Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Shortcuts WP:NPOVN WP:NPOV/N WP:RFN Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Hi all,

As some users may be aware, India (as well as several other countries) has a number of laws making maps that do not match the Indian government’s national border outline illegal. While this has been a known potential issue for many years, in 2023, the Indian government’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) sent the Foundation several direct complaints about specific maps. This has led to them sending an overall list of 81 URLs on the Wikimedia projects (primarily English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons). In India, MeitY has overall enforcement authority over website hosting companies and has indicated to the Foundation that they would block access to Wikipedia in India if nothing is done in response to their demands.

As is usual for our response to government demands, we explained the community-governance processes for the Wikimedia projects and that content and editorial decisions are made by volunteers. We have been clear throughout our interactions that the Foundation would not perform any changes, nor is there an expectation for the community to do so. MeitY agreed with this and has clarified that their request does not involve deleting any content on the Wikimedia projects.

Instead, they have made two requests to us. One is that we notify users (which we understand to mean editors) about MeitY’s demands, and the second is that notices be added to pages noting where maps do not comply with Indian law. On the second, they also requested a pointer to the official Survey of India map, which they recently agreed to release into the public domain and which was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

The Foundation Legal Department’s opinion is that the first request to inform the communities about the notices to the Foundation is reasonable and in line with our transparency principles, and we are therefore making this post.

For the second request, we understand MeitY’s concern to be around readers misinterpreting a map’s depiction of the disputed border. We believe that it may be possible to address some of MeitY’s concerns in line with current content policies, adding language to some image captions mentioning the dispute in normal encyclopedic prose. Where possible, we defer the question of making these changes to community processes and are here to provide transparency on this situation and our perspective on options.

After a manual review of the 81 received URLs, we developed a list of twelve maps of India (on eight pages) where there is both no indication of the border dispute (in the map or caption) and where mention of the dispute may be beneficial in providing due weight in context.

Manually-reviewed list of pages and files
Number in unedited list	Page link	Page section(s)	Presumed file(s) affected
3	India	India#Administrative divisions	File:Political map of India EN.svg
78	Foreign relations of India		Diplomatic relations of India.svg
		Foreign relations of India#South 2	Members of BIMSTEC.svg
		Foreign relations of India#South 2	Map of India WV.svg
		Foreign relations of India#Border disputes	Indus river.svg
		Foreign relations of India#Policy	Diplomatic missions of India.PNG
73	India–Pakistan relations		File:Pakistan India Locator 2.png
66	India–Iran relations		Iran India Locator.svg
62	India–Uzbekistan relations		File:India–Uzbekistan Locator.svg
21	Bhutan–India relations		File:India Bhutan Locator.png
22	China–India relations		File:India China Locator.png
25	1998 Wandhama massacre		File:India location map.svg

The Wikimedia Foundation stands by the community’s editorial decisions and processes. If the community decides not to take any action, we will inform MeitY of that decision and, in the event Wikipedia is blocked, attempt to challenge it.

Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.  Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Thank you for bringing this to us; we appreciate the work WMF Legal does.

Some of the maps, where it might be appropriate to include details about the dispute, already appear to depict the location of the disputed border. For example, File:Political map of India EN.svg and File:India location map.svg appears to match commons:File:States of India (Survey of India).pdf, with both of them depicting India's claim? Can you give us more information about MeitY's objections to these maps; do they want us to depict the territory as Indian, rather than merely claimed by India?

For most of the rest, particularly maps like File:Indus river.svg on pages like Astore River and File:IPhone 3G Availability.svg on iPhone I don't think including the fact that India disputes the border would be relevant, and I feel that doing so across the encyclopedia would provide WP:UNDUE emphasis to India's claims; for other countries with disputed borders we don't mention them every time a map involving those borders is shown, and we shouldn't make an exception because India is issuing legal threats.

In regards to the specific proposals presented by MeitY, I think that adding notices is a non-starter, and adding a pointer to the official survey map isn't much more likely to be appropriate or succeed. BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this well written summary, Jacob (and Legal more generally). It's probably is worth taking a look at each of the map uses that doesn't note the dispute to see if they should be more prominently marked. I can't imagine we will be adding the notices. As to the pointer, again, it would be odd to add that to every single instance of the map (marked as disputed or not), but there may be some cases where it's worth adding to the see also/ext links section. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BilledMammal. Thank you for your comments. We understand MeitY’s concerns to be focused on noting that the territory is disputed, not to portray the territory as undisputed in their favor. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. However, that does mean I don't understand their objection to some of these maps where that already appears to have been done. BilledMammal (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference in list size between "81 URLs" and the list above does suggest that...quite a few of them will be flawed, even with the most generous of interpretations. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they want the disputes to be noted rather than removed entirely, why is Pakistan on this list? The light green part is land that is claimed by both countries – does India want us to ignore Pakistan's claim?

Also, and more to the general point, what would we do if we received a similar complaint from the government of Pakistan? Or Bhutan? Or China? I'm concerned that this sets a very dangerous precedent. By all means we should be going through these articles to make sure they are accurate and well-represented, but we should not be bending over backward to placate an overzealous government. – bradv 23:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bradv, thanks for your comment! In the interest of transparency, we thought it necessary to bring this to the attention of the community. I want to clarify that we are not proposing any specific changes; rather, we’re hoping to communicate our understanding of the situation for consideration by the community. I think the standard you articulated: “By all means we should be going through these articles to make sure they are accurate and well-represented, but we should not be bending over backward to placate an overzealous government” is a great way to review this. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrogers (WMF). For full transparency, can you post redacted copies of these several communications from the Government of India's MeitY related to this issue and the Wikimedia Foundation's redacted written response(s) thus far.

Also, have you contacted the Internet Archive about a recent removal of a Public Domain book with a 1868 map of India by an India-based uploader? They might share if there has been a request from MeitY as well. Thanks,

-- Ooligan (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On this map it's unclear to me what the difference is between "Pakistani territory claimed by India" and "Indian territory claimed by Pakistan". Current control? I feel like this phrasing is not sufficiently precise in that case. Loki (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the difference between the land that India actually controls and the land they claim. The red line is the de facto border, the hashed areas are what India and Pakistan respectively claim. (Same on the east side of the mpa, with China). Obviously it wouldn't be NPOV of us to draw these maps according to either country's wishes, but it would be perfectly reasonable for us to colour the claims differently and make note of the dispute (as we do on most of these articles). – bradv 00:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest changing it to "Pakistan-controlled territory claimed by India". Unfortunately, this overflows the existing legend, so it will take more significant editing of the SVG to fix. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Loki (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, "X territory claimed by Y" is at best confusing and at worst it implies actual ownership aligns with the current line of control. "X-controlled territory claimed by Y" would work, but if space is an issue then I believe it can be shortened to "territory claimed by Y" without altering the meaning or understandability. The line of control itself implies the territory is claimed and controlled by the other side. Alsee (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appreciated if when citing the desire for transparency that the WMF could give a fuller picture of this. It is presented here as a new incident which was merely a "known potential issue" in the past, however it includes Bhutan–India relations for which we have news reports of previous official communication to the WMF. It would be clarifying to know what specifically the WMF means by "the border dispute" in this request to the community. As the WMF has carried out a manual review, it would also be appreciated to know what considerations were taken when doing so. For example, did this review take a similar perspective that it would be "beneficial in providing due weight in context" to add into the maps and captions notes about related disputes? It was particularly eye-catching to see China–India relations included in the manually reviewed list of pages "where mention of the dispute may be beneficial". I hope the WMF takes another look at this situation. CMD (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint about China–India relations is interesting, as both of the India/China maps on that page seem to be drawn in India's favour, with no mention of China's claim. (It doesn't mention India's claim on Pakistan's land either, but if we're going to fix one we're going to fix the other too.) – bradv 00:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't see a way this can be resolved that does not involve Wikipedia being blocked in India. Deleting all maps that show the territory that India actually controls is simply too fundamental a compromise of the neutral point of view to seriously stomach. The only way I could seriously see this being resolved without Wikipedia being blocked is having the maps replaced with one's the Indian government approves of only when viewed from India, like Google maps does it, but the technical implementation of that seems challenging. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I could seriously see this being resolved without Wikipedia being blocked is having the maps replaced with one's the Indian government approves of only when viewed from India, like Google maps does it, but the technical implementation of that seems challenging. I believe the technical implementation already exists (it is often used for banners), but I would oppose that as an NPOV violation.

