Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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

Fringe source in WWII bio article[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This individual has tried to label all books published by this house as Neo-Nazi, without offering a shred of evidence the authors are engaged in this kind thing. This latest round is symptomatic of his behaviour. His attacks on the German-related articles, specifically related to World War II, looks like a crusade. I am pleased that a score of other editors have helped rebuff his attempts to project his own views on to these articles. The fact that he will dispute such a small (but not trivial) detail is typical of his unhelpful and destructive "contributions". Dapi89 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's not turn this discussion into personal attacks, shall we? (To report editor behaviour issues, pls see: WP:ANI).
As it happens, some articles on German WWII personnel contain indiscriminate amounts of information; ps see this recent discussion: Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel#Intricate details, where sections of the article are described by another editor as meticulous investigations of insignificant details.
In the case of the Lindemann article, such intricate detail is cited to a highly problematic source. I consider this information to be superfluous (along with editor Ian Rose who has commented on Talk), and I'm seeking third party input on the matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

  • Clarification -- the matter of the award presentation is cited to other sources. Range is used to cite that the subject was 94th such recipient in this branch of service. This is is not remarkable as he was neither the 1st nor 4th, for example. I clarified above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This is another strand of a larger problem with Coffmann: a very narrow view of what is and isn't notable. Would he care to venture a guess, as to how many captains were awarded the KC for the command of a capital ship in battle? Dapi89 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
How does this relate to the current discussion on the need for the article to include that the subject was 94th recipient? Please help me understand. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Range, born 1955, is a former Bundeswehr officer turned journalist and well known for his far right political stand. His recent publications have been thrashed by historians for inaccuracy, bias and distortions of historical facts. Rainer Blasius alikened Range's "biographical dictionary" of former Wehrmacht officers in the Bundeswehr to the romancing attitude of Der Landser. [1] I do not think that his very early work was much better.--Assayer (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


"Part of a larger crusade"[edit]

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

Since we are back to the topic of who may or may not be campaigning, I would appreciate if editor Auntieruth55 would clarify the exchange below, as it could be perceived as a coordinated action in support of promoting a MilHist article to Featured status:
We who? What was the outcome of this discussion? And did it have any impact on the voting at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)/archive1. Answers to these questions would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I've notified the editor here: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The outcome was that one person got some sleep and played cricket with his kids, and I graded some papers. No one has clarified for me what the outcome of the previous discussion was. I'm still wondering about that and why you are so anxious to discredit these previously approved articles! auntieruth (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I am interested in evidence as to the status of the publishing house and the author; I have not found any though this is sometimes difficult to track down with German publishing houses. I am troubled by a few things--User:Dapi89's accusation of a "crusade", a charge repeated by User:Auntieruth55, whose scare quotes do nothing to alleviate the lack of good faith. And I don't understand a few of the comments in this last section--"So if a recipient of an award was 94th, so what?" doesn't make a lot of sense after it was stated that the information is "at least as important" as the person's service. And that someone graduated 286 in a class of 500, I have never seen that noted in an article, though I grant that I don't MilHist much. Anyway, I've seen K.e.coffman's work, and I have never had a reason to doubt their good intentions; I would appreciate it if you all could drop the "crusade" language, since it only discredits the person using the term. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The 'so what' I believe is in reference to it being an uncontentious piece of information. The fact he is recipient of the award is not in doubt, Coffman however is saying the sourcing provided is not reliable to state the fact that he was the '94' recipient. Ultimately unless you are the first or last recipient of almost all awards, you are just a link in the chain of winners, so it really is not important if they were 94th, 95th, 105th etc. If the fact of the award is not disputed, I have not seen any evidence above the source is not reliable to say they were the 94th. If they are a right-wing publisher, then you can expect them to have done some research on right-wing figures. Its not beyond the realms of feasibility they might puff up subjects *where there is a benefit in doing so*. I cant see any reason it would be biased or romanticising to say "Subject X was the 94th recipient of award Y" over "Subject X was the recipient of award Y". Where is the motivation? If people are going to argue a source's political stance influences their reliability, you need to actually make a credible argument there is a *reason* for them to publish unreliable material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't dispute your statement, User:Only in death--and at any rate, the rank is not the most important matter. You are right in that a right-wing outfit can be trusted to do their homework, but that same outfit can also be trusted, probably, to skew the facts whenever appropriate, as I have found in many Nazi and neo-Nazi accounts of German history. The basic statement "person X got a medal", sure, I suppose. But I'm really more interested in the evidence for the supposed POV than the medal. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Drmies should be aware there a quite a number of editors that feel that way. Dapi89 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to tell her that, Dapi; no doubt Drmies will tell you that COIN is not the place to address this topic. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Then why did you bring it up? Dapi89 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't, Dapi89, you did. I'm only saying that those matters are not for here. Now kindly drop the attempt to blackball your opponent. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

