Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion. State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]]. Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here. Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question. Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context. It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format. Sections older than 21 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Shortcuts WP:NPOVN WP:NPOV/N WP:RFN You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: Guidance on making articles conform to the neutrality policy can be found at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, use the No original research noticeboard instead. For a review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.

Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93

Bias in Wikipedia page for Rand Paul[edit]

Rand Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a sentence on Rand Paul's Wikipedia page that should be changed, due to obvious bias. The sentence currently reads:

"In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which falsely claims that masks are not effective".

I think it should read: "In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which (according to YouTube) falsely claims that masks are not effective."

If this sentence isn't changed, it demonstates a clear bias by Wikipedia about masks in general, as well as about the YouTube video being referenced. Neutral reporting demands that no judgement is made by the reporting entity. They can report that another entity has made a certain judgement, but they are not supposed to make one themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:C801:2390:B034:A59C:E7AB:8DFE (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, Wikipedia follows the reliable sources, and we say what they say. "Neutral" is perhaps poor phrasing, but the line in question seems appropriate to me. If you have sources which say something else, by all means present them on the article's talk page. Cheers, and Happy Holidays. Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

In this case, I think the IP is correct that we should be attributing YouTube for the reason they suspended him, if that is actually what they said (which is the case, per the cited NYTimes article). It removes the issue that the reason for removal being speculation from other sources. That said, the phrasing could "In August 2021, YouTube suspended Paul's account for a week, stating that a video he had published, claiming that masks were not effective against COVID, violated the site's misinformation policy." It is minor change but takes a few things out of wikivoice to be more neutral in writing but keeps it to following the sources. Otherwise, the current line puts the rationale in Wikivoice, which is not really the right voice to state that. --Masem (t) 00:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP is not correct. Neutrality does not imply that we give equal voice to fringe theories regarding the effectiveness of masks, which is what the essence of the IP's complaint boils down to. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying the IP is correct about, only that we should be attributing YouTube for the reasons why they blocked. They made the choice to banned, and thus their statement (or paraphrase of it) is what we should be saying without Wikivoice itself criticizing fringe view. (Clearly the "masks don't work" is fringe per WP standards, but we don't need to call it out every time it is mentioned in any context, which is what the present text in Paul's page says. The IP's suggested claim is not appropriate, but switching to make sure that we attribute YouTube itself for why they blocked is appropriate. --Masem (t) 01:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure I follow, Masem. Which part of the following sentence do you disagree with? "In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which falsely claims that masks are not effective". The sentence does not state any rationale in Wikipedia's voice. The sentence says three (maybe four) things:

1. Paul was suspended for a week from Youtube in August 2021. "YouTube on Tuesday ... suspended him from publishing for a week"
2. This happened due to the company's misinformation policy. "A YouTube representative said the Republican senator’s claims in the three-minute video had violated the company’s policy on Covid-19 medical misinformation."
3. This happened after Paul posted a video that claimed that masks were not effective. "... after he posted a video that disputed the effectiveness of wearing masks to limit the spread of the coronavirus"
4. The claim that masks were not effective is false. "In fact, masks do work, according to the near-unanimous recommendations of public health experts."

All of these points are directly supported by the source. We don't need to attribute them, as they are not not opinions (see: WP:VOICE). What is the issue? AlexEng^(TALK) 02:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

In your list, it is #3 being said in Wikivoice, as well as a bit of unnecessary pushing on point #4. YouTube said that Paul's video about masks being ineffective violated its policy and thus blocked him. It's clear from the source that was the reason, but that's in YT's words, so the way its stated is putting that language in Wikivoice. Furthering that, once you put #3 into attribution to YouTube, there's no need to reiterate "false claims that masks are ineffective" since its still the point that YouTube considered that misinformation. It is correct that the video's message of "masks aren't effective" is a false claim, but there's no need on a BLP to hammer that point when we can simply call it misinformation per YouTube's assessment. It's a rather subtle but key point about the passage's tone in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 04:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Some points are so subtle as to be meaningless. Nothing you have proposed is "key." Your version gives the impression that there was some sort of equivalence between the claims of Paul and YouTube. Dumuzid (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why do you need to attribute YouTube's assessment of whether or not Paul broke YouTube's policy to YouTube? Who else is the arbiter of when someone breaks YouTube's policy? This position has been reported by a reliable secondary source, not in an opinion piece, and is suitable for inclusion without attribution. If it had come from YouTube's website, blog, or social media, I might even agree with you, but that is not the case. BLP policy does not exclude us from posting verifiable, neutrally worded facts on a BLP, so I don't see any reason not to describe the claim as false either. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The way the sentence is currently given, it is given as a factual claim in Wikivoice for the reason for removal. There are times that a social media site may take action to block a person, but is not clear about the reasons, but the RSes covering it make their speculative guesses for the reasons why; in such a case, we absolutely should attribute the guesses why to the sources reporting them. This is not one of those cases, but as to be clear that it is not such a case, we should be very clear in attributing the reasons why to YouTube, and out of Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 14:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It is the factual reason for removal according to the New York Times. Even if you, personally, have a gut hunch that this is just "speculative", that has no bearing on article content; including your gut feelings on the matter in the article voice (by framing that undisputed fact as mere opinion, and making it sound like it is only YouTube's opinion, at that) would be a gross NPOV violation. Again, if you feel that the NYT is unreliable, you can take it to WP:RSN; but it feels like you're bringing a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS approach to this where you want to "fix" what your gut instinct tells you is the NYT's "speculation." That is not how writing Wikipedia articles works - if you want to argue that this is a seriously-disputed assertion and should be treated as such, you need to present sources of comparable weight to the NYT actually disputing it, not your gut feelings and personal opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

There are two issues: First, did Paul's video claim that masks are not effective? If there is reasonable doubt about whether the video made that claim then an attribution regarding whether the claim was made would be suitable. The second issue concerns whether "masks are effective". I would have thought that issue was well settled by reliable sources and an attribution should not be made because to do so would suggest there was some doubt. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

There is not reasonable doubt regarding the first point. Here's the direct quote from NYT:

In the video, Mr. Paul says: “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.” Later in the video, he adds, “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science, which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.”

If there is doubt regarding whether or not he claimed that masks are not effective, it is not reasonable. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with AlexEng. Masks are known to be effective, and the sentence in question clearly states that it's YouTube's misinformation policy that Paul violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muboshgu (talk • contribs) 03:37, December 23, 2021 (UTC)

• I have to ask… is the fact that Paul was suspended from YouTube (for a week) really significant enough to mention in the first place? Was there any lasting effect? WP:RECENTISM? Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is encyclopaedic to preserve (and not hide from readers) the actions of the large private corporations, with regard to Senators elected by the people. Or are we now into the business of not seeing, not hearing, and not talking about what the mega-corporations do? XavierItzm (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Agree that the correct text ought to be "In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which (according to YouTube) falsely claims that masks are not effective." The original sentence said in Wikipedia's voice that Paul's statement was false. Whether Paul's statement is false or not is irrelevant: what is relevant is that Wikipedia in its own voice becomes judge and executor regarding politician's opinions.XavierItzm (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If we say "according to Youtube," we are giving parity with a proven scientific fact and Paul's statement, which is a violation of neutrality. Paul said, "Most of the masks you get over the counter don't work. They don't prevent infection." While that statement is false, he leaves open the possibility that other masks might work. Paul later changed his statement to "cloth masks don't work." While that statement may actually be true, the 3-ply masks more people wear do work.[1]

Maybe we could change the text to "Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy for making a false claim about the effectiveness of masks in preventing the spread of covid-19."

TFD (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding that Paul's mask statement contradicts scientific fact (which is does) outside of YouTube's rationale is basically coatracking that it is a fringe view atop discussion of YouTube's ban. What is appropriate is to discuss, in a "Views" section, that Paul's claims on masks in general beyond YouTube have been criticized as fringe and against science with RSes separate from YouTube (see for example [2] as a source) and then add that YouTube blocked him for his mask video as misinformation. That still covers that issue about his views but separates it from YouTube's reason to block. --Masem (t) 22:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: with respect, and there is lots of it, this argument is almost exhaustingly trivial in nature. We have an RS saying that he was banned for violating the mask policy. The OP has an obvious POV on the subject and looks like they're righting great wrongs, particularly about mask effectiveness in general. We don't need to pick apart sentences word by word to come to the conclusion that what the NYT said and what the article says are the same thing. Please be reasonable here. It's plainly against WP:FALSEBALANCE to hedge statements with fringe beliefs that no reasonable person would dispute. Surely you can agree with that? AlexEng^(TALK) 06:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is small things like that have been building up across numerous articles as a larger trend that WP seems to promote incorporating as many negative things just because media sources have said that. Its on the more subtle but still key parts of NPOV that our tone of writing needs to remain impartial and dispassionate regardless of what sources say. That Paul has a fringe view of masks is something we should say and can be backed by sources where it can be (like the WaPost one I give). That he was blocked from YouTube for his mask video that went against their misinformation policy is absolutely fact but the reasoning should be stated in their words. While the reasoning very much overlaps with the previous aspects that his mask theories are fringe, we have to be very careful about mixing that up and creating synthesis of ideas in Wikivoice, a step that is very easy to fall into in the current ideological environment. As a hypothetical example where this type of approach can be a problem, imagine a person that has a well-established anti-LGBT stance (supported by numerous sources). If they posted a video expressing their thoughts that "marriage can only be between a man and a woman" without mentioning anything about sexuality or the like and there was a reason to talk about that video, it would be absolutely wrong for us to say "he posted a homophobic video" based on what we already knew about him and the lack of anything that specifically calls that out in the video. That's synthesis. We can include attributed statements if others called it a homophobic videos, but its not WP's place to be the ones to call it that. --Masem (t) 13:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand your points. I really do. But this isn't synth. Both aspects of this are from the same article in the same source, and they are not cherry picked out of context to mislead the reader. We're saying what NYT said in Wikivoice, which is appropriate, because we summarize consensus views based on RS. It feels like a slippery slope to me. Do we also have to attribute statements on the curvature of the Earth to NASA? AlexEng^(TALK) 13:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That we're saying in Wikivoice is the problem. It's still synthesis on a BLP page. The way it is currently writing is Wikivoice making an interpretation of the video contents - even if that interpretation seems consistent with the same ideas that are already out there in RSes. I'm looking at the "Disease control" section of Paul's and that we don't touch on his mask ideas before the video is a problem and makes this statement stand out even more. As I've said, just as that section started with the sourced statement "Paul has spread false claims about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.", there should also be a paragraph that leads into the YouTube one , based minimally off the WaPost source above, that says something like "Paul has also made false claims related to mask-wearing. <more stuff here about his mask stance> YouTube suspended Paul for one week after he posted a video related to his stance on masks as misinformation." Now that's all 100% kosher in Wikivoice without any bit of interpretation and makes sure that we've identified his stance on masks not being effective as also false in the same paragraph. This isn't challenging the veracity of masks being effective, simply avoiding interpretation of the video and why YouTube blocked him in a direct statement made in Wikivoice without attribution. --Masem (t) 14:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's concerns here. Personally my concern is that in some context what Paul said appears to be true. This is one of the big issues with fact checks in general. Sometimes the context of a statement is lost. "A bike helmet won't protect you" is a statement that I would generally view as false. However, if the context was a discussion of related to a type of crash that hurts the legs vs the head, yes, a bike helmet won't protect you becomes true. If someone says my original statement is false but leaves out the specific context then we have an accuracy problem. To avoid that we attribute. Back to Paul's claim, my understanding of masks is almost all types help reduce the risk of a sick person transmitting to healthy people. The other way around is less clear. Among many factors it is dependent on the type of mask and if the wearer uses the mask correctly. So depending on Paul's intended context his statement may not have been false. However, if he didn't include that context then it may be reasonable to read it as a broader statement rather than a narrowed statement (even if that wasn't Paul's intent). If we are going to say Paul was wrong then we need to make sure his context and intended scope of the claim is clear. If we don't have that then we should stick with Youtube's statements as we can cite them without risk of false context. If nothing else we should always err on the side of attributing since it's the "do no harm" path. Springee (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple statements buried in that sentence (and keeping in mind that masks have only partial and variable effectiveness which means that such can be in context be termed both effective and ineffective)

