Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
TParis (talk | contribs)
Autopatrolled, Administrators
30,210 edits
Line 372: Line 372:


*Everyone here is an experienced editor as far as I get it and knows about reliability of sources, but the debate here is of NPOV and proper weight vs undue weight. Let's keep our comments short and to the point and get done with it. If there's no agreement (and remember it is not necessary to have an agreement there is some times simply no consensus) on addition of military a new section can be created for the related content in body. --[[User:TopGun|lTopGunl]] ([[User talk:TopGun|talk]]) 09:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*Everyone here is an experienced editor as far as I get it and knows about reliability of sources, but the debate here is of NPOV and proper weight vs undue weight. Let's keep our comments short and to the point and get done with it. If there's no agreement (and remember it is not necessary to have an agreement there is some times simply no consensus) on addition of military a new section can be created for the related content in body. --[[User:TopGun|lTopGunl]] ([[User talk:TopGun|talk]]) 09:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Otherwise, what could I possibly expect from having to discuss with the dream-combo again? If you are ready to provide neutral input the way Magog did (and maybe does again?)." I'm not sure how Magog was anymore neutral than me. Their solution also did not include "militarily" and I'd love to hear Magog's interpretation of my involvement here. I think I've been very neutral both here and on [[WP:DRN]] where I got involved. For the record, I've never met/talked to/interacted with 1TopGun1 prior to this issue. Feel free to go through both of our contribs to verify. As far as discussing it with you, I'm not someone who lets [[WP:MYPRIDE|their pride]] get in the way of editing. I am willing to concede points where valid counter points are made and I'm willing to compromise with others. I think my talk page archive can attest to that. Now, Magog has made a proposal that you've supported. I said I'd continue discussing it with you because I didn't want you to feel like once you've agreed to this temporarily, we'll all just disappear as "consensus achieved" and just revert you anytime you try to change it. I wanted to let you know that you could still make an argument over the words you've asked for and I will willing to listen because [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. So please, don't accuse me of buddying up with TopGun against you because I'm a POV pusher. Again, feel free to stalk my contribs and I invite Magog's opinion as well.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 14:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


===Sources===
===Sources===

Revision as of 14:11, 12 December 2011

Template:Pbneutral


This is in reference with Roy, Olivier, Globalized Islam, Columbia University Press, 2004, p.239

They did not destroy the graves of pirs (holy men) and emphasized dreams as a means of revelation.[28]

Sufi Shrine 'blown up by Taleban'

Sufi Islam and the Taleban Suspected Taleban militants in north-west Pakistan have blown up the shrine of a 17th Century Sufi poet of the Pashtun language, police say

link title --10:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Content removed & POV tag?

Were is the section for the POV tag? And as to the content being removed, if Pakistan refutes the claims that they have aided the Taliban then instead of removing the content you need to balance it with a rebuttal from a RS. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the previous version did not even attribute the allegation to the US gvt, and infact presented it as encyclopedic content, which is definitely POV. If you want to mention it then you need to use a sentence like "US gvt. alleges Pakistan of aiding..." etc and not the way it was. And in anycase adding it to infobox is completely biased. The POV tag is added because I only reverted the obvious instances, while the article tone still implies Pakistan's historic ties as being current one while it fails to credit that US had the same during the cold war. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall various agencies other than the US mention that Pakistian had aided the Taliban, It is hardly POV to state what a great many sources have said, you need to add a reliable source which says that the Pakistan government denies these allegations for balance, that is how it works. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try Fundamentalism reborn?: Afghanistan and the Taliban By William Maley as a source for what you need. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't have a problem with other a:gencies saying that. The article didn't attribute those facts to any, that's the problem including the article tone (without refutation) and the infobox inclusion. I'll edit accordingly. If you want to add the allegation on the Pakistan army, you have to add the refuation along with it. You can't just instate a POV and expect other editors to balance it for POV. Such content is to be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes I can, if you dispute that which is a widely reported fact then it is you who needs to find sources which refute this fact. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the POV tag is to alert editors that there is a discussion regarding a specific POV issue. It is not to be used to object to "article tone." If there are no further specific POV issues then the tag should be removed.– Lionel (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article tone is a POV issue and being discussed here too. So the tag is completely valid untill those parts are rewritten. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are strong refutations from Pakistan: [1] [2] [3] [4]. You can find 100s of more I'm sure. You also need to review this article War in North-West Pakistan. Now I hope it's clear that you can't add that content without attribution and refutation as per WP:NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you understand, all those sources say the government denies the claims, this is hardly surprising. It is a widely reported fact that they do in fact offer support to the Taliban. The source I recently added is from the academic press and is an obvious high quality source for these matters. Do you have any sources other than government press releases which refute the claims? By all means add to the article that the Pakistan government denies these allegations, but it is widely accepted that they do, there is no neutrality issue here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, you have not attributed that the 'wide' allegations are by the US govt. Not attributing that compromises the article's neutrality. It will only be neutral to say that "the US (and if any other mention that too) govt. alleges Pakistan to be supporting taliban and Pakistan strongly denies it" and even with all this stated, the infobox inclusion is not justifiable. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are wrong, it is the mainstream view as evidenced by academic sources that they supported the Taliban, your only sources which refute this are press releases from the government. It is not "just a US govt" view at all as you keep saying, it is a widely accepted fact. Now please add a source to the article which says they refute the allegations and we can be done with this. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you need to stop throwing the burden of correcting the issue on me. It is your responsibility to add the material in a neutral way since you are reinstating it as per WP:NPOV and WP:VOLUNTEER. Then, news articles are reliable sources. The 'academic' sources you have given are also based on POV of US officials. Your term 'widely accepted fact' is a WP:Weasel. Here is another reliable source which is not a press release from Pakistani govt. [5]. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(out)+(ec)I have not said your sources were not reliable, I said they were government press release. You may not say that the academic sources are based on US pov at all, if you disagree take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. It is not my responsibility to add balancing content, it is yours, you are the one saying the article is not neutral. I have presented sources from the academic press which shows it is mainstream thinking that they have supported the Taliban, it is for you to prove per WP:BURDEN that this is not the case. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue is not of reliability and I just gave you a contradiction from the mainstream, If you don't think its your responsibility to add a neutral POV when you add content, you need to read WP:NPOV. The WP:BURDEN on me is only to prove that the content is disputed, which I did. I just reviewed your added academic source, it does not seem to be so neutral itself while judging ISI. In the very next sentence after alleging ISI for taliban support, it says "On the basis of such stereotyping it is assumed...". I think that is enough to present an openly proclaimed prejudice by your source. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to review it again, it does not say that which you think it does. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have, [6] here you go. You are clearly adding non neutral content as per WP:NPOV. You should self revert or add attribution and refutation along with removal of infobox inclusion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not. I am not going to continue to argue this with you, if you feel the source is not reliable then please post on the reliable sources noticeboard. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just quoted you a phrase from the book you cited. Are you even reviewing your own citation? This is clearly a POV dispute and not an RSN dispute. I've given you contradicting news sources as well as mainstream evidence. Since there are contradictions this becomes a controversy and should be treated as one with neutral entries. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No you took a phrase from the book out of context, that phrase has nothing to do with what is being discussed, it is about the hill people of Pakistan, so no, you did not read it properly at all. There is no POV dispute at all, mainstream sources explicitly state that Pakistan security services aided the Taliban (as does another source I added) Your sources are mainstream yes, mainstream media. All your sources are doing is reiterating what the Pakistan government has said. Again, if you think the source does not support the edit take it to the RSN board. If you think it is not neutral to write that Pakistan has aided the Taliban go to the neutral point of view noticeboard. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not out of the context, if you read the whole paragraph, it is a continuation (infact a judgement) of the said statement. While some of my sources are reiterating Pakistan refutation, the last source I gave is independently telling the same (if you reviewed it at all). You're really hard at hearing. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are reading it out of context, by the way, "say that the Pakistani intelligence agencies have long used threats, arrests and killings to control the Taliban and that they could be doing so again to maintain their influence over the insurgents." This is from your previous source, it clearly says the Pakistani intel agencies have controlled and helped the Taliban. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, controlling someone and having influence over them is opposite of alliance. And did you miss the arrests? And a dedicated article written on 10 year war with their allies in Pakistan? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can be allied with someone and still exert influence over them, please post to the noticeboards a I have suggested as this is obviously going no-were. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inter Services Intelligence (Pakistan's intelligence agency) is included in the infobox as an ally of Taliban (and opponent of USA) while Pakistan and USA call each other allies (though strained). Further more, the article tone and some instances imply the same. On which side should ISI be listed as an ally (Taliban or USA) in infobox and how to go about making the article tone and mentioned allegations/refutations neutral? Refer to below transcluded discussion and the talk page discussion in the main section for more details pointed out by involved editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

See Transcluded section below from WP:NPOVN. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

A transclusion of the main section's discussion continued at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban is given in a subsection below. You might want to refer to that so that the discussion does not go into circles. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Senior US officials called Pakistan an ally of the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network (Taliban's most destructive element) a "veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency." TopGun forgot to mention that in the initial question.JCAla (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The ISI act as a state within a state, just because the government of Pakistan say they do not help the Afgan Taliban does not mean that the ISI do not. There have been quite a few sources which state that the ISI are allied to the Taliban and there are no neutrality issues that I can see with this being in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ISI by all means comes under the jurisdiction of government of Pakistan. The issue is whether Pakistan is an ally of USA or Taliban. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, TopGun, don't start fooling yourself. The Pakistani army is running Pakistan not the civilian government, and the ISI officers are drawn from the army.JCAla (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not go into that debate and first solve the issue at hand. And lets remain WP:CIVIL. I think the bot has not yet listed the RFC (here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law) , so we'll have to wait for some time. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I told you before, Pakistan and the US are allies regarding issues surrounding Pakistan's stability and the safety of its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan and the US are no allies (anymore) regarding Afghanistan, because Pakistan is allied to the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan and the US changed its policy towards the Afghan Taliban in 2001, starting to fight them.JCAla (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've said that. We can read that from above since I transcluded the discussion so as not to flood this subsection with the same comments again. This will now continue as per RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources need be presented before TopGun admits that the ISI are allied with the Taliban? We have MSM sources, we have academic sources and we have political ones. Enough is enough. I have removed the POV and the very pointy factual accuracy tag that he added. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop rushing to a conclusion. Things work by discussion here. And I am by the rules to call an RFC on this. If you don't want, don't participate. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop dragging things out, the ISI are allied with the Taliban, all sources say so and you are being disruptive. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking here without sources. Lets stay on topic. Stop trying to silence the dispute on your own accord. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with The Last Angry Man here. We can't drag it out until unknown just because the input that came so far isn't liked by you. I'd say we wait two more days. If there is no change in the opinion of the majority of editors on this issue, then the tags need to be removed and the ISI stays in the infobox. And, one tag until then is enough. JCAla (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am disputing the factual accuracy here, whether ISI's ally of one or the other is a fact being disputed while the rest of the issues are POV disputes. I hope you know the difference. You should self revert the tag. And read WP:DEADLINE & WP:VOLUNTEER. There is no deadline that I have to follow. RFC will continue, only after that can tags be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No you are disputing the factual accuracy of the MSM and the academic press, all of which say the ISI are allied with the Taliban. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There. You said it that I'm disputing it (and I gave sources). Whether I'm right or not is not for one side to decide. The tag should be put back right away. The RFC is now listed. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TopGun, three editors have stated that they disagree with you. WP:DEADLINE means that there is no deadline for wikipedia articles to be complete, it does not mean that one editor can forever put tags into an article even if a majority of editors agreed the tags are not justified. JCAla (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The editor above just said I was disputing whatever he thinks is WP:TRUTH. And no, you didn't read, read again, both the links I gave. This is about the article since it is its talkpage, and there's no deadline. And even if there 'was a consensus', consensus can change. Read WP:OWNERSHIP, you don't own this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you gave say the II are allied with the Taliban, the only sources which deny this are Pakistani government press releases. You are not disputing the factual accuracy of this article, you are disputing the MSM and the academic press which clearly say the ISI are allied to the Taliban, you are free to take the sources to the reliable sources noticeboard if you think they are not accurate. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being an ally of one party or another is a factual dispute. Read WP:COMMONSENSE. And no, the sources I gave support my claims and I've given enough arguments. It is ridiculous to deny the existence of the dispute itself after a discussion this long on the talk page and the NPOV notice board. I've already listed an RFC, so RSN is not needed. And FYI, tags and disputed edits are not made without a conclusion when RFCs are tagged. Having another discussion at full length to prove it to you that the dispute exists (while the dispute itself is unsovled) is craziness. The length and arguments of the discussion itself tells about the dispute's nature. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

This section is being transcluded from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban, do not edit here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    fa:ویکی‌پدیا:تابلوی اعلانات منابع معتبر

    Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
    Shortcuts
    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:
    Start a new discussion

    The "prophet Muhammad" (lowercase 'p')

    UrielAcosta seems to be on a mission, systematically searching through Wikipedia to find "[p]rophet Muhammad" and remove the word "prophet" (even if it's in lowercase), with the edit summary: Removed religious bias per MOS:PBUH because he's not Wikipedia's prophet.

    The latter link points to NPOV policy.

    I and other editors have queried these edits on UrielAcosta's talk page, but UrielAcosta disagreed and soon after, s/he deleted the talk page entries, and continued to make these mass edits.

    My mild objection, as a non-Muslim, is that "prophet" (lowercase 'p') is descriptive and informative, and is in accordance with MOS, so when the word "prophet" has been removed, I've instead re-added it as "Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity). To me, this is no different than referring to "the novelist Doris Lessing", or "the British politician Rishi Sunak".

    MOS:MUHAMMAD actually says this: recommended action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary.

