content in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) that is not present in the source Spworld2 cited for. Spworld2 appears to be ready get blocked or banned because of his WP:CONFLICT for an indefinite period. Even the source Spworld2 cited in the above comment/reply does not say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was founded in 1989. Spworld2 also added the year 1989 as the year of formation in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) adding a source that does not say about the formation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) but the split of Samastha in 1989. I have no official membership of any organisation. I do not even have closeness to any local leaders of any organisation. I have no close connection to the topic I am editing. I am not editing any part of Wikipedia because I am asked to, or I am offered to be paid for. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Sunni, but I know Sunni Islam. I don't support religions, But learning about religions,

I am not interested in any organization. You write about an organization first without copying from other organizations. AP Samastha was formed in 1986 No matter how many people claim that sea water is sweet, sea water is actually salty

Sponsored links, no matter how many links are not sourced AP Samastha ( Samastha (AP Faction) ) was founded in 1986 by Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar Spworld2 (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, we cannot add unsourced content. You have added unsourced content. You keep saying AP Samastha formed in 1989 without citing a source. The sources that you cited do not support your claim. You clearly have WP:CONFLICT. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only people associated with EK Samastha claim EK Samastha is the real one. The same thing is seen in Spworld2. I have seen Mujahids say "Chelari Samastha" and Jamate-Islami says "Samastha (Kanthapuram faction)". Thus it seems non-Sunni Muslims in Kerala have accepted the right of both Samasthas to claim the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1989. Because of this edit by Spworld2, we can understand Spworld2 really belongs to those associated with EK Samastha or those who are paid to edit. Spworld2 also has created a page for the promotion of 100th anniversary of EK Samastha. Moreover, Spworld2, nominated the article on AP Samastha for deletion because of Soworld2's WP:CONFLICT of interest. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note this wording "... the Samasta , had to face two splits in its history . The first split , that occurred in 1967 , did not do much harm to the Organization . But the split in 1989 divided the Samasta vertically into two , and placed it into a quandary . [...] For the 1989 split , A.P. Aboobacker Musaliar , an eloquent orator , organizer , shrewed leader , generally known as Kantapuram , gave the leadership . It is said that the split was purely on petty personal interest .3 The sudden growth of S.S.Y.S. , under the stewardship of Kantapuram frightened the parent body . Every attempt to bring the youth body under the control of the Samasta failed . Without the consent of the parent or- ganization , S.S.Y.S. held a mammoth Conference at Ernakulam in 1989 and this ultimately led to the ousting of those who cooperated with the controversial conference . In retaliation , those who were ousted formed a body with the same name and elected a President for their group which completed the split . Subsequently they founded theirown Ulama organisation and various sub organisations to streamline their activities. The aftermath of the split was that it triggered a series of violent clashes and civil and criminal litigation over the control of the religious proper- ties and institutions all over Malabar.33 For the new group the split was an ideological one . They stated that the split was nothing but the last device in their fight against the lenient attitude taken by the official wing of the Samasta towards the anti - Sunni organizations forgetting their responsibility of safeguarding the Sunnah.34 Whatever be the reasons for the split , the consequences of this ramifications and the damage it caused to the Muslim social fabric are deeper and wider than it seems outwardly." (Islam in Kerala: Groups and Movements in the 20th Century (pp. 141-142)). The choice here would be to either split the articles in three, with one article covering the history up to 1989 and in the two other recognize that both factions consider 1926 as the founding date. Or considering the AP Samastha as the splinter group (which this book seems to back) but acknowledge that the AP Samastha considers itself as the legit inheritor of the original Samastha. --Soman (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the valuable comment by Soman.

As for the so-called split in 1967, this source says about the "resignation" and thus not a split according to this Malayalam Wikipedia article, while this source says clearly about walking out and the formation of a new organisation, which in turn means not a split in 1967 according to this The New Indian Express source. Note that the name of the author of the news article is not given; thus non-experts also could be the author having bias while also having less competency because of not conducting interviews of leaders of both Samasthas (who have the most authoritative knowledge about the incidents) or witnesses. M. Abdul Salam is not apparently a witness to the incidents. If M. Abdul Salam says the AP faction formed parallel ("their own") organisations, it is misleading because both the AP and EK factions apparently claim the legacy of the SYS formed before the Samastha's split of 1989, (claims by EK faction: 1; claims by AP faction: 1, 2), the organisation for the youth. Besides, SKSSF of the EK faction was founded, after the Samastha's split in 1989; while its AP faction counterpart, SSF, had been formed, well before the same split. SSF and SKSSF are for students. It is especially noteworthy since both these two types of organisations (for the youth and students) are apparently the most visible ones of both Samasthas, because some jubilees or anniversaries of these organisations—SYS (AP faction) [1], SYS (EK faction), SSF [1] and SKSSF [1]—are conducted. However, there could be any organisation, such as Samastha Kerala Sunni Vidhyabhyasa Board, formed by the AP faction directly as a result of the 1989 Samastha split. Hence what the author can only do legitimately is to present different opinions, which could be done by relying on witnesses. Furthermore, the M. Abdul Salam's book seems to be too old (published in 1998), probably at a time when there was much more hatred and conflict between the AP and EK factions so that the EK faction would likely say the EK faction ousted the AP faction leaders from Samastha besides other things. In addition, it seems the author wrote the book based on EK faction's claims. In my opinion, the book is not reliable due to lack of neutrality, maybe because it is not (if it is so) presenting the views of witnesses from both sides.

A source of The Hindu does not say Kerala Samasthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama is a Samastha. In addition, another source of The Hindu says about only two organisations known as Samastha:

A group of Sunni leaders led by Aboobacker Musliar had broken away from the Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama following organisational disagreement in 1989 and given shape to a Samastha of their own. Since then, the State has had two Samasthas known after their leaders.

That means only two organisations are known as "Samastha". Above all, Najeeb Moulavi, a prominent leader of Kerala Samasthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama, in this this Malayalam YouTube video at the 38:00 mark, says the president of Samastha left Samastha and Kerala Samsthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama was founded.

As a side note, this The New Indian Express source says:

He (Kanthapuram) said had they gone after the controversies over the Samastha in the last several years, the community would not have made any advancements in education.

That means the AP faction is not as strong as the EK faction in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. The EK faction is so assertive in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 that they conducted the centenary declaration conference in Bengaluru, which is outside Kerala, while the EK Samastha's name includes "Kerala" and the full name as per the EK Samastha's website means "All Kerala Ulama Organisation"; after the promulgation conference by the AP faction in Kasaragod. This difference in the attitude of the AP faction and the EK faction would make writers on the subject more biased towards EK faction's claims, since the writers become more exposed to the claims of the EK faction. The EK faction now says AP faction leaders left the Samastha, rather than saying the Samastha ousted the AP faction leaders.