1. That Rand Paul flatly claimed that masks are ineffective
2. That such a claim is clearly false
3. By combination of the above, that Rand Paul made a clearly false claim

The above are all extraordinary claims. Without even getting into NPOV, Both under WP:Verifiability and especially WP:BLP these would need very strong sourcing (which they don't have) to be in Wikipedia. Further, burying additional "slam" statements (via adjectives) in a sentence which is informing about a YouTube suspension is also bad practice and not informative. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that these claims are, in fact, supported - both by the source cited and by the mass of other available sources - I don't see how any of them are EXTRAORDINARY except in your imagination. In particular, to refer to the statement that masks are effective in the context of Covid-19 as EXTRAORDINARY sounds rather like fringe POV, to me. And the idea that a conservative politician in the US making a clearly false claim is EXTRAORDINARY hasn't been plausible for, well, some time now. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In broad terms, if we have a source that says "Person X believes <claim>" and another source "<claim> has been proven false" but does not mention Person X in any manner, then it is synthesis and a violation of NPOV (particularly in light of BLP) to say "Person X believes in false claim <claim>." That said, I would find it hard to believe that no source that can be used for "Person X believes <claim>" doesn't also say within it about that being a falsely proven claim, but I wouldn't say that as an absolute. This is where we have to be careful to reflect precision of language. eg: if some academic states in source that "this global warming we're seeing is part of a solar cycle" but that source doesn't tie that person directly to being a climate change skeptic/denier, it would be absolutely wrong to label the person that way, interpreting their stance as a skeptic/denier in violation of NOR. --Masem (t) 15:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What? The NYT source says all three things: that Paul was suspended from YouTube for medical misinformation, that Paul dusputed the effectiveness of masks in the YouTube video in question, and that the scientific and medical consensus is that masks in fact work. You are getting into hypothetical that have nothing to do with the case at issue. Newimpartial (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NewImpartial, you are not addressing the specifically noted claims and are transforming my statement into an incorrect straw man version of it. And what would the fact that conservative politicians elsewhere have made clearly false claims possibly have to do with the specifics here? North8000 (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You have posed three claims as EXTRAORDINARY: that Rand Paul claimed...masks are ineffective, that such a claim is false, and that...Rand Paul made a clearly false claim. I do not see why any of these three claims would in fact be extraordinary (and in the case of the second claim, it seems FRINGE to me to even propose that it is extraordinary). The NYT article clearly makes all three statements, and I see no reason that would not be sufficient verification for all three. Rand Paul was suspended from YouTube for making misleading medical claims, and WP should plainly follow the sources that sat this. Newimpartial (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What on Earth is even happening here? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Nothing you said is even remotely true.

1. Rand Paul claimed that masks are ineffective. NYT: ... the senator said that “there’s no value” in wearing masks.
2. Such a claim is clearly false. NYT: In fact, masks do work, according to the near-unanimous recommendations of public health experts.
3. Rand Paul made a false claim. NYT: In the video, Mr. Paul says: “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.” Later in the video, he adds, “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science, which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.” In fact, masks do work, according to the near-unanimous recommendations of public health experts. That's what "in fact" means. It's a prepositional phrase establishing contrast with the previous statement, and it's often used to rebut claims in journalism. I'm flabbergasted that we apparently need to have a discussion on basic grammar to step through what is plainly written in the source.
4. These "claims" are not particularly "extraordinary" (that's your personal interpretation) and they are cited in line to a reliable source, making both your first and second sentence provably false. There is no additional "slam" statement (whatever that means) in correctly describing a false claim as false based on its description as such in a reliable source. That provides needed context. Without it, we are implying that Paul was somehow treated unfairly or that the policy was misapplied. None of that is implied in in the source. You, North8000, are not, in fact, a reliable source. The New York Times is. I think we should probably go with that.
5. If you actually think any of the above three "claims" are in doubt, then I would expect you to do even a modicum of research to either A) find a contrary view in a reliable source or B) determine that no other sources make that assertion. You know how I know you didn't do that? Because a five second Google search for "Rand Paul" "masks" yields the following:
   1. NBC News: Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection," adding that “cloth masks don’t work."
   2. Detailed WaPo fact check on Paul's claims regarding mask effectiveness: Rand Paul’s false claim that masks don’t work
   3. AP News: In the three-minute video Paul disputed the effectiveness of masks, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and medical experts around the world have recommended to limit the spread of the coronavirus. as well as YouTube suspended U.S. Sen. Rand Paul for seven days on Tuesday and removed a video posted by the Kentucky Republican that claimed cloth masks don’t prevent infection, saying it violated policies on COVID-19 misinformation.
   4. Politico: In the video, Paul, whose background is in ophthalmology, criticized the effectiveness of “over the counter” and cloth-based masks. “They don’t prevent infection,” he said at one point in the roughly three-minute video. “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science, which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.”
   5. ABC affiliate with contribution by the AP: The New York Times reports that Paul false claimed, “most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection” in the video. Later in the video he claimed again that cloth masks don't work. and also However, masks do work, according to health officials and scientists. The World Health Organization's policy says that fabric, non-medical masks can be used by the general public under the age of 60 and who do not have underlying health conditions. (Note the use of preposition to rebut a claim once again)
   6. ABC News: YouTube has suspended Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky from uploading content for one week after he posted a video claiming most masks are ineffective in combatting COVID-19 and also Public health experts have said masks, even cloth masks, which Paul took particular issue with, offer protection against COVID-19 transmission, which in turn prevents infection. But Paul claimed in the video, "cloth masks don’t work," and that most over-the-counter masks “don’t prevent infection,” according to YouTube, which it said violated its policies against spreading COVID-19 medical misinformation.

That's just the first page of Google. On the next page, you would have found essentially the same support from The Guardian, Business Insider, Politifact, Newsweek, The Hill, and a Fox affiliate, but I'm frankly tired of pasting links and quotes. Now if you actually want to talk about Verifiability and NPOV, then I'd like you to retract your previous objection and admit that previously discussed wording is neutral and verifiably correct. Thanks. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is your step #3 - that is an interpretation of the video content in Wikivoice which violates NOR and NPOV on a BLP page. This the key point. You can establish that Paul's comments on masks prior to the video have been assigned as false from other sources But you can't claim video's contents have false claims in Wikivoice. You can say YouTube booted him for a week for the video carrying misinformation (which is not always going to be false/disproven theories, there's other types of misinformation), attributed to YouTube, but unless you have a source that specifically says the content of his video was a false claim, you cannot connect those in Wikivoice in the way the article presently does it. This may be super subtle but these types of leaps of logic bloom into worse problems that remove Wikipedia from its neutral and dispassionate tone that is required by NPOV. This isn't about disputing that Paul's overall stance on masks has been deemed false, or that the general advice about masks being effective should be disputed; it is simply using attribution to avoid inappropriate interpretation of a video. --Masem (t) 18:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: this is getting ridiculous. I assume good faith, but I feel that my time is being wasted here. I need you produce a policy-based requirement for attribution for a fact that is sourced to multiple reliable sources and disputed by zero reliable sources, if we're going to continue this discussion productively. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is the policy atop BLP. You cannot take fact A from once source (let's say that's YouTube's week-long ban due to misinformation in a video speaking about masks) and fact B from another source (WaPost's story about Paul's mask stance which is considered false) to come up with a novel conclusion that sounds like both but is not said by either source (that Paul's YouTube video promoted a false theory). I recognize that there's an Occum's Razor aspect of why YouTube called it misinformation and the seemingly obvious conclusion is that his video continued to promote his false theories, but we have to be super careful on this around a BLP and taking the Occums Razor conclusion is synthesis. Mind you, you can state both points separately (as I've demonstrated) and the reader will likely come to a similar conclusion, but we shouldn't be putting that in Wikivoice for them otherwise that is SYNTH on a BLP's page which is absolutely a no-go. --Masem (t) 20:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

To what novel conclusion do you refer? I don't see anything stated in the current article text that goes beyond the (NYT) source provided. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The NYTimes piece does not specifically call out that the video "falsely claims", though it does counterargue that masks are considered effective by several agencies. But because no attribution is given, the claim of what's in the video is put in Wikivoice, which still is interprtation of its content (remember that YouTube did not speak exactly what was misinformation) It could be fixed by saying "In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which, according to the NYTimes, falsely claims that masks are not effective." Of course, as I've said before, it would be better to start a paragraph about his mask claims in general which have been considered false claims, and then can end about talking about the YouTube ban. The key point here is that the language currently use makes Wikivoice interpreting and critical of Rand, which it can't be. It is a very subtle point, I agree, but this is the type of issue that compounds easily into problems. --Masem (t) 21:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Masem, that you are simply wrong about this. Unless the statement that Paul falsely claims that masks are not effective is disputed by some RS, it would be a violation of NPOV to attribute it to the New York Times. We don't attribute statements unless there is disagreement among reliable sources, or unless they employ value-laden LABELS (and prior discussions have not established that "falsely" is a value-laden label, in terms of policy). Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not how issues around interpretation and synthesis works. just because the synthesis may seem close to what's stated and there are no sources to deny it doesn't make the synthesis correct. The disputed factor here is that YouTube banned Paul because his video had false claims on masks; that's not why YouTube blocked him, they just said "misinformation", it is synthesis to assume it was for a false claim even though this is the most logical result, and aligns with broader statements on Paul's general take on masks. --Masem (t) 19:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The NYT says that he was suspended for claims he made in the video and that those claims were false. You are splitting hairs, here, and calling something SYNTH that is actually just summary. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The NYTimes article never uses the word "false". It states what the video was about, and that YT banned him for misinformation, and then goes on to say that masks are effective. It never specifically counters the content of the video as being false. Combining all those in wikivoice is not at all appropriate. It is very easy to see that interpretation, but we cannot do interpretion in Wikivoice. And while this may seem trivial, this is a core issue around writing neutrally on BLP to avoid Wikivoice from taking a roll in controverise And again, I've posed an option that uses additional sourcing that establishes outside the video that Paul's stance on mask ineffectiveness are false, but the only thing we can say about the video directly is that YouTube considered it misinformation. --Masem (t) 19:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The NY Times first quotes Paul: "Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection." in the next paragraph, the Times writes: "In fact, masks do work, according to the near-unanimous recommendations of public health experts.". The text already in the article is a reasonable summary of the content of the NY Times article. - MrOllie (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