    I'd appreciate the input of other editors here, please. Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pertinent discussions held on this subject with UrielAcosta] arehere and here. I addressed the rationale "because he's not Wikipedia's prophet" by observing Pablo Escobar is not Wikipedia's drug lord, but it wouldn't be wrong to write of somebody, "It was on his trip to Panama that he became acquainted with drug lord Pablo Escobar.". Their bizarre response: ... you are 100% incorrect: Pablo Escobar IS Wikipedia's drug lord, because "drug lord" has a specific definition in English and Escobar qualifies under that definition. I mean, huh? (Have you ever heard Escobar described as "Wikipedia's drug lord"?) Then I pointed out that WP:PBUH explicitly provides for the usage that they've been obliterating, distinguishing honoring someone from merely identifying them in context on first mention, and it fell on deaf ears. When I saw that UrielAcosta had taken this campaign up again with vigor after having been reproved by at least three people, I was ready to report them to WP:ANI or somewhere, so I thank User:Esowteric for raising it here. Largoplazo (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" Some1 (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've instead re-added it as "Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity). Did UrielAcosta revert these edits (by removing "Islamic prophet")? If they did, then that would be against what MOS:PBUH recommends (i.e. adding "the Islamic prophet" if necessary for clarity purposes). If they didn't revert, then they're just following what MOS:PBUH recommends. Some1 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, they changed "prophet Muhammed" to "Muhammed", but left alone my later changes to "Islamic prophet Muhammed". However, they did this to the first (or only) mention of the name Muhammed in the two articles that were on my watchlist that were affected. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The only reason I bring this up is that these are mass edits, so a whole lot of people may either not notice the changes or choose to change the entries to "the prophet Muhammad", when they could either be left alone or the passionate editor could make the changes themselves and avoid work for others. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don’t agree with the removal of “prophet” for the first usage of Muhammad in an article because the MOS clearly allows for the usage in that case. That being said, I don’t think it’s necessary to go back and add it to articles where it was removed. I don’t agree that “Muhammad” (with the wikilink) would cause confusion to the reader. Mokadoshi (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, but how many Wikipedia articles would simply name Rishi Sunak because users could easily click on the link to find out who he is or what he is, when it is far simpler and more informative to refer to them in the first instance as (say) British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t think specifying “British Prime Minister” is necessary every time. In some cases it is helpful, like the usage of “Senator Obama” verses “President Obama” can clarify the period of his career when an event occurred. I don’t think it’s an appropriate comparison to this case. Probably a better comparison would be “author J.K. Rowling” verses just “J.K. Rowling” and the former seems to be rare. Mokadoshi (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been asked to give my two pennies worth on this matter as I was made aware of Uriel Costa's editing on Bust of Abd al-Rahman III, Cadrete, a page I had created. I did not know, but I was barely surprised, that Uriel Costa then went on to make the same edit on a variety of other pages. This is my view on the matter:
      The page I saw related to a Muslim monarch. Monarchs are known by their given name. Removing "prophet" before Muhammad could be confusing as many monarchs, including in Islamic Spain where I was writing about, were also called Muhammad.
      I just put "prophet" as a disambiguator. I think it's quite clear in the context we were not talking about a prophet of the Mormons. Uriel Costa removed this completely, he did not even negotiate by saying "Islamic prophet".
      You could say that the majority of the world does not see Muhammad as a prophet, nor has any human been peer-reviewed to be a prophet. But at the same time, we have the page at Guru Nanak when the majority of the world has probably not even heard of him, and no independent study has proven that he had more spiritual wisdom than anyone else in the world. The term Pope comes from "father" and the majority of the world does not see him that way, but we still title the page Pope Francis.
      My previous edit was not endorsing Islam, a religion I do not follow, and instead of making it more specific, getting rid of "prophet" completely made it less specific. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Pope" clearly means that he has a particular role in the Catholic church. Similarly for other examples given. Simply "prophet" is an assertion in the voice of Wikipedia which a majority of people would disagree with. "Islamic prophet" implicitly says that Islam considers him to have that status/role/capability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem we are having here is that in those cases when it is necessary or even simply better to clarify (this often depends on context and background knowledge of subject matter), UrielAcosta is still systematically removing it based on a literal reading of MOS:PBUH, to the point of edit warring over it, without engaging in substantial discussion.
      An example of where mentioning "prophet" was better because of subject matter context is here, an example of where it was necessary to disambiguate from other Muhammads named in the article here (cf. [7]).
      In my mind, because the problem is an overly literal reading, the solution to this is to update MOS:PBUH and have it explicitly allow "the prophet Muhammad" in cases where it is needed for disambiguation or clarification. My own proposal to simply always allow it (because all relevant RS are in fact using it constantly and casually) was perhaps too ambitious, but simply instating Some1's counterproposal here would already solve a lot of the issues (Some1's proposal, but adjusted to lowercase 'prophet'):

      (The) Holy Prophet in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad" — recommended action is to use just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary. In cases where ambiguity or confusion exists, the "prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" may be used as a variation on "Muhammad".

      Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Re "overly literal reading"—except for the part about continuing to ignore except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary even when it's pointed out to them point-blank. The reason Muhammad gets his own provision in the first place is because of a matter very specific to him: the practice of some people of writing "PBUH" after every use of his name, and referring to him as "the Prophet Muhammad" or even just "the Prophet" on every occasion. There's nothing about the provision that suggests that Muhammad is less deserving than anyone else in history of being introduced in a text in the way that people are very commonly introduced, by the use of context. If anyone's being non-neutral, it's UrielAcosta, for deeming Muhammad not to deserve to be identified in such a manner. Largoplazo (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that they are deliberately ignoring the part of the MOS that they don't seem to agree with. Their he's not Wikipedia's prophet breaks the very policy that they are citing as an excuse to expunge the word from every article. M.Bitton (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The changes en masse by UrielAcosta are unhelpful at best as they needlessly create a lot of work for others. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm in agreement with the responses expressed by @M.Bitton, @Largoplazo, and @Apaugasma. It's evident that there's an issue of overzealous editing on the part of UrielAcosta. As others have noted, even in cases where, for purely practical reasons as MOS allows, it was better to leave a term rather than removing it. I would encourage @UrielAcosta to take a breather and once again go through WP:5P5, if it might provide a newfound sense of direction and clarity. StarkReport (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We had this one at Regency of Algiers also. I am not certain if UrielAcosta realizes just how many people can be named Mohammed in an article that covers 400 years of North African history, but this was righteously reverted by the article's primary author. I urge UrielAcosta to get a grip and find another mission. Elinruby (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the place where we refer to the Islamic prophet Mohammed. I believe that before Uriel Acosta came along it possibly said the Prophet Mohammed, This may be slightly better but seems like a really silly thing to spend time on, like arguing about whether Joan of Arc's visions were real. The thing to do is report the claim without endorsing, it, yes? [8] The sharifs were a religious nobility who claimed descent from the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and often members of the Naqib al-ashraf institution of the Ottoman Empire.[405] I spent a LOT of time on this section and made zero claims about Mohammed in wikivoice. I am not real upset about this either way but I consider myself an interested party and I oppose a mandatory naked Mohammed. Please ping me if this escalates. Going on a rampage about the word prophet is bigotry to my mind, just like it would be to insist on a disclaimer in an article about the visions of Joan of Arc or the incarnations of Vishnu.
    This is merely what some people believe or believed at some point, period, end of story, and I submit that it is neither possible nor desirable to explain a religious dynasty whose power stemmed from its claim of descent from the prophet Mohammed without mentioning the prophet Mohammed. If some people feel that we need to specify that he was an Islamic prophet rather than a Hindu or an Buddhist or a Catholic prophet, ok fine, whatever.
    Btw, ctl-f finds 21 instances of "Mohammed" in that article, a few of whom are mentioned more than once, and at least one of whom is the author of a reference. I think a serious count would give use ten or eleven men named Mohammed plus some honorific. Elinruby (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see why uses of the word prophet [Name] should be considered improper or require editing out when talking about a figure (notwithstanding their historicity) identified by a sufficiently significant amount of people as a prophet of their religion, creed, or belief system — especially, if it serves purposes of disambiguation. And I disagree with @North8000′s assessment of a distinct treatment of the epithets pope and prophet, since both are similar religious positions, claiming to form a bridge between the divine and humankind. The position of pope is as limited and debated among Christian creeds as the question of “Who is the real, final, ultimate prophet?” is in various branches of Islam. Konanen (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shooks, I did not intend this to be a reply to @Elinruby, sorry. Konanen (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, IMO your argument against my point has flaws. The widespread meaning of "Pope" is a particular position in the catholic church. Saying "Pope" in the voice of Wikipedia means that they hold that role in the Catholic church. The claim in the voice of Wikipedia does not go any further than that. An atheist can take it to mean only that. An unattributed statement in the voice of Wikipeda that someone is a prophet is a statement in the voice of Wikipedia goes far beyond just saying that they have a particular role in a a particular religion. Simple attribution of the statement to Islam solves all of that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For statements like "Joshua was a prophet who [...]" or "when the prophet Muhammad came to Mecca [...]", if the implication of the statement is 'hey, this is the prophet of God, so better listen to him', then it's obviously religiously non-neutral and problematic. If the implication of the statement is 'this figure is considered a prophet in the religion(s) we are talking about in this context', then it's perfectly fine. Not only perfectly fine, but also often necessary, because the status of these figures as prophets is often an important part of the encyclopedic information we are trying to convey. The current restrictions in MOS:MUHAMMAD often make this difficult or impossible. Readers are intelligent enough to pick out the intended implication, they don't need the current censorship to get that we are not declaring these figures to be actual prophets in wiki-voice, nor are the relevant RS who are all of them (the challenge made here to find an exception still stands) routinely referring to Muhammad as "the prophet" or "the prophet Muhammad". ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Apaugasma:You made a good point there which I think is that these are often obviously (just) statements by Islam rather than statements by / in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing "The Prophet" in this way appears to be agenda driven. I am not a Muslim and I see no issue with the phrase being "The Prophet Muhammed" being used when it is referencing the founder of Islam Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As noted above, I'm in agreement with inclusion of the word but, used in this way, "prophet" is a common noun and shouldn't be capitalized. Largoplazo (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. "The prophet Mohammed" is ok but "The Prophet Mohammed" runs afoul of MOS:MUHAMMAD specifically and more broadly MOS:HONORIFIC. In fact it would be better to say "the Islamic prophet Mohammed" and that is what the guidance says: except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary. If this were equivalent to "The Pope" it would be phrased just as "The Prophet" when obviously Mohammed doesn't occupy the proper noun of "The Prophet" in English. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rent control in the United States and Rent regulation pages

    There is a long-standing dispute over pages [9] and [10].

    The dispute concerns the following statement: ‘There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of rental housing units’.

    The statement was added by Snooganssnoogans on 24 December 2020 at 14:54, without prior discussion on the talk page.[11]

    Several editors have shown opposition and/or raised concerns about the veracity and/or neutrality of such statement and/or the sources provided, as can be seen in the talk pages [12] and [13], evidencing that there is no consensus among editors on the content of the page.

    Several users act as custodians of this page, systematically deleting references to indexed scientific articles, or reverting edits by users contrary to their views (e.g. this scientific reference [14], was deleted here [15]).

    Several users have been targeted and banned by editors who oversee the site, accused of vandalism by those who uphold an statement that was unexpectedly added to the article without previous discussion in the talk page.

    It appears that the sentence lacks the required consensus and does not seem to adhere to a neutral point of view.

    139.47.66.252 (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy links:
    Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2021 NPOVN closure does not appear to reflect any consensus. It explicitly states that the statement in question should be replaced or rephrased, and no such correction has been made or allowed since. 139.47.66.252 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not so much 'a long-standing dispute' as a single IP-hopping editor who periodically shows up to attempt to blank parts of the article and make repetitive arguments and/or personal attacks on the talk pages. Talk:Rent regulation had to be semi protected because of this a few months ago. They have gotten many, many responses on the relevant talk pages, but the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT continues nonetheless. MrOllie (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: This IP is almost certainly Pedrote112 (talk · contribs) evading their block again. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this yet another attack by this user on anyone who does not think like him/her in order to prevent the article from being reviewed? 139.47.66.252 (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see problems here. This removal seems justified, if it's an individual study it should be added to the body of the article and not to the lede, unless it's super-transformational and has overturned the scientific consensus, which I doubt. Alaexis¿question? 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What scientific consensus? There is neither scientific consensus nor consensus among editors. Why do you consider it legitimate to withdraw this scientific article and other articles that have been cited on the talk page?88.12.251.41 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus documented in the cited sources. Pretending that those sources don't exist isn't going to work. Nor will you be able to undermine them by citing minority viewpoints or individual data points. MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement as presented is implicit OR. It implies that the purpose of rent control was to increase the quality and quantity of rental units, and therefore the policy was a failure.
    To provide an example, the average cost of a one bedroom apartment in Toronto, where new buildings are not subject to rent control, is CAD2,513. But many tenants are paying half that or less because of rent control for the same or greater square footage. Not many of them are moving to new units that offer newer stoves and refrigerators. TFD (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Snooganssnoogans, I wonder if you could comment on this. TFD (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement is yours, you added it without prior discussion in the talk page. You are the one that has to gain a consensus that doesn't exist. 2A02:9130:9435:1805:DDDA:5696:E2AD:B4F7 (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement was added by Snooganssnoogans without any previous discussion in the talk page. 88.12.251.41 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Weaponization of antisemitism

    Could someone review this article and this discussion (Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Adding POV and POV LEDE tags) for whether or not NPOV violations exist or if the POV tag belongs on the article. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a terrible article, so would really benefit from the engagement of non-involved editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just finished an RM on the title, no consensus. Not that terrible imo but I suppose mileage may vary. This has been here since 4 May and it was at the OR noticeboard as well without much reaction so while there is always something to fix, maybe not so much. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with @Bobfrombrockley, the articles sourcing issue combined with the plethora of other problems discussed on the talk page combined with the RM problems are not inspiring my confidence that this article will (or maybe even can) be modified to resemble a NPOV. FortunateSons (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Need some patient people at Jordan Peterson

    I have just spent a couple of hours I will never get back at this page explaining:

    • What is a revert
    • What is a one-revert restriction on a page
    • What it means to have a personal one-revert restriction
    • What is another editor's talk page comment
    • What is Wikivoice and why we do not use it to say "politically correct"
    • Why we don't randomly name drop politicians in an article about a YouTube misogynist
    • Why this is even more so when the politician in question is the once and likely future premier of Alberta, who is female.
    • Why it really doesn't matter how we as Wikipedia editors think she should feel about the mention
    • Why the alleged billions of times the misogynist Youtuber's videos have been played matters not at all
    • Why his alleged ranking at some download site doesn't matter either
    • What is precedent in a common law legal system

    The following remain to be addressed:

    • use of student newspaper in an evaluation of his research
    • Article variously says he resigned, was no longer on the faculty, was asked to resign or put teaching on hold temporarily due to other project.
    • What is ONUS and who has it
    • Whatever this is: Peterson's work has generated billions of views from all over the world. Meanwhile, Rachel Notley is some minor politician in Canada. How many people outside of Canada knows about her or cares about her? Remove her from the article if you want. Obscure people shouldn't be allowed to parasite on the success of famous people. Trakking (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2024
    • whatever this is also: Some people are trying hard to make this encyclopedic article be much more sensational and provocative than it ought to be. Trakking (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