As for the matter of the ousting, it is worth reading what this The New Indian Express report says:

... Thangal (Jifri Muthukoya Thangal) said those are the people who left the organisation and started parallel activities.

According to the AP faction, both the claims that the AP faction leaders were ousted and that the AP faction leaders left Samastha are false (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha); instead, the AP faction says 11 people, (including later leaders of the Samastha led by Kanthapuram), walked out of a Samastha meeting, not Samastha, disagreeing to give consent to a demand seeking to give E. K. Aboobacker Musliyar the unchecked authority in advance to alter the minutes in whatever way. Later, according to the AP faction, (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha), the Samastha was reorganised, not split; and still, according to the AP faction, (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha), the Samastha in the registrar office is that of the AP faction.

Remedy

In conclusion, I recommend both Samasthas be treated equally in terms of the name, the founder, and the rest of things until the split in 1989; everywhere, including in the infobox. This is to keep neutrality, and to relieve both Samasthas of likely embarrassment, in case it turns out that a particular Samastha has been in the government records as the successor of the Samastha founded in 1926, all this while. The best option is to avoid stating, the disputed matter until the split in 1989, without the attribution. Neutralhappy (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur! (1985 film)

There is a dispute at Talk:Dinosaur! (1985 film) as to whether commentary about inaccuracies in the film (which do not have a citation) should be in the article. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Hiram

Hey, I'm involved in an edit war over using the term "massacres" in the introductory statement of this article. This military operation included numerous massacres with overwhelmingly civilian casualties and severe crimes convicted by Israeli courts. Historians and sources widely describe it as involving mass killings and massacres. These massacres are cited overwhelmingly in the article (where a massacres section is present) and have been a talk page debate since ten years with the other side not responding.

I think it's important to evoke these points with the current socio-political situation in the article's concerned countries as objectivity and historal accuracy is an important vector for solidarity and peace. 10:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC) GLaTrace (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added the Arbpia/CT templates to that article and awareness notices at your talk page.

PerWP:ARBECR, you are only permitted to make edit requests at article talk pages in the topic area. That would exclude this post for example.

Thanks for your attention. Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

There are lenghty and recurring debates about the neutrality of the article on Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. A short discussion once had begun here on the noticeboard. Vells (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those debates are knee-jerk reactions to the word 'pseudoscientific' and the 'Accuracy and validity' section. Both are very well supported by reliable sources which are accurately summarized. It comes up a lot on the talk page because there is a vocal minority who is unhappy with the mainstream opinion on this. But the existence of that vocal minority does not mean there is a true neutrality issue here. MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie, Of course you're suppose to say so since you're among the fervent suppressors of the opposite opinions. You mentioned of mainstream opinion but ciations from peer-reviewed sources for the oposite opinions were regularly ignored or suppressed or removed. Even APA dictionary doesnot mention anything remotely similar to your comments so I highly doubt that "mainstream opinion" in your comments is the correct choice of words, not to mention a lot of citations from the main article are from media sources which are quite flimpsy, including statements without backing up data. NgHanoi (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's sources could, as always, be organized and summarized better, but that wouldn't make this topic any less pseudoscientific. These kinds of conspiratorial assumptions of bad faith sure don't help. If anything, the recent awareness of the replication crisis has encouraged more scrutiny and skepticism from the mainstream. The 'citations from peer-reviewed sources' mentioned on the article's talk page have included Frontiers in Psychology and others which shouldn't be cited at all. There is also a walled-garden issue, as the Myers–Briggs construct is controlled and promoted by the Myers–Briggs Foundation. Grayfell (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to resort to predatory journals to find notionally peer reviewed sources to cite, then your position is not mainstream. Remsense ‥ 论 06:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People make a lot of money from this kinda stuff. So they really need it to work. Polygnotus (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense: I assume you do not follow the discussions on the Talk page. There've been valid research works with meta analysis on reputable peer-reviewed journals on the Validity and Reliablity of MBTI and they were published not too long ago, I wouldn't called it predated (and certainly NOT predatory). If you spend your time, you can find these peer-reviewed papers (from reputable sources) on the Talk page, which has been repeatedly ignored. And just a fun question to ask, exactly how long ago should we call something "predated" (?!).

@Polygnotus: Apple has made a lot of money from iPhone, do they really need it to work? I think you just put your opinion above facts and it's unhealthy for the discussion.

@Grayfell: I was too busy to response to you the last time on the Talk page, but all your arguments were actually quite flimpsy.

1. The replication crisis has nothing to do with policy from Wikipedia to cite from reliable sources. You can't solve the replication crisis by just saying so, if you can't find the source, you should go ahead and publish the paper on the peer-reviewed journal yourself.

2. You removed this editing and the citation with the meta analysis about the Validity of MBTI. Randall, Ken; Isaacson, Mary; Ciro, Carrie (2017). "Validity and Reliability of the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis". Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions Diversity. Does this journal has anything to do with the MB Foundation? Your reason for the removal is that "The source may be usable for something, but it isn't so valuable that it must be preserved. It's also not particularly helpful to demonstrating the consensus that MBTI is pseudoscience" while the exact reason that this paper existed is to refute that MBTI is an invalid theory (right from the Abstract the paper claimed that "These studies agree that the instrument [MBTI] has a reasonable construction validity").

3. In your talk about the Barnumm effect, I already mentioned about the media source and you cited another one. Guess what, it's another media source without any backing up data, only talk and opinion. And it's amusing that you demanded to refute your source would need a peered-review source. One more thing, just because some idea came from a reknown Psychology professor doesn't automatically make it valid, even Einstein had his paper rejected (and it was justified), meaning an expert can make aweful mistakes in his expertise field [citation: https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great]

4. I've spent time and time looking through the references that you and several others claimed to backup the idea that MBTI is pseudoscience. The only thing emerged was that NONE of the peer-reviewed source outright claiming that MBTI is pseudoscience (!!!). As I mentioned, the APA dictionary doesnot mention annything pseudoscience about it too (https://dictionary.apa.org/myers-briggs-type-indicator). So you mean the page's so called *mainstream* know better than the APA?

I've foumd the only place on the Talk page where you try to frame MBTI as a pseudoscience theory is to paraphrase an author where you thought he mentioned about pseudoscience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator/Archive_7#c-Grayfell-20230820011300-My_name_is_pseudonym-20230819234100

To see why your paraphrasing is flaw, you can just replace word-by-word: "Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)" by "Newtonian Gravity theory", "social and personality psychology" by "modern physical astronomy" and you have a perfectly valid and correct sentence:

"Despite its immense popularity and impressive longevity, the Newtonia gravity theory has existed in a parallel universe to modern physical astronomy. Here, we seek to increase academic awareness of this incredibly popular idea and provide a novel teaching reference for its conceptual flaws. We focus on examining the validity of Newtonian gravity theory that specifies that gravity acts instantly at a distance. We find that the Newtonian gravity theory falters on rigorous theoretical criteria in that it lacks agreement with known facts and data, lacks testability [on modern astronomy observations], and possesses internal contradictions. We further discuss what Newtonian gravity theory's continued popularity says about how the general public might evaluate scientific theories"

Yet, nobody claim that the Newtonian gravity theory is pseudo-science. This practice of paraphrasing, therefore, shoud not be used as a foundation for the extraordinary claim that MBTI is a pseudoscience theory.