NBC, the Seattle Times and Politifact all use "false". I really don't see the problem with "false" - it clearly isn't WP:OR. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The only agency that knows 100% why Paul was banned is YouTube and the only statement they gave is for "misinformation". Everyone else is supposing what the reason was, which we shouldn't be doing nor should be putting their words in YouTube's mouth without atttribution. But as a whole different solution, we can use articles to broadly discuss Paul's mask stance (not just in that video but in prior interviews) and state those views are false (this stuff presently is not in the article, surprisely), and then in the same paragraph, present that Paul's mask video was considered misinformation by YouTube and led to his week ban. While we aren't calling the video's claims as false, this structure neutrally guides the reader to understand conclusion. Its far more impartial and dispassionate in tone in writing about that Paul's mask stance makes false claims and still properly reflecting RSes without needed further in-line attribution. --Masem (t) 20:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You see, Masem: this is where you get over your skis, policy-wise. WP:V (and WP:BLP) do not require that WP use sources that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt everything we state in wikivoice - they need only represent the preponderance of facts according to the reliable sources available. Your issue with how the RS have reported this incident is an issue between you and wikipedia's sources, and is not a policy-relevant consideration in how we write our articles (might as you might wish otherwise). Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The "fact" that is still a problem is that YouTube banned Paul for a week on "false claims", which is nothing what they said. This is what others may have claimed, but not YouTube, so it is factually wrong to state that without attribution in Wikivoice. And this is the problem when editors are in the mode of "we have to be as critical as possible of a topic that is criticized by media" and want to ignore subt built into NPOV. We are supposed to be dispassionate and not be taking sides, and from this view it is clear that that statement is a problem but there's ways to fix it that I've suggested. But even as small as this might be, waving our hands and saying is okay is what leads to larges problems with NPOV writing and what Wikivoice's tone should be. --Masem (t) 20:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. NBC unambiguously states that YouTube suspended Sen. Rand Paul's account on Tuesday for posting a video claiming cloth face masks are ineffective against the coronavirus. ... Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection," adding that “cloth masks don’t work."[3] What you are suggesting is that we ignore that because you, personally, believe that the media is being too critical and want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by correcting that here. Even if you don't recognize it, that suggestion blatantly misrepresents the source for the purposes of inserting your personal POV into the article. The primary reason we have problems with NPOV writing on these articles is precisely because of errors like the one you are making here - editors who are unable to separate "what they believe the sources should say" from "what the sources say" and who therefore argue stridently that their POV language is required for NPOV. NBC and the NYT's wording is not critical - Paul is not being "criticized by the media" in the vague boogieman sense you are using here, and the fact that you felt the need to imply otherwise undermines your point by diving headfirst into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory. The sources for this are objectively summarizing the broadly-accepted facts in and impartial neutral tone. Your suggestion, on the other hand, would crudely insert your POV into the article based solely on your personal gut disagreement with or distrust for those sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That's wrong again, and this is representative of too many problems we have with people and entities like this. The only factual reason the ban was placed was that YouTube said the video was misinformation. What the NYtimes and others said is what they say the video was about and (at least in the case of the NBC) that it presnted false claims, but we do not know if that's how YouTube framed it. Instead, the current wording puts the claim that YouTube removed the video due to being false claims in Wikivoice, which is not something we know is true; we can't put words in YouTube's mouth at all. Either we can attribute the video had false claims to sources like NBC, or insert ahead of that more broader statements about Paul's false claims in general (which we have sources for) without the need for attribution, and not worry about trying to reassert that the video had false claims again in talking about YouTube's action. The latter solution would be far more appropriate as it expands on how the media has framed Paul's claims, retaining their stance and proving more sources to support it. --Masem (t) 21:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: which is not something we know is true - this seems to me to raise the key point; WP is WP:NOTTRUTH, much as you would like for it to be so. We cannot put words in YouTube's mouth, but if reliable sources have done so (and none have not done so), we have no choice but to follow them. Any alternative would be a novel interpretation of the primary sources, which is what you gave offered above. Newimpartial (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

One side note. Since masks do help, but don't absolutely prevent infection if someone changes "don't prevent infection" (a true statement) into them saying that they are "of no value" (a false statement) unless the latter is a direct quote from Paul (not modified by removal from context)) such is at best creating an extraordinary claim. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The current arricle text, are not effective, appears to be both accurate and well-sourced. Let's not wander into the weeds for no reason. Newimpartial (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• The NYT source we're using as the citation for that says, in the context of Paul's comments, that In fact, masks do work, according to the near-unanimous recommendations of public health experts. NBC says that YouTube suspended Sen. Rand Paul's account on Tuesday for posting a video claiming cloth face masks are ineffective against the coronavirus. ... Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection," adding that “cloth masks don’t work."[4] Politifact says that YouTube and Twitter on Aug. 10 temporarily suspended accounts belonging to Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on grounds they violated the platforms’ policies against spreading COVID-19 misinformation.[5]. Many other sources say similar things. Without a source contradicting this it would be a clear WP:NPOV violation to frame it as YouTube's opinion (it would be representing an essentially uncontested fact as opinion), and it would be grossly misrepresenting the source (presenting this as merely YouTube's opinion when the source flatly says otherwise.) Suggesting that we could add (according to YouTube) using that source is suggesting a shocking violation of WP:NPOV and WP:TONE. -Aquillion (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Using what NYTimes and others claim that YouTube banned Paul for (in that it was removed for false claims) as fact is the violation of NOR and NPOV. Period. Unless they said they spoke to YouTube to get more clarification, NYtimes et al cannot know any more than what YouTube published (which was "misinformation"). --Masem (t) 21:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Am I misunderstanding you? Did you mean to say that reporting what the NYTimes says is original research? That seems a bit backward. As to your other point, we have no way of knowing who the NY Times spoke to, and since we're not in the business of second guessing reliable sources we're shouldn't be trying to reconstruct what the Times can or cannot know. MrOllie (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

We have no idea from the NYtimes (or any other story I've seen so far) that they made any contact with YouTube about the ban, so we cannot make any assumption that their reporting is based on a conservation with a YouTube rep. That could be the case, but there's no explicit mention of that (and nearly any time the Times does talk to an involved party, they will usually state about this contact) As such, we have to take what NYTimes and others said as what they assessed the reason for the ban, but they are not YouTube ,and so we can't take what they said as YouTube's reasons as fact. --Masem (t) 21:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the New York Times is a RS. We must take what they state about the reasons for a ban as fact unless we have another source stating otherwise. Your personal gut feelings are not a valid reason that would allow us to cast doubt on the NYT's conclusions in the article voice by framing them as opinion; and suggesting that we could do so is a NPOV violation. --Aquillion (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The New York Times is a high-quality WP:RS; what they say in their articles as fact can (and, when there is no indication of any dispute, must) be reported in Wikipedia as fact. Your personal gut feelings and speculation that maybe in this particular case they didn't do all the fact-checking an RS requires is absolutely not something we can put in the article voice in the way you are suggesting here. They said it, and as an RS we presume they verified it concretely, therefore we must WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. If you believe the NYT is not trustworthy as a source for such facts, by all means take it to WP:RSP, but you can't just arbitrarily substitute your judgment for theirs. --Aquillion (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think the problem is that Rand Paul didn't say masks don't work, he said most masks don't work. The current sentence oversimplifies what Rand Paul was inaccurately claiming. There's an easy fix here, in my view: "In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video in which he falsely claimed that most masks are not effective". Losing precision/context can have the result of appearing as editorial bias/selective use of information, which does end up entering into NPOV-violating territory. However, once this is rectified I don't think it's necessary to attribute "falsely claimed" to YouTube, as there's a strong weight of RS which say his claim that most masks don't work is scientifically false. Jr8825 • Talk 21:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • To be clear, YouTube only said "misinformation" in their public release of the reason for the ban and not "false claims", which is also part of the complexing issues. --Masem (t) 21:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Masem: I think my suggestion helps to resolve that issue as well. By being clear about what Rand Paul claimed (that most, not all, masks are ineffective) and stating this is false (attribution unnecessary per weight of RS), we avoid inaccurately accusing Rand Paul of saying something he didn't while also showing to the reader why what he said was misleading/misinformation. Jr8825 • Talk 21:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

    • That helps, but as I've suggested, we can also talk in broader terms that Paul's general views on marks (not just what the video presents) are false claims, using the WaPost source and some of the other ones identified above and not requiring attribution on calling it "false claims". Here we can talk to what RSes summarize Paul's stance (which I read from those being as you say, not all masks are effective, rather than no mask is effective/masks are ineffective), so that we don't have to worry about the video's contents short of that YouTube banned Paul as they considered it misinformation. --Masem (t) 21:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

      To be clear this would be a paragraph like Paul has also promoted false claims about mask effectivness. Paul had misinterpreted results from a 2020 Annals of Internal Medicine study in Denmark, as well as the lack of mask use in Sweden, to claim masks were not effective nor necessary to prevent the spread of COVID.[6] (probably one or two more things here). Paul had introduced legislation to repeal the federal mandate requiring masks for public transportation, saying "In a free county people will evaluate their personal risk factors and are smart enough to ultimately make medical decisions like wearing a mask themselves."[7] Paul was banned for a week on YouTube in August 2021 for a video about his stance on masks which YouTube said violated their misinformation policy.(NYTIimes current source). And there's probably a few more things that could be added but that expands out more on the mask issue while staying true to what RSes have said about his theories, and not havign to worry about interpreting YouTube's ban reason. --Masem (t) 22:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

      (edit conflict) A more detailed section on his mask views sounds like a good idea, but I don't think that's directly relevant to this discussion: I'm only looking at the sentence that's been brought up here, which I believe is problematic, regardless of the apparent bias of the reporting editor and the stance of most thread participants. I understand you're concerned about being too quick to state "false" in wikivoice, and I'm sympathetic to this, but the YouTube ban is notable in itself (so deserves a dedicated sentence), and I don't think "false" is the main problem with the sentence. I'd personally prefer the phrasing "inaccurately claimed" to "falsely claimed", as I think it's more explicitly non-judgemental ("false" is correct and appropriate, but I do think "falsely claim" carries a subtly judgemental tone, and infers intent to mislead); "inaccurate" may also be more precise (his statement wasn't an obvious in-your-face lie, it was misleading as it leans into genuine scientific concerns about cloth masks). Nonetheless, both wordings are factually correct, and I consider this a comparatively unimportant phrasing issue. There's clearly strong resistance to removing "false" (as can be seen above), so I'd rather focus on fixing the main issue as I see it: that we're characterising Rand Paul's comments with too broad a brush, and 1 extra word can fix it. This isn't mutually exclusive with adding a more detailed look at his views on masks, and looking at the article it would logically follow the paragraph about his false claims regarding vaccines, which is ideal as this closely precedes the sentence on the YT ban, so would provide extra context for this sentence. Jr8825 • Talk 22:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

