Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 21 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & 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

Papau conflict article seems heavily biased in favor of the Indonesian military[edit]

Papua conflict

Im not particularly knowledgeable but from my understanding the conflict has involved numerous documented cases of massacres, torture, arial bombardment of civilians, and imprisonment, torture, and extrajudicial killings of non-violent political activists by a well-equipped force against a poorly equipped force. As well as what would almost certainly be considered genocide or close to it. At least hundreds of thousands of people have died due to the actions of the Indonesian military. However, if you read the opening paragraph, it only mentions atrocities committed by the guerrilla forces. If you look at the most recent edit as well you see an example of what to me is a trend where a whataboutism is added as context to downplay information favorable to the separatists.

Most of these users appear to be extremely active on editing pages related to the Indonesian military while I doubt most people on the separatist side have internet much less electricity so it seems pretty obvious there is a POV that has become dominant and is clearly not neutral. (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs or explain how bad something is. We don't indiscriminately compile lists of bad things, nor do we go out of our way to add them to articles. We just summarize the main ideas that are expressed by reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP's concerns were totally valid here, which is clear if you take the time to examine the recent history of the article. Another IP, however, has substantially improved the lead by removing two obviously POV statements: [1]. As of right now, I'd say the lead at least seems pretty good. I'll be happy to add the article to my watchlist. Generalrelative (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good, the POV statements shouldn't be there. That doesn't mean it's okay for the IP to turn this report into a soapbox. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think they were turning it into a soapbox at all. While we strive to meet WP:NPOV and reliability of and through sources, sometimes these can be disjointed or out-of-sync, usually due to systemic bias in cases like this. The IP, without knowledge of our terminology and such, was simply expressing this out in their own way. In a case as serious as this, the response is not to pull a bothsidesism but rather to avoid using sources which may have an inherent and pervasive bias; in this case, I would be skeptical of most sources that come out of Indonesia, and likely PNG and Australia as well. Curbon7 (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m sorry, the role of Wikipedia is to not be right or parrot propaganda from one side? I do not think “well, a lot of husbands of the women raped by the army beat their wives” is relevant when talking about the crimes of an army. However, that was the state of the article. What on earth are you talking about, and why are you taking such a condescending tone toward me? 2001:818:DCA6:A500:B53F:F89D:6F04:B4DE (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually Thebiguglyalien agreed with your removal of that content. We're all basically on the same page here. With regard to "condescending tone", it's really easy to misinterpret one another when we're all communicating with text only, often about topics we care deeply about. But there was no violation of civility in Thebiguglyalien's reply. In order to work here effectively you've got to have a moderately thick skin. That said, we can all stand to be reminded once in a while not to bite the newcomers. Generalrelative (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m unsure how I’m “soapboxing” nor was I just here to “explain how bad something was.” His characterization of my post was frankly a condescending way to go about it. I’ve skimmed the rules and from my understanding I’ve correctly followed the process for the problem I’ve identified. His behavior is uncalled for. I think my skin is plenty thick, if he doesn’t want to be called out than he can choose to be more polite and charitable himself.
Anyway, I hope there will be more eyes now from experienced people on that article that aren’t interested in advancing a particular narrative that is aimed at excusing and minimizing crimes against humanity. 2001:818:DCA6:A500:2C48:83C6:F108:C4A1 (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, however in the lead of the article is "the Free Papua Movement has conducted a low-intensity guerrilla war against Indonesia through the targeting of its military, police, and civilian populations." That is a POV statement which is unacceptable. That's verging on calling a legitimate movement for national liberation a bunch of terrorists. This article needs a clean up. TarnishedPathtalk 08:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is the right place[edit]

Special:Contributions/ It might not be my place to talk but I feel as though calling someone a "c***" is not proper etiquette when editing, and the most recent revision doesn't seem to be in a neutral point of view. YourAverageWeeb (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wp:ani might be a better place. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Totally Democrat view on the topic of the 2020 election[edit]

