Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:57, 9 February 2018 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 68) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Tranny

How should we define the word Tranny (slang) in the article?

• The Cambridge Dictionary says the word is sometimes offensive,
• Merriam-Webster calls it sometimes disparaging,
• the Oxford Dictionary describes it as offensive, informal
• Macmillan Dictionary describes it as informal
• Longman Dictionary also calls it informal
• Dictionary.com says it is a a contemptuous term
• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language considers the word as offensive slang

At the moment of writing, the term is described as a derogatory and offensive slang term in the Misplaced Pages-article, and uses the last two dictionary-definitions as a source. However, given the descriptions in the other five dictionaries, I believe this doesn’t give the complete consensus among the term. Thus, I wonder: can any expert in the POV-field shine a light on this? See also the Laci Green-article and the discussion over there, where I came aware of the Tranny (slang)-article. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I count two that do not say at all that it can be an insult.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone read the history section of the article? And why are we only paying attention to dictionaries and not the other sources given? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

RE: Laci Green: Green agreed with those who criticized her for using the word in 2012, and apologized for it. There was no dispute between Green and her critics over whether or not tranny is offensive. It was more to do with how women on YouTube can't cross anybody without being targeted with death threats, another issue entirely. This Misplaced Pages dispute is an effort to describe a controversy in a bio of Party A, on a point which Party B agrees with Party A. Apropos of nothing, a Misplaced Pages editor wants to insert the opinions of Party C, who wasn't involved with either A or B, to say that C thinks A and B are both wrong. We don't write BLPs in a way that sets them up for ambush and sniping by phantom critics: people who never criticized the the subject of the article, who may have never heard of the subject of the article, but whom Misplaced Pages editors have unearthed and brought into it for reasons of their own. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, the definition at the top of the article is redundant. I think the words "derogatory and offensive" in the first line can be removed without softening the article or compromising clarity. Bradv 18:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleting the words is equivalent to Misplaced Pages taking one side over another in a disagreement over what mainstream standards are. It's a mistake to act as if that would be taking a neutral position. The article describes two points of view: one that the word is acceptable, or neutral in tone, and the other that says it is offensive, meaning not neutral but rather expressing contempt and disparagement for trans people. One side consists almost entirely of drag queens age 40+ who are on television, and the other side consists of several dictionaries, the NYT style guide, GLAAD, and the Facebook community standards. Misplaced Pages's policy is to accept as fact the consensus of mainstream, modern authorities on question like whether the world is flat or round, or climate change is real or a fake conspiracy made up by Al Gore. It's obvious from the history described in the article that the status of this word has changed over time, and certain dictionaries haven't been updated recently, and some individuals don't wish to change with the times. Which is understandable, but that's not how Misplaced Pages works. If anything, we devote too much space to the minority view that tranny is not offensive, but at least it is clear to the reader why precisely the meaning of the word has changed, and exactly when that happened. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Without the words "derogatory and offensive", the lede would read:

Tranny (or trannie) is a slang term for a transgender, transfeminine, transsexual, transvestite, or cross-dressing person. During the early 2010s, there was confusion and debate over whether the term was a pejorative, or was still considered acceptable, or even a reappropriated term of unity and pride. By 2017, the word was banned by several major media stylebooks and considered hate speech by Facebook.

You would read that as picking one side over another? I think that meets the very definition of neutral point of view. Bradv 20:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Removing those words would violate the third point at WP:WikiVoice, "Avoid stating facts as opinions." It would violate WP:UNDUE by treating a minority point of view as the consensus, creating a false equivalence between the overwhelming weight of highly respected, mainstream authorities that represent a broad community standard, and a relatively miniscule and atypical group. They can't even be called a representative cross section of all trans people; they are only celebrity drag queens above a certain age (who deserve respect, sure).--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I pointed out with the dictionaries that there is no "overwhelming weight of highly respected, mainstream authorities" to state as a fact that the word tranny is offensive. Unless you think that the majority of dictionaries is made by drag queens age 40+ who are on television, your point is invalid. WP:V states that: "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." The dictionaries I mentioned above are reliable sources. They disagree on the topic. Therefore, we should give each side its due weight. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• The word is derogatory and offensive. If we have a Misplaced Pages article about it, then our article needs to say as much. If we fail to note the term's derogatory connotation, then we're being non-neutral; we're editorially suppressing an important aspect of the subject. MastCell  20:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And concerning Laci Green: I already said there WP:NPOV tells us that a neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone. Thus, calling the disputed term "pejorative" and "offensive" is not impartial and should be removed. Moreover, as WP:PUBLICFIGURE says: BLPs should simply document what these sources say. In the Daily Dot-articles, which are the sources for this affair, the terms "pejorative" and "offensive" cannot be found. Thus, the only choice we have is to avoid use of those words and stick to the facts. And since WP:BLPSOURCE dictates that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion (emphasis not mine) we should remove the terms asap.Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's not contentious. There is solid agreement among English speakers today that the word is offensive. A non-fringe minority disagrees, and I think Kate Bornstein's reasoning is sound and she makes a compelling argument. But that argument didn't take. It's a fabrication to imply that the meaning of 'tranny' is controversial with regards to Green. Both Green and her critics in this instance agree that she should not have used the word. Why don't we just change the bio to say that she was criticized by trans activists who said the word is offensive, and Green agreed that it is offensive, and apologized. The Laci Green bio isn't about the topic of Tranny (slang), so we don't need to obsess over it. The only reason this incident is mentioned is the harassment and death threats she received from unidentified trolls. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't "want to obsess over it;" I want a good article. Please, tell me why WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV can be dismissed in the Green-article because someone on typepad.com says something? Let me quote WP:PUBLICFIGURE:

Public figures

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

* Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."

This is exactly what is the case here. And, as no reliable source in the article that links to the incident says it was meant to be pejorative or offensive, those words should stay out. I fail to grasp why it so important to keep on insisting she made an "offensive comment", while she states that she, at the time she used it, "had not the slightest inkling of how the word is used to dehumanize nor its place in the cycle of violence against transfolk." Maybe we should just insert her apology, as well as the "“Hi Laci. Why do you use the word ‘tranny’ in your video about Haters from 2009? … You really shouldn’t be using that word as a cis girl and it’s really disappointing for the people who look up to you.”-comment that started the fuzz. That would at least give a better view of the situation.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

"Please, tell me why WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV can be dismissed". This is a loaded question that contains unjustified assumptions. One of us is misreading these policies. You're equating Green's reputation with the reputation of the word tranny. That is absurd. It is a fact that tranny is offensive, and we are indeed sticking to facts. Nothing about this incident is even defamatory to Green because she handled it appropriately. Public figures apologize all the time for not getting the memo on changing social mores, and it's not a big deal. It's the people who harassed and threatened her who made this inot a big deal and that is not a reflection on Green.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I do believe it IS a reflection on Green. Now, the article says that Laci Green uses pejorative terms and makes offensive comments towards transsexuals, making her look like a transphobic, which violates the rules I've mentioned above, and is not a fact. Thus, I believe it is you who misreads the guidelines. I really hope some NPOV-expert will take a look at this. Then I will continue editing articles on 18th-century British clergymen, which do have less issues like this one.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• MastCell has it right. The term is derogatory and offensive. That is what our sources say. A number of editors seem to be deciding they can attribute viewpoints to sources because of what they don't say. This is original research. Sources may not mention this aspect of the term because it is either too obvious to mention or not an aspect they choose to cover. Alexbrn (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn, thanks for your input. However, your reasoning A number of editors seem to be deciding they can attribute viewpoints to sources because of what they don't say. This is original research is not a valid one.