5. As mentioned from this source [6], the reason for the oppositions from the so-called "academic community" is due to the fact that there are factions among researchers, and it shouldn't be a surprise at all since disagrements have always been the source for development. But the disagreement/opposition shouldn't be the reason to call MBTI pseudoscience.

6. The big elephan in the room is that MBTI has a significant correlation with the Big Five theory, which is a known fact (also cited on the Main article). A pseudoscience theory just can't have any correlation with a valid scientific theory at all. And none of the "so-called" mainstream in the page bother to explain this fact.

7. So what the fuss, why we just claim it outright that MBTI as a mainstream scientific theory? Of course it's an old theory and as time went on, more precise theory emerged to describe the nature more precise, which should be the state of ALL science. But we don't call something pseudoscience just because it's old.

8. Disclaimer, I have nothing to do with the MBTI Foundation so don't spread the conspiracy from your side of the argument. I'm going to repost this response on the Talk page some times later too. NgHanoi (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apple has made a lot of money from iPhone, do they really need it to work? Yes, clearly, if iPhones stopped working right now Apple would be in big trouble. Polygnotus (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus does your opinion add any value to the discussion? I don't see any discussion about the peer-reviewd sources. NgHanoi (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably wise to be polite when you are trying to convince people to consider your point of view. Polygnotus (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The big elephan in the room is that MBTI has a significant with the Big Five theory, which is a known fact (also cited on the Main article). A pseudoscience theory just can't have any correlation with a valid scientific theory at all. And none of the "so-called" mainstream in the page bother to explain this fact. The idea that the Big Five personality traits model is scientifically sound (or even useful) is disputed. Polygnotus (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus then why don't you go and find concensus on that particular wiki page so that you can edit and make your point? And please excuse for my caustic tone, I've given up on convincing or reaching a "concensus" from the Wiki editors of this page. NgHanoi (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up on convincing or reaching a "concensus" from the Wiki editors of this page. then why are you here? There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at. Polygnotus (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong that I'm currently at Wiki's Neutral POV page? @Polygnotus NgHanoi (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. WP:CONSENSUS is the way we do things around here. And if you don't want to try to convince people then its gonna be hard to achieve your goals. Polygnotus (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't change the people, but making a point is probably the next best thing to do. I'm new with the Wikipedia editing by the way. @Polygnotus NgHanoi (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! My name is Polygnotus. I put a welcome template on your talkpage. I hope that helps, Polygnotus (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your welcome template. Thanks! @Polygnotus NgHanoi (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Predatory journal. It has nothing when publication took place. MrOllie (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much to answer here. As an example, one problems is the notion that "Newtonian Gravity theory" cannot ever be pseudoscience. Any attempt to present Newton's law of universal gravitation as being a modern competitor to relativity would be pseudoscientific. Newton's laws are still used because they are so useful and so, so much simpler than Relativity, but in any situation where Newton and Relativity disagree and that disagreement matters, Relativity wins every time. Any intentional use of Newton's laws in the wrong situation could be plausibly described as pseudoscientific. Another issue is the claim that "A pseudoscience theory just can't have any correlation with a valid scientific theory at all. And none of the "so-called" mainstream in the page bother to explain this fact." As Polygnotus says, the Big Five is controversial. Proponents of the Big Five typically argue that it requires a level of context, training, and nuance, and this is absent from Myers–Briggs. But even without that, this is false enough to suggest that this entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of what pseudoscience is. Loosely correlating with some other theory by some sympathetic metrics doesn't make something into real science. Grayfell (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell Here's how your argument falter again:

1. You mentioned about the practice of using of a theory in a certain context as pseudoscience. However, the wikipage is a place to describe what the theory IS, not how somebody used it. To name an entire theory as pseudoscience just because somebody used it the way you don't like is unfair to the theory. If you have the need to state about the practice, why don't you make a subsection to make your point?

2. There's a reason for the practice and it has to do with the lack of a better theory at the time, remember that Big Five was only invented relatively recently (back in the 80s), and MBTI was invented much earlier (1920s-1940s), so before the modern time, people find MBTI as good as they could get. The similar situation with astronomers using Newtonian law of universal gravity to calculate planetary's motion back in the 19 century (by the way, thanks for the correction).

3. Any trouble or controversy with Big Five is just the same as any Scientific theory and it's the problem of Falsifiability, meaning that any scientific theory suffers from incompleteness in describe the true opertion of the nature. I think you even mis-understand what a scientifc theory is when consider it needs to be absolutely correct in every situation. Any scientific theory can only approximate the operation of the nature to a certain point and new theory will eventually emerge and describe the nature better. And we don't call the left-behind theory as pseudoscience, just what it is: an old theory (and possibly less precise) along the progression of science.

4. @MrOllie: Thanks for your clarification, however, this is not to the point. The point is that there are meta-analysis papers about the Validity and Reliability of MBTI from reputable sources and any discussion about non-reputatable sources detract ourselves from determining whether MBTI is pseudoscience or not. Back to the point, I don't see your comment on those valid sources. NgHanoi (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's on point because many sources which have been presented as 'reputable' have turned out not to be. For example, further up this section you mention an article in 'Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions Diversity'. That is not a MEDLINE indexed journal, which is a major red flag for reliability in the medical space. MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie Did you have a chance to read through the paper? I guess not, just like the previous time you answer me. And your finding is actually flimsy for the following reasons:

1. Is there any place in Wikipedia's policy that specifies an article needs to be included in Medline to be "worthy of quoting" in Wikipedia?

2. Does the "redflag" in your opinion automatically translate a journal to be a sham? Any more concrete evidences than your hunch?

3. Here's the AI summary of the reputation of "Journal of Best Practices in Health Professional Diversity", feel free to leave comment on the summary, but in my opion, it's reputable enough for Wikipedia and no sign of "predatory": https://www.phind.com/search?cache=zxb2kg73qwtdgyeh9z54927v&source=sidebar

4. Since it's quite likely that you commented before even reading the article, let me just summarize it: It's a meta-analysis from a bunch of previous studies on the validity and reliability of MBTI. In another words, the author just collected the researches and review for you.