Many, many people have opinions about how the election was dealt with. Saying Maria Bartiromo is voicing “Fraudulent claims”, is not fact, but a Democrat’s personal opinion. That should be removed. Do you see that on the Stacy Abrams page? Hillary Clinton? Be fair and adjust that section. There are a lot of odd issues from that election, and Wikipedia should balance, which in this case, is not. 2600:8805:A06:9700:A425:B986:4B71:AF8C (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No its an RS claim, not all RS are even American. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're interested in what the WP-goal is in terms of "balance", take the time to read WP:NPOV. "Neutral" has many meanings, and "stuff I agree with" is a common one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote the Priya Venkatesan article, and recently the subject of the article has been claiming it doesn't follow NPOV. The COI issue there will be dealt with on the respective noticeboard if it becomes more of an issue, so I'm just here to ask for a second opinion about the article itself - is there any NPOV issues in the article? Specifically the controversy section; I tried my best to write about both sides and not claim anyone was right or wrong, but I'm second-guessing myself. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think a case could be made for this article running afoul of BLP1E. All the sources currently in the article are either written by her, or they're about her dispute with her students. I searched on Google briefly and didn't find any substantial coverage of her that wasn't about that dispute, and that coverage is all from 2008-2009. And if BLP1E doesn't apply and she is notable, then it seems undue to me for a single event from 15 years ago with no enduring coverage to occupy as much of the article as it does now. Squeakachu (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without actually checking sources, it seems possible that this lawsuit that never happened is given too much WP:PROPORTION. As currently written, the episode should be mentioned in the WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Squeakachu: Thanks for the responses - right now I don't have the energy to do much of a rewrite, but I'll stick a clean-up template and add a mention in the lead section. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 21:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The style of this article seems quite editorial. 2607:FB60:1011:2006:C89:3B6B:AD86:BC6A (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a dispute at Talk:What Is a Woman?#New lead line about whether the lead should include the line "Other sources point out that the ideas of any movement need to be challenged and digging deeper can't be out of bounds". More input would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at that talk page, it just seems to be threads and threads of FMSky making honestly rather dumb edits and claims. How anyone can take them seriously after the "anti-trans doesn't mean anti-transgender" thread is beyond me. They seem like a trolling account. SilverserenC 02:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Couldn't have said it better myself. Loki (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Silver seren and LokiTheLiar: Looks like a number of experienced editors have been adding warnings on their user talk page, which get promptly reverted. I'm concerned about an editor with this kind of disregard for others making 170,270 edits over the course of less than three years. If the behavior at What Is a Woman? continues, it may be time for an AE report. Generalrelative (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My name is Amy and I work for LastPass, a password manager. About half of the LastPass page is focused on security breaches. There was a security incident that got substantial publicity earlier this year, but I think the emphasis is undue. I'm here to ask impartial editor(s) to take a look. Please see at the LastPass Talk page for more context. Appreciate your consideration. AmyMarchiando (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looked a bit into the article, added a reply on the talk page. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article about development in a WP:GS area. I moved it to draftspace because of sourcing and neutrality concerns, but I'm not at home in the general sanctions areas, and hope that others will do the necessary (tagging editors and articles, keeping an eye on developments, checking sources, ...) to nip any issues in the bud. Feel free to revert my draftification if you think it was a bad move. My edit summary was "Serious NPOV concerns in sourcing, text, infobox (a country doesn't necessarily support any new activities by selling drones before this started)... Needs checking before putting in the mainspace" Fram (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm checking some of the sources, just tagged a few sentences in the background section for accuracy/verifiability/clarification already. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any article on an active war is always going to have NPOV issues. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several editors, all associated with WP:UKRAINE, object to mentioning the former name of the language, historically used in notable works but now considered pejorative, as "typical colonial language, ignoring that all diplomacy and nearly all academia in the West that led to this usage was conducted and established by Russian imperials". Input from editors not identifying with either side of the Russia–Ukraine relations would be much appreciated. Crash48 (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crash48: You already took this case to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukraine#Input_needed_at_Talk:Ukrainian_language#Little_Russian_language, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Input_needed_at_Talk:Ukrainian_language#Little_Russian_language, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Languages#Input_needed_at_Talk:Ukrainian_language#Little_Russian_language, and WP:3O. More important: That I state my personal opinion (supporting Ukraine) on my user's page and that I'm a member of WikiProject Ukraine is absolutely no reason to doubt the neutrality of my editing, see WP:NPA#WHATIS, bullet point 3. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i would like to point out that i am not involved with that project—blindlynx 22:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone uninvolved, after reading the discussion: mentioning the fact that a name for the language was Little Russian is clearly important. It should be explained that it is associated with the idea of Little Russian identity. Those opposed to the inclusion have mentioned this, but they have not shown that modern scholarship denies the language has ever been called that, or that it wasn't an important historical term. They merely point out some of its colonialist implications, which is its own topic. The mentioned vernacular names can be added (although some of them are generic phrases literally meaning "our language" and "(the) people's language", which is not specific to Ukrainian, so it does not show that the name Little Russian is an undue detail), but this does not impact the history of the literary language. Dege31 (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see that anybody is "opposed to the inclusion". What I (and the others, if my understanding is correct) are opposed to is mentioning the name solely based on primary sources and without context. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's false: here you reverted a quote from a secondary source because of its use of the unmentionable name; and the "context" that you insist on including -- that "the imperial centre imposed the used the of the name in order to convey the notion of a fundamental unity" -- is both unsourced and demonstrably misleading, as I explained in detail on the article talk page. Crash48 (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that's not false. I reverted because your addition was without context. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "context", whose inclusion you impose as a condition for mentioning the historic name, is your own fabrication.
This argument is going on for two weeks, and you haven't yet found as much as a single source to support your claims. Crash48 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for not being clear, my point was that it is undue to say 'little russian' was a neutral endonym when other terms—however generic—were used that did not have imperial connotations—blindlynx 14:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[2] says exactly that: at that time it was a neutral endonym, and did not have imperial connotations. Do you know of any source saying otherwise? Crash48 (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on that paper the term 'little russian' was tied to the incorporation of the hetmanate into the russian empire in the second half of the 17c. It did not becoming dominate as a neutral term until the 1840s and then shifted to negative from the 1860's on. Based on that paper it was dominant and neutral for about 20 years. Your edit is undue because it makes it seem like the term was widely and neutrally applied to the language from the end of the 12c. I have no problem including the term but it needs to be contextualized—blindlynx 17:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How did dominance become a condition for inclusion? Your favourite terms for simple speech had never become dominant, but are mentioned nevertheless. Crash48 (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I—or anyone else in this discussion—do not have a problem including the term but it needs to be contextualized, something that you are actively resisting—blindlynx 19:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not have a favourite term. There are many terms that were uses of them 'simple speech' and 'little russian'. 'Little russian' was not the term 'usually' used (alongside 'ruthenian') from 1187 to the mid 19c as the edit in question suggests—blindlynx 19:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it was: that's what the quoted source states. Crash48 (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which? The Flier, Graziosi paper cited after the edit explicitly ties 'little russian' to the russian empire (“Little Russian” language (the term used for Ukrainian in the Russian Empire)) and makes no claims of the terms neutrality—blindlynx 12:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For sure, Little Russian was the term used in the Russian Empire. Flier&Graziosi make no claims that it wasn't used outside the Russian Empire, as well as before the establishment of the Russian Empire. On the article talk page, I had listed abundant references to Little Russian from outside the Russian Empire. Also Flier&Graziosi make no claims of the term's non-neutrality; that's what Boeck's citation is about. Crash48 (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're basing the claim that it was 'usually' used in a way comparable to the use of 'Ruthenian' from 1187 on citations that do not say that. Both of the citations make it clear the use of the term was tied to the russian empire and the Boeck paper makes it clear it wasn't prominent before the hetmanate for subsumed by the russian empire—blindlynx 14:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that I just added Little Russian to the article, hoping to get the context right. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV question about labeling a position or conclusion "dubious"[edit]