    and much more. I am sure I am forgetting stuff. Did I mention that a lot of the sources seem to fail verification? I have not yet run Wikiblame though. Please send whisky and psychiatrists. The editor mentioned a above is swedish and rather new. The other is @Springee:. Elinruby (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Trakking: Elinruby (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah the comment about Notley had me entirely confused. I'm already there but more hands make light work. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "an article about a YouTube misogynist" -- in fact it's an article about Jordan Peterson. Re Rachel Notley: the mention has existed in the article since at least May 2017, but I didn't interpret the talk page comments as firmly opposing removal. I won't post there since I know that people can be tbanned for doing so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2024
    Yes. that is the YouTube misogynist in question. Elinruby (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure we should be sending additional psychological professionals, seeing what carnage has been wrought by just one of them. 🤔 jp×g🗯️ 08:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean the College of Psychologists of Ontario are deeply embarrassed by him. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    update:Various shiny objects have distracted me from this. Possibly the one-revert question has been addressed; I at least have had an answer that satisfied *my* questions about this for now. I do not know if the other editors on the talk page agree. I remain preoccupied and busy RL. Some of those editors have said that they don't see why mentioning Notley is a PoV problem, but on the other hand they do not object to the mention being removed. Removing it would resolve that matter in my eyes. If that has not happened I may do that sometime soon. As far as I know the rest of this remains unaddressed. Elinruby (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elinruby: You really ought keep your (potentially defamatory) personal opinions about BLPs to yourself. "Misogyny" and "misogynist" appear only twice in the article currently and not in a way that would lend to them being listed in the lead along with "psychologist, author, and media commentator". I daresay maybe you ought not edit articles you have such strong opinions on if you feel compelled to use the slurs when discussing the person. This is no reflection on my personal opinion of Jordan Peterson. I don't like misogyny or misogynists, and I don't know much about Peterson other than that it is definitely not someone I would take advice from. I just think you are pushing the limits of WP:BLP and might be edging into having your comments refactored:
    • Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.
    • Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: 2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources
    • WP:LIBEL
    —DIYeditor (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DIYeditor: can you restate that please? I think I must be misunderstanding you. Elinruby (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the least it looks biased to me to be bad-mouthing a living person beyond what the article describes the person as being. Maybe it's true (or not), but to me "misogynist" is a strong and potentially defamatory label to use, and it doesn't seem to be widely applied to him from what his article says. Is it necessary, useful and appropriate to express distaste for the subjects of articles? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue here is that you have posted a legal threat and a personal attack from what his article says. You do understand that I posted here because I was questioning the article's neutrality? It does indeed say, based on the subject's YouTube posts and some hagiography in student newspapers, that he is essentially the second coming of Carl Jung, to the point of including the Carl Jung navbar in the article. I thought the above was a decent start on the article's problems, but we can discuss misogyny if people want. I would have thought that this was obvious from the use of the word on RS, the description of women in his own voice as "witches" and forces of chaos, and his contention that they are responsible for murders by incels, a situation to be remedied by what he calls "mandatory monogamy." I will be happy to provide sources for these statements, and yes, I agree, actually, that they are not in the article. Or weren't the last time I looked.Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, here, let me by all means introduce some sources into this conversation. Sources include but are not limited to:
    Not sure where I think the issue here is that you have posted a legal threat and a personal attack came from but what you've listed looks like good groundwork for inclusion in the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not particularly interested in pursuing the matter, but "maybe you ought not edit articles you have such strong opinions on if you feel compelled to use the slurs" does assume I said this with no basis, and you did say I was committing libel. But fine; apparently you now think otherwise. Glad to hear it, and glad we got that cleared up. I am still preoccupied with a different problem, but my primary concern, above and beyond all this background, is that the article devoted a great deal of real estate to quoting his very fringe statements about Bill C-16 and most likely still does Elinruby (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LABEL is quite clear that “misogynist” is a value-laden label to be avoided unless widely used by reliable sources. If the source evidence is insufficient to state it in wikivoice in a BLP, then it should be avoided on Talk too, per WP:BLPTALK. A personal attack against the subject of the article, even if you think it is justified, is WP:BATTLEGROUND noise that doesn’t help make content decisions. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, apparently you have not noticed the dozen sources above. The article still extensively quotes the subject making extremely hyperbolic statements, in addition to his advocacy of involuntary sexual servitude for women. But by all means, let's debate whether it is polite to include some secondary sources in the article that say so. Elinruby (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do those reliable sources widely state, in their own voice, that the subject is a misogynist? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    feel free to click handily provided links. I would start with the New York Times. They are also afaict all extremely RS, certainly better in any event that the student newspapers currently in the article. More sources exist to say that the subject's claims about Canadian constitutional law are to put it politely only tenously related to fact, which is actually the primary concern. The stuff about women is opinion, no matter how alarming it is that somebody with his reach has been saying this stuff. Elinruby (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked a couple, and have now checked the NYT source too. It doesn’t call him a misogynist. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only three of those sources explicitly mention the term misogyny—one is some random blog, another is a polemic book called ”A leftist critique,” and the third does not even apply the term to Jordan Peterson specifically; it just simply states that ”well, there’s misogyny on the internet.” This post is a clear example of WP:OR and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Trakking (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I see this escalated while I was typing. That "random blog" has an editorial policy and a submissions process and is published by a professional organization. And yeah, the NYT times only quotes him saying that the solution to a guy running over random pedestrians is "mandatory monogamy" for women with men who might do such things. Speaking of polemic. The book is a published source that beats a student newspaper any day, and the source you are dismissing as "there's misogyny on the internet" has his name in the title, so.... not so much. But I am always happy to hear from an editor who thinks that a former provincial premier is somehow "parasiting" the subject by being mentioned in his Wikipedia article. Have you removed that mention yet, Trakking? Surely if I want it gone and you think it's parasitic, a meeting of the minds is possible somewhere? But Macleans, the Guardian and the other sources all talk about hateful statements about women and pretty much everyone who is not an incel white male, so... OR is a pretty ridiculous dismissal, given that all of these sources are better than 90% of what's in the article now, ie mostly YouTube and student newspapers. But without getting into the article's current content, if it's reliably sourced, it ain't OR. As opposed for example to quoting the subject on what his expertise is, even though he doesn't seem to be the lead author of many of those articles at all. So how about we talk about what he says about the law, hmm? Elinruby (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to log in but keep kicking to other places 2600:100A:B03C:8E18:0:34:799D:E901 (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Irgun

    See [16]. I reverted a similar edit a few days ago. The issue I see is do we describe the Irgun in articles the way their article does or does Wikipedia call then terrorists. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See King David Hotel bombing which is what the Irgun is notorious for, obviously terrorism, and the attack is described in the lead as a "terrorist attack". In the section Terrorism, it says "The bombing has been discussed in literature about the practice and history of terrorism. It has been called one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century." When a preponderance of sources are all unequivocal about calling it terrorism, it's terrorism.
    I see an editor objected on the grounds that we don't do that for Hamas but there is no unanimity of sourcing for that (the BBC being one notable example of a refusal to call them that). Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The way Irgun describes them is, imo, fine. This was (to my knowledge) way before proscription was a thing, so it's probably the best we're going to get if we're never going to be able to say "described by A, B, and C as a terrorist org". Extending that, however, to Ze'ev Jabotinsky is a bit weird to me. Although al-Qaeda's designation is mentioned on Osama Bin Laden. Yr Enw (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The same editor who adds mentions of terrorism to Irgun-related articles also removes mentions of terrorism related to Palestinian factions [17]. However, when reverted, they label the revert as "vandalism" [18]. This could indicate a possible conduct issue. ABHammad (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a similar view to Yr Enw in cases like this. Also, I'm a fan of aligning contentious labels to the labeling used in main articles about the thing being given a contentious label in another article. And if you are going to avoid the use of Wiki-voice via words like "proscribed", it seems better to say who is doing the proscribing. I'm not a big fan of the fuzzy wording "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" in WP:TERRORIST as a decision procedure because, in practice, editors can't/don't do enough sampling. Not using contentious labels in wiki-voice or without some kind of attribution is a simple solution. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “not using contentious labels in wikivoice or without some kind of attribution is a simple solution”. This is my preferred interpretation of MOS:TERRORIST, and imo the only possibly impartial way of dealing with terrorist designations. But the guidance is, as you note, quite reliant on editors making editorial judgements. It’s unlikely to get resolved anytime soon either, as when I tried to get consensus on the VP for a more explicit guideline that would align with this, it wasn’t very forthcoming. Yr Enw (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In practice, in Wikipedia, for understandable reasons, editorial judgement can be difficult to distinguish from convenience sampling. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps but the rule as it stands (I don't agree with it either but there it is) says that if there is a preponderance of sourcing, we go by that. If there is alleged insufficient sampling, editors will have to work out a consensus on that, same as anything else. Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true. I think we have made some progress towards neutrality though. When people in my family would tell stories about their time in Palestine in 1947-48, any mention of Irgun might be accompanied by slightly confusing statements like 'scum of the Balkans'. Of course, this was back in the days when making sweeping and/or offensive and/or inaccurate statements about 'foreigners' was fine. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't Irgun self-described as terrorists? They were formed as "restraint breakers" specifically to carry out unprovoked violent attacks against Palestinians and British as part of a campaign of political violence. They promoted terrorism, were self-described terrorists. They publicly celebrated their terrorist identity. They had a goal and their chosen path was the path of violent unconstrained terrorism, and they were proud advocates of this. Fanccr (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fanccr, your comment is inconsistent with the WP:ARBECR rule. A quick look at your contributions suggests that you might need to (re)read that and the information on your talk page. If you have sourcing that supports the "self-described terrorists" statement, you can submit it with an edit request at the Irgun article's talk page using WP:EDITXY as a guide. Even if true, I would still favor attributing the label to them rather than using wiki-voice. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, same. The problem with their suggestion is that it assumes readers will understand what the Irgun itself meant by the term, which I don’t think they will. Yr Enw (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with @Yr Enw here. In an article about a different topic, appending a contentious qualifier like terrorist can be done only if that's what RS do. The onus is on the editor who adds this. Alaexis¿question? 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be cautious with the label in this case, and ascribe it to them were it's due, with the onus being on those who want to include it; as stated by others, this is a case of editorial discretion with all the issues usually associated with that.
    Regarding @ABHammads diffs, while I'm generally not inclined to advocate for action being taken due to a singular bad edit, it's probably something to look into or at least keep an eye on, particularly if this is or becomes a pattern. FortunateSons (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Including death parameters in the infobox for BLPs

    I tried removing the "death date" and "death place" parameters from the infoboxes on BLPs (e.g. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]), but the removals have been reverted. The vast majority of BLPs do not include such parameters. The infobox for the Joe Biden article, to cite a high-profile example, does not include parameters for death. Neither does the Taylor Swift article, to cite another high-profile example. Why should some BLPs include death parameters and others not? Seems morbid and downright prejudicial. Ieonine (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The unused parameters aren't seen by the reader..... we consider this a cosmetic edit pls review WP:COSMETICBOT. Moxy🍁 23:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But they are seen by the editors, and the implication is shady. Ieonine (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every subject of a BLP will die someday. I would argue that there is no good reason to remove empty death parameters from articles that have them or to add empty death parameters to articles that don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why isn't there an across-the-board policy addressing this? To cite some more high-profile examples, look at the infoboxes for Donald Trump, Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Madonna. Nowhere does it list "death date" or "death place". So why should some BLP infoboxes include death parameters and others not include death parameters? There's no equality in that. Ieonine (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What matters is that for all of these BLPs, the death fields are empty and don't show in the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is prejudicial. Who decides which BLPs should have death fields and which shouldn't? Ieonine (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are irrelevant if they are not seen. I suggest you find something productive to do. Moxy🍁 00:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way are they “prejudicial”? Who exactly is harmed by the fact that some BLP infoboxes have this (empty and hidden) parameter while others do not? And what is that harm? Blueboar (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really hidden. Anyone who clicks the edit button can see it. If there was a BLP page about me that had a "death date" field I'd take offense. The harm is implication of imminent death. To insist certain BLPs must contain this stigmatic mark while other BLPs get off scot-free, is unbalanced, unfair, and prejudicial; a double standard. Does this answer your question? Because none of you have answered mine: Why are some BLPs exempt from containing this awful text and others aren't? Ieonine (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh… having a field for date of death that is empty does not imply an imminent death… just an eventual one. We will all die at some point (hopefully a long time from now). No need to change. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it Cambalachero (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These unused parameters are appropriate and will be useful for reference when the person does die. The infoboxes are not only for living persons AFAIK, but a variety that might be used for living or dead people. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Article title should be renamed Hokkaido Colonization Commission

    The title of Hokkaidō Development Commission should be renamed to Hokkaido Colonization Commission. The National Archives of Japan [27] officially refers to it as the "Colonization Commission," so that should be the title instead of "Hokkaidō Development Commission." While some sources may use the latter, giving more weight to the National Archives' designation aligns better with Wikipedia's rules, avoiding WP:UNDUE emphasis on other sources. the lede sentence "The Hokkaidō Development Commission (開拓使, Kaitakushi), sometimes referred to as Hokkaidō Colonization Office or simply Kaitakushi, was a government agency in early Meiji Japan." would also need to be rewritten because it is incorrect to say that the commission is sometimes referred to as Hokkaido Colonization Office when it was the official name. talk page: [28]

    • Actually, our rules DON’T favor “official names” over the names used in sources. See: WP:COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    that's fair enough, but guidelines also state, "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." there are also plenty of other sources that use Colonization Commission. consensus needs to be reached as to which title is best for the article.(see talk) LilAhok (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse/Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse

    I recently came across these two newly created articles and they are both deeply problematic and subject to what look like intense back and forth editing. Do non-involved editors think NPOV versions could be made from either of them? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dismal articles, the pair of them. Might do something with them if merged into one article...maybe. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the "Animal" word should be dropped from both article titles, since apart from animals there's also "cavemen", "beasts", "morons", "vampires", "bacteria", "cancer", "germ".
    I haven't checked sources much, but the sentence At times, denigrators can allow that they are human: Yonathan Netanyahu considered them cavemen while the Likud MP Oren Hazan allows that Palestinians are human, but only in so far as they are morons. appears to fail WP:NPOV, as the cited quotes (as provided in the footnotes) don't appear to say anything about allowing to be considered humans. NicolausPrime (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Selfeditor, I'm afraid that just as in the real world conflict a two-articles solution is more realistic than a one-article solution... Vegan416 (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Selfeditor? K, doesn't sound so bad. Anyway its not the solution that's the problem, its the occupation. Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTFORUM. What I mean is that the number of arguments and back and forth editing would likely be much higher in one article than in two articles. Vegan416 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a theoretical NPOV version is possible, but I agree that a merger might be more promising. The primary issue will likely be due weight and FALSEBALANCE, and I don’t envy whoever will have to adress the inevitable discussions that will emerge. FortunateSons (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are animal stereotypes singularly notable in partisan discourse in the I/P debate, beyond the usual dehumanization inherent in similar debates? (Not like you have to go far to find someone calling someone similar in the US.) If the answer is no, the articles shouldn't exist at all, and having them around is just asking for COATRACK and battleground issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s a good question. I’m honestly not sure, and also don’t know how we would measure that, particularly considering the linguistic and cultural complexity involved. Subjectively, I would say probably yes, but that’s worth very little. FortunateSons (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs Animal stereotypes are very common, certainly with regard to caricatures of Palestinians, and are sufficiently impressive to have formed part of the evidence presented by South Africa (pp.59ff.) in its recent case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. The point is, at least for that article, they are all documented by core figures in the Israeli state, and not simply off-the-cuff remarks by the usual lunatic or fanatical fringe. I'll ignore the other article, which is unretrievably bad, and am surprised that the two, one written with stringent method, the other without any semblance of the same, could be viewed interchangeably as 'dismal'. 'Animal', lastly, refers to the 'animal kingdom', the realm of existing organic beings, as opposed to the plant kingdom. I thought everyone knew that, or has the kindergarten curriculm changed its views about this in the last half century?Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    I don't see the complaint as being a useful bellwether. It's not just about calling Palestinians animals, that specific part is a very small section of a very, very long complaint, and it's specifically about the language Israel's leadership is using in the context of whether they're calling for genocide. That doesn't equal "we need to have an article about all the bad things one side in a conflict is calling the other". If that were the benchmark, you could write that sort of article about literally any conflict on earth. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles are dictated by many things. In my case, I wrote that when, over a decade, my personal file on such theriomorphic imagery (this is an important topic in scholarship) grew to such a length I wrote it up, for my own curiosity. On October 7th a veritable tsunami of zoomorphic vituperation hit the front pages, with many articles noting this upsurge in animal stereotypes. Some time after that an editor tried to write that article, and it was up for AfD, understandably so since it was poorly written. So I asked the deleters for a few days, and produced more or less the article we have, out of those old research files. For students of antisemitic history there is a substantial scholarly literature on the use of animal stereotypes for the Jews by their historic persecutors, most recently the erudite Jay Geller's,Bestiarium Judaicum: Unnatural Histories of the Jews, to name but one. So, to my mind, the article's justification is that, despite frequently (as a student of these things) noting for well over a decade the frequency of zoomorphic dismissals of Palestinians, even those outraged by the attacks on Palestinians as 'animals' appear to have scant familiarity with the history of such terminological usage. If wikipedia, drawing on scholarship, can set some order, context and detail into this glossed over but well attested manner of speaking, it is doing its encyclopedic job. I couldn't care a fuck about the politics, except that most discourse in this area reflects a strong desire to control narratives, usually by excluding important things from the record. I do care about seeing that the vast literature on antisemitic stereotypes generated these last decades polemically against the Muslim world does not sweep from sight the substantial documentation, systematically ignored until recently, on Israeli stereotypes about Palestinians.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The starting point is whether a subject is notable, hence why I asked my original question. I'm not seeing anything in either article at first blush that suggests they are anything more than cobbled-together coatracks with news articles and books saying "this person said bad thing about that group" with the obvious purpose of grinding axes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A subject is notable when secondary sources - scholarly books and articles in particular-cite the topic frequently or deal with it in more than en passant length, as do Bar-Tal and Teichman (2005), Bruneau and Kteily (2017), Chomsky (1883), Gerteiny (2007), Peteet (2005) and Pugliese (2020). Then we have a large number of articles that report instances of the phenomenon. The new topic of the programmatic raping of Israeli women putatively organized by Hamas on Oct 7 is 'cobbled together' from claims and anecdotes that emerged in those first few days. There is so far, no forensic study and overview of those claims available (the one attempt to do so in the NYTs was pulled to pieces almost immediately), unlike the case with these two articles. No one is questioning the notability of the latter as a topic - the only dispute is whether it is an allegation or a fact. 'Cobble together' is a wholly inappropriate term of dismissal, implying that a motif observed is a subjective construction, not present in the objective field described. The pattern, per secondary sources, zoomorphic denigration, is confirmed by the scholarly analyses of these discursive traits characteristic of both Israeli and Palestinian speech. In this sense, the articles are perfectly consonant with normative work on wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, "If that were the benchmark, you could write that sort of article about literally any conflict on earth". Why not? By all means, anyone is invited to write a similar article about any international conflict on earth. Provided of course that they can find enough material about it in reliable sources. In the case of the two articles under discussion here, there seems to be a deluge of such sources. I'm not so sure if this is true about all other conflicts, but I didn't really check. But anyway if wikipedia has many articles about individual race horses and many articles about the diplomatic relations of each pair of countries in the world (such as Barbados–Suriname relations) than why not have many articles about the particular kinds of dehumanization that exist in each international conflict in the world? Vegan416 (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only my personal opinion but when I say "dismal", I am not referring to the quality of the articles but to the subject matter itself. Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All history is dismal in that sense, as noted historians have said on numerous occasions. I have to grit my teeth every day just to force myself to maintain some contact with contemporary events by reading newspapers. One recompense for being dead is that, despite no longer having a cup of tea and a fag of a morning, the molecular combination that conjures up a sense of duty to keep oneself informed of the world, will have decomposed, extinguishing the material basis for that burdomsome faculty, and that thought gives me a sense of relief.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Selfstudier (or Selfeditor), since when do we propose to censor articles just because their subject matter is dismal? See Wikipedia:UNCENSORED Vegan416 (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my opinion, whether other editors agree with it remains to be seen. If it were down to me, I would merge and simplify but there is at least one editor querying whether these articles even deserve to exist. Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (could-be-perceived-as) Racist content