After all, the first two dictionaries I quoted DO say it. The Cambridge Dictionary says the word is sometimes offensive, while Merriam-Webster calls it sometimes disparaging. Thus, your appeal on original research falls flat, and the wikipedia-article stating that the term “Tranny” is derogatory and offensive by definition is POV-pushing. After all, I do not know of any dictionary that says that the world is sometimes round. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment It seems like we should follow the structure of other entries for pejorative terms: say it is pejorative/offensive/derogatory or (generally considered pejorative, if that's acceptable), and then discuss the nuances of the issue further if necessary in later sentences. To the extent that there is a debate about this, it appears to involve whether its acceptable for use by people within the LGBTQ community, which isn't the same as debating whether it is generally offensive for everyday speech. That's a debate that exists for lots of pejorative terms (ex), but it doesn't stop us from calling those words pejorative in Misplaced Pages entries. The whole notion of reappropriating a term implies that the term is already considered offensive and derogatory.Nblund 00:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment Just from looking at the lead, it seems like the "derogatory and offensive" bit in the first line might be unnecessary, since the next two sentences make it very clear that this is a controversial term that many people think of as a pejorative. Also, dictionaries can be useful, but they absolutely cannot be a definitive source on whether a term is derogatory - there's rarely any kind of definitive answer to these questions that fits under a single dictionary definition. Same thing with newspaper style guidelines - all those do is reflect the opinion of those newspapers' editorial boards, they aren't authorities on wider societal usage. More specialized sources would probably be better for that determination. I assume that "tranny" has a quite a few papers or even books dedicated to its use, those should probably be the go-to sources on whether the term is considered derogatory, who considers it derogatory, and in what contexts. The definition in the lead is supposed to reflect the entirety of the article, but since the article is just a stub, that isn't really helpful here. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you are right. Could you also give your take on the Laci Green-discussion? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary and we typically avoid citing dictionaries. There are plenty of reliable sources which describe tranny as widely perceived as a slur, pejorative, derogatory, etc.:

• GLAAD
• VICE
• GLSEN
• Advocate.com
• Independent.co.uk
• Pink News 1 and 2
• ABC (Australia)
• UC Davis.edu
• Cosmopolitan
• The Guardian

Unless we have plenty of sources (not sources about individual opinions like Ru Paul's), I cannot see how we'd remove that it's offensive/derogatory. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this. Generally speaking, I feel dictionaries are not good sources, since they provide no context. Different dictionaries are also written for different purposes and audiences, which isn't really something that can be easily parsed into an article. Especially for a well-known word like this, it should be easy to find more in-depth academic coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is this article in mainspace? It could be the poster article for WP:NOT#Dictionary - Usage, slang, or idiom guides - and should be redirecting to Transgender sexuality. 13:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point! Any objections?Jeff5102 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

We have an article on the term in order to describe relevant context beyond its dictionary definition. For similar examples, take a look through Category:Ethnic and religious slurs and Category:Pejorative terms for people. I don't think it would be appropriate to redirect it. MastCell  18:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

WP's sister project, Wiktionary, defines the term as (slang, chiefly derogatory, offensive) A transsexual, transgender or transvestite person, usually a trans woman; the latter being what WP:NOT#Dictionary policy suggests. Perhaps a paragraph could be added to the main article, Transgender sexuality, which needs a bit of expansion. Perhaps a merge into the main article would be the best option. I reviewed the cited sources in the stub, and except for one, maybe two RS, we're looking at 2 dictionary sources, passing mention in opinion pieces/blogs, a FB policy article in Wired, a journal MOS ref, an apology in Huff, an article in the Life and Style section of The Guardian, etc. 04:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If the article should be removed and the content moved to elsewhere, why Transgender sexuality? While the term is also used in pornography, it's notable because it's subject to decades-long and ongoing debate and controversies over its use as a self-descriptor, slur, etc by various groups. This has nothing to do with sexuality. Cyrej (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I just went ahead and changed it to "is a slang term, often used in a derogatory manner," Maybe I'll catch hell for doing that; if so, sorry. I'm trying to make a decent compromise. To be honest, I'm on the side of those who think "derogatory and offensive" could just be deleted to maintain neutrality, since the next two sentences mention the debate, but I feel my version is still somewhat neutral? Maybe "often used" is not neutral enough, but what does "sometimes used" imply? or perhaps my wording accidentally implies that the word is used often (obviously not what i intended) As to whether it IS an offensive term, I would say that there seems to still be some debate over that, as this very conversation seems to show. And arguments over it in 2010 does not seem that long ago for the argument to have been entirely settled. I don't think it would violate neutrality to say that "some consider it offensive" nor that "some people use it in a derogatory manner." Ah well, I suppose I probably should have discussed it here first before editing. OwlParty (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Rfc at Bible and violence

please comment here Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Rfc

Concerns about Church of Satan POV and messy RfC at Talk:The Satanic Temple

There seems to be some obvious POV-pushing and meat puppetry going on at Talk:The Satanic Temple.

In the past, we've had people with declared connections to either TST or the Church of Satan editing the page. Having a WP:COI doesn't disqualify anyone from editing the page, obviously, but with the recent RfC it's starting to show signs of coordination.

As I started reading through the talk page and the issues people were raising, I found some of the zeal regarding whether it's a religion odd, given the sourcing. I noticed that several of the users also edit articles about the Church of Satan and saw several comments to the effect of the Church of Satan being a real religion or real Satanism or whatnot and the Satanic Temple is not.

So I started googling and found that, indeed, the Church of Satan seems to have some problems with TST (see also ). TST, in turn, looks to have started mocking the CoS.

Since this appears to be something along the lines of an official position for the CoS, and because I started noticing several SPAs in the thread above, I did a little more googling. I'm not going to out anyone, but it doesn't seem like users are trying to hide their connection to social media accounts which clearly advocate for the CoS.