However, what may be acceptable is for us to include a banner on those pages, viewable only in India, that reads something along the lines of "The Indian government has required us to inform you that the maps included in this article reflect control, and do not reflect India's claimed territory". However, I don't think that would be necessary - I doubt India will actually block Wikipedia. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a headache, but not for us. I'd say the less the community engages with this sort of Dr. Evil style blackmail the better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's often critical of the WMF, I have to give props for how this is being handled. If the government of India has an issue with our content, they are more than welcome to make a post here at the neutral point of view noticeboard like anyone else. If the government of India blunders its way into blocking Wikipedia over a few maps, then I hope the people of India will loudly oppose such a decision and see it quickly reversed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we just create a new template warning people that a given map might be illegal in some countries like we already have for communist symbolism etc? User1042💬✒️ 12:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we do, it would be better to do alongside other countries with similar laws. CMD (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them, in my opinion. I believe that the Russian territorial claims against Ukraine (including Crimea) are just as good as ISIL's in the context of widely documented war crimes of such exceptional intensity, that now the ICC has an arrest warrant for Putin: in said case, there is no case for a territorial dispute warning template. --Minoa (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I meant a universal template, like we have for communist symbolism. User1042💬✒️ 20:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree thanks for this thoughtful summary and reasonable stance by the WMF. I suggest we review it and discuss ad nauseum simply to prove that we can before taking any action, IF any is taken. Andre🚐 17:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remember an earlier similar thing with some media coverage[1], it was discussed at Talk:Bhutan–India relations and other places. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Inquiry is the complaint at India about File:Political map of India EN.svg (where the in-image caption is perhaps less clear than desired, but seems broadly fair), or other images such as File:South Asian Language Families.png (which makes no attempt to convey a disputed border). Walt Yoder (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good question, thanks for flagging! I believe it's both, and I think that presents a good example of the varying quality of the list they sent us, given that one is at least related to the political borders while the other is quite clearly different. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If they refuse to say what they object to and/or want, I must assume they are hoping Wikipedia will self-censor to maximalist demands (that is, have maps that show all India's claimed territory as indisputably Indian) -- which is unreasonable and will not get consensus. At a policy level, I don't think there is anything that can be done other than a talk-page banner (which I will support if somebody else proposes it). Walt Yoder (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Due to the way Wikipedia works, it will always contain errors. That's not something we can change. I'm not inclined to start caving in to demands from this government or that. I'm more sympathetic to India than I am to (say) Russia, which doubtless thinks we are breaking numerous laws with our coverage of the war. But I think we have to draw a line in the sand here. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also worth mention is India's Democratic backsliding. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia will always contain errors, especially if the errors can be verified and the facts can't. That's following our policies and guidelines. But that doesn't excuse, for me, our obligation to try to get things right nor does it excuse our obligation to uphold a neutral point of view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

• @Jrogers (WMF): Other issues aside: Having File:States of India (Survey of India).pdf is good, but have the govt. of India released it as an SVG, or better as a data file? If not, please could you ask your contact there to do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Noted. We can try, though the Survey of India themselves have been the slowest responding part (like, it might take them months to respond to a request). If anyone want to make it into an SVG, please feel free to do so. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jrogers (WMF) @Pigsonthewing: I've converted the PDF to File:States of India (Survey of India).svg, but it's not great quality because of the limitations of the original file. If anyone can create a better version, I'm absolutely fine with mine being uploaded over. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I presume there is no problem about detecting the country of origin when nothing like VPN is being used. For those cases I fully support a country specific banner appearing for specific pages when they are displayed. Plus an option for people to display all banners if they wish. And if Russia wants such a banner for bits of Ukraine being displayed in Russia, well I've no objection and we can all see what they are saying if we want. NadVolum (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think a reader-facing warning is appropriate here. No objections to someone making a template about this as information, and dropping it on associated talk pages - then future editors can decide if they want to adjust things or not. In some cases, something may be inaccurate and this could spurn legitimate improvements. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We would also need a new Commons template similar to c:Template:Georgian boundaries (for misprepresentations of Georgia's borders) to be attached to Commons files. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur with xaosflux's perspective on this. I don't believe reader-facing changes should be implemented but when appropriate I don't see issues with editor-facing notices/templates that garner community support here. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We should seek always to act reasonably, and where we think the edit request is reasonable we should act upon it. In my view, border disputes are usually notable, and I think should be communicated in a proportionate manner (e.g. outlining or shading territory on a map, plus a key). It would not be proportionate to have a big flashy warning about a map being illegal in India. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Do nothing, oppose warning/banner WP:Risk disclaimer already states "Please be aware that any information you may find in Wikipedia may be inaccurate, misleading, dangerous, unethical, or illegal" - why would a country-specific banner even be necessary? Wikipedia has a track record of ignoring petulant bullshit from authoritarian states, no reason for this to change now. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 04:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No banner Per Satellizer. And I'd like to see 'em try and block access to Wikimedia (which...is what their mortal enemy Pakistan did briefly in February. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support tailored notices I don't like pandering to nationalist interests or censorship at all, but the fact is there will be cases where Wikipedia isn't being neutral, or possibly even correct. The easiest way to avoid angering governments which practice censorship (which in reality is virtually all governments) is to say something to the effect that there are such disputes and the position of the country from which one is viewing Wikipedia may be different than what is represented. Maybe something like Wikipedia contains user-generated content and [national borders depicted on this page] may not match the official position of [the Indian government]. No harm done. If we can preserve access to Wikipedia for millions or billions of people by doing so, that is a very small price. This would not need to be done for governments which don't even give us the chance. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Do nothing, oppose notice. I've thought about it and I don't think we should normalize governments looking for a way to add warnings to Wikipedia. Andre🚐 03:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose banners and tailored notices. The risk disclaimer describes what exactly the Indian government found - that it may be illegal. Almost every piece of content in this project can be deemed illegal according to one or the other. We put the disclaimer at the bottom of every page just for that. Anyone who thinks some content is erroneous are welcome to edit - which is of course our daily business here. Re the 81 urls, I don't see anything the WMF should do in particular. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Do nothing, oppose banners and tailored notices per se - I agree that we are stepping onto a very slippery slope once we give in to the entreaties of one particular government, no matter how politely requested and how reasonable the negotiations. There are almost 200 countries in the world, many of which have border conflicts with their neighbors. Of course, most of these are very low-level and are unlikely to lead to demands to WMF and the various Wikipedias, but I can think of a least a dozen that are festering and could very well result in the same kind of requests that India is now making. It would be impossible to please all parties if we start on that path, so the only reasonable course of action is to continue doing exactly what we are doing, using the best possible sources and citing everything with reference to them; in other words, our normal commitment to neutrality. If a country such as India cuts off access to WMF entities for their citizens, that would be a blow, not to us so much as to those people, and it is not too much to think that in democratic countries such decisions would be overturned by public response. In any event, our choice is clear, at least to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify a bit: if an area on a map is disputed between two countries, that should be indicated on the map itself, and in the caption, especially if it's not indicated on the map - but as a matter of fact, supported by refs, not as a matter of policy, whether set by the community or the Foundation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree to this request because it's asking us to do the right thing. Where borders are disputed, we should be informing readers of this fact, without taking a stance about which version of the border is correct.—S Marshall T/C 09:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• For the sake of NPOV, if we act to acknowledge India's objections to a map we ought to solicit and note the viewpoint of the entity on the other side of the border in question. Cabayi (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a very odd venue for a discussion where the goal was for the "community" was to be consulted... Not sure how many Wikipedians have the NPOV noticeboard page on their watchlist, and I only learned about it through asking a question in the Signpost. Suggest moving to the village pump and also prasing it as an RFC.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already a note on WP:CENT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it is a reasonable request to include the fact that there is a border dispute in cases where relevant. Afterall this isn't false and only conveys a WP:NPOV to the readers. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In isolation that might be a reasonable request, but it doesn't gel with the list of articles and images presented in the master list and in the manual list, many of which already do this. CMD (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for Legal @Jrogers (WMF): would adding templates similar to c:Template:Georgian boundaries or c:Template:Chinese boundaries on the description pages of the affected files satisfy MeitY's request? – Teratix ₵ 14:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good question. I think the answer is a solid maybe. I think in context of the way that Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons hosts files, one could make a compelling argument that this satisfies their request for notification about the issue to users. On the other hand, based on my conversations with them so far, they have been very focused on the specific URLs they identified and changes to the file pages require a clickthrough. This did come up on Commons as well and my recommendation there is the same I'd make here: it's helpful for us in negotiating, both now and in future, so I'd encourage these kind of filepage warnings if they don't cause other problems. - Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Teratix @Jrogers (WMF) as I noted on Commons, MediaViewer can show small "non-copyright restriction" icons. (Something like a quarter of those URLs were MediaViewer URLs so presumably that's something the ministry cares about.) It's not much but it should be uncontroversial as we already use it for all kinds of images which are illegal in some Western country. Tgr (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Something seems deeply wrong here. According to these statistics, India, a country of 1.3 billion people, accounts for about 5% of Wikipedia's total pageviews. That's on par with the UK. The outcome of this discussion might play a large part in determining whether or not these users have continuing unimpeded access to Wikipedia. Can you imagine if access to Wikipedia in the UK hinged on the outcome of a discussion like this? There would be dozens if not hundreds of users weighing in within hours. It would be bigger than WP:FRAM. Why is this discussion so comparatively small and slow?

This is not a Russia scenario where the requests are obviously incompatible with neutrality and free access. There's no request to delete content or rewrite it to support India's claims over all others. The request is to note disputed areas on certain maps are, well, disputed and don't reflect India's view. That doesn't seem blatantly unreasonable or contrary to core values. It's true there's problems to be negotiated, but why are some reflexively saying "do nothing" instead of looking for solutions?

Why such a lack of self-awareness about the fact that knowing about and participating in this discussion means we are really, really, really weird people?

Am I missing something here? – Teratix ₵ 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few things are missed here. Firstly, much of the , content, even in the manual list, already mentions the disputes, so the calls for change here are calls to keep doing what we are already doing. Secondly, "there's no request to...rewrite it to support India's claims over all others" seems wrong at a close reading, especially in light of the first point. There are a few different border disputes, but the only one that seems to be being raised is the one where a mention would reinforce the Indian claims but not others. A key tell is Jrogers wording "where mention of the dispute may be beneficial". They did not reply to my question about what they meant by that, but the most likely reading I can see is that "the dispute" (note the singular) refers to the Kashmir conflict. Highlighting only that dispute, which coincidentally is the major one where India does not control all the territory, would of course push the Government of India's claims relative to its neighbouring governments. Finally, it seems to be missed in many comments that this is not a novel topic of discussion. The community has already discussed such content, in many locations over many many pages, for pretty much Wikipedia's entire existence. The community has felt the need to create WP:ARBIPA, because of having to deal with these issues. To say people are suggesting to "do nothing instead of looking for solutions" is to ignore how much has been done on a topic that has been on the ARBCOM-level radar since at least 2007. CMD (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

much of the content, even in the manual list, already mentions the disputes, so the calls for change here are calls to keep doing what we are already doing If this is already done for "much of the content", why not extend this practice?

The community has already discussed such content, in many locations over many many pages, for pretty much Wikipedia's entire existence. Sure, but an Indian government threat to block Wikipedia entirely seems to be a relevant new context.

Highlighting only that dispute, which coincidentally is the major one where India does not control all the territory, would of course push the Government of India's claims relative to its neighbouring governments. Sure, so might there be another solution? Could we note these neighbouring governments' relevant competing claims as well? – Teratix ₵ 16:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have standard widespread practices, I merely hedge as I have not reviewed the entirety of the random list of articles. The Indian government threat to block Wikipedia is not new. We could show all disputes everywhere all the time sure, but I doubt that's the desired outcome, it's generally not what external reliable sources do, and it doesn't really help readers. CMD (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Since we seem to be moving to bold !votes. Use maps indicating disputed territory, where appropriate. Oppose banners et al. Both on any political/diplomatic map, and the regions of India maps, using maps marking the disputed territory as just that would seem appropriate. WMF Legal has thankfully narrowed down the group for consideration from the random, incorrect, and jumbled mix of URLs already. I concur with the views above that if it becomes known that we will add regional banners noting things as disagreeing with the government we're going to get these requests all the bloody time. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No notices, no changes. Nothing good can come of this. Heck, I find those Georgian and Chinese notices offensive. Thanks for letting me know not to put any maps involving those two countries on Commons, what with the legal threat that they entail. --Golbez (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, I'm curious, is there a discussion that led to the Georgian and Chinese notices? Was this approved and/or required by foundation legal? --Golbez (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know the history of the Chinese one, but the Georgian one was a unilateral creation by a user with a history of creating/editing maps to show a particular set of borders. CMD (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If I were still on Commons I'd be starting a discussion about how the mere existence of these templates is an affront to our philosophy, but. Not my circus. --Golbez (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support the addition of tailored notices explaining that the border is disputed. This is reasonably in line with NPOV as well as what appears to be a precedent set with Georgia and China. It would also help avoid 5% of Wikipedia users being cut off. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would disagree that it's in line with NPOV as most NPOV issues don't involve a government threatening imprisonment. --Golbez (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support template/oppose notices/oppose no change. I disagree strongly with the principle of "If Indian govt has a problem they should approach us via NPOV noticeboard" argument by Thebiguglyalien. By liasing with WMF, Meity is explicitly trying to engage with the Wikipedia community, there's no need to force bureaucracy instead of discussing the arguments themselves. I also dislike CactiStaccingCrane's obvious WP:BAIT, and would recommend users to consider the request on its own merits without trying to draw political non-sequiturs.

On the same note, I am concerned by the number of editors who feel hungry to get Wikipedia banned in India and would rather play a game of chicken instead of policy based discussion.

I think no-change is not the move, simply because some of the request is either already covered by current policy (or can have policy adjusted if the request is reasonable enough). I oppose banners or similar, I support templates to the style of c:Template:Georgian boundaries on non political maps (like File:Indus river.svg). If the map itself is about political borders, current policy dictates we should indicate it on the map already (so no policy change needed).

Disclaimer: I am an Indian editor. (Though that shouldn't matter for WP:INVOLVED or similar).

Soni (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a disputed tag for all but one of the files on Commons (and an edit request for that one). I'd support tailored notices per WP:DUE. Frostly (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've processed your edit request. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted, as the tag was both incorrect (factual accuracy has not been disputed, POV has) and out of line with what is supported here. It's also blind tagging that makes no sense. This map, this map, and especially this map doesn't show the border dispute? Really? CMD (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that we should limit our actions to what would be a reasonable response to something like an edit request on a semi-protected page. It's perfectly reasonable for us to make sure that maps that depict disputed borders, anywhere on the planet, are presented in a manner that is encyclopedic and NPOV. So it's appropriate to mark disputed territories as such, taking into account both sides in the border dispute. If somebody like the Indian government makes us aware of a map that they perceive as unfair, we should examine it for NPOV and correct it as we see fit, but not necessarily as they see fit. We seem to be doing this now, and we should make an effort to improve on it whenever a flawed map is brought to our attention. And I'm fine with telling the Indian government that we are doing this. But I'm disinclined to go beyond that, as it would become a sort of special pleading for some geographic areas and not others. So I'd stay away from implementing things like banners or special notices. Imagining a hypothetical in which we get blocked in India, I think WMF Legal could ask them what specific maps are the problem, and we could deal with them as I just described, and India might just accept that as a good response from us, and that could be a sensible way to resolve the conflict. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Do nothing, oppose any changes Per Andrevan and DaxServer. If this request is accepted, it may set a dangerous precedent and seriously undermine Wikipedia's neutrality. Quirino il Grande (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Do nothing- no changes in response to this request --

A "slippery slope" as high as Chomolungma.

India under Narendra Modi will not risk the negative political ramifications of blocking Wikipedia or the Commons.wikimedia within India. If this was serious threat leading to blocking Wikipedia and/ or the Commons, it would have come from Minister of External Affairs (India), instead of a new agency looking to score internal political points and potential increased influence within GOI (Government of India). See also, Beyond My Ken above and other "Do nothing" or "no changes" cautionary comments.

India and China have a many decades old boundary dispute. 100's of kilometers of these boundaries were demarcated when Tibet was a defacto independent nation from 1913 to 1951 with the 13th Dalai Lama as the undisputed (among Tibetans) Head of government. This border "dispute" came into question after India's Independence and the forceful annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China in the early 1950's.

So, does the Wikimedia Foundation and it's associated projects want to be used as a tool in these complex international disputes world-wide? India requests this year- China requests next year. Other countries, other years. A handful of disputed maps will become 100's of disputed maps. Objections over current maps will inevitably become objections over historic maps, like this 1864 map [2] published in the United States.

Historical Indo-Chinese border maps will be effected, because current maps are based on previous maps and historic documents.

For example, the modern India-China boundary dispute is partly based on historic boundary maps printed during the three party (Tibet, Great Britain and China) 1914 Simla Accord. This is the historic basis for much of India's Himalayan national boundaries today. Are there any objections by one party to this agreement- the Central Tibetan Administration and the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, the 14th Dalai Lama, (since 1959 is still a refugee in India) about India's and China's boundaries? Are there any objections by the second party to this agreement, United Kingdom? Or are there any objections by the third party to this agreement, China? This "slippery slope" example illustrates that "What's past is prologue" here memorialized [3] in front of the United States National Archives and Records Administration." "Say cheese"- few smiles in this rare 1913 photograph of the three party (Tibetan, British, Chinese) Simla Accord boundary negotiators posing here:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Simla_Conference_1913.jpg

Many countries have border disputes, but there is only one Wikimedia Foundation. --Ooligan (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We definitely shouldn't be adding notices to articles or images that governments don't agree with some/all of their content. This request reflects poorly on the Indian Government, which has a track record of seeking to censor international sources on the country. It's a matter for editors of relevant articles to decide what maps to use and how they should be captioned, per usual editing and (if necessary) dispute resolution processes - which have a strong emphasis on encouraging the use of reliable sources and presenting differences in these sources accurately. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer to Wikimedia Commons, whom I notified earlier in this discussion. They do use legal warning templates[1][2] for some of their images, but it is not consistent. I think it makes sense for them to discuss it among themselves and decide what their strategy should be going forward. The thread I created at their village pump has fizzled out, so perhaps someone (Jrogers (WMF)?) should post the issue to their administrators' noticeboard. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• In regard to file-pages on Commons or other language wikis, they should be handled by those communities.

  In regard to maps appearing in Wikipedia articles, in general they should show each side's claims in a reasonably clear and unbiased manner. For example File:Political_map_of_India_EN.svg has unclear or misleading descriptors, as discussed above my myself and others. It appears that File:Indus_river.svg fails to show the disputed claims at all. These and other maps should be updated as soon as practical, as soon as anyone finds, creates, or provides an improved map.

  Per WP:General_disclaimer, related disclaimers[4][5][6] and WP:No_disclaimers I oppose inserting "notices" or similar into articles.

  In regard to geolocating readers and trying to serve different article-content to different countries, I do not believe the Wikimedia software supports that capability at this time. I would oppose developing such a capability.

  In regard to the WMF, thank you. It appears that this has been handled quite well.

  In regard to any Indian government employees who might receive this message, we thank you for any content you are willing to share with us and we welcome anyone who points out any error or unclear content in Wikipedia. However for whatever it's worth, anything that sounds like a "threat" or "demand" may slow or discourage action from our community of volunteer editors, and you might want to pass that up to higher ranked officials and politicians. We will firmly ignore any threat or demand may by China or Pakistan to advance their territorial claims against India, and similarly we will ignore any threats or demands made by India. Our goal is to accurately and neutrally present whatever dispute may exist. See Censorship of Wikipedia for an extensive list of countries that have blocked or threatened-to-block Wikipedia, and all the times it has failed or backfired. Not only would such a block diminish educational, economic, and scientific opportunities for Indian citizens, it would prevent Indian citizens from incorporating India's perspectives and interests into our articles. That would undermine India's political, cultural, and international interests on the world stage. We accept India's freedom to do so, and it would sadden us for about 5 minutes. Alsee (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Do nothing in response to any request threatening a block of Wikipedia. Rather, invite the Indian government to participate in the Wikipedia consensus-building process, by making proposals for sourced and neutral qualifiers with respect to any map in a RfC or on individual talk pages. Acceding to this request would incentivize other governments to threaten Wikipedia with blocks to get their way, and it would violate our policy WP:OWN. Our content is decided by editors, not governments. Sandstein 20:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Do nothing -- India does not get to tell us what their version of reality is and what is right. Thankfully, Wikimedia servers are hosted in the US and so do not need to comply with these types of laws, as they'd be flatly unconstitutional here. Hopefully the Indian Government will change tact. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the request by the Indian government in one way. The decision to include or not include notices about disputed maps does not rest in the hands of this board; it rests in the hand of the editors editing any particular article and their discussions on talk page. Wikimedia Foundation should leave a notice on the talk page of each of the shortlisted maps/articles in contention informing the editors of this issue and encouraging them to discuss whether a change is needed or not. Editors here do understand that we cannot dismiss the Indian government's request purely because it's a government request (or under the misunderstanding that we all should stand proud having defied a government). In that light, this should be sent to the articles in question. Thanks, Lourdes 06:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is the correct section to discuss the neutrality or whatever of GB News? As an uninvolved editor, I think the article needs some attention in the context of the Conflict of Interest banner. The political nature of the media outlet means some extra care may be needed, as I have seen the article attract polarising views in the talk page. --Minoa (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, anyone who argues that GB News should be described as anything but "far-right propaganda should be ignored as they're either not arguing in good faith, or lack the competency to edit here. 2603:7000:C00:8B66:D568:EAD5:4869:DEB6 (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're far-right, but they are right-leaning. X-Editor (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the COI notice; it's not at all clear to me that there is COI editing going on in such a major way that the article ought be tagged as such. If there are specific objections to one section, I have no objection to it being added back if one can explain the COI claim — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basically every article for any billionaire we have calls them "philanthropist" in the first sentence of the lead, even if it's not part of their main source of notability. Many of them also contain sections devoted to philanthropy that are sourced mostly or entirely to primary sources or to passing mentions in other sources. While there seems to be at least some agreement that this is inappropriate, taking it out has proven difficult, especially for any politically-active billionaires, because it's become a problem in enough articles that people will just point to others. I feel that there should be a widespread removal effort (at least from the first sentence of the lead, where it is almost never justified.) And, of course, the elephant in the room is that the widespread use of the term is likely at least somewhat influenced by COI editing - it's likely that COI editors know that any significant donations will get at least some coverage, which they use to cram it into the lead despite being minimal aspects of the subject's notability overall. But to start widespread removals, it'd probably be useful to first at least write an essay about WP:PHILANTHROPIST to guide them and reach some sort of rough consensus that they're good guidelines, and maybe even add it to the MOS somewhere as something to be cautious for. Some possible points to touch on and to guide a removal effort:

• The term should generally not be mentioned in the first sentence of a biography unless it's part of the subject's primary source of notability, ie. the thing that makes them famous and something that basically all coverage of them mentions in that context. If there's something else that is clearly more central and has more coverage, or if there's significant coverage of them that doesn't mention their philanthropy at all, it generally shouldn't be in the first sentence, even if coverage is substantial. See MOS:FIRST's Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject.
• The term should generally be mentioned anywhere in the lead, and should generally not get a section devoted to it, if the only sources are primary, passing mentions, or non-WP:SUSTAINED mentions of individual donations without connecting it to a larger reputation for philanthropy. Significant focus on philanthropy in a bio article, and mentioning it in the lead, requires either WP:SUSTAINED, independent, secondary focus on individual highly-noteworthy donations; or significant coverage of the subject as a philanthropist, independent of any particular donations.
• Primary sourcing for donations should generally not be used at all, especially from the recipient of a donation (because the recipient has a financial incentive to reward its donors and because it is customary to announce all donations, such primary coverage has no real meaning.) Limited, non-WP:SUSTAINED secondary coverage of individual donations, or passing mentions of general philanthropy that do not treat it as a significant part of the subject's overall biography, can be used for similarly brief or passing mentions in an article, but should be used sparingly, not in the lead or for entire sections.
• Obituaries should be used cautiously (see my argument for this in WP:OBITUARIES), because they are often intentionally written in an effort to eulogize the subject and with a non-neutral tone; this means that they might give philanthropy in particular more emphasis than it really has in overall coverage. If only obituaries emphasize someone's philanthropy then excessive focus on it is probably undue.
• Excessive focus on philanthropy, and especially an excessive focus on philanthropy cited heavily to primary sources that editors were unlikely to come across naturally, should be taken as a possible indicator of WP:CIO editing or that (regardless of reason) the article has become promotional in nature and needs larger review.

Anyway, that's a lot and I know it'll take some time to reach any sort of agreement, but does that look like at least a decent outline for an essay on caution regarding "philanthropist" and, eventually, moving forwards with efforts to trim down its usage. --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any extant examples of this in actual articles to look at where you feel the philanthropist label is being misused? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a problem. Here's a list to work from: The World's Billionaires 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hipal (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Some possible articles to consider: John C. Malone, Wang Jianlin, Ram Shriram, Tony Robbins, Sheldon Adelson. In many of them their philanthropy is worth mentioning somewhere in the article, certainly; but in none of them does it seem like part of the primary definition of the people in question to the point where it would make sense in the lead sentence, and several of them rely heavily on sources with the problems I outlined above to play up their philanthropy. More can be found with a search for and philanthropist. There are some that are trickier - my intuition is that we're overselling philanthropy on Michael Bloomberg overall; the coverage is certainly there, but looking at how much of the article it covers it's disproportionate to his actual source of notability (as mayor and as a businessman.) Things like that would require article-by-article discussions, which the essay I'm talking about would be just guidance for. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEFINING is guidance for categories, but I wonder if it might have some applicability to opening sentences too. Are there many cases where we would want to construct an opening sentence featuring characteristics that were not defining? This could go much further than just philanthropy. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do run into a comparable problem from the other side where people try to add ridiculous wordings like "author, actor, and convicted felon" to anyone who is convicted of a felony. Those tend to not be as much of a problem because of WP:BLP, though. --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone; even people who shouldn't be editing encyclopedias. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this is an issue with RS overusing the term not us, if a RS says "philanthropist" its kosher but of course we shouldn't be describing anyone as a philanthropist just because they've made donations... We actually need a RS to say that they're a philanthropist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even when RSes use the term, we have some leeway in terms of how we interpret and weight them. My assertion is that passing mentions, obituaries, non-WP:SUSTAINED coverage of individual donations, and primary or non-independent sources should never be enough to put it in the first sentence of the lead (where it often ends up residing), probably shouldn't have it in the lead at all, and should be used only cautiously and in a limited way in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing dispute with Malaysia Skyline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over whether Greater Penang Conurbation or Iskandar Malaysia has the larger population, as the second largest metropolitan area in Malaysia.

According to the national 2020 census, Greater Penang has more than 2.83 million in population, while Iskandar Malaysia with its 5 local councils have a total of 2.2 million.

Greater Penang's population breakdown could be found in the page Greater Penang Conurbation itself, with a similar table created for Iskandar Malaysia's page.

The List of local governments in Malaysia page has the population figures obtained from the said nationwide census. Consistent with all other national or subnational entities on Wikipedia, population figures should, by default, follow each entity's official census as the reliable source.

Malaysia Skyline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly pushed his claims that Iskandar Malaysia is the second largest metropolitan area in Malaysia, with no solid evidence to back it up. Corncaker (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't join the discussion here unless you withdraw the unreasonable accusation you made above. You clearly understand who is the one to edit without evidence and rationality. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As what I have said, you definitely have to try to be open-minded and contemplate other people's opinion, rather than sticking to your own stereotype and avoid discussing views outside of your stereotype, otherwise the discussion would be very hard to carry on. Trust me. :) Malaysia Skyline (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysia Skyline Where are you reading stereotype into this? I see comments by Corncaker related to sourced data from a census. —C.Fred (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one s/he edited is based on sources. But perhaps you should read the discussions in the talk page and you will know what are the other aspects the editor keeps on avoiding on mentioning and refusing to accept others' opinion. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, Iskandar Malaysia's agglomeration territory had been expanded by the federal government as a finalized decision in 2019, but the editor kept ignoring it. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another stereotype is, the editor insisting that Iskandar Malaysia is equivalent to JB metropolitan region, but in fact the latter should be far beyond the former. JB is just part of Singapore-Johor-Batam metropolitan. The editor keeps ignoring this which makes it hard for us to come to a consensus. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysia Skyline I see a content dispute over census boundaries and definitions of metropolitan areas then. I don't see anything related to stereotypes. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my bad :(

I may have used the wrong word. Let's continue... Malaysia Skyline (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysia Skyline Then your next step, it seems, should be to 1) provide sources to back up the metropolitan boundaries you mention and that they are in general usage and 2) demonstrate why weight should be given to a trans-national region's population when ranking populations of regions otherwise within a single nation. —C.Fred (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) The Singapore-Johor-Batam metropolitan area is not suggested by me. It had already been well established by the three governments two decades ago. See Sijori Growth Triangle.

2) In fact, there is still no defined metropolitan boundary for JB within a single a nation. Iskandar Malaysia itself is not a metropolitan, it was meant to be an special economic zone (like Hong Kong) when it was established by the federal government in 2006. For example, Hong Kong as a special econonmic zone, is part of the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area, HK is never a standalone metro area per se. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar Malaysia is not a metro area, which is just like East Coast Economic Region, Northern Corridor Economic Region in Malaysia. Thay are economic zones, not metro areas. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysia Skyline So since the underlying issue is metropolitan areas in Malaysia, and you have stated that neither SIJORI nor JB have boundaries exclusively in Malaysia, then may we take it you agree that neither should be part of any consideration about ranking population in Malaysia? —C.Fred (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), just an update of the dispute. It seems that after your last input, not only there was no response from Malaysia Skyline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that user has also continued with assertions on the Iskandar Malaysia and Johor Bahru pages about being one of the largest agglomerations in the region, eventhough a related discussion on this topic (in which that user is also involved) concluded otherwise.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Town,_Penang#Should_we_update_the_2010_population_data_to_2019/20's_data?).

Since that user continues with the refusal to cooperate and continue discussions, shall this issue be brought up to other noticeboards for WP admin's attention? This sort of uncooperative attitude to seek a consensus may cause another edit war. Corncaker (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Also bringing to your attention Malaysia Skyline's increasingly erratic and aggresive behaviour in the same talk page discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Town,_Penang#Should_we_update_the_2010_population_data_to_2019/20's_data? Corncaker (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the forum for any (further) discussion of MS's behavior, since you have opened a thread at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (WP:ANI#Increasingly erratic and aggressive behaviour from Malaysia Skyline). —C.Fred (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for overlooking the notifications, yes, in that case neither of the two can be considered. I will continue to participate in the discussion in the talkpage. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a real crisis of NPOV brewing at Ben Roberts-Smith‎, where the first sentence, which is supposed to be the most strictly NPOV one in the article, now describes the subject with the label of "war criminal" for losing a civil defamation case in which media outlets labelled him as such. Now a morally bankrupt disgrace to his uniform and a cold-blooded murderer the subject may very well be (the judge in the case has more or less said so), but 1) he's not criminally convicted of any above, let alone having gone through any kind of war crimes tribunal, and 2) Slobodan Milošević, who was actually tried at the Hague and found guilty of war crimes and genocide does not have "war criminal" in the first sentence of his bio. Ditto Omar al-Bashir. Something is rotten, and IMO it's the Ben Roberts-Smith‎ page. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically did the judge say? Did he himself use that language or is this something that the RS are reading into his ruling? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this ABC piece is one of the clearest in laying out exactly what the judge said. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Milošević was not "actually tried at the Hague and found guilty of war crimes and genocide" there is a massive amount of nuance to that story which likely explains why the lead is set up as it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been posthumous in Milošević's case. But regardless, the point is that there are plenty of individuals that are, let's say, far further along the way criminal scale than this ignominious Australian soldier that are not headlined as was criminals in this manner. (For that matter Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. are not emblazoned as such.) And pertinent to this noticeboard, a firm declaration along those lines is present only in the barest minority of the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't happen at all in Milošević's case, he was found posthumously to be responsible for related crimes. You appear to be comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing heads of state who while responsible for great crimes did not personally commit them in the trigger pulling sense with a rogue soldier who killed prisoners and innocents against expectations and orders. You appear to be conflating war crimes and crimes against humanity in a rather inelegant way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not really the point. Take any of the Nuremberg trials#Defendants - very explicitly war crimes trials: take Franz von Papen, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Frick - all convicted, and yet none say 'war criminal' in their first sentences. I'm not making a complex point here. There is an inconsistency here a mile wide. Convicted war criminals do not flag their war criminality as prominently as this Australian who failed a defamation case. And that's not even the crux of the NPOV issue, which is that the balance of extant sources to date on Ben Roberts-Smith do not say: "Ben Roberts-Smith, the Australian war criminal ..." Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like more apples and oranges. Note for example that Von Happen was actually *acquitted* of the war crimes charges. He was found responsible for crimes that the Nazis committed within Germany. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of three. Also, I'm not sure what your point is. Mine should be simple. Choose your own prior war criminal examples if your prefer and see if you can find any with 'war criminal' in the first sentence; I think you too may struggle. And then ask yourself: why is Ben Roberts-Smith the first biography on Wikipedia, out of all the war criminals past and present, to be deserving of this first sentence designation? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of asking myself that incredibly leading question I would ask myself: how was it determined that Ben Roberts-Smith is the first biography on Wikipedia, out of all the war criminals past and present, to be deserving of this first sentence designation? We seem to have it in the first sentence of similar GWOT people... Charles Graner, Lynndie England, Sabrina Harman, John E. Hatley, Frank Wuterich etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the difference that these individuals were all prosecuted, the format here, main occupation + description of associated malfeasance, is far more akin to what I incidentally attempted to edit the page to resemble. The case is clearly noteworthy, and you'll notice that my first sentence still contained 'war crimes'; it's the modification of this into the nounal 'war criminal' as if it's a secondary occupation that is stylistically abnormal - as well as also only tentatively supported by sources, hence the listing here at the NPOV noticeboard. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did you mention that at all in your OP? I don't see anything about where in the sentence it is being the issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've been on the page and can see it as well as anyone else. Nowhere have I suggested that mentioning the defamation case in relation to war crimes was undue. I have stated from the beginning that what I take issue with is the label of 'war criminal', which is not the language of most sources, which tend to couch the story in terms of losing a defamation case over media allegations of war crimes. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so is the issue where in the sentence it appears or that it appears at all? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, part position, part the use of the noun, which makes it sound like a criminal conviction, instead of using the contextualised framing that makes the civil nature of the attestation of war crimes plain. The way it currently stands it makes 'war criminal' look like a second career profession or occupation, when crimes/scandal are typically a rather episodic thing and presented as such, coming after occupations, i.e.: "Mr. X, a professional X, famous for Y, who was later accused/convicted/inducted of Z." Iskandar323 (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And if Z is "war crimes" you wouldn't have a problem with that? Or you would? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see my edit: I didn't remove it. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that it should not say he is a war criminal. A criminal trial was not held and thus he is not. The presumption of innocents exist both in the US and the AU so its misleading to state he is. What was actually found was that defamation had not occurred. If the case was brought up criminally, it may have a different outcome as the burden of proof is much higher. While there certainly is an implication of guilt, that should be left up to the reader to determine after they read that a civil court ruled that he did.

Another example of this is OJ Simpson. He isn't a murderer because he was never convicted of murder, even though he lost the civil case. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted at talk:Ben Roberts-Smith about what the judgement actually says. After the reports were published, Roberts-Smith initiated a defamation case listing numerous defamatory imputations allegedly following from the reports. The Respondents accepted that some of the imputations were raised and disputed others. After a very long case, witnesses, cross-examination, other evidence, Besanko J ruled on (firstly) whether each of the numbered imputations were conveyed by the reporting, and if so, whether defences had been made out. That Roberts-Smith had disgraced Australia was uncontested as an imputation raised. The Respoindents thus had the onus of proof and were determined to have successfully raised the defence of substantial truth. FYI, this is defined under the Defamation Act to mean "true in substance or not materially different from the truth.” Imputations that he had killed in contravention of the moral and legal boundaries for military operations was also ruled to be substantially true. This was not a criminal trial and so the standard was not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and so, of course, WP should not be making any such declaration in wiki-voice. However, it is a finding with the force of law to the civil standard based on an impartial judicial proceeding examining the evidence presented by both parties. It is far more than simply the opinion of Besanko J, and these matters are very much within the ratio decidendi of the judgement. We are not talking about off-hand thoughts of the judge that don't bear on the central issue that the Court was faced with deciding. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I have started an RfC at talk:Ben Roberts-Smith on the question of whether the term "disgraced his country", attributed to Justice Besanko, should be included in the article Ben Roberts-Smith. AlanS^talk 08:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly due to the fact of this editor "Kurzon" that has completely hijacked the article. It's very opinionated (adding the fact he prefers "authentic wrestling" over pro wrestling), too much fluff, irrelevant sections, using several words such as fake, authentic, etc, to diminish the medium. I'm surprised no Wiki admins have stepped in. It's clearly against Wikipedia's neutral point of view agenda. Everyone is aware of pro wrestling's scripted nature. Not every sentence needs to mention that, how other forms of wrestling are better, and comparing it to other forms. I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this.

Like how you keep bringing up the term "professional" has some form of "misnomer" that the medium is called professional wrestling and other forms of wrestling are not. The term doesn't come from skill level, but whether you were paid. Pro wrestlers were always paid for their matches, whereas amateurs were not, that's why it's called pro wrestling. It has zero to do with skills or abilities. Also there are many wrestling matchtypes with armed combat, so the whole medium doesn't represent unarmed combat, as you state in the first line. I don't think the term "mock combat" is the best way to represent the medium, as "mockery" can be interpreted as not a flattering way to represent wrestling. The part of kayfabe is brought up in the lead, the rest of the article shouldn't then need to constantly bring up its scripted nature. It's like if in the Avengers movie article or an aricle about the Harry Potter play I kept saying "... did this but it's fake as in authentic..." ... it's not consistent. I understand it can be complicated as there is nothing like pro wrestling in the world. It's both sport and entertainment, and often the line is blurred so you can't completely compare it to full theater productions or any sport. This article has unfortunately always been a mess but it's only gotten worse. And it's unfortunate as pro wrestling has a long, rich, and WELL documented history so I don't know how it hasn't been properly documented as other sports, narratives, or other wrestling articles. RedWater14 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kurzon also just added, showing his edits are clear bias and opinion based, Amateur wrestling and real wrestling are effectively synonyms in America because real wrestling is not played in a professional context. I explained this in a section you deleted. It's not the "professional" part that bugs me, it's the "wrestling" part. A lot of pro "wrestlers" don't even know how to do real wrestling, Hulk Hogan being a case in point. Kurzon (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC) RedWater14 is not being constructive. I'm the first editor in ages who is attempting to improve this article, and RedWater14 does nothing but revert my edits instead of collaborating on them. Would he rather I vanish and let this article rot for some more years? Let me have a go at it, there's nothing wrong with mistakes along the way. Wikipedia is a perpetual work-in-progress."

My comment: It has been called pro wrestling since it's inception and Wikipedia is based on factual, neutral and sourced evidence, not what you think about a subject. Many people don't like soccer and even call that a "fake sport." People even claim that the UFC is rigged and scripted. Does that change the fact of it's nature? No. RedWater14 (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Fake" doesn't mean bad. Kurzon (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Granted in fields like sciences, medicine or law to take note of criticism we would expect higher bar of expertise, whether same high level bar is needed to be applied to critiques in field of social sciences and humanities side ?
• Many notable - (covered by WP:RS) - skeptics, reformers, scientists, economists, rights activists, politicians, journalists, religionist and atheists may have expressed relevant critical opinions in various aspects of humanities. Emphasis on WP:RS , relevant and proportionate is perfectly acceptable, But after passing all such conditions still it be dropped from the article because critical opinion giver does not have related official academic background?

• Besides we do not seem to have specific guidance or any essay (if exists) link in WP:Criticism. Is there any scope to improve guidance or guidelines in WP:Criticism?
• Bookku (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you referring to a specific article and/or source? It would be difficult to comment on this in the abstract or in general. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nick-D At the discussion Talk:Criticism of Islam#What is this longevity? there is tentative agreement to address issues related to excess length and revisit relevance of long quotes, so that is not the issue.

    A user who participated in the discussion said

    .. This article is a collection of quotes from various people, most of whom are not experts in Islam ..

    I joined the discussion saying

• • The first user said okay but one more user joined the discussion saying:

    Even more concerning is that they are mostly non-expert views. Surely many "ideologically motivated" Christians, ex-Muslims, atheists, etc. wouldn't have anything nice to say about Islam. Should we collect them all in one place and call that an encyclopedia article? Being famous doesn't necessarily qualify someone as an authority in inter-faith studies. It's their opinion that the encyclopedia article should reflect.

    As far as the article Criticism of Islam is concerned we can assume WP:AGF since first user who is likely to work on the article seem to take views from other side into account. The second comment is more concerning taking into account many founders of religions and various religious sects themselves were not experts by today's academic standard so also many social reformers and other critics. As I mentioned above 'Some critic is expert or not, it is not for us but for other reliable source to say so and any such criticism be better addressed through responses to criticism supported by reliable sources.'

    But some users seem to think otherwise. And question is not about this mentioned article but similar issues might have arisen or shall arise for many other articles in humanities segment, especially 'Criticism of XYZ religion / atheism'; Can we expect critiques of atheism to be expert in atheism? Hence wish to know community inputs, not only for this specific article but more general in nature to have a policy or guideline centric view. Bookku (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This thread link is already mentioned at the article t/p still pinging users whose views are mentioned in part above so they can have fair chance of response. @Ghazaalch and Albertatiran: Bookku (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My short answer is coverage isn't about "expertise", it's about WP:DUE. What's its prominence? I guess expertise might be relevant in certain narrower contexts. Marx is obviously highly DUE in Criticism of religion, not so much in Filioque controversy. DeCausa (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inputs.

I already stated in the discussions revisiting the relevance per WP:DUE case to case basis is agreed and non-issue, I came here feeling concerned about any possibilities of blanket deletion of non-experts and not only for this article but also for all similar articles. Bookku (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for opening this discussion, Bookku. Second, to clarify, I don't find it problematic to include views (even direct quotes) from non-experts (this often means non-academics in that field, say, inter-faith studies, Islam, etc.) as long as such material is reliably sourced. For example, it's perfectly fine in my view to include Marx's views in Criticism of religion, as long as we do so through a source authored by a qualified expert. I think this should already address some of your concerns.

Having said that, direct quotes from non-experts are perhaps a bit more tricky because one doesn't really need a reliable source for that (as long as the quote itself is authentic). For example, Karl Marx said this or that on one or another occasion. Here, perhaps it's a matter of WP:DUE as DeCausa noted. But maybe it's just a better practice to keep such quotes to a minimum to improve the quality and reliability of the Wikipedia article. Admittedly only marginally related here is the good practice (MOS:ISLAMOR) to only directly quote the Quran through a reliable source. Albertatiran (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the conversation. We can almost agree with @Albertatiran that we go as per WP:RS (unless any other user have any thing to add with.)

One small concerning part in earlier comment remains is

.. Surely many "ideologically motivated" P, Q, R, S, etc. wouldn't have anything nice to say about 'put name of any given philosophy'. ..

Once some critic has been noted by WP:RS take note of their ideological motives, if WP:DUE in the related article no issues.

Calling any one "Ideologically motivated" is subjective thing. For example "Marx and his follower" are/ were ideologically motivated defining them as good or bad or something else is subjective and prerogative of WP:RS as long as Wikipedia is concerned. Any Wikipedians speculating or judging on basis of ideology very likely to go in the realms of WP:OR and a WP:NPOV concern. But once we agree to the spirit and give prominence to concepts of WP:RS, WP:Due, WP:NPOV , personal apprehension, if any, of any one, will take automatically back stage, I suppose. Happy editing and cheers. Bookku (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at that article talk page thread and was going to make a similar point. I noticed a couple of odd things Albertatiran said in that thread:

• Surely many "ideologically motivated" Christians, ex-Muslims, atheists, etc. wouldn't have anything nice to say about Islam. Should we collect them all in one place and call that an encyclopedia article? Er, yes. Who else do you think is going to be criticizing Islam? It seems to me there's a confusion here between handling primary and secondary sources. The original criticism in primary sources should be the basis of the article but the prominence given should be that given in secondary WP:RS. The question then is what constitutes WP:RS for that purpose. I don't think it can be restricted to academic works. If Trump says something bizarre about Islam, for example, it doesn't make sense to exclude it because it's discussed in the NYT, BBC etc but not by scholars. It's clearly significant.
• it seems that a good place to start might be some of the sources already cited in this article. It's very likely that those also offer counter-views that would balance the article, i.e., it's likely that some of these sources also provide Muslims' responses to these criticisms. that's sounding like WP:FALSEBALANCE rather than WP:DUE.

DeCausa (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said here For the time being I am focusing on summarizing the article. After that we could include counter-views, and delete weak-sourced content, etc. So expert or non-expert subject is not an issue.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ROGD is a much discoursed academic theory which has received much coverage in the media. It is WP:GNG and WP:V at multiple sources. The relevant article has been edited on the presumption that it is not WP:GNG and that it is only notable on account of its undeniably controversial nature. This is an error which has harmed the article and needs correcting. In my view, the ideal way is to revert the first sentence to its original form, to remove 'controversy' from the title and to make the editorial changes. The second best option would be to create a new 'ROGD' article and leave this one more or less intact. See article talk page. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For other editors, the background to why this has been posted here is Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy#Possible bias and Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy#NPOV dispute.

As Mathglot said in this comment, it is no longer practicable to try to assess the notability of the ROGD theory independently from the much wider controversy surrounding it. The vast proportion of independent secondary sources about the theory deal with its controversy, and related political fallout and misuse of it. The version of the lead that Emmentalist would like us to return to is not representative of the sourcing that currently exists about the theory, and even in 2019 when it was written was not fully representative of what independent reliable sources then said about the theory. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deep background: the topic of gender dysphoria is one of the more contentious topics within the ARB-designated contentious topic area of gender-related articles. Drilling down further, the subtopic of ROGD is, imho, one of the most contentious articles within the contentious subtopic of gender dysphoria. Vast amounts of discussion, negotiation, and accommodation have been engaged in in past discussions among editors of very different approaches and opinions, in order to arrive at the current state of the article. Editors new to the topic and wishing to comment would be well-advised to consult the archives. Mathglot (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic is WP:FRINGE pseudoscience, as discussed by the reliable sources, and is properly represented as such in the article. I see no problem with the current article and how it is presented, just the usual pro-fringe edit requests on talk pages to have the openly stated pseudoscience nature be whitewashed. Silverseren^C 22:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe, Mathglot and Silverseren cover it well. Neither option you propose would comply with WP:PSCI or WP:FRINGE. DFlhb (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, all. I've withdrawn my NOPV claim at the article talk page and I do the same here as some different editors have commented. For most of the reasons above, and some others at the article talk page, I was wrong to get fixated on what I considered to be the discrete notability of ROGD. Whether ROGD is notable of itself is moot. The main thing is that the article at present places the emphasis on the controversy which surrounds a relatively minor theory and that's quite right. To be clear, too, I'd referred to politics in my earliest comments, but I've edited as requested as I had unintentionally gone very close to criticising other editors, which I honestly did not intend to do. It's all a terribly useful lesson to me on how to edit. I appreciate other eds are not here just to do that, but thanks all the same! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting users to have a look @ the article Arvind Kejriwal (recent article history). Edit difs by @Kridha checkout edit history of user kridha . Seems stripping the article of all the well sourced critical parts failing WP:NPOVHOW* , the response from other side looks like WP:STONEWALL effectively leading to obscurantism. Requesting inputs and help in sorting out the issues so as to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV

• WP:NPOVHOW:

  .. Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. ..

@Kridha isn't replying in consensus.he didn't participate in DRN consensus also.checkout discussion on talk page and DRN request.

@Kridha is removing controversies or negative parts from the article and he is giving reason for removal is general format of article for politicians.

He is trying to justify again and again. there are many criticism section examples of politicians like

Public image of Narendra Modi#Criticism and controversies, Amit Shah#Criticism, Lalu Prasad Yadav#Criticism, Mamata Banerjee#Public profile and controversies, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar#Controversies, Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Controversies, T. Rajaiah#Controversies, Mulayam Singh Yadav#Controversies, Manohar Lal Khattar#Controversies, Pinarayi Vijayan#Controversies, Yogi Adityanath#Controversies, Himanta Biswa Sarma#Controversies. 

And @Kridha's past activity in this page also mostly removing negative views. checkout edit history of user kridha

• edit 1 - in which he removed from lawsuits section on 06 September 2022
• edit 2 - in which he removed on 6 September 2022
• edit 3 - in which he removed on 16 September 2022
• edit 4 - in which he removed whole criticism section on 4 may 2023
• edit 5 - in which he remove whole lawsuits section on 4 may 2023
• edit 6 - in this he remove
• edit 7 in which he remove

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that requires all content to be written in a way that is unbiased, accurate, and free from personal opinion or advocacy. This means that controversial or negative information about a subject should not be removed solely because it is unflattering or inconvenient.criticism with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Nyovuu (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These look like good changes to me.

• Edit 1 removed a (likely) unreliable source (Zee News) reporting that a defamation lawsuit was filed. In general, we don't care if lawsuits are filed because it doesn't prove anything. Anyone can file a lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successful (and is covered by reliable sources) then it might be WP:DUE to mention it. See WP:BLPCRIME.
• Edit 2 removed "tarnish by association" references that aren't really about Kejriwal. As above, there was a police raid. So what? If reliable sources cover an actual conviction, then it might be DUE to mention it.
• Edit 3 removed the same content as above, which had been added by a WP:THREESTRIKES/banned sockpuppet. It was absolutely appropriate to revert that edit per WP:BANREVERT.
• Edit 4 removed more accusations and allegations. Again, maybe it'll be DUE if there are convictions. The Reuters article may point toward something worth covering, but we probably need WP:MEDRS sources as the claims are about COVID. Also, it's rarely appropriate to have "criticism" or "controversies" sections in biographical articles; see WP:CRIT.
• Edit 5 removed more accusations and allegations.
• Edit 6 removed the same content as edit 4, which had been added back while still being discussed. Absolutely appropriate revert.
• Edit 7 removed the same content as edit 5, which had been added back while still being discussed. Absolutely appropriate revert.

Also, I've notified Kridha about this thread, which you should have done per the red text at the top of this page. Woodroar (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The good part after a month's efforts by OP at least some one seem to have answered them. I also provided some guidance at their talk page but inputs from more users can always be educative. Most new users take time to understand how the things work on WP. I had also asked OP to get sources confirmed from WP:RSN.

Though I have not gone through all the criticism the subject had to face; to my limited knowledge subject making rampant corruption allegations and then saying sorry in court of law during defamation cases and political adversaries pardoning the subject in such cases is likely to hold waters to cover encyclopedically (point 5 in above cited deletions . Unfortunately those added content seem to have used Times of India group publications as sources if some one helps them in finding alternate and updated reliable sources, there may be some scope to cover relevant criticism. Since I have not followed subject thoroughly and already hand full with many more things I could not help the new user beyond guiding them on talk page.

IMHO beyond many technicalities and political polarizations, the article might be in need of better encyclopedic balance. Bookku (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here i added some reliable sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arvind_Kejriwal#removed_controversies_section Nyovuu (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More accusations and allegations. As multiple editors pointed out to you on the Talk page, there was no consensus to include this content—and that's a good thing, because it violates our policies. Woodroar (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently involved in a dispute regarding the article about Frederick Lenz, also known as Zen Master Rama, a New Age/Buddhist guru active during the 80s and 90s. During his lifetime, Lenz was a highly controversial figure that was accused of financially and sexually exploiting his followers. Pretty much all news coverage that mentions him from 1987 ( when the first exposes came out) up until his death in 1998 at least mentions this. One user on the talkpage is insisting that including this in the article is undue, due to the fact that he was never charged or convicted of anything related to this, and the fact that they claim that the abuse claims only come from a "small number of followers". Given that Lenz's notability primarily rests on historical newspaper coverage during his lifetime, I'm not seeing how it is undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for other eyes on this topic. The article has a section called Post-truth_politics#Solutions_from_Sophia_Rosenfeld that is entirely sourced to Rosenfeld's book. It was added by Rover4844 who has less than 20 edits total and hasn't edited since the addition.[7]. My concern is the views of this author are presented in their own section thus given great weight. However, no sources in the article establish her credibility or why her views should be given such weight. She isn't even mentioned elsewhere in the article. Given the way the source was added it comes off as ref spamming. A limited discussion has started here [8] but more eyes would be helpful. Springee (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:East Asian age reckoning about use of the term "Real age" to contrast the Western age counting system with "Korean age". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A neutrality issue being at stake, I am addressing here that I have started an RfC at Talk:Suriname#RfC: Should maps show border claims? I hope it will have a clear outcome, because corrections of mine were reverted whilst I was introducing maps of a border dispute of Suriname that cannot be denied (there are enough reliable sources for that). I am generally contributing to the Dutch language Suriname Wikiproject and I do not have a lot of knowledge of regulations here on English Wikipedia. It is even my first RfC. So I would welcome a helping hand for a flexible and successful process. Ymnes (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one disagrees that maps should show border claims. That is not the issue we are encountering with Suriname related articles. If you replace established maps (that have been on Wikipedia for 5+ or 10+ years) with extremist maps (that incorporate other countries or absorb disputed areas without identifying them), they may be reverted to the previously agreed upon map. It is not necessarily because the original map is preferred or considered neutral. People actually may agree with you. They just have an exception with the new map you are adding and don't have time to create the map for you. So for the time being, the original map is reinstated. DutchDaan (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium Press is a far-right publisher that puts out a lot of "classics" by people like Joseph de Maistre and Robert Filmer. If you ctrl-f you'll find them listed in the "works" sections of those linked articles. On the one hand, they did in fact publish an edition of Joseph de Maistre's collected works so why not list it there? On the other hand, their mission is clearly to make fascist politics more respectable and it's unfortunate that Wikipedia is helping them do that. I don't see a solution to this problem but maybe someone else will. Prezbo (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why use the publisher and not a book review? There are two options here: either the book has reliable reviews in which case you don't need to use the publisher or it doesn't have reliable reviews in which case it shouldn't be in the works section at all and there is no need to use the publisher. Remember that work sections aren't meant to be exhaustive, they're only for an author's important works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that was Wikipedia's standard for what to include in a "works" section. Is there a guideline on this somewhere? Thanks. Prezbo (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's also WP:DUE to consider, not every translation of every work needs to be included. Is there a reason to include this specific translation, is it a definitive work or was the translation by a particularly notable individual? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]