    This may be the wrong place to ask, but can someone please look at Biophilia hypothesis and more specifically Indigenous Perspectives on the Human-Nature Connection? It is some weird noble savage-type (could-be-perceived-as) racism.

    People did not live in balance with nature, balance was imposed upon them by nature. "Indigenous" people were and are human, with all the same flaws. They overhunted certain species into near-extinction and were just as familiar with the concept of greed as we are. Romanticizing them as noble savages is not just incorrect; it (could-be-perceived-as) racist.

    The noble savage (Do we not have an air quotes template?) lives in peace only with those species that have never been vulnerable to mankind's population growth. Polygnotus (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If the cited sources don't use the term "biophilia", then that section is probably WP:OR. I haven't managed to check this yet as most of the sources are paywalled.
    I would wait before calling it racist. I suspect that this section was just written to promote indigenous perspectives, not to romanticize them in the way the concept of noble savage did. NicolausPrime (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, thank you! I will call it "could-be-perceived-as racist" instead. But it is entirely possible to do could-be-perceived-as racist stuff with great intentions. Polygnotus (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The overhunting of large animals in North America (which I'm assuming you're referencing) is actually disputed! There's growing evidence it was due to climate change instead. See: https://www.science.org/content/article/what-killed-great-beasts-north-america Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That, while interesting, was not what I was talking about. Polygnotus (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there was a way to "promote" the beliefs of indigenous people, that section reads like that. It's sorta starting at the wrong place, and should likely introduce the reasons why such groups had to live in harmony with nature, and then move on to why their beliefs can center around that. Masem (t) 19:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The racism angle is a distraction: if something is racist it must be removed. Unless we are racists, we must agree with you.
    This article is about a theory and every claim in it should be presented that way. Furthermore, sources should always be about the theory. It's not our role to find sources to support or debunk the theory. If the proponents say noble savages are biophilic, the article should report that. If they don't, it shouldn't. If sources say the theory is racist, the article should report it. If they don't, it shouldn't.
    It shouldn't be difficult to summarize the literature, explain its degree of acceptance, and present opposition and its support, without getting into arguments about racism.
    TFD (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mermaids-Section on GIDS

    Article: Mermaids (charity) Putting this here possibly too early but I'd rather that then let this descend into squabbling. There's been some back-and-forth on this section and I'd like it to see a more broad audience, especially because I have little experience with wiki policy in general. I don't see how phrases like 'dealings with' and 'lobbying' are neutral especially when sourced from an opinion piece and book. The source I found also disputed what was written in the paragraph, so I'm unsure that stating these sentences as fact is even the right way to go about it. Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The "book" is a glowingly-reviewed, award-winning publication by a well-respected investigative journalist specifically about what went wrong at GIDS. This is a high quality secondary source. The quote the text is:
    But demands for change grew more vociferous from the mid 2000s. Along with Mermaids, the Gender Identity Research and Education Society - GIRES - lobbied hard for GIDS to lower the age at which they'd consider treating children with puberty blockers.
    This is reflected accurately in the article. I think you were premature in bringing this barely-discussed content dispute to NPOV. Void if removed (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsure how being overly cautious in getting more eyes and input on a topic is a bad thing, or as you said on the talk page, not assuming good faith. I thought it would be helpful to get the opinions of people who don't almost entirely edit only British trans-related topics as they might be better at discussing what a neutral point of view is.
    Anyone can write a book, or be an 'investigative journalist.' From my understanding, that's not what makes a source reliable or unbiased. The author has a clear POV from her other writings and social media that should be considered. Using this book is just repeating the opinion of a person, not citing a reliable source. Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The book is not an opinion piece. If we are not allowed to use the work of investigative journalists, we would not be allowed to use any news publication as a source. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't use the 'investigative journalism' from PragerU either Sock-the-guy (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Investigative journalism is a primary source. It requires secondary sources to establish weight. If it is ignored, then the article should ignore it. If it is reported, then only what is reported has weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see how this makes sense. Reputable newspapers are treated as suitable sources for facts. We don’t need a secondary source to report on a newspaper report before we can use a newspaper report as a source. And the book itself is so significant that it has its own article: [29] And the comparison with PragerU does not make sense. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The book is the definitive factual account of the collapse of GIDS. It is not opinion. It is not 'PragerU'. It is a meticulous, fair, balanced, significant, and very well regarded secondary source. Barnes' original Newsnight investigation prompted the NHS service review that resulted in its closure, so kind of the exact opposite of "ignored" .
    The source has been brought here because apparently it is not neutral. Here's what reviews say:
    The Guardian:
    A journalist at the BBC’s Newsnight, Barnes has based her account on more than 100 hours of interviews with Gids’ clinicians, former patients, and other experts, many of whom are quoted by name. It comes with 59 pages of notes, plentiful well-scrutinised statistics, and it is scrupulous and fair-minded. Several of her interviewees say they are happy either with the treatment they received at Gids, or with its practices – and she, in turn, is content to let them speak. Such a book cannot easily be dismissed. To do so, a person would not only have to be wilfully ignorant, they would also – to use the popular language of the day – need to be appallingly unkind.
    Times Literary Supplement
    Hannah Barnes’s scrupulous research is a painful, important reminder
    Financial Times
    A book about the Tavistock could easily have been a howl of outrage. But Hannah Barnes has written a meticulously researched, sensitive and cautionary chronicle.
    The Times (Book of the Week)
    Her account is sober, rhetoric-free and meticulously researched
    Void if removed (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes the notoriously neutral and balanced UK press that never does anything transphobic thought the book was "scrupulous and fair minded." That's not the glowing set of endorsements you seem to think it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Making unevidenced allegations against the entire UK press is not a serious argument. The Guardian, the Financial Times, and the Times all have green ticks at WP:RSP. And these 3 newspapers have different political positions. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is some misunderstanding of our use of news sources above. A re-read of WP:Primary might enlighten some of you. Most 'news' articles on events that are current (to the writing) are primary sources, not because they are in newspapers, TV, etc, but because they deal with ongoing events at the time of writing, relying on re-published primary accounts with little rigourous analysis, interpretation or other marks of good secondary sourcing. Investigative journalism (when done properly), even when dealing with current/recent events, most often tips over into secondary sourcing WP:SECONDARY because they often contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis from primary sources. A book, written significantly after the event, written by an investigative journalist who collects, evaluates, interpretes from primary accounts. Interviews, primary source material etc, is almost always going to be a reliable secondary source as per the criteria our guidelines and polices describe. The only reason it would be unsuitable is if the author's reputation was unsound or they were unqualified. That doesnt appear to be the case here. "Investigative journalism is a primary source" is not only both wildly incorrect per our policies and guidelines, but also the almost exact opposite of the reality outside of tabloid journalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lacking Balance

    Several editors have engaged in tactics to modify the page of Michael Shellenberger in a biased direction with intent to diminish his accomplishments. My own work has not been to cheerlead. I have simply asked for the Times Environmentalist of the Year Award to be recognized as such. I have notified several editors because they have coordinated together on the talk page. M.boli has given too little weight to the award, stating that what the times articles writers liked about Michael Shellenberger and Nordhaus is more important than acknowledging it as an award. NewsAndEventsGuy, M.boli, and Dumuzid have repeatedly taken down my edits. Dumuzid further gives the award too little weight, insisting it was not an award, justifying such with a citation from the Times article trying to claim it was a special report and not an award. LuckyLouie cited a paragraph from Shellenbergers' wikipedia article to prove the article these editors are working on is not biased. The quote is irrelevent as it ignores all the slanted portions throughout the article. NewsAndEventsGuy and Valjean have accused me of edit warring for pointing out these biases.  Shellenberger won an award and however editors on wikipedia may feel about him, giving this matter due weight, staying neutral, and not missing the point are the correct things to do. Michael Shellenberger (Talk) Brahman12 (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't seen anything to indicate several editors have been coordinating to bias the article. But if you have evidence, it sounds like something you should report to WP:AN/I.
    - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    LuckyLouie, you haven't addressed the points made by MysticMagpie on the talk page nor has any of the other editors addressed the points made. Brahman12 (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Regarding the Times Environmentalist of the Year Award. There is no such award." seems to be a direct refutation of part of the claim. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you haven't addressed the points made by MysticMagpie nor has any of the other editors addressed the points made. They are addressed directly on the Talk page by another editor, Zenomonoz: "We don't use dictionary definitions to label things "award". That is WP:SYNTH. Time does not call it an award, so WP:STICKTOSOURCE". And I have to agree with him, your refusal to get the point is getting WP:TENDENTIOUS. See WP:DROPTHESTICK. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is not an award. You have not proven such. Brahman12 (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Brahman12, the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to add or restore material. See WP:BURDEN, which is part of our Verifiability policy. In short, if you want to claim that Michael Shellenberger won a "Times Hero of the Environment Award", then you need to find a source that directly and explicitly says that. The Time source that you added here does not do that. Woodroar (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The section in Shellenbergers article that should have the times award is 'awards and recognition' and the editors on the talk page won't acknowledge the award he won there. You're using the rules on Wikipedia to enforce Orwellian doublespeak. Brahman12 (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, thanks for the notification. And accusing others of "Orwellian doublespeak" when your stated is position is "NO, you have to prove he DIDN'T win an award" is rather rich. Dumuzid (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to Heroes of the Environment? Moxy🍁 02:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is indeed what we're talking about, at least to my understanding. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not been notified of this discussion, as required. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear, neither was I, if my sarcasm was not clear above. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Walsh, Bryan (2008-09-24). "Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger - Heroes of the Environment 2008". Time Specials. Archived from the original on 29 July 2009. Retrieved 2022-11-20.

    Adding back POV tag without ongoing discussion or attempts to fix the perceived problem with the article

    An editor keeps adding the maintenance tag to European Court of Human Rights despite no consensus that he is right about the perceived issue or any attempt to fix it. Last time I checked the tag is supposed to be for ongoing improvement not a badge of shame. What is the appropriate response to incorrect use of the tag? (I tried reverting but don't want to get into an edit war) (t · c) buidhe 17:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no requirement that someone needs to fix the issue that they're tagging. The only requirement according to WP:NPOVD is to start a discussion that clearly explains the issues that need fixing. They seem to have done so on the Talk page, so I don't think it's an incorrect use of the tag. Whether their argument has merit or not, or whether the editor is being disruptive or not, is a different matter. I hope people other than you two can weigh in on the content dispute on the Talk page. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mokadoshi, would it be possible for you to weigh in your inputs to next section related to the article Jinn, too. That would be helpful. Bookku (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    POV tagging @ article Jinn, be retained or removed?

    The pre-RfC stage was and is almost supposed to proceed for RfC formatting step, but an additional content issue came up about DUE/UNDUE relevance and fringe-ness at Talk:Jinn#Comparative mythology, Due, Fringe or Undue?. for discussion and initial inputs have been received.

    Two side issues have cropped up is one user removed section Jinn#Comparative mythology and also tagged article for POV another user reverted the same.

    also Pre-RfC stage info:
    • Also A user has proposed updates for consideration at this sand box for the article Jinn.

    As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section.

    • While article soon to go for RfC, Input requesting questions at this stage are:
    a) Whether POV tag should be retained or removed?
    b) Whether section Jinn#Comparative mythology be there or in removed state until RfC consensus is achieved?
    C) Help in RfC formatting too welcome.

    Well I am myself playing a just discussion facilitator role up til now. Bookku (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

    To be honest, I do not think we should give the user that much credit. The User is constantly shifting the debate more and more into their direction. There has been no issue that so ever. Their original claim that "jinn are essential to islam" they claimed not to be part of the article is actually part of the article. Then the user claims to be ignored, which is a lie, in fact, they ignored all replies. Then they added a template, without the template even being appropriate. There is one issue raised after the other, and before one is even solved, the User rises another. At this point, I assume it is part of their strategy to push their own viewpoint, making so muhc trouble until people forget what it was about. Therefore, although you have my regards for your dedication to solve this issue, I do not plan to further invest time or energy to taht matter. We do not need to answer every absurd request, I always linked wiki guidlines to each action I did. Just because the user choose to ignore them and raising another dispute, does not mean I need to conform. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user insists on his opinion without any evidence and without showing a single source that proves his point of view, while I presented many sources on the talk page. The user is biased towards a certain point of view that is against the mainstream views, plz see: Talk:Jinn#Cherrypicking?.--TheEagle107 (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two other Muslim world related sections having live discussions / at least some participation. I wonder why still no inputs for this section? Bookku (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Masem:, @Slatersteven: You seem to be most editing and recently active on this notice board hence pinging you, also because, actually DR is mostly proceeding in ideal structured manner but users lately bit nervous. An early guidance / inputs shall be helpful I suppose hence requesting your inputs. Bookku (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Misinformation from Israeli officials

    There is some NPOV controversy in Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war, particularly the Reliability of Israeli officials as sources section. A discussion was (improperly?) started by non EC users, suggesting the extreme option of nuking the section. It would be good to get more input from non-involved and EC editors.

    My (involved) opinion is that the section does have a serious WP:WEIGHT issue. Editors have continually been expanding the section without enough consideration of significance, relevance, proportionality, or redundancy. For example, the section currently includes four separate quotes (three in the intro + the Qatari PM) that express a general skepticism about Israel's truthfulness, without getting into specifics.

