| Revision as of 16:15, 31 July 2014 editVictorD7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,648 edits →Use of Breitbart.com to defend America: Imagine the World Without Her: Reply.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:40, 25 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 114) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{pp-move-indef|small=yes}} | |||
| {{backlog}}{{Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 114 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(21d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }}]]] __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | }}]]] __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | ||
| == Journal of Indo-European Studies == | |||
| == Andrei Fursov quote at ] == | |||
| In order to avoid an edit war I am starting a topic here for this. The article for the Journal for Indo-European studies has throughout the years been given undue weight consistently to make it look like its a journal of poor standing when its not. The content places far too much focus on Roger Pearson, its founding publisher,and not enough on the journal's actual content in order to make it look 'racist' when it is not since it is clearly a linguistic journal. The article currently reads more like a mini bio on Pearson rather than anything to do with the actual content of the journal itself. More over, edits go unchecked on that article for over a month that remove info that makes the journal look reputable yet edits that take out all the mostly irrelevant bio info on Pearson and alleged negative aspects of the journal get scrutinized quickly and reverted. There is clear POV pushing and an anti-NPOV campaign going on here. Other editors have flagged it as being largely unbalanced and given undue weight. I am asking here for help in order to better remedy the situation as right now there is a stalemate and the way the article looks and reads right now is a mess. ] (]) 21:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| LaRouche-related disputes are often messy. LaRouche's group seems to be in perpetual combat with other activist groups on both the left and the right. LaRouche typically accuses his opponents of being fascist or proto-fascist. Some of his nominally leftist opponents in turn call him fascist or proto-fascist, while his nominally rightist opponents call him socialist or communist. There have been edit wars in the past over whether to include these accusations and how much weight to give them. I think that the most reliable characterization of LaRouche comes from a , which describes him as a "controversial activist" whose "views defy simple categorization." | |||
| :Can you list plainly the sources you have that you feel paint a balanced picture of the journal? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The present dispute, which shows no signs of progress on the talk page (]), is over the section entitled ], and specifically over whether to include . My view is that the commentator is notable, and his view should be included under NPOV. It may also help mitigate any BLP problems associated with this section. Input from uninvolved editors would be helpful, since the involved editors appear to be deadlocked. ] (]) 13:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The only source that has anything remotely balanced to say about the journal in that article is this: | |||
| ::Tucker, William H. (2002). Jazayery (ed.). The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. | |||
| :Certainly the LaRouche biography is a BLP, with the subject being 91 years old. However, there are hundreds of reliable sources which call the man "controversial" in passing, as does the recent ''Texas Tribune'' article republished by NYT. Many other sources describe LaRouche in more detail, describing what things he does that are considered fascist. | |||
| :The Fursov quote under discussion here is ] emphasis on Fursov's opinion about Western "intellectuals who have called LaRouche a fascist" who he says should not be called intellectuals. This comment fails to rebut any particular statement about LaRouche; it is simply a put-down of other intellectuals, stated in irritation by Fursov. We don't need this quote at all in the LaRouche biography. It would be much better to have some kind of description of ''why'' Western intellectuals have called LaRouche a fascist, then possibly a real rebuttal from someone saying ''why'' he is not a fascist. ] (]) 17:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::For those of you who don't know Binksternet, he is one of the involved editors in the dispute, as am I. Input from uninvolved editors would be helpful, since the involved editors appear to be deadlocked. ] (]) 20:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not more involved than you, Joe; your first interaction with the LaRouche biography was in April 2012, while my first interaction was April 2013. ] (]) 00:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The question of who does and who doesn't deserve to be called an intellectual is a red herring, whereas Fursov's opinion that "the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics", is directly relevant to the question of LaRouche's alleged fascism and may merit inclusion. ] (]) 18:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The fact that Andrey Fursov has given to the LaRouche-controlled ] indicates to me that Fursov may not be a neutral, disinterested party. Accordingly, I oppose use of the quote. ] ] 01:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::None of the commentators quoted in the section are neutral, disinterested parties. NPOV doesn't mean the commentators are neutral; it means the article includes all significant viewpoints. ] (]) 04:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See ]. ] (]) 00:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I can see Writegeist's point. I think that including the portion about the scientific basis, without the slam on the "intellectuals", might be a suitable compromise. ] (]) 18:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there any objection to that solution? ] (]) 17:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it is still ]. Fursov is of course very wrong about whether there is scientific basis for calling LaRouche a fascist. Dennis King talks about the issue in 1989's ''Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism''. Helen Gilbert talks about the issue in 2003's ''Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Restyled for the New Millennium''. Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth write about the issue in , acknowledging King's book and noting the ADL's assessment that LaRouche's ] (NCLC) is the "closest thing to an American fascist party that we've got." Historian ] writes in that LaRouche's "NCLC has only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement." In ''Fascism: Post-war fascisms'', edited by Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, a chapter is included by Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons: Berlet and Lyons write about LaRouche's fascist tendencies throughout the chapter, labeling LaRouche explicitly as a "neofascist". So you can see that there is truly a scholarly interest in the issue of fascism with regard to LaRouche, with varying degrees concluded. Fursov's empty assertion is hopelessly ineffective. ] (]) 18:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the record, Stanley Payne is a highly respected historian. The others that you cite are simply opposing activists with no scientific credentials. King and Berlet have been criticized in reliable sources for being extremists and conspiracy theorists, and all of Helen Gilbert's writings are self-published by her organization, the ], which is fringier than LaRouche's group. ] (]) 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::For the record, Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons have been published in a scholarly book edited by ] (Professor of Modern History at Oxford Brookes University, and editor of the Routledge quarterly, ''Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions'') and Matthew Feldman (Lecturer in 20th Century History at the University of Northampton and editor of the Routledge quarterly, ''Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions''). The writing of Berlet and Lyons is thereby lifted up to become highly reliable. Dennis Tourish serves as Reader in Communication Management at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and ] is a socialist journalist. Tourish and Wohlforth used the imprint ] which is an academic publisher. Dennis King and Chip Berlet are acknowledged as the top two of the world's leading experts on LaRouche. If we compare Fursov to this crew Fursov will come out looking foolish for his empty denial of fascism. ] (]) 15:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Our opinions about who's right and who's wrong, and the effectiveness or otherwise of reliably sourced assertions, are not criteria for inclusion or exclusion. They are irrelevant. Our task is neutral coverage of the opinions—in this instance, opinions from opposing points of view re. the alleged fascism etc. ] (]) 18:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This seems to be the crux of the matter. Binksternet, do you have a response? ] (]) 14:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If the general wish expressed here is to help Fursov look the fool by stating his empty assertion in contradiction to Berlet, Lyons, Tourish, Wohlforth, King and others, then let's do it. We can tell the reader that Fursov said "the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics" yet observers ''A'', ''B'' and ''C'' have found fascist elements ''x'', ''y'', and ''z'' within LaRouche's initiatives and organizations. ] (]) 15:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I would be fine with citing Payne, who does have scientific credentials. King, Berlet et al. are simply political activists who have been published in books, ] (]) 01:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This is a discussion about Fursov, but you cannot succeed in shutting out King who is very widely cited on LaRouche, and Berlet whose writings have been approved by respected academics Griffin and Feldman. These guys are not simply political activists—that's a gross misstatement. As I've pointed out to you elsewhere, the , joined by the newer expert, enraged mother Erica Duggan, to comprise the top three experts on the LaRouche movment. ] (]) 06:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Here is the new text I propose to add to the article: ''In response to King, historian ] of the University of Wisconsin wrote in 1996 that the ], a LaRouche-affiliated group, had "only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement",<ref>Payne, Stanley G., ''A History of Fascism, 1914-1945'', University of Wisconsin Pres, Jan 1, 1996, p. 512</ref> while another historian, Andrei Fursov of the Moscow Institute for the Humanities, said that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics.<ref>Benedictine, Kyrill, interview with Andrei Fursov, , Terra-America, April 19, 2012</ref>'' ] (]) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nearly everything else entered in that article is meant to make the journal basically look like neo-nazis literature which it is not. It is simply a linguistic journal that focuses on linguistic matters concerning the Indo-European language family. Hardly any of the content of the journal itself is presented or discussed in the article. Surely that is problematic in and of itself. The journal isn't about Roger Pearson yet the way the article is written would have you believe its all about Pearson and that the journal is racist which it can't possibly be since its a linguistic journal. ] (]) 22:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As mentioned above, Andrei Fursov has spoken at Larouche's Schiller Institute, where he was described as "Historian, Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences Izborsk Club, Russia." The Izborsk club was deliberately founded on Larouche's 90th birthday. In the speech Fursov says," The environmentalist movement of the ’60s was organized by the Rockefeller Foundation, and it was paving the way for future deindustrialization....The de-population project is financed by the same structures which financed the ecology movement, etc." These are Larouchian views not shared by the mainstream. | |||
| :::No, I'm asking you about what you have. If you could collate the bibliography from scratch, what would it cite? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Obviously his comments are those of a supporter and have no weight. Whatever background Fursov may have, he was not presenting his views in an academic publication. There is no point mentioning him. | |||
| ::::The only other texts I can think of that would maybe counter balance things are actual articles from the journal itself which shows its not racist: | |||
| :] (]) 01:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::https://www.jies.org/DOCS/jies_index/mainindex.html | |||
| ::I couldn't help but notice that your comment follows directly upon the heels of , but no matter. Fursov is a credentialed expert, and his comment was published in a reliable source. The objection that you raise is not based on any Misplaced Pages policy that I am aware of. His point of view clearly differs from yours, but your point of view is also represented in the section under discussion, FWIW. ] (]) 02:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think the problem though is the content in the wiki article itself does not focus on what the journal actually has in it. Its all literature being used to paint it as racist. ] (]) 00:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is not a good idea to use part of a footnote written 20 years ago and you have it out of context. After saying that no neo-fascist group has transformed itself into an organization that could compete for votes, Payne says in a footnote that Larouche's group has come closest. He then refers readers to King's ''Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism.'' So basically he is agreeing with King, whom ironically you reject as a source. King says that Larouche failed to transform his movement into a fascist movement (Ch. 20) That does not mean that he was not a fascist, merely that he was able to achieve "some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement." One of those characteristics was the support of ""leading strata of capitalists and governmental agencies" (LaRouche's words). | |||
| :::::I mean, this is pretty quickly revealing itself as the unavoidable core issue though, right? We don't write encyclopedia articles based predominantly on primary sources—and in this case, what the journal itself contains is a primary source for claims about the journal itself—but on secondary sources, and so we're going to be first and foremost balancing what independent, published, reliable sources have to say about it. This is a pretty basic restatement of our core policy on ] and our guideline on ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::PS - what are Fursov's credentials and how does that make him an expert? | |||
| ::::::Right, I understand the issue here between primary and secondary sources. But I really don't think the secondary sources are necessarily reliable, Arvidson for instance has a political ideology that lends an inherent biased against what the journal is about. I suspect the same applies for probably other sources there as well. But it all seems at the end of the day unbalanced and against NPOV. ] (]) 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::] (]) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm sorry but we don't exclude a work from an academic just because they're Marxist. ] (]) 16:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here is a translated version of ] (]) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The context in which Arvidson's ideas presented here within the article (too many one sided views) coupled with how the ideology creates a biasing effect against the topic per the author's book is problematic. There are quite a few claims in the Arvidson book that shows he really just doesn't care for the study of Indo-European linguistics and mythology per his political stance which is bias. Question: are opinions derived from books written by authors with a strong right leaning political ideology allowed here on wikipedia and considered 'reliable sources'. ] (]) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Once again, the text I propose to add to the article: ''In response to King, historian ] of the University of Wisconsin wrote in 1996 that the ], a LaRouche-affiliated group, had "only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement",<ref>Payne, Stanley G., ''A History of Fascism, 1914-1945'', University of Wisconsin Pres, Jan 1, 1996, p. 512</ref> while another historian, Andrei Fursov of the Moscow Institute for the Humanities, said that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics.<ref>Benedictine, Kyrill, interview with Andrei Fursov, , Terra-America, April 19, 2012</ref>'' Are there any policy-based objections to this text? ] (]) 02:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Generally yes, unless the strong right-leaning political ideology gets into ] beliefs such as pro-eugenicism or other racist / supremacist opinions and assuming they're operating within an area of specialty and would not, otherwise, be considered unreliable regardless of their personal politics. | |||
| :] says that "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions." ] (]) 05:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I'll be honest, when dealing with academic sources, I don't generally look up the ideological position of the author unless it's somehow actually relevant. And I don't believe it's at all relevant here. ] (]) 18:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk|close=1}} | |||
| ::::::::::I think that is rather naive and not very reasonable that an author's background or ideology wouldn't be relevant and that due diligence shouldn't be given to an author's background when choosing sources that would write fairly or reasonably on a subject. I don't think a book Sean Hannity would write on socialism would be received well in a wiki article pertaining to said subject and would raise editorial ire fairly quickly. We are dealing with much the same situation here. ] (]) 18:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Sean Hannity is not an academic and does not write academic books. As such he's rather irrelevant to this discussion and the context of my response ''which was specific to the review of academic books and journals.'' ] (]) 18:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Academics do not represent completely neutral views. Certainly not Arvidsson. Just like Sean Hannity doesn't. Separating the two is not as useful as you think. Both entities are capable of publishing highly skewed views on any position. You're essentially discouraging due diligence here. I don't find that very academic and suspect in its own right. ] (]) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::] does not mean that a source must be neutral. ] (]) ] (]) 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Bringing up the highly biased and skewed Arvidsson text as not within the many guidelines within Misplaced Pages's NPOV is fair game. You are trying to set your own perimiters here. ] (]) 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that this is a problem that needs to be resolved. Anyone familiar with Indo-European studies is aware that the Journal of Indo-European Studies is a major, respected, and influential peer-reviewed publication in the field. ] (]) 00:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Exactly. There really isn't anything wrong with the Journal itself, especially if you read it, but the sources presented have a peculiar bias against the journal. ] (]) 00:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, you're free to think there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm genuinely not sure what we're meant to do while writing an encyclopedia article about it? Are we supposed to adopt a totally novel process than when writing about anything else? (To the best of my ability, these aren't rhetorical questions.) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In short, we just need to build out the article more regarding its reception, especially with discussion from individuals who actually have a background and standing in historical linguistics. For example, a quick look at the editor-in-chief since 2020 reveals quotes that actually reflect how the journal is perceived in for example philology and historical linguistics (eg. ). ] (]) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are opinions about the journal expressed in secondary sources that have questionable merit. Especially when you compare these opinions to what's actually in the journal. This is indeed very problematic and presents a rather unique problem here. I don't know the best way to remedy this either other than through continued dialogue. Perhaps maybe we can strike a harmonious balance. At the moment, something is very wrong here. ] (]) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agree with TFD above. The quote has no place in the article. WP:CONSENSUS has some of the stupidest writing on any Misplaced Pages policy page, and also is probably the most invoked and abused of Misplaced Pages's policies. You shouldn't be able to bore people into submission.] (]) 05:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ultimately the article (as with all Misplaced Pages articles) needs to be based on what reliable secondary sources say about the journal. What editors think of the journal is of no import, and what editors of the journal say about it is of limited use. The solution is to find additional secondary sources that discuss the journal. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Again, I am asking whether there is a ''policy-based'' objection. Whether Fursov is politically a supporter, or an opponent like those writers he is refuting, is irrelevant under ]. ] (]) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I see some edits made over at the JIES article but to me it seems making a whole subsection about Pearson does more to draw away what the journal is about. The journal is not Pearson. Contributors and editors like Mallory, Polome, Adams, and Kristiansen made the journal by and large what it is today. Not Pearson. We still have some ways to go here. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| As an uninvolved party, based on the discussion here it appears to me that inclusion would give too much weight to a fringe viewpoint. ] <small>(])</small> 16:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the solution is to simply build out the rest of the article and then return to it. ] (]) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It could be argued that both sides of the debate are fringe viewpoints, since the question of whether LaRouche is a fascist does not come up outside of battles between him and his activist opponents. However, Fursov is not the only commentator to question the theory of King and Berlet. John George and ] write in ''American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others'', p. 292: "Dennis King goes to considerable lengths to paint LaRouche as a neo-Nazi, even engaging in a little conspiracy-mongering of his own." ] says that Berlet has "made a career out of anathematizing LaRouche." ] (]) 19:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The secondary sources in the article clearly indicate your opinion - that the presence of a known white-supremacist as a founder of the journal is irrelevant to the reputation of the journal - is not universal among academics. I concur with bloodofox. If you're concerned about how the journal is depicted then you find sources that support it being described as ''not'' an armature of ]. ] (]) 18:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've looked over this discussion and the only person who has actually addressed the issue in terms of NPOV (this is the NPOV board, right?) is WriteGeist. Otherwise I'm seeing some POV Quatsch. ] (]) 20:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The limited secondary sources that are highly biased in the wiki as it stands does in no way represent a universal opinion among academics in and of themselves. The journal is simply not being represented fairly based on the texts available. Pearson's involvement is vastly over stated and the idea that its an extension of himself somehow is completely unfounded. ] (]) 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ok this is getting repetitive. I'm sorry you haven't got the response here you hoped for. But the advice to improve the article by finding additional academic sources is good advice and would serve you better than suggesting we should never treat the criticism of a journal with a white supremacist founder as due because said criticism came from a Marxist. ] (]) 19:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Again you're discouraging due diligence and whether or not a source can be viewed as reliable or not. If you would just read the journal yourself you would see its not at all what Arvidsson is trying to paint it as. ] (]) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm sorry but ] isn't appropriate in this case. Arvidsson is reliable because he's an academic writing about the topic that is at the literal core of his academic domain. He is, flatly put, a ] for criticism of Indo-European studies. As such it would be a violation of ] ''to exclude him''. However that does not mean that Misplaced Pages should treat his position as privileged in some way. If other ] disagree with him then they would be due inclusion too. This is why you've been told to find other sources. ] (]) 19:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ardvisson as a 'best choice' in this is simply your opinion. You're a socialist after all, so apparently he seems reasonable to you. Many others would not feel the same way you do. Sorry if you do no understand that. But feel free to continue the 'repetive' conversation here. At the end of the day all I see is due diligence being discouraged and a lack of NPOV. ] (]) 19:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::And now we have reached the point in the conversation when I ask you to read ]. ] (]) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::There was no personal attack. My tone was the same as yours. For all intended purposes that would mean you should read that yourself. If you would like to end this conversation cordially, now would be fine. We simply don't agree. ] (]) 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{tq|You're a socialist after all...}} is, in context, a personal attack as you're suggesting my own, openly stated, politics makes me incapable of recognizing whether an academic is operating within his specialty - which he did his doctoral thesis on - and are trying to dismiss my advice accordingly. I would kindly ask you to strike that comment. ] (]) 20:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I said politely that we should end this conversation as its turning out to be very, very unproductive. We don't agree on anything apparently and I don't take very well to people discouraging due diligence and setting their own standards on how wiki guidelines should be viewed. Please, stop. ] (]) 20:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I mean, if that's what sources say about it, then that's what sources say about it. The sources we're citing there are largely academics with at least some degree of expertise in Indo-European studies, race science or far-right movements. Also, we're really only devoting a few sentences to the matter, which are roughly balanced in terms of focus - two for scholars who criticize it; one noting the existence of the boycott, and two from Tucker and Mallory ''defending'' the journal (and the defenses are given slightly more text!) Having them exactly balance out like that isn't ''necessary'' of course, but it makes it harder to argue that they're being given undue weight - aside from the fact that the page says almost nothing else about the journal at all, which is solved by finding other sources covering other aspects. (I will say that I did a quick search right now and found only a few passing mentions, ''all'' of which were about the race science connection to one degree or another. That really does seem to be the only aspect of the journal that has received meaningful external coverage. See eg. : {{tq|Although Duranton-Crabol (1988: 148), fifteen years ago, pointed with alarm to his involvement, Lincoln appears to be the first US-based Indo-European specialist to openly comment on the worrisome background of Roger Pearson, the publisher of the prestigious Journal of Indo-European Studies since its founding in 1973.}} Notable mostly because it's a secondary source describing such concerns, which lends additional weight to at least mentioning them.) ...also, they point out that Bruce Lincoln, who we cite in the article, ''is'' actually an Indo-European specialist; we might want to look at what we're citing him for and see if there are more details there. --] (]) 22:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|Geog1}} You must notify other editors involved in a discussion (i.e. me) when you post it to this noticeboard. There is a big red notice instructing you to this at the top of the page. – ] <small>(])</small> 07:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't really get what we can do here. "Neutral" specifically is a technical term meaning in proportion to what the independent, reliable secondary sources have said on the topic, and the limits of editorial discretion do not extend to excluding the what seems to be the views expressed by the majority of those sources, as indicated by the participants here. If the sources say that the earth is flat, then we can only report that that is what the sources say. Misplaced Pages does not have the resources to conduct original research, and it would be disallowed by policy even if we were able to. ] (] • ]) 09:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Just one other thing I have to bring up here. I noticed the Tucker quote had the text about Pearson's involvement regarding published material in JIES flagged as dubious for a while. I don't know by who. Eventually it was removed because someone (not sure who) did research noting Pearson had published 3 articles in the journal. That would seem to be original research. When we look at the Berlet and Lyons quote being used in the article, they claim the Journal is 'racialist' and 'ayranist' but it is a linguistic journal not 'racialist' or whatever. This can be seen by just reading a few entries from the journal which can easily be found online just like the Berlet and Lyons quote was easily pulled for online yet we see that characterization of the journal persist. This appears to present some inconsistency on how editing policy is being used. | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I see the comment by ] mentions how if 'reliable' sources report the earth is flat, then according to wikipedia policy, its fair game to put into an article and discuss. While I understand this is a policy, I'm not entirely sure if its serving us well here. This could open the door of Pandora's box for all sorts of misinformation to be presented in wiki articles. | |||