5. The list of studies included in the papers will be given here. Many of them from Medline indexed journal, some from SCOPUS, should be reputable enough.

Carskadon, 1977, Test-retest reliabilities of continuous scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Psychological Reports, 41, 1011–1012
Cohen, Cohen, Cross, 1981, A construct validity study of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 883–891

Tzeng, Outcalt, Boyer, Ware & Landis, 1984, Item validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 255–256

Leiden, Veach, Herring, 1986, Comparison of the abbreviated and original versions of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality inventory. Journal of Medical Education, 61, 319–321. (incl meta analysis)
Thompson Borrello, 1986a, Construct validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 745–752
Thompson Borrello, 1986b, Second-order factor structure of the MBTI: A construct validity assessment. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 18, 148–153.
Jackson, Parker, Dipboye, 1996, A comparison of competing models underlying responses to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 99–115.
Salter, Evans, Forney, 2006, A longitudinal study of learning style preferences on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Learning Style Inventory. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 173–184. (This is another meta analysis article)

NgHanoi (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you consider MBTI a topic of medicine/biomedical @MrOllie? NgHanoi (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current, status quo version of the article (which includes the label "pseudoscientific") looks neutral to me. That label is well supported by reliable, secondary sources. The opposite POV, that MBTI is not pseudoscientific, does not appear to be supported by the available sources, and we should not give undue weight to that position. Woodroar (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Woodroar: I'm not sure if you're familiar with the issue. I'll list some here:

+ The term "pseudoscience" is not supported from the citations in a sense that NONE of the peer-reviewd articles (excluding media sources) outright claim MBTI is pseudoscience. Most citation from the main articles talked about the validity and reliability of MBTI and the MBTI in practice. MBTI could be a poor instrument just as any old scientific theory, but it doesn't make it pseudoscience.

+ But when you only see the citations from one side then certainly you'll be bias. Reputable researches on the Validity and Reliability of MBTI exists but NOT considered on the main article (see some above this thread). That's the reason for this posting thread on NPOV board. NgHanoi (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm familiar with the general issue, having read about MBTI for years (after having taken the questionnaire for school and work many times). While looking into this specific complaint, I read through the article and talk page discussions, checked some sources, but also did a general search for contrary sources. (That's why I wrote does not appear to be supported by the available sources.) Everything points towards MBTI being pseudoscientific, as indicated in our article. Woodroar (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even Astrology is allowed to get 3 words in to describe itself before the lack of scientific validity is brought up... For MBTI, "pseudoscientific" is literally the first thing after the name.

Then, the claim to notability (wide use in business and education) is pushed all the way to the bottom of the intro, after a lengthy paragraph of development on validity that seems rather excessive in an intro.

The organization of the content shows an editorial agenda. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with it in a PSA, but this is an encyclopedia article. Jules.LT (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles are irrelevant, as they're different subjects based on different sources. That being said, I don't find the argument that "pseudoscientific" appears <checks page> 7 words earlier on Astrology to be very compelling. It's still mentioned prominently in the first sentence. Furthermore, I would argue that moving a critical warning about the ineffectiveness of a practice does a great disservice to our readers, some of whom may only read the first sentence or two. By the time we get to "oh by the way, this is actually a bunch of malarkey and has no basis in science", it could be too late. Woodroar (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be in the first or second sentence. But not before we know it's a personality tests rather than a political philosophy. Jules.LT (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Professional Association for Transgender Health

I am currently in a dispute with another editor who reverted my addition of critical information about the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). This information was reported by reliable and well-respected sources such as The Economist and The New York Times, both of which are listed as generally reliable at WP:RSP.

Specifically, The Economist details how WPATH leaders interfered with the production of systematic reviews they had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University. Additionally, both The Economist and The New York Times report that WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/health/transgender-surgery-biden.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/health/transgender-minors-surgeries.html, https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/06/27/research-into-trans-medicine-has-been-manipulated). The editor who reverted my edits argues that the information from The Economist and The New York Times is WP:UNDUE and falls under WP:NOTNEWS , despite the fact that these issues have been widely discussed in other mainstream media, as demonstrated in our talk page discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health#Reversion_of_objective_edit).

The current article about WPATH reads more like a corporate page at the moment, rather than a neutral Wikipedia article, as it contains none of the relevant critical information about the organization, even though controversies involving WPATH have been reported by highly reliable sources. I am seeking consensus on the notability of the reporting by these cited news outlets, with the aim of determining whether this information should be included in the article. I would greatly appreciate it if other Wikipedia editors could review this issue and share their opinions. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which source says that "WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers

The New York Times:

Health officials in the Biden administration pressed an international group of medical experts to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries from guidelines for care of transgender minors, according to newly unsealed court documents. Age minimums, officials feared, could fuel growing political opposition to such treatments. Email excerpts from members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health recount how staff for Adm. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services and herself a transgender woman, urged them to drop the proposed limits from the group’s guidelines and apparently succeeded. [7]

The Economist:

Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care. [8] Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT is saying "apparently succeeded", and Economist pieces should be presented with attribution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT piece is already included on the SOC8 article, as it dealt with the SOC recommendations specifically, which is why it belongs there, not on the WPATH article, as I already explained on the article talk page. - An earlier draft would have required several years of transgender identity before an adolescent could begin treatment. After criticism from transgender advocates, this provision was removed in the final release. Despite the criticism, transgender youths wishing to be treated are still required to undergo a "comprehensive diagnostic assessment".[18] from the SOC8 page. Raladic (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No reason an NYT article can't be cited in multiple wikipedia articles. I expect thousands already are. Hi! (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, those are two different articles - the cited on on the SOC8 section is from 2022: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/magazine/gender-therapy.html

The one mentioned above is from 2024: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/health/transgender-minors-surgeries.html Void if removed (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRITICISM states you probably shouldn't do a whole section straight up called criticism.

It could probably be part of a section called Research activities? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, seems like there is a discussion already about it on the Talk Page and that the objected material is included in Standards_of_Care_for_the_Health_of_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse_People#Version_8. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion Bluethricecreamman, I certainly don't mind such a title (Research activities). Certainly the criticism header was a bit on the nose, even if it's substantively apt. Although that was not cited as the sole reason for reversion.

This information isn't included in another article. In fact, it concerns WPATH directly as well as its activities. It is not about SOC, but rather how WPATH's activities were influenced by external parties, and how WPATH has interfered with Hopkins University reviews. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean Waltz O'Connell- you did not properly notify me of this discussion as is highlighted in bold as a mandatory step at the top of this noticeboard. Please remember to do so next time, I just found this discussion by chance.