Bringing to the board's attention: Talk:Great Barrington Declaration#NPOV - "dubious conclusions", which I started. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we have any specific guidance as to when we use “Jesus Christ” vs just “Jesus”?[edit]

A search failed to find anything but I thought we did. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you're looking for MOS:JESUS? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dumuzid agh, so easy, why didn’t I think of that. Short and sweet as they say but I guess sufficient. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's vague, and simply a bit silly. In many theological topics, and also art history, we should follow RS and just use "Christ", after an initial link, and perhaps spelling it out. The advice to use "Jesus of Nazareth" is, in most contexts, ridiculous. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Johnbod: "Jesus of Nazareth" when talking about the historical person seems not unreasonable. Polygnotus (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not unreasonable, but mostly not necessary or best. It's not like the "of Nazareth" disambiguation" is normally going to be necessary. Nearly all such articles have "explicitly Christian religious contexts", except for a handful on Tiberius, Josephus etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mostly agree, but I do think it is wise to avoid "Christ" outside of explicitly Christian religious contexts for the reasons discussed at the MOS. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In most contexts you would just use Jesus, only need to disambiguate when there's multiple Jesuses being discussed. Also note that on wikipedia the initial link would be to Jesus, there is nothing at Jesus Christ except a redirect to Jesus. Its like Cher or Bono, unless there's more than one no need to make it complicated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MOS:JESUS makes sense to me. We certainly would not say Jesus Christ in the Jesus in Islam article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, we do. Perhaps that should be corrected. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, Muslims do call Jesus, as one among multiple names, "the Christ" (Arabic: al-Masīḥ, from the Hebrew Māshīaḥ, meaning 'Messiah', 'Anointed One'; Greek: Khristós, whence English 'Christ'), although they do not regard Jesus as a messiah in the Christian sense of savior. See the sources cited in Masih (title). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 00:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't that the term used by Arab Christians, not followers of Islam? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It occurs eleven times in the Quran: 3:45, 4:157, 4:171, 4:172, 5:17 (two times), 5:72 (two times), 5:75, 9:30, and 9:31. A title of such definite Quranic authority would certainly be recognized by Muslims, and used at least in the context of Quran recitation. Whether and how it was actually used by later Muslims outside of Quran recitation I do not know. If you would happen to find some reliable sourced information on that topic, please do add it to Masih (title). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 02:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it should. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Al-Masīḥ is mostly perceived as an epithet without conveying a honorific baggage (just as "Christ" does not for many English speakers). But in the article about Jesus in Islam, "Jesus Christ" should be restricted to literal translations of ʽIsā al-Masīḥ in quotes from the Qur'an. For all other mentions, plain and simple "Jesus" is sufficient. –Austronesier (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that makes sense. However, I would urge editors to look at what the relevant RS are doing. In my view, we should always strive to adopt the terminology current among the most high-quality RS, rather than enforce our own standard based upon editorial opinion. In the discussion which sparked Doug's original question here, there is a very real problem of editors obstinately refusing to look at RS or to take them into account in any way. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 17:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we followed RS we would capitalize all sorts of honorifics. It's not Wikipedia's style and it doesn't fit with our standards for what to express in the voice of Wikipedia. We ought not ever say that Jesus is the Messiah or is Christ in Wikivoice. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends on whether you have merely stubbed your toe, or whether you have full-on hit your thumb with a hammer. If, on the other hand, you are witnessing full-grown dinosaurs that have been revived through genetic engineering, an infix may be necessary. BD2412 T 21:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this special case, the most popular English infix is actually an interfix. –Austronesier (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know we actually have a page for that under Jesus H. Christ Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Writing "Jesus Christ" in Wikipedia's voice is tantamount to telling our readers that Jesus is "the son of God and the messiah", which is a glaring violation of the neutral point of view. His name was not Jesus Christ, and Christ is a religious title that means "anointed one" or "messiah". Further information about his original name can be found at Yeshua. Simply calling him "Jesus" suffices in almost all circumstances. Cullen328 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree withUser:Cullen328 on this. Calling him Christ or Jesus Christ is a religious statement and Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 06:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" for a similar discussion. And we avoid "Lord Krishna". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles and honorifics Doug Weller talk 06:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resoundingly meh on that point. As a fan-club appointed title it's no worse than Bill Windsor's one, and it helps disambiguate from anyone else of the same name. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem with Prince William as no matter how one may perceive the anachronism of monarchies, it is his title. I don’t have a problem with Prince Valiant or Lord Voldemort either in their articles as the articles are written within the context of fiction. I think Christ can be used in the correct context in the Jesus article, as it is. That is, “Most Christians believe….” instead of stating as fact. I agree with Austronesier that the Jesus in Islam article should only use the term when used in quotations. The Jesus in Christianity article also requires care as not all Christians are Trinitarian. This is a wordy way of agreeing with Cullen to avoid WikiVoice. I can’t say “meh” about the subject as wars have begun over such nonsense. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our observance of aristocratic norms is one of the hangovers from the UK's early influence on ewiki and has lessened over time. I would be very surprised if our treatment of aristocracy doesn't conform more to the global norm and not the British one in a decade or two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So long as we keep KBE out of the Giuliani article, which is MOS anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
maybe if there'd been more 'meh', there'd have been fewer wars about it... Daveosaurus (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed Cullen328 I don't think it's appropriate to use this title or designation in Wikipedia's voice. We should not ever assert that Jesus is the Messiah or is Christ. Jesus or Jesus of Nazareth will do just fine. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly disagree with that. Many editors don't seem to understand that, in Christian theology, Jesus is just Christ's earthly name, for a period of 33 years or so. Many Protestants in particular prefer to use Jesus for all subsequent periods (depending a bit on context), but in Christian theology the Pre-existence of Christ is universally accepted, and Christ is the name which he goes by in this period - it would be wrong to refer to him as Jesus before he is born. What you and the very weak policy are saying is highly POV, though I accept accidentally. Assaid above this terminology is also completely universal in art history covering older Christian art. Why should we not follow the sources? Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In an article about what Christians think, it seems appropriate (to me) to say "Jesus Christ" in some places. What are other scenarios where his name would need anything other than "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth"? —DIYeditor (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it should be (and normally is) just Christ in most cases. As I'm now saying for the third time here, art history provides a plethora of "scenarios" (see Category:Paintings depicting Jesus), and there will be many more. And there aren't many articles referring to him that don't have "explicitly Christian religious contexts". Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just want to note that I was taught that pre-incarnation neither Jesus nor Christ were the correct term; rather he should be referred to as "God the Son" or "The Word" (ὁ λόγος). And there are traditions of Christian thought which trace the title 'Christ' to the incarnation itself -- whether as a reference to the baptism by John, or more complicated formulations, like Aquinas' dual-anointing. I point this out not really as fodder for any particular view, but merely to say I believe the situation is a bit more complex than you describe. As I say, using "Christ" doesn't really bother me in the explicitly Christian context. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, complex as you say - but note the title of the article on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely not. That isn’t secular and again, we are a secular encyclopaedia. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not what? Secular must not mean POV, though I know there are those who think it should. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the [p|P]rophet Muhammad"[edit]