      Looking at your proposed text more closely (because of the edit conflict), I agree the extra information is helpful. I suggest going ahead and adding the new sentences only. I still think it's unnecessary to say that YouTube "considered" it misinformation, it adds unnecessary doubt over factual information contained in the supporting cites. I'm sure you're going to face opposition to that wording, so better to separate it from your new additions, which are a definite improvement. Jr8825 • Talk 22:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am surprised to see this volume of discussion over what appears to be a well-sourced fact. I would prefer not to add much to the an already overlong discussion, but I'll add my voice to those who see no NPOV issues here, and believe that the status quo version is solid. Firefangledfeathers 22:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you read my concerns about oversimplifying what Paul was inaccurately claiming? He was undermining mask science while also suggesting that a few masks do/might work, and I think it's important to chronicle misinformation accurately. Jr8825 • Talk 22:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I did. I don't believe there's a need to go too in-depth on the point, but if it's possible to improve the statement without making it overlong, I'm supportive. I don't think adding "some" accomplishes this. Minor wording tweaks would, I think, be better discussed at the article talk page. For this noticeboard, I hope only that we quickly reach consensus that no NPOV issues are present. Firefangledfeathers 22:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a potential NPOV issue, though. Saying "Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, "Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection," adding that "cloth masks don’t work"" (NBC), is not the same as saying "Paul falsely claimed masks don't work". This kind of inaccuracy matters when fighting the spread of misinformation, we want to ensure readers trust our content. Jr8825 • Talk 22:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you even need the word falsely in there? Why not just say YouTube suspended Paul for claiming that masks don't work which violates their policies on COVID misinformation, the end. You dont need to attribute to YouTube what other expert sources say is true, and who YouTube relies on in determining their misinformation policy. But you also dont need to push in "falsely" either, it is just not necessary there. nableezy - 22:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Because several sources emphasize it, and because WP:FRINGELEVEL requires that we note the status of fringe theories whenever we discuss them. --Aquillion (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The big issue is that we're putting words in YouTube's mouth in Wikivoice in the current text version. YouTube said nothing of "false claims", only "misinformation", while other sources characterized the video as promoting false claims, but not YouTube. That's misquoting as NOR and NPOV. But you can easily, as I've pointed out, talk prior to the YouTube part about Paul's mask statements considered to be false by many sources, and that still meets the issue of making sure his fringe views are pointed out without misquoting YouTube or the like. --Masem (t) 01:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but YouTube suspended Paul for claiming that masks don't work which violates their policies on COVID misinformation says that masks don't work is COVID misinformation. Why do you need to say it twice in the same sentence? nableezy - 01:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying there's at least 3-4+ more sentences we can write before the YouTube aspect to discuss Paul's mask statements and that they are false claims (see the green text I proposed 8 Jan). Then you can say that YouTube blocked him for misinformation for a video that discussed his view on masks, leaving at that but predicated by the fact that we've got sources that describe his mask claims as false already that the reader can make the connection but we aren't miscontruing YouTube's statement. Again, the stress here is trying to interpret YouTube's statement in Wikivoice beyond being misinformation. --Masem (t) 02:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support current wording - I understand the hangup here: We can't use YouTube's determination that someone violated their COVID-19 misinformation policy to say that misinformation actually took place in Wiki voice. However, the three reliable sources currently cited (who are well aware of this caveat) do say so unambiguously in their own voice:
  • NBC News - "Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, 'Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection,' adding that 'cloth masks don’t work.'"
  • The New York Times - "In fact, masks do work, according to the near-unanimous recommendations of public health experts."
  • PolitiFact - "The Republican lawmakers responded by criticizing the platforms for taking action against their posts, with Paul calling his ban a 'badge of honor.' But public health experts told PolitiFact that the claims that earned them their respective suspensions strayed far from the truth." (This source goes on to address Paul's specific claims in detail)

We do not use an "According to YouTube..." caveat when a fact is supported by multiple reliable sources. It is correct and unbiased to call it "misinformation" in Wiki voice. –dlthewave ☎ 13:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, the current wording puts "false claims" as what YouTube said, in Wikivoice. YouTube specifically said "misinformation", the other sources are saying the video has false claims, but those are not exactly the same terms or meaning. That's basically the same as changing the contents of a quote. --Masem (t) 13:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Masem is correct on this point. If YT didn't say more than misinformation and sources like the NYT are putting 2 and 2 together themselves then we need to attribute such claims to the NYT et al. These differences are often lost on readers but this is exactly the sort of detail we should strive to get right. Springee (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Masem is not correct, Springee. "False claims" is a subset of "misinformation", not a mutually exclusive category, and the NYT - along with all the other RS presented to date - have concluded that the form of misinformation for which Paul was suspended was false claims. You two can hold whatever OR POV on this that you like (that "the sources are wrong!" for example), but the conclusion to be drawn from the available RS is clear. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Masem is correct. We go to what YT actually said. If they say, "the video violated our guidelines" but didn't say specifically what then we can not claim "YT did X because of Y" even if the NYT claims as much. We can say "YT did X. The NYT said the video contained this misinformation...". As you just said, "NYT - along with all the other RS presented to date - have concluded...". That is not "YT said" thus we need to make the attribution. Springee (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you recently read WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:NOTTRUTH? You are literally saying that your reading of the primary source trumps the reliable, secondary sources, and you are also saying that we have to provide in-text attribution for undisputed factual statements documented by multiple RS rather than presenting them in wikivoice. I'm not sure what volunteer-edited encyclopedia's community norms you think you are channeling here, but they aren't Wikipedia's. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No primary sourced are being used. Virtually every article on the ban include the quoted reason of "misinformation" from YT, and separately describe the video as having false claims. They do not say directly that YT removed the video for false claims, and they did, that is tantamount to altering published quotes, whuch wouldnt allow per core policies. --Masem (t) 19:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Your description of the content of these sources does not correspond to the sources actually presented in this discussion. Also, paraphrase is not tantamount to altering published quotes - the whole project of this encyclopaedia depends on RS that paraphrase and even summarize the content of primary sources. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have read those linked and others and they all are clearly distinct that they video had false claims, but separately quote YT reason to block for violating "misinformation". That is two different pieces of information that is currently being synthezed inappropriately. And when we have quoted information on sources, we have to be extremely careful with any paraphrasing to not include OR, or otherwise we quote the needed phrase directly. It would be fully against OR to misquote YT's quoted reason as "false claims". --Masem (t) 19:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think is going wrong, so here e.g. is NBC's discussion of YouTube's reasoning: "We removed content from Senator Paul’s channel for including claims that masks are ineffective in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19, in accordance with our COVID-19 medical misinformation policies," NBC specifically describes the claims in question thus, Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection," adding that “cloth masks don’t work." The current version of our article reads, In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which falsely claims that masks are not effective. I don't see any WP:SYNTH there whatsoever. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I read the current text as putting the description of the video as part of YT's reasoning, which is not true. As I've said a far better solution is to start with the general assessment that Paul's mask ideas are false claims, and several points related to that, and then conclude with the YT ban without having to state anything about false claims, just misinformation. You can get more of a picture of the situation, and avoid the misattribution aspect. --Masem (t) 20:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:Ver and wp:nor establish a sourcing / sourcability requirement for inclusion, not a mandate or force for inclusion. Just because a source is generally OK does not mandate including what they wrote. For example, if they say that youtube said something that they didn't say. Or, if due to such reasons or others, such does not meet the even higher standards of WP:BLP. Saying that YouTube made a damning statement about Paul, and a statement that YouTube never made certainly is an extraordinary claim. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

If you feel that this content is a BLP violation, why don't you remove it immediately? –dlthewave ☎ 20:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually I would recommend just to modify / limit it to what YouTube actually said. But the answer to your question is because it would be out of process because there is a significant discussion about it going on here. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

North8000, I fear you are misreading our article. The current text reads, In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which falsely claims that masks are not effective. The reliable sources establish a sequence: Paul makes statements on YouTube which the RS document to be false; Paul is then suspended by YouTube under its misinformation policy. Our article text doesn't suggest that YouTube made any particular statement about the matter, so you seem to be making up a claim and then interpreting it as EXTRAORDINARY. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No, this is with regards to the latter part of the material which you just referenced. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean he published a video which falsely claims that masks are not effective? That statement has been supported by multiple RS in this discussion, and contradicted by none. Newimpartial (talk)

I also agree with Masem's rationale even though they are focusing on a different area than me. I think that Masem's main point is that the questioned statement blends both:

• the YT event and
• somebody else's assessment of Paul's statement

into the same sentence and in a way that implies that the "somebody else's assessment" was the reason given by YT for the 1 week suspension. And the a wiki editor doing such is synthesis/OR.

My different aspect is this. If you ask an expert "will this mask certainly prevent transmission of Covid", they will say "no" because it is only partially effective at that. So there are variable meanings of "effective" and under some of those saying "not effective" can be true. Which means that saying "not effective" is an arguable statement rather than a categorically false one. So Paul made an arguable statement, not a flatly false one. So a statement that he made a false statement is at best an extraordinary claim and under WP:BLP would need very strong sourcing (that it was a false statement). North8000 (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

North8000, please stop. This is beginning to get disruptive. I personally don't care that you think Paul made an "arguable statement" and frankly Wikipedia doesn't either. We go by what reliable sources say, and they all say that it was false. Time to drop the stick. –dlthewave ☎ 19:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: Quit the crap of mis-characterizing what I wrote.North8000 (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Why can't the sentence be turned around, to avoid the potential inference that YouTube made a declaration as to the falsity of Paul's claim? That is, change:

In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which falsely claims that masks are not effective.

to something like:

In August 2021, Paul published a video in which he falsely claimed that masks are not effective, after which he was suspended from YouTube for a week under their misinformation policy.

Does this address the concerns? 172.195.96.244 (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That works considerably better imo, but change after which to for which. nableezy - 20:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

My interest is to rough out and encourage a more structural analysis of that type of thing in the context of policies and guidelines rather than in how that particular article ends up. I think that your idea resolves the issue that Masem is focusing on / describing (?) which is an improvement. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it is seen as an improvement... Masem, does this address your concern? Newimpartial, what do you think?

North8000, I understand that there is a big picture here, but it is also made up of little pictures and perhaps addressing enough of the little pictures will make clearer some general approaches? Certainly, if Masem is in favour of this change, it would illustrate how tweaks that collaboratively trying to address concerns can be achieved without compromising core policies like WP:RS and WP:NPOV. The interpretation that you raise, however, would violate core policies as there are RS that report on the falsity of Paul's claim... and the interpretation that you present on an "arguable claim" would be prohibited WP:OR in article space unless you can cite it in RS and in such prominence as to make it WP:DUE for inclusion.

Nableezy, I think that changing "after which" to "for which" alters the presentation of sequence into a presentation of causation. According to YouTube's statement, the cause of the suspension was violation of their policy on misinformation. Without a definitive statement from YouTube, to conclude that the falsity of the statement on masks (about which we have RS) was the policy violation on which they acted is an WP:OR / WP:SYNTH violation. It is likely true, or at least a factor, but WP policy forbids declaring that there is a causative connection. (This is, as I understand it, Masem's point.) There is, however, unquestionable evidence of a sequence of events and facts, including:

1. Paul posted the video in question
2. The video contains falsehoods according to RS
3. The video was removed and YouTube issued a suspension for a misinformation policy violation

My proposed text covers this sequence (except for stating that the video was taken down, which could be added – I don't recall if YouTube made any comment on that. It is true that some readers will likely think post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which is a logical fallacy though it is likely true that the suspension was propter hoc in this case. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I considered the causality part, but I would read the for which to be in reference to the video. And he was banned for the video. nableezy - 02:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer "subsequently" (but not "consequently"), rather than "after which", but that is a matter of prose style more than anything else. Newimpartial (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Just looking at this AP News source that quotes

“We removed content from Senator Paul’s channel for including claims that masks are ineffective in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19, in accordance with our COVID-19 medical misinformation policies,” YouTube said in a statement. “We apply our policies consistently across the platform, regardless of speaker or political views.”

So, YouTube did take the video down and stated that "including claims that masks are ineffective in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19" in the video was inconsistent with their "COVID-19 medical misinformation policies." And, I take your point that the video being the reason "for which" the suspension was imposed is supported by this RS. Maybe something like:

In August 2021, Paul published a YouTube video that falsely claimed "that masks are ineffective in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19."[r1][r2][r3+] YouTube took down the video and suspended Paul for a week under their COVID-19 misinformation policy.[r1][r3+]

[r1] = the AP source

[r2] = a Washington Post fact check on Paul's mask claims but does not address the YouTube video specifically

[r3+] = a bunch of sources that cover the ban and the claim, perhaps including the NYT, The Guardian, NBC News, PBS, Forbes, etc...

Given the strength of the YouTube statement, I am struggling now to NPOV and RS concerns that exist here. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That's better -- but I think a better solution is what I've noted above in that outside of the YouTube video , there is more sourcing that can be used to discuss Paul's mask claims in general and they are considered false claims and other aspects related to what Paul (as a lawmaker) had gone out to do related to that. Then there's no reason to force the "false claims" bit in discussion of the YouTube ban since that would already be established. But I would not be opposed to this version as it does what I was concerned with, the mixing of the video's description with YouTube's specific reasoning. --Masem (t) 13:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

My point in saying I was more interested in the generalities was just to say "don't worry about me" if people want to edit the article because I'm not particularly worried about that sentence in that article. And my point was not to insert "arguably true/false", it was to say that escalating that reality into saying that he made a categorically false statement is an extradordinary claim and thus needs stronger-than-usual sourcing under WP:BLP. Or possibly including more of the context/qualifying wording that the more careful sources presumably included.North8000 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose current and proposed wording. The crutch of the discussion revolves around two questions: (1) Did Rand Paul say masks are ineffective? and (2) is it false to say that masks are ineffective. It seems to be pretty well established in WP:RS that masks are indeed effective. So question 2 answered. Question 1 is a bit more complicated, but I would like to explain why I oppose the addition of (according to YouTube). This addition is not acceptable because RS does not emphasize YouTubes viewpoint, they explain the RS truth, not YouTube truth. While I could go back and forth in my head to decide whether or not I though Pauls comments arose to the level of saying "mask are ineffective", but that would be WP:OR. So I'm obligated to make this decision purely on whether or not RS said that Paul claimed masks as being ineffective. WaPo said this: Rand Paul’s false claim that masks don’t work. ABC said this: he posted a video claiming most masks are ineffective in combatting COVID-19. Politico said this: In the video, Paul, whose background is in ophthalmology, criticized the effectiveness of “over the counter” and cloth-based masks. “They don’t prevent infection,” he said at one point in the roughly three-minute video. “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science, which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.” Some sources say strictly that Paul thinks masks are ineffective, but some others elaborate on how he said "most masks" or specified he was talking about over the counter masks and cloth ones. I think Wikipedia should follow suit. The sentence should read: In August 2021, Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which falsely claims that most "over the counter" and cloth masks are not effective. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiIslam[edit]

There is considerable discpute on the article's talk page about whether the site is anti-Muslim or neutral on religion. See the major changes made by a new editor here. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the current debate. The current debate is whether to continue to use outdated sources to report that material such as ex-Muslims testimonies are still on the website after a massive overhaul, when they verifiably are not as per WP:V, and whether or not the website and its parent organization can be used to verify this fact as per Wikipedia's WP:RS policy which states "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." A number of editors have repeatedly claimed that there is no verifiable evidence that the overhaul took place and that the material in question was removed, despite 3rd party attestations and links to the website which show the material clearly was removed.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• IF the website itself has officially stated that it has changed its policy, that statement can be quoted or closely paraphrased with in text attribution (under ABOUTSELF). That statement, however, would not outweigh independent reliable sources that say otherwise (see WP:DUE).

The one thing we can not do is analyze the site ourselves, and reach the conclusion that it has changed its policy. That would be original research (see WP:NOR). Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Blueboar may I add the above edits that you suggested?--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Blueboar, a third party cannot be a more reliable source on what a website's official policy is than that website's own official statement of its owm policy on its own site. Period. That's looney talk. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:10BA:9558:7F4:32F (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Blueboar has already said that we can say that it has officially stated that it changed its policy. But "official policy" does not always equate to "policy" or purpose. As suggested by at least one source, it could easily be a site that hosts false claims that are not inflammatory, etc in themselves but are intended to be used by haters. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, that's wrong. Generally speaking a high-quality secondary source would be vastly superior to a non-WP:RS primary source, especially for statements that might be unduly self-serving (at which point we can't cite them at all per WP:ABOUTSELF.) There are lots of reasons a website might not be the best source for discussing its policies - for example, they might say things that differ from what they actually do; or the practical enforcement of their policies might have nuances that require interpretation from a secondary source in order to discuss; or they might have policies on their website that are of no significance and are never actually enforced as written. --Aquillion (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

When it is DUE to add how a politician voted on specific legislation to their BLP?[edit]

What counts as DUE when discussing how a politician voted to various legislation? I'm asking in context to a range of good faith edits made by Fenetrejones. The edits typically are in the form of person voted for/against a particular law and often cite sources that contain roll calls of votes like house.gov, govtrack.us, RollCall etc. They are also typically mass added thus most/everyone who voted for/against the bill in question had an edit (examples [8][9][10][11]). Note that I don't question the accuracy of this information, only it's weight. How do we decide if it's UNDUE to list how a politician voted on an issue?

I would argue that at minimum we need a RS discussing the bill and discussing how the politician in question was significant in it's passage/non-passage. If an article concludes by saying "the following senators voted for/against this bill" then I would say that doesn't establish weight for inclusion in the senator/politician's BLP even if it might be due in an article about the bill. My view, backed by various RfCs, is that WEIGHT doesn't have reciprocity. That A is DUE in an article about B doesn't mean B is DUE in an article about A. As edited there appears to be no selection criteria why these specific bills were picked to be included in the various BLPs which means they may just be ones an editor is interested in. What standards should nominally apply? I think it is an important question in cases where there are mass additions since reverting many edits can look like hounding whereas reverting a single edit often is seen as simple, good faith editorial disagreement. Springee (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Vote positions should be included if the specific lawmakers vote is the subject of commentary by multiple sources. Include a vote position based on first party sources - without any reasoning given - is akin to OR or POV pushing on a BLP page. Even one third party or secondary RS may be too much POV. Only when such a vote has multiple points of commentary should we include. --Masem (t) 15:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Votes that can be cited only to primary sources are not NPOV and should not be placed standalone in a BLP. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• There is no “right answer” to this… but the key here is to avoid RECENTISM. Remember that a bio article should take a long term, historical tone. The focus should be on the politician’s career/life as a whole. It takes time to determine whether a politician’s vote on a particular bill has any significance to that politician’s career/life. It might, but then again it might not. For example, did the specific vote have an impact on subsequent runs for office? If so, then it is DUE to mention it on his/her bio. If not, then it may well be UNDUE to mention it. We need some passage of time to know what the significance actually is.

That said… Wikipedia does not need to ignore recent votes… if (for example) the individual politician’s vote determined whether the bill passed or not, it would definitely be DUE to mention that vote in an article about the bill. The RECENTISM issues are much shorter in that context. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Masem and SPECIFICO that we would need secondary sourcing. Lawmakers vote on many bills, some of which have tons of unrelated amendments thrown on, and then their next opponent tries to make a campaign ad based on those votes without context. We need to be better than that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• I agree that secondary sources are required and they need to be more than a passing reference. In the U.S., many pieces of legislation are developed through compromise. So legislators may vote for bills that contain things they oppose. In parliamentary systems, legislators may vote with their party if there is there is a whip, after having opposed the legislation in party caucus. TFD (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• That is fair. Fenetrejones (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Secondary sources are definitely needed. User:The Four Deuces also makes a very important point about American politics. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Secondary sources are absolutely required for votes by politicians. Many votes are for procedural reasons or have vital context that primary sources miss (eg. a politician might vote against the "give everyone one pony" bill because they support the "give everyone two ponies" bill instead.) Since it's lawmaking, it's part of the legal field, where interpretation and analysis that only a secondary source can provide are necessary to even start discussing it. --Aquillion (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Again, even with secondary sourcing, discussing how a specific politician voted may be DUE in an article about the bill/law (where that vote may have influenced whether or not the bill passed into law)… and yet UNDUE in a bio article about the politician (where that vote is but one of many in his/her career). Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Not voting, just commenting. I ran into an issue about this recently where I noticed copy/paste paragraphs being inserted into loads of political BLPs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and many more. In this case, the content in question was sourced with sources that did not mention the respective subjects at all (no lists or anything). My edits were systematically undone, and a discussion started on my talk page... TLDR, that user added one of these "list" sources (that only mention the subject in list format) to justify keeping the content. This copy/paste style of editing is just horrible lazy and I pretty much agree with all that's been said above: if there is no substantive info on why the subject voted for X or Y (in a secondary source or wherever), then it's just purely recentism and undue. So how should I proceed when I see these copy/paste vote sections/sentences/paragraphs? Any tips? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that many RSs covered the event/law/etc means the event/law/etc is likely NOTABLE in it's own right. However, that doesn't mean it's support by an individual is DUE in the individual's BLP unless those RSs say the individual was important/significant etc to the event/law/etc. Being mentioned as "one of X number of senators who supported..." is the sort of passing mention that was discussed above. Consider a case where a RS said Senator Doe drafted the legislation and used the following tricks to keep it alive. [more detail about Doe's efforts]... The following Senators supported it [list]". The legislation would likely be DUE in Senator Doe's article but not in the BLPs of the senators on the [list]. This is because Doe was mentioned as a major player in the legislation while the others were just mentioned in passing. Do note that if we were talking about someone like say Ted Kennedy who had a very long legislative history we would then have to decide if this is DUE within the scope of his long history. If Senator Doe is a jr member with limited history then it's easier to say this is significant in context of their BLP. Springee (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on recent events I have observed, I have reasonable cause to wonder about the true rationale for this topic, as well concerns about efforts of some to preemptively wave it around to suggest it is established policy when it is not. This includes, but is not limited to, objecting to a primary source to justify removal of content, then when a valid secondary source is provided, objecting to that as well to remove the content again. soibangla (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you think is the "true rationale" for this topic? Are you suggesting a motive beyond what I original asked about? Can you provide an example that we can discuss? At least in terms of examples I think you are referring to this discussion [12]. In that case a Vox article was provided as a RS. The objection raised was that the Vox sources basically was an article saying, 'Here is a bill. This is a list of those who voted against it'. That example occurred after I started this topic but it is the sort of content that fits nicely into the question being asked. Based on the discussion the Vox source doesn't provide WEIGHT for inclusion in any particular BLP. Springee (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC that would benefit from NPOV.[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --Spekkios (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Proud Prophet and Paul Bracken[edit]

Starting with Paul Bracken, his page has one citation for about 20 paragraphs. Everything about the page is puff piece, singing Bracken's praises. Looking at the history, an unregistered user in February 2018 wrote most of the article, and then the next day the user "Bracken7" registered and edited the page (mostly minor stuff) before never editing again. I think we can guess what happened.

Given only a single line is cited properly and does not read like an advert, I'm tempted to suggest the whole page be deleted.

Which leads to the next part: Proud Prophet.

About half of the citations are for Paul Bracken's book "The Second Nuclear Age: Strategy, Danger, and the New Power Politics". Examining the other citations, a lot are for "War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink", a book by a different author with a smattering of others. However, looking closely, those citations are not for the main topic of the article, but for the background events to Proud Prophet. So, the the central point of the article is based on Paul Bracken's book.

Looking at the history of the page, the bulk of the edits (by word count) have been done by a string of users who are newly registered, do loads of work on the Proud Prophet article, and then vanish.

To be blunt, I am alleging that like his BLP page, the article is a puff piece, mostly to sell his books. I am uncertain what needs to be done. I have already tagged his biography with "is written like a résumé". Before proposing it be deleted, I'm happy to hear some other suggestions about what to do. I'm not sure what to do with Proud Prophet however.Kylesenior (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul Bracken is a pretty awful WP:BLP. Also seems to be a copyvio: [13] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Right, well I went ahead and removed all that. It's a pretty sparse article now. To add to the list of issues, his list of published works were amazon links to where to buy them.Kylesenior (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV issue in RFC proposal at Devolution in the United Kingdom[edit]

Neutrality issues have been raised in an RFC proposing to frame the content of peer-reviewed journal articles using the phrase "Various academics have suggested". Cambial — foliar❧ 18:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Is proposed addition an opinion or a fact[edit]

I was proposing to put the following statement into United States diplomatic cables leak

Cryptome has never been asked by US law enforcement to remove the unredacted cables and they remain online.^[1]

The addition was objected to by @SPECIFICO: with comments

Undid revision 1067339805 by NadVolum (talk) need independent RS to state this as fact. UNDUE PRIMARY SYNTH

Undid revision 1067726768 by NadVolum

Undid revision 1068540116 by NadVolum (talk) The source is invalid, and no consensus means it stays out.

Before I finally got a response at the talk page discussion I had set up afer the first revert at Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak#Cryptome publication of unredacted cables

The "have been told" is why you cannot state this as fact in wiki-voice. You need to stop edit-warring and remove it while you seek consensus by engaging in all due channels here on talk

'Has been told' does not sound like 'so and so said' to me and I believe The Guardian are careful about that. Never mind the US government in the case did not dispute the sworn statement to that effect by John Young the owner and administrator of Cryptome. Should this be attribute to John Young or stated as fact? The policy says Avoid stating facts as opinions. NadVolum (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a statement in a court of law submitted by a party involved in the case, and should therefore be treated as an opinion and not a fact in my opinion. I remember there being some PAG regarding statements in law cases but can't find it right now. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by involved, he's not being accused of anything, he was just giving evidence about one of the charges being brought. NadVolum (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

In a short statement submitted by Assange’s team at the Old Bailey, John Young said he had published unredacted diplomatic cables on 1 September 2011 after obtaining an encrypted file, and that they remained online. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This is his actual sworn statement [14]. It's a primary source which is why it isn't included. How does what you wrote square with 'Avoid stating facts as opinions'? NadVolum (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for tip about PAG. I don't think I'd find what you meant myself at ll easily but I'll put an invite on their project talk page about this discussion, they might easily know if there is a standard. NadVolum (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The PAG you are looking for is probably WP:RSLAW § Briefs and memoranda. I don't really follow NadVolum's argument, though: The Guardian is careful precisely about labeling the claim as an allegation of a party to an ongoing case, so I would say that it must at the very least be attributed, provided that inclusion of the claim is WP:DUE. JBchrch talk 02:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the find, JBchrch. I've created the shortcut WP:LAWBRIEF for future reference. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

In the statement:

"US authorities have never asked a WikiLeaks rival to take down unredacted cables that have been among those at the centre of the legal battle to send Julian Assange to the US, his extradition hearing has been told." [15]

...the part highlighted in yellow is the fact that is being reported by an RS (the Guardian). The fact is that his extradition hearing has been told something. The part highlighted in blue is describing what the extradiction hearing has been told, but the Guardian is not saying that the blue part is true. The Guardian is saying the yellow part is true. We can say, in Wikivoice, the fact--the yellow part--that his extradition hearing was told something. We cannot state, in Wikivoice, the blue part, because no RS is saying the blue part is true. The yellow meets WP:V; the blue does not. Levivich 02:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I was looking at WP:LAW and found a talk discussion there which seems very relevant Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_19#Findings_of_fact_in_Wikipedia_voice?. It says 'When facts in a case are undisputed, then I think it is appropriate to state the facts in Wikipedia's voice', but it says a lot of other things as well. So up to interpreting this particular case I guess. The Guardian reported that court was told a fact. They didn't say it was alleged or claimed. NadVolum (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not a finding of fact by a court. The Guardian does not report that the court was told "a fact". Levivich 02:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

NadVolum you are linking to a 6-year old thread. One should not assume threads that old remain consensus, nor do I believe that summarizing a thread with only a small handful of participants means it is "up to interpreting this particular case I guess". And even if one was to take that thread as consensus that applies here, comments like Springee's I think it is well established at WP that court testimony is not RS for facts does not support your position on that discussion. I'll let Levivich or someone else clarify further on the source's language. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

But the facts of the case and not undisputed here? Assange and his legal team told the court something, so at this stage it's just a unilateral claim. The discussion you linked seems to be about cases that are finished, i.e. those for which we have a court opinion that has established what the facts were. JBchrch talk 02:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay it seems you are agreed on that. By the way that court case did end January last year and it was not disputed. I'll go and stick in an attribution then. Thanks. NadVolum (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Schrödinger and sexual abuse[edit]

Lately some controversy has developed over Erwin Schrödinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In particular, a story in The Irish Times was published that revisited a number of instances where Schrödinger was implicated in what that paper has described as sexual abuse of children. There has been some work by a number of editors to try to contextualize, attribute allegations, and so forth and there has been some controversy at the German Wikipedia over how or whether to include this in their biography. We have on editor, @HPfan4: who objects to including the stories as they claim it is not well documented that the instances really are "abuse" or that there were "victims" or that the word "paedophile" should be used (n.b. in the removed section, the word "padeophile" was attributed to The Irish Times rather than said in Wikipedia's voice). In any case, this is complex enough, I thought I would post here to see if others can help resolve the dispute. There are at least five sources now which have been identified as being relevant to this topic including three well-reviewed biographies and a piece in Der Standard which, while criticizing some of the biographies and The Irish Times piece for certain interpretations, still identifies a number of uncontested facts which have now been removed from our article.

Input here or at the talkpage greatly appreciated. Especially help in workshopping the removed section for reincluding in the biography.

Talk:Erwin_Schrödinger#How_Erwin_Schrödinger_indulged_his_‘Lolita_complex’_in_Ireland

jps (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Using terms such as paedophile are problematic because it refers to a specific psychological condition and is not synonymous with Child Sexual Abuser. Avoid using the term unless there is a reliable psychiatric evaluation during something like a criminal investigation that show the person is in fact a pedophile. -UtoD 08:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that doing this in WP voice would not be ideal. On the other hand, the source which is directly quoted is referred to by other sources as well. I think the reader deserves to know that the source identified Schrödinger as such. I do not think a reader will be misled into thinking that Wikipedia is making this determination or that there was any psychiatric evaluation (which is not possible to do in the circumstance where the person in question has not been alive for some decades). jps (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur with jps here; I don't see any way that someone could read the current text and get the idea that Schrödinger had a psych eval. XOR'easter (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Evident POV-pusher at Elevations RTC[edit]

WP:SPA @HiRachel420: insists upon adding WP:UNDUE topics to the subsection Elevations RTC#Breaking Code Silence and UnSilenced Now Movement even after it has been repeatedly pointed out that these would be better off elsewhere, assuming this info belongs on Wikipedia at all. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@HiRachel420: keeps adding nonsensical and unsourced and unverifiable information to the ElevationsRTC page. It appears they have a conflict of interest. Perhaps are a student. Please block this person. They are not being civil and refuse to discuss the issue on the talk page. --Farr4h2004 (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

POV issues at Christ myth theory[edit]

There are significant POV issues at the article Christ myth theory. Though it is obvious that the poorly named 'theory' that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure at all is indeed a fringe view (though there are mainstream scholarly views that he was not 'Christ'), the article inappropriately conflates various views as 'mythicism'—including views about Jesus not being 'Christ'—that actually agree with mainstream scholarship or that otherwise do not claim that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure.

In particular, an early (modern) proponent of the 'theory' was George Albert Wells, but he changed his position in the mid-1990s, explicitly stating that from then onwards he did consider Jesus to be an actual historical figure:

[F]rom the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century … This is the position I have argued in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, although the titles of the first two of these—The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth—may mislead potential readers into supposing that I still denied the historicity of the gospel Jesus. These titles were chosen because I regarded (and still do regard) the virgin birth, much in the Galilean ministry, the crucifixion around A.D. 30 under Pilate, and the resurrection as legendary.

— Wells, George Albert (2009). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-8126-9656-1.

Mainstream scholar Van Voorst also confirms Wells' changed position, stating:

A final argument against the nonexistence hypothesis comes from Wells himself. In his most recent book, The Jesus Myth (1999), Wells has moved away from the hypothesis. He now accepts that there is some historical basis for the existence of Jesus, derived from the lost early "gospel" "Q" (the hypothetical sourced used by Matthew and Luke). Wells believes that it is early and reliable enough to show that Jesus probably did exist, although this Jesus was not the Christ that the later canonical Gospels portray. It remains to be seen what impact Well's about-face will have on debate over the nonexistence hypothesis in popular circles.

— Van Voorst, Robert E. (2003). "Nonexistence Hypothesis". In James Leslie Houlden (ed.). Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 2: K–Z. ABC-CLIO. pp. 658–660. ISBN 978-1-57607-856-3.

I initially provided a quite broad (admittedly, too broad) examination of issues with the article at Talk (see Talk:Christ myth theory#Article balance), but soon found that the main problem with the article is the misrepresentation of Wells' later views. The article presents many points as the views of 'mythicists' for which it cites Wells' later works (from 1996 onwards). As such, Wells' later views are being misrepresented as 'mythicism'. Editors at Talk and in the article also characterise Wells' later view of Jesus as "minimally historical" in Wikipedia's voice (also using the related term "minimal historicist" at Talk), though no source has been provided for that label, despite numerous requests,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22], and the so-far unsourced insertion of 'minimal' (and related word forms) misrepresents the fact that Wells' later view of Jesus as a Galilean preacher who was executed by the Romans is actually consistent with the broad consensus of what is actually known about Jesus' life. (The use of Wells' pre-1996 works as sources for mythicist views is not contested.)

It has been difficult to engage with the limited number of active editors on the subject, who seem to dismiss as 'mythicists' other editors who do not agree with them.[23][24]

Ramos1990 (talk · contribs) has claimed at Talk that 'we must go with what sources say', but supports the misuse of Wells' later works throughout the article. The same editor also asserts that even putting views that mythicists and some mainstream scholars share in common (such as details about supernatural beliefs about Jesus) in the same paragraph would be 'original research and synthesis'.[25][26]

Engaging with 2db (talk · contribs) has also been generally unproductive, as the editor's responses are often entirely tangential. For example, see Talk section Talk:Christ myth theory#"Lives_of_Jesus". Another editor (Jeppiz (talk · contribs)) suggested that such has been long term behaviour of 2db.[27] After repeated requests for relevant discussion, 2db suggested a POV fork (see Talk:Christ myth theory#Article split).

Trying to work with Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) has been similarly unproductive. A number of times, he has dismissively misrepresented what I have suggested,[28][29][30][31] and seems ambivalent to the explicit misuse of Wells' later views, suggesting that broad edits should be restricted only to vandalism.[32] He notes that the article does say Wells changed his views,[33] but seems to see no contradiction with that fact and the presentation of those same later views as those of mythicists. (He also suggested "imcremental improvements" [sic], but the nature of the misuse of Wells' later works throughout the article is non-trivial and an explicit misrepresentation of Wells' position.) His comments in the section Talk:Christ myth theory#"Lives_of_Jesus" were also particularly confusing.

After I provided an initial very broad examination of POV issues, Jeppiz (mentioned earlier) suggested that perceived issues might include my own interpretations, but agreed that statements that go against what sources actually say should be modified,[34] but has not commented on the misuse of Wells since.

Wdford (talk · contribs) has also expressed that there are POV issues present in the article, including the misrepresentation of views that are actually shared with mainstream views.[35][36]

I advised a few days ago that when I have time I would go through the article to remove misuse of Wells,[37] which was essentially ignored with no direct response. However, the two editors who had been most involved at Talk (Ramos1990 and 2db) had both explicitly acknowledged that Wells stated unambiguously that he was not a mythicist from 1996 onwards. Based on that, I made a bold edit today to remove statements that misrepresent Wells' later works as the views of mythicists.[38] However, this was immediately reverted by Joshua Jonathan.

Please see Talk:Christ myth theory#Article balance for much of the discussion, but all of the sections from Talk:Christ myth theory#"Virtually all" onwards are relevant to the POV issues.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors at Talk have also misrepresented sources that refer to Wells' earlier works, mischaracterising them as Wells' later views. See here, and my response indicating the misuse of sources. In response, rather than acknowledge that the citations in Ehrman's book clearly refer to Wells' previous views from the 1980s, Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) has hidden the comments about the misrepresentation of Ehrman's citation of Wells' earlier works, claiming it is "off topic"[39], whereas the misrepresentation of Wells' view is very much the main issue with the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Per Talk:Christ_myth_theory §. 'Theory', Jeffro77 is certainly correct but has been meet with silence. --2db (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Wells later view is certainly not in line with mainstream scholarship, as he argues for two different Jesus-figures underlying two different Jesus-portraits (Jesus Myth p.103):

What we have in the gospels is surely a fusion of two originally quite independent streams of tradition, ...the Galilean preacher of the early first century who had met with rejection, and the supernatural personage of the early epistles, [the Jesus of Paul] who sojourned briefly on Earth and then, rejected, returned to heaven—have been condensed into one. The [human] preacher has been given a [mythical] salvific death and resurrection, and these have been set not in an unspecified past (as in the early epistles) but in a historical context consonant with the Galilean preaching. The fusion of the two figures will have been facilitated by the fact that both owe quite a lot of their substance in the documents—to ideas very important in the Jewish Wisdom literature. (Cutting Jesus Down to Size, 2009, p. 16)

Paul did not invent his Christ; he elaborated on the earliest accounts of Jesus' life and death. Jeffro77 should read James Dunn and Larry Hurtado. Nor does the CMT-article restrict itself solely to the treatment of a 'hardcore mythiscism'. If Jeffro77 sees room for improvement, he should so, in an incremental way; but he should not confuse Wells' later point of view with mainstream scholarship, not should he expect that the scope of the article is changed simply because he demands so. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

To whatever extent Wells’ later views do not exactly coincide with mainstream scholarship (and in view of the fact that there is actually very little agreement about Jesus in mainstream scholarship), those later views still were not ‘mythicism’. Claiming that a view is either ‘in agreement with mainstream scholarship’ or is otherwise ‘mythicism’ is a false dichotomy. Additionally, Wells’ later views are not consistent with any of the views that the article lead identifies as forms of mythicism.—Jeffro77 (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, my edited version of the article retained (in the section about Wells) his later view that ‘Paul’s mythological Jesus’ was “fused” with details about the historical Jesus. Joshua Jonathan’s contention that Wells’ later works are ‘relevant’ is a misrepresentation (bait and switch) of my position that Wells’ later views should not be characterised as mythicism, and it is not the case that I removed all references to Wells’ later works.—Jeffro77 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that numerous editors have addressed these issues in the talk page already for years such as me, Jeppiz (talk · contribs), Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) and many others. The complainers of POV are usually the same editors too - usually mythicists or mythicism sympathizers who wish to alter the article to look more mainstream, than what all the reliable sources actually state - that mythicism is fringe - see the talk page template "Quotes on the historicity of Jesus" [40]. They often try to latch on to points of agreement to try to make fringe views and fringe positions look like they are actually siding with the mainstream or that they are close to the mainstream already. But the issue is always the same, they never provide actual sources supporting such claims. The POV complainers usually interpret sources, dislike what they say and try to push their interpretation of sources into the article, violating wikipedia policy. Part of the issue is that reliable sources from both general scholars and mythicists themselves converge on Wells as an iconic proponent of the mythicist position, no mater his views later on. The matter is being dealt with (again...sigh) in the talk page at the moment.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Another attempt at misrepresenting my position. I am not a mythicist, and your attempted ad hominem is in any case inappropriate. Instead of making hasty assumptions about my position based on your past experiences with people other than me, how about you actually review the changes I made to the article (reverted by Joshua Jonathan)?—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

There really is a difference between a "Christ myth" and a "Jesus myth". However opponents of the CMT have gone to enormous lengths to twist the debate. There is no single "mainstream" view – just as there is no single "mythicists" view. Mainstream writers like Ehrman openly admit that much of what is in the gospel stories is not historical, and that the historical Jesus of his research does not resemble the Christ of the gospels. Of course there are a wide range of views by scholars who consider themselves to be mainstream, but the acceptance of the historicity of the gospel supernatural events is not "the mainstream scholarship view". Why is there such a massive drive to obscure this obvious fact? Wdford (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm a religion-friendly atheist. We could into dissecting everything that is religious, faith-based and all spiritual beliefs as having no scientific basis as being myths. Doubly so by exploiting the tactic that there is a rare secondary more-inclusive meaning of "myth" which conflicts the massively-common meaning of "myth" which means "false". There is no reason to go down that road. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is not about a religion or a religious practice, this article is about the Myth itself. How can we have an article about a particular Myth that avoids discussing that particular Myth? Wdford (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

A couple of notes. Firse, this topic is inherently about religious beliefs. Your post contains an implied premise that it is a myth, with the common meaning of "myth" being an assertion that it is false./ North8000 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t get distracted by irrelevant arguments about the word ‘myth’. The problems at the article are to do with improper use of sources, as explained in my opening comments. For other issues with the name of the article, see the section Talk:Christ_myth_theory#'Theory'. However, the main issues for the attention of this page are not because of use of the word ‘myth’. The fact that scholars regard Jesus as a historical figure is uncontested (by me, the person who raised this thread). If other editors want to argue that Jesus was entirely mythical, they should do so elsewhere, as it is an irrelevant distraction here.—Jeffro77 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan is continuing to insist on misusing sources, and has restored[41] an attempt to remove the misuse of sources. For example, I removed an assertion that Wells "believed Jesus lived far earlier [than the first century]", which dishonestly cites Wells (Can We Trust the New Testament?, 2003). The claim that "Jesus lived far earlier" is not supported by the cited source, which instead says My view is that Paul knew next to nothing of the earthly life of Jesus, and did not have in mind any definite historical moment for his crucifixion. As we saw, holy Jews had been crucified alive in the first and second centuries B.C., but traditions about these events, and about the persecuted Teacher of Righteousness, could well have reached Paul without reference to times and places, and he need not have regarded their occurrences as anything like as remote in time as they in fact were. Wells says Paul based his stories about Jesus on old "traditions about these events", with no specific time period or individual in mind, and Wells stated that view at a time that he had explicitly accepted that Jesus lived during the first century. Wells (Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and where it Leaves Christianity, 2009) stated, But from the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century. So there is no basis in the source for ascribing the view to Wells that Paul's "Jesus lived far earlier", nor for similar misrepresentations of Wells's views from 1996 onwards. He also falsely claimed in his edit summary for that revert that my edit 'broke up the structure of the article', which is clearly false because the edit in question only modified one paragraph.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles on Afghanistan should be demilitarized[edit]

I've seen a general problem with images of articles about Afghanistan topics being illustrated with images of the military, mostly US soldiers. In a lot of cases, it's done even when there are images without military personnel in them to choose form at Commons.

It doesn't seem too bad in articles about the larger cities, but when it comes to provinicial or rural areas, the lead or infobox image is often a photo of soldiers or military equipment with the place itself serving only as a backdrop. If not the top image, the military images are also used to illustrated civilian topics, like transporation or education. Captions also consistently focus on the military aspects and there's often a completely gratuitous image gallery that looks like it could've been put there by the US Army's PR department.

A good set of example articles are the provinces of Afghanistan where something like half the articles are heavy on military images. In some cases, all of the photos (maps and infobox images excluded). Here are some of the worst examples:

• Baghlan Province
• Daykundi Province
• Helmand Province
• Paktika Province
• Jowzjan Province
• Zabul Province
• Uruzgan Province

Having this much military presence in illustrating non-military articles is not neutral. It makes sense to include military images to illustrate the recent history of an Afghanistan topic, but not otherwise. And there's been a lot of history of Afghanistan that occured before the US forces arrived in 2001.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I think one aspect here, like the very dramatic Daykundi WP:LEADIMAGE, is that many (all) of these are by the American government, and so very handy for WP/Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Do we have non-military images that we can use instead? This may be a case of “not perfect, but use what we have available” rather than any deliberate POV. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

There are alternatives in most cases, it's just that they might not always be as exciting or pretty. But anything involving a foreign military should not be the go-to illustration of a country. I switched out the Daykundi image to provide an example.[42] If this was isolated cases, it might be okay, but when you constantly run into foreign military imagery as illustrations of Afghanistan, we really need to do something about it. It might even be preferable to have no images at all in a lot of cases.

I'm currently working on maybe getting good images released, but the problem will persist if people keep adding military images just because they're handy. It's not helped by the fact that US military photos have completely swamped a lot of Afghanistan categories at Commons.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's an example of how Zabul Province can be demilitarized.[43] Note that the non-military images were both available on Commons before the airplane photo. Both were properly categorized as well. They were both available when the airplane image was added. So the issue isn't really a complete lack of civilian alternatives.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo: what you're objecting to isn't a POV problem, it's a socio-economic problem. That is, the issue you perceive is an artifact of availability. The US and allied militaries was accompanied by legions of both attached service photographers and news reporters, creating a pictorial history that has never been previously available for that nation. Neither native Afghanis nor the previous Soviet invaders produced such a density of images. Add to that the fact that Commons favors highly copyright-free images, which US miltary images are, and you get such a predominance. It's not that people are picking military images intentionally, it's that the most readily-available library of copyright-free images were produced as propaganda for one particular military. If you want to alter this, accusing the community of editors that work on Afghani topics of POV is not likely to be productive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: The availability of certain types of images on Commons is not an excuse to use them uncritically. Just look at the Zabul example above. Someone chose military imagery over perfectly good civilian alternatives. It might have taken a tad longer to find the alternatives, but they clearly there for inclusion. Part of the problem is also that people are putting military images in the regular categories at Commons instead of the "X province in the Afghanistan War" categories that are available for them. Could probably be thousands of images altogether.

I'm not interested in trying to find people "guilty" of anything. I've tried to point out a problem and I've presented solutions. Do you see any problems with the solutions I've proposed?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo:, no I don't see a problem with the solution you're proposing. What you are proposing is, in fact, normal editing. It is not an NPOV issue. There is no reason to post here. From the header at the top of this page: This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion. I see no such link or attempted prior discussion. Also: Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context. I have provided the context that availability of high-quality copyright-free images favors those you object to. I f you can find high-quality copyright-free images, there's nothing stopping you from putting those in. You have yet to articulate, however, how those images or the ones you are replacing are an actual POV issue. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I'm posting here because I believe this issue may not be resolved just by going around and toning down the gratuitous military presence. It's a problem that's been around in a wide range of articles for a long time. The categories over at Commons are swamped with US government photos, most of them depicting the life of US soldiers, not Afghans. So rather than preparing to discuss each and every individual article, I thought it would be better to preemptively raise it here. One thing that definitely worries me is that people will focus on the "high-quality" part and favor military imagery because they look more professional.