I don't think there's anything actionable at this point (hence being here rather than ANI). But the matter of how to handle the way in which we characterize TST as a "religion" is tricky. IMO it's clear it won't involve simply omitting religion in the description nor calling it a religion without qualification, but how exactly to go about it is unclear and unlikely to resolve without additional voices. — Rhododendrites \\ 23:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to keep the page Neutral and hope that you know my intentions are the same. I only began editing it when there were complaints that the page read like a press release and I tried to balance it out by adding additional cited information. I think one of the big issues is that there is confusion and accusations of positions that are unfounded. Satanism has existed for a long time before The Satanic Temple which wasn't founded until 2013. The Church Of Satan was founded in 1966 and has been the single public representative of the religion of Satanism for over 50 years, including it's founder Anton LaVey having written The Satanic Bible as well as several other books considered Satanic religious cannon. Those articles can be read for further background. I think that weighing CoS against TST is a false equivalency, and I think implying that any discussion of Satanism pre-dating TST is somehow anti-TST or pro-CoS is presumptive. Additionally TST has changed it's position several times in it's relatively short existence, I think I don't think that discussions of those changed with citations is inherently anti-TST. However there are some editor that seem to want only positive information about the position being taken today, and are calling anything else bias. Anyone who has been interested in Satanism going back further than 2013 is going to have a different take on it, which isn't inherently pro/anti anything. It's simply a result of longer experience with the topic.

Perhaps the larger wikipedia community can help with that, it would be wonderful. I don't think there is any disagreement on the facts that Satanism pre-existed TST, that of the two founders of TST, one of them (Jarry) claims to not have any prior knowledge of Satanism, and the other (Doug Mesner, aka Greaves) was actively involved in CoS activities for at least 10 years prior to founding TST, so clearly had knowledge of Satanism before TST. Additionally we know that TST originally claimed to have been founded by Neil Bricke (a vocal believer in Satanic Ritual Abuse) and that they originally claimed to be theistic - both claims which can be seen on internet archive of the TST website in 2013 and have been discussed in interviews, we also know that what TST claims today is "Satanism" is different that what "Satanism" has been defined as going back to 1966 so there's a disconnect there to some extent. I think those points are all well enough documented that I don't need to add each citation here but let me know if you need a reference for any of them. So, the question as far as I can tell is simply how to talk about TST in this larger context without people who seem to have a pro-TST bias complaining that discussion of these facts is anti-TST? Thank you User:Rhododendrites for your continued level headed approach to this. Seanbonner (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Pssst. TST has never claimed to be "founded by Neil Blick (a vocal believer in Satanic Ritual Abuse)". Greaves did once claim as a pun that "Neil Bricke" (a pseudonym) was the mysterious leader of TST, as he poked fun at the real Neil Brick, founder of "Stop Mind Control And Ritual Abuse Today" (SMART). You appear to have fallen for the prank. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Internet archive of the TST website page showing the claim, which was live for several months in 2013. That's not a one time pun. Greaves has stated repeatedly on Twitter that this claim was written before he was involved with the organization, which is another issue all together but the fact remains that it was on their website when it launched and for several months after that, so it was a claim regardless of how they try to down play it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanbonner (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, your link is to a page using the pun-pseudonym name "Neil Bricke", a play on the name of the real "Neil Brick" (a critic and disparager of Satanism who would never found a satanic religion), as I said. If you wish to continue to believe it is an actual person long after the choice of name was "down-played" fully explained, I can't help you with that. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding my comment Xenophrenic, I'm not claiming "Bricke" is a real person. I'm pointing to the fact that for months when it launched the TST website made a claim that they later changed, and that this is a documentable fact that plays into the history of TST and it's initial intentions, which are the kind of things that are discussed in the history sections of articles - yet some editors have taken to arguing that including historical facts is biased. This was not a one time pun or a single joke taken out of context, it was on their website for months when they were actively engaging in media stunts - this was the story they were pushing when they were trying to get media coverage initially. A story that they later changed. The after the fact justification is PR spin. From an organization that openly and actively engages in PR spin. My efforts on this article have been to try and identify the confirmable facts and separate those from the PR talking points as we don't want this article to be a promotional piece, but rather an accurate and neutral representation of facts. It's certainly true to that claiming to be a theistic religion founded by someone with a fake name which is a reference to someone who might be your most vocal critic doesn't cleanly paint the picture that have deeply held atheistic beliefs, but that isn't a reason to pretend it didn't happen. Seanbonner (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope. I understood you perfectly. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If you understand my point is that a statement was made on their website for several months then I'm not sure I understand your argument about what name was used or your false claim that it was only mentioned once as joke. Sounds like a deflection, but feel free to explain yourself better in reference to my point specifically. Seanbonner (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• I took a look at the RfC and related Talk page discussions you linked, Rhododendrites, and I can confirm what you observed: There is POV-pushing, meatpuppetry, potential COI issues, and "zealous" attempts by one faction to denigrate the other. To that, all I can say is welcome to the world of religion. As is true with any significant flavor of religion, some branches will pre-date other branches, some will change over time, some diverge dramatically from their origins, - and each will inevitably criticize the other and exclaim, "you're not doing it right!" You'll find this is true in the realms of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, ... and Satanism is no different (see Temple of Set, Satanic Reds, The Satanic Temple, Church of Satan, etc.). Taking on the challenge of how to characterize religions such as The Satanic Temple is always interesting, and the lead sentence of our article on Religion should serve as a warning: There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.

Our only recourse is to adhere to Misplaced Pages's policy and convey what the reliable sources say. You'll need to cut past the feelings, opinions and original research from editors and simply go with the reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Beyond scholarly consensus there is also the matter of the religion tax break given out to only nominally religious organizations. I do however note that the first real reference source I see mentioned in the footnotes, the Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements in footnote 2, clearly indicates at least that it is a new religious movement and is presumably sufficient sourcing to use that term. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Pssst. Temple of Set does not consider themselves Satanists, rather they are Setians which a separate theistic religion different from Satanism which they agree is atheistic, and specifically why they split from it. They object to being called Satanists. Seanbonner (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I never said otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if I misunderstood, you listed them first in your "see also" list of arguments about flavors of religions and how that is the same with Satanism. As ToS doesn't consider themselves Satanists I don't see any argument there. Seanbonner (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Responding here mainly to say thanks for your response/context, Seanbonner, and thanks Xenophrenic for analyzing/jumping in. Noticeboard threads dealing with content can easily turn into redundant/parallel wall-of-text talk page threads that scare off previously uninvolved parties, so I'll leave it at that and cross my fingers that more people get involved. — Rhododendrites \\ 00:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Case in point - The "Chapters" section included information about Memberships and Chapters which are different things. I made a new section to clarify that with links to the official site showing the difference and had my edit immediately deleted, and was was then accused of POV pushing. ] Seanbonner (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I notice that what some might call problematic edits at least on the talk page seem to be ongoing at least in my eyes. Should such continue, sanctions of some sort might be a not-unrealistic option. John Carter (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree but am unsure of the appropriate way to report it, and suspect the report would have less force if it comes from me, who has been arguing with him a lot. — Demong _talk 20:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Rhododendrites: and @Xenophrenic: who have previously been involved in this matter. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)\