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" – involves MOS:HONORIFIC, MOS:DOCTCAPS, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICKING, etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes obviously should be lower case. Where's the relevant discussion, your link goes to the FYI article. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DIYeditor I clicked, it went to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" as it should. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, not sure how I missed that. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is anyone willing to improve this article? It is far from neutral. Plenty of criticism online; but none has made it into the article. Weird cult; which uses tactics similar to that of scientology. Has been mentioned here before:

1 2 3

See also WP:CRITS; its probably due to mention something in the lede. Polygnotus (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. It would be appreciated if more experienced editors were involved. TarnishedPathtalk 00:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does Recognition of same-sex unions in India have multiple issues with regards to the neutral point of view? Additionally, does the page have legal inaccuracies as raised in the same talk page section? It would be appreciated if editors with legal expertise were involved. Wiki6995 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not start RFCs on this page. You should start the RFC on that talk page, and then you can notify that you'd like more input from here. --Masem (t) 00:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lede in the article has a lot of information with POV issues and generally includes information that is mentioned elsewhere in the article so it's both redundant and given undue prominence in the lede. With point of view issues specifically, it's text about his experience and people not pleased with it and his opposition to same sex marriages, something virtually every Catholic clergyman espouses. He's a recently appointed cardinal. Compare the lede on this article with articles on his predecessor and other cardinals created in the recent consistory. They all keep it short with the most important information while this one is heavy on supposed controversies. The editor who included in the lede keeps reverting my explained removal of this information from the lede. Killuminator (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, the article passed through GA without any POV issues being raised. It's rather irrelevant if every other clergyman opposes same-sex marriages, plus it's not as much as about him opposing but rather the statement he made, comparing such marriages with celebrating the Eucharist with Coca-Cola. There are quite some sources that reported this controversy and as so we must include it in the lead. His experience or in this case the lack thereof is also fulcral to José Cobo Cano's article, so many sources deemed his appointment as unexpected because the archbishop of Madrid would normally have a bigger curriculum than what he had. The Blue Rider 21:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears there are regular attempts to remove certain international assessment from the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians lead section so that it would present a particular POV. Recently, a United Nations asssessment report on the ground was removed and the related discussion has stalled, as it often happens. Earlier, a UNHCR assessment was also removed from the lead. This, I think, creates a WP:BALANCE issue where allegations of a war crime or crime against humanity from lesser-known legal experts are present (even though for such accusations a trial may be required in the first place), but assessments of the UN fact-finding mission on the ground and UNHCR are not. My alternative suggestion at talk was to move all opinions to the relevant section below, but looks like it didn't gain traction. Brandmeistertalk 07:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The intro has changed many times with both left and right wing bias. In addition I have added {POV} due to a large discussion ongoing about the bias of the article. See examples, 1 2 3 there are many more examples but there are some of the bigger ones. Ironically while requesting for protection, this there was another example of a reason for protection. In addition a major discussion is ongoing on the page.