This issue here is in my view a very good example of systemic bias rather than deliberate skewing. You pointed to that yourself by mentioning the socio-economic problem. But then again, POV doesn't have to be intentional.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Then just go do it. There's nothing stopping you. Again, what you want to do is the normal editing process. If some-one objects, you'll know. The systemic bias isn't on Wikipedia or on Commons, it's in the sources that are available. If you really want to address that systemic bias, go to Afghanistan and take lots of pictures and release them to the public domain. There is no POV issue in what you've said and you keep repeating the same argument without identifying a WP:NPOV issue. NPOV doesn't just mean "I don't like this and I think it's biased". It has a specific meaning ...Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (emphasis added) To the extent that pictorial record of Afghanistan is skewed in a direction to which you object, it is because that is the record that has been published in reliable sources . That does not violate NPOV. There are no policy-based reasons that NPOV is implicated by your objections. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Overall, I think you need to take a more critical approach to images as illustrations of articles. They can skew perceptions quite a lot if used carelessly, as has been done in this case. All countries deserve to be illustrated with primary focus on their own inhabitants. Once pointed out, it should be blatantly obvious that portraying a country with photos focusing on foreign occupying armies is morally indefensible. That the military has pumped out huge amount of images of their own activities does not make those images reliable, neutral sources to be treated uncriticially.

No military force in the world should ever be a go-to source for information about civilian matters, especially countries where that force is waging war.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Seeing how Afghanistan has been embroiled in a virtually constant warfare since the 1970s, depicting the provinces with idyllic, generic landscapes would seem to be a bit WP:UNDUE, IMO. The military-oriented images reflect the reality of the terrain. Zaathras (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan is an ancient country. Events of the past few decades are just a minor part of its history. Schazjmd (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

From my experience all articles about geographical locations favor images that put topics in a reasonably good light and avoid images that focus on negative aspects (except for when it's specifically described in an article). Detroit isn't depicted by its infamous worn-down slums for example. In fact, you'll probably have a hard time finding any North American city article dominated by imagery of their negative aspects.

In the case of Zabul Province, the "idyllic, generic landscapes" is simply what Afghanistan looks like; it's a country dominated by agriculture and has a very large rural population. I think it would be good to have more images of town and city life, but it's hard to find (especially without soldiers in them). Even in times of active conflict, you generally don't see military personnel in every orchard or at the foot of every mountain. Its the same way you don't see police in front of every building of every US city.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just remove or replace them and explain in the edit summary why you have done so. I full agree with your point, although this is not an issue of WP:NPOV, but WP:DUE. If somebody really believes that every piece of land in war-torn Afghanistan is best-illustrated by a display of erstwhile US military presence and actively re-adds these pictures, you should probably start a centralized discussion in one of the affected articles and – if necessary – an RfC. –Austronesier (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• • Okay, thanks for the advice. If I need to centralize a discussion on a range of articles, are there any standard templates for announcing the discussion in other, related articles? Peter ^Isotalo 10:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ringette[edit]

Hi all. I believe this page has very serious problems with POV and OR. Large portions of the article are completely unsourced, others are cited to sources that do not appear to me to support the material. Some examples:

"Gender feminists were playing the role of psychoanalysts yet did not have the professional qualifications, and opted to abandon academic rigour in favour of presenting pseudo assertions as fact. While Canadian feminist authorities and academics were never able to provide objective evidence that Canadian girls who played ringette instead of ice hockey were mentally inferior or deficient in any way, or that their participation in ringette served as evidence of a hidden group of Canadian victims of patriarchy who were suffering from a psycho-social handicap, their methodology, which included the use of leading questions, nevertheless remained unchallenged. As a result, these claims were never seriously investigated, became unquestioningly accepted within a number of academic institutions, and eventually became an accepted part of wider Canadian public discourse and cultural narratives around the subject of female participation in the sport of ringette, which has remained unquestioned in Canada."

The above is unsourced.

"The manner in which they are written or presented often includes ideological spin doctoring using statements that frame the ringette community as exhibiting a sexist form discrimination against males (reverse sexism) and by effect avoid highlighting the reality that all team sports are dominated by male players except in a handful of rare, exceptional cases, of which the sport of ringette is one. These stories often repeat common misconceptions about the origin and history of ringette and are usually contextualized in a manner amplifying ideological oppression narratives while portraying boys as a disadvantaged class rather than girls. At times the word "stigma" is used when making claims of reverse sexism against males by the sport of ringette in order to avoid using the politically charged term, "reverse sexism"."

Again, unsourced.

"As a result, all elite ringette players in the sport are female athletes rather than male, both nationally and internationally. This approach towards the sport's development has the added benefit of avoiding male-female comparisons and allows it to give female athletes the spotlight by preventing male athletes from dominating the sport due to their biological advantages"

Sourced to this article, which appears to be an opinion piece and does not mention ringette.

"Despite popular belief, though ice hockey had some influence in the early development of ringette, the sport was neither created to be, nor qualifies as an ice hockey variant as is popularly reported by media.[54] "

Sourced to this article. The source explicitly describes ringette as a "variation of ice hockey"

The article is riddled with stuff like this. Please help. Squeakachu (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed one piece of editorializing in the article outright. Anything that's similar, especially without a source, should be be removed. Opinion pieces as sources are relevant of they are very influential, but not otherwise.

However, I think the section "Common misconception" needs to be toned down or possibly removed altogether and some of the content integrated under other headings. I sense that it's been written as a sort of defense against condescending opinion about a female-dominated sport. It's understandable, but it's not very encyclopedic and is just as likely to attract those who insist on including a "counter section".

Peter ^Isotalo 17:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk[edit]

Pretty self-explainatory, as the news about him are becoming way more polarized. What do you think about the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I encourage anyone who takes this on to examine the Talk page archives closely. There are a lot of cases on there of neophyte, red-link accounts raising issues with matters that were agreed upon before the article's Good Article Nomination (and approval) and then quickly ceasing all activity. What that implies I will not venture to guess. QRep2020 (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal and related articles[edit]

Would some others mind taking a look at New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal as well as the related New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Freedom of Information releases), Issues relating to the use of drug detection dogs in New South Wales and New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal (Law Enforcement Conduct Commission investigations)? They're all covering the same subject and have been created by essentially the same person. The articles seem to rely heavily on primary sources as well as some user-generated sources like social media posts, etc., but there also does seem enough secondary coverage to perhaps justify at least a main article about the matter. One of my main concerns is whether the use of the word "scandal" may be undue since it's not clear whether that's how it's being reported by main media sources. There seems to lots of issues at play here so it might be a "scandal" in some sense, but not sure Wikipedia's voice should be used in this way. I'm bringing this up here for discussion because it involves multiple articles and I thought would be easier to discuss in one place, then on multiple article talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

RepresentUs[edit]

RepresentUs was recently brought to COIN, which put it on my radar.

Looking at the article, it is extremely well-sourced, but as you dig through the sources, it seems to be mostly WP:ABOUTSELF laundered through reliable sources.

I don't think diffs are particularly useful because the entire article looks to have this problem.

The organization has obvious celebrity power behind it, so getting press coverage for anything they want to say is easy, I just question whether WP:DUE or WP:NPOV requires a significant restructuring of the article or at least, heavy use of attribution.Slywriter (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Village Pump proposals regarding the sourcing required for athlete biographies and presumption of notability[edit]

Several subproposals have been added to the NSPORT RfC that would welcome input from the community.

Subproposal 1: "All athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD". Potential exceptions/clarifications/amendments are also offered.

Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. This would eliminate several sections on specific sports where this is the only type of criteria given (such as for NGRIDIRON), while merit-based ones, like several in NTRACK, would be left."

Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in "one" game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to "three" games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."

Subproposal 5: "All sports biographies and team/season articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."

Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 5 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice?"

Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG. Replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist"."

Subproposal 9: "Rewrite the lead of WP:NSPORTS to ... cut the confusing sentence in the middle which is at odds with the rest of the guideline and which leaves itself open to lots of wiki-lawyering." JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 hijab row in Karnataka[edit]

2022 hijab row in Karnataka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This has been discussed on the talk page at Talk:2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka#Background

Disputed content:

Background

“

The row intensified before the state legislative assembly elections in 5 states.[8]Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election are expected to be held a year later in 2023. In late 2021, several prominent Muslim women were victimized in the Bulli Bai case.[1]

”

First an NPOV maintenance template was added to the article section at 2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka#Background and then Another guy removed all the content from the background section. These references from reputed newspapers clearly mention the ongoing elections show the relevance and link between the ongoing elections and this sectarian dispute. Please review the refs and help us resolve if this is NPOV violation and how to balance it. Venkat TL (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the topic of the article has little or nothing to do with the elections, or the online harrassment campaign, unless the editor is claiming these were a part of some sort of conspiracy? Short of that, it should include actual background such as previous bans if any, previous orders by the government, or previous uniform rules. I fail to see this as relevant to "Background".

Further, regarding the statement, "several prominent Muslim women were victimized in the Bulli Bai case", there is no source about the current event which includes this.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Restoring my comments removed by Venkat TL : [44]

I'll copy my comment from the article's talk page:

1. CNN doesn't verify (see quote at the top of the section)
2. BBC quotes Karnataka Education Minister B. C. Nagesh about elections
3. Deccan Herald is opinion article WP:RSEDITORIAL
4. Firstpost is opinion article
5. India Today is opinion article
6. Times of India (WP:TOI, this is a joke- quotes "an academician", former BJP MLA, "those familiar with...", "some frustrated students")
7. ABP Live says "Ahead of the assembly elections in five states ... the war of words has erupted among the politicians"

None of the citations provide any background into the elections.

— DaxServer (t · c) 20:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I probably want to add to my comment above is that this is not an NPOV issue, rather a failure of citations to verify. My understanding is that this just doesn't belong on this noticeboard. — DaxServer (t · c) 20:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You have already made this comment at 2022 hijab row in Karnataka#Background and now duplicated it here as well. I disagree with your comments on these refs, which is why I brought it here. The maintenance tag placed on the article is an NPOV tag. and this is NPOV noticeboard. Venkat TL (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Background sections are always magnets for OR, SYNTHESIS, CRYSTAL and wild theories that Wikipedians think they have proof of. No thanks. The Background sections should state what background the readers need in order to understand the main topic. Reserve all other theories and opinions to a later Commentary section if need be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment So far we have received ZERO comments from neutral uninvolved users on this thread. Venkat TL (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump's presidency page.[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Donald_Trump

As an independent with neither political party I find this page has become severally biased and would like to see if it could be a bit better all around.

Things like 'Trump made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency'. Which is straight out calling him a liar.

and 'and took measures to hinder the ACA's functioning.'. As the ACA had become bankrupt and any President that took over would have to have made changes. To say he hindered is a bias statement and opinion.

I am not as editor. and I do not wish to get into a war. And the page is'blocked From editing. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert A Bauer (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The statements are reliably sourced. This isn't a POV issue. Theknightwho (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Trump did in fact make more false and misleading statements than any other president. Of course other presidents have also made false and misleading statements, just not as many. TFD (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)