Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86

Syrian placenames[edit]

There are disputes on a number of talk pages of articles about Syrian settlements (including but not limited to Talk:Al-Malikiyah, Talk:Al-Muabbada, Talk:Al-Jawadiyah) over what titles the articles should have. My understanding from Talk:Kobanî#Requested_move_19_December_2019 is that we're obliged to follow WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. the name the place is best known in English-language sources, no matter its official name or how it's known locally. It'd be great to know if this really is the relevant policy, as it is being opposed pretty much everywhere I propose it, usually on the basis that, as these places are part of the Syrian Arab Republic, they ought to be called by their Arabic names, as per Syrian law. As far as I know, Kobanî is the only Syrian settlement that has been moved on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, from its official name of Ayn al-Arab. Konli17 (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear about how I believe this violates NPOV. This resistance to WP:COMMONNAME is driven by Arab/Syrian nationalism. It can countenance Latin (Damascus#Names_and_etymology) or Italian (Aleppo#Etymology) names being used to refer to Syrian cities, but not Kurdish or Assyrian, no matter the common name. Kurds and Assyrians have traditionally been oppressed in Syria, and the notion of extending equality to their languages is difficult for some. Konli17 (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that none of the editors who frequent this board have offered an opinion about this problem. Suggestions, anyone? Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The comment from this editor (edit-warrior with four open cases against them at WP:ANEW), might sound like an innocent one, implying the Kurdish name is the common name and is not being used because it is Kurdish. This is simply not true, and Konli has tried to move these pages to Kurdish names before. Each case has its own story, but these Kurdish names are usually newer inventions by the new comers, see Ras al-Ayn for example. If some Kurds use different names than the rest of the population (Assyrians, Arab, Armenian, erc.), this does not mean the Kurdish name is the common name. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
A lot of places in Syria have two or three names because people living there from different ethnic groups call it like that. However, due to historical reasons, Arabic names, which are derived from Semitic roots and the original names for these places, and are used for hundreds of years if not thousands. It is not possible to change the names of the cities and towns in the entire region because of the change in the political government there, this is insane!--Michel Bakni (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
This place located in Syria, and name of him is the official name in SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC,

the rest of the names are sub-names omar kandil (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe any of these three editors frequent this board, and all seem to be approaching this issue from an Arab nationalist viewpoint. The issues I raised above, particularly WP:COMMONNAME, have not been addressed. Konli17 (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Konli17 is a blocked sock Shadow4dark (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Religious views of Adolf Hitler[edit]

User:Hardyplants is removing stable, relevant and well-sourced content from the article because they hold the opinion that Hitler committed the holocaust solely because of "science" (as they have argued in edit summaries). This is against what the source (who happens to be a christian historian) says. - Daveout(talk) 22:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Solved. - Daveout(talk) 06:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it a NPOV violation to say Joe Biden won the 2020 election?[edit]

