Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Do you think this article is free of promotional content?
I was the one who accepted the AfC article a few years back. (The original writer of the article was the owner of the website.) However, I'm not sure if it's considered promotional. What do you think? Is it neutral enough? Additionally, is it notable enough to remain on its own, or should I merge it into the article about Santa Claus? Félix An (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing too many concerns specifically on promotion. It is concerning that the draft author twice reverted edits that mentioned that the website generates automatic responses (which in my opinion would improve the article). But that was back in 2020 and presumably there are no problems adding it back today.
- As for notability, the article probably is notable enough to stay as its own article. While there are some questionable sources (such as the last sentence of the article, which cites a teacher's blog, or the article called "Mail for Santa will be opened", which turns up zero results on Google besides this Wikipedia article), there are multiple sources in the article that cover the website in depth. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, I do not think this is a promotional article - expecially when you consider that there is a whole criticism section that is about 20% of the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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) - 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)
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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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. [1]).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'):
Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)(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".
- 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)- 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)
- I agree that they are deliberately ignoring the part of the MOS that they don't seem to agree with. Their
- Re "overly literal reading"—except for the part about continuing to ignore
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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? [2]
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)
- 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? [2]
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)
- 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)
Book of Exodus
The editor of the article "Book of Exodus" does not even consider the Judeo-Christian perspective on the historicity of the Exodus. Exodus is a Judeo-Christian book and to not even consider those perspectives when questioning its historicity is completely wrong whether or not one agrees with them. This idea of thought continues throughout the article (not just on the historicity section) without even considering the perspective Judeo-Christian scholars have on the matter. This not only limits the readers understanding, but also hinders the accuracy of the article as it then is solely from the perspective of an atheist. This is an appeal for changes to be made to the article to ensure a neutral POV. Regards, Brannyford (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia. If you'd like to edit an article. See WP:HOW. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- This belongs on the article talk page. If you post there, or anywhere else, please use reliable sources and specific examples of how the article Book of Exodus violates NPOV. I see this is your only edit and you haven't gone to the talk page yet. I see the section you are complaining about is a short summary of Sources and parallels of the Exodus, perhaps you should start there. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Hope you're well. Courtesy links:
- Garry Tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Balaji Srinivasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yesterday, The New Republic (WP:RSPS#The New Republic) published criticism of the above two. I am using the piece (it's not an opinion piece) to expand the two BLP and would appreciate eyes on them to make sure I don't unintentionally lend undue weight. Please feel free to ping me for any questions. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Notified Talk:Garry Tan#Overreliant on Gil Duran of existing discussion here to avoid fragmenting discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is pretty clearly an opinion piece, even if it's not explicitly published in the op ed section. It's not just a statement of facts, but uses imperative clauses directed at the reader "you must listen to Balaji Srinivasan..." and non-neutral language ("crackpot’s ravings" etc). WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says TNR is "generally reliable" but that "Opinions in the magazine should be attributed" which has only been done in most cases this article is cited. You also misrepresented its contents at least once in edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Tan&diff=prev&oldid=1221085589 , writing that "Tan had resumed similar bad behavior by tweeting disinformation", a claim the article never makes. I think arguably more than once; for example, you write (without attribution to Duran) that Srinivasan "called for tech plutocrats to seize control of elections", when the article says "use elections to seize existing governments". I don't think that's the same thing, as "seize control of elections" sounds like fixing elections, which isn't something I've heard Srinivasan endorse. Generally speaking I think summaries and paraphrases of Duran's article are exaggerated. That's without getting into the quality of the TNR article itself, which has already been stealth edited several times.
- It also looks like undue weight to me. Currently, Duran's article gets 1.5 paragraphs in Srinivasan's page, compared with only one sentence for all other editorials combined, with little detail for those. On Tan's page, Duran's article is cited across 3 paragraphs. Other opinion pieces get cited too, but all or mostly for statements of fact (e.g. donating to political groups).Hi! (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please feel free to boldly expand the article with other reliable sources. Add attribution to the statements that are missing them. Improve the accuracy of the summaries and paraphrasing. All these are fine by me.
- Context for passers-by:
- If anything, TNR's editing of Duran's piece means it is subject to the publication's editorial control and fact-checking processes. Consensus for total exclusion of the TNR article requires stronger evidence.
- Duran likens Srinivasan's ideas to fascism and apartheid. If anything, I (and other editors) have toned down—not "exaggerated"—Duran's piece to 1) provide concrete details, 2) avoid having readers wonder if we've misinterpreted satire, and 3) uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines like BLP and NPOV.