| From a cursory scan, I'm not sure this is written from a NPOV, but would like a second opinion, The talk page is worse. :( ] (]) 20:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I've rewritten the article using reliable sources and a neutral point of view.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 20:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Finally, I took a look at the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society article. I see an entire section with no sources entitled 'discussion papers' which essentially relates to the journal's content. No one for some reason seems bothered that its not sourced but I have doubts that a similar section in the JIES article would go without scrutiny if we were to say flesh out what the content of the journal is actually like. Again, it would appear inconsistencies are presented here regarding wikipedia policy being applied to two different journals. | |||
| == NPOV notice on Gary Webb: Was he "vindicated"? == | |||
| I don't know what can be done here, but like I said before in the JIES talk page, I'd welcome more information that could help balance out the article a little more. However, I also feel this is a situation where wikipedia policy is failing a particular article and I doubt this is the only one. In the future, it may be useful to revisit wikipedia policy and see if changes could be made to help prevent or better remedy situations like this. | |||
| A Misplaced Pages editor started an NPOV inquiry into whether Gary Webb was "vindicated"? ] - The editor argues that the CIA internal report in the 1990s did not vindicate him. The article currently states that Webb was vindicated after the editor of the '']'' stated that the newspaper's attack on him was faulty and after something another newspaper published in the 2000s (I'll have to look) | |||
| Best, | |||
| ''This is an important topic'' so I encourage Wikipedians to give this their attention | |||
| ] (]) 09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 17:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :An article in ''Esquire'' quotes Jess Katz as saying, "Webb was vindicated by a 1998 CIA Inspector General report...." I see no reason why we cannot mention what Katz said, but before we state as a fact that Webb was vindicated we would need to show that that is the consensus among observers in reliable sources. Even if Webb's allegations turned out to be true, it does not necessarily mean that he has been vindicated. It would depend on whether he followed proper journalistic standards. ] (]) 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :@]Thank you for bringing up these important points. It's clear that there's a need for careful scrutiny and consistent application of Misplaced Pages's policies to ensure accuracy and neutrality in our articles. | |||
| == Ernesto Kreplak == | |||
| :Regarding the Tucker quote and Pearson's involvement, it's essential to rely on verifiable sources and avoid original research. If a reliable source supports the claim that Pearson published in JIES, then it can be included. However, if the source is questionable, it should be approached with caution. | |||
| :The characterization of the JIES as "racialist" and "Aryanist" is a serious allegation. It's crucial to base such claims on solid evidence from reliable sources. Simply reading a few articles may not be sufficient to make such a sweeping judgment. If there are specific examples of racist or discriminatory content in the journal, they should be cited and discussed in a neutral manner. | |||
| :The Aquillion comment about the "flat Earth" scenario highlights a potential limitation of Misplaced Pages's policies. While it's important to be open to diverse viewpoints, it's equally important to maintain a high standard of quality and accuracy. In cases where there is a clear consensus among reliable sources, it's important to prioritize that consensus over fringe theories. | |||
| :The issue of unsourced content in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society is a valid concern. However, it's important to consider the context and purpose of such sections. If these sections are intended to stimulate discussion and debate, rather than present definitive facts, then they may not require strict adherence to sourcing guidelines. ] (]) 06:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Everything being discussed is appropriately sourced to ]. ] (]) 12:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also please have the respect for other people not to reply with a textwall of obvious chatbot glurge. ] (]) 12:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === notability concerns === | |||
| This is a short and simple case. ] is a man from Argentina, involved in two political scandals, and the article says so. But some users (] and some IPs) try several times to remove this information from the article, and leave just a whitewashed version that merely mentions some small pet projects he has. Note that the content being removed is the only content that cites references which are not involved with Kreplak; in fact they are the only references with a proper format (the other content may be found at the external links). As for the references I used, I consider that Clarín and La Nación are reliable: Clarín is a member of the ], and La Nación is Argentina's ]. I tried to discuss it at ], but to no avail: the request to discuss the problem has been ignored, and the removals of content continued. ] (]) 03:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Gonna skip all the conversation above and ask an honest question... can we just delete it? states it has an h-index of 10, and states an impact factor of 0.2. It doesn't seem like it would survive ]. ] (]) 20:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Did AfD: ] ] (]) 20:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The result was '''speedy keep'''.] (]) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] & ] == | |||
| :<small>I have notified all the involved users about this thread, both those who removed the portion of the article and those who restored it or discussed about it. I hope that I did the correct thing. ] (]) 03:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::All I made was a grammar and usage edit, so I guess this isn't something I have to worry too much about? I don't think I have anything to offer, so I'm moving along. ] (]) 05:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Some IPv6 has opinions about ] & ]. Can someone who knows about such things please take a look? Thanks, ] (]) 07:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per and . User 1. Removed the {{t|reflist}} template, which effectively breaks the page's footnotes, and 2. Removed sourced content without any explanation, added his/her signature to the article, and removed a maintenance tag when (I'm guessing) it still implies. Oh, and 3. Mislabelling edits as ]. Since it's one of many traits in vandalistic edits, I decided to revert. Scrutiny for my actions? --''']''' (] | ]) 13:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your actions seem fine to me. I have left a conflict of interest query on Tiopappo's page. If they don't answer (as they seem altogether rather unwilling to engage in dialogue), I suppose I'll have to step it up a bit. ] | ] 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC). | |||
| ::::::There are several problems with the article, but NPOV does not seem to apply. Basically, the article is about a minor official in the government, who has some involvement in different projects. Because these are Spanish language sources, it is difficult to determine their reliability or how they pertain to the topic. I have remove some non-sourced BLP info and tagged the article for refimprove & notability. I do not think there is anything here, on the NPOVN, to do. – ] (]) 21:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Confusing language from a Mark Biondich source related to Balkans == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| "In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans.": https://books.google.com/books?id=gt8SDAAAQBAJ&q=Muslims+casualties+millions+Balkans&pg=PA93 | |||
| I have serious questions which I have raised on the talk page regarding whether the article adheres to ] and also about the broader neutrality of the article and also some expressed concerns regarding conduct matters. Additional input there would be very welcome. ] (]) 22:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you provide a link to the discussion thread about "Words to watch" - what words are in violation of it? Scientists have rejected ID as a ''scientific'' theory because it cannot be empirically tested. As an analogy, your house may be haunted with ghosts causing creaking signs at night. But all scientists can do is attempt to rule out various natural causes. ] (]) 23:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::John may be referring to ] which discusses a point he's also raised at ]. He seems to think that the ] guideline trumps ] policy, and for that matter also wants to disregard ] policy in order to ] to pseudoscience. . . ], ] 23:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::(e-c) The second paragraph of the ] section of ] begins, "The prefix pseudo‑ indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable." That raises questions regarding the use of that rather loaded word, and I admit to having not seen that myself until a recent ARCA on chiropractic, prior to which I saw nothing wrong with the word myself. And, FWIW, this also relates to an existing request regarding the use of that word there at ]. No one BTW is arguing ID theories aren't woo, but there is a question as to whether the core principle is. And my thanks to Dave for both an apparent prejudicial rush to judgment and attempt at mischaraterization of the concerns of others. ] (]) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::LABEL of course is a guideline not a policy and significantly it does not mention "pseudo-science." So while editors are not required to follow it, they should have a good reason not to. To me, saying ID is pseudo-science is not helpful, because it assumes readers know what pseudo-science is. So ] may be a consideration. It might be better to say that "scientists consider it pseudo-science because...." In that way we could explain what pseudo-science means and why it is considered pseudo-science. ] (]) 02:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No need to explain what pseudoscience is in the article... Readers can find out what pseudoscience is by reading our article on ]... that's what internal links are ''for''. ] (]) 12:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Why would Mark Biondich add those "killed or expelled" to those Muslims who emigrated to mean deaths as is stated in the ] article. As I see it from a neutral viewpoint, he refers to the reduction of Balkan Muslims as "casualties from the Balkans". | |||
| ::::::: ] '''Nope, the issue is cites do not support using the label'''. Creationism has prominent use, but pseudoscience does not and ] says "Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally" -- this word just popped in at 13-15 April 2014 by apparently just editors wordsmithing not from it's use outside or some presented logic; see ] (]) 05:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am not sure it is appropriate for the OP to be raising essentially the same issue in multiple places such as the , (of more concern when followed up with ), at , plus his comments with these at ARCA. It smacks of ] to me. - ] ] 09:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] says, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence.... Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper." The link is there in case a reader wants to know more about a term. ] (]) 18:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If this comment was directed at me, in each link in my previous post I provided a brief description of each link within the context of the sentence sufficient to understand what was being said. If you want to see the details then follow the link, but the point being made was that this editor has raised the same issue in multiple places. Adding further detail from each link would cloud that substantive issue. - ] ] 22:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to get other viewpoints and advice related to these. ] (]) 12:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Use of ] to defend '']'' == | |||
| :{{u|Theofunny}}, the way I understand your interpretation, when Biondich says "the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million", you think this includes those expelled, right? So you think the word "casualties" do not mean only deaths. Is this correct? ] (]) 13:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The movie, ] received over wheeling negative reviews by film critics. However, the article has a long quote from ] that defends the movie. I think the source is a fringe source and the long quote is ]. Other editors disagree. I would ask for some input into this issue. Thanks in advance. The talk page discussion can be found ] ] (]) 02:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes exactly. Like even in a war, the term casualties is quite flexible and is a source for confusion as it could mean all who are dead or all are dead as well as injured. ] (]) 13:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The quote is similar in length to the negative one that precedes it, and total reception to the movie has been overwhelmingly positive, as the extremely rare A+ ] audience polling shows, along with the strong box office receipts. The negative reviews from about a little over a dozen critics are given first billing in the section, but it would be misleading and a blatant violation of NPOV for us to ''only'' give them billing. | |||
| :::Later in the page he uses the term "victims" for "dead, wounded, and refugees". I don't think the term is as flexible as you think. ] (]) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Generally "casualties" includes dead and wounded. Including refugees is a bit novel but I don't think it's unduly confusing provided it's described with care. ] (]) 13:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The question is, is my rewording in the article ] correct? {{tq|The historian Mark Biondich estimates that, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, more than three million Muslims from the Balkan area died, and around two million Muslims were displaced.}} ] (]) 13:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Those numbers don't seem to line up with what the OP posted as a quote from the source. Can you please elaborate? ] (]) 14:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I had interpreted the quote from the source as how Biondich calculated the number of deaths (casualties). ] (]) 14:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{tq|"In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans."}} He says 2 million left between 1878 and 1912. He says more than another million ("When one '''adds'''...") left or died between 1912 and 1923. (The number who died or left 1912-1923 is added to the number who left 1878-1912 to equal "far exceeds three million".) The source does not support any number that died because he groups those who left in the same estimate. ] ] 14:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yeah my concern is that the two figures seem to be divided chronologically but not by type. So we can't determine what percentage of the three million were killed rather than expelled or wounded. ] (]) 14:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@]+1 ] (]) 08:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Thanks everyone! Looks like I was incorrect in this one due to my misinterpretation of the word "casualty". | |||
| I was also confused because McCarthy and Kaser give much higher number of deaths, around 5 million, in ]. So 3 million made more sense. | |||
| :The op has failed to build an argument explaining why Breitbart is allegedly "fringe". He's conceded it's a RS for its own opinions, which is what the section is about, and the author in question, conservative ], is notable enough to have his own Wiki page, unlike the negative reviewer quoted previously, ] (a ). Since this is an explicitly political film and the reception has largely broke along party lines, it would be disingenuous for us not to include a statement from each side, particularly when the statement is commenting on the obvious political aspects involved. As I linked to on the Talk Page, Breitbart routinely does film reviews and is ranked #41 globally in news sites by Alexa. ] (]) 03:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Now I see that it has to do with dates. It should have been clear from the quote actually, but looks like I missed it. | |||
| :The issue is one of WEIGHT. Breitbart.com is RS and describing the critic/non-critic as fringe does not help. After all, Rotten Tomatoes aggretates reviews, some of which may be "fringe" themselves. Whatever is put into the section should be in SUMMARYSTYLE and balanced. – ] (]) 03:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I would certainly disagree that bretbart.com is RS for anything but its own opinion. However, I do agree that the section should be neutral in wording and look forward to more input into the issue. Thanks for providing your input.] (]) 03:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence since 1878 is available through Misplaced Pages Library. | |||
| :That section feels to me like FOX's version of , where instead of just telling the truth, they have two sides argue until the space is filled, then conclude with some sort "We'll just have to agree to disagree" non-answer. If this film was good, according to a majority, the film had a positive reception. If the majority say it sucked, it had a negative reception. Whichever is true deserves the weight. ] ] 03:55, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| Page 94: | |||
| :<small>This isn't all that relevant, but a Sort of relevant. ] ] 04:04, ], ] (UTC)</small> | |||
| {{tq2|When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans.157}} | |||
| Source 157: | |||
| {{tq2|157. Mazower, The Balkans, pp. xxxvii–xxxviii; and McCarthy, Ottoman Peoples, 149–62}} | |||
| Biondich gives same numbers and sources in chapter , page 1: | |||
| ::The large audiences who gave the film an historically rare A+ rating vastly outnumber the "22" Rotten Tomatoes critics who mostly (but not uniformly) panned it, so by that logic we should give the weight to the former. The section is titled "Reception", not "Rotten Tomatoes reception" or even "Reception by film critics". This is clearly not a normal movie situation. The film is explicitly political so the reaction has been predictable. Most movie critics are liberal and have spent their reviews attacking the film's politics, while conservatives have generally praised it. Censoring one side down the memory hole and pretending people like Sobczynski are somehow the only ones whose opinions matter would be like MSNBC's version of "truth". ] (]) 04:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{tq2|The road from Berlin to Lausanne was littered with millions of casualties. Between 1878 and 1912, millions of Balkan Muslims emigrated or were forced from the region. When one adds up those who were killed or expelled between the Balkan Wars (1912–13) and Greco-Turkish War (1919–22), the number of Balkan-Muslim casualties may have exceeded three million. By 1923, fewer than one million Muslims remained in the Balkans.1<br/>...<br/>1 Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History (New York: Random House, 2002), xxxvii–xxxviii;<br/>Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire (London: Arnold, 2001), 149–62.}} | |||
| ::: A poll will always reflect the population that you poll. It is highly likely that moviegoers that showed up for the opening weekend for "America", were motivated by political views. On the other hand, the movie critics role is to objectively evaluate a film.] (]) 04:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You've got to be kidding. Did you ''read'' Sobczynski's "review"? It was rabidly partisan and overtly political, as his reviews frequently are. Check out his glowing review of Al Gore's flick I linked to above where he talks about his own political bias. The negative reviews are from upset liberals attacking D'Souza's politics. ] (]) 04:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::His glowing review of Gore's flick was probably more because that was ] ] 04:19, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Or because he's a leftist hack, like many "critics" are. Either way, it's best to err on allowing the inclusion of both sides in articles covering politically charged films. It would be preposterous to purge all quotes from non liberals discussing an explicitly conservative political movie. ] (]) 04:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Maybe. But erring at all is bad, especially to perpetuate the Red vs Blue war. The movie's ''about'' US politics, but that doesn't mean the critical reception section should be. We don't expect detectives to review detective movies, quirky couples to review date movies or child killers to review Elm Street movies. Not their role. <s>The last guy even says he wouldn't normally dignify a review with a response, so why should we?</s> (My bad, that was Reuters, sort of.) Molen's quote is just trying to appeal to emotion with political bullshit techniques, hoping to drum up fake controversy attendance. Misplaced Pages shouldn't stoop to that. ] ] 05:36, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::We're discussing Shapiro, not Molen. Molen produced the film (along with others, like Schindler's List). Shapiro actually reviews films from time to time. Either way, there's absolutely nothing in policy that says we should only quote professional movie critics in movie articles, and such articles are peppered with quotes from pundits and others, especially when they're political films. Also, it's not your role to decide whether or not the "Red vs Blue war" should be perpetuated or not. It's certainly not your role to declare the war over and insist that only Blue voices are allowed on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'd thought we were discussing the undue weight in the reception section. Molen contributed to that. And again, I don't believe in Red or Blue people. That kind of shit is why we have a problem here in the first place. I believe movie critics should critique movies, and if I'm insisting anything, it's that ''they'' are who we should hear from there, whoever they typically vote for. Might not be policy, but it makes sense to me. Maybe starting a "Political Reaction" section is a good idea. Readers interested in that would know where to find it, and those who aren't wouldn't have to. ] ] 02:40, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::This thread was about Shapiro's quote, not Molen's. Saying you don't believe in red or blue people is awfully convenient when you're simultaneously claiming we should only be hearing from people who happen to almost all be blue. It also ignores the fact that a liberal/conservative divide really exists, as the starkly different reactions to the film underscore. ] (]) 05:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: It had an overwhelling bad reception among critics. That can be seen Its cinema score was high, but that is likely due to movie goers who saw the movie were ideologically likely to support the message of the movie. In my opinion, that should have little weight.] (]) 04:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that's very clearly not positive. ] ] 04:05, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| I don't have Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire. But the book seems to cover 1912-1922 period of Ottoman Empire . So this aligns with the quote from Biondich. | |||
| :::Oh, don't get me wrong about Shapiro as "RS". As with all of the critics, we get opinion, not factual material. Which critic does one favor? Too often it is the critic that agrees with our own POV. So saying this critic or that critic is fringe is sometimes saying "I like my critic more than your critic". Now some critics, like Ebert and Maltin, have more impact than others. That is a CONTEXTMATTERS type of consideration. – ] (]) 04:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I agree with that logic. If you are going to quote someone it should be because the review is somehow notable or it helps highlight the overall consensus. Here, the consensus is the film was bad and we have a long quote that basically says it wasn't. That makes it appear there was some critical debate about the quality of the film. Moreover, the source of the review is ideologically aligned with defending the film. ] (]) 04:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You're repeating a falsehood. You can't just dismiss the fact that audiences gave the film an historically rare A+ CinemaScore rating. Clearly there is ''not'' a consensus that the film is bad. You also can't dismiss the audiences as ideologically motivated and ignore the fact that the critics negatively reviewing the movie are overtly liberals. ] (]) 04:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Audiences often simply see things which are hyped, regardless of politics. Look at the ] ''Scary Movie'' had. They were all popular attractions, and all terrible films. ] ] 04:26, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::And yet , putting this movie in exclusive company with numerous Academy Best Picture Winners. Movies good enough to earn such a rare audience rating are also generally liked by critics. Clearly the difference this time is political bias, overt in the negative reviews and arguably present among viewers (though I haven't heard about other political docs scoring an A+). Obviously the fair thing to do with this kind of split where critics per se are compromised is for Misplaced Pages to avoid taking sides and neutrally present both sides. ] (]) 04:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That article says the scores "serve as a fairly reliable indicator of whether a film will fly or fizzle." That means sell well or not. Has nothing to do with its quality as art. Like the headline says, it matters for box office, not critical reception. And it doesn't jusify quoting some guy ranting about "the left" like they're an actual group. Have any of these voters written down ''why'' they liked it? That could be worth something. ] ] 05:40, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| This is what Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History says, pages xxxvii–xxxviii | |||
| ::::::::::And an "A+" isn't all that impressive when "a majority of films receive a grade in the A- to B- range." That's just a little better than normal. ] ] 05:43, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| {{tq2|Christian Europe’s blindness to Muslim victims overlooked the huge movements of populations triggered off by Ottoman decline. “People often talk in the West about transporting all the Turks, in other words Muslims, to Asia in order to turn Turkey in Europe into a uniquely Christian empire,” Ami Boué had written in 1854. “This would be a decree as inhumane as the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, or of Protestants from France, and indeed scarcely feasible since the Europeans always forget that in Turkey in Europe the Muslims are mostly Slavs or Albanians, whose right to the land is as ancient as that of their Christian compatriots.” Yet, according to one estimate, nearly 5 million Muslims were driven from former Ottoman lands in the Balkans and the Black Sea region in the century after 1821; from the Balkans themselves between 1.7 and 2 million Muslims immigrated voluntarily or involuntarily between 1878 and 1913 to what would later become the republic of Turkey. The Turkish language declined as a regional lingua franca, urban settlements were taken over by Christian incomers and Ottoman buildings were deliberately demolished or left to rot. The dynamiting of mosques and other architectural masterpieces in Bosnia-Hercegovina in the early 1990s was thus the continuation in an extreme form of a process of de-Islamicization that had begun decades earlier.19}} | |||