@John Carter: Thanks. The problem is that we have two extremely dedicated people, tangled in multiple edit wars, generating huge walls of text about multiple minor and major points, to the point that it's nearly impenetrable for anyone else to get involved. I scan the page every day or two as time allows, try to get a sense of the arguments, but by the time I've done so they've poured out another 10 paragraphs, 6 reverts, and another RfC. At this point, even though I have an opinion about which version is the "wrong version," it's hard to say any of them have been stable enough to objectively make that call. I'd welcome a temporary freeze on edits with either version, and a forum with word/post limits, but otherwise it's a tough situation. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

In my defense, my comments are frequent, but usually short :)

Do you have an opinion about whether sanctions of some sort might be appropriate? — Demong _talk 01:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The behavioral stuff -- the edit warring, WP:POVPUSH, WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, likely WP:CANVASSING/WP:MEAT, etc. -- is problematic, and should receive admin attention, but under it all there is still a valid content dispute that I think is resolvable and would like to see resolved. As far as I can tell, 90-95% of the disputes on that article are based upon or in some way related to the matter of whether TST is a religion or religious organization, whether it is a form of Satanism, the ways in which its members should be described relative to these terms, and the extent to which use of these terms should be qualified. At least that's my read. And that's something that would need to be resolved even if all of the behavioral issues disappeared. We do have multiple experienced Wikipedians that have come by the page and offered sometimes differing opinions. The question is how to have a discussion that will draw in people experienced with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines without requiring them to read a novella to get anywhere. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

And I guess an issue raised here is one which I thought worth pursuing at Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard#Really new new religious movements. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And now there is a new RfC regarding the inclusion of a link to a disambiguation page. The fun never stops around here, people. John Carter (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Immigration to Sweden (effects on crime) and Sanandaji

I am trying to improve the controversial article of Immigration to Sweden and specifically the section crime. What is not disputed is that certain crimes are increasing , that immigrants are overrepresented or the reliability of Brå, but instead how to interpret the statistics. The section as several issues (eg it's too long 1500 words), but since this is NPOV lets focus on that part here. Currently the controversial Jerzy Sarnecki is given a monopoly with his hypothesis that immigration has not affected the level or type of crime, while others such as the Iran-Kurdish economist Tino Sanandaji (PhD University of Chicago and researcher at Stockholm School of Economics) has a different view. Politico Europe gave a summary of him in their "The 28 people who are shaping, shaking and stirring Europe List of 2018". The edit we are disputing for this discussion is this .

Sanandaji dedicate 5 pages in his book Massutmaning to counter Sarnecki and this misconception. For the purpose of this discussion and according to Fair Use and "Citaträtten", transcribed quotes of this so that you can temporary read the full argument using Translate. User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning#Excerpts. The argument can be summarized as:

• Even if crime is falling while the share of immigrants goes up, that does not prove that immigration does not affect crime. The crime among non-immigrants could be falling, while the crime among immigrants is increasing for a net zero effect. Thus the crime levels could still be lower without immigration.
• Accounting for socioeconomic factors might explain why immigrants are overrepresented, but says nothing about how the level of immigrants effect the level of crime. Since immigration cause socioeconomic problems that can't be solved, and socioeconomic problems cause crime, immigration affect the level of crime. This is fact is used by others such as Skolverket in their studies. Accounting for things does not make them go away. You wouldn't say that eating a bag of potato chips is healthy if you account for fat, carbohydrates and salt. Eating that bag is still unhealthy.
• It is questionable if socioeconomic factors can explain their over-representation as the study this is based on is flawed.

I don't argue that we should delete the mentioning of Sarnecki on the page, but rather that we complement the page according to NPOV with this view. First this was blocked on the premise that Massutmaning was not a reliable enough source for this statement. But this argument was dismissed at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. The consensus was that the source it self was reliable for this statement, but including it was a question of NPOV. After this discussion, they have now moved the goalposts to be about NPOV and this is where we are today. They have argued that Sanandaji is a fringe view and that the journal where they let Sarnecki's mistakes through is a better source than Massutmaning. First I would like to state that according to WP:IAR, we can dismiss these reason if we know that it will improve the article. However there is no such rule and the view Sanandaji present is neither Misplaced Pages:False balance nor WP:SPS. They also never raised these complains when I did the edits about Walloons and Germans in the history section

Sanandaji has been cited/used as an expert of Swedish immigration in at least 8 different countries in 5 different languages (a lot for Swedish domestic policy) based on major news papers User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning#Sanandaji_as_an_expert. The book has also strictly received positive reviews by Swedish media User:Immunmotbluescreen/Massutmaning#Reviews and broke the financing record within Swedish publications. The only critics are Sarnecki and debunked statements from Hans Lööf. The summary from Politico Europe should be enough to state his expertise/relevance on the subject. To avoid people criticizing his sources he has strictly relied on independent studies and government reports and deliberately never researched the area himself. Researches such as Assar Lindbeck and Jan Ekberg has approved of his argumentation.

From the previous RS Noticeboard discussion

• "As a reliability issue Tino's book has been covered, his opinion on the immigration question has been covered, he certainly qualifies as an expert on statistical methodology. And really the above section is quite neutrally worded. Even a layperson can see when you have an expert stating 'Its not because they are immigrants, its because they are poor' the obvious question 'So where are all the rich immigrants then?' appears. Which is why its a thorny issue in Sweden, given the crime statistics overwhelmingly show certain types of crime to be linked directly to 1st and 2nd generation immigrants". --Only in death does duty end
• Yes, maybe I should have been more precise. He is an expert economist, but not an expert on immigration. And conflict-of-interest applies to books as well as papers. --Stephan Schulz
  • Well if we are being precise, neither is the criminology prof. What Tino takes exception to is the methodology involved in Sarnecki's conclusions. Sarnecki says statistics support argument A), Tino says the same statistics equally support argument B) which Sarnecki has disregarded without providing sufficient reason. Certainly Tino is more than qualified to opine on statistical methodology, and his MA is in Public Policy, which is certainly an immigration issue anyway.--Only in death does duty end