- I hope my intentions to do that third point and act in good faith are also evidenced by my opening of this thread to draw attention to my edits. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Until an IP changed this, the subject was known as a revisionist and military leader. That's been changed to terrorist. Do the new sources justify this? See MOS:TERRORIST. Or should this be at RSN? It isn't a BLP. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Militant perhaps, terrorist seems a bit of a stretch, would need a lot of supportive sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- He was connected to the Irgun, which I believe is well-sourced as terrorist. But I don't know if that directly connects him to terrorism. As Selfstudier says, needs a lot of supportive sourcing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- My views on this have been well aired, but imo “terrorist” should not be used. Yr Enw (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- If we're not going to call Osama bin Ladin a terrorist, we probably shouldn't call Ze'ev Jabotinsky a terrorist either. Loki (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- IP is on 3rr, I may be asleep when they revert again which I think they will, so can someone report them then. I warned them before their last revert. Doug Weller talk 20:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- They’ve posted to my talk page saying I’ve been reported for edit warring and not liking their sources. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- That article would be covered under Israel-Palestine 30/500 restrictions anyway, so the IP shouldn't be allowed to edit. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- They’ve posted to my talk page saying I’ve been reported for edit warring and not liking their sources. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- IP is on 3rr, I may be asleep when they revert again which I think they will, so can someone report them then. I warned them before their last revert. Doug Weller talk 20:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Utah State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article about Utah State University has been subject to sockpuppetry and promotional editing since at least 2020. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a long-standing dispute over pages [3] and [4].
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.[5]
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 [6] and [7], 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 [8], was deleted here [9]).
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)
- Courtesy links:
- Rent regulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Rent control in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2021 NPOVN discussion with formal closure about both articles at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 89 § Rent control: "on consensus among economists"
- 2019 RfC at Talk:Rent regulation/Archive 1 § RfC about describing extent of disagreement
- After that RfC, most discussion about "Rent regulation" is on its talk page proper.
- "Rent control in the United States" discussions begin at Talk:Rent control in the United States/Archive 1 § A Philosophical Reminder.
- The discussion on Talk:Rent control in the United States itself is from 2022 with the exception of one comment.
- Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- PS: This IP is almost certainly Pedrote112 (talk · contribs) evading their block again. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- PS: This IP is almost certainly Pedrote112 (talk · contribs) evading their block again. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
- It's a terrible article, so would really benefit from the engagement of non-involved editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Stefan Dollinger
It seems to me that @StefDoll, or proxies, tried to place his own work on The Pluricentricity Debate (a scientific monograph from 2019) by penetrant editing of thematic articles. The article One Standard German Axiom, describing exclusively Dollinger's work, is most heavily edited by @MinTrouble and @TippyToe23. Both seem to be fakeaccounts. Note that they are already banned from WP:DE (together with other proxies of Dollinger), where they tried to propagate Dollinger's work in a similar way.
I started correcting the article and opened a discussion: Talk:One Standard German Axiom. --Rießler (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Lee Man-hee
The article about the leader of the Shincheonji cult, Lee Man-hee, appears to have a lot of Wikipedia:SPA accounts editing in his favour. A friend from my church was duped into joining this cult, and tried to lure me in as well. Please take note of his article for non-neutral and COI editing. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Human Appeal
I have some concerns about the "Alleged extremist ties" section of the article Human Appeal - an organisation in regard to which I have a declared CoI (see the article's talk page archives).
The section begins:
Human Appeal was included as a Hamas front in a 1996 CIA report on charitable organizations that finance terror. In 2003, the FBI said Human Appeal had a "close relationship" with Hamas.
That report is available on Wikisource, at wikisource:CIA Report on NGOs With Terror Links. The organisation referred to in that report is, I'm told, not the same one as the subject of our article. The CIA uses Arabic names for what it refers to as "Human Appeal", which are not names ever used by the UK charity. The report states:
Offices: Zagreb and Tuzla. Headquartered in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Other offices in Sidon, Khartoum, Nouakchott, Mauritania, and also in Denmark, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.
which, I'm told, the UK charity has never had.
The source for the claim, Levitt, refers only to an organisation called "Human Appeal International-Jordan".
The Associated Press debunked the FBI dossier, as is apparently referenced in two publications:
- Page 28 of the 2023 George Mason University report: Anti-Muslim Discrimination and Information Manipulation, and its Impact on Humanitarian Aid.
- A report by FAIR
The FBI and related claims are sourced to a single article in The Telegraph, but no other sources support them and its veracity is disputed by the organisation.
The organisation is clearly in good standing in the UK, as evidenced by its ongoing charity registration and links with those listed in the "Supporters" section (not least [10], which took place inside Parliament). This would surely not be the case were the allegations correct.
I would be grateful if someone neutral, and non-partisan in the current middle-east situation, could look into the matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Considering the last line of the section
Alleged links to the funding of terrorism made by the Jewish Chronicle in 2012 were withdrawn and an apology was issued in May 2013 after the allegations were deemed untrue and damages paid.