    There's also a lack of coverage about misinformation from the other side of the war, such as Hamas' statement that Oct 7 fighters "only targeted the occupation soldiers". So there may be WP:PROPORTION and WP:STRUCTURE issue, but this would be easy enough to address if the Israeli section wasn't so lengthy.

    I've trimmed some content from the Israeli section, and I'd be inclined to trim a lot more still, but it might not be appropriate without more input. What's the right balance here? — xDanielx T/C\R 18:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The section contains several pretty clear-cut examples of statements made by Israeli officials that turned out to be not true (Attacks on Palestinians evacuating Gaza City and the white phosphorus incident), so the section should be kept.
    Including information in a section called Misinformation is pretty much equivalent to stating it in wikivoice. We should not do it unless we have multiple RS calling something "misinformation" or at least explicitly contradicting the words of Israeli officials.
    Much of the current content should be removed as it's not described as misinformation by RS, for example:
    1. analysis by the BBC found that video released by the Israeli military following the Al-Shifa Hospital siege had been edited [30] - no mention of misinformation
    2. In March 2024, the Israeli army said it had "fired precisely" at individuals who posed a threat to soldiers during the Flour massacre; however, a United Nations team investigating the massacre's aftermath stated there was evidence of heavy shooting of civilians by the IDF. [31] - no mention of misinformation, "heavy shooting" and "precise fire" are not mutually exclusive
    etc. etc. Alaexis¿question? 19:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I replied to your cross posting of this uh..., at the article talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    xDanielx tried to confront me for creating a paragraph about an attack the IDF launched against a church in Gaza in December. This ultimately didn't end well for him, as can be seen here. I'm saying this because it shows he's coming here for begrudging the mere existence of a section on Israeli misinformation, and not because he has serious objections to the quality of the contributions and the sources they use. His objections are all about preserving the side he sympathizes most in this conflict. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For context for others, User:Peleio Aquiles added some of the content in this section which I expressed accuracy concerns about, see also here. I don't think we need to get into accuracy concerns here though; the overarching concern here is WP:WEIGHT.
    They also removed my Template:Unbalanced section tag twice. I thought was an appropriate way to draw attention from some non-involved editors, no?
    There have also been WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH issues, but this probably isn't the place for that. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That first conversation we had also serves as proof of the astonishing capacity you have to selectively read sources and not see an argument that occupies prominent space in the text, when such blindness serves a certain purpose. Admittedly, not seeing that Channel 4 had consulted independent sources who refuted the Hamas fake phone call Israel presented was not as bad as not seeing that Layla Moran had given very extensive details in two separate links employed as sources in the entry of how the Israeli army had harassed, starved and killed Christians at the Holy Family church, a bizarre failure that you have not yet explained, but that you should in the name of encouraging good WP:FAITH, since it doesn't seem possible for a patient and honest reader to have missed all this content.
    I am amused by the suggestion you're holding back on the editors of that page by not addressing issues of accuracy right now. I have the impression that had you had any such serious complaints, you wouldn't have wasted your time with that quixotic performance against the paragraph on the Holy Family church siege.
    Your attempt to impose the Unablanced tag over the Israeli misinformation section should be rejected for two reasons: first, because it clearly presupposes the view that Wikipedia needs to pretend that all sides in a given conflict are equally given to lying, a rule that is not observed in articles on similar topics, such as desinformation on the Ukrainian conflict, where the section on Russian disinformation is much longer. And second, because it makes no sense to impose this tag on the section on Israeli disinformation, which thematically has no obligation to provide content on alleged disinformation on the part of Palestinian militias.
    If you don't like how lengthy the Israeli disinformation section has become, you could follow the advice other editors have already given you and start a section on Hamas or PIJ disinformation, something that as far as I know you haven't been prevented from doing by anyone there. That you haven't done so yet is perhaps because you don't know of any examples of such misinformation, in which case imposing the Unbalanced tag the way you're doing amounts to punishing other editors for doing work that you can't do. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Peleio Aquiles, in ARBPIA, your tone is like wearing a hat that says "topic ban me". All the personal stuff is unnecessary. You can save yourself some typing by leaving it out. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of contentious labels in lead of an article

    There has been NPOV controversy on-going about the Reiki article on its Talk Page, which is nothing new (I have read through all archives of the talk page to get a better picture, and it has been an on-going debate for nearly 20 years).

    I specifically find the use of the word quackery in the lead objectionable, which seems unduly loaded and wilfully placed in such a prominent position, as well as further uses of WP:WTW throughout the article. Taken into consideration in its entirety, the article reads as though it had been written by someone with a personal vendetta against the topic.

    Input from other editors would be appreciated. Thank you! –Konanen (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe it could be more specific as to labeled quackery by whom (scientists? journalists? quacks?) but I don't see the problem with it. If it is medical pseudoscience, it is quackery, isn't it? Anyway, we aren't saying it in Wikipedia's voice, we're pointing out that it has been characterized as such by presumably relevant persons to the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have addressed the question of labeled quackery by whom in the Talk page, where I pointed out that one of the two references attached to quackery did not even use that term, and that the other reference was of questionable reliability:

    The other reference tagged to the word quackery, however, does attribute said word to Reiki. Yet that source amounts to nothing more than a WP:QUESTIONABLE rant opinion piece whose inclusion in the lead definitely skews the balance of the article unduly.

    –Konanen (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DIYeditor; agree. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See below about "parity of sources". SBM is an excellent source for this subject -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that "quackery" is falling a bit into slang even if it is commonly used. It's already labeled as pseudoscience, and to me, the context to be added is why it is called that. All that is there, and can be achieved with a rewrite as: Reiki is a pseudoscience. It is based on qi ("chi"), which practitioners say is a universal life force, although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists. Clinical research does not show reiki to be effective as a treatment for any medical condition, including cancer, diabetic neuropathy, anxiety or depression. There is no proof of the effectiveness of reiki therapy compared to placebo. Studies reporting positive effects have had methodological flaws. Reiki is used as an illustrative example of pseudoscience in scholarly texts and academic journal articles. Masem (t) 01:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a personal vendetta against the topic. Even had a friend that was into it years ago. However I consider it to be "quackery" as it is pseduoscience. However as mentioned probably best to use the term pseudoscient unless there is a WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS calling it "quackery" in which case it would not be a WP:NPOV probablem to do likewise in the article. TarnishedPathtalk 02:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems easier to take it as a writing quality problem than a NPOV problem. "Reiki is a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery" is a pointless tautology. Also not sure why pseudoscience/pseudoscientific needs to appear 3 times in the lead in quick succession. CMD (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Its practice has been characterized as quackery" must be cited to a source that says its practice has been characterized as quackery, not just sources that call it quackery. Otherwise if violates WEASEL and NOR. TFD (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nearly every definition of "quackery" includes things like deliberate misleading, deliberate pretending and fraud. IMO this should not be in the article much less in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, and there is nothing about such aspects in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see a very strong consensus here. I agree with you all. Thanks so much for the helpful comments:
    @Konanen, “quackery ... objectionable”
    @TarnishedPath, “probably best to use the term pseudoscient unless there is a WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS calling it "quackery" in which case it would not be a WP:NPOV probablem”
    @CMD, “ "Reiki is a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery" is a pointless tautology. Also not sure why pseudoscience/pseudoscientific needs to appear 3 times in the lead in quick succession”
    @TFD, “..”quackery" must be cited to a source that says its practice has been characterized as quackery, not just sources that call it quackery. Otherwise if violates WEASEL and NOR”
    @North8000, “Nearly every definition of "quackery" includes things like deliberate misleading, deliberate pretending and fraud. IMO this should not be in the article much less in the lead.”
    . --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Add back ping...
    @Konanen, @TarnishedPath, @Chipmunkdavis, @The Four Deuces, @North8000 --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SBM is an excellent RS for this type of topic. Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources, opinions and writings of mainstream authors have more due weight than the writings of promoters of fringe practices, and that includes all of alternative medicine. See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Due and undue weight. Beyond that, when in doubt, use attribution. More due weight means, among other things, the amount of content and the prominence of mention. Criticisms belong in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe our article should state clearly that Reiki is not a replacement of conventional medical treatment, and that it can involve non-standard financial costs. However,
    Imagine, if, I say if, you were one of the good-faith Reiki practitioners who has never intended to deceive (you genuinely believe that you are helping others). One day you come home from work, and your children ask you,
    “Dad (/Mum), my classmates said what you are doing is quackery and pseudoscience. You are bad and you are deceiving people. You aren’t doing good work as you’ve told me, is it? They said it’s what Wikipedia said!”
    Is that OK? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia should avoid reporting the facts. Quacks need not be deliberate frauds - sometimes they are just well meaning but ignorant folks who have avoided educating themselves. That doesn't mean we should avoid doing so on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. -
    Quacks need not be deliberate frauds - sometimes they are just well meaning but ignorant folks who have avoided educating themselves.
    I don’t think so. That’s your personal opinion.
    From our own definition:

    Quackery, often synonymous with health fraud, is the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices. A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess; a charlatan or snake oil salesman"

    --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "ignorant medical practices"—from the definition just given. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Quackery, often synonymous with health fraud --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignorant is right there in what you quoted. MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Quoted from PMID: 15208545. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s a “Comment” published in 2004 (apparently written by an advocate), not a review, not a meta-analysis, and not a MEDRS / MEDDATE-compliant source at all. Further, “Reiki” was not mentioned in that “comment”. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be clear, are you denying that it is pseudoscience and not shown in any way to be effective? We can go from there. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really relevant here, since that's not a medical claim. Also see WP:PARITY, we do not hold debunkers to a higher evidentiary standard than what they're debunking. And finally, WP:MEDDATE does not say what you seem to think it says - it doesn't rule out older sources, it advises looking to see if they have been superseded. Often (particularly in the case of fringey stuff where publications are limited) they have not been superseded. MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is (or at least, claims to be) an online encyclopaedia. As such, it is intended to promote knowledge, If that upsets the ignorant, that's their problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When, sources support it we absolutely should call stuff like this as pseudoscience and explain it's faults. But we are still meant to take a neutral, impartial tone to articles, and words like quackery are unnecessary once you establish it's pseudoscience, and non neutral, as they give rise to a non impartial view in Wiki voice. — Masem (t) 13:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should explain the need for Wikipedia to state that Reiki is pseudoscience to Dustfreeworld. [32] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given their activities on that article only occurred over two days and since then they have been participating here, rather than edit warring or making persistent changes, I would AFG in their actions and that they are learning the ropes of how we work on pseudoscience topics — Masem (t) 15:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Masem is correct. Quackery tends towards name-calling. Pseudoscience (when we use it in the strictly-speaking sense instead of the smear-word sense) imparts information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Great Barrington Declaration

    Article: Great Barrington Declaration

    I'd like to bring the forementioned article to the attention of the noticeboard.

    Issues:

    • The article content seems to have a clear bias of criticism against the declaration.
    • The article has multiple paragraphs where sentences read more like an editorial, not a factual wikipedia article
    • The editing history on the article shows a continuous reversal of seemingly factual edits made by other editors


    Examples:

    A few examples (pasted from the article verbatim, problematic sections bolded):

    • "It claimed harmful COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the fringe notion of "focused protection", by which those most at risk of dying from an infection could purportedly be kept safe while society otherwise took no steps to prevent infections" - Negative bias in framing the content. Multiple reverts in the edit history regarding different editors attempting to remove the "fringe" claim in its current phrasing.
    • "By October 2020, many of these things had already happened in some parts of the world, but likewise were being restricted elsewhere; for instance the UK saw quarantines of students, travel advisories, restrictions on meeting other people, and partial closures of schools, pubs and restaurants." - An editorial-like sentence that appears under the "Background and content" section. The content section should focus on the content of the declaration, not editors adding their own interpretations of the context.
    • "The declaration does not provide practical details about who should be protected or how they can be protected. For instance, it does not mention testing any people outside of nursing homes, contact tracing, wearing masks, or social distancing. It mentions multi-generational households but does not provide any information about how, for example, low-risk people can get infected without putting high-risk members of their household at risk of dying." - Again, the whole paragraph is an editorial and WP:OR
    • "The declaration does not provide any references to published data that support the declaration's strategy." - Again, with the phrasing used, this is WP:OR. A single source provided as reference to the claim is a newspaper article. At the very least, this should be phrased as "Critics have claimed that the declaration does not provide any references to published data that support the declaration's strategy. I will attempt to correct this and will see how long the correction will remain.

    ~~~~


    Saltsjöbaden (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is too misleadingly framed to result in well-informed outside opinions. Much of what is described as editorial opinion or original research is pulled directly from reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example of non-NPOV behavior by editors can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Barrington_Declaration#Signatories Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading the content and checking the cited sources, the article looks neutral to me—in that it neutrally summarizes what reliable, secondary sources say, and it gives prominence to available mainstream viewpoints over fringe viewpoints. I'll also say that highlighting a list of signatories that aren't highlighted in secondary sources is a great example of an edit that should be reverted on sight, not only for NPOV reasons but BLP as well. Woodroar (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a case of Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content.
    @Saltsjöbaden, when nearly all of the reliable sources say that this proposal is vague, unworkable, will result in hospitals collapsing, increase the total number of deaths, etc., then the Wikipedia article is required by policy to reflect this dominant view as being the dominant view. It is not "neutral" to pretend that both views are equally plausible.
    About your claim that editors adding their own interpretations of the context: It is a fact that you can't have the schools open for in-person instruction of all kids and still keep all high-risk adults (aka their teachers, almost half of whom qualified as high-risk) at home. It is a fact that you can't have all kids in school and keep their high-risk family members from being exposed to the germs that the kids will share at school. In the US, about 20% of kids live in multi-generational homes. "Go to school" and "Nobody living with Grandma (or the baby) should go anywhere" are mutually exclusive options. These are not "my interpretations"; these are things that come from reliable sources. They are also facts, not opinions. It is not "editorializing"; it is "explaining".
    We could go further: I understand that there are sources saying that the reason GBD doesn't provide any details is because they knew (or ought to know) that this was not workable in practice, but they wanted to make a political splash despite knowing that their whole idea was bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really hard to see anything failing NPOV here. The letter was strongly criticized by experts in medicine and virology, among other sciences. It's ideas may have some possible credibility but there stances were unproven and went against the prevailing scientific thought. As such it is presented in the correct tone to reflect that it's claims are dubious, rather that yet proven

    Masem (t) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel an edit war simmering

    Dadude sandstorm keeps changing Ursula Andress' longstanding infobox photo to an unrecognizable photo taken in her teens [33] [34] (around a decade before she even became famous, by the way).

    Everyone knows that BLP infoboxes should use modern photos. I can already tell from the vocabulary in the second edit summary that the odds of this user being reasonable are slim. Any of you willing to take the reigns? Ieonine (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, @Ieonine. Thanks for the report. Have you ever started any Wikipedia:Requests for comment? It's not difficult. Try a question like "Which image should be used in the infobox?" You might give people a link to c:Category:Ursula Andress and to whichever guidelines you think are relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that a little premature? It hasn't even been discussed on the talk page yet. It's only between two editors, so Wikipedia:Third opinion would also work. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The top of Talk:Ursula Andress has an older discussion on the same subject. This apparently has been a bone of contention for a long time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone knows that BLP infoboxes should use modern photos. I'm not sure that's a rule. BLP image selection should consider many factors, and one of those is whether the image represents the subject in a way that is concordant in weight with the rest of the article. This is why we use a picture of Bill Gates as a businessman, not his mugshot, and why we use a picture of Harrison Ford from during his acting career rather than a picture of him as a shirtless carpenter, and why we include a picture of Pope Francis as an old pope rather than as a young priest.
    Ursula Andress's notability stems from her work in the 1960s and 1970s, and that's the centre of gravity of the article, so ideally we'd have a photo from that era. The current photo that @Ieonine wants to keep is problematic (too late) and so is the replacement proposed by @Dadude sandstorm (too early). We used to use this one which seems just right. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    old and emaciated are 'unreasonable'?
    'I feel an edit war simmering' what an absurd thing to start a NPOV discussion over. I made one edit and one revert. that is all daruda (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time I checked 1950 was neither in the 1960's or 1970's. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    what is this a reference to? daruda (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the edit warring seemed to be over one from the 50's. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaza Health Ministry

    Some non-involved editors would be welcome at Gaza Health Ministry.