| So the general confusion we had in ] has to do with dates and geographic areas (Balkans only or including other areas). Whether from 1820 to 1920, or 1878 to 1912, or 1912 to 1923. Mark Mazower only talks about displaced, but the 5 million displaced after 1821 is also in other sources. | |||
| :::::::::::Considering most of the negatives are simply those that don't appear to like his politics, that argument is doesn't really hold up. If it is really that bad, then why are there not a lot of viewers writing bad reviews to bring the score down? It is no secret that conservative films are reviewed harshly by critics, while liberal films given gushing praise. An Inconvient Truth is a great example of a film loaded with false statements and yet was given gushing praise. The viewer response was less positive than America. In anycase, it is not undue weight to present the Brietbart response. I am not even sure why this is a fight. Liberals will not go see it anyway, and conservatives will. This is quite clear given the critics responses and the actual viewers. Also, from a statistical point of view, an "A+" is a LOT better. Those scores don't fall on a ]. ] (]) 13:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Politics doesn't seem as big an issue as the poor filmmaking. Ebert.com's review is clear about that. Movies can present an unpopular viewpoint and still present it well. This one seems to fail at that. I don't see anything to suggest the CinemaScore is based on reviews, rather a survey, so that would explain why people aren't trying to bring it down that way. That's a marketing thing, reviews are art things. ] ] 02:47, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| I'll fix the wording in affected articles in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: The A+ does not use a random sample and there is every reason to think it is a highly biased sample. Plus most movies get an A and the rating itself is not that well know. ] (]) 13:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: Actually, Cinescore, which does the polling, appears to do random survey's of movie goers. Of people that saw that movie, most thought it was great. When taken together with all movies, you get a distribution of scores. That distribution follows what one would expect. Most movies in the middle with a few on the extremes. That it recieved a high score relative to all the others is notable. You can not like it, but you can't use your own opinion to disregard it, unless you disregard all of the viewer responses and critics, which are also highly biased and not a random sample. ] (]) 16:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You should add the displaced figures by Mark Mazower in the article and and a '''displaced section''' in the infobox too with the other sources and Mark M. ] (]) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Would it be considered 'original research' for me to say that my wife and I saw "America, imagine the world without her!" and can (as armchair movie critics) that the music was great, the 'plot' was great (which plot is to show what you would expect if George Washington had 'taken the bullet' rather than 'dodged the bullet'); the camera work is great, the extras were great, real people were 'the actors'; the movie reviews should include these aspects. Instead, they miss the points of the movie. As to Breitbart, you may know there are several websites by the Breitbart team, and we consider them to be excellent, (we also consider FoxNews to be excellent.) It always amazes me that The New York Times is given greater credibility than a source that reports facts and truth. ] (]) 13:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't do everything today, but I'll make some of the changes later. I already changed the wording in the article ] (]) 15:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| It is a dispute in about https://en.wikipedia.org/BRICS#cite_note-:2-173 | |||
| That there is such a discrepancy between the media critics and the audience is itself notable imo and should be discussed in the article. Yes the A+ rating is likely from a sympathetic audience. That is going to be true of many movies targeted at a niche audience with a controversial viewpoint. ] (]) 15:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Nobody seem willing to verify my citation therefore I lost this edit war. | |||
| I'd like to note a couple of things. The specific reference to breitbart.com is regarding a quote from the producer. The "reception" section is suppose to inform readers about how the film was critically and publicly received and I don't see how Molen's criticism of a review is relevant to the purpose of a section. That quote and information seems more appropriately placed on a page about Molen. The next thing I'd like to note is the use of cinemascore. I don't have a problem with the use of cinemascore, but it should not be given equal weight to what critics say and should be identified and separated as viewer polling. The way the information is presented now, it appears the cinemascore is provided to contradict with the critic's score and that is an example of undue weight. That would be like using the opinions of civilians to contradict historians in an article about the civil war. I think the cinemascore information should be moved to its own paragraph and specifically identified as a survey of moviegoers and other viewer based reviews should also be referenced. ] (]) 16:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BRICS ] (]) 17:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually the op was complaining about a quote from Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro, a third party observer, that has since been deleted, though I sort of agree with you at least to the extent that including his quote on the political dynamic is more important than tacking on the producer's quote at the end. As for the rest, the section is titled "Reception", not "Reception by critics", and the CinemaScore results cover a lot more people than the dozen or so liberal critics who attacked the movie and are at least as noteworthy. There's absolutely nothing in policy that grants film critics such "expert" status as to make their opinions the only ones that matter, to the exclusion of all others, even when those opinions are compromised by something like political bias as they obviously are here. We aren't dealing with something like history where specialized knowledge matters, much less something involving hard science where expertise really comes into play. We're covering the subjective reception to a film, not the atomic weight of chromium. ] (]) 18:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you give more details and a link to the discussion at the talk page? Right now it's not clear what the dispute was about. Also, you might want to review ] and assume good faith. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Should say something like "The movie was universally panned by critics, but gained support from some right-wing bloggers." Weight requires us to provide more space to what reviewers said than to what political partisans said. ] (]) 18:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dear @] , yeah I can https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BRICS#Much_more_efficient_than_SWIFT . | |||
| ::"Universally panned" may be too much. Perhaps "Generally panned by film critics". "Right-wing bloggers" may be too much. Perhaps "conservative commentators" or "conservative political commentators". As the film is a political documentary, the politics of the critics and commentators can be mentioned so long as SYNTH is avoided. – ] (]) 19:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't get notified of your reply, please use the @] it would make it easier to keep up with the conversation. ] (]) 21:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ( @] you are welcome to join ;) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::In any event, the article should follow ]. – ] (]) 19:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::From your link: "''Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, '''though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited'''.......To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews.....Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used.''" And all that's from a section titled "Critical response", not just "Reception" which is the case in this article. ] (]) 19:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Clearly if we're labeling we should be fair. If we're summarizing, then how about "The film received mostly negative reviews from liberal film critics but a strongly positive reception by audiences and conservative commentators?" ] (]) 19:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::How do we show that the film critics are liberal? Were there conservative film critics who did reviews? – ] (]) 19:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The same summarizing editorial judgement we use to label people like Shapiro "conservatives". Reading the negative reviews makes it clear they're liberals because they're mostly attacking D'Souza's conservative politics. I'd support letting the negative reviewer currently quoted, Peter Sobczynski, : "'''my avowed left-wing liberal credentials'''". | |||
| ::::: That fact that one reviewer has liberal views does not undermine the overall response from film critics. Nor does it indicate that his reviews are based on his political views.] (]) 19:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Surely you're joking. He's not just one reviewer, but the one whose quote we ''feature''. His review spends most of its paragraphs directly attacking D'Souza's political views, and the review is typical. There's at least as much cause to honestly label such critics "liberal" as there is to use the "conservative" label suggested above for people like Shapiro. ] (]) 20:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Your perceptions of them as liberal and the inclusion of that perception in the article is a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You are reading their material and making a judgement on it, then trying to include that judgement on the article.] (]) 20:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, it's not OR or my perception, it's his perception of himself. Excluding his self described political views while using him as the feature quote for a documentary produced by the opposing side is misleading and a violation of NPOV. ] (]) 20:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I would be happy with changing out his quote with another similarly notable reviewer. The point is to get a feel for the overall reception. If you feel that this particular reviewer is not suitable, I don't think it would be an issue to change out the quote.] (]) 20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: For example, what about this Print reviews are better, per ].] (]) 20:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::(edit conflict) I have no problem with keeping Sobczynski. Let's just be honest and neutral in how we construct this page. I've said all along that I'm fine with calling Shapiro "conservative" (which he is) if we similarly label someone like Sobczynski "liberal" (which he is, along with the negative reviewers generally). You seem to be trying to contort the article in such a way as to purge any mention of positive reception (or diminish it as much as possible) or hint that a political dynamic is potentially at play, leaving only "film critics" presenting what's supposedly an objective verdict on the film's quality without any political animus whatsoever, and without any acknowledgement of the millions of people and expert commentators who disagree. As the guideline quotes I posted above show, we aren't limited to only including commentary from professional film critics. ] (]) 20:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: I am only trying to make the section meet ] and ] . There is still no evidence that Sobczynski was writing as anything but a film reviewer. Moreover, I again have no problem with changing out the quote with another reviewer. However, what I don't think should be done is to give the impression to the reader that some reviewers like the film and some did not. The fact remains it was universally panned and only defended from highly right wing sources.] (]) 20:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'll add that Jenkins is a liberal too, and his review largely attacked D'Souza's politics too (if less sophomorically than Sobczynski did). Shapiro is this dynamic. | |||
| == Contradictory Claims on HTS Governance and Human Rights Violations == | |||
| :::::::::::I'm trying to make the section meet NPOV standards. Evidence as to Sobczynski's political animus has been presented, but that question isn't relevant. What's relevant is that many people ''believe'' such critics are motivated by political bias, making that view (whether you agree with it or not) noteworthy for article mention. So far I'm the only one in this exchange to actually quote from ]. The page confirmed what I said about us not being required to only cover views from professional film critics. We're allowed to include audience reception (the guidelines specifically endorse CinemaScore) and the page says, "'''''notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited'''''". I'll add that you're wrong to say it was "universally panned", as even some professional film critics praised it, and certainly vast audiences defended it via CinemScore polling, not just "highly right wing sources". The panning has come from highly liberal sources. ] (]) 20:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: Your classification of "liberal" and "conservative" and attempt to try and discredit critic review scores based on your perceived notion of them being liberal is a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV.] (]) 20:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Wrong. As I replied to you above, it's not OR if sources apply the labels, especially if the reviewer himself does, which is the case here. Only allowing liberal opinions about a conservative movie, ''while'' scrubbing any mention that they're liberals, is whitewashing and a blatant ] violation. ] (]) 20:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::: Wrong. I clearly see you and others making judgments and determinations on the contents of critics and labeling them as liberal and conservative. Furthermore, even if they are self identified liberals, the inclusion of that information to try and undermine the veracity of their review is a violation of WP:NPOV. ] (]) 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::No, ''excluding'' it violates NPOV if you're only going to allow commentary from liberals about a conservative film. And I only said we should be fair regarding labels. My comments were in reply to those above suggesting the "conservative" tag. ] (]) 21:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::They are just critic reviews. Your attempt to try and label them as "liberal", like you did with Jenkins, is the problem here. The aggregate of critics reviews pan this movie and the quote is representative of what critics think about the movie. Trying to undermine their reviews or what they say because of your own political perceptions is a violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, trying to give equal weight to other critics/people whose views clearly don't represent the majority of critics is also a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:Weight. Regarding the "conservative" tag used by others, this does not justify another violation of WP policy. You can't both agree to disregard WP policy by assigning your own original research tags to critics. Both labels should be removed, and that's how you make a neutral article, not by letting both sides disregard the rules.] (]) 21:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::{{outdent}} | |||
| Did you read the guideline quotes I posted showing that we aren't restricted to only presenting professional film critics' opinions? The guidelines specifically endorse including reception from audiences and notable non film critics. This particular article section isn't even titled "Critical reception", but just "Reception". So the majority of pro critics thinking something doesn't mean other views should be excluded. You also appear confused on a few points. The hypothetical labels in Wiki's voice being discussed in this tangent aren't currently in the article, so it would be hard to remove them. And, again, if sources use the label then it's not ] to apply it. It may or may not be appropriate for other reasons, but it's not original research as defined by the policy. Finally, it seems to me that purging half the debate and only allowing one side of the political divide's voice into an article about an explicitly political film, while scrubbing any mention of said voice's political affiliation, is the very definition of POV. Neutrality demands both sides be presented if there's more than one significant view, as there clearly is. We can simply include coverage of both sides without the Wiki voice labels you object to. Whether or not to add them is a slightly different issue. ] (]) 21:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course we can mention various views. We can say some people think the moon-landing was faked. But we cannot provide undue weight to their opinions. Film critics did not like the movie, some right-wing bloggers did. Mind you, no one could have liked it that much, because the movie only took in $11 million, compared with '']'' ($612 million) and the '']'' ($127 million). Incidentally, don't you think calling film critics liberal is redundant? ] (]) 21:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The article on ] (HTS), a Syrian paramilitary organisation that has been designated a terrorist organisation by a variety of countries, contains contradictory information about the governance of HTS in occupied territories. | |||
| ::<Insert> It's the 7th highest grossing political documentary of all time and has a solid chance of moving up higher, so please get your facts straight. Political documentaries don't make as much money as regular movies. Also, we're talking about audience CinemaScore grades, not box office receipts. Your own final sentence underscores the absurdity of only citing film critic opinion for an explicitly political documentary. Dismissing mainstream conservative opinion on a matter of subjective opinion by comparing it to something like moon landing conspiracy theories is reprehensible and totally without basis in policy. ] (]) 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Did you read them? It doesn't mean you get to create undue weight by including quotes from whomever. An example of what that refers to would be a movie like Gravity and supplying a quote from a scientist like Neil deGrasse Tyson that is representative of the scientific community. You could supply a quote from a political pundit, but then that would need to be countered by another opinion from a political pundit from the opposing party. So that would be a balanced approach. However, trying to supply a quote from a politically biased website/political pundit to try and contest what critics think is a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:weight. | |||
| The ] section claims HTS has generally not interfered in womens' lives, has been tolerant towards religious minorities, and has been lenient towards civilians. These statements are based primarily on a chapter written by Dareen Khalifa in the book ''The Rule is for None but Allah'', published by Oxford University Press. Khalifa’s work relies heavily on interviews with HTS leaders. For many claims about HTS' tolerance, the source she gives is "author interview, Jolani ", "author interview, HTS commander" or similar. | |||
| :"only allowing one side of the political divide's voice into an article". Again, this manifestation of "sides" is a biased assertion and label that you're trying to assign to critics and is a violation of WP:NPOV. What you said about Jenkins is an example of original research. If another publication said Jenkins was is a liberal and you try to include that into the article to discredit Jenkins through WP's voice, then that's a violation of WP:NPOV. This article is not a debate and the "Reception" section should be representative of critic's perception of the film and it's okay to include audience perception so long as they follow the guidelines previously stated and aren't being presented as a counter to critics. They are 2 separate metrics. Trying to divide the article into what "liberals" think versus what "conservatives" think is a false dichotomy and creates a POV presentation of the article. We don't divide science articles into what liberals vs. conservatives think, and there is no reason to do it here. | |||
| However, as an anonymous user pointed out, the section ] (which for transparency I authored) contradicts this, citing multiple lengthy reports by the UN, EU, US, and human rights organisations, which document enforced dress codes, repression of women, executions for "crimes" such as blasphemy, forced disappearances of political opponents and activists, persecution of minorities, torture, among others. The governance section makes no mention of these reports, or that much of the current information in this sections relies on interviews with HTS leadership. | |||
| :I've already made my suggestion regarding how the polled audience should be presented and it seems multiple people support it.] (]) 22:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The primary dispute appears to be that the users @] and @] consider Khalifa's chapter a reliable (or authoritative, given that her claims about HTS tolerance are stated as fact) source, because even though many of her claims are based on interviews with HTS leadership, the chapter is in a book published by Oxford University Press. The user @] is also of the opinion that the reports by the US government are "propaganda", although the user has not addressed the reports by other institutions that come to similar conclusions as the US reports. | |||
| :::With respect, it doesn't seem like you did read them. The guidelines are explicitly vague and leave room for case to case flexibility. You've failed to cite anything in policy mandating that a reception section should only be representative of professional critics' opinions. The page specifically endorses CinemaScore (and not just if it agrees with critics) and goes out of its way to mention that including notable non critics is allowed. You're trying to treat film critics like scientists. They aren't. They're just people giving their subjective opinions. You're also ignoring the admitted political bias of the critics you're championing. The critics ''themselves'' tend to acknowledge the different sides in their reviews. Jenkins isn't in the article, and nothing said about him on a talk page is OR. OR refers to actual article edits. | |||
| I am the other party to this dispute, and am of the opinion that the variety of reports by multiple - in my view credible - international organisations and human rights groups (and yes, the US too) should at least bear enough significance to warrant a re-writing of the Governance section, making it clear that much of the information regarding HTS' tolerance is based on HTS' self-portrayal in interviews and that there exist multiple credible reports that document a rather draconian and repressive governance policy employed by HTS. For example the ] concludes that HTS has interfered "in every aspect of civilian life" and notes that women have been whipped or even executed for violating religious dress codes (). | |||
| :::The article does ''cover'' a debate, and ] policy mandates that all significant sides be covered to maintain article neutrality. You're trying to silence a major side, which is misleading to readers and a blatant violation of NPOV. Most movies aren't political enough for critic political bias to be much of an issue, but it undeniably is with explicitly political films like this one, particularly since it comes from the ideology the critics oppose. The fact that so many people, including notable societal observers, think that it's an issue makes it an issue meriting coverage in the article. I'll add that multiple people oppose your position here and oppose the notion of only letting a narrow, mostly liberal category comment on conservative films. See? There's a dispute here too, with more than one side. ] (]) 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The discussion on the talk page can be found ]. Neither @], @] or I have engaged in edit warring, but the way this discussion is going appears to be an endless back-and-forth, so it would be nice to get outside opinions. | |||
| ::::It's clear you're not reading what I say. I've never argued for the removal of cinemascore, so for you to criticize me for not citing WP policy to make the reception section strictly for critics is fallacious and a strawman argument. Furthermore, the article is not a debate. It's simply a article about a movie. You're attempt to try and undermine critic reception by turning into a liberal vs. conservative debate is a violation of WP:NPOV. The article should reflect what the general critic viewpoint is without POV attempts to undermine, misrepresent, or contest critic's viewpoints by giving undue weight to any other source. This includes trying to present cinemascore in a fashion that contradicts critics or citing some political pundit to try and contradict critics. They can be presented in the "Reception" category, but in their own respective paragraphs so it's clear that they aren't being presented in a debate style or contradictory manner. This is consistent with WP policy. Do you read that? I said they can be included/kept and this is the 3rd time I've said that.] (]) 02:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 00:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, I cited the endorsement of CinemaScore to underscore that the guidelines make it clear that reception isn't just about what professional critics think. Since you acknowledge that, you have no excuse for continuing to make the fallacious "undue weight" argument. Whether you want to call it a "debate" or not there clearly is a stark difference of opinion about the movie and the article should reflect that. I'm not the one making it liberal versus conservative. It's a political documentary commenting on the real life left/right divide, so the political angle of the reaction is relevant. The Shapiro quote in question directly comments on the critical reception, is a widely held view, and is an important part of the topic we're supposed to be covering in the article. ] (]) 05:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Have I successfully removed the promotional content from this article? == | |||
| ::::::As I've said numerous times, it's only undue weight when cinemascore or any other quote from some political pundit is presented in a way to try and undermine what critics say. That doesn't mean it should be excluded, just that it needs to be clear that critics panned the movie and cinemascore is not a contradiction to what the general critical reception of the movie is. The undue weight argument is valid, if you're presenting data irrelevant to critical reception as an attempt to discredit, undermine, or refute critical opinion. This is also the 3rd or 4th time I've said this.] (]) 06:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The owner of ] made ] and ] edits at his own article yesterday. I tried to remove the "fluff" and restore the ]. Has the ] been restored, or is it still too promotional? ] (]) 01:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::But you provided no basis for your claim. There's certainly nothing in policy excluding criticism of the critics by someone like Shapiro, especially in an unusual, politically charged controversy like this one where there's a lot more to the reception than simply being entertained or not. It's unclear precisely what you're referring to regarding CinemaScore undermining the critics. The guideline page simply lists CinemaScore as one of the legitimate sources for critical reception sections. ] (]) 05:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :yes, looks better now ] (]) 21:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have provided basis for the claim in that it's a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:Weight. Using a quote from Shapiro to try and discredit or contradict the majority viewpoint of critics is a violation of undue weight. Here are the specific area: | |||
| == Edits to “Game Science” == | |||
| ::::::::*Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to...juxtaposition of statements. | |||
| ::::::::*Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. | |||
| ::::::::*Misplaced Pages should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. | |||
| ::::::::*in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public. | |||
| Discussion regarding ] has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. As the first subsection deals with a POV edit and the disputed edits create a POV more favorable to Game Science, I would appreciate your comment at ]. ] (]) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This is basically why it's unacceptable to post quotes from Ken Ham trying to discredit wide scientific consensus regarding evolution or the age of the earth on an article about evolution or the age of the earth.] (]) 06:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't actually a neutrality problem. You've been arguing against things like attribution of quotes and secondary sources. Heck you tried to argue with me that attribution automatically casts doubt on the attributed statement. ] (]) 20:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::No, you're conflating different scenarios. The lines you (finally) cited deal with situations where an extreme minority of a particulate, narrowly defined set (people debating whether or not the earth is flat or round, or what the atomic weight of chromium is) should be presented with equal representation (or at all). You're still confusing pro film critics with scientists and ignoring the MOS guidelines I quoted showing that our set in this case ''isn't'' just professional film critics (the guidelines explicitly allow non pro critics' views). Beyond that the Shapiro quote wasn't directly contradicting the critics by commenting on the movie itself, but rather the obvious political dynamic at play. There's absolutely nothing in policy prohibiting us from including quotes commenting on the reception itself (including professional film critic political bias), and Shapiro's views ''aren't'' fringe. In fact they're extremely widely held and it hasn't even been demonstrated that they're in the minority at all. ] (]) 16:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I’ve said, the first subsection is about a neutrality issue. I am contesting that change because it violates NPOV, which explicitly mentions and forbids casting doubt through attribution. ] (]) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Attribution is not automatically casting doubt - it's good practice dealing with quotes or opinions to attribute them. ] (]) 20:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not according to NPOV for RSes that state factual information, as I’ve quoted the policy to show in the discussion on the article’s talk page. I encourage you (and anyone else) to reply there for the added context of the quote. ] (]) 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's a newspaper. It doesn't hurt the article to says "according to SCMP" and your resistance to that is perplexing. ] (]) 20:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Look, I and a policy supported by community consensus agree that adding in-text attribution when we already have inline citations unnecessarily casts doubt. If you disagree with the policy, try and get consensus to change it. ] (]) 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think your policy interpretation is weak. And, generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't. ] (]) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Specifically your policy citation is to ] and this is not a "the sky is blue" situation here but is, rather, a newspaper reporting on an acquisition where the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment. ] (]) 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't see how "the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment" makes the fact that an acquisition happened doubtable and require in-text attribution. (Also, I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to cite an essay on inline citation, which is about the {{fake ref}}, not "according to...". My reply here assumes you were contesting whether the claim {{tq|Hero Games acquired a 19% stake in Game Science through its wholly-owned subsidiary Tianjin Hero Financial Holding Technology in 2017, but sold the stake in 2022}} falls under {{tq|Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources}}.){{tqb|generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't.}}You may as well tell that to everyone who cites a policy to remove text it explicitly forbids. Anyways, I'll be moving this to the article talk page soon. ] (]) 22:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] You do not have permission to refactor my comments please restore this discussion to its prior state. ] (]) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ugh, if you say so. I'll transclude it there then. It's much better to centralize discussion in one place. ] (]) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is clear that South Morning Post reported on the relation between Hero Games and Game Science. It is also clear that Hero Games stated that they couldn't comment on the relation when asked directly about it. Using wikivoice is inappropiate, and an attribution is needed. Secondly, don't act like you have a consensus by proxy for your unilateral stance though a (misrepresentation of a) policy. --] (]) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am replying on the article's talk page to centralize discussion. ] (]) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You brought the discussion to the noticeboard. This is borderline disruptive. ] (]) 17:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It is very common to notify and invite noticeboards to comment <em>elsewhere</em>. I invited participants of these noticeboards to comment on ]. ] (]) 19:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ::::::::::I'm not conflating anything. The majority of critics panned the movie. So including a comment from a critic that opposes the majority view is a violation of WP:Weight and if Shapiro isn't commenting on the movie but on critics in general, then it certainly doesn't belong anywhere on the article page due to being irrelevant. You're still attempting to discredit the value of critic's opinion with a quote from Shapiro and that's clearly against WP:NPOV. The majority viewpoint of critics is that the movie is bad and this is documented on multiple aggregate sites. Including a quote from Shapiro to criticize critics for their reception of the film is not relevant to the movie itself and gives undue weight to a minority opinion.] (]) 01:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|C_at_Access}} | |||
| ::::::::::::Yes you are. The majority of ''professional'' film critics panned the movie, the majority of people who viewed the movie gave it an historically high CinemaScore grade, and notable commentators have written about the reception as a phenomenon in and of itself. The article should cover all of that, per MOS guidelines. You've given no policy or even rational reason to justify actively preventing that from happening. Whether critics' negative opinions are "discredited" or not by accurately covering the issue shouldn't be your concern. ] (]) 18:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Circulating on relevant noticeboards... essentially if contentious oligarch label should be mentioned in intro ] (]) 20:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == NextEra Energy == | |||
| :::::::::::::No, I'm not. If anything, you're trying to misuse a part of MOS guidelines to include a quote from a political blogger. He is not notable or an expert in the field of cinema or even politics. I already gave an example using Neil deGrasse Tyson on what that guideline actually refers to. Shapiro's opinion is not representative of the political spectrum and he's certainly not a notable critic, therefore it does not meet the MOS guidelines and including his opinion is a violation of WP:Weight. You even admitted that Shapiro's opinion wasn't a commentary on the film, therefore it has ZERO relevance to the article and, if anything, should be placed on an article about film critics. It's a clear violation of WP:weight as you're trying to include it to present a criticism of critic's reviews. When the majority of critics criticize a film, that's a majority view. Including a quote that criticizes a majority of critics for their reception of the film is a minority viewpoint. I've presented multiple parts of WP policy that prevent the inclusion of such a quote. You're clearly disregarding them and pretending that they don't apply...when they do.] (]) 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{outdent}} | |||
| Hogwash on all counts. ] ''is'' "notable" by definition because he has a Misplaced Pages article about him. None of the negative film reviewers currently quoted in the article have such articles, and therefore ''aren't'' notable by definition. That you start off by making such a grossly, factually inaccurate claim invalidates your whole position. Shapiro represents at least half the American political spectrum. In fact Gallup polling shows that conservatives outnumber liberals by about two to one, which is why Democrats run more rhetorically away from their base in general elections than Republicans do (the latter are certainly more likely to call themselves "conservative" than the former are "liberal"), even often echoing (sincerely or not) the type of patriotic themes espoused by people like D'Souza and Shapiro. Regardless, you can't dismiss half the political spectrum as unfit for mention. That's insane and unacceptable POV on your part. As for topical scope, my notes that it's routine for Misplaced Pages articles to cover the noteworthy or controversial aspects of the reception itself, and I list several specific high profile examples. Certainly you've presented nothing in guidelines or policy to prohibit such commentary. The fact that Shapiro's views clearly represent the vast majority of those who have watched the film further refutes your argument. ] (]) 16:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hi editors, I'm Matt and I work for NextEra Energy. I currently have two edit requests (first one linked ] that I think are directly applicable to this noticeboard. Content added some time ago by a now-banned user (]), which was largely copied from the Florida Power & Light article, creates some neutrality issues, particularly as relates to ]. The above linked request is to move content in a section titled "Environmental issues" about a power plant that was never built – and therefore can't be an issue – to the History section, in line with ]. | |||
| The second request is a bit meatier and involves removing some content that is pulled directly from a source without attribution and/or uses poor sourcing for negative information that doesn't meet the requirements of ], and moving what remains to the History section, again to improve ]<nowiki> in line with NOCRIT. I would appreciate any feedback or help you can offer. Because of my COI I have avoided making these changes myself and I'd like to have this page be reflective of our overall desire to have the page be neutral and factual. ~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 23:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Resetting the discussion=== | |||
| I have isolated the critics responses into their own section in accordance with ]. It now has the Rotten Tomatoes & Metacritic data, plus one review from Ebert. The non-movie-critic responses are in a following section. IMO this "new" section will allow for discussion of the film from the political blogger/commentator points of view and avoid the unnecessarily disruptive debate as to whether Hollywood is left, far left or whatever. So, the question can get back to the original theme – to what extent should Breitbart.com and other commentators be placed in the article? – ] (]) 04:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :In any case, as an editor I genuinely appreciate these requests being made in a responsible and transparent manner. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 05:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Back to Breitbart.com as a reliable news source=== | |||
| I strongly object to calling Breitbart.com a 'Conservative blog'. A 'blog' it is not. It has reporters, editors, and source of revenue. '''"Breitbart.com is a conservative news and opinion website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart,"''' says Misplaced Pages editors in ]''''' which is a better description. -- ] (]) 04:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : That also has a pattern of reporting false information and not correcting itself. For example, the Friends of There is little evidence in the past of a system that is trying to accurately report facts, which sets it apart from something like Fox News. There is a difference between a biased source and a source that has repeatedly shown no willingness to get basic facts correct. A biased source can be used to make a good article. It is difficult to use a source such as Breitbart. While I would agree they are ] for their own opinion, one should at least provide the reader with the context of the opinion, if it is used in the article.] (]) 04:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : As a follow up, if Breitbart is ], then is ]? If so, there is truly no standard at all to be a ].] (]) 04:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Unwarranted promotional and COI tags on film articles == | |||
| ::Don't forget, Misplaced Pages has a ]. Seems the place to be. ] ] 05:02, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| :::True. But let's consider ] before posting there. In this case we are asking whether UNDUE is at play when we add or remove Breitbart.com. – ] (]) 05:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I already did it. Discussion can be found ] And yes, context matters. I tried to phrase my question in such a way that it would help in this discussion. That said, if I shouldn't have posted there, I am sorry.I wouldn't have posted if I saw this first.] (]) 05:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also, it is interesting to me that Dinesh D'Souza talks about the media problem in the movie. The point about Breitbart not correcting errors, I cannot speak to, but I would say I never heard of the correction they needed to make that was pointed out in the Slate blog . And the discussion about proportional or undue weight in a Misplaced Pages article reflects the proportion or distortion in say, for example, the 'White Hispanic' reporting of ABC,CBS,NBC,W-Post,NYTimes; as opposed to 'lesser' news outlets, re: George Zimmerman. I recognize that pointing out problems elsewhere does not excuse Breitbart.org but you can probably see my point. Also, what was the Breitbart writer's comment about anyway? It was just his opinion about the movie, as I remember. -- ] (]) 07:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Breitbart.com is clearly covered by ]. Thus it does not appear to be usable. ] (]) 21:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I disagree, and the editors of the Misplaced Pages article, ]''''' ]] do not identify the news website as a blog. Please take note. -- ] (]) 02:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: As others have mentioned, a site like Breitbart.com can be used as a reliable source when directly attributed to the author who wrote the material. So if there was a WP page on an editor named John Smith, then we can use an article John Smith wrote for Breitbart.com to attribute something directly to John Smith. It would act as a primary source in this situation. It is not reliable for statements of fact regarding others. This is covered under WP:QS, WP:Newsblog, and WP:Newsorg. The specific article that was in contention also didn't cite any sources. It's clearly an opinion piece, and can't be used as a reliable source to push a fact about any given topic.] (]) 06:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I need help with some tags that have been added to two articles please: | |||
| == Sarason/Nelsondenis248 and Fisher Klingenstein Films/FilmRise == | |||
| * ] | |||
| * Draft:The Misguided | |||
| I'm getting pretty tired of the constant unfounded allegations. First it was paid editing (which got removed after review), then COI tags without evidence, and now suddenly it's "promotional content" - but nobody's actually pointed out what's promotional or what constitutes a conflict of interest. Here's the situation: | |||
| About eight months ago, while randomly looking up movies, I stumbled upon the article for (henceforth FKF). As you can see, the page reads like a news release. , there had been much discussion on the talk page about how bad it was, with the creating editor, {{userlinks|Nelsondenis248}}, ]. | |||
| 1. Everything in these articles comes from proper independent sources like The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and Film Threat | |||
| Being a brand-new editor, I thought I'd stretch my muscles by fixing it up. I spent an hour or two working on that removed the gobs and gobs of praise that made the page read so biased. , I left one section relatively intact to demonstrate how poorly it was constructed, and suggested that the movie be split into its own page. | |||
| 2. Yes, some reviews are positive, but that's what the reliable sources reported | |||
| 3. My only contact with the filmmaker was to check facts like dates and get source materials | |||
| 4. I have no other connection to these films or anyone involved | |||
| 5. The latest tags were just slapped on without any discussion, continuing this pattern of baseless accusations | |||
| The articles stick to Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view rules. If something sounds promotional, tell me what it is and I'll fix it. I'm happy to add any negative reviews too if someone can find them in reliable sources. | |||
| {{userlinks|Sarason}} proceeded to the old version of the article and . and hoping someone else would come along and complete what I had failed. At the time, I was unaware of the existence of noticeboards. | |||
| You can see the whole frustrating history here: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Can we get a fair review based on what's actually in the articles, not just assumptions and accusations? I am requesting that these unwarranted promotional content and COI tags be removed from the articles. Much appreciated! | |||
| As I was randomly wiki-stalking his contributions page today, I noticed that he'd spent the past week working hard on the page for ], which he created back in March (two months after the above almost-edit-war). It is '''the exact same article as the FKF article''', but with the name of the company changed and some more recent (and self-promoting) paragraphs added. There's been no attempt to redirect the original page or fix the original problems; the new page still reads like a news release. | |||
| ] (]) 22:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Update: I've just discovered that the entire Reception section, which contained properly sourced reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and multiple independent critics, has been removed without discussion. This further demonstrates the issue with these arbitrary content removals. The deleted section was entirely based on reliable sources and followed Misplaced Pages guidelines. I have preserved the content and sources and request review of both the tags and this content removal. ] (]) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Whether you think I'm a moron or actually onto something, thank you so much for reading this, my first NPOV noticeboard post. I'm not sure how to notify Sarason that I've made this post; if there's a relevant template I can place on his usertalk page, please let me know. ] (]) 00:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::This discussion is ] here. You should know, you posted in the section. ] (]) 23:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|MrOllie}}, yes, I'm aware of that discussion. The wholesale removal of a properly sourced Reception section warrants broader review. This isn't just about a tag anymore - it's about the removal of verified content from reliable sources without justification. ] (]) 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It wasn't "removed without discussion" as you just stated, then, was it? You've had an account since 2017, and in that time 100% of your editing has been about the films of Shannon Alexander, and often quite promotional in nature. If you don't want people to think you have a COI, I suggest you tone down the rhetoric, and strongly consider finding a way to improve the encyclopedia that is entirely unrelated to Alexander. ] (]) 23:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|MrOllie}}, | |||
| :::::1. The Reception section was actually just removed without proper discussion. A few quick comments declaring content "promotional" without specific examples doesn't constitute real consensus. | |||
| :::::2. Your statement about my editing history is wrong. My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander. My recent focus on documenting these films stems from noticing a gap in coverage of internationally-recognized work - I've said countless times. | |||
| :::::3. There's nothing "promotional" about including properly sourced reviews from reliable publications. If positive reviews exist in reliable sources, documenting them isn't promotion - it's proper encyclopedic coverage. | |||
| :::::The focus should be on specific content concerns, not repeated unfounded attacks and assumptions about editor's motivations. ] (]) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Katherine Langford's article, where you wanted to correct information about a project she'd recently been in. Who made that film, I wonder? . Dishonesty is not going to help - every time you post something like this these 'attacks and assumptions' you mention appear to become better supported. ] (]) 23:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This is just blatant forum shopping of a grievance previously discussed at the Helpdesk and now at COIN . | |||
| :::::::Also, why does the user continue to lie that their edits to ] were {{tq|completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander}}? | |||
| :::::::Here is one of the edits : {{tq|Langford will appear in her first feature film, ''The Misguided'', an independent comedic drama by Shannon Alexander}}. In actual fact, all of the user's edits to that article relate to Langford being in a film by Shannon Alexander. | |||
| :::::::Pants on fire, my friend, pants on fire... ] (]) 23:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::And Stan... | |||
| ::::::::The reason the tags are in place and the reasons that the removals of material have occurred is that pretty much everyone who has commented in the various threads you've started ''disagrees'' fundamentally with what appears to be your transparent promotional agenda. | |||
| ::::::::For reference, normal editors do not (a) create promotional articles, (b) open multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC, (c) talk about when the articles will start to appear on Google searches, and (d) open multiple threads trying to strongarm other users into removing COI/PAID tags. | |||
| ::::::::That pattern of behaviour is how conflict of interest users operate, usually ones who have been paid to produce articles to order. ] (]) 23:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{u|MrOllie}}, your implication about my editing history misses the point. Like many editors, I followed connected topics that revealed gaps in coverage. Following a subject area and documenting it with reliable sources isn't wrong - it's how Misplaced Pages grows. | |||
| :::::::::More concerning is the removal of an entire Reception section containing properly sourced reviews from established publications. The content was based on reliable sources including Rotten Tomatoes and Film Threat. If specific statements appeared promotional, they should have been identified and discussed, not wholesale removed. | |||
| :::::::::This pattern of removing sourced content while making assumptions about contributors' motivations vioaltes Misplaced Pages's principles. ] (]) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It was discussed in the relevant place and the consensus was for removal. Another user has since added back the Rotten Tomatoes part of the Reception section, by which we can reasonably assume that they agree with the rest of the removal. | |||
| ::::::::::As I have stated to you before, the ] is on the editor wishing to include material, not on those wishing to remove it. There is clearly no consensus in favour of inclusion, so arguing for inclusion in 3 completely separate threads (this thread, this one and this one ) is pointless. | |||
| ::::::::::In any event, it is obviously contrary to Misplaced Pages policy for an article about anything to be composed almost entirely of reviews, whether they are good or bad, so your line of argument is a very bad one in any case. Removal was thus entirely non-controversial. ] (]) 05:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{u|Axad12}}, your interpretation of both consensus and policy continues to be problematic: | |||
| :::::::::::1. The "consensus" you reference was a single editor agreeing with you, while ignoring multiple objections. The fact that another editor has since restored part of the Reception section actually demonstrates that there isn't consensus for wholesale removal. | |||
| :::::::::::2. Your interpretation of WP:ONUS is incorrect in this context. The content was already established with proper reliable sources. The burden shifts to those seeking removal to demonstrate why properly sourced content should be deleted. | |||
| :::::::::::3. Your claim "it is obviously contrary to Misplaced Pages policy for an article about anything to be composed almost entirely of reviews" is simply false. Film articles regularly contain substantial reception sections when supported by reliable sources - see ] and ]. The removed content was based entirely on independent, reliable sources providing critical analysis. | |||
| :::::::::::4. Regarding multiple discussion venues - each serves a distinct purpose and was used appropriately. Characterizing proper use of Misplaced Pages's established channels as "pointless" misrepresents how Misplaced Pages works. | |||
| :::::::::::The core issue remains: properly sourced content was removed without valid policy-based justification or genuine consensus. ] (]) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::You are completely wrong. ] (]) 16:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::The core content issues remain: | |||
| :::::::::::::The removed material was based on reliable sources and followed standard article formatting. No concrete policy violations were identified. | |||
| :::::::::::::Removals occurred without consensus, and often without any substantive talk page discussion. | |||
| :::::::::::::Vague claims of "promotional" tone have been asserted without pointing to specific passages or policies. | |||
| :::::::::::::AI detection results are being misused to discredit good faith, policy-compliant contributions. | |||
| :::::::::::::If there are proper neutrality or sourcing concerns with the removed content, please identify the exact issues so they can be addressed collaboratively. But so far, the removals appear to be based more on unfounded personal suspicions than objective policy issues. | |||
| :::::::::::::Wiki articles rightly include reception sections with mainstream press reviews. That's not inherently 'promotional' it's documenting verifiable real-world coverage. Removing properly cited review content is detrimental to readers and sets a terrible precedent. | |||
| :::::::::::::I remain committed to working with anyone who has constructive, policy-based feedback on improving these articles further. But edit-warring removals and personal attacks need to stop in favor of substantive, collaborative discussion. We deserves better. | |||
| :::::::::::::Let's get back to focusing on content and policies, not personal battles. I'm happy to discuss any neutrality problems if you identify concrete examples. But so far I've yet to see a compelling rationale for these removals of policy-compliant material. ] (]) 16:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::The only important issue here is that, despite you starting multiple different threads in various different arenas, ''no one else agrees with you''. | |||
| ::::::::::::::Therefore the tags remain and the removals remain. | |||
| ::::::::::::::You just have to accept that you are in the minority and move on. Continuing to argue is simply disruptive. ] (]) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::{{u|Axad12}}, your characterization of "no one else agrees" is both incorrect and misses the point. Several editors, including DMacks, have confirmed proper licensing and sourcing, and @Aafi has confirmed the images are restored after permissions verification. The issue isn't about counting votes - it's about following policy. | |||
| :::::::::::::::The systematic removal of: | |||
| :::::::::::::::1. Properly licensed images (with verified VRT permissions) | |||
| :::::::::::::::2. Well-sourced content from reliable publications | |||
| :::::::::::::::3. Standard film article sections matching Misplaced Pages's format | |||
| :::::::::::::::...cannot be justified by simply claiming "you're in the minority." Misplaced Pages is not a vote-counting exercise - it's about following established policies for content inclusion. The continued removal of policy-compliant content while dismissing legitimate concerns is what's being noted and actually disruptive here. ] (]) 18:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::I have no interest in the image issue. I am talking about the tags and the removal of the Reception section. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::The consensus is again you ''and'' you are consistently arguing contrary to policy, so the distinction you draw above is rather pointless. You have also been demonstrated to be a liar. ] (]) 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::{{u|Axad12}}, | |||
| :::::::::::::::::I strongly object to your repeated accusations of dishonesty. If you believe I have misrepresented anything, I ask that you provide clear evidence rather than resorting to personal attacks. Misplaced Pages is built on good faith and such language is both unproductive and contrary this platform. | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Regarding the tags and the Reception section, I have consistently argued my case based on policy, including WP:NPOV and WP:V. I have sought to include well-sourced and neutrally presented content. | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Consensus is not determined by the number of voices in a discussion but by the strength of the arguments grounded in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. I remain focused to working within those frameworks. ] (]) 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::I provided evidence of your dishonesty upthread here . The evidence is so clear that I will happily once again call you a liar. ] (]) 19:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::Also, you consistently seem to believe that consensus is whatever you believe is correct, disregarding the opinions of every other user you encounter. ] (]) 19:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::1. Regarding transparency and process: | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::: - Paid editing tags were initially added but subsequently removed through proper channels after review | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::: - Wiki images were challenged but verified and reinstated through official processes | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::: - All content is based on reliable, independent sources | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::: - I served as an authorized representative specifically for image licensing/copyright verification, which was done transparently through proper Misplaced Pages channels | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::2. Regarding consensus, let's look at the actual outcomes: | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::: - Multiple administrators have reviewed and approved image reinstatements | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::: - Paid editing tags were removed after proper review | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::: - Content has been verified through reliable sources | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::: - I've made requested changes when specific issues were identified | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::3. This pattern shows I'm following Misplaced Pages's processes correctly. While I'm eager to expand my contributions to other topics and articles, I'm consistently forced to defend properly sourced and verified content instead of moving forward with new contributions. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::I’ve repeatedly suggested we focus on addressing specific content concerns through collaboration, but this has been met with nothing but resistance, preventing any meaningful progress. ] (]) 20:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::::UPDATE: Stan1900 has now been indef blocked following a thread at ANI . ] (]) 23:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC on Taylor Lorenz controversial statement regarding healthcare ceo shooting == | |||
| Posting to relevant noticeboards: ] ] (]) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| After posting and returning to the main noticeboard, I saw the NPOVN-notice instructions. I will post that on his user talk page now. ] (]) 00:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{U|FekketCantenel}}, first things first: make sure you are well aware of ]. In fact, let me call up an admin or two to see if you've gone too far already: {{U|John}}, {{U|Dennis Brown}}, {{U|Bbb23}}, {{U|TParis}}. ] (]) 01:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Bizarre weight on disordered eating in ] == | |||
| *A couple of things, saying "''Nelsondenis248/Sarason knows Alan Klingenstein''" isn't quite outing but I suggest reading the link Drmies gave you so you don't take it too far. This is a claim of COI, so ] seems more appropriate than this board. As far as changing his name, his old name redirects to the new, so there is no problem there. There does seem to be at least a little meat on this bone, as ] and ] are WAY too similar for both to exist, but I don't have time to fix that issue. ] | ] | ] 01:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not real good at this stuff, so Dennis may be right, but my reading of it is that it should be suppressed. I've taken the necessary steps to see if I'm right. If nothing else, I'll learn something.--] (]) 01:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] is already a very specific article that might be worth merging into something more general, but ] so I guess there is no reason to ''not'' have an article on grazing. Still: | |||
| ::I haven't posted anything, before or after this recent edit, that couldn't be found by Googling the user's original username. However, I've removed the link to his online resume and made other revisions indicating only that certain information can be found if you Google his name. If I've missed anything objectionable, please let me know. | |||
| ::I looked around a bit before settling on posting on the NPOV forum, and somehow missed the existence of COIN. If you folks concur that I should repost this there (with any necessary edits to remove too-personal information), I will. ] (]) | |||
| ::::I think you should hold off doing anything until all this is resolved and you can be properly advised as to what is acceptable and what is not.--] (]) 01:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***{{ec}} Digging around a bit more, I see how that might be a problem, but will leave it to OS to decide, that is their expertise. ] | ] | ] 01:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::For what it's worth, I wasn't aware of ] and wouldn't have thought posting Google-able information would count, anyway. I'll accept whatever punishment is deemed appropriate for this breach, but also hope the issues I raised can be addressed. ] (]) 01:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ****Our concern isn't "punishing" you, it is about privacy. ] | ] | ] 01:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *****Dennis, I left some advice on Fekket's talk page. You or Drmies should feel free to add to it. Thanks.--] (]) 02:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *OK. Outing removed/redacted. Fekket, not everything that's Googled is valid for posting here.<p>Next item. It's clear that there's a ton of non-neutral editing was going on in those articles. I have redirected ] to ], without worrying about the editing history: they were basically the same articles, and the edits are preserved in the history of FKF (tell you what--and I hope that {{U|John}}, {{U|Dennis Brown}}, {{U|Bbb23}}, {{U|TParis}} don't mind looking over my shoulder--I'm going to protect that redirect). I've seriously trimmed ] and ], and did the same for FilmRise. I pinged you guys again: if you agree with the basic gist of those edits, state it here for the record, so that Fekket and others have something to fall back on later, should disruption erupt. Fekket, so far so good? I'm not going to address the identity and the other links--by editing those articles I think we achieve the result we want as well. Oh, I left an only warning on the talk page of {{U|Sarason}}. Thanks, ] (]) 02:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Okay, got to it today. For the record, I agree with the trimming, which was indeed serious. From what I can tell, it removed based on puffery and ]. Made a few copy edits to all three articles. Thanks, {{U|Drmies}}.--] (]) 05:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm ''really'' happy with all of that! The articles look much better now, and good idea about protecting the redirect. I second the request for approval of your edits, in case this comes up again. There's also always the possibility of bringing it before COIN; I had a question about that on my usertalk page if anyone would like to look. No matter what, I plan to run future reports of this nature past an experienced admin before posting it publicly, until I gain an understanding of WP policy. | |||
| ::Thanks so much, everyone; this has been very educational for me. ] (]) 02:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've reviewed FilmRise and Nelson Antonio Denis articles and I endorse the trimming. Protection may have been a bit proactive but it's within discretion and I'm not going to second judge those who got there first without good cause. {{reply to|FekketCantenel}} I think you'll fit in nicely on the project, welcome aboard.--v/r - ]] 06:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***The trimming and redirect are fine. We the information, just not all the redundancy and fluff. And I agree with TParis here on the other points, proactive and welcome and all that ;) ] | ] | ] 12:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree with the foregoing and also suggest raising at ]. ] (]) 21:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Almost all the sources cite Conceição's work on disordered eating, and grazing's role in it. | |||
| == History of Lego == | |||
| * The article does not really describe grazing except for it being a risk factor in disordered eating, according to this one person. | |||
| * The article ''does'' contain information like the languages that Conceição's grazing questionnaire has been translated into. | |||
| I think if you exclude undue weight and Conceição-promotion then there are about 2 sentences worth of notable info which can be merged into another article. ] 21:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| A small and apparently deadlocked disagreement at the ] - in the article's brief summary of the recent Lego Movie, is it enough to quote an LA Times review round-up describing the film as "a critical and commercial success" as fact, or is that an opinion which should be balanced by quoting a New York Times reviewer who used the phrase "90-minute infomercial"? A sample diff of the disputed line is . --] (]) 13:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and connected pages == | |||
| :A movie review is opinion and not fact. Differing opinions can be mentioned, but it is also important not to give outliers UNDUE WEIGHT. If every review except one says a movie is wonderful... we should not give that one dissenting review undue weight by highlighting it. ] (]) 00:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Differing opinions should be mentioned I agree. Undue weight right now is given to the commercial side, see flags for ad. Undue weight depends on the context. The context is an article that consisted of material mostly from primary sources (until I started editing). McGeddon is using your opinion as a judgement to oust this one particular reference. He does not tell you that I compromised to keep both references and mentioning the LA times ref first. ], if you havent already done so, I encourage you to read the page, and assess the context. The NYT review of the movie actually resonates with what has been going on at Lego over the past 10 years, as I have carved out on the page and it is not giving undue weight.--] (]) 07:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| In the light of the recent fall of the Assad regime in Syria, I have been trying to update a bit the articles about the ]. There, I noticed that a lot of importance was given to Mrs Randa Kassis, which made me suspect that this could be a case of ]. Please note that presented her as the "leader" of the Syrian opposition, as a "leading figure of the Syrian opposition" and a "Leading secular female figure", all in the biographical infobox. A lot of content in the Randa Kassis page seems to rely on primary sources. After a simple research I could find that Mrs Kassis is controversial among the opposition due to her alleged ties to Russia. , , . Other people within the opposition have presented her and her groups as Russian-backed operatives. This may or may not be true, but it has to be mentioned in the article. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Also, several pages have been created about the groups created or chaired by Mrs Kassis, namely the ], the ] and the ] (the latter of which should be rewritten). | |||
| Stumbled upon this rather suspect article today. The only source that seems reliable (Marcombe's "Leper Knights") only covers the Order up to its dissolution in England in the 1500. A lot of the other sources appear to be first party works by the purported modern descendants of the Order, and/or self published. | |||
| While the Astana Platform is notable enough to warrant a page, I have my doubts about the first two, so I proposed to first merge the Movement of the Pluralistic Society page into the Randa Kassis article. | |||
| Some quick research suggests that there was a fairly obscure Order of Saint Lazarus, which became defunct after the French Revolution. There are also a number of modern "recreations", some of which purport to continuations of the original order. One of the key figures involved appears to have been ], which does not inspire a great deal of confidence. At a bare minimum, I'm inclined to wipe everything post 18th century as unsourced and just mention that a number of modern organizations are named after the original order. --] (]) 10:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Not really a good topic for this noticeboard, which is for disputes and has a backlog. (Also, there is no present discussion on the article talk page.) Suggest you ] and make revisions to the article. Or, perhaps, it could benefit from a {{tl|refimprove}} tag. – ] (]) 20:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As a result, an IP accused me ] of being "obsessed by Randa Kassis", and commented that what I did was "revolting" and amounted to "an harassment or sectarian political activism aimed at erasing or muzzling anyone who does not have his opinions". There were also ] of malicious libel, presumably also against me. | |||
| == Featured ] article is being held captive to ] editors. == | |||
| Several references mentioning Kassis' suspected role as a pro-Russian operative were removed. The merger request was also unilaterally removed (I just put it back). Please note (I guess that "the admin" is supposed to be me, even though I am no admin). , and also appear to be about me. | |||
| Anarcho-capitalist editors are underrepresented among so-called "anarchist" editors, and the latter (more properly "left-anarchists") have been holding the page captive for several months to inclusion of their POV about anarchism "proper". This does not necessarily imply that anarcho-capitalists are a documentable heterodoxy (which would be irrelevant anyway, since anCaps have no desire to be counted among them), nor that there even exists an official definition of "anarchy" (which, even if it were the case, would not apply to an article that is not about anarchism "proper"). The early POV subtly writes off anarcho-capitalism as "illegitimate". | |||
| Apart from the personal attacks against me, I think that the pages about Randa Kassis and her initiatives need to be monitored and rewritten in order to ensure their neutrality and avoid ] as well as ] and ]. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=607632560&oldid=607397020 | |||
| I have also as it seems normal to mention the controversies within the opposition. | |||
| Currently there is a NPOV tag gracing the article (which as of now is, I believe, npov) | |||
| However, I will now abstain from editing the page about Randa Kassis as long as it has not been reviewed by third parties. Thank you. ] (]) 08:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=616525121&oldid=616514970 | |||
| :I’m from Egypt, and Randa Kassis is well known to many of us for her courage. Since 2007, she has spoken openly about social, political, and religious taboos and has appeared on numerous Arab media outlets. She was one of the first to champion secularism. | |||
| and edit protection expired today. | |||
| :You can observe that the secular coalition she created and presided over, alongside other opponents in 2011, preceded the formation of the Syrian National Council (SNC). After her expulsion from both the SNC and the secular coalition due to her warnings about Islamists, she ceased presiding over the secular coalition, and its fate remains unknown. | |||
| :She was the only member of the opposition to adopt a pragmatic approach, going on to establish the Astana Platform in 2015 and the Constitutional Committee in 2017. Both initiatives were later recognised by the UN, Russia, Turkey, and Iran. ] (]) 11:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't mind mentioning this, as long as it is duly sourced and does not make the page look like a promotional piece. What we must also mention, however, is that Randa Kassis' ties to Russia have been controversial and widely reported by the media. ] (]) 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have added a NPOV tag to the Randa Kassis page as it still looks heavily promotional. ] (]) 19:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello, regarding the edits on Carolina Amesty == | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=618531990&oldid=616619670 | |||
| I disagree with the edits made to the ] article. I have noticed that a user is adding information with a negative bias against Carolina Amesty instead of maintaining an objective and neutral approach. For my part, I added and removed information based on the official report. However, the Orlando Sentinel, a source that has maintained a critical stance towards Amesty and published a series of negative articles, has been used as a reference. | |||
| While I have made every effort to resolve the conflict by attempting to clarify the nature of the dispute - not only in the body, but already in the lede - they insist that their definition of "anarchism" is "correct", since various prominent left-anarchists claim the title, and that said POV be included in the lede. My hope is that objectivity ultimately takes precedence over majoritarianism. | |||
| To avoid conflicts, I will not undo any further edits, as I believe this is the appropriate space to resolve disputes between users. I prefer to wait for an impartial third party to review and determine the best version of the article. It is important to be cautious with sensationalist sources. If the information were accurate, it would be appropriate to include it, but this is not the case. I recommend reading the official report to ensure a more objective approach. ] (]) 15:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You are edit warring to add flowery language to the article and someone reverted you. Take it to the article talk page and stop complaining here. ] (]) 23:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| While I believe that mention of the conflict among anarchists need not be included in the lede in order to satisfy npov requirements, the following compromise text addresses the issue of definition to the extent possible in a few lines without compromising neutrality: | |||
| {{quotation|Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who typically reject private property and market processes, in favor of collective ownership arrangements. In contrast to left-anarchists, who believe that economic relationships tend to be hierarchical, anarcho-capitalists believe that hierarchies can only be flattened in a naturally competitive marketplace to the extent that states and state-sponsored monopolies are abolished. As a result, there is disagreement between anarcho-capitalists and left-anarchists over the nature of "anarchy".}} ] (]) 13:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Our friend JLMadrigal has put so much spin on the dispute that the true problem is blurred. JLMadrigal uses the label "Featured article" to lend an air of high respectability to the current version of the article, which is however very, very different from the 2006 FAR version, the version which resulted after a lot of different viewpoints were applied to the article during the ]. After the 2006 discussion, the article was eventually taken in hand by ancap adherents who gave it a much more subjective and promotional tone. This discussion started by JLMadrigal should instead have the heading '''Featured article ] has been changed to a subjective in-universe style and is being vigorously defended by adherents of a minor viewpoint'''. | |||
| ::To anyone who asks nicely I will say that I am a fan of big government—a strong central government—for reasons having to do with historically ugly social problems such as racism, sexism, and economic inequality. So to find myself characterized by JLMadrigal as a "left-anarchist editor" is entertaining if not ridiculous. This shows the degree of ] attitude which has been applied by ancap adherents to the dispute. During the dispute, one such editor was blocked for 36 hours for "personal attacks, incivility and battleground behaviour". None of the mainstream editors was blocked. | |||
| ::Instead of being a battle between ancaps and leftist anarchists, the problem here is one of the article having lost its former objectivity, having lost touch with the mainstream literature. The dispute is between ancap adherents ''and everybody else in the world'', that is, the general mainstream viewpoint. The current dispute is about beginning to restore a mainstream viewpoint, and it is just a start. If ancap adherents are resisting this strongly then we have a real neutrality problem. ] (]) 17:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::After briefly skimming the talk page for the article, it will become immediately apparent that the disputed text is just as I described it: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anarcho-capitalism ] (]) 00:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Furthermore, the article is just as worthy of the honor it has received - if not more so today - and continues to evolve. It is exemplary of encyclopedic text. ] (]) 11:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I suspect the phrasing of this thread as opened should clear up any confusion as to where the neutrality problems lie here. As noted, "neutrality" does not consist in having a page written to the perspective of adherents of the philosophy it describes (nor of course does it consist in having it written to the views of opponents – which no one is asking for). Instead it consists in having third-party description and analysis in reliable and authoritative sources noted and reflected with due weight, which is all that was being asked for here, in respect of simply one or two sentences, relating to the fundamental definition and classification of the topic. JLMadrigal also conveniently forgets to note that there was an RfC about the disputed text, which closed in favour of including it. Since then, they and "]" have tried to reignite a tedious edit war and to remove or change that text. People seeking relief really ought to come with clean hands, as they say in the legal world. And, finally, no, the article is not FA worthy. With or without the disputed content, it is badly written, sprawling, confusing, full of badly sourced material etc. After all the absurd fuss over this one sentence, I'm loath to institute another formal process in the form of an official FA review, but I'd happily have an FA reviewer look at it, even informally, and assess whether it is "exemplary of encyclopedic text". Oh, and I'm not an anarchist either. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 10:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I am an involved editor who disagrees with JLMadrigal's portrayal of the situation. It appears that there are a few editors on the ] page who believe the subject needs to be composed from an anarcho-capitalist POV: | |||
| The Talk page is also filled with uncivil remarks toward dissenters: | |||
| These same editors have marked content removals—the same content in dispute—as minor edits: | |||
| Contrary to JLMadrigal's claim that we "insist that definition of 'anarchism' is 'correct'", it is JLMadrigal who wants additions to be couched in his POV: | |||
| When it comes to verifiability, robust secondary sources on anarchism explain that anarcho-capitalism is a relatively recent, US phenomenon that opposes much of traditional anarchist theory (see Peter Marshall's ''Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism'' and Colin Ward's ''Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction''; Daniel Guérin's ''Anarchism: From Theory to Practice'', written in 1970, doesn't even mention anarcho-capitalists). This dispute is not about sources or relevance; it's about anarcho-capitalists wanting a fluff piece in place of an academic encyclopaedia. — ] (] | ]) 15:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| And now, we have those same editors reverting inclusion of the disputed material after a RfC was closed in its favor. No discussion, just reverting. — ] (] | ]) 13:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Exactly! We should not host a fluff piece as if it were Featured Article quality. ] (]) 16:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, back to the issue. Discussion of the debate among various anarchist strains IS included in the article. Not advancing it to the lede does not compromise neutrality. Further, a clear definition of the anarcho-capitalist philosophy is prerequisite to an understanding of the differences among the schools of thought in question. ] (]) 09:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The headline of this section is basically correct. The fundamental problem with the (left-)Anarchists here is that they misunderstand, or are intentionally misrepresenting, the root word of "anarcho-capitalism" which is "]" (a society which rejects rulers or governments), not "]" (the political movement). Anarcho-capitalists advocate ''anarchy'', but do not claim to advocate for the Anarchist movement (which traditionally has been anti-capitalist). As far as I know, there is no AnCap literature that attempts to imply that AnCap is a ''sub-type'' of the Anarchist movement, so all this defensiveness from left-Anarchists is unwarranted... its pointless and misplaced to refute something which is not even being proposed. The issues here would clear up if, instead of trying to shoehorn even more anti-capitalist disagreement into an increasingly diluted and unclear article, we clarify the terminology and explain that the only thing AnCaps and Anarchists have in common is the desire for anarchy. Let this article stand on its own two feet and be a clear explanation of the philosophy, without putting tripwires of unfounded disagreement in every section which come off as Anarchists inserting "Nuh-uh!" every few lines. -- ] ] 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :To rectify Netoholic's incorrect statements: 1) the root of both ''anarcho-capitalism'' and ''anarchism'' is ''ἀναρχία'' (''anarchia''), meaning "without rulers" or "without leaders" and 2) the article states clearly that the founder of anarcho-capitalism believes his philosophy to be the "true anarchism" ("In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." ]). — ] (] | ]) 20:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed. Its adherents make the claim, and the page as written clearly asserts anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism (ie the political theory/movement, if we're going to get into semantics). Did people miss the huge "Anarchism" template plonked in the lead? Or the first sentence which explicitly says "also referred to a free-market anarchism, market anarchism .." etc? The idea that the page can state all that while ignoring the significant dispute over that classification/description noted in third-party objective sources beggars belief. Also, did people miss the fact that at least two people commenting here, myself included, have explicitly said they are not anarchists? The very fact that this is persistently being cast, by the latter, as a dispute between left-anarchist and right-libertarian editors is part of the problem and says more about those who seem, for some reason, to think that that is what is going on here than it does about those who are in fact arguing for genuine neutrality and objectivity. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 10:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The article on far-left politics seems to be very biased compared to its ]. I raised the issue on the talk page, but the involved editors seemed to have preconceived notions of what "real leftism" was and thus didn't include ] and consequences such as religious persecution and Antisemitism. I welcome input on the matter. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New>]<big>_</big>]</span></small> 16:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :No one questioned whether or not Stalin was a "real leftist", just whether or not his form of leftism was as far left as it was possible to go. And far right is not the reverse of far left. The term far right is used for lack of a better term to describe nazis, klansmen, etc., while the term far left depends on whatever the individual writer decides it means. But there are always more precise terms for left-wing ideologies, such as socialism, communism and anarchism, and the various subcategories, such as Stalinism, Trotskyism and Maoism, are clearly defined. ] (]) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: What I don't understand is why the far-left is up to interpretation but the far-right is not. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New>]<big>_</big>]</span></small> 20:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC) It just seems odd. | |||
| ::: Search on Google books for "" and "". "Far right" shows a body of academic literature with a coherent description of the far right. "Far left" shows mostly non-academic books many of them not rs at all - the first page of hits for example includes a book published by World Net Daily and a book by Billy James Hargis, and there is no consistency in how the expression is used. ] (]) 23:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Tagging == | |||
| When an editor places a tag questioning the neutrality of an article, can the tag be removed if the editor does not engage in discussion on the reason for the tag or withdraws from the discussion for several weeks? ] (]) 01:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The policy ] is detailed here. On the tag itself it clearly states "don't removed until dispute is resolved" So, no. I guess it is a matter of protocol that all editors should follow for the good of the project. Some editors obviously have no regard to policy nor respect for other editors.] (]) 06:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Occupational Health Psychology article grossly biased == | |||
| The ] article is grossly biased in mine and other independent editor's opinion. I have tried discussing issues on the talk page, to no avail. | |||
| 4 months ago, a number of independent editors had all agreed that the article needed to be completely re-written. Nothing was ever done. I have tried to detail my concerns as per Misplaced Pages policy, again, to no avail. Some of the main reasons why I believe it to be biased and written from a POV perspective are these: It is a non-neutral article, that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. No other editors can add reliably sourced material, without it being blocked by iss246 & colleague psyc12. It has been written solely from a USA perspective, from a USA OHP Society perspective only, without providing a worldwide view on the topic. It does not present the '''controversies''' surrounding OHP. Controversies of origin and overlap. Presents OHP as a distinct field within psychology. It does not give due weight to other reliable secondary sources. Points of view are not recognized internationally within the psychology community. I tried adding '''alternate titles''', as is commonly found in other Misplaced Pages, (also known as occupational health: psychology and management 'United Kingdom' and occupational health, safety and well being psychology 'Australia'). But iss246 quicly censored these reliably sourced, neutral titles also. Posting here is a last resort. This extremely controversial '''coatrack''' article desperately needs to be entirely re-written, or even deleted?] (]) 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This "occupational health psychology (OHP)" seems to be about the ] type in particular. If that's the case, it ''should'' be US-centric, because that's a US federal agency. If the article is ''meant'' to have a broader scope, the definition in the lead shouldn't be sourced to the American one. I've explicitly mentioned NIOSH in the lead now, to give context. That doesn't mean I think it should be that way, but if it is, it should be clear. ] ] 02:07, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| ::I totally agree and the change is fine with me. The whole article is written from a USA perspective. I just added the UK and Australian titles often used. Hope this brings some solution at least to the different titles used worldwide. However the US definition remains a major concern if the article does not clearly specify it is a US-centric article only.] (]) 02:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::In a sense, a lot of the content isn't particular to one state or the other. It's more about very specific groups of humans that other specific people observe and report upon, hoping to gain insight into general ]. If other governments have similar concepts, I'd think they'd be deserving of their own articles, but it's not like Australians or Cameroonians can't learn ''something'' here. | |||
| :::A problem I've noticed is the article tends to relay what studies "suggest" as what studies "show" instead. You can't learn anything for sure about the US (or Zaire or Italy) by looking at a sample. It's a little more complicated than just changing those words, more of a running theme here. But I'll change those exact words, for now. ] ] 02:25, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fair points. I'm also wondering why '''entire sections''' (eg.Occupational stress and 'cardiovascular disease') of the article are based solely on research quoted from other disciplines, while the authors of this article refer to this research as being "OHP research" or "OHP researchers" etc. Examples are research drawn from separate fields such as ]? Also, as far as I can tell, the field began in 1990? (it looks like)? but again, the 2 main article authors psyc12 & iss246 quote research from decades before even, and again call it OHP research? Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm missing something here? Would appreciate other editors points of view. I would really like to work through these issues and bring the article up to standard, if possible.] (]) 02:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The term OHP is not just American, but it is used/recognized throughout the world, e.g., the UK journal Work & Stress refers to occupational health psychologists on the inside cover. NIOSH cannot be equated with OHP--it is just a government funding agency that has funded some OHP grants in the U.S. There is no NIOSH, Society of OHP or American-specific versions of OHP, and this OHP article includes references from all over the world. | |||
| :::::InedibleHulk. I would delete mention of APA and NIOSH in the opening paragraph of the article. Their involvement in OHP is just in the U.S.--they had nothing to do with development of the field in Europe and elsewhere. It adds clutter to the opening which is rather cluttered now, and there's repetition between the first and second paragraphs. The article now mentions them in the history section, which seems to best place. ] (]) 13:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I totally disagree. I think this edit is fine. It also highlights the obvious point that this article is almost entirely USA-centric. NIOSH, CDC. You and your close friend/colleague outside of Misplaced Pages, have authored this grossly biased article from start to finish. You are both from the US OHP society. How on earth is this article representative of a worldwide view psyc12?] (]) 14:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The OHP entry is built on research from Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, the US, and elsewhere. The entry is not narrowly focused on a US point of view. I remind readers that US researchers, like researchers in other countries, do not have one point of view on any topic. That the definition from the CDC was settled 7 months ago. ] (]) 15:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again I ask why '''entire sections''' (eg.the Occupational stress and 'cardiovascular disease' header) of the article are based '''solely''' on research quoted from '''other disciplines''', while the authors of this article refer to this research as being "OHP research" or "OHP researchers" etc. Examples are research drawn from separate fields such as ]? | |||
| :::::I answer your question. Occupational medicine has traditionally been concerned with physical factors that affect health (e.g., heavy lifting; exposure to toxic chemicals). OHP is concerned with psychosocial factors that affect health (e.g., decision latitude; the supportiveness of coworkers). ] (]) 03:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, as far as I can tell, the field began in 1990? (it looks like)? but again, the 2 main article authors psyc12 & iss246 quote research from decades before even, and again call it OHP research? Am I missing something here?] (]) 16:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Psyc12 & iss246. These 2 questions/points are left '''unanswered''' still? They are in addition to the other clear points above that I have specifically detailed, outlining exactly why I believe the article is biased. However you both keep avoiding answering them and then say I don't give reasons why I believe the article is biased? Very odd. Will await your detailed reply please. As a courtesy '''please don't remove''' correct tags from the article until these issues are fully resolved.] (]) 00:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Mrm7171. Research on OHP topics is done by people in different disciplines. For example, Tores Theorell is a Swedish physician who does research on occupational stress and health. Citing him in the article does not reflect an American bias--he's not an American. As for work prior to 1990, the study of OHP topics goes back well before the term came into use. Barling (a South African now in Canada) and Christie in their "A Short History of Occupational Health Psychology" (In A-S Antoniou & Cooper New Directions in Organizational Psychology and Behavioral Medicine) traced some "of the most seminal contributions to the field" that predate 1990. This included Robert Kahn's work on occupational stress in the 1960s, Jeffrey Greenhaus and Nicholas Beutell's work and family conflict in the 1980s, and Dov Zohar's work on occupational safety climate in 1980. | |||
| :::::Citing work outside of psychology or work published prior to 1990 does not constitute an American or Society of Occupational Health Psychology bias. Furthermore, you have not given us any evidence that such biases in fact exist. Apparently, Houdmont and Leka (from the UK) don't seem to think it exists. They say in their 2010 book Occupational Health Psychology, "debate on the nature and scope of OHP has crystallized and consensus has developed among academics and practitioners on its aims and objectives" p. 2 and later "despite the absence of a shared heritage across the international OHP community, broad agreement on the nature of the discipline can be found in the definitions advanced by the discipline's European and North American representative bodies." p. 5.] (]) 12:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This article appears very biased: | |||
| * Anonymous editors constantly add US organisations to the article, like the FBI and NSA, without supporting citations. | |||
| * I've only been able to verify a handful of obvious examples. I've even included quotes in citations. | |||
| * The article seems to cry out for a complete overhaul, despite attempting to draft a general definition (e.g. forced disappearances, arbitrary detention). | |||
| * I feel that in the worst case scenario, the article may never satisfy ], possibly making it eligible for deletion. | |||
| I've stopped editing that article pending further opinion from here. --''']'''<sup>(])</sup> 09:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Women in science == | |||
| Hi fellow editors. I am wondering if this article titled ] is expressing a POV or NPOV. I just read some interesting comments on the talk page and although I disagree with the editor stating it is POV I thought it may be good to get other peoples opinion on the article itself. As a woman and a scientist I think that the article is worthwhile. Thanks to any one who offers comments in advance.] (]) 13:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:40, 25 December 2024
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles and content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
| Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Journal of Indo-European Studies
In order to avoid an edit war I am starting a topic here for this. The article for the Journal for Indo-European studies has throughout the years been given undue weight consistently to make it look like its a journal of poor standing when its not. The content places far too much focus on Roger Pearson, its founding publisher,and not enough on the journal's actual content in order to make it look 'racist' when it is not since it is clearly a linguistic journal. The article currently reads more like a mini bio on Pearson rather than anything to do with the actual content of the journal itself. More over, edits go unchecked on that article for over a month that remove info that makes the journal look reputable yet edits that take out all the mostly irrelevant bio info on Pearson and alleged negative aspects of the journal get scrutinized quickly and reverted. There is clear POV pushing and an anti-NPOV campaign going on here. Other editors have flagged it as being largely unbalanced and given undue weight. I am asking here for help in order to better remedy the situation as right now there is a stalemate and the way the article looks and reads right now is a mess. Geog1 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can you list plainly the sources you have that you feel paint a balanced picture of the journal? Remsense ‥ 论 22:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The only source that has anything remotely balanced to say about the journal in that article is this:
- Tucker, William H. (2002). Jazayery (ed.). The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund.
- Nearly everything else entered in that article is meant to make the journal basically look like neo-nazis literature which it is not. It is simply a linguistic journal that focuses on linguistic matters concerning the Indo-European language family. Hardly any of the content of the journal itself is presented or discussed in the article. Surely that is problematic in and of itself. The journal isn't about Roger Pearson yet the way the article is written would have you believe its all about Pearson and that the journal is racist which it can't possibly be since its a linguistic journal. Geog1 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm asking you about what you have. If you could collate the bibliography from scratch, what would it cite? Remsense ‥ 论 22:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The only other texts I can think of that would maybe counter balance things are actual articles from the journal itself which shows its not racist:
- https://www.jies.org/DOCS/jies_index/mainindex.html
- I think the problem though is the content in the wiki article itself does not focus on what the journal actually has in it. Its all literature being used to paint it as racist. Geog1 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, this is pretty quickly revealing itself as the unavoidable core issue though, right? We don't write encyclopedia articles based predominantly on primary sources—and in this case, what the journal itself contains is a primary source for claims about the journal itself—but on secondary sources, and so we're going to be first and foremost balancing what independent, published, reliable sources have to say about it. This is a pretty basic restatement of our core policy on neutral point of view and our guideline on reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 00:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right, I understand the issue here between primary and secondary sources. But I really don't think the secondary sources are necessarily reliable, Arvidson for instance has a political ideology that lends an inherent biased against what the journal is about. I suspect the same applies for probably other sources there as well. But it all seems at the end of the day unbalanced and against NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but we don't exclude a work from an academic just because they're Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The context in which Arvidson's ideas presented here within the article (too many one sided views) coupled with how the ideology creates a biasing effect against the topic per the author's book is problematic. There are quite a few claims in the Arvidson book that shows he really just doesn't care for the study of Indo-European linguistics and mythology per his political stance which is bias. Question: are opinions derived from books written by authors with a strong right leaning political ideology allowed here on wikipedia and considered 'reliable sources'. Geog1 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Generally yes, unless the strong right-leaning political ideology gets into WP:FRINGE beliefs such as pro-eugenicism or other racist / supremacist opinions and assuming they're operating within an area of specialty and would not, otherwise, be considered unreliable regardless of their personal politics.
- I'll be honest, when dealing with academic sources, I don't generally look up the ideological position of the author unless it's somehow actually relevant. And I don't believe it's at all relevant here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that is rather naive and not very reasonable that an author's background or ideology wouldn't be relevant and that due diligence shouldn't be given to an author's background when choosing sources that would write fairly or reasonably on a subject. I don't think a book Sean Hannity would write on socialism would be received well in a wiki article pertaining to said subject and would raise editorial ire fairly quickly. We are dealing with much the same situation here. Geog1 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sean Hannity is not an academic and does not write academic books. As such he's rather irrelevant to this discussion and the context of my response which was specific to the review of academic books and journals. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Academics do not represent completely neutral views. Certainly not Arvidsson. Just like Sean Hannity doesn't. Separating the two is not as useful as you think. Both entities are capable of publishing highly skewed views on any position. You're essentially discouraging due diligence here. I don't find that very academic and suspect in its own right. Geog1 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV does not mean that a source must be neutral. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bringing up the highly biased and skewed Arvidsson text as not within the many guidelines within Misplaced Pages's NPOV is fair game. You are trying to set your own perimiters here. Geog1 (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV does not mean that a source must be neutral. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Academics do not represent completely neutral views. Certainly not Arvidsson. Just like Sean Hannity doesn't. Separating the two is not as useful as you think. Both entities are capable of publishing highly skewed views on any position. You're essentially discouraging due diligence here. I don't find that very academic and suspect in its own right. Geog1 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sean Hannity is not an academic and does not write academic books. As such he's rather irrelevant to this discussion and the context of my response which was specific to the review of academic books and journals. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that is rather naive and not very reasonable that an author's background or ideology wouldn't be relevant and that due diligence shouldn't be given to an author's background when choosing sources that would write fairly or reasonably on a subject. I don't think a book Sean Hannity would write on socialism would be received well in a wiki article pertaining to said subject and would raise editorial ire fairly quickly. We are dealing with much the same situation here. Geog1 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The context in which Arvidson's ideas presented here within the article (too many one sided views) coupled with how the ideology creates a biasing effect against the topic per the author's book is problematic. There are quite a few claims in the Arvidson book that shows he really just doesn't care for the study of Indo-European linguistics and mythology per his political stance which is bias. Question: are opinions derived from books written by authors with a strong right leaning political ideology allowed here on wikipedia and considered 'reliable sources'. Geog1 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but we don't exclude a work from an academic just because they're Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right, I understand the issue here between primary and secondary sources. But I really don't think the secondary sources are necessarily reliable, Arvidson for instance has a political ideology that lends an inherent biased against what the journal is about. I suspect the same applies for probably other sources there as well. But it all seems at the end of the day unbalanced and against NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, this is pretty quickly revealing itself as the unavoidable core issue though, right? We don't write encyclopedia articles based predominantly on primary sources—and in this case, what the journal itself contains is a primary source for claims about the journal itself—but on secondary sources, and so we're going to be first and foremost balancing what independent, published, reliable sources have to say about it. This is a pretty basic restatement of our core policy on neutral point of view and our guideline on reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 00:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm asking you about what you have. If you could collate the bibliography from scratch, what would it cite? Remsense ‥ 论 22:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nearly everything else entered in that article is meant to make the journal basically look like neo-nazis literature which it is not. It is simply a linguistic journal that focuses on linguistic matters concerning the Indo-European language family. Hardly any of the content of the journal itself is presented or discussed in the article. Surely that is problematic in and of itself. The journal isn't about Roger Pearson yet the way the article is written would have you believe its all about Pearson and that the journal is racist which it can't possibly be since its a linguistic journal. Geog1 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a problem that needs to be resolved. Anyone familiar with Indo-European studies is aware that the Journal of Indo-European Studies is a major, respected, and influential peer-reviewed publication in the field. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. There really isn't anything wrong with the Journal itself, especially if you read it, but the sources presented have a peculiar bias against the journal. Geog1 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you're free to think there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm genuinely not sure what we're meant to do while writing an encyclopedia article about it? Are we supposed to adopt a totally novel process than when writing about anything else? (To the best of my ability, these aren't rhetorical questions.) Remsense ‥ 论 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- In short, we just need to build out the article more regarding its reception, especially with discussion from individuals who actually have a background and standing in historical linguistics. For example, a quick look at the editor-in-chief since 2020 reveals quotes that actually reflect how the journal is perceived in for example philology and historical linguistics (eg. "a long-standing journal with a stellar reputation and a global reach"). :bloodofox: (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you're free to think there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm genuinely not sure what we're meant to do while writing an encyclopedia article about it? Are we supposed to adopt a totally novel process than when writing about anything else? (To the best of my ability, these aren't rhetorical questions.) Remsense ‥ 论 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. There really isn't anything wrong with the Journal itself, especially if you read it, but the sources presented have a peculiar bias against the journal. Geog1 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are opinions about the journal expressed in secondary sources that have questionable merit. Especially when you compare these opinions to what's actually in the journal. This is indeed very problematic and presents a rather unique problem here. I don't know the best way to remedy this either other than through continued dialogue. Perhaps maybe we can strike a harmonious balance. At the moment, something is very wrong here. Geog1 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ultimately the article (as with all Misplaced Pages articles) needs to be based on what reliable secondary sources say about the journal. What editors think of the journal is of no import, and what editors of the journal say about it is of limited use. The solution is to find additional secondary sources that discuss the journal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are opinions about the journal expressed in secondary sources that have questionable merit. Especially when you compare these opinions to what's actually in the journal. This is indeed very problematic and presents a rather unique problem here. I don't know the best way to remedy this either other than through continued dialogue. Perhaps maybe we can strike a harmonious balance. At the moment, something is very wrong here. Geog1 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I see some edits made over at the JIES article but to me it seems making a whole subsection about Pearson does more to draw away what the journal is about. The journal is not Pearson. Contributors and editors like Mallory, Polome, Adams, and Kristiansen made the journal by and large what it is today. Not Pearson. We still have some ways to go here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog1 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the solution is to simply build out the rest of the article and then return to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The secondary sources in the article clearly indicate your opinion - that the presence of a known white-supremacist as a founder of the journal is irrelevant to the reputation of the journal - is not universal among academics. I concur with bloodofox. If you're concerned about how the journal is depicted then you find sources that support it being described as not an armature of Mankind Quarterly. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The limited secondary sources that are highly biased in the wiki as it stands does in no way represent a universal opinion among academics in and of themselves. The journal is simply not being represented fairly based on the texts available. Pearson's involvement is vastly over stated and the idea that its an extension of himself somehow is completely unfounded. Geog1 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ok this is getting repetitive. I'm sorry you haven't got the response here you hoped for. But the advice to improve the article by finding additional academic sources is good advice and would serve you better than suggesting we should never treat the criticism of a journal with a white supremacist founder as due because said criticism came from a Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again you're discouraging due diligence and whether or not a source can be viewed as reliable or not. If you would just read the journal yourself you would see its not at all what Arvidsson is trying to paint it as. Geog1 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but do your own research isn't appropriate in this case. Arvidsson is reliable because he's an academic writing about the topic that is at the literal core of his academic domain. He is, flatly put, a WP:BESTSOURCE for criticism of Indo-European studies. As such it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude him. However that does not mean that Misplaced Pages should treat his position as privileged in some way. If other WP:BESTSOURCES disagree with him then they would be due inclusion too. This is why you've been told to find other sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ardvisson as a 'best choice' in this is simply your opinion. You're a socialist after all, so apparently he seems reasonable to you. Many others would not feel the same way you do. Sorry if you do no understand that. But feel free to continue the 'repetive' conversation here. At the end of the day all I see is due diligence being discouraged and a lack of NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- And now we have reached the point in the conversation when I ask you to read WP:NPA. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was no personal attack. My tone was the same as yours. For all intended purposes that would mean you should read that yourself. If you would like to end this conversation cordially, now would be fine. We simply don't agree. Geog1 (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
You're a socialist after all...
is, in context, a personal attack as you're suggesting my own, openly stated, politics makes me incapable of recognizing whether an academic is operating within his specialty - which he did his doctoral thesis on - and are trying to dismiss my advice accordingly. I would kindly ask you to strike that comment. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)- I said politely that we should end this conversation as its turning out to be very, very unproductive. We don't agree on anything apparently and I don't take very well to people discouraging due diligence and setting their own standards on how wiki guidelines should be viewed. Please, stop. Geog1 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was no personal attack. My tone was the same as yours. For all intended purposes that would mean you should read that yourself. If you would like to end this conversation cordially, now would be fine. We simply don't agree. Geog1 (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- And now we have reached the point in the conversation when I ask you to read WP:NPA. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ardvisson as a 'best choice' in this is simply your opinion. You're a socialist after all, so apparently he seems reasonable to you. Many others would not feel the same way you do. Sorry if you do no understand that. But feel free to continue the 'repetive' conversation here. At the end of the day all I see is due diligence being discouraged and a lack of NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but do your own research isn't appropriate in this case. Arvidsson is reliable because he's an academic writing about the topic that is at the literal core of his academic domain. He is, flatly put, a WP:BESTSOURCE for criticism of Indo-European studies. As such it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude him. However that does not mean that Misplaced Pages should treat his position as privileged in some way. If other WP:BESTSOURCES disagree with him then they would be due inclusion too. This is why you've been told to find other sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again you're discouraging due diligence and whether or not a source can be viewed as reliable or not. If you would just read the journal yourself you would see its not at all what Arvidsson is trying to paint it as. Geog1 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ok this is getting repetitive. I'm sorry you haven't got the response here you hoped for. But the advice to improve the article by finding additional academic sources is good advice and would serve you better than suggesting we should never treat the criticism of a journal with a white supremacist founder as due because said criticism came from a Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The limited secondary sources that are highly biased in the wiki as it stands does in no way represent a universal opinion among academics in and of themselves. The journal is simply not being represented fairly based on the texts available. Pearson's involvement is vastly over stated and the idea that its an extension of himself somehow is completely unfounded. Geog1 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The secondary sources in the article clearly indicate your opinion - that the presence of a known white-supremacist as a founder of the journal is irrelevant to the reputation of the journal - is not universal among academics. I concur with bloodofox. If you're concerned about how the journal is depicted then you find sources that support it being described as not an armature of Mankind Quarterly. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, if that's what sources say about it, then that's what sources say about it. The sources we're citing there are largely academics with at least some degree of expertise in Indo-European studies, race science or far-right movements. Also, we're really only devoting a few sentences to the matter, which are roughly balanced in terms of focus - two for scholars who criticize it; one noting the existence of the boycott, and two from Tucker and Mallory defending the journal (and the defenses are given slightly more text!) Having them exactly balance out like that isn't necessary of course, but it makes it harder to argue that they're being given undue weight - aside from the fact that the page says almost nothing else about the journal at all, which is solved by finding other sources covering other aspects. (I will say that I did a quick search right now and found only a few passing mentions, all of which were about the race science connection to one degree or another. That really does seem to be the only aspect of the journal that has received meaningful external coverage. See eg. :
Although Duranton-Crabol (1988: 148), fifteen years ago, pointed with alarm to his involvement, Lincoln appears to be the first US-based Indo-European specialist to openly comment on the worrisome background of Roger Pearson, the publisher of the prestigious Journal of Indo-European Studies since its founding in 1973.
Notable mostly because it's a secondary source describing such concerns, which lends additional weight to at least mentioning them.) ...also, they point out that Bruce Lincoln, who we cite in the article, is actually an Indo-European specialist; we might want to look at what we're citing him for and see if there are more details there. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC) - @Geog1: You must notify other editors involved in a discussion (i.e. me) when you post it to this noticeboard. There is a big red notice instructing you to this at the top of the page. – Joe (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really get what we can do here. "Neutral" specifically is a technical term meaning in proportion to what the independent, reliable secondary sources have said on the topic, and the limits of editorial discretion do not extend to excluding the what seems to be the views expressed by the majority of those sources, as indicated by the participants here. If the sources say that the earth is flat, then we can only report that that is what the sources say. Misplaced Pages does not have the resources to conduct original research, and it would be disallowed by policy even if we were able to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Just one other thing I have to bring up here. I noticed the Tucker quote had the text about Pearson's involvement regarding published material in JIES flagged as dubious for a while. I don't know by who. Eventually it was removed because someone (not sure who) did research noting Pearson had published 3 articles in the journal. That would seem to be original research. When we look at the Berlet and Lyons quote being used in the article, they claim the Journal is 'racialist' and 'ayranist' but it is a linguistic journal not 'racialist' or whatever. This can be seen by just reading a few entries from the journal which can easily be found online just like the Berlet and Lyons quote was easily pulled for online yet we see that characterization of the journal persist. This appears to present some inconsistency on how editing policy is being used.
I see the comment by Aquillion mentions how if 'reliable' sources report the earth is flat, then according to wikipedia policy, its fair game to put into an article and discuss. While I understand this is a policy, I'm not entirely sure if its serving us well here. This could open the door of Pandora's box for all sorts of misinformation to be presented in wiki articles.
Finally, I took a look at the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society article. I see an entire section with no sources entitled 'discussion papers' which essentially relates to the journal's content. No one for some reason seems bothered that its not sourced but I have doubts that a similar section in the JIES article would go without scrutiny if we were to say flesh out what the content of the journal is actually like. Again, it would appear inconsistencies are presented here regarding wikipedia policy being applied to two different journals.
I don't know what can be done here, but like I said before in the JIES talk page, I'd welcome more information that could help balance out the article a little more. However, I also feel this is a situation where wikipedia policy is failing a particular article and I doubt this is the only one. In the future, it may be useful to revisit wikipedia policy and see if changes could be made to help prevent or better remedy situations like this.
Best,
Geog1 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Geog1Thank you for bringing up these important points. It's clear that there's a need for careful scrutiny and consistent application of Misplaced Pages's policies to ensure accuracy and neutrality in our articles.
- Regarding the Tucker quote and Pearson's involvement, it's essential to rely on verifiable sources and avoid original research. If a reliable source supports the claim that Pearson published in JIES, then it can be included. However, if the source is questionable, it should be approached with caution.
- The characterization of the JIES as "racialist" and "Aryanist" is a serious allegation. It's crucial to base such claims on solid evidence from reliable sources. Simply reading a few articles may not be sufficient to make such a sweeping judgment. If there are specific examples of racist or discriminatory content in the journal, they should be cited and discussed in a neutral manner.
- The Aquillion comment about the "flat Earth" scenario highlights a potential limitation of Misplaced Pages's policies. While it's important to be open to diverse viewpoints, it's equally important to maintain a high standard of quality and accuracy. In cases where there is a clear consensus among reliable sources, it's important to prioritize that consensus over fringe theories.
- The issue of unsourced content in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society is a valid concern. However, it's important to consider the context and purpose of such sections. If these sections are intended to stimulate discussion and debate, rather than present definitive facts, then they may not require strict adherence to sourcing guidelines. Tattipedia (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Everything being discussed is appropriately sourced to highly reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also please have the respect for other people not to reply with a textwall of obvious chatbot glurge. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Everything being discussed is appropriately sourced to highly reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
notability concerns
- Gonna skip all the conversation above and ask an honest question... can we just delete it? states it has an h-index of 10, and states an impact factor of 0.2. It doesn't seem like it would survive WP:NJOURNAL. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Did AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Indo-European_Studies Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The result was speedy keep.XavierItzm (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Did AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Indo-European_Studies Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Open Orthodoxy & David Bar-Hayim
Some IPv6 has opinions about Open Orthodoxy & David Bar-Hayim. Can someone who knows about such things please take a look? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Confusing language from a Mark Biondich source related to Balkans
"In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans.": https://books.google.com/books?id=gt8SDAAAQBAJ&q=Muslims+casualties+millions+Balkans&pg=PA93
Why would Mark Biondich add those "killed or expelled" to those Muslims who emigrated to mean deaths as is stated in the Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction article. As I see it from a neutral viewpoint, he refers to the reduction of Balkan Muslims as "casualties from the Balkans".
I would like to get other viewpoints and advice related to these. Theofunny (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Theofunny, the way I understand your interpretation, when Biondich says "the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million", you think this includes those expelled, right? So you think the word "casualties" do not mean only deaths. Is this correct? Bogazicili (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes exactly. Like even in a war, the term casualties is quite flexible and is a source for confusion as it could mean all who are dead or all are dead as well as injured. Theofunny (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Later in the page he uses the term "victims" for "dead, wounded, and refugees". I don't think the term is as flexible as you think. Bogazicili (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Generally "casualties" includes dead and wounded. Including refugees is a bit novel but I don't think it's unduly confusing provided it's described with care. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The question is, is my rewording in the article Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction correct?
The historian Mark Biondich estimates that, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, more than three million Muslims from the Balkan area died, and around two million Muslims were displaced.
Bogazicili (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)- Those numbers don't seem to line up with what the OP posted as a quote from the source. Can you please elaborate? Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had interpreted the quote from the source as how Biondich calculated the number of deaths (casualties). Bogazicili (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
"In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans."
He says 2 million left between 1878 and 1912. He says more than another million ("When one adds...") left or died between 1912 and 1923. (The number who died or left 1912-1923 is added to the number who left 1878-1912 to equal "far exceeds three million".) The source does not support any number that died because he groups those who left in the same estimate. Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)- Yeah my concern is that the two figures seem to be divided chronologically but not by type. So we can't determine what percentage of the three million were killed rather than expelled or wounded. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had interpreted the quote from the source as how Biondich calculated the number of deaths (casualties). Bogazicili (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Those numbers don't seem to line up with what the OP posted as a quote from the source. Can you please elaborate? Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The question is, is my rewording in the article Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction correct?
- Generally "casualties" includes dead and wounded. Including refugees is a bit novel but I don't think it's unduly confusing provided it's described with care. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Later in the page he uses the term "victims" for "dead, wounded, and refugees". I don't think the term is as flexible as you think. Bogazicili (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes exactly. Like even in a war, the term casualties is quite flexible and is a source for confusion as it could mean all who are dead or all are dead as well as injured. Theofunny (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Theofunny+1 Tattipedia (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! Looks like I was incorrect in this one due to my misinterpretation of the word "casualty".
I was also confused because McCarthy and Kaser give much higher number of deaths, around 5 million, in Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction. So 3 million made more sense.
Now I see that it has to do with dates. It should have been clear from the quote actually, but looks like I missed it.
The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence since 1878 is available through Misplaced Pages Library. Page 94:
When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans.157
Source 157:
157. Mazower, The Balkans, pp. xxxvii–xxxviii; and McCarthy, Ottoman Peoples, 149–62
Biondich gives same numbers and sources in The Routledge History Handbook of Central and Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century Volume 4: Violence chapter The Balkan Wars, page 1:
The road from Berlin to Lausanne was littered with millions of casualties. Between 1878 and 1912, millions of Balkan Muslims emigrated or were forced from the region. When one adds up those who were killed or expelled between the Balkan Wars (1912–13) and Greco-Turkish War (1919–22), the number of Balkan-Muslim casualties may have exceeded three million. By 1923, fewer than one million Muslims remained in the Balkans.1
...
1 Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History (New York: Random House, 2002), xxxvii–xxxviii;
Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire (London: Arnold, 2001), 149–62.
I don't have Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire. But the book seems to cover 1912-1922 period of Ottoman Empire . So this aligns with the quote from Biondich.
This is what Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History says, pages xxxvii–xxxviii
Christian Europe’s blindness to Muslim victims overlooked the huge movements of populations triggered off by Ottoman decline. “People often talk in the West about transporting all the Turks, in other words Muslims, to Asia in order to turn Turkey in Europe into a uniquely Christian empire,” Ami Boué had written in 1854. “This would be a decree as inhumane as the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, or of Protestants from France, and indeed scarcely feasible since the Europeans always forget that in Turkey in Europe the Muslims are mostly Slavs or Albanians, whose right to the land is as ancient as that of their Christian compatriots.” Yet, according to one estimate, nearly 5 million Muslims were driven from former Ottoman lands in the Balkans and the Black Sea region in the century after 1821; from the Balkans themselves between 1.7 and 2 million Muslims immigrated voluntarily or involuntarily between 1878 and 1913 to what would later become the republic of Turkey. The Turkish language declined as a regional lingua franca, urban settlements were taken over by Christian incomers and Ottoman buildings were deliberately demolished or left to rot. The dynamiting of mosques and other architectural masterpieces in Bosnia-Hercegovina in the early 1990s was thus the continuation in an extreme form of a process of de-Islamicization that had begun decades earlier.19
So the general confusion we had in Talk:Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction#Death_toll_and_casualty_figures: has to do with dates and geographic areas (Balkans only or including other areas). Whether from 1820 to 1920, or 1878 to 1912, or 1912 to 1923. Mark Mazower only talks about displaced, but the 5 million displaced after 1821 is also in other sources.
I'll fix the wording in affected articles in Misplaced Pages. Bogazicili (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You should add the displaced figures by Mark Mazower in the article and and a displaced section in the infobox too with the other sources and Mark M. Theofunny (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't do everything today, but I'll make some of the changes later. I already changed the wording in the article Bogazicili (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:BRICS
It is a dispute in about https://en.wikipedia.org/BRICS#cite_note-:2-173
Nobody seem willing to verify my citation therefore I lost this edit war. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BRICS Dark Flow (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can you give more details and a link to the discussion at the talk page? Right now it's not clear what the dispute was about. Also, you might want to review WP:BATTLEGROUND and assume good faith. Alaexis¿question? 20:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Alaexis , yeah I can https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BRICS#Much_more_efficient_than_SWIFT .
- I didn't get notified of your reply, please use the @user citation it would make it easier to keep up with the conversation. Dark Flow (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
( @Walter you are welcome to join ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Flow (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Contradictory Claims on HTS Governance and Human Rights Violations
The article on Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Syrian paramilitary organisation that has been designated a terrorist organisation by a variety of countries, contains contradictory information about the governance of HTS in occupied territories.
The Governance section claims HTS has generally not interfered in womens' lives, has been tolerant towards religious minorities, and has been lenient towards civilians. These statements are based primarily on a chapter written by Dareen Khalifa in the book The Rule is for None but Allah, published by Oxford University Press. Khalifa’s work relies heavily on interviews with HTS leaders. For many claims about HTS' tolerance, the source she gives is "author interview, Jolani ", "author interview, HTS commander" or similar.
However, as an anonymous user pointed out, the section Human rights violations and war crimes (which for transparency I authored) contradicts this, citing multiple lengthy reports by the UN, EU, US, and human rights organisations, which document enforced dress codes, repression of women, executions for "crimes" such as blasphemy, forced disappearances of political opponents and activists, persecution of minorities, torture, among others. The governance section makes no mention of these reports, or that much of the current information in this sections relies on interviews with HTS leadership.
The primary dispute appears to be that the users @Whoopsawa and @Shadowwarrior8 consider Khalifa's chapter a reliable (or authoritative, given that her claims about HTS tolerance are stated as fact) source, because even though many of her claims are based on interviews with HTS leadership, the chapter is in a book published by Oxford University Press. The user @Shadowwarrior8 is also of the opinion that the reports by the US government are "propaganda", although the user has not addressed the reports by other institutions that come to similar conclusions as the US reports.
I am the other party to this dispute, and am of the opinion that the variety of reports by multiple - in my view credible - international organisations and human rights groups (and yes, the US too) should at least bear enough significance to warrant a re-writing of the Governance section, making it clear that much of the information regarding HTS' tolerance is based on HTS' self-portrayal in interviews and that there exist multiple credible reports that document a rather draconian and repressive governance policy employed by HTS. For example the European Union Agency for Asylum concludes that HTS has interfered "in every aspect of civilian life" and notes that women have been whipped or even executed for violating religious dress codes (p. 88).
The discussion on the talk page can be found here. Neither @Whoopsawa, @Shadowwarrior8 or I have engaged in edit warring, but the way this discussion is going appears to be an endless back-and-forth, so it would be nice to get outside opinions.
Sarrotrkux (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Have I successfully removed the promotional content from this article?
The owner of emailSanta.com made WP:COI and WP:YESPROMO edits at his own article yesterday. I tried to remove the "fluff" and restore the WP:NPOV. Has the WP:NPOV been restored, or is it still too promotional? Félix An (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- yes, looks better now Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Edits to “Game Science”
Discussion regarding Game Science has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. As the first subsection deals with a POV edit and the disputed edits create a POV more favorable to Game Science, I would appreciate your comment at Talk:Game Science#Interview-based edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't actually a neutrality problem. You've been arguing against things like attribution of quotes and secondary sources. Heck you tried to argue with me that attribution automatically casts doubt on the attributed statement. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I’ve said, the first subsection is about a neutrality issue. I am contesting that change because it violates NPOV, which explicitly mentions and forbids casting doubt through attribution. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Attribution is not automatically casting doubt - it's good practice dealing with quotes or opinions to attribute them. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not according to NPOV for RSes that state factual information, as I’ve quoted the policy to show in the discussion on the article’s talk page. I encourage you (and anyone else) to reply there for the added context of the quote. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a newspaper. It doesn't hurt the article to says "according to SCMP" and your resistance to that is perplexing. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I and a policy supported by community consensus agree that adding in-text attribution when we already have inline citations unnecessarily casts doubt. If you disagree with the policy, try and get consensus to change it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think your policy interpretation is weak. And, generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Specifically your policy citation is to WP:SKYBLUE and this is not a "the sky is blue" situation here but is, rather, a newspaper reporting on an acquisition where the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how "the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment" makes the fact that an acquisition happened doubtable and require in-text attribution. (Also, I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to cite an essay on inline citation, which is about the , not "according to...". My reply here assumes you were contesting whether the claim
Hero Games acquired a 19% stake in Game Science through its wholly-owned subsidiary Tianjin Hero Financial Holding Technology in 2017, but sold the stake in 2022
falls underUncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources
.)
You may as well tell that to everyone who cites a policy to remove text it explicitly forbids. Anyways, I'll be moving this to the article talk page soon. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't.
- I don't see how "the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment" makes the fact that an acquisition happened doubtable and require in-text attribution. (Also, I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to cite an essay on inline citation, which is about the , not "according to...". My reply here assumes you were contesting whether the claim
- Specifically your policy citation is to WP:SKYBLUE and this is not a "the sky is blue" situation here but is, rather, a newspaper reporting on an acquisition where the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think your policy interpretation is weak. And, generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I and a policy supported by community consensus agree that adding in-text attribution when we already have inline citations unnecessarily casts doubt. If you disagree with the policy, try and get consensus to change it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a newspaper. It doesn't hurt the article to says "according to SCMP" and your resistance to that is perplexing. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not according to NPOV for RSes that state factual information, as I’ve quoted the policy to show in the discussion on the article’s talk page. I encourage you (and anyone else) to reply there for the added context of the quote. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu You do not have permission to refactor my comments please restore this discussion to its prior state. Simonm223 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ugh, if you say so. I'll transclude it there then. It's much better to centralize discussion in one place. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is clear that South Morning Post reported on the relation between Hero Games and Game Science. It is also clear that Hero Games stated that they couldn't comment on the relation when asked directly about it. Using wikivoice is inappropiate, and an attribution is needed. Secondly, don't act like you have a consensus by proxy for your unilateral stance though a (misrepresentation of a) policy. --Cold Season (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am replying on the article's talk page to centralize discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- You brought the discussion to the noticeboard. This is borderline disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is very common to notify and invite noticeboards to comment elsewhere. I invited participants of these noticeboards to comment on Talk:Game Science. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- You brought the discussion to the noticeboard. This is borderline disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am replying on the article's talk page to centralize discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is clear that South Morning Post reported on the relation between Hero Games and Game Science. It is also clear that Hero Games stated that they couldn't comment on the relation when asked directly about it. Using wikivoice is inappropiate, and an attribution is needed. Secondly, don't act like you have a consensus by proxy for your unilateral stance though a (misrepresentation of a) policy. --Cold Season (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ugh, if you say so. I'll transclude it there then. It's much better to centralize discussion in one place. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Attribution is not automatically casting doubt - it's good practice dealing with quotes or opinions to attribute them. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I’ve said, the first subsection is about a neutrality issue. I am contesting that change because it violates NPOV, which explicitly mentions and forbids casting doubt through attribution. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead
@C at Access: Circulating on relevant noticeboards... essentially if contentious oligarch label should be mentioned in intro Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
NextEra Energy
Hi editors, I'm Matt and I work for NextEra Energy. I currently have two edit requests (first one linked here that I think are directly applicable to this noticeboard. Content added some time ago by a now-banned user (Surge of Reason), which was largely copied from the Florida Power & Light article, creates some neutrality issues, particularly as relates to WP:STRUCTURE. The above linked request is to move content in a section titled "Environmental issues" about a power plant that was never built – and therefore can't be an issue – to the History section, in line with WP:NOCRIT.
The second request is a bit meatier and involves removing some content that is pulled directly from a source without attribution and/or uses poor sourcing for negative information that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS, and moving what remains to the History section, again to improve WP:STRUCTURE in line with NOCRIT. I would appreciate any feedback or help you can offer. Because of my COI I have avoided making these changes myself and I'd like to have this page be reflective of our overall desire to have the page be neutral and factual. ~~~~ NextEraMatt (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- In any case, as an editor I genuinely appreciate these requests being made in a responsible and transparent manner. Remsense ‥ 论 05:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Unwarranted promotional and COI tags on film articles
Hi, I need help with some tags that have been added to two articles please:
- It's Coming (film)
- Draft:The Misguided
I'm getting pretty tired of the constant unfounded allegations. First it was paid editing (which got removed after review), then COI tags without evidence, and now suddenly it's "promotional content" - but nobody's actually pointed out what's promotional or what constitutes a conflict of interest. Here's the situation:
1. Everything in these articles comes from proper independent sources like The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and Film Threat 2. Yes, some reviews are positive, but that's what the reliable sources reported 3. My only contact with the filmmaker was to check facts like dates and get source materials 4. I have no other connection to these films or anyone involved 5. The latest tags were just slapped on without any discussion, continuing this pattern of baseless accusations
The articles stick to Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view rules. If something sounds promotional, tell me what it is and I'll fix it. I'm happy to add any negative reviews too if someone can find them in reliable sources.
You can see the whole frustrating history here:
- Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Help with New Page Patrol Review and Paid Editing Tag Removal for "It's Coming"
- Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Dispute over Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" and Review of "The Misguided" Draft
- Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#COI tags on "It's Coming (film)" and "The Misguided"
Can we get a fair review based on what's actually in the articles, not just assumptions and accusations? I am requesting that these unwarranted promotional content and COI tags be removed from the articles. Much appreciated!
Stan1900 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I've just discovered that the entire Reception section, which contained properly sourced reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and multiple independent critics, has been removed without discussion. This further demonstrates the issue with these arbitrary content removals. The deleted section was entirely based on reliable sources and followed Misplaced Pages guidelines. I have preserved the content and sources and request review of both the tags and this content removal. Stan1900 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion is Talk:It's_Coming_(film)#Promotional_tag here. You should know, you posted in the section. MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MrOllie, yes, I'm aware of that discussion. The wholesale removal of a properly sourced Reception section warrants broader review. This isn't just about a tag anymore - it's about the removal of verified content from reliable sources without justification. Stan1900 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't "removed without discussion" as you just stated, then, was it? You've had an account since 2017, and in that time 100% of your editing has been about the films of Shannon Alexander, and often quite promotional in nature. If you don't want people to think you have a COI, I suggest you tone down the rhetoric, and strongly consider finding a way to improve the encyclopedia that is entirely unrelated to Alexander. MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MrOllie,
- 1. The Reception section was actually just removed without proper discussion. A few quick comments declaring content "promotional" without specific examples doesn't constitute real consensus.
- 2. Your statement about my editing history is wrong. My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander. My recent focus on documenting these films stems from noticing a gap in coverage of internationally-recognized work - I've said countless times.
- 3. There's nothing "promotional" about including properly sourced reviews from reliable publications. If positive reviews exist in reliable sources, documenting them isn't promotion - it's proper encyclopedic coverage.
- The focus should be on specific content concerns, not repeated unfounded attacks and assumptions about editor's motivations. Stan1900 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Katherine Langford's article, where you wanted to correct information about a project she'd recently been in. Who made that film, I wonder? diff. Dishonesty is not going to help - every time you post something like this these 'attacks and assumptions' you mention appear to become better supported. MrOllie (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is just blatant forum shopping of a grievance previously discussed at the Helpdesk and now at COIN .
- Also, why does the user continue to lie that their edits to Katherine Langford were
completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander
? - Here is one of the edits :
Langford will appear in her first feature film, The Misguided, an independent comedic drama by Shannon Alexander
. In actual fact, all of the user's edits to that article relate to Langford being in a film by Shannon Alexander. - Pants on fire, my friend, pants on fire... Axad12 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- And Stan...
- The reason the tags are in place and the reasons that the removals of material have occurred is that pretty much everyone who has commented in the various threads you've started disagrees fundamentally with what appears to be your transparent promotional agenda.
- For reference, normal editors do not (a) create promotional articles, (b) open multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC, (c) talk about when the articles will start to appear on Google searches, and (d) open multiple threads trying to strongarm other users into removing COI/PAID tags.
- That pattern of behaviour is how conflict of interest users operate, usually ones who have been paid to produce articles to order. Axad12 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MrOllie, your implication about my editing history misses the point. Like many editors, I followed connected topics that revealed gaps in coverage. Following a subject area and documenting it with reliable sources isn't wrong - it's how Misplaced Pages grows.
- More concerning is the removal of an entire Reception section containing properly sourced reviews from established publications. The content was based on reliable sources including Rotten Tomatoes and Film Threat. If specific statements appeared promotional, they should have been identified and discussed, not wholesale removed.
- This pattern of removing sourced content while making assumptions about contributors' motivations vioaltes Misplaced Pages's principles. Stan1900 (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was discussed in the relevant place and the consensus was for removal. Another user has since added back the Rotten Tomatoes part of the Reception section, by which we can reasonably assume that they agree with the rest of the removal.
- As I have stated to you before, the WP:ONUS is on the editor wishing to include material, not on those wishing to remove it. There is clearly no consensus in favour of inclusion, so arguing for inclusion in 3 completely separate threads (this thread, this one and this one ) is pointless.
- In any event, it is obviously contrary to Misplaced Pages policy for an article about anything to be composed almost entirely of reviews, whether they are good or bad, so your line of argument is a very bad one in any case. Removal was thus entirely non-controversial. Axad12 (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Axad12, your interpretation of both consensus and policy continues to be problematic:
- 1. The "consensus" you reference was a single editor agreeing with you, while ignoring multiple objections. The fact that another editor has since restored part of the Reception section actually demonstrates that there isn't consensus for wholesale removal.
- 2. Your interpretation of WP:ONUS is incorrect in this context. The content was already established with proper reliable sources. The burden shifts to those seeking removal to demonstrate why properly sourced content should be deleted.
- 3. Your claim "it is obviously contrary to Misplaced Pages policy for an article about anything to be composed almost entirely of reviews" is simply false. Film articles regularly contain substantial reception sections when supported by reliable sources - see WP:FILMPLOT and WP:FILMSOURCE. The removed content was based entirely on independent, reliable sources providing critical analysis.
- 4. Regarding multiple discussion venues - each serves a distinct purpose and was used appropriately. Characterizing proper use of Misplaced Pages's established channels as "pointless" misrepresents how Misplaced Pages works.
- The core issue remains: properly sourced content was removed without valid policy-based justification or genuine consensus. Stan1900 (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are completely wrong. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The core content issues remain:
- The removed material was based on reliable sources and followed standard article formatting. No concrete policy violations were identified.
- Removals occurred without consensus, and often without any substantive talk page discussion.
- Vague claims of "promotional" tone have been asserted without pointing to specific passages or policies.
- AI detection results are being misused to discredit good faith, policy-compliant contributions.
- If there are proper neutrality or sourcing concerns with the removed content, please identify the exact issues so they can be addressed collaboratively. But so far, the removals appear to be based more on unfounded personal suspicions than objective policy issues.
- Wiki articles rightly include reception sections with mainstream press reviews. That's not inherently 'promotional' it's documenting verifiable real-world coverage. Removing properly cited review content is detrimental to readers and sets a terrible precedent.
- I remain committed to working with anyone who has constructive, policy-based feedback on improving these articles further. But edit-warring removals and personal attacks need to stop in favor of substantive, collaborative discussion. We deserves better.
- Let's get back to focusing on content and policies, not personal battles. I'm happy to discuss any neutrality problems if you identify concrete examples. But so far I've yet to see a compelling rationale for these removals of policy-compliant material. Stan1900 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The only important issue here is that, despite you starting multiple different threads in various different arenas, no one else agrees with you.
- Therefore the tags remain and the removals remain.
- You just have to accept that you are in the minority and move on. Continuing to argue is simply disruptive. Axad12 (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Axad12, your characterization of "no one else agrees" is both incorrect and misses the point. Several editors, including DMacks, have confirmed proper licensing and sourcing, and @Aafi has confirmed the images are restored after permissions verification. The issue isn't about counting votes - it's about following policy.
- The systematic removal of:
- 1. Properly licensed images (with verified VRT permissions)
- 2. Well-sourced content from reliable publications
- 3. Standard film article sections matching Misplaced Pages's format
- ...cannot be justified by simply claiming "you're in the minority." Misplaced Pages is not a vote-counting exercise - it's about following established policies for content inclusion. The continued removal of policy-compliant content while dismissing legitimate concerns is what's being noted and actually disruptive here. Stan1900 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no interest in the image issue. I am talking about the tags and the removal of the Reception section.
- The consensus is again you and you are consistently arguing contrary to policy, so the distinction you draw above is rather pointless. You have also been demonstrated to be a liar. Axad12 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Axad12,
- I strongly object to your repeated accusations of dishonesty. If you believe I have misrepresented anything, I ask that you provide clear evidence rather than resorting to personal attacks. Misplaced Pages is built on good faith and such language is both unproductive and contrary this platform.
- Regarding the tags and the Reception section, I have consistently argued my case based on policy, including WP:NPOV and WP:V. I have sought to include well-sourced and neutrally presented content.
- Consensus is not determined by the number of voices in a discussion but by the strength of the arguments grounded in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. I remain focused to working within those frameworks. Stan1900 (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I provided evidence of your dishonesty upthread here . The evidence is so clear that I will happily once again call you a liar. Axad12 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, you consistently seem to believe that consensus is whatever you believe is correct, disregarding the opinions of every other user you encounter. Axad12 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- 1. Regarding transparency and process:
- - Paid editing tags were initially added but subsequently removed through proper channels after review
- - Wiki images were challenged but verified and reinstated through official processes
- - All content is based on reliable, independent sources
- - I served as an authorized representative specifically for image licensing/copyright verification, which was done transparently through proper Misplaced Pages channels
- 2. Regarding consensus, let's look at the actual outcomes:
- - Multiple administrators have reviewed and approved image reinstatements
- - Paid editing tags were removed after proper review
- - Content has been verified through reliable sources
- - I've made requested changes when specific issues were identified
- 3. This pattern shows I'm following Misplaced Pages's processes correctly. While I'm eager to expand my contributions to other topics and articles, I'm consistently forced to defend properly sourced and verified content instead of moving forward with new contributions.
- I’ve repeatedly suggested we focus on addressing specific content concerns through collaboration, but this has been met with nothing but resistance, preventing any meaningful progress. Stan1900 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- UPDATE: Stan1900 has now been indef blocked following a thread at ANI . Axad12 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, you consistently seem to believe that consensus is whatever you believe is correct, disregarding the opinions of every other user you encounter. Axad12 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I provided evidence of your dishonesty upthread here . The evidence is so clear that I will happily once again call you a liar. Axad12 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are completely wrong. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Katherine Langford's article, where you wanted to correct information about a project she'd recently been in. Who made that film, I wonder? diff. Dishonesty is not going to help - every time you post something like this these 'attacks and assumptions' you mention appear to become better supported. MrOllie (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't "removed without discussion" as you just stated, then, was it? You've had an account since 2017, and in that time 100% of your editing has been about the films of Shannon Alexander, and often quite promotional in nature. If you don't want people to think you have a COI, I suggest you tone down the rhetoric, and strongly consider finding a way to improve the encyclopedia that is entirely unrelated to Alexander. MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MrOllie, yes, I'm aware of that discussion. The wholesale removal of a properly sourced Reception section warrants broader review. This isn't just about a tag anymore - it's about the removal of verified content from reliable sources without justification. Stan1900 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion is Talk:It's_Coming_(film)#Promotional_tag here. You should know, you posted in the section. MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
RFC on Taylor Lorenz controversial statement regarding healthcare ceo shooting
Posting to relevant noticeboards: Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#RfC_on_Taylor_Lorenz's_comments_on_Brian_Thompson's_murder Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Bizarre weight on disordered eating in Grazing (human eating pattern)
Grazing (human eating pattern) is already a very specific article that might be worth merging into something more general, but Misplaced Pages is not paper so I guess there is no reason to not have an article on grazing. Still:
- Almost all the sources cite Conceição's work on disordered eating, and grazing's role in it.
- The article does not really describe grazing except for it being a risk factor in disordered eating, according to this one person.
- The article does contain information like the languages that Conceição's grazing questionnaire has been translated into.
I think if you exclude undue weight and Conceição-promotion then there are about 2 sentences worth of notable info which can be merged into another article. YAQUBROLI 21:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Randa Kassis and connected pages
In the light of the recent fall of the Assad regime in Syria, I have been trying to update a bit the articles about the Syrian opposition. There, I noticed that a lot of importance was given to Mrs Randa Kassis, which made me suspect that this could be a case of WP:UNDUE. Please note that this version presented her as the "leader" of the Syrian opposition, as a "leading figure of the Syrian opposition" and a "Leading secular female figure", all in the biographical infobox. A lot of content in the Randa Kassis page seems to rely on primary sources. After a simple research I could find that Mrs Kassis is controversial among the opposition due to her alleged ties to Russia. 1, 2, 3. Other people within the opposition have presented her and her groups as Russian-backed operatives. This may or may not be true, but it has to be mentioned in the article.
Also, several pages have been created about the groups created or chaired by Mrs Kassis, namely the Movement of the Pluralistic Society, the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians and the Astana Platform (the latter of which should be rewritten).
While the Astana Platform is notable enough to warrant a page, I have my doubts about the first two, so I proposed to first merge the Movement of the Pluralistic Society page into the Randa Kassis article.
As a result, an IP accused me here of being "obsessed by Randa Kassis", and commented that what I did was "revolting" and amounted to "an harassment or sectarian political activism aimed at erasing or muzzling anyone who does not have his opinions". There were also accusations of malicious libel, presumably also against me.
Several references mentioning Kassis' suspected role as a pro-Russian operative were removed. The merger request was also unilaterally removed (I just put it back). Please note this comment (I guess that "the admin" is supposed to be me, even though I am no admin). This comment, this one and this one also appear to be about me.
Apart from the personal attacks against me, I think that the pages about Randa Kassis and her initiatives need to be monitored and rewritten in order to ensure their neutrality and avoid WP:UNDUE as well as WP:PROMO and WP:Advocacy.
I have also added back these parts, which had been removed as it seems normal to mention the controversies within the opposition.
However, I will now abstain from editing the page about Randa Kassis as long as it has not been reviewed by third parties. Thank you. Psychloppos (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I’m from Egypt, and Randa Kassis is well known to many of us for her courage. Since 2007, she has spoken openly about social, political, and religious taboos and has appeared on numerous Arab media outlets. She was one of the first to champion secularism.
- You can observe that the secular coalition she created and presided over, alongside other opponents in 2011, preceded the formation of the Syrian National Council (SNC). After her expulsion from both the SNC and the secular coalition due to her warnings about Islamists, she ceased presiding over the secular coalition, and its fate remains unknown.
- She was the only member of the opposition to adopt a pragmatic approach, going on to establish the Astana Platform in 2015 and the Constitutional Committee in 2017. Both initiatives were later recognised by the UN, Russia, Turkey, and Iran. 102.188.124.44 (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mind mentioning this, as long as it is duly sourced and does not make the page look like a promotional piece. What we must also mention, however, is that Randa Kassis' ties to Russia have been controversial and widely reported by the media. Psychloppos (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have added a NPOV tag to the Randa Kassis page as it still looks heavily promotional. Psychloppos (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mind mentioning this, as long as it is duly sourced and does not make the page look like a promotional piece. What we must also mention, however, is that Randa Kassis' ties to Russia have been controversial and widely reported by the media. Psychloppos (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, regarding the edits on Carolina Amesty
I disagree with the edits made to the Carolina Amesty article. I have noticed that a user is adding information with a negative bias against Carolina Amesty instead of maintaining an objective and neutral approach. For my part, I added and removed information based on the official report. However, the Orlando Sentinel, a source that has maintained a critical stance towards Amesty and published a series of negative articles, has been used as a reference. To avoid conflicts, I will not undo any further edits, as I believe this is the appropriate space to resolve disputes between users. I prefer to wait for an impartial third party to review and determine the best version of the article. It is important to be cautious with sensationalist sources. If the information were accurate, it would be appropriate to include it, but this is not the case. I recommend reading the official report to ensure a more objective approach. Bilonio (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are edit warring to add flowery language to the article and someone reverted you. Take it to the article talk page and stop complaining here. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:F53D:BE32:B541:C2C1 (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)