I'd guess the question would be one of WP:DUE - obviously the narrative as presented vindicates the organization. However do we have too much detail on the lead-up? Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)- DUE is my concern. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The article now says that the UK organisation and the Emirati one share the same founder, which you haven't mentioned. The connection of the latter organisation with Hamas is not disputed (another source). In view of this, I don't think we can dismiss the articles in the Telegraph. Alaexis¿question? 18:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it does. However, it does not say whether that's a sole founder, or one of several - or indeed, one of many; nor at which point that individual ceased to be involved. It's also uncited, and so should be removed in any case. I'm also unclear as to its relevance to the Telegraph piece or the wider issue I described. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Telegraph explicitly says
- Yes it does. However, it does not say whether that's a sole founder, or one of several - or indeed, one of many; nor at which point that individual ceased to be involved. It's also uncited, and so should be removed in any case. I'm also unclear as to its relevance to the Telegraph piece or the wider issue I described. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
“ | The UK branch’s own website states that they are divisions of the same organisation. The UK and UAE branches’ logos are the same, apart from the translation of the charity's name into Arabic. | ” |
- Do we have any reliable sources that contradict it? I've done a quick check and it seems to confirm the existence of the connection. Here the UK Human appeal said that they have a fundraising office in the UAE located in Ajman P.O.Box 1286, telephone: 009716 7471777. This Emirati website says that the head office of the Human Appeal International has the same address and phone number.
- Being on the list of terror supporting organisations is important information. Of course the article should make it clear which organisation was included and possibly the statement about the links should be attributed to the Telegraph. Alaexis¿question? 13:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Slavery in the 21st century
An IP has expressed doubt about relevance of images in the article Slavery in the 21st century, can some one help review relevance, appropriateness, NPOVN and DUE at Talk:Slavery in the 21st century#irrelevant image.
Thanks Bookku (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Pre-RfC stage @ Talk:Jinn
- Pre-intimation:
- A user has proposed updates for consideration at this sand box for the article Jinn.
As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre step. Only after RSN step RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section. Bookku (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Marc Gafni § Undue Weight and NPOV
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Marc Gafni § Undue Weight and NPOV. Netanya9 (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Could you please help review WP:NPOV?
Controversial article with many years of discussion on talk page. Now editors are actively adding controversial pov to the lead without consensus.
Specifically referring to:
Edit: [11] which is not conform WP:NEUTRAL and WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:IMBALANCE
And edit [12] where controversial text is copy/pasted from article in the lead. Unnecessary and not WP:BALANCE Netanya9 (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Appreciating your expertise on the talk page.
Thank you! Netanya9 (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above editor is trying to whitewash the article and may have a conflict of interest. They insist on omitting relevant information from the lead by not proportionally summarizing the article in the WP:LEAD. For example, the subject has admitted to relationships (his words) with minors but claims they were "consensual". But 14 year olds cannot legally give consent in the state of New York, and could not at the time of the reported incidents either. This is mentioned in one of the cited article which includes expert opinions, but not mentioned in the article body. Also, the subject fled Israel to avoid prosecution. I think this is an important enough fact to be noted in the lead, which should have proportional coverage and should not just accept the subject's denials when several of the sources do not accept these non-denial denials as denials. We need to also highlight what he has admitted in the lead, along with what he has denied. Skyerise (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- The weight given to the allegations is abuse in the current version seems about right. A significant part of the Teachings section is based on his own writings and I'm not sure it's DUE. In that case we might want to trim down the description of his teachings in the lede. Alaexis¿question? 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I've removed a bunch of promo-toned material about his latest publications sourced only to those publications without any third-party reviews or other sources. I've also removed a bunch of "citations" to publisher promo and sales pages cited just to establish the existance of the book - which of course a citation to the book itself establishes. Skyerise (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
- @Trakking: Elinruby (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Misandry neutrality
A debate about the Misandry article is ongoing at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. I welcome as many people as possible to chime in about how the article should be phrased as possible. Thank you. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
This may count as vandalism, but this IP user has been adding things like this onto this article. BOZ (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
See [13]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The same editor who adds mentions of terrorism to Irgun-related articles also removes mentions of terrorism related to Palestinian factions [14]. However, when reverted, they label the revert as "vandalism" [15]. This could indicate a possible conduct issue. ABHammad (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- “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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- “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)
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. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), 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)
- 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)
- But they are seen by the editors, and the implication is shady. Ieonine (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Again, this is prejudicial. Who decides which BLPs should have death fields and which shouldn't? Ieonine (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- They are irrelevant if they are not seen. I suggest you find something productive to do. Moxy🍁 00:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Again, this is prejudicial. Who decides which BLPs should have death fields and which shouldn't? Ieonine (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- If it ain't broke, don't fix it Cambalachero (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
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 [24] 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: [25]
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
how can you defeat the Palestinians HAMAS definitely
Use drones against Hamas as much as you can Like the Ukranian Military are using drones now! against their Russian enemies! and they are succeeding! GOOD LUCK 185.255.221.147 (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- That IS off-topic. DANGA14talk 19:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)