Can the crime section include views from other than Sarnecki? Given that 1. Sanandaji is referred to as an expert in various major news papers 2. that Massutmaning is famous in Sweden and 3. that Sarnecki is proven wrong, make his argument relevant to bring up in the crime section? --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The user above misrepresents the section in the Immigration to Sweden article, as well as past discussions about his proposed changes. First, Sarnecki is only explicitly mentioned twice in whole sub-section (sourced to 3 RS: FactCheck.Org, USA Today, and the Globe and Mail) and his study in the British Journal of Criminology is cited once, yet the user claims that Sarnecki has a "monopoly" on the section. Second, there are a number of scholarly publications and dozens of high-quality RS used in the article. Third, given that the subject (the relationship between immigration and crime in Sweden) has been covered extensively in RS and the fact that section already uses a large number of high-quality RS, there is no reason why we should introduce a self-published book. If Sanandaji's self-published book is to be mentioned, it should be one sentence at the end of the sub-section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What did we say about going around Misplaced Pages making false statements about the content of edits/artciles and other users? The entire section is either based on either based on Sarnecki 2013 which is cited three times or someone citing that study or a study from the same department at Stockholm University. Lets take the first 10 examples. 1. The 2013 study, 2. study from same department that and cites Sarnecki. 3. same incorrect argument "hese groups overwhelmingly come from socially and economically marginalised suburb" 4. Cites Sarnecki indirectly "djust for socio-economic factors, that disappears almost completely" 5. cites Sarnecki. 6. Same incorrect argument "to high levels of unemployment, poverty, exclusion, low language and other skills" 7. cites Sarnecki 8. deadlink 9. cites criminologist (i.e. sarnecki) 10. Cites Sarnecki 11. Cites Sarnecki 12. Cites Sarnecki. I could continue, but I think I have proven my point.

The second point is irrelevant for the discussion, but also false since it mostly cites the same group at the Stockholm University

The third point is where we don't agree and seek help from this noticeboard. I agree that it is too long, but it still misses important perspectives. I tried to shorten it by removing discussion about Trump's view which you have blocked . Sanandaji is not the only complaining about the incorrect method of adjusting for sociological factors, but is relevant source of this and a source that responds to Sarnecki directly. The consensus from the RS noticeboard was that Massutmaningen is a reliable source for this statement--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This is a self-published source by an academic who doesn't appear to have published any peer reviewed articles on crime, immigration, or statistical methodology, from what I can tell. The opinion might be worth mentioning, but it probably shouldn't be afforded the same weight as the view of a well-regarded expert. I'm especially dubious in this case because it seems to be countering a social-scientific conclusion by reference to bare assertions and speculation - e.g.: the study is flawed, immigrants cause unsolvable socio-economic problems - which is the sort of thing you can only get away with when you self-publish. Nblund 19:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! I just want to clarify what the argument is. He is not necessary arguing that immigration has caused crime, he is pointing out logical errors in Sarnecki's argument that it hasn't. Yet I don't think anyone seriously can suggest that poorly integrated low skilled immigration will into one of the most highly educated countries in the world with also the highest employment gap (immigrants vs natives) in world will not increase inequality in that country. He also gives an example of where Skolverket has regarded adjusting for socioeconomic factors as incorrect. Does this change your view? That Sarnecki is wrong in his argumentation is established, I would argue WP:IAR says that this says we should bring another perspective up. However since a published economic researcher with a PhD from one of the best universities in the world is more than qualified to comment on methodology and even though certain editors here doesn't think he is an expert, the various sources that claims that he is could be more relevant. Therefore we don't have to use WP:IAR and just WP:NPOV

He has also stated that "Däremot anser han att det kan vara önskvärt att genomföra studier med specifika frågeställningar, som likt den tyska studien, kopplar samman ursprung och brottslighet. Har brottsligheten ökat i Sverige på grund av invandringen? Det är en rimlig frågeställning och den typen av studie skulle man kunna göra även här. Men det finns en viss beröringsskräck vid ämnet, säger han." . So it is also not really clear that Sarnecki have the same view today.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think it's a matter of whose argument we believe. It's a question of due weight. Sanandaji does seem to be a noted polemicist, but I don't see compelling evidence that he is comparable to Sarnecki when it comes to the issue of immigration and crime. You might be in a better position if, rather than citing Sanandaji's critique of Sarnecki, you simply briefly summarized a key point or two elsewhere in the article.

Admittedly, I'm using google translate here, but I don't think Sarnecki is actually positing that aggregate statistics alone disprove a connection between immigration and crime. Sanandaji seems to be knocking down a straw man, so I don't think the point is so compelling that we need to apply WP:IAR. Nblund 00:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This is actually quite a good idea. I need to stress again that Sarnecki is by no means an expert on immigration and crime. He has written one article which as we have established is full of flaws and does not claim what his debate post says. If you consult actual experts on immigration should as Skolverket they say:

When the purpose is to explain differences between pupils with Swedish and foreign background, one should take into account that the socioeconomic background differs between the groups - as the Swedish National Agency for Education is usually doing in its analyzes. 28 That pupils with a foreign background have lower school results are due in part to the fact that they have a lower socio-economic background than pupils with Swedish background. In this report, instead, the purpose is to calculate how many students with a foreign background as a group contributed to a given change in profit (in this case a decline), regardless of other background factors. Then it is not relevant to adjust the results for socioeconomic background. However, it is relevant to discuss whether any changes in background factors (eg socioeconomic background) can explain the results we arrive at. page 20

Same thing goes here. It is irrelevant to mention socioeconomic factors when we're discussing the impact of immigration on crime. Real multivariate studies also prove that there is no strong relationship between socioeconomic factors and crime. "There were no associations between childhood family income and subsequent violent criminality and substance misuse once we had adjusted for unobserved familial riskfactors."

There is no need for a strawman here. That is what he is saying. The headline is "Ökad invandring leder inte till ökat antal brott" "Increased immigration does not lead to an increased number of crime". Also "Om det vore så att brottslighetens omfattning i Sverige verkligen påverkades av antalet invandrare i landet så borde brottsligheten öka då andelen invandrare ökar. I Sverige har dock de flesta brottstyper inte ökat sedan början 1990-talet trots den kraftiga ökningen av invandrare." "If the level of crime was affected by the number of immigrants, the level of crime should increase when the immigrants' share of the population increase. However, in Sweden most types of crime has not increased since the 1990s, despite the increased number of immigrants." The later part is also no longer true as 2015 2016 was record years for murder and sexual crime etc.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The weight that should be assigned to opinions is based on their reception in reliable sources, which in this case would be academic articles on the connection between crime and immigration. In this case, an expert has chosen to publish his opinions outside the academic mainstream which usually suggests they have little support within it. So they should be considered fringe - they have received a lot of popular support but little from experts. We can mention them so long as we make that clear. TFD (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no study of how immigration has affected the level crime. Sarnecki is using a newspaper to argue his case that the immigration policy has not resulted in increased level of crimes. He has one small study about of socioeconomic affect crime levels among immigrants which he base his argument on. This study is questionable as multivariate studies lead to very different results. The entire scientific community agrees that it is irrelevant to talk about socioeconomic factors when you are trying to understand the impact of immigration. Sarnecki now himself claim that there needs to be a proper study about the impact of immigration.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

How do we handle the unproven claims of alternative medicine? Pertaining to WP:VALID