On the one hand: That book by Range, published when he was only 19 years of age, is bad. It's biased to the extreme (Range uses peacock words to describe Lindemann in nearly every sentence: vorbildlich, besonnen, erfolgreich = exemplary, considerate, successful) and it does not contain much information anyway. I cannot imagine that a historian would refer to that work while writing about Lindemann. The same information, that he was the 94th recipient, could easily be referenced with Manfred Dörr (1996), Ritterkreuzträger der Überwasserstreitkräfte, vol. 2, already being used in the article. So, as was pointed out very early on, one question is sourcing, the other inclusion. The first could be resolved quickly, although I am not sure, if there isn't an interest to keep Range as a source anyway. The second touches upon WP:DUE. These kind of articles, i.e. articles dealing with Knight's Cross recipients, are stuffed with small details. Those details lend authenticity to a narrative which actually distracts from the violence of war. The article features a whole chapter on the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, but skips over the fact that Lütjens and Lindemann, following Erich Raeder's order, were responsible for the hopeless final fight and thus for the death of most of their crew. (Holger Afflerbach: "Mit wehender Fahne untergehen". In: VfZ 49 (2001), p. 609.) Sure, that's the usual German military glory stuff of Wikipedia. But if "romancing" is to be critically discussed at some point, it has to include a discussion of how "facts" are selected and how they are presented. Such insight is completely missing with many of the MilHistProject.--Assayer (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
My original statement in the thread was: the material [is] trivial, while the source being used is highly questionable and unsuitable for a Featured Article, which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work.
The larger question is, should Wikipedia promote articles that contain a highly selective set of facts and are largely sourced to, let's say, specialised literature (militaria / phaleristics / WP:QS and / or fringe sources, up to & including neo-Nazi publications)? For a related discussion, please see: Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel#Intricate_details & Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel#Sources (with the same editors, actually). Or, for a more humorous take, see:
K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Once again, scrapping at the bottom of the barrel. Words like "exemplary, considerate, successful" does not make the source biased. They are observations.
And what does Coffmann mean by "selective set of facts"? Are there any "alternative facts"? What does this 'Trumpist' speak mean? Are there conflicting sources?
 ::::I think it is obvious to any passing observer that these two individuals are intent on causing fights over the most trivial matters. K.e.Coffman seems to think that "anti-shipping" (maritime interdiction), "air raids", "sorties" and "missions" are also Nazi euphemisms. Now that is funny. Dapi89 (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Reading this thread was a headache. Everyone, please keep to the point. '94th' is only published in one book, that book is not a reliable source, and so '94' should not be included. There is no reason to discuss triviality or notability of the fact, or predisposition of editors. There is nothing in WP:RS that discusses pulling facts that are probably true from unreliable sources just because the unreliable source is unlikely to fabricate that particular point. WP:RS is clear, the source must be reliable for the fact to be verifiable. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Does this source have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? If not, strike the 94, and move on. 2604:6000:7B0E:8C00:B91F:4407:3AF6:3B15 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Dana Rohrabacher[edit]

We need more eyes on Dana Rohrabacher. There appears to be an organized effort to influence the upcoming election, in which the Democrats believe they have a good change of unseating him. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a strange claim to make. You sure you not exaggerating?  Volunteer Marek  06:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure. I could be wrong, of course. I am not in his district but I am close. In previous years he has had a safe seat with no plausible challengers, but this time it appears that he will be looking at a tough race. And in an amazing coincidence, Harley Rouda, a Democrat running against him,has asked the FBI to probe the Republican congressman’s "political and financial ties to Russia", Seth Myers has started skewering him on late-night TV, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched a website accusing him of being "Putin’s favorite congressman". I am no Rohrabacher fan, but the sudden influx of negative material in his BLP seems quite suspicious. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I meant the "organized effort" part. Volunteer Marek  07:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
It was sort of looking like that yesterday, but I see that you just reverted an edit (good call, BTW) by an IP that looks like it was designed to but Rohrabacher in a good light. Now it is starting to look like maybe the publicity from being mentioned by Seth Myers is attracting POV pushers from both sides. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Remember that our job is to remain neutral. Yes, we should watch out for biased editing... but that applies to attempts to skew the article Negatively as well as Positively. Not saying you guys are being non-neutral... just making a general comment. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer[edit]

This article is in need of some extra eyes, we have one editor who says this version is neutral, and myself who believes it is not and rewrote it to this, which I believe is neutral, I would appreciate some uninvolved editors taking a look and giving an opinion. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Just looking at the lead your version is more neutral, I think it could be worded better, but is good NPOV-wise. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Darkness Shines:. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Tornado chaser: thanks, could you take a moment to mention that on the RFC here please. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Darkness Shines: I had already commented on the RfC, opposing the statment that they are "anti-government" in wiki's voice, but that is only a small part of the neutrality issues in the previous version. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
No worries, hopefully a few others will chime in here, thanks for your input Darkness Shines (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I made a minor edit to the current version, which I call to your attention. The Proud Boys should not be called a "white supremacist" group. They are very clear on this and have at least 1 prominent black member. Their stance is unappolagetic chauvinism with respect to Western Culture as opposed to cultural relativism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead section is biased. The article is about the group itself. The the counter prostesting, while notable, doesnt belong in the lead. It should be under its own section titled : Reception or Criticism. I think that in its current version there is conflicting information and seems to be written to suit a narrative. It reads : "Patriot Prayer has been connected to the alt-right,[25] a charge Gibson denies.[26]" This is written as a statement of fact. WP:NPOV In source #25 the source article states that "Patriot Prayer is considered to be connected with the alt-right and other far-right groups, but the group insists its message is unity and freedom of speech." The source article is not quoting anyone saying that they are connected nor does it offer any evidence supporting it. This seems like editorial speculation/oppinion on the part of the source. This same statement is the used as a qualifier in the overview section denoting that "According to the BBC, the group is "considered to be connected with the alt-right". wp:npov If the group is affiliated with the alt-right. We should be able to find another source for this. The overview section of the group should list the goals and notable achievements of the group and outline history. It is not a section for news reports or criticism. I think the lead in this version is less biased and more informative about the group rather than the new coverage of the group. It would still need some changes made to it as well. Fusion2186 (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the BBC, it is a reliable source per our policies, it is also attributed to them, not stated as fact, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Illegal alien" discussion closed[edit]

I have closed the stagnant discussion about the use of the term "illegal alien" in articles thus:

"There is a rough consensus to oppose a blanket ban on using the term "illegal alien" outside direct quotations. Supporters of this ban commented on the derogatory nature of this term, some prominent publications that banned this term in their house style, and compared to other historical terms that are deemed socially unacceptable in today's English-speaking world. However, opponents of this ban commented that "illegal alien" is accurate legal terminology, it is not inherently more derogatory than the available alternatives, and the difficulty of enforcing such a blanket ban. Overall there is a rough consensus not to enact such a ban. Editors are reminded to refer to reliable sources when they describe a person as an "illegal alien". Deryck C. 12:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

See permalink to archived discussion. Deryck C. 12:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


OP blocked as sock Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would appreciate a second opinion. There's no denying all facts listed in this article are from RSS, however after reviewing this article in its entirety, by my count there are 39 Negative Facts, 3 Neutral and 0 facts offering an alternative point of view. Something about this article seems odd? (Jimlaker66 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)) Jimlaker66 is suspected to be a paid editor Jimlaker66 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Perhaps because the company is only notable for its off-colour business activities. Strange you haven't discussed this on the article Talk page, and in your only contribution to Wikipedia have found your way to this noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Some context from Mannatech: "Mannatech is a multinational multi-level marketing firm that sells dietary supplements and personal care products". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Basically Mannatech is not far from being a rip-off merchant. The entire history of the company is a catalogue of almost illegal sales tactics and fake or borderline fake products with no redeeming features. It is well known for aggressive hard sales tactics and falsely representing its products as 'cure for cancer' type pills. Its founder was a serial fraudster who had perpetrated at least two major fake product rip-offs before coming up with this idea. In short this article is actually very positive. Dysklyver 18:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This section resembles a similarly added section from another SPA on August 28th. The author Pro Amateur was asked if they had a COI and did not respond. Objective3000 (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not the topic that's being disputed here, it's the article's neutrality. 39 Negative Facts, 3 Neutral and 0 Facts representing an alternative viewpoint? (Jimlaker66 (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC))

Actually, I think the question now is about a WP:COI. Alexbrn (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

So is this article representative of what Wikpedia has come to? i.e. Neutrality is a thing of the past? (Jimlaker66 (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC))

Neutrality does not mean equal pluses and minuses. That could create a false balance. You have to show that the article is biased. But, first you should answer if you have a conflict of interest. Objective3000 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Lets try an experiment, provide one "positive" fact about them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Lets see...
  • On the plus side, they have pretty flags in front of their headquarters. And the stripes in their parking lot are quite straight.[3]
  • On the minus side, people with cancer have died because they relied on Mannatech cancer pills instead of seeing a real doctor. And a lot of people have lost their life savings through the Mannatech Multi-level marketing scam.
--Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
And then there is this: A Glyconutrient Sham, published in Glycobiology, Volume 18, Issue 9. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Pubmed is a reliable secondary source for peer-reviewed medical literature, is it not? (Jimlaker66 (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC))
No. Read WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Defensive gun use[edit]

If discussion needs to continue, please do so at Talk:Defensive gun use. GMGtalk 19:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Recent studies from reliable sources show a possible range of Gun uses in self defense (in the US) ranging from 1500( when using verification based methods to up to 100,000 annually ( 2. No studies conducted since the 1990’s have supported patently absurd estimates in the millions. 3. Nevertheless, based on these 30 year old studies, a committed band of editors has made this article read like an MRA advertorial, claiming that “high end estimates are up to 4.7 million per year.” 4. They fail to mention that these figures are several decades old, and the claim fails NPOV since there is no reason to include 1994 data in 2017, other than to give a false impression overstating the range of the phenomenon. 5. The article also grossly fails NPOV as inclusive solely of an American perspective on the subject. At best, this article should be renamed to Defensive Gun use in the United States, although I’d suggest instead fixing it to not solely focus on the U.S. Conclusion: old citations selectively employed to give a false impression of the high end when newer data show otherwises is a failure of NPOV.Exposer of Falsehood (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Socking aside I agree with the re-name susgestion (and 1997 is not 30 years ago).Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I boldly moved it to Defensive gun use in the United States. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems good to me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
If we're going to feed obvious socks, can we at least do it all in one place? GMGtalk 14:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
And, of course, the renaming gets reverted.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Just because there's socking going on doesn't mean that the article cannot be improved. The noticeboard canvassing is definitely disruptive though.
I've started a discussion on the renaming on the article talk page: Talk:Defensive_gun_use#Rename_to_Defensive_gun_use_in_the_United_States.3F --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Could those opposing the move because it is “Procustian” be so good as to quote a single sentence in the article referring to a country other than the United States? Let me spare you the effort: there are none. Leaving aside the issues which have been cogently raised regarding the neutrality, reliability, and antiquity of the sources, I do not see any source referencing countries other than the US, either. Was also unaware of Wp:Procustian being a policy.2600:1017:B402:CA0B:A066:4AFA:EC9F:5173 (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Can we please keep discussions in one forum?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
nope.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
No. AQFK (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer II[edit]

If sources describe this group as "right-wing" and we have other sources describing them as 'conservative' is it NPOV to state in Wikipedia's vouce that they are a 'right-wing' group in the opening line of the lede? I had changed right-wing to conservative as the group founder Joe Gibson, self identifies as conservative-libretarian, this has been challenged and the discussion is going in circles. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Conservative & Right wing are not completely synonymous. 'Conservative' is right-wing only in so far as its right of center. Likewise 'Socialist' is left of center but not necessarily left-wing. Joe Gibson is so conservative he is definitely in the right-wing area of the spectrum, rather than just being 'conservative'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
If Gibson denies it, then it should probably be attributed, but calling himself conservative isn't really a denial of being right wing, as right wing really means "very conservative". Tornado chaser (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.[edit]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2 editors are making repeated major changes, it apperes that they are basically rewriting the article, some of these edits have had a promotional tone. I have changed the POV parts, but so much is being changed that I can't thoroughly analyze every edit, I would rather not discuss the article on this noticeboard (that's what the talk page is for) but it would be good to have a few more neutral eyes on this page. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

HI Tornado Chaser: I am one of the people making an effort to update this page. This is the second page that I have worked on, so I think there are a few things that I don't yet understand. I thought that I sent you a message on your talk page (maybe I didn't do it correctly) as I could see that you were working on the page too and I was in hopes that you could help me better understand the NPOV "rule". I have read the section several times, but am still not clear on how to deal with a situation where the person one is writing about has made certain statements in articles they have written and those statements are also made on the page. How do you cite them if you don't cite the article that they wrote - is it necessary to find another citation where someone else heard them say it and cite that article. Or, is it better to list the articles in the "selected articles" section of the page. Or is it better to just leave it out entirely. Would appreciate your guidance if you have the time. I do apologize if this shouldn't be on this page, but I was not successful reaching you through your talk page. Thank you Giraffe46 (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Dubious Point of View in Swastika Article[edit] The entire article seems to have been written by a white supremacist or, at the very least, a holocaust denier. It frequently uses casual, inappropriate language and minimizes the way the symbol has been - and continues to be - used as a tool for hate and intimidation. It is not "stigmatized" in the Western world, because a symbol has no function outside of being symbolic, especially such a commonly known one. The whole thing needs editing to fix the tone and more accurately reflect the weight of the symbol in human history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any problems in either the wording or the point of view. The article seems like a pretty solid and objective presentation of what the swastika means to different cultures, including a good discussion of its use by the Nazis and how it subsequently came to be associated with anti-Semetism, genocide, and far right politics in the West. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Weight Question on Dismissal of James Comey[edit]

The Dismissal_of_James_Comey#Scholars section on Dismissal of James Comey contains a quote from Jack Goldsmith, a former legal adviser to the Bush Administration and a Harvard Law Professor. A couple of editors have raised concerns that the quote from Goldsmith is WP:UNDUE arguing that, because this is a primary source for Goldsmith's opinion, we should only cite it if it is mentioned in a secondary source that demonstrates its notability. Should it be removed? Replaced with a different quote? Or left as is? Note: this question was also posted at OR noticeboard, but the conversation hasn't gained much traction. So I'm posting it here hoping to get additional feedback. The original talk page discussion here. Nblund talk 17:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Given that there are a probably hundreds if not thousands of opinions published (both by RSes and through SPS) over the matter, the best metric for inclusion would be if reliable secondary sources noted the opinion for its inclusion. If that is not the case, the next best metric would be if that person was normally routinely used to discuss equivalent political matters as to establish their expertise in the area, and secondary sources just happened to not mention the academic this time around. This would be equivalent, for example, of using opinions stated by the Southern Poverty Law Center regarding an incident involving hate crimes, as they are routinely quoted and referred to in this area, even if they are one of hundreds of opinions. (Or a less controversal area, it is why in films we take Roger Ebert's reviews, regardless if they are noted further or not, as a key inclusion for film reviews, he's a noted expert in the area).
If neither of those exist, then its very much leaning in the direction of both UNDUE and OR to include, because then what is to stop any other hundreds of opinions, even just those limited to what RS publish, from being included? --MASEM (t) 17:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Articles must "represent[] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." No views can be considered significant unless they are reported by third parties. That applies to the SPLC and Ebert as well. Ebert's opinions for example were always reported in entertainment news and subsequently mentioned in film studies writing. Note that when a film was released, reports would say things such as, "Ebert and other major critics panned the movie" or "it opened to mixed reviews earning high praise from Ebert while Travers walked out on it" or "Ebert was one of the few critics who found anything good to say." Ebert's opinion while usually representative of how critics in general will assess a film is not infallible and it violates NPOV to present it without establishing how representative it was.
With hundreds or thousands of opinions expressed on Comey's dismissal, you need to establish their degree of acceptance which can only be done by referring to secondary sources. If secondary sources ignore and opinion then we should too. Remember that encyclopedias are tertiary sources, summarizing what one expects to find in secondary sources.
TFD (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Jack Goldsmith is a notable expert in the topic on which he was asked by the publisher to write this analysis. This is not like any of the thousands of ordinary folks' blog ruminations on the topic. Analysis published in a generally top-drawer site with high editorial standards. This is OK for his opinion. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Goldsmith might be okay if secondary sources did not cover a matter he is opining about, or covered the matter while mentioning his opinion about it, but not otherwise. It would be even more of an NPOV violation if we include Goldsmith though the secondary sources describe a spectrum of opinions that excludes Goldsmith, because we would be overriding the choices and coverage of the secondary sources. All of this applies equally to SPLC on the left, Judicial Watch on the right, Roger Ebert, et cetera. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
This page is not a good place for straw man arguments. If you think Goldsmith's analysis is a marginal minority POV, please state and demonstrate that directly. Then your view can be proven incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 01:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV, “describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.” Drawing only upon primary sources in such a situation is inherently disfavored and/or suspect. Straw men have nothing to do with it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
You did not rebut my criticism. Do you believe that Goldsmith's view does not represent a significant mainstream view worth inclusion. Start w. Yes or No, then we can move on to test your view against the evidence. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It doesn’t matter because drawing solely upon a Goldsmith primary source or drawing solely upon any other primary source to describe that other person’s opinion is not “drawing on secondary or tertiary sources” as this policy requires. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
That's not what the policy says, and your attempt to impeach Goldsmith has failed. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: regarding the latter criteria: Goldsmith does appear to be one of the most widely cited sources available. He's a widely cited source for commentary on issues related to the Comey dismissal (example). He's written several editorials on the Trump-Comey story in major sources (Time, The New York Times, and the Atlantic) The New York Times also profiled Lawfareblog earlier this year, and specifically mentioned that Goldsmith's criticisms of the Trump administration were significant because of his role in the Bush Administration (profiled here). I'm of the mindset that it might be reasonable to trade out one Goldsmith quote for another one, but it seems like he's one of the more notable commenters available by a long shot. Nblund talk 01:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Given these seem to be invited op-eds (not letters to the editor) that would at least satisfy the aspect of being a noted expert. But I do have to wonder how many of similar experts there are like this. Again, without a secondary source that summarizes what opinions to pull, we have to carefully use WEIGHT to pull equivalently noted experts. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Being a noted expert means that what someone writes may be reliable for facts but does nothing to provide weight to their opinions. It is up to reliable sources, such as mainstream media, to determine which opinions are significant and for us to reflect their judgment. Also, there is often a discrepancy between what noted experts write in support of partisan opinions and what they write for academic publications. Why should a tertiary source provide any coverage of primary sources when they have not been mentioned in secondary sources? If the media has been able to cover this story for months without referring to the column then it is unimportant. TFD (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
If those secondary sources exist that summary primary opinion pieces, then yes, we definitely should favor the weight those opinions are given in those. But most of the time they don't exist, and this leaves WP editors trying to figure this out, which requires a lot more care. I would point to the example of film review, there are rarely sources that discriminate which reviews should be used for the film, but we do know that people like Ebert were consider experts so we put more weight on those. Same logic should be applied here , but again, there is a lot more concern, for me, about avoiding OR in trying to justify the right UNDUE weight of sources without the summarizing secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Vellalar (caste)[edit]

I think the article, Vellalar lacks in neutrality and is to some extend biased. I think this version [1], is of more neutrality with better citations. A third opinion would be appreciated. Also see Talk: Vellalar, many dissagreements from various users on same thing still not resolved i.e. Velir part of the article. Xenani (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


Devil's song[edit]

Potentially problematic editing by Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/NationalSocialist88 at the article of a German marching song from the Nazi era, where the two accounts have restored the lyrics. Reproduced verbatim and in multiple languages, the lyrics strike me as excessive. The username is of concern as well: "National Socialist" is self-explanatory, while "88" stands for HH ("Heil Hitler") in neo-Nazi community. I would appreciate some feedback or a look at the article in question. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I restored the lyrics due to the fact that they are relevant to the article at hand. It makes sense for an article about a song to contain the lyrics to said song, just as it makes sense for an article about a painting to have a photograph of said painting.-- (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTLYRICS: "Lyrics databases. An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article." That article right now is almost entirely lyrics. It's obviously excessive by any reasonable metric. They absolutely have to go - just link to wikisource. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Guillermo Rigondeaux / "known for breaking jaws"[edit]

In the lead of Guillermo Rigondeaux, it is mentioned that he has great punching power—this is widely acknowledged in professional boxing. However, User:Handofknowledge believes it imperative to state that his power is known for "breaking the jaws of multiple opponents", or for being "jaw-breaking", even though he has only broken the jaw of two of his 18 opponents—[5], [6]. To me this smacks of sensationalism and puffery, and is downright morbid to include in a lead section. I've never seen any other boxing article which mentions "jaw-breaking" power in the lead, or the need emphasise the minutae of a boxer's knockout power. Is this is a valid NPOV issue? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)