Is it a NPOV violation to say that Joe Biden won the 2020 election? This has come up on several pages where editors instead add obfuscatory language about the election results. See this dispute on the Sidney Powell page.[1] Is it not instead a NPOV violation to mislead readers into thinking the election results are up in the air and omitting that all challenges of the results are without evidence of large-scale fraud? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, given the fact there is still another election to be held. It might be fair to say he won the popular vote, but the US does not elect its president based upon that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This has been discussed ad nauseum at Talk:2020 United States presidential election and related articles, and I think it's safe to go with what has been decided there rather than trying to achieve a whole new consensus all over again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, none of the states have certified the election results yet. Deadline is December 8. Until then, claims should not be made about who won, and assertions one way or the other are opinion and represent POV. Pkeets (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This is incorrect. A number of states have certified their election results at this point. Within the next ten days, a majority will have done so. BD2412 T 17:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Arguably yes. He is currently the projected winner by all media sources, and the only official point that he will be named President-Elect prior to inauguration is after the EC votes in December. While there is no likely chance that all the challenges that Trump's team will change this, the fact that Trump has not conceded at all is making this difficult. Normally, if the other person running conceded, that would generally be the end of it, and then we can in factual terms the winner won.
That said, we also need to recognize that barring any wacky hijinks in the next 2 months, we should be writing these articles for the long-term. One has to ask if it is necessary to state "Joe Biden won" or simply to establish the period after the elction. Powell's article as I look at it now uses rather neutral language that establishes her role in the legal challenge to the election, but avoids saying anything if Biden won or not, which is good. That'll work in the very long term for this aspect. --Masem (t) 17:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It is a NPOV violation to not say that Biden won the 2020 election. He is the president-elect, according to every reliable source, and our job, consistent with the NPOV policy, is to reflect what the reliable sources say. Neutralitytalk 17:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
But they are technically not correct. The only official point where "President-elect" can be used is after the EC tally. This is an example where the media may be saying something presumed factual when it actually is not the case. Its unlikely the results will change, but there is a factual aspect here that we should be respecting, if we need to include that. (Eg on Biden's page, we better not be calling him P-E until after the EC, but only the projected P-E). --Masem (t) 18:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:TRUTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
How the EC works and when the election results fully determine the actual Presidential-Elect is well documented in US Law. That's verifyable, so pointing to TRUTH doesn't make sense here. --Masem (t) 18:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes it does. You say the RS got it wrong, but that is classic WP:OR.
The President-Eject has called truth lie and lie truth from day one, and you want to make him the arbiter ("Trump has not conceded")? The media are telling us one thing, and Trump is telling us another thing, and we go with Trump because of legal nitpicking? I think this is real beef people have with that decision. It makes me antsy, Wikipedia siding with that old fraud.
It's a wiki. If Trump stages a coup, we can still change it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm saying, under US law, the next president is not decided until the EC vote is counted. The media can call it all they want, and never in the US EC history has that call been wrong, but there is a CRYSTAL factor here that there's a possibility - extremely slim here - that Trump may win. Sure, numerous legal experts have stated there's no reasonable chance that all of Trump's lawsuits will amount to flipping anything, nor any ploys to flip electors, but from a technical standpoint, the only point the US knows with 100% factual assurance that it has its next president is at the EC, and going by CRYSTAL, that's how we should be handling it. Everything else is projections of the winners barring any oddities. But as I said above, it seems outside of the specific articles on the election, Biden, and Trump, there's ways to reference the results of the election without having to say anything specific to the results of the election, given how we are to write for the long-term. --Masem (t) 18:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
And again we're dealing with the ugly face of RECENTISM. Facts based on the actual legal process supersede news media clickbait; i.e., use sound editorial judgment. We can say "media" declared the winner; however, the vote has been challenged by the Trump campaign/administration (whatever), or something along that line. Atsme 💬 📧 19:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Neutrality's statement that It is a NPOV violation to not say that Biden won the 2020 election. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Masem, you state that the reliable sources are "technically not correct," but you don't cite any sources in support of that conclusion. That's because there's virtually no support in the RS for that conclusion. In any case, as O3000 points out, "president-elect" is not a formal position or office. It's not dependent on a concession speech and is not dependent on a GSA administrator's "ascertainment." The line of argument you are making amounts to OR. Neutralitytalk 23:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The RS is the US law behind elections. The winner is not decided until the EC votes and the Senate affirms (as described below). While in all practicality Biden's won, its a language precision issue and incorrect to say that factually regardless of what the media states. The media knows as well as we do that the EC and Senate confirm, but its poor form for them to say he's won at this point. It would be like us saying a suspect is guilty before a trial because the media has all condemned him as guilty. The media is not a legal body responsible for anything here. --Masem (t) 05:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(1) You're still not citing any sources; (2) "U.S. law" does not define who the president-elect is, because it is not a formal position or office; the closest thing is the GSA "ascertainment" which is only for purposes of allocating federal office space, etc.; (3) your analogy about declaring a suspect guilty before trial makes no sense (reliable media sources, such as those acceptable for use on Wikipedia, don't do this). We don't disregard the universal array of reliable sources because some editors declare that they are wrong. Neutralitytalk 20:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The entire EC process is spelled out in Article Two of the US Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment (this shouldn't need pointing out), and it clear that the President and Vice-President are not named until the Senate counts the EC votes and completes the process. That is when we know 100% factually who "won" the election, no iota of doubt. Any call for who "won" is based on all projections and expectations that the EC voters will not be faithless (which is unlikely to happen this years as reports suggest), and hence we can only call Biden "President-elect" (the media's term) representing the projected winner of the election. Doesn't he has actually won yet because that cannot happen until after December 14. The point about comparing this to the media calling someone guilty ahead of time (as a hypothetical) is pointing out that we have to be careful of the media leapfrogging past the legal requirements of the process. --Masem (t) 20:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Masem, I have not known you to propose that your own reading of primary-source information be reflected in editorial decisions on any other topics in article space; why are you taking this [[WP:NOR|pro-original research] stance in this instance? What it looks like from here is an attempt to promote FALSEBALANCE by entertaining a hypothetical that no reliable sources are able to document.
Also, your original research is wrong; this year's supreme court ruling has strengthened the hand of the states considerably with respect to faithless electors, and the majority opinion was based on the ballot decision made by voters in each state. Therefore, the sources stating that Biden has won the electoral college are correct to do so, and SCOTUS jurisprudence has made clear that the election is decided by voters in each state and not by the electoral college, the members of which can be bound to the election result. Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
It's actually very much related to the blind faith editors sometimes put into the body we have of RSes. I have no question by Dec 15, Biden will be named as the next President from the EC, but that process is still happening and until then, it is incorrect to say "Biden is the next President of the U.S. under the terms of US law." This may be a squabble over technical language precision and the unquestional victory that Biden did achieve from preliminary results, but it is important that we can't let the media let Wikivoice speak incorrectly on something they are not the authority of (that being, what US law says). This type of slippage can leak into other areas, and creates more problems. And in this case, this is a "the sky is blue" situation: everyone should know what the EC is and despite how backasswards it may be, it is still part of the US election process. Having to source that is a silly question. And on the faithless electors, the SCOTUS case only gave the states the ability to actually impose fines and/or switch out electors if their laws have that in the books. (I expanded the article on these cases) It did not remove the possibility of faithless electors, but obviously in some states, makes any elector less likely to be faithless; experts have also said it is unlikely to see any real shift in the EC with faithless electors this year given the projected EC lead Biden has. But it remains a very remote possibility, so per CRYSTAL we should be avoiding any statement that Biden won with Wikivoice assurance. --Masem (t) 23:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
As usual, Masem, you are missing my point. I could cite any number of RS Political Science textbooks to tell you the same thing SCOTUS articulated: that a presidential candidate wins an election by collecting electoral college victories in a number of states sufficient to win a majority. The electoral college is only supposed to play a role, per US constitutional law, if no candidate gets a majority of Electoral College votes (or in other edge cases like a death of a candidate during or immediately following the election). That's what actual reliable sources on US elections state, and no presidential election for more than 100 years has been decided in any other way. But you want to set RS scholarship aside based on your own ideosyncratic reading of the US constitution. Absurd. Newimpartial (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Query in 2016, Wikipedia "called" the election early on the morning of November 9, when the electoral college counts were obvious as reported by multiple media outlets [2]. What is the policy-compliant reason that the 2020 election should be handled differently? Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I would avoid the word “won”. But, “president-elect” is not an official term. It’s a media term, and the media says Biden in president-elect. As there are no history books yet, we rely on the media. But, I wouldn't capitalize it. O3000 (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Clinton actually called to Trump to concede. Yes, there could have been EC shenanigans (The Faithless elector issue) but at that point, the losing candidate willingly admitted to losing. Arguably, though we should not have used that wording then there as well; the "win" only happens after the EC. --Masem (t) 18:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
You can retract a concession. Don’t think that’s meaningful. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, that wording in that diff clearly doesn't factually state Trump won, but implied that he would likely win the EC when that happened, so it used appropriate caution in language. --Masem (t) 18:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
According to Merriam-Webster [3], The AP's assessment has been used as the announcement of a winner of the presidential race for decades. According to the AP and all mainstream media, Biden became president elect on November 7, four days after the election, when they determined that there was no longer any doubt about the outcome. That should be good enough for us. Even Trump has acknowledged that Biden "won" the election, but falsely claimed that Biden won because the election was "rigged", see [4]. NightHeron (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
But later after that one tweet, he stated in another that he has not conceded yet and still challenging the results (despite how everyone else knows how fruitless it will be). --Masem (t) 18:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
And he may claim he’s the winner for years. Although, he’ll need to retract that in four years if he wants to run for a third second term. O3000 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Come Dec 14 (when the EC votes) we'll have the definitive answer, and at that point, regardless of what Trump claims, we can then factually call Biden as P-E. --Masem (t) 18:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, technically, the EC votes and passes it to the Senate which counts and announces the next president. Not the president-elect, as that’s just a media term. I think we can use president-elect since RS do and it happens to be a convenient term. But, it’s not something that matters a great deal. O3000 (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the fifth election Wikipedia has been through, and we have never waited for the Electoral College to meet before reflecting the reporting of sources on the winner of an election. I think we would need a fairly definitive consensus to break with that precedent. I would also note that although lawsuits have been filed in various states, those lawsuits only address small numbers of votes in each state, and not enough to overturn the outcome in those states. Even so, those lawsuits have generally been dismissed as frivolous. BD2412 T 19:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I believe most cases where this may be an issue can be reworded to be set in language reflecting the long-term and not what is currently the "not yet determined" stated of the next 2-3 months (until Jan 20 when inauguration happens); the OP example seems already worded in a manner that doesn't spell out anything that says Biden won but alludes to the litigation Trump tried after it, implying that he was considered the loser without saying factually he lost. That's fine. As I mentioned above, there's only a handful of articles that we probably have to talk about Biden's current state as the media's selected President-Elect or the projected winner of the election or the like in that form, until we have official results from the EC. For example, if we are talking about COVID, we can say something "After being projected as the winner of the election, Biden set forth a new plan for dealing with COVID..." or "After being named president-elect from the election, ...." and avoid saying "After winning the election...." --Masem (t) 19:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem, in 2016 the language Donald Trump defeated Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump will become president on January 20, 2017 became part of the stable version of the 2016 election article the night after the election. If people here think that the lack of a concession speech from Trump makes a material difference to either the sourcing requirements or NPOV requirements concerning the election result or who the president-elect is - in the absence of any RS reporting casting doubt on the result - I would like to see what the policy basis of that argument might be. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

We should say Biden won because that is what news media say. Note that while the U.S. system of using an electoral college is unusual, there are similar issues in say someone won a parliamentary election. If for example a party was projected to win a landslide in a parliamentary election, we would say the party leader won. However, losing candidates can request recounts, electoral officials may delay certification until every ballot box is received, elected MPs have not yet been sworn in, they may switch parties, the head of state may refuse to appoint the party leader as PM. But the standard should not be absolute certainty, it should be reasonable certainty. TFD (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem Surely this is wrong "the media's selected President-Elect or the projected winner of the election", the media has not selected anyone as leader, they have simply reported who has one won the USA nation wide popular election. I do admit I am no expert regards the confirmation process. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are reporting on the first counts reported by each state (their popular votes), though some states like Georgia are doing recounts (not expected to change the numbers). That can be immediately used to project the EC winner due to how the EC works, except for the potential of faithless electors which no expert believes will change anything. So there is less than a million in one (or closer to less than a 140 million to one) chance that the EC winner will be anything but Biden. But the process is simply not complete. As a comparison point, big news over last few days was the signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which forms an Asia economic block. The problem is is that that process still requires individual ratification by each country. So we cannot say that this RCEP is now in force (as some poorer press outlets indicate), but that it has been signed for individual nation ratification. It is the same issue here, we still have a process that has to be complete before Biden, by law, is recognized as President and thus when we can factually say that without putting Wikivoice into any potential backfire situations. --Masem (t) 23:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Earlier in this thread you wrote that "if the other person running conceded, that would generally be the end of it, and then we can [state] in factual terms the winner won." In such cases the winner is called president elect days or weeks before the full legal procedure has taken place. So the issue is not that Wikipedia must wait until after the legalities have occurred. Rather, your position that we should not declare as fact that Biden is the president elect is based only on Trump's failure to concede, which in turn is based on his falsehood that the election was stolen from him. All mainstream sources agree that that's a falsehood, and for that reason refer to Biden as president elect. Per NPOV, Wikipedia should do likewise. NightHeron (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


I have been giving this issue some thought, and I think that the real problem is that there is a conceptual distinction between winning the election and winning the presidency. Hypothetically, for example, if Biden were to die a week before the Electors meet, and the Electors (primarily being Democratic Electors) then cast their electoral votes for Kamala Harris to be president, no one would take this to mean that Biden had "lost" the election, even though it wouldn't be Biden who "won" the Electoral College and then assumed the presidency. As for the possibility that the outcome of the election itself will change, the audits and recounts that have been done to this point have only reinforced the Electoral College vote, and it has been noted that the lawsuits that have been filed do not impugn a sufficient number of votes to change the outcome either. Thus, we can properly reflect sources reporting that Biden won the election, while perhaps noting in a footnote that there are hypothetical scenarios under which the candidate who wins the election still does not win the presidency. My proposal, therefore, is that we refer to Biden as the winner of the election now, but not as the winner of the presidency until after the Electoral College votes. BD2412 T 04:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Support One could say, in purely democratic terms, that the most votes wins the election. So a candidate can win the election and not gain the presidency. My view is that the electoral college is a toothless political ritual that has no real effect beyond custom and ceremony, and the constitution has long since evolved to make the fourth estate the arbiters of the elections of the third. GPinkerton (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Back to Sidney Powell[edit]

Could we please get back to the original topic, which was 2020 US presidential election results in Sidney Powell's biography. Only the opening post and one commenter have mentioned Powell. It is unclear which talk page discussion or article content the opening post refers to. Perhaps this edit (16:24, 15 November 2020), which added content "Joe Biden won the 2020 election" to the article without providing an inline source. For this is material that is likely to be challenged, it definitely must have inline citations. This is also a new claim that is not made in the article body.

Currently the lead says "to challenge president-elect Joe Biden's victory". That is not exactly an accurate summary of cited sources, though it would be verifiable to say that Powell was "seeking to stop state officials from confirming President-elect Joe Biden's victory in Pennsylvania". Would that be NPOV? I don't know. That is what the Reuters source is saying, whereas The Hill attributes calling Biden's victory (the word is not used in the source) to media outlets: "election results in several key battleground states that were called by media outlets for President-elect Joe Biden". Politrukki (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  • It's basically language that in a few weeks won't matter in the specific case. Only thing you could take out would be "president-elect" as leaving "Biden's victory in PA" is otherwise "true" now; no , the state hasn't certified (though that should happen in most of the state today) but they reported their uncertified popular vote which has Biden clearly winning, and thus explains the legal challenges. I would assume the body would get into the specifics. --Masem (t) 14:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Catherine de Zegher[edit]

A user has completely rewritten the article, whitewashing it (one mention that the subject was suspended has been left, everything else removed, sources removed as well) and reverted me twice. Anybody wants to have a look? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I (Curatorslog) am the user who rewritten the article. The page as it was was not neutral, it was too focused on a single part of the career of the person the page is about. the page was not balanced. Moreover, it is about a controversial case. the previous version of the page was not objective because it gave undue attention to one aspect of the person's career and not the entire career. In addition, it concerns a court case that has not yet been completed. What is necessary, namely to mention that the person was suspended was indeed mentioned in my version. But the full description of the person was not objective and balanced. All this gives the impression that there was a conflict of interest with the person who wrote the original article. What I have done is to give the full picture of the person in a balanced way. Does anybody want to have a look? Thanks.--Curatorslog (talk) 20:57 15 November 2020 (UTC)
And they continue reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't blame them. It's not desirable to use a BLP to coatrack someone's view of a "controversy". BTW, there is a recently created article: Toporovski collection controversy. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Even in the original version the whole controversy section is only a small part of the article. The user appears to have a connection with the subject, as they have created and made substantial edits to mutliple related topics, an example being the Toporovski collection controversy article you mentioned above, as well as List of exhibitions curated by Catherine de Zegher, Kanaal Art Foundation. Might be UPE, but its not clear cut. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Basically all public interest to the activity of de Zegher is because of the Toporovski affair due to which she was suspended, then fired, suspected of fraud and faces criminal charges. There are many reliable sources reflecting this, and they were cited in the previous version of the article, but now they magically disappeared after the revisions by Curatorslog who is likely a COI editor, and the whole Toporovski affair has been reduced to two sentences.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
And now the mention of her suspension which I yesterday added to the lede, has been removed. I am sorry, I do not think we should continue assuming good faith here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Why are you so keen to use a BLP to rubbish the subject? If the person is only known for a problem, the article should be about the problem. If the article is about the person, any problem should be mentioned minimally in the article. If they end up in prison, a mention in the lead would be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
No, the person is not only known for a problem, but the problem was a big deal in the media.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
For example, James Watson who is undoubtedly notable for a lot of things, including his Nobel Prize, was fired for making one-time inappropriate comments. In his (quite extensive) article this is one paragraph out of four in the lede, and a section of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
James Watson has a long history of making inappropriate or racist comments, most were removed from the article. Hardyplants (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Would it however be appropriate to remove the mention of his firing from the lede? This is more or less what happened here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with a sentence in the lead mentioning the issue since the lead should be an overview of the body.Hardyplants (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
It was indeed first reduced to a couple of sentences in the body, [5] (followed by edit-warring) and subsequently removed from the lede [6].--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:In Praise of Blood[edit]

Need more eyes on this one... Is it true that I am a "biased uncooperative editor" as well as "lack expertise and understanding and are completely disrepectful"? You decide! (t · c) buidhe 15:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Safieni seconds this question. Buidhe admitted that he did not read the book and several of the sources he cites. Yet he does not respect the edits and explanations of those who did read everything and understand the subject. It looks like Buidhe has formed his opinion based on a few non-expert sources and is enforcing that view without seeing the bigger picture 08:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talkcontribs)

Rebecca Sockbeson[edit]

I figured this was more a worry of POV/PUFF than COI, but I approved this draft yesterday but I have concerns that it may be borderline when it comes to POV. The original author has only worked on this article, which makes me concerned about a COI or SPA. This person may just be a fan of Sockbeson or wants to increase the number of articles on indigenous women on WP to combat Systemic bias, which is totally fine. I just need another pair of eyes on the article to see if I'm overthinking the whole thing. Thanks in advance! Bkissin (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Aparna Rao[edit]

I'm in a dispute with Hipal at Talk:Aparna Rao#Quick review about the current neutrality of the article, and particularly the weight given to sources currently in the article. Could we get some more opinions? Would be much appreciated. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Rao was an anthropologist.

The article was created this year by an editor with a couple of weeks experience, with little help from anyone since, that's being pushed to GA. No conflicts of interest have been declared with any editors.

The only reference we have with any depth on the person is an obituary published the Nomadic Peoples journal. (I've never seen a discussion on such an obit, and am unsure how reliable it should be considered, nor how much weight to give it.) The only reference that appears to hold much weight is a Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute book review. (I'm uncertain how much weight this actually gives. Someone with expertise about the specific journal's book reviews, or something similar would help).

With such references, I'd expect little more than a WP:STUB article. Instead we have 25k article with a 150+ word lede. Editors seem unfamiliar with WP:NOT and WP:DUE, and seem to be assuming that POV means a balance of positive and negative. --Hipal (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Just to give my side of this: what Hipal thinks I believe of POV is not what I believe POV means (i.e. I don't believe that POV means a balance of positive and negative). The sources in the article currently I believe are properly balanced, and although the the obituaries are certainly not as reliable as some of the academic sources in the article, they are published in reputable journals, which presumably have a process of fact-checking. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I also saw Hipal's edit summary of their previous statement, which I think gives a pretty succinct summary (better than their statement above) of the situation: poor sources and inexperienced editors - how much can we depend on an obit published in an academic journal, and a Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute book review?. It is my understanding that since the obit is fact-checked, being published in an academic journal, we can use some of the factual details present, but the opinions should be treated as opinions, of course. This is for areas of the article where there is an absence of more reliable (i.e. non-obit style) sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • One final note. To quote from WP:BIASED, Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Due to the fact-checking and editorial control present in academic journals, the obituaries are currently being treated as reliable sources for facts (specifically, uncontroversial facts such as when was she born, where did she go to college?) when other sources aren't present, and for opinions are given little weight (since obviously they will only say things supportive of the subject). I thought this was the right approach, but apparently Hipal thinks differently on this. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Why would we expect the obit to be fact-checked? I'm not sure who the author is. I expect a colleague. I expect the obit was treated as a letter or opinion piece by the journal. Full access would be helpful to find the identity of the author and how the specific article was treated by the journal. --Hipal (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hipal, I'm happy to email the sources to you. So I was looking into this more, and it seems like the article "Obituary for Aparna Rao (1950–2005)" is probably not as reliable as the other obituaries (it was written by another professor at her university). The others, while written like obituaries, appear to be written by more independent authors. I would like to emphasize, though, that these sources are used for very uncontroversial and trivial facts. For the "less reliable" obituary, it might be worth considering removing it. That would remove She spoke multiple languages including Bengali, English, Farsi, French, German, Hindi, Romanes, and Urdu, and Her parents taught her about socioeconomic conditions in India and gave her a sense of "personal responsibility" and "social conscience".. (which are admittedly probably non-trivial details anways and thus should be removed). Sam-2727 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Could you please identify the other obituaries?
Yes, it comes down to what basic facts we feel these sources are reliable for, and how much weight (if any at all) we give them. It's the latter part that's why I've been so concerned about the article. We have no references with any depth about her beyond obits, suggesting the article should be little more than a STUB. Anything more seems UNDUE. --Hipal (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hipal, I emailed you the two obituaries not publicly accessible as well as the third one that is. It seems that at least 2/3 so far were written by close contributors. I understand how contentious or otherwise controversial facts cited to potentially unreliable sources would be UNDUE, but if we're citing things like what college she went to, what she studied, etc. that isn't really a viewpoint. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
that isn't really a viewpoint I strongly disagree. The approach to this, and related articles, is to include every bit of information on a subject no matter the quality of the reference, the depth that is given in the references, nor the encyclopedic value. --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vanessa Beeley[edit]

The Vanessa Beeley article has been totally rewritten by Kashmiri. While supposedly trying to make the article more "neutral" it actually whitewashes the subject by lending undue weight to conspiracy theories surrounding the White Helmets that Beeley has advocated, which reliable sources agree are false. Kashmiri has a history of profringe advocacy on other western pro-assad figures like Piers Robinson, who is best known for his efforts to dispute the Douma chemical attack. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: This is not an article on the White Helmets. This is an article on Vanessa Beeley and her views. Here, we are not to judge whether her views are true or false - we just present them and, in order to maintain a balance, may include a reputable statement, like from a UN source, that will show her claims as not objective. This is what I did. If you want to challenge the Russian-promoted narrative about White Helmets, go to White Helmets, because this here is a biographical article if you understand what a biography is.
As much as personally I find Beeley's views odd to say the least, I disagree that Wikipedia should report on the content of her tweets or that her views should be presented using statements like: "Middle East experts have dismissed Beeley's allegations...". We don't debate Newton's theory of physics in his biography by writing that "Einstein has dismissed his allegations...".
To put it simply, if you want to have an argument on something with an article subject, go to that person's blog or page, or email them, or bring it up in an article on the topic.
Additionally, your casting aspersions on me is not welcome. Keep in mind the Wikipedia rule: Comment on content, not on contributor. — kashmīrī TALK 13:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Kashmiri has nominated the article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Beeley (2nd nomination), feel free to contribute if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Emily W. Murphy - BLP vios & DUE issues[edit]

A NPOV tag has been placed at Emily W. Murphy (by another editor, but still). This was also posted on BLPN by valereee but sufficient outside input not generated, so cross-posting here. The article had serious NPOV & WEIGHT issues and BLP violations (which valereee has - more tolerantly than I - tried to discuss since early Nov). I caught the article on BLPN and have made some adjustments removing unsourced accusations and rewriting some prose to accurately reflect sources. There's 3 distinct categories of disputed content (explicit BLP violations, blatant UNDUE, and then just indiscriminate information), some I assume will be challenged in good faith and we'll work those out, but I'm concerned explicitly about POV pushing part here. A secondary issue with the article is that all RS discussing the subject as a whole seem to view her in a relatively positive light (eg CNN or LA Times, ), but our article (even after my changes - before, after - includes removals from others also) is the exact opposite impression.

I'd greatly appreciate some uninvolved eyes and participation from editors, and admins given the editor's prior strays at ANI for POV issues. Ideally I can pass this off to someone else and crawl back into my technical hole. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I've opened a related thread at AN concerning edit-warring accusations at that article. —valereee (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump Page[edit]

This is clearly going nowhere fast. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2020 (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.

I thought Wikipedia was suppose to be a neutral information page on any subject matter, not a political commentary on someone they don't personally like.

"Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency." (2nd paragraph) - That sounds like very biased and partisan-like. Is Wikipedia political now?

"The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." - "Fact checkers" are incredibly biased too and are under heavy scrutiny by the right for their partisan loyalty to the left. Why would you even include them when they're grossly inaccurate like most of the mainstream news media out there?

"A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump and his campaign benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, but did not find sufficient evidence to press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia.[c] Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice, and his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that offense." (4th paragraph) - "Trump and his campaign BENEFITED from Russian interference in the 2016 election" yet the only reference you have is some biased Liberal news article that offers NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. "..his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that offense." So you can say that about anything anyone is accused of. They weren't charged or or indicted but OH THEY WEREN'T EXONERATED EITHER! Yeah and? Does that suggest that they're guilty of something. There was no evidence and he wasn't charged. What does that even mean? I know what you want to look like because you guys are obviously political-minded when you wrote this.

"Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic. He downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing." (5th paragraph) So now we're using Wikipedia to write opinion pieces? Because that's EXACTLY what this state IS.

I could go but you get the point. Since when is Wikipedia a political news paper? This whole thing looks like it was written by CNN! I think all it does is alienates you from a certain group because you guys can't keep your opinions to yourselves and yet every year you're asking for donations. Good luck getting any from the group you're siding against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MFrn2345 (talkcontribs) 08:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you disagree with the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. That's not something we can fix, and we don't care about your threats. Cope harder, perhaps. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2020 (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.

Opindia backdoor POV pushing[edit]

Donald Trump Article[edit]

User indefinitely blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2020 (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.

As has been raised, to no avail on the talk page of the article on Donald Trump under the section "Biased" there is clearly a left-wing bias which has been pushed under the carpet by some. The most apparent bias is shown when there is a whole section in the article dedicated to "false statements" why not, by the same token, have true statements? Many other world leaders, indeed, other US Presidents have made false statements yet it seems most prominent when it concerns Donald Trump.

There needs to be a review in this and the current article is only fit for propaganda by the Democrats. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, I believe you're looking for Parler. Praxidicae (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Note to experienced editors: An attempt to explain Wikipedia policy, clearly and concisely, to the OP has already been ignored at the Trump article. I wouldn't spend too much time duplicating that here, as I wouldn't expect the OP to hear it here any better than they did there. As for review, there was an attempt at peer review just a few months ago and it received very little participation. ―Mandruss  20:16, 28 November 2020 (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.

Violation vs. Withdrawal POV Bias -- Iran/U.S. JCPOA[edit]

The article being discussed is Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#US_withdrawal and this issue was discussed without resolution in Talk:Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#U.S._Violation_vs._Withdrawal. I am in a dispute about whether U.S. non-compliance with the JCPOA should be labeled as "withdrawal" or "violation". First, it is a legal fact that one cannot withdraw from an agreement with no withdrawal clause -- hence the U.S. cannot withdraw from this agreement, it can only violate it, this is a legal fact and pointed out by several news sources I linked in the talk page. Second, U.S. infringements are labeled "withdrawal" while Iranian infringements are labeled "violations". The other editors claim that "violation" is POV. There are sources which use both terminologies for both the U.S. and Iran -- it is clearly biased to extend the POV argument to the U.S., but not Iran. I offered a compromise which is that both U.S. and Iranian violations be labeled as "withdrawal" or "partial withdrawal", which resolves the POV argument, but it appears that this compromise was not accepted.

The other editors do not make any consistent arguments in the talk page. The first editor makes the claim that some sources refer to the U.S. actions as a withdrawal -- I point out that there are several sources, which I provided, which refer to the U.S. actions as a violation. This line of argument ended there completely. The other two editors claim that "withdrawal" is neutral while "violation" is POV or the the JCPOA is not a legally binding document so apparently it cannot be "violated". Then could not the same argument be made for Iranian non-compliance? Why would Iranian non-compliance be described as a "violation" while U.S. non-compliance is described as a "withdrawal"? Quite frankly, this POV issue causes this section of the article to read more as a CNN op-ed than a wikipedia article. An RfC has also been requested for this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutral-Iran (talkcontribs) 07:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a WP:JDL case, and ironically, POV from this user. His proposal was fair and square opposed by three other users, whom he has now for no reason accused of POV/bias. Seems like a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. ---HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Take it to wp:aniSlatersteven (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Its not I just don't like -- your argument was refuted and you refused to respond after I refuted them. I already refuted yours in particular -- we both agreed that we have sources that use both terminologies and we both agreed that neither source is better or worse. After this, you stopped responding and do not seem interested in a compromise which meets in the middle. The other two editors agreed that "violation" is POV and so I made a proposal to stop using it, after which no one responded. I suppose its easier to accuse people of Wikipedia:Single-purpose account rather than actually address the points they have made. I am completely entitled to post here and putting out a RfC. I am also entitled to dispute resolution after this. Perhaps if you had bothered to make a coherent argument, I would not bother escalating. contribs) 17:13, 30 November 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutral-Iran (talkcontribs)
You are not entitled to anything, editing here is a privilege. Please read WP:FORUMSHOP. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A new user Vic DiCara is editing his own band's page 108[edit]

A new user user:Vic DiCara is editing the page of 108 (band), while a member of the band goes by the name Vic DiCara. At least two edits here and here constitute WP:ORIGINAL research, a WP:CONFLICT of interest and/or are definitely not a WP:NEUTRAL point of view. Based on the level of knowledge level in the edits, I believe these edits are made by the public person and that they are made in good faith. However, they still violate Wikipedia's rules. The user is removing appropriately sourced claims and other changes are made with subjective language such as "excessive" and "minor". I will be notifying the user and reverting the edits momentarily. Kire1975 (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

User is also now promoting his vedic astrology business on his own page here. Kire1975 (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Park West Gallery[edit]

A few years ago, I was a prolific editor with my own account. At the time, there was ongoing difficulty with this art gallery using Wikipedia to promote its cruise ship auctions and wiki-wash its bad publicity (lawsuits, fraud allegations, etc.).

This first appeared as a link-spam issue but evolved into more of a COI / NPOV problem

Since cleanup in 2008-2009, the article has been gradually re-worked by single-purpose editors to present a more benign view of a very controversial company.

My workload doesn't permit me to edit Wikipedia these days, but I wanted to point out the current problem in case someone here wants to take it on. -- (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)