Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

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

Gross misrepresentation of non-massacres as massacres[edit]

Talk page discussion: Talk:Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars#Source about Razing misrepresented as a Massacre

The dispute is between me and two other editors on Talk:Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars#Source about Razing misrepresented as a Massacre and involves the removal of non-massacre events from the article Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars.

The disputed content I am trying to have removed from the article: Muslim Albanian towns like Tepelenë, Leskovik and Frashër and many villages were burnt down completely. When the Greek army was forced to withdraw officially from Albania as the Albanian Declaration of Independence was recognized internationally it organized a militia under the "Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus" which was composed mainly of bandits and deserters which engaged in arson, hostage-taking and looting as a means to fight to fight against Albanian militias.[1]


  1. ^ Liakos & Doumanis 2023, p. 35:The Greek army occupied the region in December, and a provisional government was established in February 1914. Its ‘army’ was composed mainly of deserters and bandits, who were pitted against Albanian militias, thereby subjecting the territory to a vicious cycle of arson, hostage-taking and looting. Towns like Tepelenë/Tepeleni, Frashër/Frasari and Lefkovik/Leskovik, and many villages were burned to their foundations.

Note how the Liakos & Doumanis source reports only on the destruction of settlements but falls short of reporting on their inhabitants' fates. This destruction of settlements is being added to an article containing the word "Massacres" on its article title, and thus, generating an -unverified- fact that its inhabitants were massacred, which is a gross misrepresentation of what the source does say. I have expressed my strong disagreement to this misuse of sources on the talk page.

I went WP:BOLD and remove Liakos & Doumanis from the article [1] but I was quickly reverted [2]. They argued in both their edit summaries and on the talk page that it must stay on the article since "it falls under the article's WP:SCOPE;" a faulty argument IMO, because not even dates match: the Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars took place during the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, while the events described in Liakos & Doumanis source, occurred in 1914, after these wars.

I have tried to add a Citation Needed tag to the disputed content but I was reverted twice: [3] [4] Then I went to Teahouse to seek advice on Citation Needed tag [5] and an admin was kind to respond as to suggest a "Verification Failed" tag instead, which I followed in the hopes of not being reverted again, but got reverted again: [6]

I came here because the talk page discussion which I feel has quickly gained characteristics of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling by providing poor arguments to defend the Liakos & Doumanis content's inclusion to the article, making off-topic proposals about article moves, or even suggesting that "I go open a RfC to seek it removed". Thing is, a RfC is time-consuming and cannot use that every time we want to deal with/remove unverified content from Wikipedia's articles. A waste of time and sources IMO. Latest was their proposal to move the article from the current "Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars" to the non-neutral "Genocide of Albanians in Balkan Wars" just so that they keep Liakos & Doumanis to it, which only served to derail the discussion all together. - SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Labeling things as a "massacre" is a common tactic for POV pushers and nationalist editors. The label should only be used if it's explicitly and overwhelmingly called a "massacre" by high quality sources. We don't get to decide whether or not something is a massacre. That's original research and a neutral point of view violation. Once content has been challenged, it's the responsibility of whoever restores it to provide such high quality sources. All of this also applies to the term "genocide". Given that this is a contentious topic, any uninvolved admin can enforce sanctions as needed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: What you say, are exactly my thoughts. I know that labeling such things as a "massacre" is a common POV-pushing tactic, hence I have pleaded for an admin's advice here: [7] because I wanted to be careful on how to tackle with this kind of editors. However, the problem remains: the editors aren't letting me to remove the POV and OR violations from the article, insisting that I must open a RfC first, and have the community decide through that RfC for the removal of these POV and OR violations. I disagree. RfCs are only meant for consensus-building procedures in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, not for legitimizing such misrepresentations of sources. They even proposed POV-pushing article moves, to rename the article so that such source misrepresentations are justified in it. That's why I came to the Noticeboard for help.--- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: You are absolutely right. We don't get to decide whether or not something is a massacre. But nobody has labeled anything which is not a massacre as a massacre in this article. No such edit has occurred. SilentResident's claims are not true because nobody has misrepresented any source. This is the problem with SR's claims and conduct in this debate: they act based on arguments and claims which are very inaccurate. This edit Muslim Albanian towns like Tepelenë, Leskovik and Frashër and many villages were burnt down completely. When the Greek army was forced to withdraw officially from Albania as the Albanian Declaration of Independence was recognized internationally it organized a militia under the "Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus" which was composed mainly of bandits and deserters which engaged in arson, hostage-taking and looting as a means to fight to fight against Albanian militias is supported by an inline citation by this source: Liakos & Doumanis 2023, p. 35:The Greek army occupied the region in December, and a provisional government was established in February 1914. Its ‘army’ was composed mainly of deserters and bandits, who were pitted against Albanian militias, thereby subjecting the territory to a vicious cycle of arson, hostage-taking and looting. Towns like Tepelenë/Tepeleni, Frashër/Frasari and Lefkovik/Leskovik, and many villages were burned to their foundations. The edit doesn't misrepresent the source by labeling any event as a "massacre", hence even the title of the thread started by SR is a very inaccurate claim. The response by SR has been to repeatedly tag the sentence with "citation needed" tags which are inappropriate because this is not what cn tags are used for[8][9][10]. This is not a case where a citation is needed because the citation has been provided and no further citation is required. SR's objection doesn't concern any source misrepresentation because this is not such a case. It concerns the scope of the article and whether such information can be included in this article. My response was that information about state-sponsored mass violence which leads to entire towns and many villages being "burned to their foundations" does belong in such articles. I have repeatedly asked SR to file a discussion at RfC for their concerns and the community can decide but SR cannot keep adding content tags about citations and failed verification[11] - for the 4th time. There is no cn or vn situation here and no misrepresentation of any source to label any event as a massacre.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My response was that information about state-sponsored mass violence which leads to entire towns and many villages being "burned to their foundations" does belong in such articles. – Then you are engaging in original research and need to stop. You don't get to decide what the definition or scope of "massacre" is. We're here to summarize what the sources say and only what the sources say. If the sources don't apply a label, then applying it ourselves is an original idea that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There seems to be some misunderstanding: there is no edit in the artice which labels any event a massacre while the source doesn't do so. I didn't add the above argument in the article and I'm not the only editor who objected SR's suggestions. And I didn't apply this label to any event. There is no such edit in the article. This is one argument which I wrote during the talkpage discussion and it is something very common and expected in such articles. No such article is merely a list of massacres, otherwise they would be titled "List of X massacres". The topic and scope concern the historical background and military activities which led to such events. All such articles are written in this manner e.g. Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia or Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War and all academic bibliography about such events follows the same format. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"SilentResident's claims are not true because nobody has misrepresented any source". How an event not called a massacre by the sources, being added on an article about massacres, does not constitute WP:OR and source misrepresentation??? Massacre is a serious crime which requires strong verification by reliable sources. Nothing less than that. I noted that you haven't provided any sources backing your POV claims. I am not the only editor around here asking you for WP:VERIFIABILITY, but also User:Thebiguglyalien here and User:Slatersteven on the article's talk page [12]: Either present strong WP:RS that back your Massacre claims, or drop it. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If an article classifies something as a "massacre", directly or indirectly, then there need to be high quality sources that directly verify this specific classification. If these cannot be found, then we cannot say or imply that an event is a massacre. And if you're defending its inclusion, then it's your responsibility to find sources and find consensus before it's restored. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: If an article classifies something as a "massacre", directly or indirectly The article doesn't do such a thing. There is no such edit in the article - directly or indirectly. The sentence which is present in the article is the one quoted above: Muslim Albanian towns like Tepelenë, Leskovik and Frashër and many villages were burnt down completely (...) It doesn't claim anything about massacres, but its inclusion is within the scope of the article because all such articles extensively describe the historical background and broader military activities related to such events. SR is welcome to file a discussion via RfC and then a much broader segment of the editing community can provide their valuable input and decide about SR's arguments. But this is not a case of source misrepresentation - direct or indirect - because no such edits can be found in the article. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the argument here is that other articles about massacres also make implications not supported by the sources, then the solution is to clean those articles up as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's more WP:OR from you, Maleschreiber. With all respect, a RfC's role isn't to justify source misrepresentations and violations of NPOV guidelines. Please read carefully what NPOV states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Neutrality is non-negotiable and not subject to editorial consensuses and RfCs. I will appreciate if you drop this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude as it is unacceptable and sanctionable. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)--- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either present strong WP:RS that back your Massacre claims, or drop it I haven't written a single "massacre claim" anywhere in the article, so there's nothing to bring a source about or drop. You're depicting this dispute as something which it is not.
@Thebiguglyalien: I definitely agree with you, but there is no such implication and no such claim. I simply said that all articles about such events discuss the historical background and key military activities which impact civilians. It's really just what the topic of the article is about. Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia cannot discuss its main topic without a presentation of the historical background and broader activities which target civilians. The article cannot discuss all such events, but it cannot be written without providing a summary of them. The problem seems to start from SR's filing of the thread which gave the impression that there are edits in the article which state (directly or indirectly) or imply that events which aren't massacres are massacres, but there are no such edits. I haven't added a single such edit. This is simply just a single sentence which explains that the activity of the Greek army in southern Albania involved razing entire towns and villages when it entered the region in 1913 in the context of the Balkan Wars and then the section moves on to discussing killings of civilians.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"involved razing entire towns and villages when it entered the region in 1913 in the context of the Balkan Wars and then the section moves on to discussing killings of civilians." But the Liakos & Doumanis source has made it very clear that it doesn't talk about the Balkan Wars of 1913, reports on events occurring after that war, in 1914. Not only that, but doesn't mention massacres of civilians. Using this content on this article about "Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars" is extremely POV-pushing and unverified. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: Note to the Admins, please your attention on the article is needed. The POV-pushers keep removing the failed verification tag [13] [14] without waiting for the problem with the verification and the Noticeboard discussion to be resolved first (No sources were to support the verification we editors have asked for). Not only that, but it is specifically the editors Alltan (talk · contribs) and Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs) who were always involved on all nationality-based disputes across the WP:BALKANS topic area at Maleschreiber's side. Now all these editors who share the same POV, are working together by edit warring to remove the Verification Failed tag from the disputed content, without providing any sources for the verification we have asked, and without showing any respect to the ongoing discussion on the Noticeboard, and by throwing warnings on my talk page: [15] only aiming at discouraging me about the unverified content. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article discusses the period of the Balkan Wars which ended with the official or de facto withdrawal of respective armies from each region. This is part of what the source describes. If this is your concern, I can move it chronologically to be the last phase of the section but it's part of the BW era. The article doesn't state or imply anything about massacres of civilians based on this source. Hence you are asking for sources and verification for a claim which doesn't even exist anywhere in the article. I can't provide sources or verify sources for something which I haven't even written. The problem is that you used cn and vn tags for matters which don't concern cn or vn.
    • I notified an admin and expert editor about such topics in the Balkans to provide a second opinion if they are available [16]. I strongly encourage SR to start a discussion at RfC.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • User:SilentResident, I am not interested in the content dispute. However, I removed the failed verification tag because it is not used to address your concerns. It is used for source misinterpretation, not for possibly UNDUE/irrelevant content. Do not add it for a 5th time. IMO, you and the other involved editors might have as the only path an RfC. Though ofc the walls of text will only keep becoming larger. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should self-revert yourself. The dispute we are discussing here is about the Gross misrepresentation of non-massacres as massacres and the admin Administrator Nick Moyes informed me that the Failed Verification tag may be used for this case here. Discussion can be found here: [17] You should not have removed the tag. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will not self-revert, because I think that what I did follows the template's documentation. If another one, admin or not, thinks otherwise, up to them what they do. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: The editors also resorted to the one-sided removal of the NPOV tag from the article [18] despite Template:POV#When to remove being clear on when to remove it. This, coupled with the edit warring to have any citation/verification tags removed, shows a WP:OWNERSHIP attitude and this is at most, a very troubling development. Right now, the article suggests that it has no whatsoever problems, that there are no ongoing NPOV disputes, nothing at all. This goes against the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines which require people's policy-related concerns to not be suppressed, ignored, or even hidden from the public. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The simple solution is to rename this article to either ‘Genocide of Albanians during the Balkan Wars’, or failing that, ‘Ethnic Cleansing of Albanians during the Balkan Wars’. There are many sources which can be used to support both, but the variation of terms used seems to suggest ethnic cleansing as the appropriate name at the very least.
SilentResident has been tag-bombing the article with tags that don’t apply - the tags are being misused, hence why editors are trying to remove them. SilentResident then follows up with this by hurling claims of POV-pushing, ownership and tag-teaming etc etc, none of which apply. Her constant misuse of both tags and policies is overcomplicating what should be a basic move request for the article. I have tried to take into account their concerns regarding the matter and have even made changes that satisfied their initial complaints, but they keep causing further dispute which should ultimately be solved by moving the article. I am going to file the move request tomorrow, and then this is all over. Simple solutions. Botushali (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: The problem here is that there is a group of editors that reverted in round robin fashion so as to avoid falling foul of WP:3RR and successfully imposed their version of their article via edit-warring: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. That's 5 reverts in less than 24 hours distributed among 4 users. This is a recurring problem across this topic area [24]. The only thing that has been effective at tamping down this behavior is the consensus required restriction, as implemented here [25]. That article suffered from the same problem as well, and the WP:CRP restriction really put an end to it without resorting to page protection or blocks or anything that extreme. Personally, I think this should be applied across all articles in all contentious topic areas, not just to individual articles, but I digress. Khirurg (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That’s not the problem here. The problem is that a number of tags and claims were misused. If a number of editors take issue with whatever it is you are doing, perhaps you’re the problem.
By the way, that “solution” you proposed is ultimately a failure, hence why it is getting such a negative response. The consensus required restriction allows people to abuse the RV button on information they don’t like to block its addition. Botushali (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An admin already gave their opinion as indeed there was misuse of tagging in the article but no "source misrepresentation": User_talk:Drmies#Attention needed on Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan_Wars and more editors involved have disagreed with SR's approach: [26]. If 6-7 editors disagree with an individual as is their right to do, then what that individual should do is file a discussion at RfC if they are convinced that they are right. Khirurg's accusations have been replied to every time he tries to put forward the same narrative: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1110#Evidence to explain why a part of his opinions cannot find a consensus. But just because many editors genuinely disagree with his approach, it doesn't mean that they agree with each other. There's a fundamental difference between these two narratives. In this particular debate I may agree with Botushali, but in the same article in another ongoing debate we have disagreed with each other and Khirurg avoids to mention that in another debate just a few days ago[27] I agreed with Khirurg and disagreed with the editors with whom I agreed in this case. This is how open and honest discussion among editors who are truly interested in a subject works: sometimes they agree, sometimes they disagree and nobody's opinions can always be shared by most editors. There is an administrative opinion and a strong suggestion even by the admin for SR to file a discussion at RfC, hence we can move beyond the present discussion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: the dispute has been resolved with the addition of this information [28] which addresses my NPOV concerns. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article is a political BLP, and contains a lot of controversy. We need input on how to write it NPOV.

General Proposal

Due to conflicting sources, include all conflicting statements. For the lead, be unspecific, refer to the body.

Example 1

  • skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines

Is inaccurate, be unspecific and reduce to example new paragraph and current lead;

  • He has been involved in several controversies, on topics such as ..., COVID-19 ...

Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formally you only have to notify editors if you talk about them. See this notice at/near the top of this page:

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

But you should notify people who are involved in the discussion as a courtesy. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not involved, so my comments reflect personal experience rather than the topic at hand. Argentine sources, especially press sources, are problematic because of the inherent bias in the sector. E.G. Pagina 12 has a close relationship with Christina Kirchner, receiving hug amounts of state advertising, it is overly promotional of Christina and put out multiple hit pieces to undermine the previous president Macri and no doubt is now trying to undermine Milei. It is a problem that many Argentine newspapers depend upon government advertising. Even sources such as Clarin, which does not, and might be considered reliable otherwise have had a difficult on/off relationship with the Peronist movement. Milei has really upset the political landscape in Argentina and so the allies of Peronism have their knives out and the hit pieces in the media are the result. I would go so far to say to meet BLP guidelines we should rely on foreign press coverage and eschew Argentine press as unreliable on this topic. WCMemail 15:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, except that international media seems to get their content from the Argentine press. Not enough media articles with original research yet, so I'm putting emphasis on including multiple perspectives for each paragraph/statement etc. Thats also why I'm asking for primary sources within the secondary sources we use. Its difficult writing this in NPOV, without getting a whitewashing label. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you referring to this?

For political analyst Facundo Cruz of the Research Center for Democratic Quality, this was a result of the protest vote. He said that the vote for Milei "channeled the citizen discontent of the last two governments, past and present".[54] According to Clarín, "Milei's victory speaks to us above all of the extent of despondency and anger that hovers in Argentine society, which wanted to express this profound unease with the primary vote."[5] According to Página12, he "arises from a bad economic situation, from the critical situations experienced during the months of isolation due to the pandemic, added to the exasperating and permanent blow of inflation."[5] Página12 sees a similarity with the scenarios before the military coups in Argentina and other Latin American countries, saying that the military coups "have dismantled the democratic system, but they have never solved anything and, in exchange rate, have worsened the lives of Argentines: poverty, debts, unemployment and so on. Milei looks like a child of that story. He embodies the same illusions of a sector of society that promoted dictatorships and then regretted it."[5]

It is proprely attributed, and it is sourced not to them but through another independent, secondary source, Il Post, which is considered a reliable source in Italy. None of this is controversial, since many other sources saw Milei's win as voters being dissatisfied by both traditional partes; is this a controversial claim? The fact that even Peronist newspapers acknowledged this is telling. Davide King (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just meant i found very little original content from international media so far, e.g. Bloomberg interview is one. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a problem of WP:RECENTISM but it seems we both agree that due to his August 2023 primaries win, he got international recognition. I think that with time, this will no longer be an issue but those are still the best sources we have (in fact, one complaint is the use of non-English sources but English sources mainly comes from August 2023 because that is when he got international recognition). What is needed is not more primary sources but secondary reliable sources not limited to August 2023. Not liking what those secondary sources say is not a good enough reason to remove content or claim issues. I think the issues rest on something else, certainly not on us saying he "expressed skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines"... Davide King (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is my reading for any user interesting to the dispute, I am not interested in another back-and-forth discussion with Pedantic Aristotle, please. That statement is well supported by the body.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Milei expressed skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines.[36] He questioned the national government COVID-19 vaccination policy, and opposed mandatory vaccination.[39] In November 2021, Milei vaccinated himself for COVID-19, citing economic reasons based on a risk–benefit analysis that he made, and rejected the anti-vaccination label that was used to describe his views on the issue;[40] he dismissed the negative impact his COVID-19 vaccine statements could have had on the campaign against COVID-19.[39] Before his vaccination, he had said that due to an evaluated "income-risk" and the claim that not all vaccines were "well tested". He said: "Pharmacological products require ten years of empirical testing and this product is a year and a half old."[39] The World Health Organization stated that "the safety and efficacy required by vaccines are not in question" despite the fact that they were developed "at an unprecedented speed".[39] About his decision to get vaccinated, he said: "Now I am entering Congress, I am going to give up my diet, on 10 December I am leaving my job, I have to go to give talks in Uruguay, the United States, Chile, and Spain, and I cannot enter without the vaccine. What do I do? Do I run out of income? What do I live on?"[39] He chose the Sinopharm BIBP COVID-19 vaccine because it is an inactivated virus vaccine.[39]

In short, even when he got vaccinated, those other sources (so it is not just the Economist Intelligence Unit, which is certainly no friend of Peronism and in fact is supportive of economic liberalism) noted that he has been skeptical, and in fact his reason to get vaccinated is not because he is no longer skeptic but it is due the economic reasons he listed. Since we do not say that he is anti-vaccination, the issue is moot, and the skepticism is a claim that is supported by more than a single independent secondary source that the wording for the lead is appropriate. No else complained about this...

The two Spanish-language sources used in the paragraph are El Cronista (El Cronista says it is aligned with economic liberalism), and La Nación (La Nación says it is "the country's leading conservative newspaper"), so can you stop using the Peronist excuse? Pedantic Aristotle did not seem to have any issue with those two sources, and wrote: "The issue is indeed the sourcing, those are much better sources, that includes actual verifiable information. I did not say The Economist was wrong", so what are we even discussing? This is a non-controversial claim supported by three reliable sources that are right-leaning, none of which can be excluded under the excuse of Peronism. Davide King (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brief clarification: its a question of how to write it NPOV, the topic is more complex than a short sentence. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you think of the talkquoted part I cited that is present in the body? Do you have problems with that too, or only with the lead? If you have problems with the body, which part do you think is missing? If you have problems with the wording of the lead, please remember that WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the body, so we cannot add all that context from the body, but the "skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines" wording is supported by the body text. Does anyone else disagree? Davide King (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be concise to let others in on the discussion. As this is a contentious topic, my argument is that we should be very careful in how this is written. The sentence as it appears is far too unspecific, and does not do the topic justice, even for the lead. I'll need to properly review and comment on body later. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I tried to conduct moderated discussion at DRN before closing the discussion there and advising that it be taken here. However, I see one of the same problems here as I did at DRN, which is that User:Pedantic Aristotle's statement of the problem is too long, and does not communicate effectively what is wrong. At DRN, PA said that there were at least 50 points in the article that should be changed. I advised PA not to tag-bomb the article. I interpreted the basic issue being that they think that the article should be rewritten. I have seen one specific issue identified that I can understand, which is about covid vaccination. So maybe two questions should be addressed here. The first is about his position on covid vaccination. The second is whether the article should be rewritten. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree with you. Apologies again for the confusion, there are too many topics, so I've had a hard time being concise. Generally speaking; add attribution and balance where its missing. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the first question; I think the statements in the lead does not do the topic justice, and should probably be moved to the body. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem 2
In order to make this more efficient, I have rewritten the lead, and created a thread in the Talk page.
Please see the full new lead here (last paragraph contains disputed topics);
And the previous lead, as of the start of this thread; Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there is some copy editing to do (for example, why put something when there is a citation needed tag? If something needs that, it does not belong to the lead) but I liked the way you summarized how sources have described him (e.g. "Initially gaining prominence as an economist and the author of multiple books on economics and politics, Milei transitioned into a significant political figure. ... Beyond his professional and political life, Milei is also known for his flamboyant personality, distinctive personal style and strong media presence, both domestically and internationally", that is all good). I do not like the wording used in relation to the way he has been described and this disnticion between international sources and Argentine sources that looks like WP:ORG/WP:SYNTH, and there is certainly space for further improvement, but I appreciate the effort and is an improvement in terms of conciseness and length, which is what it should look like when we get it to "Good Article" status. At the same time, more discussion is needed and consensus required. Davide King (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes sure, suggestions for improvement are welcome. I added the citation needed tag temporarily as i need more time to review that sentence, but wanted to present the general idea quickly, so others can start adding their views. Last paragraph is the painful one, i hope the first 3 are better and less disputable. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I researched the "citation needed" sentence in this paragraph further.
This summarizes the political program that has been presented, and nothing is mentioned on these topics;
Bloomberg wrote this;
"Milei has put forward a mixed bag of proposals under the banner of health reform — from expressing support for the sale of human organs to the condemnation of abortions and euthanasia."
This seems ambiguous and disputable, so I'm not sure what we can or should include in the lead on these. Can we write it this way? (There are sources in body elaborating on these topics)
  • Although he has previously advocated for individual freedoms on issues such as legalizing drugs and prostitution and market solutions for human organ transplants, it is not clear whether these topics are included in his current electoral platform.
Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The formal electoral platform is located here. Of course, it's in Spanish, but it can help to make sure which is an actual proposal and which is just something said in media or social networks. Cambalachero (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, as far as i can tell, none of these topics are specified explicitly. Updated proposals are added on the Talk page. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Davide King said he was going to work more on the article and perhaps create a fork, I stepped aside for some days. The main problem I see here is the approach: include everything that hit the news in the article (even stories such as "an obscure deputy says 'Milei sucks' and Milei replies 'yo mama'"), and remove the cruft at some later point. The problem with doing so is that the article would soon become a huge unreadable mess (Wikipedia in Spanish suffers a lot from this), and when will be the moment to start removing cruft? In some years, when someone writes a book about Milei... a book that will be by necessity outdated by the time it hits the stands, lacking the info from the point the writer ends writing and actual publication? No. It is possible to make an educated guess, shortly after ongoing events or even during their time, when an event will be relevant to the scope of the article or not. Have in mind that if he actually wins the elections and becomes president, he will be generating news (both useful and cruft) on a daily basis. Having a featured article on a sitting president (which means deciding those things on the fly) may be hard, but it's doable: it happened with Barack Obama. Cambalachero (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree 100%. I had a look at the Sandbox User:Davide King was editing, but with that edit it seems we are just transferring the problem rather than fixing it. But you are in luck, because i did a restructuring based on my edits from the main page that was reverted. I was thinking of adding this to a new page called "Political views of Javier Milei". What do you think?
See my draft here;
Davide Kings version here: Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(please note, i did not focus on changing content, i just restructured it logically, and in a way that allows us to improve the content as the next step) Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've moved this to a draft page Draft:Political views of Javier Milei, so we can work on this together. Please note i explicitly picked Political "views" instead of "positions", so we can include broader context such as philosophic foundations in one location. "Positions" seems more appropriate for a political party, or typical career politicians. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cambalachero, i think the article is now converging towards something useful. There are some details missing, and I still need to check all the sources, as there could have been something that went wrong in the transfer process. It would also be good to receive criticism, there may be things i have not considered. The goal has been to describe his political views, minimize ambiguity and be informative. The article is incomplete, but i think its a good start.
I have read a number of other "political views of" articles, and it seems to be the norm to exclude criticism, which makes sense as the article is about his views, not criticisms of his views. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV tag and talk page topic was removed without good reason[edit]

The NPOV tag I added to World Constitutional Convention was removed without good reason ("Stating 50 years old event a promotion does not make any sense."). On the talk page my NPOV topic was simply reverted as "Spam". Given that the article is clearly an extreme example of NPOV and the editor behind it and a number of "sister" articles I'm uncertain as how to procced given that they are unwilling to address the problem. Arcade222 (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arcade222, your article tag and talk page post were both reverted by the same editor. I'd suggest discussing it with them (on their talk page or the article talk page) first. Their reverts don't make sense, but it's likely something that can be worked out by discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Schazjmd Replied to the user on article talk page. User is new to Wikipedia and making such edits to other pages also. Posting about his Personal POV and engaging in edit war. --BeLucky (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BeLucky, your edit summaries for your reverts are confusing. The NPOV tag has nothing to with "promotion", and questioning the NPOV of the article on the talk page isn't "spam". Schazjmd (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Schazjmd Yes, as the user was making similar edits on other pages, it seemed like a pattern, so I reverted them. Now, he has returned, and I have responded to him appropriately. --BeLucky (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both of you have now posted on the article's talk page. @Arcade222, your broad-stroked criticisms aren't very actionable; please propose sourced improvements. @BeLucky, please discuss civilly, assuming good faith, rather than with the aggressiveness in your initial post to Arcade there.
Arcade, it is true that you've made similar posts to other article talk pages. Your criticisms are too general to be helpful and you'll get better responses if you approach the subjects with reliable sources and specific changes. Schazjmd (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh look he did it again: he removed the NPOV tag without discussion. Can you please stop? Arcade222 (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Schazjmd has pointed out, your criticisms are too general to be actionable. As such, the neutrality of the article is not seriously in question and the tag should not remain. If you have more specific, source-based suggestions, feel free to make them on the talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The neutrality is not in question? Are you serious? A fringe crackpot groups meeting is claimed to have played "a crucial role in promoting global governance and world peace in human history." and you expect me to list the individual faults of the article? Arcade222 (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Arcade222 "crackpot groups meeting". That explains the article well. Thank you for your valuable inputs. --BeLucky (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh, well I removed the offending phrase six minutes before you posted this, so I'll assume it was an edit conflict and you're now well satisfied. Generalrelative (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Papua conflict

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

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

Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs or explain how bad something is. We don't indiscriminately compile lists of bad things, nor do we go out of our way to add them to articles. We just summarize the main ideas that are expressed by reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP's concerns were totally valid here, which is clear if you take the time to examine the recent history of the article. Another IP, however, has substantially improved the lead by removing two obviously POV statements: [29]. As of right now, I'd say the lead at least seems pretty good. I'll be happy to add the article to my watchlist. Generalrelative (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good, the POV statements shouldn't be there. That doesn't mean it's okay for the IP to turn this report into a soapbox. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think they were turning it into a soapbox at all. While we strive to meet WP:NPOV and reliability of and through sources, sometimes these can be disjointed or out-of-sync, usually due to systemic bias in cases like this. The IP, without knowledge of our terminology and such, was simply expressing this out in their own way. In a case as serious as this, the response is not to pull a bothsidesism but rather to avoid using sources which may have an inherent and pervasive bias; in this case, I would be skeptical of most sources that come out of Indonesia, and likely PNG and Australia as well. Curbon7 (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m sorry, the role of Wikipedia is to not be right or parrot propaganda from one side? I do not think “well, a lot of husbands of the women raped by the army beat their wives” is relevant when talking about the crimes of an army. However, that was the state of the article. What on earth are you talking about, and why are you taking such a condescending tone toward me? 2001:818:DCA6:A500:B53F:F89D:6F04:B4DE (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually Thebiguglyalien agreed with your removal of that content. We're all basically on the same page here. With regard to "condescending tone", it's really easy to misinterpret one another when we're all communicating with text only, often about topics we care deeply about. But there was no violation of civility in Thebiguglyalien's reply. In order to work here effectively you've got to have a moderately thick skin. That said, we can all stand to be reminded once in a while not to bite the newcomers. Generalrelative (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m unsure how I’m “soapboxing” nor was I just here to “explain how bad something was.” His characterization of my post was frankly a condescending way to go about it. I’ve skimmed the rules and from my understanding I’ve correctly followed the process for the problem I’ve identified. His behavior is uncalled for. I think my skin is plenty thick, if he doesn’t want to be called out than he can choose to be more polite and charitable himself.
Anyway, I hope there will be more eyes now from experienced people on that article that aren’t interested in advancing a particular narrative that is aimed at excusing and minimizing crimes against humanity. 2001:818:DCA6:A500:2C48:83C6:F108:C4A1 (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, however in the lead of the article is "the Free Papua Movement has conducted a low-intensity guerrilla war against Indonesia through the targeting of its military, police, and civilian populations." That is a POV statement which is unacceptable. That's verging on calling a legitimate movement for national liberation a bunch of terrorists. This article needs a clean up. TarnishedPathtalk 08:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started a move request from Jewish religious terrorism to Jewish extremist terrorism on that article's talk-page, see [30]. (The proposed title is currently a redirect.) More participation would be very welcome. NightHeron (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the image that appears in the summary when you hover over that link on desktop, and why is it there? DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image is File:Lipoma 04.jpg, which documents a surgical procedure and has nothing to do with the topic except perhaps to suggest dismemberment. The Lipoma image also shows up when hovering over links to just religious terrorism. Links to religious violence and terrorism also have associated images. It seems to be part of the hovering mechanism, but I haven't been able to figure out where that mechanism gets images. The ability to link hover-overs with images without any review has obvious NPOV issues. Perhaps anI started an inquiry at Village Pump technical: --agr (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Coup attempt" for title/description of Operation Gideon (2020)[edit]

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.

Hello! Hoping whoever reading this is enthusiastic about discussing a NPOV issue on a Venezuelan topic! Anyways, there was a divided discussion about whether or not "coup" is the best way to describe Operation Gideon, an attempt by mercenaries to forcibly remove Nicolás Maduro from office and install Juan Guaidó as president of Venezuela. The debate about the use of the word "coup" has occurred multiple times; see here, here and here. There is no hope that this dispute will be solved by the usually-involved editors, so external input is required.

Thank you! --WMrapids (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Those in support of the use of the "coup" cite a number of policies and essays:

  • WP:RS: Numerous reliable sources describe the incident as a "coup attempt"
  • WP:POVNAMING: "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."
  • WP:CODENAME: "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially leading writers to focus on that side's point of view). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name, for all but the most well-known operations"
  • WP:NCE: "If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime".

Those who oppose the "coup" description say is a "loaded term", cite WP:COUP and argue that it is not widely used.

Before becoming involved, please review WP:SOURCECOUNTING; we are not here to count sources all over again.

Thank you for taking the time to read through this! WMrapids (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: it is amazing how many boards, RM and RfC have been opened just because you cannot wait for a proper discussion. This one is settled as a WP:POLL or a RM, like the kind of process that was requested to wait after a messy 6th RM on the topic. You campaign against WP:LAWYERING but you start now every RfC with a list by reading us guidelines in your favour. You fail to WP:LISTEN.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ReyHahn: Reminding you to be WP:CIVIL. I did my best to summarize three years of arguments about this NPOV dispute. Knowing that you oppose the "coup" description, it would be more helpful if you explain why the use of "coup attempt" is not NPOV. Thank you. WMrapids (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict) My concerns with the 'coup' title are not just about WP:NPOV, but even that, can be read in the last RM and in the follow-up short-lived reconciliation discussions. I return you the same request of WP:CIVIL. We have summarized three years of arguments many times, but this year it has been under very messy and rushed conditions. If this discussion is to be held, can you please consider reformulating this board discussion in a neutral manner?--ReyHahn (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There appears to be a lot of ongoing discussion at the articles talk page. I would suggest this is closed and discussion continues there. Starting RFCs should be a substitute for discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 22:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct; this is plain vanilla forum shopping when an organized discussion was just started on talk, to attempt to plan an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And RFC hadn't been started though, so that's only one forum. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Please assume WP:GOODFAITH and don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. A discussion of 5 users (myself included) recycling the same arguments was becoming disruptive to progress, so per the recommendation, outside opinions were sought and nothing more. Apologies if it seemed rushed, though WMrapids (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The title question aside (since this is a bit of a distraction from the core issue), the page is indeed rather in need of some scrutiny in terms of NPOV. Despite dozens of independent, reliable sources using the language of "coup" for the event, this term has been marginalized on the page and placed in an "analysis" section where it makes "coup" out to be some sort of POV label, despite the widespread use of the term in sources of all kinds and geographies. There's clearly some sort of beef against the use of "coup", which seems to be being treated as a specialist term rather than as mundane, descriptive language. This is odd in the context given how the usage is so clearly visible in the sources, and how the term is so plainly applicable to the event described: the attempted removal of a head of state, i.e. literally defining a coup. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Clearly a coup attempt... How is this even a question? WP:RS don't seem to leave room for equivocation. I'm getting the sense that there are a number of pro and anti Guaidó editors who have jumped the shark into partisan promotional editing and who now constitute a net negative for the project. @WMrapids: I would advise finding a topic area you have less of a emotional connection to, this is getting plainly disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Horse Eye's Back, I started looking in three days ago, after seeing a post at WT:MILHIST, and I believe I've now read almost all the sources (some I will need to go to RX for, so I haven't yet formulated my own opinion).
    The article may well end up with some version of "coup" in the title (after seven move requests), but an RFC with broader participation is intended to get to the bottom of recurring disagreement; the sources are not as clear as some have presented, with a tendency to put up long lists of sources that don't always say what proponents claim they say. There were two "Operations" planned and run by the private security firm, Silvercorp USA -- one "Operation Resolution" that started out intending to be what could be described as a coup attempt, but never had support that SilverCorp founder Goudreau claimed it did to his "troops" and potential investors, and which was essentially abandoned by all but Goudreau. Once the Associated Press revealed his folly, Goudreau launched his own "Operation Gideon" which proceeded as what can well be described colloquially as "Goudreau's private folly" (my term-- sources use different versions that amount to the same thing). The actual May 2020 event was driven by a private individual not "in his right mind" as described by sources. Is one-man's ego-driven military incursion intending to capture/kidnap Maduro for bounty a "coup"? Some high quality sources (like The Washington Post) don't use the term, for example. Chavismo used to advantage the capture of two American ex-soldiers (Goudreau's service buddies) for publicity, claiming a US coup attempt. Early news reports also labeled it a "coup"; what about more enduring sources written with some remove from the event, as more facts were revealed? I hope a structured RFC can get to the bottom of this; it doesn't seem straightforward.
    My approach has been to encourage proponents for each option to lay out the best sources for an article name, and let the community decide in an RFC. (I'm still trying to get hold of a few sources, but I'm inclined to think either SilverCorp, or Goudreau's name for his private operation, should be worked in to the title, as that's all it was.) But design the RFC collaboratively, with advance discussion, so independent editors don't have to read through reams of bludgeoning; the multiple "no consensus" discussions (like others in the same content area) are plagued by misrepresentation of sources, poor quality sources, tendentious statements, personalization, and bludgeoning from those who seem over-invested in this one outcome, assuring that independent editors will not want to read through. A better structured RFC might illustrate how to conduct a discussion towards an enduring result, and attract broader community input, with hopefully a side benefit of understanding that independent feedback is unlikely with bludgeoned discussions and long lists of sources that either are not reliable or don't say what some think they say. The model for my approach is the highly contentious J. K. Rowling which retained its FA status via a featured article review that imposed such a structured approach. Collaboration evolved as the entrenched realized misbehavior wasn't going to be rewarded, and editors with vastly different viewpoints got to work and ended up coming to consensus. Call me Pollyanna, but I believe it can be done.
    The article-- like most dealing with Venezuela-- is subpar, so can't (yet) be trusted for content, and a subpar source list that is misrepresented is parked on talk. I'm hoping that a structured process will lend a clue about how to properly use sources, conduct a collaborative discussion, and lower some of the tension in the content area. And yield an enduring result, with buy-in. I hope others will encourage this direction; if a collaborative approach turns out to be my delusion, I've got more productive places to spend my time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back: For some reason I did not get your ping, but I assure you that I am not emotionally attached; I only wanted to help find answers. As you pointed out, Venezuelan topics are highly polarized and some users are stubborn with their decisions. Since the move request was closed, the talk page has doubled in size in a little over a day (nearly 75k bytes and over 100 edits) with no clear solution put forward by the handful of users involved (including myself). This issue has remained for three years regarding the title/description, which is a disruption in itself. So I apologize if I got excited and opened this discussion hurriedly as I was only trying to help, especially after it was suggested by a fellow user, Iskandar323. Recognizing that if one of the main proposals by the many users supporting the usage of "coup" is not found to be WP:NPOV, it would defeat the continued argument to support it per WP:NPOVNAME (I, like you, support the usage of "coup attempt"). Again, I recognize that you don't want to waste yours or anyone else's time with disruptive editing, but neither did I, and that is why this discussion was opened. I hope you can respect and understand my reasoning. WMrapids (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

I think this is the right place[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at that talk page, it just seems to be threads and threads of FMSky making honestly rather dumb edits and claims. How anyone can take them seriously after the "anti-trans doesn't mean anti-transgender" thread is beyond me. They seem like a trolling account. SilverserenC 02:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you're looking for MOS:JESUS? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dumuzid agh, so easy, why didn’t I think of that. Short and sweet as they say but I guess sufficient. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's vague, and simply a bit silly. In many theological topics, and also art history, we should follow RS and just use "Christ", after an initial link, and perhaps spelling it out. The advice to use "Jesus of Nazareth" is, in most contexts, ridiculous. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mostly agree, but I do think it is wise to avoid "Christ" outside of explicitly Christian religious contexts for the reasons discussed at the MOS. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In most contexts you would just use Jesus, only need to disambiguate when there's multiple Jesuses being discussed. Also note that on wikipedia the initial link would be to Jesus, there is nothing at Jesus Christ except a redirect to Jesus. Its like Cher or Bono, unless there's more than one no need to make it complicated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MOS:JESUS makes sense to me. We certainly would not say Jesus Christ in the Jesus in Islam article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, we do. Perhaps that should be corrected. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, Muslims do call Jesus, as one among multiple names, "the Christ" (Arabic: al-Masīḥ, from the Hebrew Māshīaḥ, meaning 'Messiah', 'Anointed One'; Greek: Khristós, whence English 'Christ'), although they do not regard Jesus as a messiah in the Christian sense of savior. See the sources cited in Masih (title). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 00:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't that the term used by Arab Christians, not followers of Islam? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It occurs eleven times in the Quran: 3:45, 4:157, 4:171, 4:172, 5:17 (two times), 5:72 (two times), 5:75, 9:30, and 9:31. A title of such definite Quranic authority would certainly be recognized by Muslims, and used at least in the context of Quran recitation. Whether and how it was actually used by later Muslims outside of Quran recitation I do not know. If you would happen to find some reliable sourced information on that topic, please do add it to Masih (title). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 02:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it should. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Al-Masīḥ is mostly perceived as an epithet without conveying a honorific baggage (just as "Christ" does not for many English speakers). But in the article about Jesus in Islam, "Jesus Christ" should be restricted to literal translations of ʽIsā al-Masīḥ in quotes from the Qur'an. For all other mentions, plain and simple "Jesus" is sufficient. –Austronesier (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that makes sense. However, I would urge editors to look at what the relevant RS are doing. In my view, we should always strive to adopt the terminology current among the most high-quality RS, rather than enforce our own standard based upon editorial opinion. In the discussion which sparked Doug's original question here, there is a very real problem of editors obstinately refusing to look at RS or to take them into account in any way. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 17:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends on whether you have merely stubbed your toe, or whether you have full-on hit your thumb with a hammer. If, on the other hand, you are witnessing full-grown dinosaurs that have been revived through genetic engineering, an infix may be necessary. BD2412 T 21:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this special case, the most popular English infix is actually an interfix. –Austronesier (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know we actually have a page for that under Jesus H. Christ Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Writing "Jesus Christ" in Wikipedia's voice is tantamount to telling our readers that Jesus is "the son of God and the messiah", which is a glaring violation of the neutral point of view. His name was not Jesus Christ, and Christ is a religious title that means "anointed one" or "messiah". Further information about his original name can be found at Yeshua. Simply calling him "Jesus" suffices in almost all circumstances. Cullen328 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree withUser:Cullen328 on this. Calling him Christ or Jesus Christ is a religious statement and Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 06:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" for a similar discussion. And we avoid "Lord Krishna". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles and honorifics Doug Weller talk 06:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resoundingly meh on that point. As a fan-club appointed title it's no worse than Bill Windsor's one, and it helps disambiguate from anyone else of the same name. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem with Prince William as no matter how one may perceive the anachronism of monarchies, it is his title. I don’t have a problem with Prince Valiant or Lord Voldemort either in their articles as the articles are written within the context of fiction. I think Christ can be used in the correct context in the Jesus article, as it is. That is, “Most Christians believe….” instead of stating as fact. I agree with Austronesier that the Jesus in Islam article should only use the term when used in quotations. The Jesus in Christianity article also requires care as not all Christians are Trinitarian. This is a wordy way of agreeing with Cullen to avoid WikiVoice. I can’t say “meh” about the subject as wars have begun over such nonsense. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our observance of aristocratic norms is one of the hangovers from the UK's early influence on ewiki and has lessened over time. I would be very surprised if our treatment of aristocracy doesn't conform more to the global norm and not the British one in a decade or two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So long as we keep KBE out of the Giuliani article, which is MOS anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

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