I'm a fairly experienced editor and I'm familiar with the stricter standards that apply to pages in health/medicine categories. This is a question about how editors navigate providing enough context so that readers understand that claims of health benefits by many alternative medicine practitioners are unproven. It's important that we convey what those practitioners say it does, but also to make it clear that those are only unverified claims. Presently I'm focusing on Rolfing. The article states plainly in several places, especially in the Lede and in greater detail in a section called Effectiveness, that no health benefits have been proven for this method. A new source has been introduced that mentions claims of changes in movement and proprioception; these claims appear in enough other sources that it is perhaps worthy to note in the article. The same source also mentions claims of pain reduction but that is less emphasized. We have a specific source that details the science that shows that the link between biomechanics and pain is often not there (for specific health conditions), though it doesn't address the alignment ideas of Rolfing specifically. What is the best way to handle this and stay within WP:VALID? I have tried to consult other alt-med articles to see how this is handled but frankly many of them are rather sloppy. Thanks in advance. --Karinpower (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The answer's right there in WP:VALID: "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world". So, to deal with Rolfing's claim wrt "movement" and "proprioception" neutrally we'd need some decent mainstream sources (preferably WP:MEDRS) that discuss these topics. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

We say what RS say about it and we attribute all claims. Thus "Bert Scrogins claimed that him licking your left nipple cures the dreaded Lurgy. The Royal society of I did not spend five years at medical school to be called Mr has said that it has seen no evidence for this. Dr Sir Emanuel Terrible said "this is just plan quackery.".Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Slatersteven. I understand from what you have written that if credible sources state it, it can be included. This is in accordance with my understanding. It seems to me to be appropriate and necessary to report what the sources say that proponents are claiming, regardless of whether there is scientific evidence to proof or disprove such claims. Alexbrn seems to interpret this differently. In Rolfing, there is a MEDRS source, Jones, that can be cited to discuss the claims of proponents. (This source is a meta-study that concluded that there is not sufficient evidence for any claims of medical benefit, and it is cited for this.) In fact many of the sources mention this; it seems to be a key aspect of the topic. The Neutral POV Noticeboard is the correct place to get some additional editors to weigh in on this matter, correct? --Karinpower (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The correct noticeboard for discussing WP:PSCI/WP:VALID in general is WP:FT/N, where Rolfing has already been aired a number of times. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope you will pardon me if I wait for the reply from some other editor, as you are the person that holds the opposing interpretation of this policy. Slatersteven's example was quite clear and quite different from your take.--Karinpower (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Not credible, reliable (according to our polices). This then would boil down to a number of issues. Are the sources reliable, do they agree with what is being added, does this give too much weight to a minority viewpoint (scholastic, not editorial). Would you be so kind as to provide these sources?Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Certainly. This is mentioned in many of the sources. I'll provide 3, two of which are meta-studies and the other is currently cited but inaccurately paraphrased.

The debated article text is the new addition: "Proponents of Rolfing claim it can be used to alleviate pain." This is a distortion of the cited source, Thompson, https://books.google.com/books?id=l8JzCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA67, who mentions pain in the context of other goals/claims: Thompson: “Proponents of Rolfing claim it improves performance, increases self-awareness and decreases pain, and improves body image.” Sidenote, this is not a very strong source but it's the one that Alexbrn chose; he added this sentence about pain when I pointed out that his recent addition about pain science did not quite connect to the current article text (as pain had not been mentioned as a claim). There are some separate problems with this addition which are being hashed out at Talk:Rolfing.

A more accurate-to-the-sources text would be: "Proponents of Rolfing claim it can be used to change movement patterns, increase proprioception and alleviate pain."

One strong sources is Jones, Tracey A. (2004). "Rolfing". Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America. 15 (4): 799–809, vi. doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2004.03.008. PMID 15458753. (I notice that currently it is cited as "Additional Reading" but previously it was cited in the Effectiveness section as a meta-study that concluded that studies up to then were inadequate for proving medical benefit. I'm not sure when it was moved out the main article.) Excerpt: “The goal of Rolfing is to release the body from learned patterns of movement and tension that cause dysfunction and pain. In addition, the client learns about posture and alignment and becomes conscious about positioning of the body.... The goal is to create more efficient and functional patterns of movement.”

Some reliable sources do not directly mention pain relief as a claim, but use wording like "musculoskeletal problems" which would include both pain and movement. One of the meta-studies cited uses this description: Rolfing (also referred to as structural integration) is a system of hands-on manipulation and movement education that claims to organise the body in gravity. Rolfing is used in the management of a range of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal health problems. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/0E9129B3574FCA53CA257BF0001ACD11/$File/Natural%20Therapies%20Overview%20Report%20Final%20with%20copyright%2011%20March.pdf. p 134. I provide this to illustrate that the focus on pain is a bit reductionistic compared to what the sources are saying.

Thanks for being willing to take a look and weigh in on this matter.--Karinpower (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nationalist dispute in RfC at Abkhazia

There is a time-wasting nationalist dispute going on in an RfC at Elbonia... I mean Talk:Abkhazia#New RFC. It repeats an already properly closed 2016 RfC and failed 2017 RfC on the question of whether and where to include a large or small version of the disputed republic's flag, and follows an abortive attempt to POV-fork the article. At least one prominent figure in the disagreement hails from the region in question. The RfC is malformed, is not phrased as a simple neutral question, does not bother to link diffs, and does not ping editors who previously had an opinion. This is par for the course in Elbonia articles. This could use more eyes (and if I had my way maybe some topic bans). —DIYeditor (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

DIY... just a friendly comment... dismissing such debates by using the term "Elbonia" does nothing to resolve the issues you are raising, and makes it appear as if you have your own POV axe to grind. Please try to phrase things more neutrally. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

A friendly response: That POV is a point of view on Misplaced Pages itself. Promoting the view that North Elbonia is or isn't a rogue insurgency is POV-pushing. Declaring that such behavior is a misuse of Misplaced Pages is not a misuse of Misplaced Pages. I don't see what's inappropriate about a slightly humorous and quite apt reference to a comic strip, or about finding the persistent bickering in these articles, not infrequently by people with apparent personal interest in the sovereignty disputes, to be a bit tedious. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Because it implies you view Abkhazia in the same light, a made up country.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

By what logic? Referring to similarities with something fictitious implies that the referent is also fictitious? Sorry, no. I have zero opinion about the legitimacy of any of the sovereignty claims. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps you shouldn’t try to use dismissive humor when talking about them. Doing so makes it appear to others as if you do have an opinion.

But enough about how you should have phrased things. Let’s focus on your concern: Yes... nationalist aspirations often lead to POV editing. From your comment, I gather that there was a previous RFC on the article in question (held a bit over a years ago) and you feel that it is too soon to reopen the discussion. Is this a fair summary of your concern?Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It's an ongoing problem at Commonwealth of Independent States articles which is why they are on my watchlist. I think the most problematic part it that there is often at least one party involved who is from that very region and who predictably comes down on the side of their national(ist) interest. That's not good editing. I see a problem with both sides of this particular RfC, one for outcome shopping, the other for being persistently pro-Georgia and being from Georgia. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Wing Bowl#Allegations of sexism and misogyny

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wing Bowl#Allegations of sexism and misogyny. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

Star Wars: The Last Jedi RfC

There is an RfC regarding Star Wars: The Last Jedi and how to write about the audience response in line with WP:NPOV. Editors are invited to review the proposed approaches. The RfC can be found here: Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#RfC: Which version of the Audience response section should we go with?. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 22:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Liberalism in Iran

An editor claim that there is POV pushing ans WP:Synthesis in the article Liberalism in Iran, A disccution took place but we can't reach consensus. I think that we need of other editors to resolve the problem, a third opinion is need. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ellen G. White has admitted guilt

This is about wherein the prophetess Ellen G. White confessed of having plagiarized various authors. There is a discussion of this topic at Talk:Ellen G. White#Ramik. Or my edit has to stay, or, if it counts as WP:OR, the Ramik self-serving story has to go as factually untrue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There's "I did this thing (and there's nothing wrong with that)" and then there's "I am guilty of this misdoing," and there's room inbetween the two. Where exactly her statement lies on that spectrum should be determined by secondary and tertiary sources, not editor opinion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There are cited secondary sources which make the point that she has plagiarized. However, the Adventist response seems to imply that these sources would be blasphemous/heretical/apostate and therefore not an objective fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism is a 20th century issue. In the era when White lived and wrote, the 19th century, it was not the issue that it is today. Ramik is (was?) a lawyer specializing in plagiarism law. His expert opinion has weight in court such that no one today is taking the charge of plagiarism seriously, but those who have an ax to grind. The argument that White used sources other than from the "mouth of God" is thought to negate claims of her being a prophet. If she used other sources than from God, then obviously she is not real prophet and so there is no God. If one doesn't believe that there is a God, then obviously there cannot be a prophet. and so any idea that detracts from someone possibly being a prophet is exclaimed. I have no problem with the charge of plagiarism being a part of the article, so long the article takes the NPOV that some people believe that she is a prophet for this or that reason and that others believe that she is not a prophet for this or that reason. It is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to try to prove the truth of one position over another. Ray and Numbers are cited as secondary sources, however, both are former SDA's with huge axes to grind. Ramik is a reliable secondary source. --DebbieEdwards (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The claim that she was/wasn't a prophet is a subjective belief, not something belonging to objective knowledge. So, this issue will never be objectively settled. So, I was not speaking about such subjective belief, I was speaking of objectively assessable facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Once again, the article should just reflect what secondary and tertiary sources say on the subject. No accusations about zealotry or heresy, no editor arguments, no editor interpretation. If multiple sources say a variety of things, then the disagreement between them needs to be reflected. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you do when the existing secondary sources are by people with a vested interested in giving a negative report because they are directly involved in the conflict?

Remik, a Plagiarism law expert, a non-SDA (in fact he was a Roman Catholic), was hired by the SDA church to review the evidence and give his expert opinion regardless of the outcome. It is a good secondary source. The results were published: Ellen White's use of sources in the September 1981 Adventist Review. Quote:

"Ramik discovered that many of the books from which Mrs. White borrowed were not in fact copyrighted. But, he continued, even if they had been thus protected by law, her utilization of phraseology and even multiple paragraphs did not in law constitute copyright infringement, nor plagiarism. "If the issues had been court-tested between 1850 and 1915, Ellen G. White emphatically would not have been convicted of copyright infringement," conconcluded Ramik.

"This is the opinion of Vincent L. Ramik, senior partner of Diller, Ramik & Wight, Ltd., a lawyer who practices patent, trademark, and copyright law in Washington, D.C. Ramik, a Roman Catholic, spent more than 300 hours researching about 1,000 relevant cases in American legal history. He concluded his 27-page legal opinion* with an unequivocal declaration: "Based upon our review of the facts and legal precedents . . . Ellen White was not a plagiarist, and her works did not constitute copyright infringement/piracy." (The complete document may be obtained by sending a request, with $5.00, to the General Conference Legal Services Office, Dept. RD, Takoma Park, Washington, D.C. 20012.)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebbieEdwards (talk • contribs) 23:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The V.I.L.E. atheist bias theme. It is you who has an ax to grind: Numbers is a highly reputable academic, in fact he could be the only academic source on White's plagiarism cited in the article, self-serving views of Ramik (lawyer paid by the SDA) and Schwartz (professor paid by the SDA) aside. He was a devout Adventist who fell hard since he discovered he was deceived and sabotaged by his own church. Besides, historians work with methodological naturalism, it is part of their trade-craft: no God explanations allowed! Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"Polish death camp" controversy

Could use more eyes. There are several issues on the page and content disputes between a Polish government line and the views taken by others (mainly outside of Poland). In addition, there is questionable use of sources, such as using Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Poland) to state facts that are very much in controversy about what Polish bill would or would not do - in preference to secondary sources such as the Washington Post and Reuters.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why this article should exist at all. Whatever useful info is there, must be merged into Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance--Ymblanter (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue pre-dates the bill by quite a bit (as does the Misplaced Pages article - created in 2006 (I would however argue that this article has mainly represented the inner-Polish view on the matter)). The bill started rolling in 2016. The Polish MFA has been campaigning on the issue for perhaps a decade and half (at least - maybe also earlier - not sure). There was a big bruhahah over this when Obama used the phrase in 2012 - . In 2004 - the Polish embassy in Canada attacked a piece in Canadian media - and there has been a campaign of sorts vs. journalists and other publishers to reduce use of the term (see a jounralist's description of some of this campaign here - ).Icewhiz (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

I want to put a note here on my effort to keep the article neutral being hindered by user:Jeffro77. He is wearing down my edits even when reliably sourced by hanging on subtle wording issues and pushy arguments to exclude any source positive of JWs. As a result I often have to reason unnecessarily over subtle matters which in most cases I've prevailed or gave up. As editors may be aware this article can be likened to Homeopathy article, there is rarely a neutral editor to find. I am specifically bringing attention now to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Kedar. The criticism section on Jehovah's Witnesses#New World Translation only states one side of the story on alleged bias in "Old Testament" by a Baptist scholar. So I added a reference from a well respected Jewish Scholar who gave a highly positive opinion on "Old Testament" to the publisher of translation. The editor is so adamant in his stand that Jehovah's Witnesses publisher (Watchtower) misquotes the scholar Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, without giving a single evidence from any source to back his claim. I provided two independent sources (one from a critical work on JWs) that verifies professor's positive views, and a published research paper from professor himself that gives a positive evaluation. His logic is that positive precise wording by Kedar must have been misquoted by Watchtower, and if another letter from Kedar is published by a respected JW Hebrew scholar he must have had "vested interests". He can't seem to digest any positive opinions. Roller958 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Roller958's comments here are quite disingenuous. The claim that I have sought to 'exclude any source positive of JWs' is patently false. Roller958 has a long history of complaining about editors who disagree with him about his preferred religious group. In this latest 'episode', Roller958 added a Watch Tower Society source that quotes a scholar who gives an endorsement of the Watch Tower Society's translation of the Bible. Obviously there is a potential for conflict of interest with a source saying positive things about itself, and I requested that Roller958 provide a source independent of the Watch Tower Society for the scholar's quote. Roller958 adamantly refused, and though he said the scholar has elsewhere said positive things about the translation, he also refused to simply replace the quote and source with one from the same scholar that was not presented via the Watch Tower Society. At no point did I state that the scholar's views on the translation should not be included in the article. It later became evident that the source of the scholar's quote was from an interview conducted (and translated) by the Watch tower Society, so there is no other source for that quote, and even then, I still didn't insist that the quote be removed as falsely suggested by Roller958; instead, I said the quote should be clearly attributed. Roller958 also falsely claims that I contend that that the Watch Tower Society misquotes the scholar; though that is not impossible, I actually indicated the potential for cherry picking. Roller958 further complains that he 'verified the professor's views', which is irrelevant as they do not verify the veracity of the specific quote from the Watch Tower Society source, and I repeatedly suggested to Roller958 that he simply provide an alternative source directly quoting Kedar. As to the second 'independent source'—the "JW Hebrew scholar", it is fairly obvious that a member of the religion that publishes the translation is not independent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

User Jeffro77 removed independent sources twice here and here. Each time I have to go to talk page and convince him on this. I have been not editing for a while, even-though much younger in age with Jeffro77 I have matured over the course of time, but he haven't changed much. As editors can easily see I exercised great patience in not doing personal attacks throughout my conversations. Other than that some of his claims here are disingenuous about me having a preference. I have added negative and positive statements about Jehovah's Witnesses. Yet his silly insistence that positive statements quoted by scholars by Watchtower is not trustworthy despite multiple secondary sources being provided is wearisome and frustrating. He have to change.--Roller958 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The first 'removed independent source' does not directly support the quoted text, and it was not clear at that point in the discussion that the original quote from Kedar has no source independent of the Watch Tower Society. Since Kedar has purportedly said positive things about the NWT elsewhere, it's still not clear why you can't quote one of those statements instead, which would require no corroboration from Harris. You're making this much more difficult than it needs to be.

The second 'removed independent source' is not independent at all, as Furuli is a member of the religion. That source also does not directly support the quotes in question.

Ever so grateful that Roller958 managed to refrain from 'doing personal attacks'. The claim that Roller958 has previously 'had to go to my Talk page and convince me' misrepresents the frequency of how often I have found his arguments convincing; generally trivial matters are resolved at article Talk. Other editors, including editors responding to disputes involving Roller958, some of them raised by Roller958, have generally agreed with my positions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Guys your both good editors, no need for it getting out of hand especially over this. Going by what both of you have said thus far, this is more of a sourcing issue. Here in Australia, going from memory with JW publications (i am an ex JW -was raised in the faith from age 2 till 18), they would at times cite a scholar (and give the citation too) when something favourable was said in their publications. As their books, tracts, magazines (Watchtower and Awake) are not peer reviewed etc just find the original source (that meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary) and have the reference be from that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Freedom Party of Austria - (and other parties)

Freedom Party of Austria
A group of articles including the one mentioned here in the title seem to use a form of synthesis in order to describe the political position of the subject of the article. In the case of this one, a bunch of sources describe it as "Right-wing", while another bunch refer to them as "Far-right".

The sources have then been compiled and the two terms put together to create the phrase "Political position: Right-wing to Far right". To me this seems to create an un-sourced claim that this party is somewhere "between" the two positions right-wing and far-right. At best this is more vague than an uncontroversial description using one of the two, at worst it inaccurately portrays the idea that the party is more moderate/centrist than what reliable sources would have us believe.

With people so invested in the public perceptions of these party's, (AFG notwithstanding) it would be naive not to consider that this verbiage might have been employed to detract from the idea that these party's hold extreme (and in some cases unpalatable) view points.

This is not an isolated case. Alternative for Germany also had the same issue. I attempted to change it when I saw it here per SYNTH and (not surprisingly) came up against a sizable reaction. If this issue requires addressing on a case by case basis; during the course of the discussion a list was helpfully made by an involved editor, of other articles which have employed this practice of generating verbiage. The list contains:

• Freedom Party of Austria
• Vlaams Belang
• Danish People's Party
• National Front (France)
• Jobbik
• Party for Freedom
• Sweden Democrats

Is this a problem? to me it seems like it is, however if I keep raising it in the form of talk page discussion I am going to start sounding a bit WP:STICK. Advice appreciated. Edaham (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. In the UK, I don't think there's much of an equivalent - UK Independence Party are described as right wing, British National Party are far right, extreme right. Which, in and of itself is slightly problematic, since when I hear "far right" I immediately treat that as extreme - we're dealing with very WP:SUBJECTIVE terms. Personally, I'd go with the current wording, which to me implies "somewhere between, it's subjective". Anyone more experienced, though, please respond. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Weaselly though it is in these cases why not just say "has been described as either right wing or far right"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

well I guess (hard as it is) my distaste for people who are trying to find ways to edit the encyclopedia for personal reasons should be put aside. That being done it is not a question of liking one or the other term based on any subjective reason. It’s simply one if accuracy. If that’s the case then surely “right-wing far-right” (along with whatever citations) would accurately reflect the source text. Only the word “to” is synth, after all. We often see this kind of synth conjunction when people use “however” in sentences like, “thing x is awful, however people y love x”. In cases where people y came along and edited the article with valid texts about their loving thing x, but used the word “however” to make it seem like the initial statement about it being awful has been contradicted - and other variations on that theme. Edaham (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The term "far right" is fairly well understood and used in the literature, although some writers avoid it as pejorative. It refers to groups that have historical ties to fascism or other racist origins. The term "Right-wing" is broader. But when reliable sources use the term to refer to the far right, it is clear from the context what is meant. Similarly when news media mention the possibility of a left-right coaltion in Germany, it is clear they are not referring to the AfD. The term "right-wing" has also become a pejorative and is avoided by mainstream parties of the Right, who prefer to call themselves center-right or centrist.

I think it's helpful to categorize parties as far right, liberal, communist, etc., because it immediately presents the reader with a broad heads-up about what their likely policies and history are. When they read "far right" for example, they can expect historical fascism in their origins, and themes of the legitimate people versus the unassimilable immigrants, the betrayal by the elites, brushes with the authorities, etc., which one would find to a lesser degree in other parties, if at all.

What I would agree with however is eliminating position in the political spectrum in the info-box. With the exception of the far right, it is very subjective where in the spectrum a party lies.

TFD (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Very useful advice. That being said - just "right" might be a good idea for the info box. The body can expand where necessary, relevant and verifiable. Edaham (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution