Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

G4S Secure Solutions

Omar Mateen, the killer responsible for the murders at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando was employed by G4S Secure Solutions. I agree that his employment there probably belongs in the article. One editor has been putting in extensive amounts of information about Mateen, from even before he worked for G4S, and things not really related to the company itself. An example of that would be this diff [1]. I edited a more streamlined version that talked about mostly about things the company was involved in and then put a hatnote to see the bio on Mateen. And example of my version would be this diff: [2]. I haven't posted the complete text here because one version is quite long. In the end, it's my position that the article about the company should be mainly about the company and that most of this material, about Mateen's conduct etc belongs in his bio. Another editor even suggested adding a mention about Mateen showing up as an extra in a movie??? Any opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: In my opinion, the article's section should fairly reflect the prodigious lack of diligence exhibited by Mateen's employer, which got him a firearms carry permit, despite what may have been an intentionally faked psychological clearance (which it characterized as a "clerical error," the actual previous section title, which I changed, of the G4S Secure Solutions section about Mateen), and failed to exercise it as well in his hire, given Mateen's very extensive troubled history. G4S compounded the problem by failing to fire him when his conduct was so publicly aberrant that it caused him to be removed from a critical security position at a courthouse, and simply moved him out of high visibility and limited the extent of his public interaction. It also ignored the import of Mateen being a focus of two separate FBI terrorism investigations within a year, and his chronic racist, violent and homophobic comments, as well as his threats against a frightened co-worker who actually quit his job after G4S ignored his complaints, all of which should have given it pause. It only took action when complaints arose from the contracting agency, the St.Lucie courthouse. I'm not aware of Mateen "showing up as an extra in a movie," but as a G4S Secure Solutions employee he did give a gratitious interview which drew negative public attention in a documentary about the Deepwater Horizon cleanup. G4S failed to uncover extremely pertinent background info when it hired Mateen, for instance regarding his previous violence and arrest, and the circumstances of his remarkable firing from the Florida Department of Corrections just five months before they hired him, G4S claiming it had only verified if he had previously worked there. For reasons of liability, the question that should be put to any employer who had previously fired their applicant, is not soliciting the particulars of the discharge, but "Would you hire this employee again?" That frees a former employer to express a candid opinion without being subject to a frivolous lawsuit. This is basic HR 101, not rocket science. In Niteshift36's haste to delete, my edits correcting serious errors in other sections of the article were reverted, and Niteshift36 made no effort to restore those corrections, nor my edits/deletions for redundant and uninformative verbiage in still another section. This was a very badly written article, before Omar Mateen was on anyone's radar outside that of the myopic corporation. G4S was in the security business but did not display professionalism in its hiring and retention practices, which grossly compromised that internal security, and consequently the public's as well. I believe my edits comported with Wikipedia NPOV policy, but conflicted with possible "graywashing." (For usage of the term, see: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/the-graywashing-of-cia-torture/383633/ ) Activist (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• First off, you can take your conspiracy theory about "graywashing" and stuff that personal attack. Second, your "serious errors" that you corrected weren't that serious at all. Third....look at the stuff you're saying here. "This is basic HR 101", "the question that should be put to any employer..." That's the problem.... you're letting your opinions get in the way. You're playing detective or Geraldo Rivera and engaging in a ton of SYNTH. If an uninvolved person reads your responses, they'll see you have a point to make. I remind you that you actually labelled a section "employee terrorist". What kind of NPOV is that? Again, nobody is trying to keep the info off Wikipedia, just putting it where it belongs. You appear more concerned with "indicting the company" than building a NPOV article. BTW, many employers, including Florida government agencies, won't give details from previous employees. They'll confirm dates of employment and job title but little else. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: The MMPI-2 should not be posted, not because it's "long," but because it is copyrighted. Postings on the Internet (along with a "$3.49" offer for advice on how to cheat on the test), have caused the owner, the University of Minnesota, to bring litigation against infringement of that copyright . Activist (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about the MMPI. I'm talking about the extraneous additions. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I made a mistake and admitted it, about the 13 vs 36 hours. You on the other hand, are doubling down. You wrote: I haven't posted the complete test here because one version is quite long. Fascinating. Activist (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• That was a typo. I meant "complete TEXT. Since I haven't even mentioned the MMPI anywhere else on Wikipedia, why would you think I suddenly started talking about it here? If you read it in context, "text" makes much more sense than "test." There's no "doubling down" on anything. It's the X and the S being located next to each other. So I'll apologize for the typo that led you to make a ridiculous right turn. BTW, you're idea of "admitting it" is to say "BFD". Way to take ownership.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• The MMPI-2 was mentioned in the Section. It's critical info. I assumed you were writing about something in context. You're the only one here who claims to be able to read minds. Activist (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Never made that claim. I said I never mentioned the MMPI. Me. So if I never mentioned it, why on earth would I talk about posting it? And no, posting the MMPI is not "critical info". IIRC, that's not the first time you've used that bit of hyperbole before.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The key issue here is that we can't make a practice of sabotaging one section of an article until the others advance. Yes, the Mateen issue is unflattering for the company; but someone got together a lot of information about it, in large part because there is a lot handily available to get. If someone wants to put together a list of all their offices and locations and what kind of work the company does until this is just the tail of the dog that it might be, good for them. But if we let people, for whatever reason, take the attitude that you can't write much about anything unflattering to a company until the PR people have finished writing up the flattering bit, that's not a neutral point of view at all. I'm OK with some expansion tags to indicate deficiencies, but not keeping out well-sourced and relevant data.

This data includes Omar Mateen appearing on-duty on film in 2012 in The Big Fix, explaining that "Everybody's just, get out to get paid. They're like hoping for more oil to come out and more people to complain so they'll have jobs. They want more disaster to happen." It includes that his coworker for G4S said that he frequently made homophobic, racist, and sexist comments, and talked about killing people, and harassed him with lots of messages, and left the company because nothing would be done about him; that he made people trying to get into a gated community wait until after he finished his Muslim prayer sessions, that he was hired despite various fights and other issues that may or may not be actionable, etc. Some of this stuff isn't even in the "complete text" being argued about. But it sheds a light on G4S and certainly has affected how people think of them. Wnt (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't as impressed with the film, save for showing his injudiciousness. Most employers would ask, "Would we want an employee who makes such judgmental and opinionated comments while being filmed, working for us?" It doesn't compare with his later expressing support on the job for mass murderers such as Virginia Tech Shooting's Seung-Hui Cho, or Ft. Hood's Nidal Hasan of course.

• How much work someone did isn't the issue, especially when much of that work is SYNTH. Nor is this about material being "unflattering" to the company. It's about relevance and NPOV. The article on the Texas Book Depository is a good example. It has 2 paragraphs about how it related to the Kennedy assassination and gives a hatnote to the article about that event. It doesn't try to retell the story. I'd submit that the Kennedy assassination was a more significant event in history, yet the Depository article handles it correctly. It doesn't spend time talking about Oswald defecting to the Soviet Union or that there was no security at the building. It gives you an idea of the role of the location and tells you where the expanded story can be found. His appearance in the movie is relevant to his bio, but not the company article. My version still says " One former co-worker said that he had complained to company superiors about Mateen’s frequent violent, racist and homophobic tirades. He alleged that G4S had ignored him, but G4S denied having a record of those complaints", so it's not like we're removing his racist and anti-gay remarks or that the company ignored it. I just don't spend 5 sentences on it. "...certainly has affected how people think of them" We're not here to guide how people think of them, nor should we be guided by how people think of them. The N in NPOV stands for neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't deny there is merit in condensing where we can to avoid getting drawn into irrelevant details, so this impulse isn't completely wrong. But there is a difference between the Texas Book Depository, used as nothing more than a vantage point, and a company where someone worked for years and had multiple involvements. We shouldn't cut too close to the quick. Wnt (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Oswald actually was an employee at the Depository. "An employee, Lee Harvey Oswald, shot and killed the president from a sixth floor window on the building's southeastern corner." (From the TBD article.) Activist (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly (yes, I'm agreeing with you Activist). Oswald worked there. He was a member of that "company".... yet the article makes a brief mention and directs readers to the more extensive article. Precisely what I've been saying all along. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• @Wnt: "Agreeing with..." me? I'm impressed. Activist (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• The Depository is a pretty good example. The long version is far, far too detailed. That level of detail belongs in the bio. What I find interesting is that the editor most concerned with putting every detail into this article has made relatively few edits to the Mateen bio. Coupled with past edit history on this article...... well, it's just interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• As I've mentioned, I'm interested in the reason you made over 70 similar edits to the GEO Group article, given that the GEO business (Wackenhut Corrections) was owned by G4S until its management raised the capital to take it independent. I'm assuming good faith, but it creates a strain, of course. I'm not interested in "putting every detail into this article." I have no problem with Niteshift36 removing, say, the info that the person who supposedly signed the notarized clearance form for Mateen's carry permit had left the state before that document was signed, because that info in "cumulative." I don't have time to deal with you here and have no desire to edit the Mateen article. I haven't even looked at it. I have an actual life, and dealing with your endless massive reverts is taking time which I'd rather be devoting to something more productive. Activist (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see why any information directly related to G4S employment of Mateen should be whitewashed out of the article. XavierItzm (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing you have suspicions, however. Activist (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Because the article isn't about Mateen. It's about the COMPANY. Nothing is being "whitewashed" (and your claim is lacking in good faith). The article about the COMPANY should tell a brief bit about Mateen and then send readers to the bio of him where you can put every bit of info about his miserable life, because that is supposed to be about him. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• This article is absolutely about the company. It's behavior regarding his unwise employment and even less wise retention is 100% germane to this article. Activist (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor Niteshift36 is OK with text where G4S denies any knowledge of Mateen telling his co-workers he is a terrorist. Editor Niteshift36 is not OK with text where the FBI states it opened the 2013 investigation into Mateen because he told his co-workers he is a terrorist. Enough said: Niteshift36 does not bring an NPOV to this article. XavierItzm (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

ABC News reported that it was G4S that notified the FBI about Mateen's laudatory comments about other terrorists. So the company knew about his proclivities, but did not opt to suspend or terminate him. Activist (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? The version I restored clearly says: "In 2013, an FBI investigations resulted in G4S removing Mateen "from his security post at the St. Lucie County Courthouse", reported the New York Times, but the company kept Mateen as an employee, moving him to a kiosk at a gated community in Palm Beach County." It clearly states that he was investigated and moved as a result, but that the company still retained him (their error). What I removed is all the detail of the complaint because it belongs.....wait for it....in the Mateen bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• No, it belongs here, because the Wikipedia reader would have come to this article to learn about the corporation. If that reader wanted to read about Mateen's sorry life, they would have gone there instead. Activist (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• It took all of the above discussion to get Niteshift36 to finally make a small edit which finally lets in the FBI statements, although in quite an unclear way, sanitising the Public Relations statement by G4S in the previous statements. Nonetheless, his new text deleted the WP:RS citation, which is the Washington Post! Glad the edit got finally made, but clearly edits remain marred by lack of NPOV. XavierItzm (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Precisely. "The mountain groaned and brought forth a mouse." Thanks for your efforts to assure NPOV. Activist (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Why are you arguing what isn't in dispute. Nobody is questioning the source or the investigation. What is in dispute is whether they belong IN THIS ARTICLE (caps since you apparently keep missing it). All my edits have mentioned the FBI investigation. You seem to think that because you have a source, it is a free pass to inclusion. It's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Incredibly, it took all of this arguing for here plus on the talk page to get Nightshift to finally let the WP:RS Washington Post citation stay on the article as well as the fact cited by the FBI that Mateen told his co-workers as G4S he wanted to martyr himself, which Nightshift used to summarily delete prior to this discussion. NPOV from Nightshift? Not unless one spends untold hours to let a simple reference from the Washington Post stand! Which he now has tacitly admitted was OK from the beginning, only using the most G4S-friendly text possible! XavierItzm (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Right! Activist (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• This discussion is about more than your edit. And there was more to it than just putting in a ref. You were trying to backdoor in a lengthy piece of the article as a "quote". And why do you feel the need to put RS in front of Washington Post? Has anyone ever questioned the reliability of the source? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Wrong! Why do you feel the need to bring up such a picayune point as the hopefully forgotten RS notation, instead of dealing with the substantive issues @XavierItzm: has raised?
• Not wrong, but I love how that's your idea of a substantial rebuttal. And the whole RS thing is no less picayune than you taking a day and 4 responses before whining complaining about the word "dude"? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• @XavierItzm: @Wnt: This seems to be a violation of the 3R rule by Niteshift36. How should this proceed?

03:26, 1 July 2016‎ Niteshift36 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,782 bytes) (-710)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 727668335 by

13:43, 1 July 2016‎ Niteshift36 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,455 bytes) (-1,737)‎ . . (→‎Omar Mateen: stream lined to the high points. Extensive quotes can be found in the source)

18:26, 1 July 2016‎ Niteshift36 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,457 bytes) (-2,398)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 727847560 by XavierItzm (talk): There's nothing inappropriate about the edits. (TW))

20:14, 1 July 2016‎ Niteshift36 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,738 bytes) (-2,194)‎ . . (→‎Omar Mateen: Gilroy isn't notable and should be left out. It adds nothing to this and is best left to the source itself.) Activist (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• That's awesome..... should we tally your reverts and hear you explain how you didn't "really" edit war? Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

While you were bickering I was looking up articles and making some EXTENSIVE revisions, which I've put on the page. Provided I don't get too exasperated with what happens next, I won't be interested in pursuing what I hope is a moot edit war. Wnt (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm very pleased with Wnt's substantial efforts to resolve this impasse, the amount of time and quality of the thought this editor put into reaching some resolution, and accept it as a very professional compromise to a difficult situation. Activist (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake prediction - Van method

Please have a look at User:J. Johnson 's edits in the article and consult the talk page, his wording and edit summaries. User:J. Johnson is abusive. His comments are far from polite and he is off limits with the content. Have this diff as a reference for his removing of sourced material and consult the talk page for POV pushing by muting sources without real justification. There is also this comment by User:Sitush that points exactly at what is being done there.-- Hlektron77 (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hlektron77's sudden concern here is highly suspect, as his/her sole contributions to the English WP is to twice restore a block of questioned edits at Earthquake prediction.

The background is this. Since 6 May there has been a series of questionable edits at VAN method, and likewise, since 17 May, at the two sections at Earthquake prediction that touch upon the group (and work) known as "VAN" (Earthquake_prediction#Electromagnetic_variations and Earthquake_prediction#1987–1995: Greece (VAN)). As I have noted here and here, these edits consistently removed or muted criticism of VAN (the group, their method, and their claimed predictions), promoted their point of view, and down-played the controversy regarding them.

These questioned edits are entirely from anonymous IP addresses that geolocate to Athens, Greece: first from 195.134.89.153 (and specifically from the University of Athens, home of VAN) and 77.69.86.91, then (since 5 June) from 77.69.80.202. From internal evidence I suspect at least two people are involved; both appear to be closely connected with VAN, and quite evidently too close to be neutral about the subject.

As there is no indication that Hlektron77 has had any prior interest or presence on this wikipedia, but is active on the Greek wikipedia, his sudden eruption here is likely at the instigation of others, not as a disinterested passer-by.

As to the neutrality issues – after all, this is the NPOV noticeboard – I welcome other opinions as to who is "pushing POV". Hopefully without any further personal disparagement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• We have been aware of the inexperienced edits from UOA the person under accusation here mentions, and we have corrected them, trying to keep the line of User:Elriana's suggestions. Please focus on the result.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Those "inexperienced edits" were not corrected, but largely incorporated into your edits, which have continued in the same mode. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The only person on Earth that would abuse the article as a whole in such negativism, VAN method included, is Geller himself, from Tokyo University. We might need a steward's help here.--77.69.80.202 (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Really? And for what might we need the help of a steward?

For anyone that is interested I have opened an Rfc at Talk:Earthquake prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Eidetic memory article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?. A WP:Permalink is here. One issue is a Slate source vs. what some reliable book sources state. And the other is what to relay based on what all these sources say. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparent bias in high-quality sources

I've put a lot of work into Psychology of eating meat, and have ambitions to make it a GA. Editors have expressed concerns that it expresses an anti-meat POV; I can see their side, and especially since I happen to be vegan I want to be vigilant about NPOV. The article currently uses a lot of "pseudo-secondary" material cribbed from primary research papers' reviews of previous work; I was planning to go back and rewrite the article according to information in real review papers, hoping that would solve the problem.

Fortunately, several objectively good sources have recently been published. The following are the academic review articles or scholarly (not popular) books discussing psychological research on meat eating, from the past 5 years, published by mainstream academic journals or presses, that I could find:

Sources

Bastian, B.; Loughnan, S. (2016). "Resolving the Meat-Paradox: A Motivational Account of Morally Troublesome Behavior and Its Maintenance". Personality and Social Psychology Review. SAGE. doi:10.1177/1088868316647562. Amiot, Catherine E.; Bastian, Brock (2015). "Toward a Psychology of Human–Animal Relations" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 141 (1). American Psychological Association: 6–47. doi:10.1037/a0038147. Loughnan, S.; Bastian, B.; Haslam, N. (2014). "The Psychology of Eating Animals" (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 23 (2). {SAGE: 104–108. doi:10.1177/0963721414525781. Forgas, J.P.; Jussim, L.; Van Lange, P.A.M. (2016). The Social Psychology of Morality. Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology. Taylor & Francis. p. 280. ISBN 978-1-317-28825-1. Clark, Beth; Stewart, Gavin B.; Panzone, Luca A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Frewer, Lynn J. (2016). "A Systematic Review of Public Attitudes, Perceptions and Behaviours Towards Production Diseases Associated with Farm Animal Welfare". J Agric Environ Ethics. 29 (3): 455–478. doi:10.1007/s10806-016-9615-x. Font-i-Furnols, Maria; Guerrero, Luis (2014). "Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: An overview" (PDF). Meat Science. 98 (3). Elsevier: 361–371. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.025. Leroy, Frédéric; Praet, Istvan (2015). "Meat traditions. The co-evolution of humans and meat" (PDF). Appetite. 90. Elsevier: 200–211. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.03.014. Vartanian, Lenny R. (2015). "Impression management and food intake. Current directions in research" (PDF). Appetite. 86. Elsevier {BV: 74–80. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.021.

So, what's the problem? The first four sources make statements which seem to endorse the idea that there can be moral problems with eating meat. One quote each:

Quotes showing anti-meat perspectives

"Meat-eating, like other forms of morally troublesome behavior, conflicts with deeply held moral principles, yet people seek to justify these self-serving behaviors so as to protect their own interests." (Bastian & Loughnan) "The ideological beliefs that legitimize the negative treatment of animals by humans to maintain dominance over them may have deep roots." (Amiot & Bastian) "Factory farming raises the specter of cruel and inhumane conditions in whicn animals are both raised and slaughtered for food." (Forgas et al.) "Despite this suffering and premature death conflicting with peoples’ beliefs about how animals should be treated, most people continue to eat meat." (Loughnan et al.)

My concern is that incorporating such sources could make the article "a cherry-picked nightmare of vegan-chauvinism opinions", or open it to that criticism in a GA review. But excluding MEDRS-compliant sources on the basis of their author's position seems contrary to WP:BIASED. Is there a good answer here? Of course I'm planning to WP:WFTE as much as is appropriate, but I'm not sure that will be enough. FourViolas (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This sentence in the lead appears to be non neutral and vague: "Because meat eating is widely practiced but sometimes considered morally ambivalent...." -- Considered by whom? "Sometimes" -- how often? "Morally" -- how specifically? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The quotes in the note at the end of that sentence offer different ways of making that less WP:WEASELly, I can work on that. A direct quote for that sentence might be Research into meat consumption has risen in recent times, particularly in terms of cognitive dissonance investigation, from Ong et al (context discussing "moral concern for [meat] animals"). But, sorry for being unclear, I was hoping for advice specifically on how to treat the apparently-biased sources as I begin a general rewrite. FourViolas (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

These appear to be opinions; I believe they should be attributed inline; i.e. so and so [researcher / scientist / etc] argues that: "Meat-eating, like other forms of morally troublesome behavior, conflicts with deeply held moral principles, yet people seek to justify these self-serving behaviors so as to protect their own interests." (Bastian & Loughnan) "The ideological beliefs that legitimize the negative treatment of animals by humans to maintain dominance over them may have deep roots." (Amiot & Bastian); etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Good advice, thanks: that matches WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I was actually not planning to include those opinions at all—just wondering if the fact that they're present means I shouldn't cite those papers for other information. FourViolas (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You could also look up WP:BIASED as I believe this applies. In this case, disclosing the bias (i.e. this researcher believes that eating meat = "a form of morally troublesome behavior") may be helpful to readers to put the research results into context. I'm not sure if WP:Fringe may apply as well, as equating meat eating with being "immoral" sounds pretty fringy to me. There's a noticeboard for that :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll do that. Equating meat eating with being "immoral" would probably be fringe, but this is studying the relations between eating meat and thinking about moral issues. In any case, ideas published by multiple academic experts in the top journals of their field (the first three sources are in journals ranked #1, 3, and 10 in Psychology, Social by JCR) can hardly be called outside the scientific discussion. FourViolas (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Simpleshow foundation

A brief video summary about Michael Jackson.

A simple video explanation of German reunification.

I am not sure what to think of some videos being placed all over by the Simpleshow foundation. I am very concerned with OR and neutral POV with some of these clips. These clips have not been vented by anyone from what I can see. Not sure the child like format is what we are looking for aswell.....looking for more input here. !!! -- Moxy (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted some of them. We don't need a video explaining Mother's Day, however well-intentioned, and instructions on writing cover letters aren't encyclopedic. I have a serious concern about setting a precedent for adding in videos, as I think it's a way around the collaborative editing process. If this group wants to partner with the WMF or make some other such official arrangement, that's out of our control, but this is spammy to me and I have a problem keeping them in the articles. Katie^talk 23:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's simply spam. Katie put an excellent explanation of other problems at her talk (a little more detailed than the above). Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps these are appropriate at the Simple English Wikipedia. I watched the one on German reunification. It's dangerously oversimplified in parts. It doesn't seem to show the actual East German flag, and it shows the West German flag in black and white; the black-red-gold flag means something very different than the older black-white-red flag. It presents the reunification as the fulfillment of a historical imperative, which is the point of view of an American high-school history textbook: capitalism is good, communism is bad, and there is nothing bad about capitalism or anything good about communism. What is powerful about Wikipedia is that every claim it makes can be further explored via wikilinks or references. These videos don't have that. I think that makes them spam on English Wikipedia, however well-intentioned they are. Roches (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Further objections, already raised: it circumvents collaborative editing and creates ownership of content. Roches (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I watched the one on the solar system; I'm better able to comment on science than on German history. It, too, is excessively simplistic. It tries to address the question "Where did the solar system come from?" but does not address other basic questions. What are the other planets like? How big are they? What are they made of? Are there other solar systems? I can see the value in describing the size of the solar system in astronomical units only, but it doesn't mention kilometers, or even the speed of light. (An astronomical unit is 499 light-seconds.) It doesn't describe the shape of orbits or show the solar system in scale. One of the videos is about veganism. It is not NPOV; it even says that "when people inform themselves," they become vegan. Roches (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Huey P. Newton Gun Club

We need eyes on the page for the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. It's full of weasel words, red links, and reads like it was ripped from the group's website. I mean, look at this:

"The club was formed as a response to police terrorism, which garnered national attention in August 2014 for its "open carry patrols""

142.105.159.60 (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I've fixed that and one other statement that was highly POV. I think it's in good shape now. Toddst1 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

German virgin birth POV violations on Assault Rifle article

Editors are suppressing reliable sources and editing based on their own unsourced opinions on the Assault rifle page, even summarily removing the POV tag against instructions. Editors are pushing an apocryphal "virgin birth" alternate-history of the assault rifle saying that the assault rifle was created from whole cloth in world war 2 germany. Editors are also making a zealously defending several other assertions that are bizarre and proven false, furthering this narrative, making it more and more convoluted. Editors are defending statements that the 7.92 kurz cartridge is revolutionary, and the first "intermediate cartridge". This is false. Editors are defending the statement that the StG-44 is the first rifle with an over the barrel gas system. This is false. Editors are defending statements that the assault rifle was first developed in germany in world war 2, this is subject to debate, and editors are suppressing edits the belie this narrative.TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• See Talk:Assault rifle where TeeTylerToe has been pushing all kinds of fringe ideas, without getting support from any other editor... Thomas.W ^talk 14:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I discussed the issue at length on the talk page. The only other editor that chose to discuss the issue was Herr Gruber. As anyone can see we came to a consensus. After I edited the article to reflect that consensus, my edits were summarily reverted. The editor that reverted my edit does not seem willing to even discuss the issue, and the other people participating in this dispute have not, as far as I know, cited any sources to contradict the sources that I have presented, or challenged the validity of any of the facts or sources that I have presented.

• See Talk:Assault rifle where TeeTylerToe has been pushing all kinds of fringe ideas, without getting support from any other editor... --RAF910 (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Glitch in the matrix?TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• See Talk:Assault rifle where TeeTylerToe has been pushing all kinds of fringe ideas, without getting support from any other editor... --Pete (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This is sort of what I'm talking about. Three editors making the same claim that anyone can see is not true. I discussed this at length with user Herr Gruber and came to the agreement. I posted ""I would say it's best to characterise the StG as the first mass produced assault rifle and the first to actually use the name, since neither is particularly contentious, and list earlier examples that fit or sort of fit the category in a "history" or "early examples of the concept" section without asserting they're they first either." that seems like a good consensus view. Less of this AR originated in ww2 germany false narrative.", Herr Gruber responded "Given we're largely agreed here, I'll wait for other input." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assault_rifle&diff=728574831&oldid=728557889 TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

And you got the input from other editors: no. An answer you refuse to accept... Thomas.W ^talk 17:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Their argument was just them posting their POV opinion in bold text, and I posted 10 sources contradicting the opinions they posted.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem with you is that you refuse to listen and refuse to respect the opinions of others, since you're bringing the undisputable TRUTH to the virtual pages of the online encyclopaedia called Wikipedia, instead repeatedly claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is having a POV opinion. And you're not only doing it on Assault rifle but also on other articles, causing massive disruption and irritation wherever you go here, and generally speaking just being one big unproductive time sink... Thomas.W ^talk 20:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) requested move

A discussion that is a direct result of Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#RfC: Does the title, hatnote, and lead of this article adhere to the neutral point of view policy? is taking place at Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#Requested move 16 June 2016. Input was requested for that the RfC, and is also welcome at the requested move. Thank you, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sunni Template

There's a dispute on Template:Sunni Islam. I believe WP:UNDUE mainly a "prominence of placement" issue as Traditionalist Theology or Athari is being presented along side the orthodox Sunni theologies (Ash'ari and Maturidi). [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Traditionalist theology is followed by a minority who support the extreme right by rejecting reason as opposed to the Mutazila extreme leftist rationalists. Mainstream Sunnis have accepted the middle path by synthesizing reason/traditionalist views by producing Ash'ari/maturidi.

Traditionalist theology should be moved to the other bracket as not to come across as mainstream. [8] Traditionalist position is basically to oppose reason held by by Ash'ari/Maturidi therefore it can be termed anti school-school, that is just another reason why it may not even belong in the theology section but probably under movement. However Eperoton seems to imply that it doesn't matter in the discussion [9] Would like outside editor opinion on the matter. Misdemenor (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There are two major RSs cited in the relevant discussion thread to support prominence of traditionalist theology and two others to support its classification as Sunni. These citations come from a methodical approach to establishing due weight by reviewing standard academic references, and not from a Google search. There are obviously more RSs to that effect out there. Based on these results, I see no rationale for moving traditionalist theology to the Other section, which contains extinct schools that I don't even recall being called "Sunni" in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

They are reliable sources doesn't matter if its from google. Inserting it into the other section does not diminish the fact that it is still Sunni, I mean the template is called "Sunni Islam". The other section should not only be interpreted to mean extinction, but also to present minority viewpoints. Misdemenor (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course it matters for WP:WEIGHT. The goal is to reflect viewpoints in "proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". A systematic review of academic references based on pre-determined selection criteria makes an estimate of that proprotion. Simply googling up some sources to support one or another viewpoint does not. In this case, you haven't even done that to support your assertion that tradionalist theology is not "orthodox" or "mainstream". You've just been referring to the Amman Message. I disagree with your reading of it, but that's not even relevant to this discussion. The Amman Message is a statement by a group of religious figures and as such a primary source that can't be used for weight estimation per WP:PRIMARY: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source". In fact, I just came across another statement contradicting your argument while reading a chapter from the The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology that I had skipped during my source review: By the end of the tenth century, the broad outlines of the developed Sunnī orthodoxy had taken shape. This orthodoxy was structured around several established schools of law, which defined right action, and the three main “schools” of theology (Ash‘arīs, Māturīdīs and traditionists) that defined right belief. Ahmed El Shamsy. The social construction of Orthodoxy. The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology (p. 107). Eperoton (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That Cambridge source is based on classical theology and its referring to the 10th century not modern attributions. I have not used the Amman message as a basis. Following source "Yet extreme forms of Traditionalism of Ibn Hanbal was seen as too austere and rigid and the rationalism of the Mu'tazila and their supporters among the ahl al-ray as too libertarian.. It was the midpoint between the two movements that constituted the normative position of the majority; and it was from this centrist position that Sunnism, the religious and legal ideology of the majority of Muslims was to emerge"-Roots of Radical Sunni Traditionalism-p.9 [10] Another source explains on p.199 the mainstream view of Sunni Islam (ashari/maturidi). And on page 200 how its been hijacked by a minority (Hanbali-Wahhabis) funded by oil revenue.[11] The useage of the term "Traditional Islam" in this source is not to be confused with "traditional theology/athari". Sunni establishment goes through a consensus process before a view can be deemed mainstream, for example even though Hanbali school of law is the least followed in the Sunni sphere, it is still considered Sunni. From the 16th century traditionalist/athari was finally condemned after centuries of debate. Following source: "They considered Ash'arism, along with the Maturidi school, the only valid standard bearers of Sunni Islam, with harsh condemnations of Ibn Taymiyya and other proponents of similar strains of athari theology. Their Ash'arism was married to the logic of later logicians, indicating that opposition to syllogistic logic in Asharite theology grew more and more rare".-The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology-P.537 [12] Misdemenor (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

In order:

1) El Shamsy's statement is not limited to the 10th century. His chapter deals with Islamic history into the modern era and he's talking about emergence of "developed Sunni orthodoxy".

2) I've looked up the book by Hallaq that the discussion in the "Roots" essay is based on. It's possible that he means something concrete by "normativity" here, but it's impossible to tell what it is exactly, since the book is about law and he only alludes to theology in passing. I've also read a couple of other books by him, and I'm not aware of him going into more detail on this topic.

3) The "Traditional Islam" essay discusses the views of an English-language current in Sunni Islam, adopting the name it uses to refer to itself. So what? Ironically, the quoted polemic against traditionalist/Hanbali/Salafi theology calls it "the new “default Islam”". Not the message you want to convey here.

4) The Oxford Handbook essay discusses the views of a particular group of early modern scholars. Likewise, so what?

More generally, there is a complex history of varying manifestations of mutual tolerance and polemics between kalam and traditionalist theology, and also of waxing and waning influence of the latter (distinctly waxing over the last century). It should be adequately reflected in the various relevant articles. I believe the prevalent treatment of the topic in RSs does not support relegating traditionalist theology to an "other" tab. This opinion is based on a number of academic sources I've read over the years. It was confirmed by a controlled source review I've done to convince other editors, originally for an article naming discussion. It clearly hasn't convinced you in this case, and googling up a couple of sources that support a different view isn't going to convince me, on the policy-based grounds mentioned above. As there doesn't seem to be a point in continuing this argument between the two of us, I'll set it aside for now and rejoin it if you manage to get any support for your position. Even more generally, current academic practice tends to be wary of treating competing claims of orthodoxy in a way that appears to support one side in de-legitimizing the other, and, if anything, the WP community consensus is even more wary of that. Eperoton (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would many respectable outlets including Britannica forget to name Traditionalist theology as a orthodox Sunni school? Are you telling me they were just ignorant of the issue? Academics listen to the majority of Sunnis when it comes to defining it, if this is not done then we cant define this sect as there's many different viewpoints. The traditional islam article makes sure to note that the so called current "default islam" has no scholarly backing therefore Sunnism has been hijacked by fringe groups because of wealthy backers. All academics label groups associated with Salafism/athari/traditionalist theology as "reform movement" deviating from traditional islam. For example Indonesia's Nahdlatul Ulama is traditionalist as oppose to its rival Muhammadiyah & in South Asia Barelvi is traditional compared to reformist Deobandi. Just by looking at the number of adherents on the traditional groups proves whats mainstream/majority view. Misdemenor (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced claims of "False advertisement"

In this edit,[13] User:Denniss claims "false advertizing[sic] is a fact", but none of the sources in the article show anything other than an ongoing lawsuit. Google [ Nvidia GTX 970 Graphics Chip Litigation ] for details. It looks like the case is ongoing, with the latest filing two days ago.[14] We should not use Wikipedia's voice to accuse Nvidia of false advertising when no court has returned a verdict on the issue.

Normally I would try to discuss this with the editor in question before posting here, but his edit history shows many many reverts and no substantive discussion about any of them other than an occasional word or two on his talk page, and often not even that, so I don't see any point in trying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You either have not read the section or failed to understand it. It was falsely advertized as having the same back-end configuration as the GTX 980 which is now known to have been a lie (in nvidia terms this was accidentally presented this way on their website, ads and review docs). Plus the memory issue (not really true 4 GiB but 3.5 + 0.5). --Denniss (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Fun Fact: "Advertizing" is technically OK in American English, sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Denniss, you keep asserting that, but do you have a citation to a reliable source to back up your assertion? See WP:NOTOPINION. Also see [15][16][17][18][19]. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Its technically true (that the technical details were not as presented). 'False advertising' however both implies (and is generally used) as a indication a company intended to mislead in their marketing. Nvidia claims it was unintentional. Hence the lawsuit. So while it is a 'fact' that the description in the marketing was not correct, absent a resolution of the court case/admission by Nvidia, it cannot be described as 'false advertising'. Although in the UK a judgement by the ASA would be enough to describe it as such. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Frank S. Welsh

A strange article with large chunks of unsourced, essay-style, overly-positive content. This material was recently restored by the long term contributor; I reverted but would appreciate some eyes on the article. The discussion of the revert can be found at Talk:Frank S. Welsh.

Yes, I was reverted. The editor also removed the cleanup tags. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Death of Osama Bin Laden

The Death of Osama Bin Laden article contains a "legality" section reviewing positions on the legality of the killing under U.S. and international law. I recently added the views of Benjamin B. Ferencz, and this addition was removed by Glrx.

Ferencz was chief prosecutor of the Einsatzgruppen trial in the Nuremberg trials, advocated for the creation of the International Criminal Court and recently received the Harvard Law School medal of freedom. His comments on the legality of Bin Laden's killing were reported by the BBC ([20]), The Guardian ([21]), The Week Magazine ([22]), CBC News and UK's Channel 4. He also published a short letter in The New York Times ([23]). Ferencz is a notable jurist, his views were reported by high quality media, and similar views are held by other scholars (e.g. Philippe Sands, Professor of Laws and Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals at UCL).

Glrx argues that Ferencz's position violates WP:DUE since the Nuremberg trials were "years ago," his view is held by an "extremely small minority," and Ferencz's legal position is "not concrete." Glrx further argues that Ferencz's position is "speculative" and lastly states, "You need better sources if you want to imply that Obama, Clinton, Holder, Brennan, Panetta, McRaven or seals are guilty of murder."

I believe this position is highly tendentious: the section titled "Legality" is meant to document views on the legality of Bin Laden's killing, and Ferencz's is one such notable view. I'd like further input because I believe editing with the purpose of defending a list of people from theoretical prosecution would require an inherently prejudiced, rather than neutral review of the killing's legality. -Darouet (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I see now that many more views of this kind were once in the article, and later removed. Respecting length requirements, I believe some portion of it should be returned. -Darouet (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any legitimate reason for the complete removal. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The position is by a notable expert and has been widely published in reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

They should clearly be restored with care to not giving them too much weight. However, WP:NPOV requires a reliable source actually establishing minority vs. majority opinion before making such claims in the article. Scoobydunk (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

A quick search on the matter, I didn't find a clear majority vs minority contrast here. In fact, most Western countries are against death penalty (particularly prior to fair trial) and are for due judiciary process. It can be said, that under their own jurisdiction, the death of Bin Laden isn't so easily definable as legitimate. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. Not clear if we have a source that describes the relative importance of these positions, though we do have very significant individuals/scholars and institutions that have taken different positions. We can keep an eye out for such a review to help determine weight. -Darouet (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Heath W. Lowry

There are multiple NPOV complaints about the article on Heath W. Lowry. One editor thinks the article is too critical of Lowry, another thinks the article gives too much credit to Lowry's research and opinions. I think this version of the article is fairly neutral.

Specifically, a dispute has arisen over this edit. The editor claims that these changes will improve the neutrality of the article, which gives too much credit to Lowry's claims and research as it is now. However, the information is factual and well-referenced, and it does not overly represent Lowry's work as the academic consensus on the subject. In fact, the criticism section is fairly detailed and well-documented, so it's not as if an average reader will miss the fact that Lowry's conclusions have been contested. Lowry is also already categorized as an Armenian genocide denier.