    The context is essentially

    • Israel and the US expressed unspecific doubts about GHM's casualty data.
    • Organizations like the UN say the GHM's data has historically been reliable.
    • Two peer-reviewed articles published in The Lancet did not find evidence of inflated or fabricated data. (Edit: turns out the articles are "correspondence" and not peer reviewed, see here and here.)
    • Later, statistics professor Abraham Wyner wrote in Tablet (magazine) that the data contained irregularities, such as a strong negative correlation between male and female deaths.
    • Later still, Michael Spagat wrote about GHM's "declining data quality", explained by a shift to user-submitted reports as hospitals have closed.

    The current lede is unbalanced, emphasizing the sources that say the data is reliable, while not mentioning opposing viewpoints at all. My various attempts to include brief mentions of the latter (even just "received significant attention and scrutiny") have been reverted.

    The argument seems to be that the two peer-reviewed Lancet articles trump non-peer-reviewed sources, making opposing viewpoints somewhat fringe. However, the two Lancet articles are older, and focused on very different aspects of the data. In some sense they support opposing narratives, but they absolutely don't contradict one another.

    The current article also quotes a blog comment by "Ken M", with speculation about how the irregularities noted by Wyner might be explained. My attempt to remove that was reverted as well. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you might want to reflect on the concept of Materiality (auditing). No source I've seen thinks the GHM data is dramatically wrong. It's even possible that it's an undercount (e.g., bodies that haven't been found in the rubble yet). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree an undercount is plausible. No reliable sources really claim that the total is clearly inflated, just that it shouldn't be considered very reliable, especially recent data from the current war.
    Some milder versions of this viewpoint are very mainstream, even uncontroversial. E.g. The Telegraph factually notes that (at the time) ~54% of the data was from hospital sources, with the rest coming from a combination of media sources and a Google form.
    I suppose reasonable editors can disagree about materiality, but I think there are also very objective problems here, such as
    • Framing Roberts' article as a refutation of Wyner's, when it doesn't discuss Wyner's arguments at all, only mentions it once in passing
    • Using two blog comments to counter some of Wyner's arguments, one from an anonymous "Ken M" with unknown credibility
    There has been significant resistance to fixing even the most clear issues like these. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those blogs are by professors, the first by Lior Pachter, a professor of statistics who dismissed the first argument. The Ken M comment is not in because of whoever they are but because James Joyner, a professor of security studies, said it showed insight. Professor Les Roberts, who is an expert in such matters, has like you say just one comment on Wyner's article - right in the lead: "Israel’s U.N. ambassador and online pundits have purported that the numbers are exaggerated or, as a recent article in Tablet alleged, simply faked. Actually, the numbers are likely conservative. The science is extremely clear." Professor Wyners article was the one in Tablet (magazine) and if that is okay then they're okay too in the article. None of this should be in the lead. NadVolum (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As we discussed on the talk page, Joyner included the "Ken M" blog comment in a compilation of quotes and referred to it as an "insight", but didn't engage with it at all beyond that. It still seems like a pretty clear WP:USERGENERATED violation, since the argument is still from "Ken M", not from Joyner.
    Right, Roberts mentioned Wyner's article once, and in some broad sense he's arguing in a different direction, but he doesn't respond to any of the specific points Wyner made. I think that makes "Wyner [...] wrote [...] to which [...] Roberts responded" rather misleading.
    Not to mention that Pachter's blog post is framed as a refutation of Wyner's "main point", when it really only applies to a single figure. (The text of Wyner's first argument refers to variance in daily deaths, not the cumulative sum that Pachter argues is misleading.) — xDanielx T/C\R 01:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And quoting professor Michael Spagat about the data quality declining doesn't justify anything Wyner did. NadVolum (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why Abraham Wyner's article should be given any special prominence over any other sources. It's just an article in a magazine. To make it any more prominent than that seems like a violation of WP:DUE. SilverserenC 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure that the Gaza Health Ministry#Other analysis section (where Wyner's magazine article is mentioned) should be in the article at all. The article feels a bit more like a deep-dive into details and he said/she said bickering, instead of an encyclopedic summary of the subject. Also, the article is wildly unbalanced; there are ~1300 words on casualty counts and ~200 words total on everything else. Don't they have, like hospitals and budgets and employees and things like that? We're treating them as if their sole purpose is to count deaths. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    This section is being transcluded from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban, do not edit here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Archiving

    Resolved
     – As per WP:DEADLINE, 14 days is a reasonable time for archiving (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Why the hell is topgun reverting the archiving dates which I set up? The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead of edit warring you could have created this section on the first or second revert. And beware of the consequences of passing uncivil comments.
    Read WP:DEADLINE. There is no deadline for editors to participate, In such case, assuming that an editor won't reply and archiving the discussion just after 5 days is not sensible. Your argument was that you want to archive all the other discussions (60 in number) on this talk page. The age I've set is 14 days (which too I think is less), and all those articles are other than that and will still be archived. What is your problem then? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are an idiot. Some of those section are a year old. I set up the auto archiving so they would get archived, your RFC would not have been touched as the last four sections do not get archived, I am now reporting you for your breach of 3R. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do, while I report you for misconduct. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reported your inane edit war to the edit war notice board feel free to explain your stupidity there. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Should the lead contain mention of ISI support of the Taliban?

    I've seen myself quoted in the edit summaries during this edit war so I figured I'll start the discussion here instead of warring myself. The first thing we need to look at is WP:LEAD. It says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." So the question is, is ISI support of the Taliban an important aspect that should be summarized? The next question is, how long should it's inclusion in the lead be? To address the second question, we need to look at WP:NPOV and take emphasis on proportionately. Ideally, any mention of ISI support should be equal to the proportional weight given in the article. I would say that the answer to this is that a single sentence, two at most, should be used.

    Reports by Human Rights Watch and the United Nations show that Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily, with senior Pakistani army and intelligence officials planning and running Taliban military operations inside Afghanistan and Pakistani soldiers and nationals providing combat support.

    This sentence is too long. It needs to be cut. I think cutting it at the first comma would be sufficient. The rest can be explained in the body. Even then, the word "show" needs to be changed because it demonstrates as fact that a Government supported the Taliban. It needs to support all viewpoints similarly to the body of the article. It should say:

    "Reports by Human Rights Watch and the United Nations suggest that the Taliban may have received support from the Pakistani intelligence service, which Pakistan strongly denies."

    Now, back to the first question. Is this an important aspect of the article? My first glance says is: no. The topic contains no headers in the table of contents. It exists as a prose in the "International Relations" under "Pakistan". If we are going to mention it at all, then our final paragraph in the lead should quickly summarized the major players in international relations including the United States, Pakistan, Al Queda, ect. That paragraph should be four sentences and should cover all viewpoints.--v/r - TP 14:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is of course an important aspect, you need bear in mind the ISI did help found the Taliban, they have trained, given monetary support and used them as a proxy army. The ISI alliance with the Taliban is a major part of the Taliban's history and current operations. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the quoted paragraph an important aspect to the article's lead. Keep in mind that the lead of an article summarizes its content in proportion to the context of the content. You've given quite a few reasons the ISI was or is important to the Taliban but that is only a small part of the entire article. So, with the entire article in mind, does the brief 2-3 paragraphs on the ISI merit inclusion in the lead?
    Here is an exercise for you. Read the entire article, then write a brief summary of what you read. Let's see what you come up with.--v/r - TP 20:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That ISI support needs expanding upon, you need look at the vast amount of sources which discuss the alliance between these groups, to not mention it in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE in my opinion. Without the ISI the Taliban would have been ground into the dirt a long time ago. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For instance, "Pakistan had all but invented the Taliban, the so-called Koranic students" Osama: The Making of a Terrorist By Jonathan Randal pp26 Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is/were the case, then it needs to be written in that context. The way it is written now makes it appears as if Pakistan is a major player in a war against the US. It needs to be written from a NPOV given both perspectives and in the proper chronological context.--v/r - TP 22:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. There is next to nothing describing the contrary point of view. Nightw 07:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    1) We are now talking about the period 1995-2001, which has not been discussed before.

    2) As Darkness Shines said, not to mention Pakistan's support for the Taliban in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE

    3) The international majority view as represented in and by reliable sources is that Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban militarily from 1995-2001. This view includes international sources widely perceived as impartial such as the United Nations or Human Rights Watch. (see sources and citations below the post)

    4) The description in the lead must present this appropriately. Two sentences for the majority position and one sentence mentioning the minority position. This could be done in the following way:

    From 1995-2001 Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power as well as in their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Among a variety of international sources Human Rights Watch and United Nation reports i. e. state that senior Pakistani army and intelligence officials were planning and running Taliban military operations inside Afghanistan and Pakistani soldiers and nationals were providing direct combat support. Pakistan has denied providing direct support to the Taliban.

    The above gives due weight to the two views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. See WP:UNDUE “Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. … Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.”

    5) I reject Nightw revert which was based on missing in-text attribution of a commonly held majority view. WP:INCITE states, “it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text.” WP:INTEXT says, “normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution.” Even if we were to attribute the majority view it would be very hard to find one term encompassing all those reliable sources mentioned below. JCAla (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I agree with TP. Any addition made to the lead should not exceed 3 to 4 lines and in case the consensus is to add the support of ISI (read Pakistan) in lead, then the support of other nations and their Intelligence should also be added in a similar way to the sentence including CIA (read United States) and any other notable. Also, a point to be noted is that the lead addition should rather focus the whole time span before 2001 which includes soviet invasion era and the groups that were once Mujahideen where ever notable. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The Taliban are a distinct group which first made an appearance in Afghanistan in 1994. This article is not about the Soviet era and the mujahideen. The mujahideen and Soviet era are a completely different issue which the article does not cover and has not relevance at all for the lead. There were former anti-Soviet mujahideen in both the Taliban and the anti-Taliban faction. Further, the provided reliable sources do not mention the United States, which officially did not recognize the Taliban regime, as providing direct support to the Taliban. The only other country which could be mentioned is Saudi Arabia who is described by one source as being a major financial contributor to the Taliban until 1998. JCAla (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're close to coming to an agreement here. The only problem I have with JCAla's suggestion is that it gives too much detail for a "summary". I suggest the following:
    According to several international sources such as Human Rights Watch and United Nation reports, from 1995-2001 Pakistan supported the Taliban in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing direct support to the Taliban.
    This is much closer to giving due weight that meets both WP:UNDUE and also WP:LEAD. The mention in the lead should be proportional to the body of the article.--v/r - TP 16:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    JCAla's details are clearly deliberate introduction of UNDUE and POV. He has been bent on adding "training, supplying & supporting" where ever possible and now in the lead. The denial by Pakistan itself is enough to reduce the content related to it in the lead. Although I agree with your suggestion, but I think it can be made even more shorter to put lesser burden on the lead and to give proper weightage. For example:
    "Several sources claim Pakistan and other (mentioned) nations' support to Taliban during their rise to power from 1995-2001 which is refuted by Pakistan."
    The sources here need not to be mentioned since they would be tagged. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, that is better. Sources can be listed in the body. For grammatical fixes, I suggest:
    "Several sources claim Pakistan and other nations' supported the Taliban during their rise to power from 1995-2001; which is refuted by Pakistan."
    What do you think?--v/r - TP 17:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think my grammar was correct. I meant to say that the sources claimed "other nations' support" to Taliban, "nations' supported" would be incorrect. Also, I actually meant to replace the word "other nations" with actual names. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Your sentence doesn't make sense. The word "to" makes "Pakistan support" a noun, it's a thing, and it then lacks a verb. That's why my sentence makes more sense; minus the apostrophe at the end of nations.--v/r - TP 18:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually took Pakistan as a noun since it's a country name, even if I didn't, things can also be attributed with belongings with apostrophe. But your new amend/correction removes this whole debate. So that would do. The next thing, "other nations" should have names. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last suggestion is clearly violating WP:UNDUE and WP:VERIFY. 1) It puts equal weight on the majority position and the minority position and it does not identify the majority view. It thus does not represent what is in the reliable sources. "Several sources" and "claim" does not represent appropriately that this is the majority view. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. 2) The "other nations" are not in the sources provided below. No other country (other than Pakistan) provided direct military support to the Taliban. Including "other nations" suggests to the reader that Pakistan and other nations were providing an equal amount of support when this is nowhere to be found in the sources. 3) "Refuted" implies that Pakistan has provided evidence for its stance, but it just has denied. 4) Also, I would like someone's else input on whether, given the amount and reliability of the sources, it is necessary to give in-text attribution. I suggest a mix of TP's and my version:
    From 1995-2001, as outlined by a variety of international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing support to the Taliban.
    JCAla (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with you on that. The sentence never mentioned about military support, it just said 'supported' and that does include other countries. The rest is already mentioned in the body. The lead just needs to mention whose support they had. And that is what needs to be mentioned. Your inclusion of specific source names not only makes the sentence long but your phrase 'a variety of sources' also gives undue weight to the accusing side. It is enough to mention that there was an accusation which has been denied. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's try this:
    According to the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001 Pakistan supported the Taliban in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing support to the Taliban.
    Agree?--v/r - TP 13:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would do, but any other names should be added to it. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The reliable sources below clearly talk about military support. Further, it is not just the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, but it's internationally acclaimed academia, different international governments (which are not aligned with each other i. e. United States and Iran, Russia and Europe) and worldwide media reports (i. e. by the New York Times or the Washington Post) which all state as a matter of fact that there was military support. I agreed to cut out the specifics such as the "planning and overseeing" and the "direct combat support" (which was cited from reliable sources) in the lead but the sentence should make clear that a majority view is being described and what that view is exactly as described by the sources. It should either be:
    From 1995-2001, as outlined by a variety of international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing support to the Taliban.
    or
    According to a variety of international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has denied providing support to the Taliban.
    I'd like to hear the opinion of other editors about whether a clear majority view fulfilling the criteria of WP:VERIFY needs in-text attribution just because a minority view denies the majority view. JCAla (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are confusing "minority" with "involved party" or the "accused party". And "several" is the neutral word here which is already a plural. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It still remains the clear minority view. The fact that it is the accused party, gives the need for the latter sentence informing about the denial. Otherwise, according to wikipedia, there would not be a need to mention this distinct minority view. JCAla (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're putting too much in the lead. The details will be explained in the body of the article. It needs to be a summary, not a stand alone description of the support. I'm still set on my last proposal, your's don't fit with WP:LEAD.--v/r - TP 21:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Mine fits perfectly with WP:LEAD and WP:VERIFY. The only difference between my and your last version is that you dropped the "militarily" and did not present appropriately that this is the majority position of a variety of sources. So the difference between my and your version is what ... 8 words ... 8 words which make the statement more in line with the reliable sources. JCAla (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for JCla version as it is concise and aligned with what majority sources say on the matter Darkness Shines (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    With the allegations and refutations explained in body, this being presented here claiming a 'magnitude' of sources is exactly what undue is. It would imply on an unaware reader that one side of the story is correct while other might not be so, while the purpose of the article is to present the details and let the reader decide, which he can do well after reading the body text without having his mind made up. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    After this [35] edit by JCAla, exactly against what we decided about infobox on this article I can safely say that his sole purpose of adding the lead as he says is disruptive and full of POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    JCla - How is what you have in line with WP:LEAD? It says, and I quote, "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs." The lead is already 6 paragraphs. Those eight extra (pov) words are not helpful. The lead needs to be condensed while still summarizing the article. That's why the smaller, neutral, and balanced version I've provided fits better. The article body will inform the reader of Pakistan's role with the Taliban. The reader doesn't need the details in the lead.--v/r - TP 16:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What details? And what pov? The extra word "militarily" is hardly a troublesome detail and it is hardly pov when it meets all criteria of WP:VERIFY. The sources explicitly speak of "military support". Your version simply does not meet WP:WEIGHT. If you do not want to put the majority view as a simple statement but insist on in-text attribution, then we have to describe exactly who is holding this majority position. My seven words is the shortest way to mirror that appropriately. If you have another formulation encompassing all the different reliable source below, tell me. JCAla (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Militarily" is the point of view of the sources. We are giving almost zero weight to the opposite point of view, instead saying simply that "Pakistan has denied providing support". We are running into a problem where the article lead is already too long and has to be cut. When in the context of the discussed sentence, you are right that giving more weight to Pakistan's denial is WP:UNDUE, however, in the context of the entire article it is also WP:UNDUE to give so much space in the lead to this particular issue. In this sense, we need to look at WP:LEAD where is defines the size of a summary, a lead, and stick to it as it gives us hard and firm numbers to base the lead on (four paragraphs). If we can decide on this particular issue, I am willing to take on the task of rewriting the lead to meet WP:LEAD entirely.--v/r - TP 21:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Militarily" is the majority position not pov. We need to represent what the reliable sources and the majority position say correctly. Pakistan's support is important for 5 out of 5 (excluding etymology) main sections of the article. More than half of the history section deals with 1994-2001. The ideology, governance and economy also all stand in connection to Pakistani support - not to mention the international relations section. I restructured the lead according to the timeline. Now we have 4 paragraphs. And as you can see one is suspiciously lacking information. I didn't ask you to rewrite the lead, I just asked you to give a valid term for all the sources holding the majority view (if you don't want to agree with my formulation). JCAla (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We already gave you the term "several" which gives just enough weight. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    I don't agree that "Militarily" is neutral. Further, I think that it can and will be sufficiently discussed in the body of the article not to warrant inclusion in the lead. Why is this term so necessary? The lead isn't meant to give details about the sources, it's supposed to summarize the article. The article will give details from the sources. The lead is a tertiary abstract of the sources. Why don't we ask for a neutral opinion on this? Can we agree that if we ask at WP:3O for a (random) editor's opinion that we'll stick to whatever they decide?--v/r - TP 15:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is, already four editors are involved. 3O might be turned down, don't you think? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps. We can always start an RFC here as well which is more binding.--v/r - TP 16:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can try, I filed an RFC above and it stayed unreplied to for weeks. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The term is necessary because it is what all the sources below are explicitly stating: military support. So, you can't just leave this out because of your own pov. We should remain true to the reliable sources. And as I said above, I already agreed not to include all the details in the lead such as "direct combat support", etc. We should also include the situation today.
    "According to international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Some institutions and international officials maintain that this support continues to this day. Pakistan has denied providing support to the Taliban whether in the past or present."
    Agree? JCAla (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are making it uselessly long giving undue weight to the allegation. You've taken the one line suggestion by me and TP to a paragraph. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You've managed to go backwards. We were close to agreeing and you've gone completely 180. Now you've given too much weight to this section of the article in the lead. The lead should be proportional to the article.--v/r - TP 21:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we were close to agreeing since you were blocking any suggestion which complied with WP:VERIFY and WP:WEIGHT. Instead, you tried to make the majority position the position of "several" and were starting a very annoying discussion about one term which is explicitly mentioned by all the five categories of sources. The United Nations say "military assistance", Human Rights Watch says "planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and directly providing combat support". The academic sources state "Taliban were made into an effective political and military unit by the Pakistan government, [and] the ISI" and "It became more and more of a direct military alliance" and "an unholy alliance combining ISI, Al Qaeda and the Taliban". The media i. e. writes, "Pakistani military advisers, were spearheading a merciless Taliban offensive against moderate Muslim communities in Northern Afghanistan". And a majority of international governments said "Pakistan sending its air force to bomb the city in support of the Taliban's advance" (Iran), "Pakistan directly participating in the Taliban military offensive in northern Afghanistan ... Pakistan planning the Taliban "military expansion" in the north of Afghanistan and directly participating in the Taliban military operations and taking care of their logistics ... large number of Pakistani servicemen taken prisoners by the units of northern alliance" (Russia), "U.S. apprehension about Islamabad's longstanding provision of direct aid and military support to the Taliban" and "Islamabad was in violation of U.N. sanctions because of its military aid to the Taliban". Then of course there is also the witness testimonials by Afghans themselves. Considering all these sources, your insistence on not including the term "militarily" makes it increasingly difficult for me to assume neutrality on your part. So, my last suggestion for the 1995-2001 period (whether to include today can be discussed elsewhere):
    "According to international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan denied providing support to the Taliban."
    Agree? JCAla (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We already know most of the content in this paragraph as your supporting point,don't make it tedious for us. This is exactly what was opposed, I don't see what's the point of circling around and quoting this again? I think there has been a reasonable amount of time and effort given to this and no consensus was achieved to add the content you want. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a consensus to add the content but not a consensus on how to add the content. JCAla (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I said the content, you want. In anycase the default would be to 'do nothing' till there is one for the finalized addition or to add the one by me and TP (since you don't object to that rather want to add to that) and the rest can be added only when you have a consensus for it. This is stuck as far as I can see. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I do object to your version. I do not fully object to TP's first version, however, the term "militarily" should be added and "several" dropped. Then we would have something like: ""According to international sources such as the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, from 1995-2001, Pakistan supported the Taliban militarily in their rise to power and their fight against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, which Pakistan denied." JCAla (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
    JCAla has asked me to give my opinion on the matter, as he says he trusts my neutrality (thank you). You can see the discussion on the issue at my talk page, although it is mostly just a rehash of everything said here. Please note, we've interacted in the past on administrative issues, but never collaborated on editing; I am just trying to help as a neutral editor.

    In any case, while this looks difficult, I think it is important to handle it properly and with brevity (I'd like to point out that the American founding fathers struggled with similar issues [36][37]).

    Perhaps we could try something as blunt as this:

    • "Pakistan is widely believed to have provided military support to the Taliban, though Pakistan does not acknowledge it." (h/t on the wording from nuclear weapon's lede regarding Israel)

    This this is making use of the passive voice, which is bad according to snooty English teachers everywhere. But I think it's appropriate here. It conveys the sense that the vast majority of international opinion holds it to be true (even if not universally so), but also that Pakistan is against it.

    Also, I might be overstating the case (how widely is this believed? I honestly don't know), or overgeneralizing (was it only parts of the ISI, acting outside of the chain of command? Or did this come right from within?). Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am fine with this wording. It represents the sources appropriately and attributes due weight to the positions. JCAla (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)A possible reword, if preferred:

    • "From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely believed to have provided military support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against an insurgence, though Pakistan does not acknowledge it.""

    Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, thanks for contributing to this somewhat stuck case. I hope you will disregard this canvassing statement of the inviting user "Unfortunately, the editor User: TopGun has made it his job to try to block any such content being added." The opposition here is on the words 'military' and 'widely' (and its synonyms). The previous suggestions have been on excluding the word military from the lead and let it be alleged in the body as it is. Also, the term widely is pretty much based on WP:TRUTH and the references given are enough to term it as 'several' at most. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, also fine, but I would rather say: "'From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely believed to have provided military support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces, though Pakistan does not acknowledge it." Insurgence is not the right term for the anti-Taliban force who was recognized internationally as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, with the Taliban being only recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. JCAla (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    re TG pt 1: of course I judge things by facts on the ground, not by partisan language. I watch too many news and political shows to not know better.

    re TG pt 2: so you're sayng it's not considered universal? Perhaps instead we might say "most international observers".

    re JC: I think insurgence is appropriate if the Taliban was the main government. The word doesn't have a pejorative sense. Perhaps "in the Afghan civil war from 1995-2001" might be a better phrase in place of "in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces". Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it is not universal and in addition, it is refuted. And there's no statistical data to say that it is 'widely believed' or believed by 'most' sources. The user has provided some sources to which I provided an appropriately neutral word 'several' which is inclusive of the plural weight. If you have an alternate suggestion you can tell. As for the use of word 'military support', that has been ruled out as being undue weight as the 'support' is already mentioned and then it's the lead we are talking about. JCAla is still insisting on it. To be in context, you can take the above consensus where JCAla wanted to include ISI in the infobox as Taliban's ally; this seems to be a WP:POINT in that context. For the last part you are discussing, it's trivial that the support would be to the anti Taliban sources. Why not end without naming the opposition of Taliban? No dispute that way. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: most vs. some - is there a secondary source which synthesizes the sources and says "most"? If we can find a reliable source that says that, I think it would be worthy of inclusion. If not, or if there are contradictory secondary sources (i.e., there are reliable sources that say the opposite), then we'll have to stick to "many international observers" or even "some international observers" (yuck... User:Einsidler/Some argue... but I see no alternative). I realize this might sound nitpicky, JCAla, but surely if most international observers think it, then there will be a source stating as much, and we can find it. Also, we shouldn't state it based off our own analysis, of course, per WP:SYNTH. Please understand, I want Wikipedia to state the facts on the ground as accurately as possible, with reliable sources (I certainly don't have an agenda to push... just trying to come to an agreement).

    Re: military support: it's only a single word we're talking about here. And I'm not quite following what you mean about "it's already mentioned" (sorry).

    Re: infobox: Actually that doesn't seem quite as malicious to me as it might seem to you. I remember reading frequently in US newspapers that Pakistan was the only major ally of the Taliban. However, I don't think it's appropriate anymore, as the Taliban has significantly radicalized and changed since 2001 (according to news sources in the US). Also, I'm agnostic on whether it might say be appropriate to put "Pakistan (1995-2001)" as an ally, as I'm not as fully acquainted with the history as perhaps some of you are; but it doesn't immediately seem like a good idea given Pakistan rejects it. Perhaps something more like "Pakistan, 1995-2001, partial support only." But this is probably best hashed out separately. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that's what I was arguing about, that the word 'most' here has been taken by JCAla based on the no of sources he presented.
    What I meant is, the use of words 'military support', since it is denied and discussed later in body, gives undue weight to the allegation in the lead and is opposed on those basis all over the current discussion.
    The infobox is decided by consensus and the given basis for that consensus. News sources might say that in US, but they say opposite in Pakistan and then they acknowledge and say how other party is denying. So keeping in mind that we are not deciding the real world facts on wikipedia as described in the consensus for previous case, we should just present the points of view in equal weight as they are. Since in this case we are talking about the time period 1995-2001, we can state it like "...Pakistan is accused of supporting Taliban from 1995-2001..." wrapped in rest of the decided sentence. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    "Militarily" was not rejected generally (as of by all) as TopGun claims, "militarily" was rejected by TopGun and TP and it was accepted by Darkness Shines, me and obviously you, Magog, also seem to agree that it is a valid term given the reliable sources. Anyways, reliable secondary sources identifying a quantitive nature of the majority position:

    • "Although it is officially denied, there is widespread agreement that the Taliban gained crucial early support from the Pakistani army and intelligence services, especially in helping make the Taliban a highly effective military force." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences
    • "Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support." Human Rights Watch 2001
    • "Pakistan is widely believed to support the Pushtu-dominated Taliban guerrilla force." ABC

    Most reliable secondary sources just state this as a matter of fact (this in itself shows that it is a majority view and thus widely believed):

    • "The Taliban emerged as a significant force in Afghanistan in 1994 ... which marked the beginning of a long-term alliance between the group and Pakistani security forces." Columbia Encyclopedia
    • "The Taliban have been receiving arms and other military support from Pakistan." New York Times

    This is the position of the United Nations. The United Nations normally remain "neutral" until there is overwhelming evidence in a certain case. It also is the position of the United States, Russia, India, Iran, the EU and Afghanistan. It is the position of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etc. It is stated as a matter of fact by the New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, etc. This qualifies as "widely" to every neutral person out there.

    We even have the term "widely" for today (although I agree with you to discuss this separately another time): "widely-made charge that Pakistan underhandedly supports the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan" Christian Science Monitor

    As for the other discussion I think we should stick with "rise to power and war against anti-Taliban forces" since it is the most neutral description of events.

    So, I would either back the neutral version of Magog (without insurgence, since anti-Taliban forces were running the embassies of Afghanistan everywhere except Pakistan, Saudi and UAE):

    "From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely believed to have provided military support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces, though Pakistan does not acknowledge it."

    or take the version from the impartial Encyclopedia of Social Sciences in a slightly modified way:

    "Although it is officially denied by Pakistan, there is widespread international agreement that the Taliban gained crucial support from the Pakistani army and intelligence services, especially in helping make the Taliban a highly effective military force from 1995-2001."

    JCAla (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Nightw reverted you in the first place for adding this content. And then you are opposed by me and TP with sufficient arguments. You have not given a source that says 'most sources' support it. You gave stand alone sources that said it is 'widely believed'. You are trying to assume reliability statistics on your own. And now you've gone further back by turning Pakistan's strong denial to denial and then to 'does not acknowledge'. You have put a lot of weight on the allegation which you support and left a small phrase of denial (now 'does not acknowledge') here. Further more your version(s) go into unnecessary details that give WP:UNDUE to the allegation; your last version from 'impartial' encyclopedia has even peacocking in it. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See below sources, then see TopGun's edit, then see below sources again. Thank you. Getting tired of responding to someone who generally refuses to acknowledge what reliable sources say and repeatedly mispresents wikipedia policy and what happened during the dispute (who wrote/did what, etc.). JCAla (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Re @TG: you're right, it doesn't say "most sources" - it does, however say, "widely believed". We can copy that phrase verbatim and stated that it is "widely believed." If you believe the sources are themselves exhibiting a bias (which does happen), perhaps we can try to delve a bit more deeply into them and figure out what they mean by "widely believed". Perhaps we could say something like "it is widely believed among western observers" or "among the international community". This is a situation where the claims of the international community in fact do seem to point to a widely held belief, whether it's justified or not.

    Re @JC: just a brief reminder to keep things civil and assume good faith. Statements like "repeatedly misrepresents wikipedia policy and what happened" aren't necessary (although I do understand the frustration of dealing with other editors; I've lost my cool on a few occasions). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you are right on both issues. JCAla (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I think that would do, rather taking from all the sources and yet keeping neutrality "Pakistan is widely alleged.." might do better and not to mention statistics about 'sources' at all since that would be WP:SYNTH. About the 'military support' I'm still in disagreement. 'Support' would be just enough weight in the lead and as might notice, we were planning to keep it down to a 1-2 sentence in the lead. Body would give the details; it's not like the content is being censored rather weighed in the introduction. How about:
    "Pakistan is widely alleged by western observers to have supported Taliban from 1995-2001 which it strongly denies."
    Here the issue of sources and their non existing statistics is removed (the term 'observers' referring to academics as well as governments) along with the issue of against whom Pakistan supported Taliban, which would be trivially clear without writing 'anti-Taliban' forces. And in the end, this sentence comes out to be in proper weight and yet putting the least load on the lead. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How about:

    • "From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely believed by the international community to have provided [military] support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against an insurgence, though Pakistan [vigorously] denies it.""

    where [military] and [vigorously] could be up for further negotiation/discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is fine too, if JC doesn't have an objection to the term insurgence, in which case refer to my version above. The term believed should be replaced by alleged and vigorously or strongly should be included to balance the term 'widely'. The term military doesn't need to be included as described above. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this much discussion is taking place on a single line and even longer one on a previous case of infobox inclusion, the article is an obvious target for vandalism for which I'd request you to indefinitely protect it as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree on vigorously when you agree on militarily. Both is accurate and meets WP:VERIFY. But, again, plese use "anti-Taliban forces" which is neutral. So, that would be the version then?

    "From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely believed by the international community to have provided military support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces, though Pakistan vigorously denies it."

    JCAla (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The term 'vigorously' is not balancing 'military' here and rather 'widely'. And I don't mind if 'strongly' is used instead of it. And there's no agreement on the term 'military'. I think western observers would be a better term instead of international community since not all allege that. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The United Nations are the international community. And the United Nations explicitly accused Pakistan of military support. Also, Russia, Iran, India and Afghanistan are not "western observers". The term vigorously describes the Pakistani position appropriately while "militarily" describes the international community position correctly. We ought to describe both positions as they are. JCAla (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The term 'vigorously' or 'strongly' describes Pakistan's position against the 'wide' accusations. That would be in balance. 'Military' is a separate matter giving weight to a single point. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You can add what you want "strongly" or "vigorously". That is up to you. But, the accusation by the international community is explicitly one of providing "military support". That is not providing weight, that is their position, which we ought to represent correctly, not as we might like. JCAla (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There are so many other details that are verifiable and the position of other parties but it doesn't mean that we add them all to the lead. This violates WP:UNDUE for going into details and implicating the accusations to be true which you were first adding by inserting many different aspects of alleged support and now 'military' which are all having the same implicating effect. It is very clear that there's no consensus for adding 'military support' so stop beating the dead horse and let's go ahead with finalizing the sentence to be added. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What other parties? We have one clear majority position. Wikipedia according to WP:WEIGHT generally describes the majority position. In this case we describe the majority position and a minority position (Pakistan) because the minority is the accused party. But the majority position generally needs to be described accurately. The majority position is that Pakistan provided "military support". As I wrote earlier, I already agreed to drop the details of "direct combat support", etc. JCAla (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You 'agreed' to drop the details yet here you are adding one. The majority position is getting the inclusion. But here you are assuming WP:TRUTH for the 'majority' by further adding a detail. And notice that this specific word ('military') is being opposed since the start of this discussion, that is a week ago. So there is no consensus on taking any action in support or against it, which means it can not be added. It's time you WP:HEAR that and continue with the rest. There's no point in discussing if you are stuck on one thing and insisting to add it when you don't see a consensus being built in its support. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Militarily" is verified not assumed.You are stuck on one thing and you are blocking. I will see and WP:HEAR what others have to say. You should do the same. (And, man, this use of "wiki-policy language" is way over the top.) JCAla (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's the disagreement, not 'blocking'. And the fact that you recognize the disagreement, you should know about this detail not getting a consensus to be added and that doesn't mean that the rest of the sentence should not be added. We go by consensus and cite policy and conventions which represents a wider consensus on how to take actions. If you disagree, you are not bound to edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break 2

    Gentlemen - let's be calm about this. We can all come to an agreement without dropping consistent WP:OMGWTFBBQ-filled attacks on the integrity or competence of the other person. We're close enough as is. So let's take it one step at a time.

    First, let's come up with a statement which is as uncontroversial as possible to each party, even if it doesn't include everything that either party wants. Then we can work out terms like "militarily" after the sentence is added (this sentence isn't a finished product). At this point, I propose:

    • From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces [ref link], though Pakistan vigorously denies it.[ref link]"

    It isn't perfect: I don't like the term "alleged", I think "against anti-Taliban forces" could be substituted with "militarily", and another fix or two. But that's a separate issue. Can you both agree to that sentence for now?

    Also, @TG: no, I cannot semi-protect the article indefinitely due to a dispute; this can only be done for consistent vandalism, and in fact it was already done in March. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The protection was a side note not related to the dispute, but just referring to the extent of the controversial nature of the content. Anyway, no real issues with that as yet.
    I fully agree with the sentence you provided and I think since there has been no objection to that content, it can be added right now by you as it is. You can replace 'alleged' with 'accused' may be? Or any other alternate with the aim being to present the same meaning. 'anti-Taliban forces' can be replaced with 'insurgence' or totally removed whichever suitable. I would continue to oppose the term 'militarily' on reasons given before by me, TP and Nightw. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Magog, I can agree to the above sentence by you - for now - then we can discuss terms such as "militarily". I thank you for your very constructive input so far, given that it is not always so easy to deal with things that are getting politicized. I would like to know whether you'd include militarily and where such a dispute (about something that is obviously in the reliable sources) can be handled. BTW, Pakistan is not necessarily denying being supportive of the Taliban until 2001, it is "vigorously" denying "military support", so the sentence in itself is not truly a finished product. JCAla (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I smell hypocrisy in adding the sentence with a single side's citations and leaving out the others on me (which I've now added) when you apparently agree here on the addition of the sentence and even took the job to yourself. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I have provided enough for my position regarding this issue, while you provided what (besides from sticking to your point). It's your turn to take up at least some of the responsibility with regards to WP:VERIFY. But looking at the 3 refs you added to the article, this is what can be observed:

    • ref#1 is not about 1995-2001, it is about 2001-present. The only sentence about 1995-2001 says: "Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States."[38]
    • ref#2 says: "While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite."[39]
    • ref#3 doesn't even mention any denial.[40]

    Only ref#2 qualifies as a ref for the denial, but puts into question the way you wanted things to be formulated. JCAla (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You should read the third one again. First one has declined any support for Taliban and does not mention dates which you assume. The second one though the author thinks the 'reality' is the opposite, it is not cited for that since we already have other citations placed by you for the purpose. It, however, does confirm the denial and that it is duely representing. I've checked all references for denial - you must check it again if you want. Nothing is being put into question here since what I cited is acknowledged by the references including #2. Right, you can stop pretending to be so responsible here since you added the paragraph which Magog should have added as a neutral editor and then you left the citations only of your choice. The citations are complete, with the sentence added, and I would not like to waste any more time on this. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong. The first i. e. explicitly is referring to the denial of the 2011 BBC report, etc. (don't want to wast my time on this). As can be seen here, you have this habit as the other editor explained to you of "edit warring. going around removing huge chunks of info ... this info is duly sourced and has been a part of the article on a long term basis." What you did with this article, you are doing with other articles. You are having a huge WP:NPOV problem and people will recognize with time. JCAla (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is referring to the denial of BBC report and yet it does not say that it is limited to the dates you assumed. It explicitly says that there has been no support of Taliban and not a single bullet has been given to them. Let's not bring irrelevant topics here for that discussion is in no way related to this one. I don't remove 'large chunks of information' from any article. Duplicate content from a main article is another thing. As far as I remember that is the exact thing you were doing on this very article by copy pasting the content from 'Pakistan' section to another section you created for ISI. Let's not comment on POV of each other since you have already been told once in the consensus right above on the infobox issue to find another article to edit if you can't limit your POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I've been distracted and missed the ongoing discussion here. I support Magog's proposal and I'm also willing to continue the discussion with JCAla on the use of "militarily" if he wishes to continue discussing it.--v/r - TP 02:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We've some what come to a solution and added a sentence (see lead). The allegation of military support has a detailed explanation in the body, I think that needs a balance too. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you changed your opinion on "militarily", TP? Otherwise, what could I possibly expect from having to discuss with the dream-combo again? If you are ready to provide neutral input the way Magog did (and maybe does again?), I'd be glad to discuss the term. But unfortunately, a look at the previous discussion, shows how existence and explicit content of a majority of reliable sources is simply being ignored alltogether. So, if for you the sources provided below are still not enough to prove that the majority accuses Pakistan of "military support", then I see no way how this discussion between us three could go any forward and I'd rather hear the opinion of other, neutral, people. JCAla (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You should learn to agree to disagree to start with. The discussion did finally go forward only by that way here and the sentence did finally get added. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion went forward because I sought the advice and input of an experienced and neutral administrator and Magog was so kind as to provide it. JCAla (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sidenote: TopGun, are you not busy with your other hundreds of agenda-motivated discussions?(removal of 10,000-byte sourced content,merger proposal in order to reduce Pakistan-critical content,removal of sourced content with regards to ISI,calling of RFC for merger proposal because of anti-India agenda) For someone who just ignores the very existence of reliable sources, you + friends (one of them, Ambelland, I had the pleasure dealing with his sockpuppet User:Gbh123 in the past) are being rather effective with your consistency. Gotta give you credit for that. Although, of course, that does not further wikipedia and as I said before, with time, people will eventually realize. JCAla (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I owe you no explanation related to any other disputes that I'm involved in and my use of valid dispute resolution procedures which you do not like. There's no compulsion on me to stop me from editing controversial articles and building consensus or challenging content. You have made serious allegations here which you can not prove. You seem to be including every one who disagrees with you in my 'friend-list', and that even includes TP as per your comment on Magog's talk page. Your attempt to work around this dispute by getting me blocked on a matter that did not concern you has already failed and along with this is mounting up evidence against you. If I finally report you, it's you who will make me do it. I'm not planning to respond to a reply to this so you can keep your efforts to the content instead and keep the off topic content to userpages. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let TP read what I wrote at Magog's page, the term "friend" does not come up, rather he will read "share an opinion". You connection to Ambelland is no allegation it is plain for everyone to see i. e. here. And again, you are mispresenting. Besides the article you were edit warring on getting full protection, this was said in the administrator result at the edit warring board: "Top Gun has recently been blocked for edit warring (December 1) which suggests he should be more careful. I have some concern he is going to ignore this advice, in which case we may see him here again soon. He has removed over 10K bytes of material three times since November 18, with no evidence of consensus that I can see."[41] I am not going to continue this discussion here, since it does not belong here. But the sidenote above needed to be done in order for people not to be too naive. Last thing, I am fine with people disagreeing. When working on the Pakistani Taliban article I had many disagreements with RDavi, but there was a common understanding of what constitutes a reliable source and honesty about the content. That way, discussions went very smoothly and compromise was always reached. JCAla (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone here is an experienced editor as far as I get it and knows about reliability of sources, but the debate here is of NPOV and proper weight vs undue weight. Let's keep our comments short and to the point and get done with it. If there's no agreement (and remember it is not necessary to have an agreement there is some times simply no consensus) on addition of military a new section can be created for the related content in body. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Otherwise, what could I possibly expect from having to discuss with the dream-combo again? If you are ready to provide neutral input the way Magog did (and maybe does again?)." I'm not sure how Magog was anymore neutral than me. Their solution also did not include "militarily" and I'd love to hear Magog's interpretation of my involvement here. I think I've been very neutral both here and on WP:DRN where I got involved. For the record, I've never met/talked to/interacted with 1TopGun1 prior to this issue. Feel free to go through both of our contribs to verify. As far as discussing it with you, I'm not someone who lets their pride get in the way of editing. I am willing to concede points where valid counter points are made and I'm willing to compromise with others. I think my talk page archive can attest to that. Now, Magog has made a proposal that you've supported. I said I'd continue discussing it with you because I didn't want you to feel like once you've agreed to this temporarily, we'll all just disappear as "consensus achieved" and just revert you anytime you try to change it. I wanted to let you know that you could still make an argument over the words you've asked for and I will willing to listen because consensus can change. So please, don't accuse me of buddying up with TopGun against you because I'm a POV pusher. Again, feel free to stalk my contribs and I invite Magog's opinion as well.--v/r - TP 14:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources

    Encyclopedia

    • "Although it is officially denied, there is widespread agreement that the Taliban gained crucial early support from the Pakistani army and intelligence services, especially in helping make the Taliban a highly effective military force." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences
    • "The Taliban emerged as a significant force in Afghanistan in 1994 ... which marked the beginning of a long-term alliance between the group and Pakistani security forces." Columbia Encyclopedia

    United Nations

    • "The [UN security council] resolution imposes an arms embargo against the Taliban, including foreign military assistance that UN officials say comes mainly from Pakistan."[42]
    • "United Nations officials say that the Taliban gets their strongest sustained support from Pakistan."[43]
    • "In a statement on 22 October, the Security Council also expressed deep distress over reports of involvement in the fighting, on the Taliban side, of thousands of non-Afghan nationals." [44]
    • "Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support."[45]

    Human Rights Watch

    • "Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting [in Afghanistan], Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support."[46]
    • "Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism."[47]

    Academia

    • ”Pakistan became directly involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, supporting the Taliban in the 1990s …” (Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006 1st ed.). I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., London New York. p. 352.)
    • ” Bhutto’s interior minister, General Nasirullah Babur discovered and empowered a group of former Mujahideen from the Kandahar area as Pakistan’s new strategic card in the Afghan conflict. … In the late 1990s, Pakistan continued to support the Taliban regime in its war against the Northern Alliance”[48]
    • "The Taliban were made into an effective political and military unit by the Pakistan government, the ISI and other parts of the Pakistan government. Would the Taliban have been able to come to power without Pakistan's help? Of course the Taliban could never have come to power without the help of Pakistan."[49]
    • "Throughout 1995, the collaboration between ISI and the Taliban increased, and it changed character. It became more and more of a direct military alliance. ... They received guns; they received money; they received fuel; they received infrastructure support. They also, we know, had direct on-the-ground support from undercover Pakistani officers in civilian clothes who would participate in particular military battles. ... They were an asset of the ISI. I think it's impossible to understand the Taliban's military triumph in Afghanistan, culminating in their takeover of Kabul in 1996, without understanding that they were a proxy force, a client of the Pakistan army, and benefited from all of the materiel support that the Pakistan army could provide them ..."[50]
    • "The ISI was trying to create a puppet state in Afghanistan? Yes. And they created the Taliban in order to facilitate that? That's right. ... You had an unholy alliance combining ISI, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But then [and] right up until 9/11, this unholy alliance was dominated, directed, guided mostly by ISI in Pakistan."[51]

    Media (New York Times, Washington Times, etc.)

    • "Pakistan's military backs Afghanistan's Taliban rulers."[52]
    • "Pakistani military advisers, were spearheading a merciless Taliban offensive against moderate Muslim communities in Northern Afghanistan."[53]
    • "The level of support reaching Massoud's men is a fraction of that reaching the Taliban from Islamabad."[54]

    International Governments

    • "Tehran accused Pakistan of sending its air force to bomb the city in support of the Taliban's advance and said Iran was holding Pakistan responsible for what it termed war crimes at Bamiyan."[55]
    • Head of European Parliament: “ …speak firmly to the Pakistani authorities. … I will solemnly ask Pakistan to cease supporting a [Taliban] regime which because of its fanatical and obscure views is setting its fate against international society.”[56]
    • ”Russia today accused Pakistan of directly participating in the Taliban military offensive in northern Afghanistan close to the borders of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and warned that Moscow reserves the right to take any action to ensure the security of its allies in Central Asia. A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Valery Nesterushkin accused Pakistan of planning the Taliban "military expansion" in the north of Afghanistan and directly participating in the Taliban military operations and taking care of their logistics…. "Concrete facts, including large number of Pakistani servicemen taken prisoners by the units of northern alliance provide this evidence," Nesterushkin stressed.”[57]
    • "U.S. documents released today clearly illustrate that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by Islamabad itself. Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the documents reflect U.S. apprehension about Islamabad's longstanding provision of direct aid and military support to the Taliban, including the use of Pakistani troops to train and fight alongside the Taliban inside Afghanistan." [58]
    • "Administration officials told Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar during his recent visit to Washington that the White House had a "growing body of evidence" that Islamabad was in violation of U.N. sanctions because of its military aid to the Taliban."[59]
    • French media archive video: "Pakistani army personnel captured by Massoud"[60]

    JCAla (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taliban&diff=465460254&oldid=465434953

    Leave a Reply