As for the content in question, I don't think there's much more to expand on as the other users here have already explained in addition to my explanation on the article talk page itself. As it stands, no other reliable media has picked up the allegation of the reverted content other than the Economist who levied it, which makes it first-hand news, so lasting notability has not been proven for an allegation, so it falls under WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't appear WP:DUE, especially not in WP:CRITS form. The New York times piece about an early draft potentially changing age requirements is included on the SOC8 article, as I have already explained, as it was about the SOC specifically, not WPATH. Raladic (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raladic I notified you about the NPOV page in our talk before I posted here, however you are correct and I'll take care to tag appropriately in future - Thanks for the reminder.

The information from the NYT and The Economist are specifically about WPATH making recommendations under pressure from an official, and that concerns WPATH, not the SOC.

That information is not reflected in any article. The SOC article that you refer to cites another NYT article from 2022, and does not reflect the recent controversy reported by the NYT and the Economist that only came to light a month ago. As for the information about WPATH meddling with the John Hopkins reviews, reported by the Economist, it's been widely covered & discussed in the mainstream media. The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Guardian published op-eds discussing the controversy. While the op-eds cannot be used for statements of facts, they can be used for statements of opinions, and the fact that major news outlets have dedicated so much space to the discussion of the story reported by the Economist clearly illustrates that it garnered nationwide attention.

For example, an op-ed in The Washington Post directly cites the Economist article:

"Last week, The Economist reported that other documents unsealed in the Alabama case suggest something has gone wrong at WPATH itself, which reportedly commissioned evidence reviews from Johns Hopkins University, then tried to meddle with the result. Internal communications suggest that research should be 'thoroughly scrutinized to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense.' Now, assuming this is true, I’m sure WPATH sincerely believed it was doing its best for gender-dysphoric kids. But such meddling makes it harder to find out whether the group is right about that." [9]

Similarly, an op-ed from The New York Times notes:

"The World Professional Association for Transgender Health... blocked publication of a Johns Hopkins systematic review it had commissioned that also found scant evidence in favor of the gender-affirming approach. Recently released emails show that WPATH leaders told researchers that their work should 'not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense.'"

[10]

Another op-ed in The Guardian states:

"Evidence has since emerged suggesting that WPATH actually tried to suppress the systematic reviews that it commissioned from Johns Hopkins University because the results undermined its preferred approach... WPATH was pressured by the Biden administration to remove minimum ages for treatment from its 2022 standards of care." [11]

Furthermore, The New York Sun also covered the story in its report:

"WPATH wielded a heavy hand after it in 2018 commissioned from evidence-based medicine experts at Johns Hopkins University a series of systematic literature reviews... After some of the Hopkins teams’ findings raised concerns among WPATH leadership that they might 'negatively affect the provision of transgender health care,' WPATH compromised the independence of the Hopkins researchers."

[12]

The above pieces show that the information shared by the Economist led to a substantial debate in the media, which firmly illustrates the notability of the topic and importance of its reflection in the article about the WPATH. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of that supports a statement of fact in wiki-voice. It seems you're main point is that some mention is due in the WPATH article. Would you be amenable to an attributed version? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe an attributed version would be fine. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers What thoughts do you have on the best way to phrase an attributed version to the article, omitting the criticism header and so on? Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) The new NYT article is still about the same thing, they very article you linked says The draft guidelines, released in late 2021, recommended lowering the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies. - the guidelines it is talking about is the SOC8, so this is the very same topic that is in fact already covered at the SOC8 article. I do not know how to make this any more clear, so please listen.

2)The Hopkins story that is WP:ALLEGED by the Economist was not picked up by any other media. Op-eds are not "substantial debate in the media", they are opinion from individuals, some newspapers just allow those with little (or no) editorial oversight. It gets even more problematic when one of them is cited to a tracked anti-trans hate group (SEGM) as I had already explained. So at best, an attributed sentence of "An article in the Economist alleged influence on a study." or something along those lines. But again, it even that looks questionable to be WP:DUE at this moment in time to even say this under our WP:NOTNEWS policy. So I'd say we should wait to see if any other reliable media actually picks up, as Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE, so we are not rushed to add one news piece. Our inclusion criteria on Wikipedia are based on policy, especially scrutinized so in WP:CTOP areas. Raladic (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latest NYT article reports that SOC was developed under political pressure. That information was not available in 2022, and is not reflected in another article. That surely rebuts the assertion made in your previous message. I have listened very carefully to what you have said, with due regard, but this is not about the SOC, the controversy is about how that SOC was developed by WPATH. It is a different story that made its way to the media only now. The two stories are dissimilar in time line, and in specific scope. The Guardian does not cite SEGM, as I already mentioned in our talk page discussion. It makes no mention of that organization, and only links to a repost of the Economist article at SEGM website, probably because the original Economist article is paywalled.This is the SEGM link [https://segm.org/The-Economist-WPATH-Research-Trans-Medicine-Manipulated] As one can plainly see, it contains nothing but the full repost of the Economist article.

I believe we can report the NYT and the Economist stories with attribution to those news outlets, because those are very reputable and trusted sources known for fact checking and accuracy. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the NYT story is ABOUT the standards of care, so they belong on the standards of care article, you are free to expand that paragraph there at the SOC article if there is new relevant content, but it already seems sufficiently WP:SUMMARIZEd with what is there, even if that other source is from two years ago. It's inherently about the same core issue. A by-setence of "some of the draft guidelines may have been influenced by political pressure" or something along the lines maybe (which again, would still be fairly small given that they didn't appear to have made it out of the draft after the criticism that is already in the article into the final version of the SOC8).

As for the Economist - Guardian quote stop your WP:OR on "because they are paywalled" - the Guardian links to SEGM in the citation of it - Evidence has since emerged suggesting that WPATH actually tried to suppress the systematic reviews that it commissioned from Johns Hopkins, that means, they cited SEGM, full-stop, anything else is irrelevant and is you own original thought. Note that Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV is strict, especially around criticism that doesn't seem to be widely repeated such as is the care here, other than with the Guardian linking it to an anti-trans hate group, then it makes the inclusion really hard to argue on being DUE at the moment. Please note Wikipedia is not here as a platform to right great wrongs. The fact that the Economist article itself used slur language, in the last paragraph they refer to a trans woman using a slurred term (see Trans_woman#Terminology for more context), is a whole separate question that we haven't even addressed on the motivation of the original article itself. Raladic (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you are simply repeating your argument that the information from the latest NYT article is covered in another Wikipedia article, when it is clearly not. I do not see any mention of the pressure from the official in the article that you refer to. Also, as a a long time editor you must be well aware that WP:OR does not apply to the talk page discussion, but you keep bringing it up for some reason. Anyone can check the SEGM link and see what it is. It does not contain any information produced by SEGM itself, it is a simple repost. And lastly, there is a consensus to consider the Economist to be a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. It is a well respected source known for fact checking and accuracy. This is not a place to challenge that. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT did not say "WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official", they said WPATH removed minimum age requirements which is something Rachel Levine (who, for the record, has absolutely no power over WPATH) made a recommendation in support of. They say James Cantor (who is as WP:FRINGE as it gets in the field of trans healthcare and not WP:DUE in the slightest) levied the charges of politics driving their decisions, and the president of WPATH denied them.

Moreover, the article actually says the American Academy of Pediatrics warned WPATH it would not endorse the SOC with age minimums because "the [AAP]’s policies did not recommend restrictions based on age for surgeries" (because there is no other field of medicine which sets age limits on surgeries deemed medically necessary). So this is not "Levine forced WPATH to remove age minimums", it's "highly reputable medical organizations and health directors argued such minimums were unscientific and WPATH discussed it internally and agreed".

The Economist is an opinion piece, only covered by other opinion pieces and unreliable sources, neither of which lend any evidence the allegations are due. The fact that they gave SEGM permission to repost it in full is concerning in itself. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT report says:

"Health officials in the Biden administration pressed an international group of medical experts to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries from guidelines for care of transgender minors"

The Economist:

"Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care"

We must report the information strictly in accordance with what the sources say. And they discuss pressure from an official. Whether Levine has power over WPATH is not up to us to decide. And the Economist is not an

opinion piece. It is not identified as such by the Economist, and for example an op-ed in the Washington Post says "Last week, The Economist reported", so that firmly indicates in writing that it is an actual report by the Economist. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP: The Economist publishes exclusively articles in editorial voice with no byline, with a few featured commentary pieces by pseudonymous bylines That link is to WP:RSOPINION. WRT the WAPO, "op-ed A cited op-ed B therefore op-ed B is not an op-ed" is not a policy based argument.

That leaves us with the NYT. A source saying "A recommended B do C; B later did C" is not one saying "B did C because of A". Especially because, as I noted, the AAP explicitly warned WPATH about age minimums, the NYT notes it was internally discussed, the president denied it, and the person who says that was a political decision and not a scientific one is WP:FRINGE.

WPATH has an FAQ on the SOC8[13]:

Minimum ages for providing gender-affirming medical care were removed from the SOC-8 and replaced by strengthened criteria to help codify the framework that enables every TGD adolescent the opportunity to get their appropriate medical needs met at the appropriate time; these changes to the SOC-8 reflect the fact that one-size-fits-all health care models, especially transgender care, are not accurate or appropriate for every individual person.
Prior to its September 2022 release, WPATH announced a public open comment period to the draft SOC-8 in December 2021 through January 2022. This comment period allowed input and feedback from professionals in the field from around the world who were concerned that the listing of ages would lead to further limitations to care by creating or reinforcing arbitrary boundaries to care and/or by ignoring possible contributing health factors including mental health, family support, or other individual health needs. After comments were reviewed and discussed by chapter authors and co-chairs, it was determined that the specific ages would be removed to ensure greater access to care for more people

WPATH had an open consultation. Levine was one of many who responded. Others responded. WPATH made a choice they agreed with. A WP:FRINGE activist didn't like that and screamed "politics!". WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. We can write somewhere "the SOC 8 dropped age requirements for surgery after a public consultation" - we don't have to put in "James Cantor complained about it" (WP:UNDUE per WP:FRINGE), "Levine encouraged them to do it" (per WP:NOTNEWS, and the fact that the more important thing is "the AAP warned them they'd withdraw support without it"), or "Levine made them do it" (because that's only said in an op-ed), Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RSP, The Economist publishes articles exclusively in editorial voice, yet is a reliable source nonetheless. As such, The Economist cannot be discounted because of the manner of presentation of its material, as it would mean that we should not use any Economist article, and that would be against the established consensus. If you believe that the Economist articles are not acceptable for use in Wikipedia, you should challenge that at WP:RSP. But I checked the last RFC, and the closing statement clearly discourages any attempts to discount the Economist from use in this topic area, and there is a mention of WP:DUE there as well. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 393#RfC: The Economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#RfC:_The_Economist

As for the NYT, I have already quoted what it writes, please take the time to check. Otherwise, In short, it says that an official pressed WPATH to drop the age limit. The rest is your personal interpretation that we cannot use in the article. We must stick to what the sources write, and 2 highly reliable sources support this information. That makes it WP:DUE. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will say it again - please listen. You have now been told by multiple experienced editors the specific policy based reasons for why something is DUE or UNDUE on a specific article and yet, you keep going off on unrelated tangents. The policies we cited are irrespective of reliability. The Economist story is undue on the WPATH article per WP:NOTNEWS.

And again, the age limit story from the NYT is ABOUT the SOC8, so it is undue on the WPATH article, so it belongs at the SOC article instead, where it already is and as I already said above - so they belong on the standards of care article, you are free to expand that paragraph there at the SOC article if there is new relevant content - so please stop beating on with the same argument. Raladic (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing under editorial voice doesn't imply an opinion piece, which is why The Economist was found to be generally reliable. And even if it was an opinion piece, it could still be cited with an appropriate qualifier, such as 'The Economist reported that...' Hi! (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it would be commentary, not "reporting". Remsense ‥ 论 02:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we could say 'The Economist said', but I don't think that it really matters when it's a statement of fact, not a statement of personal values. FWIW, perennial reliable source The Washington Post said "The Economist reported that..." in reference to the same article. Hi! (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the thousands of times it's been cited with no qualifier at all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22economist.com%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

I find it very hard to believe these thousands of articles are all in violation of the findings or spirit of the perennial sources list. Hi! (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, is your position that because all Economist pieces don't have real name byline, wikipedia should never use the phrase 'The Economist reported'? Because if so, there's a lot of work to be done - this phrasing is standard on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22the+economist+reported%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Hi! (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, merely that reporting and editorial analysis are two different things, which can sometimes be contained in the same piece but should be distinguished. There's plenty of potentially misleading writing on Wikipedia, you don't need to tell me that. Remsense ‥ 论 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems like POV pushing, particularly from the followup responses. One of the sources given is a blatant op-ed and the other is discussing a decision made that involved multiple groups and people and was done after another major scientific organization (the AAP) said they should do it. Silver seren^C 15:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to OP: since this material would be about how WPATH carried out and interpreted medical research, this is a medical topic, and as such sources cited should follow the WP:MEDRS guideline. While mainstream journalism is a reliable source in some topic areas, community consensus is that medical topics require a higher level of expertise. Rather than cite opinion pieces published in The New York Times or The Economist (which are in any case subject to WP:NEWSOPED)), content should be based on material published by professional expert sources such as medical journals, standard textbooks, or national or international expert bodies. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. However, I would like to clarify a few points. The New York Times articles in question are not opinion pieces. Additionally, WPATH is an organization, not a specific medical treatment or medicine, which means it does not fall strictly under the category of a medical topic as defined by WP.

Furthermore, WP:MEDPOP

states that 'the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article.' The information in question pertains to current affairs and historical context related to WPATH, and therefore, the sources cited are appropriate under these guidelines." Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS does not only apply to treatments, it applies to all biomedical information. And as you can clearly see on that page, information which (if true) would affect or imply conclusions about biomedical information is typically itself treated like biomedical information. Loki (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are considering, however it's a bit of a reach & not substantive. WP:BMI does not mention institutions or professional organizations among what constitutes biomedical information. In addition, WP:NOTBMI states that medical ethics are not biomedical information: Discussions about the ethics of a treatment, publication, set of rules or practices, or the handling of an event clearly do not constitute biomedical information. WPATH interfering with Hopkins University reports and making decisions under external pressure are exactly ethical issues. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per advice, I have asked for clarity on The Economist on WP:RSN Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Palestinian suicide terrorism#Requested move 21 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Palestinian suicide terrorism#Requested move 21 August 2024 that may be of interest to readers of this noticeboards. TarnishedPath^talk 09:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Sources and Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike

Feedback on what the reliable sources allow us to say in an NPOV fashion about the motivations and goals of Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike is requested at: Talk:Mahatma Gandhi RfC on Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Human Rights Commission

Islamic Human Rights Commission (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Article looks like it is being turned into an Islamist propaganda piece. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it seems fine. Exactly what is the issue? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changes. The attack of the IHRC against Charlie Hebdo has been removed from the lead, and criticism has been framed as "neoconservative" or (in the case of the addition in the lead) qualified by counter-criticism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

its in the article. the question i need to ask is if a specific incident belongs in WP:LEDE.

Maybe you can summarize all the controversies IHRC has been in/accused of into a single sentence or two? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes like this shouldn't be done by non-EC editors. Per ARBCOM's definition, the article is probably in the area of conflict (broadly interpreted), but even if it isn't, the particular change falls under edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that seems like an expansion of the definition to a charity that seems to do a lot. This goes to the broader question, if the article mentions Israel-Palestine once in a subsection, or it is only partially related, is all of the article affected by ARBPIA definition?

It seems like related content definition is the one definition that applies, in the ARBCOM you linked, in which case the non-EC editor should probably be warned about ARBPIA restrictions on the israel-Palestine specific content they edit in the article, but they should be allowed to engage on the other content and edit that. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The PIA scope is relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted (not only the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). A lot of IHRC's advocacy relates to this broader conflict, and the article mentions Israel numerous times. Even if the article wasn't considered in the topic area, the edit above would be. For example, military supply flights from the USA to Israel is about the Israeli-Lebanese conflict, as the added source mentions.

@JamieJamalBond: please make sure you're familiar with the WP:PIA rules. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the portion that relates to ARBPIA probably should not be editted by a non-ECP account. What I mean to say is that much (possibly most) of the article is not related to Israel and should be accessible to non-ECP editors to edit. And it seems 90% of the edits by new editor is non-Israel/Palestine related and should be fine. Let's not Wikipedia:BITE the newcomer because a small portion of the article is a bureaucratic minefield. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hob, I highly recommend starting a discussion on the Talk Page if you think there is an issue, and doing WP:BRD or whatever other option there is. You haven't done that and since there is no discussion, other editor is probably operating under WP:SILENCE is consensus. I know its the weakest form of consensus, but you need to propose specific issues and specific points of disagreement they need to tackle to avoid the article becoming "an Islamist propaganda piece" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pinging @JamieJamalBond, since it seems nobody bothered to ping them that this convo was happening... Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the ping. JamieJamalBond (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom

An article has recently been created about this rather contentious topic. It would be good for the article to be looked over by experienced editors to make sure that it is balanced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to suggest that there are very good grounds to argue that no article under that particular title could ever be balanced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly a notable topic here given the coverage in reliable sources, but I agree that the title is not ideal (though any title for this article is likely to be contentious). This is an incredibly hard topic to write about neutrally due to the wildly conflicting coverage of reliable sources on the issue. I think this might be better merged into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. There was a version of the article, especially near its creation, that correctly describes it as a moral panic, but its current shape is more a far-right conspiracy cobbled together with poor sourcing.

At this point, a completely new article is worth bringing up. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read through it and put my say in the AfD. The original version of this article was about a moral panic, but another editor turned it into racialized bunk. Gave my thoughts about a WP:TNT at this point with how poorly its been made and thoroughly turned into a racialized dog whistle. At least 40+ of the sourcing is just random local crime reports used to suggest that because it occurred in city x, that it means its widespread in city x. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled to see that no one does the obivous when an article about a moral panic is repurposed (= hijacked) for moral panic mongering: immediately revert to the last best version per WP:ONUS. Of course we have articles about tropes and moral panics when there is WP:SIGCOV about them, but obviously they shouldn't propagate the inside view, and what's worse, stay for weeks in that condition and thus let WP become a soapbox for right-wing propaganda. @AndyTheGrump is right, we could then think about a better title, but community attention can go faster ways than an AfD when it comes to remove bunk when it so obivously flies into our faces. –Austronesier (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the idea that "Muslim grooming gangs" really exist is mainstream in UK public discourse where many English-speaking Wikipedia editors are based. It's a bit like how Armenian genocide denial is mainstream in Turkey despite the overwhelming consensus of academics so the Turkish Wikipedia article on the topic is consequently wishy-washy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The List of settlements with cases section looks very OR to me. NicolausPrime (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article is currently at AfD (as it was at the time of the original NPOV post). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom. Currently looks to be trending towards "no consensus". There is significant pushback from "Keep" voters who want to remove the moral panic framing, which likely is indicative that the article talkpage will probably be the focus of much future discussions. The article is probably worth watchlisting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Olympics

In lead of Paris OLympics, Pizzigs has unnecessarily been altering it by undermining the mention of China, making it harder to understand.[14] It seemed like they were really singling out and trying to diminish the importance of China's achievement. I reverted the change [15] and improved clarity[16], but Pizzigs kept reverting to a "downgraded" version, focusing only on that particular sentence.

Only later, they been advocating for the removal of all mentions of China in the lead section of the Paris Olympics article, including their medal count and the fact that they tied with the US for the most golds.[17] I am concerned that such a decision to completely eliminate all references to China from the lead is excessive and does not align with Wikipedia's principles of neutrality and equality. I requested that they respect the general Manual of Style (MOS) and avoid making drastic changes that could be perceived as disruptive. I stand by my edit to restore China's mention in the lead and believe any neutral editor would support this decision. UPDATE; it appears that they maybe have changed their mind on that now, as they yesterday added further to that sentence that USA topped both gold and overall medals and that China came second because of fewer silvers.[18] Seems they may accept the sentence being in lead if it just emphasize more that China is a lesser to USA. Though they do have a nasty history of adding to a sentence[19] and only days later advocating to delete the whole paragraph later so maybe too early to tell right now.[20]

But only less than a day after I reverted their edit, Pizzigs also reverted numerous other edits I made in different other articles, which I am concerned was done more in retaliation rather than genuine editorial disagreement because I wouldn't let them be diminishing or erasing certain countries' achievements. And so there still remains an ongoing NPOV issue where they have removed the key sentences that China had topped the gold medal charts, when that is a true statement.[21] Both USA and China tied and lead the gold medal charts[22] and if it's ok to say the US done that. It should be accepted too to say China done that and it's not neutral at all, to remove a highly notable and verifiable true fact simply because they don't like it. Evibeforpoli (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzigs was blocked on August 11, 2024, due to violating the three revert rule and was unbanned on August 13, 2024 [23]. Since being unbanned on August 13, 2024, Pizzigs has repeatedly made 14 edits in the lede of the 2024 Summer Olympics article, making changes that align with what Evibeforpoli has mentioned [24]. They are also aware of the three-revert rule and have engaged in canvassing WP:CANVASS other users, which was done with the intention of influencing the outcome of another article in their favor [25]. It seems that Pizzigs is intentionally circumventing the three-revert rule by making the same edit outside the 24-hour window and is engaging in edit warring behavior across wikipedia. LilAhok (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MBTI

The MBTI is not a scientific test, but its Wikipedia article is a hit piece with some editors making sure to keep it that way. It's probably more about the organization of the content than the content itself, at least. Jules.LT (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed above at #Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. The article reflects the independent sources, who agree it is pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Talk:Kuči (tribe)

Feel free to join us at the discussion, here's a little summary:

I think there is a POV being pushed in the article page of the tribe (both by the actions of editors on that page, and their actions on other pages). Tribe is claimed to be of Albanian origin, based on language reports two centuries after the tribe has formed, which were even disputed by some (Erdeljanovic). I tried to counter this nationalistic POV with sources that claim otherwise, most of which claim tribe was mixed. Whenever i try to provide them with a source that is not according to their own POV (which is again formed on 1 quote 2 centuries after formation of the tribe) i am met with hostility from that group of editors. I tried using dispute resolution, but they simply ignored it and continued on with this. Also, they simply ignore facts that they put into the tribe, and that is when the first Ottoman defters were published in 1485. tribe had mixed population, based on their names.

Here are a few sources that i am willing to implement, which directly address the claim of source, instead of talking about religion or language, you can check the sources they want to use on the article page itself. I talked to admins, they also agreed that citation was needed, but editors are also simply ignoring that, so i am going with RfC.

Sources and citations:

1. Bojka Đukanović - Historical Dictionary of Montenegro, page 190: According to their ethnic origins, the Kuči tribe is a mixture of Slavic and Albanian population. [26](screenshot of a page section)

2. Stanoje Stanojević - Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenac̆ka - Page 554: K. are an old Serb tribe. It was formed by Serb brotherhoods that moved from Zeta valley, where it was first living, and then spread to territory of K. They found two Vlach tribes Bukumiri and Mataguži, who were pushed away and then partly assimilated. In record from 1455. when Kuči are first mentioned as a tribe, it's said that they are of orthodox faith. Kuči celebrate Nikoljdan. Only the name Kuči is not of Serb origin. It's either obtained from population that here before, or they got it from Albanian label, which in their language means great, unsurpassed. From 15. century, running away from the Turks, many families from surrounding countries arrive, first Serbs and Albanians, and later only Serbs who were running away from Albanians. Out of 22 families who moved between 15th and 17th century to Kuči, only 4 are known to be of Albanian origin.[27](screenshot of a page section)

3. Predrag Petrovic - Vojvoda Radonja Petrović, Guvernadur Brda, page 30: Kuči, as one of key tribal societies in Brda region, have their own specific traits in comparison to other tribes from the ethnic standpoint. Core of the tribe which is formed around middle of XV century, or maybe even few decades before, are native brotherhoods who are not connected, but are of Slavic-Serb origin, and populate region of castle Medun and a couple of Vlach lineages in mountainous and region around it, who were mixing with each other before arrival of Mrnjavčevići. Later, after Turkish occupation and formation of Kuči nahia, in territorial and administrative region, was included a couple of Albanian, catholic brotherhoods in Trieshi, who joined tribal community of Kuči, and so that created a heterogeneous ethnic composition of Kuči, which was also religiously heterogeneous. [28](screenshot of a page section)

4. Andrey N. Sobolev - Southeastern European Languages and Cultures in Contact: Between Separation and Symbiosis (Language Contact and Bilingualism) - Page 96: Compare with the Kuči who had been an Orthodox Serbian tribe until the 15th century. Through the 15th to 17th century several Albanian (Catholic) and Serbian (Orthodox and Catolic) groups from other areas settled in their tribal territory. The population in the region had been a long time bilingual, but shifted to monolingualism due to the gradual Slavicization of Albanians. A bilingual situation now exists only in the small area of Koći/Koje, which is inhabited by Albanians and Albanized Serbs.[29](screenshot of a page section)

5. Rašović Marko - Kuči Tribe: Ethnographic-Historical Overview - describing period before 15th century and formation of a tribal society, page 30 And so the Serbs somewhere started living among Vlachs, and in other places pushed them further into the mountains. In todays region of Kuči, we can find proof that it was the second case.[30](screenshot of a page section)

describing period of tribe formation, 15th century, page 35 By the end of XV and during the XVI century begins big change in the composition of the population of Kuči. New brotherhoods and families are moving into Kuči, many of noble blood, running away from Turks. Poem from Petar Petrović Njegoš These newcomers were Serbs and Albanians, brave and energetic people, champions of uncompromised battle against the Turks. Almost all of them came here as well established brotherhoods, who forcibly take their place amongst the old Kuči, and then later, they spread and forced older families to move. Many of those who left Kuči later accepted Islam out of spite or as a revenge to those who exiled them from Kuči. As it was the case with most Serb tribes, the newcomers showed much more life than the old population and they grew bigger and spread even beyond the border of old Kuči territory. They pushed old Kuči into the shade, and pushed themselves as "real Kuči", carrying and defending that name with the same pride as their predecessors, old Kuči. By the mid XVIII century they already spread the territory of Kuči to their current borders, as it can be seen under the title "borders" Image on the other page. That's how new age of Kuči history had two events: New arrivals and spread. From the first half of XV century to the end of XVII century, 23 brotherhoods moved to Kuči, out of which only one brotherhood, Čigomani, moved out. Out of other 22 brotherhoods, 4 are of Albanian origin: Geg, Koći, Boneći, Nuculovići.[31](screenshot of a page section) Setxkbmap (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards