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 Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes:
Click here to start a new discussion
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

Is content sourced to a particular article published by MichaelWestMedia and APAC.news due for inclusion in Australian Strategic Policy Institute?[edit]

On Australian Strategic Policy Institute there has been a dispute about the inclusion of content sourced to a MichaelWestMedia article written by Marcus Ruebenstein. The article is currently used to support the sentence, In August 2021, Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein wrote that "sockpuppet" accounts and accounts that appeared to be linked to ASPI had edited its Wikipedia article.

To give a history on the disputed content:

I don't want to extend this reversion cycle any further, especially given that editors (including myself) seem to no longer have an agreement over what the stable version of the article was. Discussions on the article's talk page don't appear to have been able to reach consensus. So I'm appealing to this noticeboard to help resolve the dispute, via the RfC opened below. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?[edit]

Question: Is it WP:DUE to state in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article that In August 2021, Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein wrote that "sockpuppet" accounts and accounts that appeared to be linked to ASPI had edited its Wikipedia article, based off of the two references (1 2) present?

  • Option 1: No, it is not due.
  • Option 2: Yes, it is due.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Discussion: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?[edit]

  • Not Due. In my understanding, it's atypical that a standalone opinion piece from a minor outlet would be due in an article, except when that opinion pieve is either referred to by a reliable secondary source or written by a relevant subject matter expert. In this case, the article was originally published by MichaelWestMedia and republished by APAC.news, so it might superficially appear that such a source exists. However, this isn't the case.
Certainly, APAC news's republication of a MichaelWestMedia can't contribute towards the reliability of the piece; after all, "APAC News" was created by Reubenstein in October of 2019 and is still run by him (see footer), so it's totally non-independent of the article's author.
After looking into the sources a bit, I'm unsure of the extent to which, and the previous discussion on the reliability of the sources did not appear to gain a consensus on the extent of the reliability and independence from relevant parties. It appears that MichaelWestMedia might not clearly mark what are opinion pieces as opposed to what is straight reporting (see this example of an unlabeled opinion piece, or this one, or this one, etc.). Given the listing of the article as opinion on its "APAC News" (self-)republication, I would think it most reasonable to consider it so (especially since Reubenstein both wrote the piece and edits the website).
I'm also don't think that Reubenstein is an expert on the topic of Wikipedia sockpuppetry or internal functions, which is evidenced by the numerous errors in the article about how Wikipedia functions and most egregiously evidenced in verifiably inaccurate claim regarding the identity of the suspected sockmaster of Telsho. Additionally, according to an article in the South China Morning Post, Ruebenstein's articles about Australia-China economic ties have been republished by China’s state media, and he has made several appearances on state-run China Global Television Network. He appears to (archive) have written content for China's state-run Xinhua News Agency as recently as June of 2020. The APAC news website footer (archive) explicitly notes that the APAC News website is not blocked in Mainland China. Considering the current state of affairs regarding China and ASPI, I'm not sure that using an opinion piece written by a Xinhua writer and frequent CGTN commentator for facts in the article is a great idea, especially when there are clear factual errors present in the article.
All in all, I'm not convinced as to the reliability of the publisher and the author as a source for facts on this topic, I'm rather certain that the article is an opinion piece, and I believe that the inclusion of the website's claims is undue in the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Why is this on the NPOV noticeboard? This clearly belongs on the article talk page. Michael West Media is a relatively prominent source of news and current affairs reporting in Australia which meets our standards. The content in the article for which the Michael West Media article is a reference is easily verifiable by Wikipedia editors, and reflects a notable perspective on the article subject. This is clearly another desperate attempt to remove criticism from the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
This seems a case of both WP:STICK and forum shopping. Searching the Australian version of The Guardian for "Michael West" Australia returns a fair few stories where The Guardian has cited this news website, which indicates that it's a reliable and noteworthy source. The material here is one sentence, so it's not like it's excessive! Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
When there's a no local consensus after extensive discussions, the next step is to bring in outside opinions to try to work out a consensus. You're right, I should have raised the RfC on the talk page by that very same policy, and I would be happy to move it over to the article talk if there are no objections from you and the other editor who has commented thus far. That being said, this is literally the noticeboard to discuss neutral point of view, which is what WP:DUE falls under. To the best of my ability, I've informed every editor who made a related edit (in the talk or in the article itself) that this discussion was taking place here, and I've left a note on the article talk page. And, yes, one sentence given to a random opinion piece from a non-reliable author is one sentence too many. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Onetwothreeip: I have no issue with there being criticism in the article, and I've removed stuff from the article that seemed like advertorial puffery. The insinuation that I am desperately trying to remove criticism-quo-criticism is unfounded; my problem, as I've explained above, is with the particular source being an opinion article from a non-subject expert author. My own looking through sources doesn't appear to show that MichaelWestMedia is a relatively prominent source of news and current affairs reporting in Australia, and the very fact that there are basic errors that any real Wikipedian can verify shows doesn't indicate that the site places a premium on fact-checking. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You're not going to get anywhere with stating that the reference is an "opinion piece", as Wikipedia extensively uses opinion articles from reliable sources to support the inclusion of factual information. The content in the Wikipedia article is factual, not opinion. The error that you claim is in the Michael West Media article has nothing to do with the Wikipedia content that relies on it. Continuing to claim the source is not reliable is beating a dead horse, it's been shown that other reliable sources rely on Michael West Media, which is the easiest test of reliability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
But Michael West Media is not a reliable source... Unless you can point to a consensus that says otherwise the horse is definitely not dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The article talk page, for a start. It has been explained multiple times that Michael West Media has been relied upon by The New Daily and Guardian Australia, both of which are already considered reliable sources. There's not a particularly high barrier for it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
There is no consensus on the article talk page... If you really think otherwise please quote and/or link it. If you want to establish MWM as a WP:RS might I suggest you open a discussion at WP:RSN to do so instead of making that argument here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have no need to do that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No you don’t need to do that, but if you don’t do that and continue to claim that there is consensus for reliability then you would continue to lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No, the reliable sources noticeboard is not usually relevant to talk page consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not due per WP:NOTNEWS. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I'm not sure if the question should be whether this is "due" or "not due", but this isn't new for Wikipedia – Saskatoon_freezing_deaths#Censorship_attempts and this Reuters report are some examples. Nevertheless, it definitely seems highly suspect that sockpuppets have tried to prowl the article of material that they found undesirable in their view. It may seem useful to keep the report based on the extraordinary circumstance. Otterslort (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Otterslort: its not a report and the forensics (if one can even call them that) on it are sloppy to the point of being unusable... For instance the sockpupper Telsho is attributed to Waskertoon when they’re actually suspected of being a Ineedtostopforgetting sock. Those sock farms have completely different political outlooks which render’s the conclusion the author draws from their misattribution of Telsho mistaken (to be polite). What extraordinary circumstance would you be referring to? The author’s incompetence? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The Wikipedia article says nothing about which users are the sockpuppet accounts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not due, unreliable source and unreliable/non-notable author... Also appears to have been published as an opinion piece on the author’s blog ("APAC News"). Note that the Author labels their own work as commentary (Section heading is “Comment, News") but Michael West Media doesn’t... Thats an issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Though they are practically the same piece, inclusion of the content relies upon the Michael West Media source (which is a sufficient source), not the APAC News source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You appear to be relying on both sources not just MWM [1]. Did you not mean to use APAC as the source as well? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
We can use both but the Michael West Media source is required. I didn't add either source into the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Huh, am I reading that diff wrong? Because I would swear that the diff is of you adding the info and *both* sources to the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think Onetwothreeip is saying, for whatever it's worth, that they didn't originally add both sources. Onetwothreeip has repeatedly ensured that both blogs are used in the article when other editors have removed one. [2] Cjhard (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have ensured that the Michael West Media source is used. I don't have an opinion on whether to use the APAC News source. 21:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment This story was also covered here on John Menadue's blog in a piece written by Ian Cunliffe. It is still just a rehashing of the Reubenstein article though and the blog is not the most reliable but does seem to have some editorial standards/oversight. Unfortunately, this story is probably not appropriate for inclusion without wider and more reliable coverage. I say unfortunately as I think the story is hilarious, probably true and is most certainly rife across WP. We have to stick to good sources though. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    One reliable source is enough for the majority of content that appears on Wikipedia, and the Michael West Media source is sufficient. This is a discussion for the article talk page though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree that the way this has been brought to RfC is strange and, if I didn't assume good faith in all fellow editors, would appear to be an attempt to exclude people who were already discussing this on the talk page. This has still not been mentioned on the talk page and no one involved in the discussion was pinged. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Vladimir.copic: just FYI those are involved editors not uninvolved editors, not an issue just thought you should know. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Horse Eye's Back: thanks. I clearly mean they are as yet uninvolved in this RfC which took the discussion off the Talk page into a different forum. Otherwise I would have tagged every single other WP editor. Thanks again for your help. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Due. MWM is a popular but smaller outlet in Australia. It's more popular among younger, more informed Australians. Further, it's clear that some editors of the Wikipedia article (including some here, won't mention names) are potentially sinophobic, and favour articles that aren't neutral, and that hold biases against China. TLDR; Possible shills could be in our midst. Ultranova1337 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Noting that we should avoid assuming bad faith, I very much agree that this is the kind of topic that will draw out people who aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. With that in mind, has anyone here noticed that the editor who added the contentious content is a single-purpose account that has NEVER edited on anything else before or since? This is an embarrassing failure of administration. Cjhard (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah, and so what? I've only committed a change once, everyone has a first time. Anyone can contribute to an open source project. Gatekeeping much? xD Ultranova1337 (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1: No, it is not due. These are blogs. Cjhard (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1: Not due. As per above, weak source(s) as obvious from the inaccuracies in the reportage about Wikipedia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1: Not due. This is not a significant enough opinion. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Just as an FYI to everyone here, since there are now editors making very brief comments here, there isn't an outcome of this discussion that would have any binding effect on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article. If you want your view to be represented in the content of that article, I encourage you to join discussion on the article talk page. Writing "due" or "not due" in bold on this page doesn't actually do anything. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Are you claiming that consensus achieved at a centralized noticeboard wouldn't be community consensus in any meaningful way? Am I reading this statement correctly?— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • There is no community consensus matter here. This is about content on one specific article, and talk page discussion there takes precedence. Community consensus or global consensus is for broad principles that cover multiple articles. The community is invited to discuss the content of the article on the article talk page. Noticeboards aren't a way to appeal against article talk page consensus not going your way, which has now happened twice. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • It's highly atypical to absolutely ignore a noticeboard discussion in which there's been substantial community involvement. I don't think there's a basis for declaring that [j]ust as an FYI to everyone here... there isn't an outcome of this discussion that would have any binding effect on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article. That isn't how consensus-building works; when we are able to discern a consensus at a community level, then that consensus gets applied at a local level. This is something that happens all the time, especially on WP:RSN. And, the notion that I'm trying to appeal against article talk page consensus is bogus; there was (and remains) no consensus on the article talk page and I've explained my rationale above for why I made the RfC already and how editors were notified. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          @Mikehawk10: This is mostly just a repeat of arguments that have been made on the article talk page, not a reflection of the broader community. NPOV noticeboard isn't an appropriate place for an RfC, especially for a dispute that only applies to one article. If this was relevant to several articles it might belong on a noticeboard like this, but consensus on a noticeboard does not equate automatically to community consensus. You would be much better advised to do what was done in the preceding section, #Apple cider vinegar RfC, where the RfC is on the relevant article talk page and what is on this noticeboard is a link to it. Because a noticeboard isn't where consensus would be formed on this, editors who would provide their view on the article talk page wouldn't provide it here, and that can easily skew any apparent consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Yes, the idea that the talk page reached consensus is a very interesting reading of the discussion. Cjhard (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          The content in the article is stable after numerous changes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • You say stable, others would say you edit-warred and stonewalled the article. Also the stability of the article says absolutely nothing about the existence of talk page consensus. Cjhard (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • I don't think the litany of changes described on this page and the lack of edits being made while an RfC is pending, taken together, show that the content is "stable". — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
            There isn't an RfC open that would impact the article, but no RfC would prevent edits being made on the article either. There were several changes that happened over two months, and this is not unusual, leading to a better version. Editors should raise issues they may have with content in the article talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
            • This is taking WP:IDHT to new heights. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
              What I have said is directly relevant to claims made to who I am responding to. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
              Drawing of a person sticking their fingers in their ears.
              "There's nothing wrong with my editing!"
              Ultranova1337 (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Should BDS activists be used to define Zionist Orgs?[edit]

I debated between the RSN and NPOV, and ended up here. Here's the primary source in question:

The Israel Lobby and the European Union

Of the three authors of that paper:

  • David Miller - Has been publicly accused of anti-semitism (link)
  • David Cronin - Blogs for the Electronic Intifada
  • Sarah Marusek - Is a Pro-Palestine activist

And the discussions that have happened so far.

I'm under the contention that in the context of writing about Zionist Orgs, BDS activists and writers for Electronic Intifada writers should be seen as hostile, and their writing should be seen as an opinion, not factual.

This source has been used to define StandWithUs as "right wing" and is currently being used to criticize the organization in the lead: "Reportedly SWU work closely with the Israeli government, do not believe the West Bank is occupied and support Israeli settlements"

Bringing in @Selfstudier: for a contrary view.

This same issue exists with other sources on the same page, with self-proclaimed BDS activists being used to define StandByUs. I suspect that this problem will come up again on other pages. So I'd like to see if we can get a clear resolution.

So I'd put it up to a vote:

  • Option 1: In the context of Zionism, the source is recognized as being generally reliable.
  • Option 2: In the context of Zionism, there is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
  • Option 3: In the context of Zionism, the source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
  • Option 4: In the context of Zionism, the source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

An accusation of anti-semitism does not make it so, and an academic's professional output can't be disregarded on the basis of their personal activity, including participation in BDS. But it isn't exactly controversial that StandWithUs is right wing. The Forward: Rothstein rejects the claims of critics who say this constitutes a right-wing agenda. But a close look at SWU’s learning material and talking points reveals a right of center narrative on issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Haaretz: The Prime Minister's Office will pay the right-wing Israel-advocacy group StandWithUs just over 1 million shekels ($254,000) to help it push the government's political line this year via social media, the Israeli media website The Seventh Eye reported on Tuesday. Waxman, Dov (2010). "The Israel Lobbies: A Survey of the Pro-Israel Community in the United States". Israel Studies Forum. Berghahn Books. 25 (1): 10. ISSN 1557-2455. JSTOR 41805051. Retrieved 2021-09-29. includes StandWithUs in its list of right wing pro-Israel groups as well. nableezy - 20:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well it would be interesting to turn the question about, wouldn't it? Should Zionist orgs (what is a Zionist org, anyway? Do you mean pro Israel?) be used to define BDS? Because if not, there is a lot of stuff I can go delete on the BDS article. I made it clear on the talk page of the article what I think, for each of the reasons you gave above for discounting the authors, my considered response would be "so what?" If bias is the only argument, you would need to demonstrate an active and strong bias and I see no evidence of that up to now. I say option 1 for this source absent any further evidence. "In the context of Zionism" is a false premise, the source is commenting on SWU, not "Zionism".Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Flip it around? The BDS article has a single sentence in the lead and it begins with the phrase "Critics say that...".
That's how I've been advocating that these sources be used, and it's the model for how BDS activist descriptions of Zionists and pro-Israel orgs should done across the site. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
A "model" is inappropriate, every case is different and depends on what the sources say.Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This source is clearly a work of advocacy - it is sponsored by EuroPal Forum, described as "an independent organisation advocating Palestinian rights", and funded by "Friends of Al Aqsa" whose golas are (among other things), "Putting pressure on the British government" and "Mobilising international condemnation for Israel’s apartheid policies to be manifested through the boycott of Israel". It may be usable for the authors' opinion, but that's about it. It can't be used to state things as facts in Wikipedia's voice. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

We are discussing the issue here, you don't get to comment here and then go enforce your opinion at the article, please wait for the conclusion of the discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You introduced controversial material into the lead, and it was challenged and reverted. Now we discuss. That's how it works. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
We were already discussing it. (btw, BRD is not a policy because you still need a proper reason to revert something).Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The reason was given above: we can't use highly biased advocacy sources to state things as facts in the lead. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I generally dont think we should use ones political opponents to define them, but you cannot dismiss an academic work on the basis of the academics politics. I didnt really look at this specific source, and if it is advocacy then it should not be used as anything other than opinion. But for the content, which I think this board is concerned with, it is easily sourced to third party non-opinion sources that StandWithUs is right-wing. And that isnt a NPOV violation to say so absent sources that actually say that it is not. nableezy - 22:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This is not academic work, though. It is advocacy, funded by an advocacy group and published in a non-peer reviewed medium. It's written by people who happen to be academics, but that does not automatically make all their output "academic work" as that term is used here. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't think it's the "right wing" thing he is complaining about, I resolved that with a ToI link saying SWU is right wing, which is not a criticism anyway, just a fact.Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Nableezy: This source is used six different times on the page. It may be used on other pages too.
It seems that it is indeed advocacy, so I'd like to see if we can get agreement on the following:
* This source should be considered generally unreliable in terms of describing Zionism, Zionists, and Zionist Orgs
* It should be used sparingly in that context
* It can only be used in that context for opinions which are spelled out as criticism, not factual content. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Are we not voting anymore? The six times should be easy to fix, at least two of them are lead cites for things already cited in the body.Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I'd avoid David Miller due to his promotion of conspiracy theories related to the Syrian Civil War. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • 'Option 3. Very biased, some embroiled in antisemitism controvesies, and with conflict of interest in regarda to their BDS aftivism. Best avoided, unless showing a viewpoint of an opponent of Zionism is due.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

*Option 4: And not because I'm pro-Israel. Activist sources (and even activist non-specialist academics) should be considered unreliable on any political, social or historical topic. They are a main reliability issue faced by wikipedia: '"Oh but assistant professor in critical dance theory from Omaha community college says that X happened - we NEED his opinion in the Lede."' It is a major flaw in the project. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Non ecp editors not permitted to participate in internal project discussions related to IP area.Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment Judging by the !vote options, it's clear that this is not an WP:NPOV issue, or at least, it's not formulated as such. I suggest you take this to WP:RSN. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @M.Bitton: I did a search. The source is used multiple times on StandWithUs, and only used as a reference on one other page as a trivial reference. So far, only Selfstudier seems to be defending it as a reliable source. Nableezy was somewhat equivocal saying _if_ it's advocacy it should go away. Is there really a need to rehash this entire conversation on RSN, or can we just move toward closing it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • @Bob drobbs: Closing it won't change the fact that even if consensus is achieved here (it doesn't look that way), it will be invalidated by the inappropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        • @Selfstudier: Are you willing to agree to remove the content from this source, and replace it with content from other sources? Or are you going to insist that this conversation continue and be relocated to WP:RSN -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Bob drobbs: As I said on the talk page I have been collecting up source material from here and there, it is only recently that I have taken an active interest in the matter, previously I was only really concerned with the "right wing" business. The material has already been reverted out of the lead by another editor with the result that the lead currently reads like an ad so the case is not so pressing, since you yourself were the person who moved the material into the body from the lead and it seems reasonable therefore to assume that you agreed with the content at the time, you just didn't like it being in the lead. Frankly, the attempt to turn the lead of this article into a puff piece for the org is disturbing, afaics this org is way worse than the source you are complaining about here, I would never under any circumstances use them as a source for anything, most of their sps claims are refuted by reliable sources and I intend to add them. It is up to you to decide whether to take the matter to RSN which was what I had suggested in the first place, I don't really know why you brought it here.Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Selfstudier: The latest version of the page has the content removed from the lead, included in criticism, and it has David Miller spelled out as one of the authors with a link to his page. I'm happy with that if you are. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • @Bob drobbs: It is what it is, I will edit the article if I see a need to, just as you have been doing, whether or not I agreed, right? Selfstudier (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The political views of writers has nothing to do with whether their facts are accurate. Facts and opinions are different things. As Sen. Pat Moynihan once said, while we are all entitled to our opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. And anyway, what ideological positions would you consider acceptable? Would a Zionist source be acceptable? Or do we need to find sources that express no opinion? Are we supposed to carry out ideology checks on all writers? There is nothing in policy and guidelines to support such a position and it would become very unwieldy. TFD (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@The Four Deuces: Someone above described it well -- "I generally don't think we should use ones political opponents to define them.... Though, I'd take it further and say that we should only use one's political opponents to define them as a last resort. But that's just my opinion and I've learned it's not against the rules.
I do note that on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions page, claims that it's anti-Semitic, from the ADL (a reliable source) are phrased as "Critics say..." instead of writing them as fact ("BDS is anti-Semitic"). That seems 100% correct to me. Would you suggest changing that?
Moving on, the source in question has other issues. It seems the reason we can't get agreement to label it as "advocacy" is only Selfstudier's obstructionism. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The ADL says in "Is BDS Antisemitic?" which is used as a source for that conclusion:
Many of the founding goals of the BDS movement, including denying the Jewish people the universal right of self-determination – along with many of the strategies employed in BDS campaigns are anti-Semitic. Many individuals involved in BDS campaigns are driven by opposition to Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state. Often time, BDS campaigns give rise to tensions in communities – particularly on college campuses – that can result in harassment or intimidation of Jews and Israel supporters, including overt antisemitic expression and acts. This dynamic can create an environment in which antisemitism can be expressed more freely.
And, all too often, BDS advocates employ antisemitic rhetoric and narratives to isolate and demonize Israel.[3]
The reference to self-determination is taken from the the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism.[4] The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism for example does not support this and in fact says that BDS is not anti-Semitic. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) does not mention this in its article about anti-Semitism and does not list BDS as a hate group.[5] Ironically, David Feldman, Director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism, who is cited as accusing David Miller of anti-Semitism is himself controversial. On the day the article appeared, the Pears Foundation removed their name from the institute because of Miller's dispute with the IHRA about its working definition.[6] In this article, Feldman says it is unclear whether BDS meets the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism since it says that among other things opposition to the Jewish right to a homeland “could, taking into account the overall context,” not meet the definition.[7]
While I am not saying BDS is right, I am saying that whether or not it is anti-Semitic is disputed. Bear in mind that it supports equal citizenship for Jews and Palestinians in a secular One-state solution. While it may be subtle anti-Semitism, it's not in the same league as holocaust denial or other blatant anti-Semitism.
You mention that there may be other issues, but the poster chose to focus on this one. They should have said, "Is this an article by experts, which meets rs, or is it by activists, which doesn't." When someone asks a question by putting in every possible argument, I will oppose it if any of their claims fail. One should not present multiple arguments in the hope that one of them will stick.
TFD (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I think in the essence of neutrality, it would be best, as this appears to be a decent source, that considerations be given their WP:DUE and that certain controversial perspectives can be attributed. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 as BDS activists are way too involved in the subject so are not neutral. Free1Soul (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 5: it's not an RS at all and shouldn't be used for any purpose. Nevermind the authors, the publisher doesn't appear reliable. This report is published by advocacy organizations (and not by a university press, it's just hosted on a university website), it says so right on the first page (the publisher is SpinWatch Public Interest Investigations, an antipropaganda nonprofit, and it's also sponsored by EuroPal Forum, a pro-Palestinian nonprofit). This is not an academic paper. Using this as a source would be like citing WINEP: shouldn't be done. We should stick to academic works and not advocacy works. Universities, not non-profits. Also this is an RSN thread not a NPOVN thread (and anyway, generally reliable/unreliable/deprecated is for publishers, not individual works). All these issues are discussed in sections of WP:RS: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SPONSORED, and WP:PARTISAN. If it were partisan scholarship it might be ok with attribution, but because it's sponsored by advocacy orgs (and published by them), it's not an RS at all. Levivich 15:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
None of those links say anything close to what you say they do. What they do say though is Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. This is not sponsored content, so I am not entirely sure what that reference is to, but feel free to clarify it. But this isnt even RSN, it is NPOVN, and several sources support the material. What is proposed here is removing academic expert sources on the basis of their personal affiliations. Now I didnt think Wikipedia would ever actually have such an argument, where internet sleuths are challenging actual expert sources, but I cant honestly imagine that you would even begin to support such an idea as it seems rather antithetical to many of your positions on sources that I am aware of. nableezy - 13:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment The same information has been alternatively sourced rendering this question moot as a practical matter.Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • A good example of why it's rarely worth arguing about whether a source is an WP:RS: anything a questionable source says that is WP:DUE will be easily found in other uncontroversial RSes. Because we summarize multiple RSes, DUE article content will rarely hinge upon a single RS (except for obscure subjects, which this is not). BTW I noticed StandWithUs cites a bunch of unreliable sources, like those listed as yellow at RSP. Levivich 15:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • The reliance on the source has been greatly reduced in the article, and it's no longer being used to define the group. But it is still being used, so this topic isn't totally moot. (link) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • That sounds like an ordinary content dispute about whether someone's opinion is WP:DUE for inclusion which can be handled on the article talk page with the usual dispute resolution methods. But I will say this: we shouldn't cite to someone's opinion for their opinion. A source is a primary source for the opinions of the author expressed in that source. Instead, we should be citing to a secondary source (this is also written up in WP:RS). So if Person A writes Article A expressing Opinion A, we should not cite to Article A for "According to Person A, Opinion A". Instead, we need a reliable secondary source (Article B written by Person B), which says "According to Person A, Opinion A". In other words, cite Person B/Article B for Person A's opinion. The reason is that Person A's opinion is not significant and thus not DUE for inclusion unless some other reliable sources have written about it. (And this is why there is almost never a reason to cite an unreliable source for any purpose in a Wikipedia article.) Levivich 17:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. I refuse to vote because framing complex issues, esp. by profiling the politics of academics, as options is unwikipedian. As with the CounterPunch RS discussion, this leads to just a con fused mess by editors with little knowledge of the area, conceptual confusion and politicking instead of the careful evaluation of source, authorial qualifications, publication venue and context, and in that case a majority ignored the fact that scores of high profile scholars and academics publish in CounterPunch. By introducing an identical vote-for-one-of-4- options also here, we are introducing a dubious practice. A huge number of our sources in the IP area come from academics with a strong POV. This goes for both sides in the dispute. The anti-Semitism slur has been thrown at virtually every scholar who has objected to the occupation, from Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein down. In rewriting the Hamas article, I accepted and used Matthew Levitt, despite the fact that his book is extremely biased. He has the credentials. Idem for Kenneth L. Marcus whose books and articles on anti-Semitism I find quite confused. One could go on for hours (I don't believe that anything Manfred Gerstenfeld wrote (voluminously) on a topic for which he was boosted as the world's foremost authority, is worth the paper it is written on. I think using him in Wikipedia is deleterious to its encyclopedic aims. Anything I read of his can be torn apart in seconds, if you have a simple grasp of history and sociology. But reluctantly we must accept him etc., as we do in Antisemitism in Europe etc.etc.) Using profiling of the politics of authors as a criterion for RS would set a dangerous precedent. We have to train editors to be grown-up, i.e. read closely and evaluate per context and rules, case by case, not create artificial criteria that simplify everything. Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment The reason this particular source was used is probably because after publication it was picked up by quite a few media outlets who likely thought the "lobby" aspect made a good story. Which it did, as subsequent events demonstrated:)Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. Can this be resolved by agreeing to attribute the source? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Julian Assange[edit]

Fresh eyes would be helpful at the Julian Assange article -- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. There is an RfC here regarding a Yahoo News article relating to Assange. Prior discussion of the issue is found here in a long thread that gives some background on the issue and the preceding edit war]. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The inaccurate post above does not reflect the issue under discussion. The RFC is about content that has been reported on by outlets like The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Intercept,The Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review, BBC News, and The Hill alongside the extensive article from Yahoo News.

Specifico's unfortunate phrasing fails to mention that a large measure of the trouble brought about on the talk page is his own doing. His long-term effort to assert his POV on the article by ridding it of any content critical of the actions of the UK and US governments that he thinks he may be able to rid it of, no matter how widely reported, has been a significant cause of the talk page's slightly ridiculous page size for some time. Choosing to disparage the editors trying to maintain NPOV on the page, and who are thus forced to become opponents of this effort, as self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US is rather a low point in this history. Cambial foliage❧ 09:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Lets lay off the snark and general incivility. Nor is this request neutrally worded.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Describing DRASTIC as a group[edit]

An editor is insisting on calling DRASTIC "Internet activists" over other descriptions found in reliable sources has reverted my more accurate description, which would appear to be trivial, but is connected to a larger dispute over the Origins of COVID-19 and the COVID-19 lab leak theory. The editor withdrew an RfC they posted on this problem, leaving it unresolved, so I posted a closure request in Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Other_types_of_closing_requests, where Firefangledfeathers helpfully pointed me to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which pointed me here. This article can benefit from the input of more uninvolved editors mindful of WP:NPOV. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

So you want to change " internet activists" to "scientists and amateur researchers", OK which scientists?Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The sources referenced in this page describe several members as scientists. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Are these people named? Can their qualifications be checked? And "amateur researcher" is too vague to be meaningful. Graham Beards (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Many of them are anonymous, and among the ones who aren't there are very few with satisfactory education and, as far as I can tell, none with relevant scientific credentials. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Which is, of course, a good point, a physicist is not qualified to pass judgment on medical matters.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Slatersteven, are there any reliable sources that describe the group as not being qualified? Are there any reliable sources describing the group only as "internet activists" as our article does? 217.35.76.147 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
We do not need RS saying they are not qualified, we need RS saying they are. Here https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1232613.shtml.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Global Times is deprecated source, and therefore unusable and they are clearly biased. That said I do not think they are totally wrong in this instance. Drastic are massively unprofessional and some of them are arguably conspiracy theorists. [8]. If I had my way there wouldn't be an article covering them at all, the sourcing is inadequate to produce a neutral article on them, and they are only a minor part of the overall lab-leak covid origins controversy. When Nature covered the topic it didn't even mention the group by name, only as "a group that claims to independently investigate COVID-19" which shows how little regard the group is given by more credible scientific journalism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Also can you (here, there are a lot of sources in the article) provide one RS that says some of their members are scientists?Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
This topic has been discussed repeatedly. The article already describes the backgrounds of some of the members; describing them in the proposed way is unnecessary and misrepresents both the credentials and the actual activities of the group (which has made almost entirely non-scientific contributions). OP has also been pushing for a completely unsupported and non-NPOV description of the scientific consensus and reigniting other old disputes on the talk page. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes I agree. It is the IP who is contravening WP:NPOV by attributing scientific expertise to an essentially anonymous group. "Activists" is a neutral term and should be preferred. Graham Beards (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Agree too. Wikipedia shouldn't be over-egging the pudding for what is essentially a pretty fringey group. Alexbrn (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
As the editor apparently implicated in this thread, I sure wish OP had alerted me to the discussion, as is required and described in big bold red letters at the top of this page. Thank you to @Firefangledfeathers for doing so instead... As to the dispute in question, I reverted the OP's edits because they were editing against consensus. It's difficult to determine what the exact outcome of the RfC is, given that many many involved editors participated after the RfC was withdrawn, all going for an option that was not a part of the RfC. Even after that participation, though, consensus via compromise would seem to suggest that the most favored description does not include the word "scientists" (as a large share of participants were opposed to exactly this) but does include some form of "amateur" or "internet" to describe the ad-hoc and non-expert nature of the group. It deserves mention that, as far as I know, none of the DRASTIC members have any expertise in virology or epidemiology. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There was no consensus to describe the group only as "internet activists", omitting other descriptions given in reliable sources. The RfC discussion seems to be more in line with "scientists and researchers" I added than "internet activists" you added. I am asking Paine Ellsworth to undo their close of the RfC so that I may reopen it to build real consensus on the matter. The BMJ refers to them as "online investigators", which would be a suitably neutral term for me. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
You have been asked here to provide those sources, please do so.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Some sources such as The BMJ describe them as "online investigators", and some like Vanity Fair describe some members as scientists, also describing them as "researchers". TheWeek has an article on Drs Monali Rahalkar and Rahul Bahulikar, and mentions other scientists, such as Dr Rossana Segreto, who describes herself as "former DRASTIC" on Twitter. The findings they have reported to have made don't require scientific credentials, and I don't necessarily care too much what we call them, so long as it is neutrally worded. "Internet activists" is not a neutral term and seeks to discredit them and their findings. You can find more sources in the RfC. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
How is it not neutral? What do you think is not neutral about it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Because it seeks to discredit their work, and was not the status quo text before the RfC, nor the consensus of the RfC. Sources do not describe the group as activists, but as "investigators" and "researchers" which I and other comments in the RfC say should be included too. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
"Because it seeks to ..." ← huh? how can a phrase "seek" to do anything? Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
In context of the other edits made by the same editors who prefer this descriptor, they obviously seek to discredit the group and their work. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Err i just provided one that says they are activists. There is the crux of the problem, they are described in many different ways. But I am unsure how "activists" discredits them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
So basically the IP is saying a bunch of editors are acting in bad faith. That's not much of an argument. Alexbrn (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
To be fair, I think there may be an issue here, as they are called many things. So what do we go with. I think an RFC is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
TheWeek article you have linked is an opinion piece, not suitable for this sourcing purpose. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I have now launched the RFC[9].Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

IUTT Mathematics theory - Neutrality inquiry[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
per below RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]


IUTT is a mathematical theory that has been presented to the community by an internationally renowned researcher in 2012 and that has been the object of controversy in 2018. A Inter-universal Teichmüller theory page reports on the theory and its status in the mathematical community. This page is protected against sockpuppetry since March 2018.

Since then a handful of editors systematically refuses:

  • The correction of mistakes with documented sources (e.g. Nature, Mainichi newspaper)
  • any updates on the academic development of the situation (4 peer-reviewed publications, 1 preprint, RIMS international joint workshops with ~150 participants with France and UK 1, 2, 3, 4)

Evoked grounds for refusal are:

  • required changes are "too positive for IUTT"
  • sources are RIMS only

Not only is the latter factually incorrect, but Research_Institute_for_Mathematical_Sciences (RIMS) is also the international leading research institute in anabelian geometry (the origin of IUTT) and one of the main mathematical research institute in Japan. IUTT theory may not be a mainstream theory in Mathematics (one can find many others), but recent academic activity shows that it is not a fringe theory either. Its study receive the support of 1st hand internationally recognized mathematicians (e.g. Minhyong_Kim (link), Jordan_Ellenberg (link), Ken_Ribet (Talk invitation to Berkeley 2020)).

The editors certainly act in good faith in order to protect the content from the 2018 internet turmoil. In 2021 things have changed and stabilized, new developments happened. I am thus appealing to this noticeboard to help resolve the dispute with an RfC below.

RfC: should the documented 2020-2021 academic activity around IUTT be included?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Procuderal closure as placed on wrong page and also due to the long preface which is in clear breach of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]



Discussions on this topic with edit suggestions and references can be found in the talk page (link1), (link2), (link3), (link4).

Your public comments or your formulation proposals will be most helpful.

  • Option1: no
  • Option2: yes

2400:4150:8120:C500:7E87:E20C:2E8E:712 (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • This RfC should be closed and restarted at the article talk page. Any consensus here will be weakened or invalidated by its inappropriate venue. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2021 (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.
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.

Éric Zemmour, far right designation[edit]

Currently a dispute over at Talk:Éric Zemmour#Far right? on how Éric Zemmour political position should be labelled. Participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Jon Stewart lab leak comments[edit]

I would appreciate more input on the issue of whether Jon Stewart's lab leak comments on his Colbert appearance should be included in the article. Please see the related discussion, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC on Etymology section of Yoruba People article[edit]

Additional input requested on above RFC concerning Etymology section on Yoruba people article, which seems to violate (WP:NPOV) policy. The content was by Oluwatalisman and can be found through link provided here[[10]]. A brief summary of discussions on the subject can be found through the link.[[11]] Thanks Ppdallo (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

There are way, way too many RfCs for that article right now. There should not be more than one RfC open at a time for the same article or from the same editor. If you want editors to comment, I recommend starting from scratch, as a Third Opinion (if this has only involved two editors so far), and plainly summarizing one issue in a way people can understand who aren't familiar with the content. And if needed, then it could be taken to RfC. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
[]
Thank you Pyrrho the Skeptic for your recommendation. Actually no other editor has so far commented despite my having posted the RFCs on other Noticeboards. Now i can see the reason why. I will notify the other editor i am in dispute with accordingly.Ppdallo (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Green Scare[edit]

I came across Green Scare while browsing, and it seems to me like the article itself may be a WP:POVFORK off of Environmental_movement#Criticisms and/or Operation Backfire. I'm not sure quite how to address it; the article itself is written as if the "Green Scare" is very matter-of-fact, though its sourcing seems rather weak, and I don't think that there's a mainstream consensus among academics that opposition to the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front is akin to the red scare. I'm wondering if anybody with better knowledge than me of the environmental movement (and legal responses to it) would be willing to take a look at the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

LGB Alliance opening sentence POV[edit]

A new discussion on the LGB Alliance Talk page, concerning POV, would benefit from new eyes/fresh participants. Newimpartial (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC: Neutrality of a secondary research paper written by a chiropractor, but published in a medical journal.[edit]

There is some dispute on the chiropractic talk page about the removal of stroke/vertebral dissection as risks in the article's infobox. Presently, this discussion is hinging partially on the reliability/neutrality of a source. The source is a MEDRS compliant source with in-universe authors, but published by an out of universe journal. I contend that the peer review process of the medical journal neutralizes much of the risk of bias due to an all-medical review board and that it should be included because it is MEDRS compliant. The opposing contention is that the article is unreliable because it is written by in-universe authors.

Study in question: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07853890.2019.1590627

Talk page link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#Risks:_Stroke,_Death Jmg873 (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I suggest you create an actual Request for Comment for this. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Done. Thank you. Jmg873 (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Do you realize that, while reliability is certainly a legitimate question to ask, neither our sources nor content must be neutral? It is editors who must edit neutrally. Read my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The clinical training of a full time researcher who is an author on the source is not listed within MEDRS as a criteria for exclusion. Moreover, the information contained in the secondary source under question is consistent with all the other secondary sources published within the past 10 years on the topic (i.e.: [12] & [13]. I cannot think of any good reason for excluding a secondary source that is MEDRS compliant and consistent with all other recent secondary sources on the topic. 2001:56A:70E6:DB00:D11A:9841:610E:7F0D (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Source pretty clearly meets MEDRS requirements and the identity of the researchers is not a valid reason to exclude it, and it amounts to insulting the intelligence of the non-chiropractic scientists who peer-reviewed the paper. MarshallKe (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Concur with the above support for inclusion; the anon 2001:...:7F0D nailed it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • So this isn't exactly responding about the contention, but the journal article by Chaibi and Russell is a comprehensive review (i.e. literature review or evidence syntheses), whereas the articles currently in Chiropractic#Risk-benefit (and for most of this WP article) are generally systematic reviews or tertiary sources. Within the secondary source category, systematic reviews are considered more reliable than comprehensive reviews, which is reflected in the images under WP:MEDASSESS. I would also like to point out that Chaibi is not a full-time researcher, he does work in private practise as a chiro. I don't actually think that's enough to say he can't write any research about his field of expertise. However - given that the field of expertise of the other author is actually in chronic and medication-overuse headaches, one may note that it's strange that he's writing an article about how to reduce the amount of strokes caused by chiro. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC) // Edited this to strike through the last sentence. It's an unwarranted point on my part. Xurizuri (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • If a respected medical journal publishes a review paper, one would expect it to be neutral. In other words, it should provide due weight to the various papers and findings that have been published in accordance with their acceptance in the body of literature. If editors disagree with the weight the study provides, they need to find similar sources that disagree and then discuss which is correct. But the credentials of the author should not concern us. The publisher is what is important. In some academic journals, the editors are not even aware of the authors' credentials before accepting their papers. TFD (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    That not necessarily true. A narrative review can be nothing more than a cherry-picked survey in support of a POV, which is why methodologically sound systematic reviews are more valued. There are certainly some authors (e.g. MJ Middelveen on Morgellons syndrome) who are so bound up with suspect views that even if their work was published in a notionally respectable venue, it would be unlikely to be accepted as RS for its assertions. Wikipedia editors are not robots applying RS guidelines dumbly. (I would also add that the question here about the "neutrality" of a source is weird; the question is whether it's reliable for some specific statement. But what?) Alexbrn (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    It's not Wikipedia's place to use or exclude sources based on whether we like their conclusions or not. To determine reliability based on our personal views is wrong. Don't link me to Guy Macon's bad essay for the hundredth time. Wikipedia:No. Wikipedia is NOT biased MarshallKe (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    It's not Wikipedia's place to use or exclude sources based on whether we like their conclusions or not ← good job nobody's proposing that then. But when sources have problems documented in RS, that matters. As in the case of Middelveen above, or Chinese research into TCM, etc. Not sure what's triggered you about some retired user's essay, but I don't see the relevance to this thread. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • @Alexbrn: from reading the discussion, its ostensibly about the infobox saying that stroke and death are risks of the treatment. One side says "we have evidence saying it is" and the other side says "we have evidence saying its not". As far as I can tell, everyone's right - there is good quality evidence to say both. Like I said in my earlier comment, I think this specific journal article is of a slightly lower quality than other ones in the WP article, but e.g. the WHO has released a paper saying "look its probably fine" (it's an old paper now, but still, the WHO) so I'm just also not entirely sure why this specific journal article became the deciding factor. I don't really love having the summary of risks or benefits in an infobox for a treatment where one or both is not solidly established, because it runs a high risk of undue weight. But if we have to have them in there, I'd love if we didn't rely on non-systematic reviews. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    This study is not the only thing this decision is hinging on. I apologize if I was unclear. I brought this here because whether or not this was considered a RS was the point in the discussion that we were stuck on. Jmg873 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The reliability of a source refers to the accuracy of the facts it contains, not the opinions expressed by its author. The assumption in policy is that papers published in respected academic sources are reliable. Obviously errors can occur and in those cases we can resolve the issue by looking at other reliable sources. If you think the journal was wrong to publish this paper, then write to them and get it withdrawn. In the meantime, I put getter faith in the journal's editors than in Wikipedia editors. TFD (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The source is still relatively new and so its reliability is suspect until other sources indicate that its conclusions are warranted. Peer review is great, but it sometimes takes many years before we know whether a particular article is reliable or not. The article seems to have generated a little buzz so far, so hopefully some citations to it will indicate its reliability, but the few so far are not particularly encouraging [14],[15],[16], [17]. I also have a concern that T&F OA journals have had issues with uneven editorial control in the past. See Taylor & Francis#Controversies. But, even as a general principle, it's best to proceed with caution with any paper that is new. jps (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @ජපස: Peer reviewed secondary sources in a reliable journal is Wikipedia's standard for high reliability. What you are proposing here is that lower-reliability sources (the links you listed) can be used to discredit a higher-reliability source. If I could edit Wikipedia based on that upside-down principle, oh, the edits I could make, you have no idea. MarshallKe (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    The sources I listed are not lower-reliability. Odd that you would think that this is the case. jps (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm sorry, are they also comprehensive reviews like the source in question? MarshallKe (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Each source, written by experts in the subject, offers either direct or indirect critique of the claimed "comprehensive review" and that serves to point out how the paper may be problematic. Obviously a comprehensive review is only reliable if it is done correctly. jps (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Wikipedia's standard for whether a secondary source was "done correctly" is WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDPRI explicitly states primary sources should not be used to counter conclusions by secondary sources. You don't get to define a secondary source as less reliable except with sources Wikipedia deems to be of higher reliability, per WP:MEDASSESS. MarshallKe (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    These aren't primary sources since they assess the other source. jps (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Sorry I'm not being clear here. My point is that you're using evidence that is considered lower quality per WP:MEDASSESS to contradict evidence that is considered higher quality. I just don't see this as anything other than calling a study bad because you feel like it's bad and therefore everything that contradicts it is good. We have standards for a reason. MarshallKe (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    You are incorrect. WP:MEDASSESS does not consider these sources to be lower quality. jps (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Oh, now that's a bold claim. I'm definitely interested in a more generalized centralized discussion on that. That's going to have wide-reaching site-wide consequences. MarshallKe (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    My claim is that competence is required and you don't seem to have enough of it to understand what I'm saying. At least, that's my good faith interpretation of what's going on. This isn't the first time you've had problems evaluating sources. Probably won't be the last. jps (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Are you prepared to back that up with diffs? MarshallKe (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

All in good time. You've already been warned about discretionary sanctions. I can see from your actions here that you have taken on the mantle of WP:ADVOCACY that is straying into WP:SPA and WP:POVPUSH. We may see you at WP:AE sooner or later. Take care! jps (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

If you're not going to do anything about it, why even bring it up? I am here. I'm not going away just because some rando on the internet called me dumb and biased. Regardless, can we get back to the explanation of how the publications you've linked are on the same level as a literature review? Seems like an easy explanation, but you'd rather type accusations at me than spend one sentence explaining yourself. MarshallKe (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I have written plenty more than one sentence to explain this. I'm not going to waste more time if you cannot or refuse to understand them. jps (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I do not see any issue with the source (2 years old already). The background of a researcher is not a criteria for exclusion or inclusion automatically, it is the amount of oversight of the source (in this case a journal) that carries a little more weight. Perhaps attribution and light wording would resolve the issue. The specific statement that the source is being used for by the editor matters too. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Similar to the talk page, I wanted to make a summary of what has been presented thus far. Especially to (at least somewhat) separate the two discussions and keep them focused. Please add anything I missed. Jmg873 (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Current arguments against inclusion of Chaibi & Russel 2019

  • The authors are chiropractors
  • The source is too new and must be confirmed by other sources
  • The source has too few cross-references
  • it is a whitewashing study
  • T&F journals have had controversy so the source is suspect

Current arguments in support of Chaibi & Russel 2019

  • It is MEDRS Compliant
  • The author should not be a relevant because it is peer-reviewed by a reliable journal
  • not including it because of the author suggests the peer-reviewers are unreliable.
  • the source's conclusion agrees with two other recent MEDRS compliant secondary published

Editors in against inclusion of source: jps

Editors in support of inclusion of source: jmg873, TFD, SMcCandlish, IP User 7F0D, MarshallKe

Editors whose position I am unsure of: Xurizuri, Alexbrn, Valjean

Jmg873 (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

That seems a biased summary. One of the reasons my position might seem uncertain is that, despite asking, it's unclear what specific statement is in question for which this source might or might not be reliable. Or is the OP seeking a carte blanche to use it for anything at all? Alexbrn (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It's not good practice to promote a false binary like this because part of evaluation of a reliable source is the context in which it is used. These aren't arguments against or in support of the source. These are editorial considerations that depend on context. jps (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Alexbrn, As Xurizuri said to you above, it is being referenced specifically to be used as a source on the risk of stroke/death in the infobox; that is why the talk page is linked. Please point out what you think was biased there and I will modify it. Jmg873 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@jps, my intent was not to create a false binary. Perhaps it would have been better phrased as "users who consider/do not consider it a reliable source". If you feel there is better verbiage, I welcome it. Jmg873 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't think that a summary of this style is useful/necessary. It tends to stifle discussion and may end up hindering WP:CONSENSUS formation. The better thing to do is let discussions run their course. An uninvolved closer can come through and summarize. jps (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I would like to create a summary of the central ideas here and relocate this to the RS:Noticeboard where it would be more appropriate to continue this discussion. Please let me know what changes you would like to see before I post it there or if you have a better way for me to concisely convey the ideas presented here for the discussion to continue there. If you think it would be more appropriate for me to post at the RS noticeboard without referencing this discussion I can do that too, but I didn't want it to appear that I was "noticeboard shopping" or going behind anyone's back. Thank you. Jmg873 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I don't think relocation is necessary. There are overlapping considerations. A link at WP:RSN would be fine. jps (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I have now made a link there, sorry for the error in posting it here rather than there first. Jmg873 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

One of the reasons I haven't participated in any depth here is that this is the NPOV/N, not RS/N. We're at the wrong board. It should be an RfC entitled "Reliability of a secondary research paper written by a chiropractor, but published in a medical journal." Neutrality is not an issue here, unless dealing with non-neutral editing by an editor, and that is not an issue for these noticeboards. -- Valjean (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Same. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I also have problems with the risks being mentioned in the infobox. That type of infobox content would be more suitable for the Vertebral subluxation article, definitely not the Chiropractic article. -- Valjean (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Agreed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I am leaning against inclusion. Had the journal been nejm, lancet, nature, annals of thoracic surgery, Cell, cancer, JACC or another journal at the top of its field, I would be sure, hands down, for inclusion. But for annals of Medicine? Nope unless all other criteria are emphatically met. Cinadon36 18:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

There is no consensus that Annals of Medicine is unreliable, so this smacks of WP:CHERRYPICKING. The obvious problem with this sort of argument is that your criteria are subjective, personal, arbitrary, and opaque. If this has been in Annals of Thoracic Surgery, then your comment just as easily could have read "Had the journal been NEJM, Lancet, Nature, Cell, Cancer, JACC ..." omitting Annals of Thoracic Surgery.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
While it may feel arbitrary to you, the argument is at least well-ordered. Annals of Medicine has the lowest h-index of all these journals... by far. jps (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Do you mean h-index or impact factor? Jmg873 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
H-index at the journal level. [18]. jps (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Cinadon36, Do you have any evidence that lesser known medical journals are less reliable? It seems to me that the main difference is that better known journals are able to get more interesting articles and better known writers, not that they have a better record of fact-checking. Why should we assume that lesser known journals are riddled with errors of facts? Lesser known journals may also be more specialist, which makes them less popular.
The discussion suggests that in addition to determining if a publication is peer-reviewed by experts, we should also examine its impact and the credentials of writers.
TFD (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I think part of the issue is reputation… the better know journals have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that less well known journals do not have. This does NOT mean the less well know journals are bad - or even that they have a BAD reputation - since it could be that it has no real reputation one way or the other. It does mean that the well known journals are considered better sources… and in a conflict we favor the better sources (well known journals). Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I generally agree that top-tier journals are more reliable. However, in this specific case that isn't what we should be comparing to for this. The journal used for the existing information, the International Journal of Clinical Practice, has an objectively lower reputation than the Annals of Medicine. If we are using reputation as a consideration, it doesn't support the argument being put forth. Jmg873 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The 2 Ernst articles were both published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice which has an Impact Factor of 2.503 [1] and an H-index of 98[2].
The Chaibi article is published in the Annals of Medicine which has an Impact Factor of 4.709[3] and an H-index of 112[4].
If we are going to use reputation as one of the determiners, it is disingenuous to compare this source's reputation to NEJM, lancet, etc. considering the journals that are currently being used in the article. Jmg873 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks @The Four Deuces: for your question. I have to clarify. I wont ditch Annals of Medicine coz they are not as known (or have less Impact Factor) than mainstream Journals. It is that, how to put it...oh, I will use a table.
Journal author overall evidence
Source 1 weak weak weak
Source 2 weak moderate weak to moderate
Source 3 strong weak moderate
Strong Claim Moderate Claim Weak Claim
evidence needed Strong Moderate Weak
So, in this case, since the context in question is on Risk/benefit, it needs a strong evidence. So, journal is weak, author is weak, overall evidence is weak, evidence needed must be strong, so it fails. This is how I think of it. I consider journal is week, coz, as it was said above, "Lesser known journals may also be more specialist, which makes them less popular". Annals of Medicine have a board spectrum. They do not have the reputation of being a reliable journal. It s reliability must be proven. It has not. Thanks everybody of the interesting discussion. Cinadon36 17:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The claim this source is being used for is risk, not risk/benefit. How does the requirement for strong evidence reconcile with the fact that the existing evidence used for the claim is at the same level or weaker than the evidence being disputed? (see my comment above for further explanation) Jmg873 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Cinadon36,I think you are conflating reliability with weight. Whether or not to report a claim is solely determined by weight. IOW we would only include claims that had received considerable attention in other sources and we would be able to determine its degree of acceptance.
When you say weak evidence, I assume you mean it is inadequate to prove the claim, rather than that it is fabricated. So for example the Wow! signal is weak evidence for extra-terrestrial life, but the signal itself was not fabricated. This is in contrast to conspiracy theory texts, which routinely include false facts or faulty syllogisms. (Example: In Israeli, most people infected with covid are vaccinated, therefore vaccination does not reduce the risk of infection.)
TFD (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Cinadon36, I concur with Jmg873. How do you reconcile your argument against inclusion based on the reputation of the Annals of Medicine and not also argue for the removal of existing content in the article sourced from International Journal of Clinical Practice, which is of lower reputation than Annals of Medicine? MarshallKe (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Well @MarshallKe:, I dont. I offered my opinion just for the specific source. I did not compare it with other sources at the same article or other articles (doing so leads to an endless whataboutism). But since you ask, it depends on the claim, the journal, the author, the institution of the author, and the reception from the academia. Anyway, since it is obvious I am not convincing you all for not inclusion, what about attributing it? like "According to chiropract Name Surname, writing at Journal X, the risk of .....[source]" That would be a fair way out. What do you think? @The Four Deuces:, no, I was talking about reliability. When I say "weak evindence" I mean that the source is not an established authority that its opinion could become WP Voice. @Jmg873: See my reply to MarshallKe. Cinadon36 04:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I find that dismissing an argument as "whataboutism" is often used by those who don't want to accept that their reasoning is invalid and their purported standards are pure manipulation rather than actual standards. As for attributing it, I don't support "according to chiropractor". Might as well replace "chiropractor" with "liar and quack" because that's what you're really trying to do; downplay the fact that this is a peer-reviewed literature review in a reputable journal that meets all of Wikipedia's standards for inclusion except that it doesn't come to the "right" conclusions so we have to ad hominem it. MarshallKe (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I support the wording "A YEAR literature review found CLAIM". Anything additional is a MOS:LABEL violation. If we're going to start witch-hunting the entire scientific community, we've got a lot of work to do. MarshallKe (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed Jmg873 (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It's pretty clear that the goal here is to highlight one source which has, even as it has been cited, received mixed reception. To pretend that this is the pinnacle of sourcing on Wikipedia (which seems to be the argument here, but correct me if that's not it) is a pretty ludicrous argument. I don't have a particular objection to the source in question, but I don't think it rises to the level of most reliable source ever and better than all others that came before or after it. That seems to be the implication of some of the arguments being leveled here. jps (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Can't speak for the editor who authored this RfC, but I do not want to erase the risks section and replace it with whatever this particular study concluded, and I don't think a reasonable editor would want such a thing. Let's summarize this study, and let's summarize the studies you've linked, as well. What's the problem? MarshallKe (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The question at issue is whether the study itself is reliable. The question was not whether it is possible to summarize it. jps (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

If you don't have any particular objections to the source in question, and you don't think that it's the "most reliable source ever and better than all the others that came before of after it", then we are in agreement and are ready to put the source in its editorial context, as you have advocated for 8 days ago. MarshallKe (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
As long as you do that outside of the article text, that's fine with me. jps (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@jps I am the RfC author and I never suggested that the existing studies should be replaced by this study or removed. I was arguing for its inclusion. I looked through the commentary here and did not see any suggestion here that the goal is to "highlight this source above others". The only thing I could see construed as that was the discussion of the two Ernst sources (if I missed something, please let me know). My comparison of the other sources was not to suggest that they should be removed, but as a response to the argument that reputation is a reason to exclude this source. I believe those other two sources should be included in the article, as I believe this one should. Jmg873 (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The problem is that "arguing for inclusion" can take many forms. There are thousands of papers that we could include that are relevant to the article in question. We obviously don't want to include all of them even as citations! But it is perfectly fine to consider them in composing article text. That is what I don't have objection to. What I don't think we have here is a necessary right of reply, for example. jps (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I find myself unsure what point you were trying to make. Yes, arguing for inclusion can take many forms; We are specifically discussing the source in the context provided at the outset, not every possible form of inclusion. In the statement "thousands of papers relevant to the article" is 'the article' referencing the paper in question or the Wikipedia article on chiropractic? I originally went to paraphrase your comment to make sure I understood it correctly, but the more I read it, the more it confused me. Can you clarify the point your comment was designed to make? Additionally, what do you mean by saying that you don't feel there is a 'necessary right of reply'? Thank you. Jmg873 (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Not to put words in jps's mouth, but it reads to me as "because there are lots of scientific publishings related to chiropractic, we can't just pick the first ones we stumble upon to base the article off of", and I don't know what he means by "necessary right of reply", either. MarshallKe (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Fair reading re: scientific publishings. My issue with "inclusion" is that, in the past, some editors have taken my statement of, "yeah, we can consider that source" to be almost a carte blanche to include a full accounting of the source in article text. This is not something I want to see happen again. My point about "right of reply" is general. There is currently text in the article that posits (A). The source you are asking about posits not(A). Just because it posits not(A) does not mean we must include it in article text. Perhaps you find that obvious, but I, again, am the victim of circumstance as there were situations in the past where this was a dispute. jps (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

References

  1. ^ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/17421241
  2. ^ https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=14745&tip=sid&clean=0
  3. ^ https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=journalMetrics&journalCode=iann20
  4. ^ https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=26773&tip=sid&clean=0

Battle of Chosin Reservoir[edit]

There’s been some ip users who have been making highly non neutral edits to the article recently and i was hoping if an administrator or anybody else could perhaps lockdown the page so that only verified users could edit it. Thanks in advance Estnot (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

More eyes would be appreciated at Killing of Lindani Myeni[edit]

Help from more editors to find due weight and NPOV in the article Killing of Lindani Myeni and the discussion on the article talk page would be deeply appreciated. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC that would benefit from NPOV.[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --Spekkios (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Cloudflare[edit]

Article: Cloudflare

The Controveries section of this article seems way too long to me and the section's inclusion seems to be mostly defended by one editor (Kving) who has a stated COI regarding other software companies. It's not uncommon for internet software companies to come under scrutiny for the misuses of it by bad actors, so this long section seems WP:UNDUE. Here is an unofficial RfC on the Talk Page and it has been suggested separately on the Talk Page here that the section could be spun out into a separate article, if necessary, as one potential solution.

Either way, I think this requires the attention of other editors. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Éric Zemmour[edit]

Tensions run high at Talk:Éric Zemmour, with discussions involving several editors who are on the more inexperienced side of things. Eyeballs and input from experienced editors would be extremely welcome. JBchrch talk 19:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Eskimo[edit]

There is controversy surrounding the lead of the Eskimo article. The term "Eskimo" covers both the related Inuit and Yupik peoples. Many Inuit and Yupik peoples find the term "Eskimo" to be offensive.[1] The lead paragraph was originally:

Eskimo (/ˈɛskɪmoʊ/ ESS-kih-moh) or Eskimos are the indigenous circumpolar peoples who have traditionally inhabited the northern circumpolar region from eastern Siberia (Russia) to Alaska (United States), Northern Canada, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, and Greenland.[2][3]


The two main peoples known as Eskimo are the Inuit (including the Alaskan Iñupiat, the Greenlandic Inuit, and the Inuit peoples of Canada) and the Yupik (or "Yuit") of eastern Siberia[4] and Alaska. A third group, the Aleut, which inhabit the Aleutian Islands are closely related to both, but are generally excluded from the definition of Eskimo. The three groups share a relatively recent common ancestor, and speak related languages belonging to the Eskimo–Aleut language family.

I changed it to

Eskimo (/ˈɛskɪmoʊ/ ESS-kih-moh) or Eskimos is a term used to refer to two closely related Indigenous peoples: The Inuit (including the Alaskan Iñupiat, the Greenlandic Inuit, and the Canadian Inuit) and the Yupik (or Yuit) of eastern Siberia[5] and Alaska. A third group, the Aleut, which inhabit the Aleutian Islands, are closely related to both, but are generally excluded from the definition of Eskimo. The three groups share a relatively recent common ancestor, and speak related languages belonging to the Eskimo–Aleut language family.


These circumpolar peoples have traditionally inhabited the Arctic and subarctic regions from eastern Siberia (Russia) to Alaska (United States), Northern Canada, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, and Greenland.[2][3]

Given that the people under the umbrella "Eskimo" find the term offensive, I'd rather we didn't use it in wikivoice in the opening sentence. I also think it should be made immediately clear how the term "Eskimo" is different from the term "Inuit". Since I changed the lead, there has been persistent reversion by Fatbatsat, a WP:SPA with less than 70 edits over two years. Recently a brand new account Akinaur (which means "to take revenge; to retaliate; to pay back" in Yupik, see [19]) has continued their edit warring. I suspect that it might be a sock of someone. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Has this been discussed on the Eskimo talk page yet I can't find it?Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It's been a long-running theme of discussion over the last year or so, see Talk:Eskimo/Archive_4#Racial_slur? for a previous major discussion around a year ago. This clearly remains unresolved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Question Can you check if I am up to speed: We are indifferent to peoples offense, see images on the Muhammad page. However, it seems Eskimo is no longer the common name (see Ngram), although it still seems strong in academia. Inuit seems to have taken over. However, Inuit only technically refers to one of the groups of the people who make up Eskimos. We have no name for this group of peoples other than Eskimo or Inuit, one is going out of fashion, the other is incorrect. What did I miss?Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Are we really indifferent to people's offense? That's certainty not true when it comes to transgender topics like deadnaming. The point is, that we already have two articles on the two groups that are covered by the term "Eskimo", so the scope of the "Eskimo" article is unclear. Should it cover the usage of the term itself, like negro? Should it compare and contrast the Yupik and Inuit? What is the purpose of the article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I am concerned about the ignoring of WP:NOTCENSORED, I can only justify to myself deeply upsetting so many of the people of the world by the belief that we at least try to do it without favour. I see dead naming as a red herring. That is best explained through biographies of living people and common name. If the majority of contemporary reliable references dead named people then we should use that name. However, this is off topic, if we are breaking NOTCENSORED on one topic that does not mean we get rid of the rule. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: how have sources typically characterized “Eskimo”? The above seems like an argument over the offensiveness of the term. There may in fact be groups that prefer to be called “Eskimo”, from what I can recall. In that case, we’d bridge into WP:NOTCENSORED territory. There are plenty of historical images of Muhammad on the Muhammad page, for example, despite offense caused to some modern Muslim sects. I’d wonder, though, if “term that refers to” is more commonly the expressed sentiment among RS rather than “is”. If it were, then the change in the lead would make sense. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I would propose renaming the article to "Inuit-Yupik peoples," and then in the article mention that the term *Eskimo* has historically been used to collectively refer to the Inuit-Yupik peoples, but that its use is in decline and that the term is considered offensive by some. Dowobeha (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I assume that this page wouldn't exist if Eskimo referred exclusively to one or other group, it only exists because the term encompasses both. But that doesn't mean it needs an article. It should either redirect to Inuit, with a hatnote there for the alternative Yupik meaning, or it should be a disambiguation page listing the two options with no other prose necessary.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I mean, it's still a widely used word in the English language, which has a pretty clear meaning, and it doesn't have a synonym. If you think about what this means, basically you can go anywhere in the world where people speak a smattering of English and they will know what you mean by the word "Eskimo". "Inuit" not so much, let alone "Inuit-Yupik", which isn't actually in the dictionary, per se, though these days Inuit-Yupik-Unangan is a defined language group (synonymous with Eskimo-Aleut) [and to mention Unangan actually brings up another issue with the recent edits which were made by Hemiauchenia but have not in any way been justified, but I digress]. Or, folks might know what you mean by "Inuit", or think they do, but have no sense that some people have this idea that it should refer to people who are technically not "Inuit" (ancient word, not English, very specific meaning), which, I'm sure you'll agree, is kind of confusing. So what you're talking about doing is basically trying to edit reality, not editing an encyclopedia. But this question has been hashed out over and over again on the article talk page, many many archives, so I don't think we're going to come to an efficient resolution here that is also a valid one, hence the repeated request for dialogue through the usual and proper channels.Fatbatsat (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Eskimo is a real term in modern academic and public usage it needs either a page or if it is no longer the common name a redirect. As Eskimo describes a group of peoples that have no other name it must be the common name. As an aside here are the google scholar hits since 2017, does not “prove” anything just part of the mix. Eskimo 15,100, Inuit 19,700 and Yupik 2,220. Romani 45,000 and Gypsy 18,000. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I really don't see the need for this one-man pissing match, if you'll pardon the turn of phrase. No one denies there is a fair bit of controversy spinning around, and it's quite healthy to debate and discuss and change where appropriate. All that's been really asked of Hemiauchenia is that they justify their edits by reasoned discussion, use the article Talk page, which Hemiauchenia has not been doing. I'm still not sure that the particular edits in question are correct, because there are plenty of reasons (some expressed above) why the article is in it's current consensus form, and not otherwise. Thanks everyone for your input though, including you, Hemiauchenia. I appreciate what you're trying to do, I just question the way you're going about it, and I think you might not be quite as well informed on this particular topic as you think that you are. Fatbatsat (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
This is not a one-man pissing match, but a two man pissing match. At the end of the day, we are the only two people who strongly care about the lead. Nobody else has expressed a strong opinion in favour of either version of the lead. The idea that if content is "long standing " it has consensus is bogus, at the end of the day, you are the only one (outside the brand new account, who's opinion I am discounting) who is objecting to my new rewording. That said, there isn't any strong support for my position either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
>>>"This is not a one-man pissing match, but a two man pissing match."<<<
Look, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I don't think it really matters. I realize that I didn't attempt to engage with you positively as much as I could have (just busy with other things, not an intentional snub/oversight), but you also made no real justification of your edits, and, again, some of your original edits were categorically wrong.
But here is the meat of it: >>>The idea that if content is "long standing " it has consensus is bogus<<<
I mean, that simply isn't true. The lead of the article has been that way for many years, through, what, the work of a hundred or more editors? I do not know what you mean when you say consensus, but if you are an experienced Wikipedia editor, it defies belief that you do not understand that I mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus. All other things being equal, if you make controversial edits to a Wikipedia article, it makes sense to justify them, because you can be going against the work of a lot of people, over a lot of time, without even meaning to! You are one person, I agree. But I am simply trying to make sure the article content (work of many people, *not* one person) is not changed without just cause, which, again, you haven't given any cause, really, just or otherwise. And instead of engaging on the article Talk page, as I have requested, and has been encouraged/requested by CambridgeBayWeather on the Talk page, you choose to create this adversarial conflict-- and yes, it is a one man conflict, because I have no beef with you, except maybe that you were refusing engage in dialogue about the actual subject on the article Talk page, and yet persisting in changing the article. You may have read through the top layer of the Talk page, but I very much doubt you've gone through the archives, as I have. There's plenty to discuss, and it is not a one-side-or-the-other issue; it's a lot more complicated than that. Talking about it here is actually a step in the right direction, but since you're not starting from an assumption of Good Faith, I'm not going to engage here further, and I hope you'll understand that. If you are seriously interested in working on the article in a productive way, let's please continue the discussion *of the article*, without ad hominem, on the Talk page. Thanks! Fatbatsat (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I am not interested in reaching a consensus with you. I am interested in reaching a concensus of the broader Wikipedia community. If you have no desire to make your case further then that's fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Hemiauchenia's new version, to me, represents a better compromise between the various sources and better describes the controversy. We don't care about what's offensive or not, we care about summarizing the sources faithfully. And nobody cares if this was a one-man pissing contest or a two-man pissing contest, just stop pissing and act right towards each other. MarshallKe (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree. My issue is that Fatbatsat presents their opinion as if it has consensus when it does not. I have looked through the archives, contrary to Fatbatsat's claims, and there does not seem to be a strong consensus for the article in its current form, more like apathy to change it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
See the joke in big quotation marks at the top of my user page. I think generally if you find yourself reverting someone's edits repeatedly in defense of some presumed consensus of past editors, you are actually edit warring (and so is the other user). Ultimately as you progress through the consensus process to WP:RFC, consensus is determined by whoever is willing to show up and actually deliberate with other editors. MarshallKe (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Future directions[edit]

After the initial round of conversation, I think there are several actions that could be taken.

  • An RfC on the lead
  • An RfC on the scope of the article

Other suggestions welcome. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I like the idea of a little focus. I think as this began as a conversation about the lead we should start there. It feels there is a better chance for a useful compromise on the lesser issue. But I am happy with either. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

References

  1. ^ Kaplan, Lawrence. "Inuit or Eskimo: Which name to use?". www.uaf.edu. Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Retrieved 2021-04-02.
  2. ^ a b Pamela R. Stern (2013). Historical Dictionary of the Inuit. Scarecrow Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-8108-7912-6.
  3. ^ a b "Eskimo | Definition, History, Culture, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica.
  4. ^ "Arctic Studies". alaska.si.edu.
  5. ^ "Arctic Studies". alaska.si.edu.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1051541705"