Additionally, I think the editor's recent editing history suggests WP:POVPUSH. These edits include mass deletion of information on biographical pages within the Armenian genocide denier Category with the same copy-pasted explanation "too much weight placed on revisionism not taken seriously". --Iamozy (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone. About this issue and other similar articles, I am of this view. Massive deletions with minimal explanations cause to many complications. I do agree that some of these articles need a bit of fine tuning. And that's what the talkpage is about. These articles are about individuals who yes have engaged in denial of the Armenian Genocide. But to then delete parts of the article which discuses(or deals with) and has views from others (in their own words or from scholars overviewing them) is also a issue. The reader needs to know what that individual has espoused as views and based on whatever they have based it on. Yes it may be or is unpalatable, but these articles already are complex to begin with, due to their controversial nature. I would say to the editor who wants to push through with much of these changes that they need to make use of the talkpage and place suggestions for changes here or there, and possibly much of those changes may go forward. But through discussion, not big deletions outright. Doing the latter is not acting in good faith. I am willing to work in the spirit of cooperation and robust, yet polite and respectful discussion. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at the content of lasert101"s edits, they seem appropriate and fully justifiable. However, this editor needs to do more to indicate that they are indeed fully justifiable. Edit summaries are not particularly suitable for this - using the article talk pages would be better. 78.187.215.140 (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC) (Tiptoethrutheminefield - I am currently unable to sign in)

Not all edits and not in the way that editor has gone about it in the deletion of massive chunks of content. Talk page needs to be used to highlight what changes are needed and for it to be done step by step.Resnjari (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I am neither Turkish nor Armenian and have never edited on this subject, but looking at this contested edit, I agree with Iamozy and Resnjari's concern. My favorite WP:LAW of Wikipedia is Raul's razor: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." While it may have some virtues, the edit in question advances its sympathies powerfully and unnecessarily.

Take for instance the opinions of historians Michael M. Gunter and Alan Fisher. The previous version quoted both directly as they questioned the notion that Lowry worked for the Turkish government. The previous version concludes, "However, [Lowry] continues to believe that the loss of Armenian life during WWI fails to fit the definition of "genocide," and that his conclusions are supported by his research." As readers we have been informed of Lowry's opinion and of some scholarly opinions defending him. Fine.

Lasort101's edit removes all this entirely and simply writes, "Lowry admitted in an interview that the letter to the Ambassador was a mistake. However, he continues to deny the genocide."

I think the Armenian genocide is real and should be called this. However, the text as edited teaches me less about Lowry's views, about conceptions of his work, and is written from an explicitly partisan framework (e.g. rather than quote Lowry stating that Armenian deaths fail to meet the definition of genocide, instead state in Wikipedia's voice that he is a genocide denier). It also presumes that as a reader, I'm too stupid to learn of scholarly discussion on the topic and should be spoonfed one particular point of view. The fact that anyone would think this is necessary seriously calls into question the intellectual rigor of their position.

Nationalist, partisan editing weakens both the encyclopedia and the editing environment, by forcing editors into ideological camps instead of encouraging them to neutrally describe the often contradictory and complicated views of various reliable sources. - Darouet (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It is wrongly assumed that scholars who are specialized in a field have a notability independent from the institutions they are affiliated with. Basically here, the criticisms are specific to his affiliations (Turkey funded departments or chairs) in the same manner as the criticisms of the said majority view are not particularly directed against a scholar but rather the institutions (or positions) they represent. Just checking the material from several articles and talkpages, this confirms it. Examples include Taner Akçam or Vahakn Dadrian and their affiliations with the Zoryan Institute (Armenian studies). We should therefor be careful for that matter when quoting scholars independently from their affiliations, because by doing such we might mislead the reader.

I do agree with Darouet, but I have to clarify on what is full disclosure. It is relevant to include Michael M. Gunter, but the reader ought to know somehow that he has an admitted bias in his book (on the subject) which was meant to present the Turkish position regarding the Armenian claims of genocide during World War I and the continuing debate over this issue (Source: Armenian History and the Question of Genocide, by Michael M. Gunter. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011. p. ix). Guenter Lewy shall remain in this article as agreeing with Heath Lowry, but his declaration of bias (which ought to be mentioned) was already reveled in the 70s with his terming of the war crime industry (America in Vietnam. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1978.), along with the fact that his treatment (besides his answers after the accusations) of all other war crimes (besides the Holocaust), all ended up without the G-word; and that he was considered in an article as one of the few remaining adherents of the uniqueness (of the Holocaust) [24] It is understandable that some scholars might consider the tragedy of their own people as Unique (ethnocentric bias), I am not judging him, just mentioning that we can not just throw names without full disclosure of their affiliation, as if scholars have a notability outside of their institutions, affiliations, etc.

See what is the solution Darouet? Uses of terms such as deniers, canards paint a picture, they introduce unnecessary bias, the whole picture is sufficient to immunize articles from bias. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no "Turkish position", there is the official position of the Turkish state as presented by the representatives of the Turkish state (or by its agents/employees, like Lowry). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoethrutheminefield, the term Turkish position was not my words, I merely quoted textually from the author. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

First of the Armenian Genocide is fact. The same way that the mass killings and ethnic cleansing of Balkan Muslims is fact throughout the 19th and 20th century. I was particularly disturbed that Lasort101 deleted [[25]] from the article Justin McCarthy (American historian) an important inline citation from academic Bleacher who has overviewed Mc Carthy's work in relation to Muslim casualties in the Balkans and also Daniel Pipes overview too, which both acknowledge Mc Carthy's genocide denial but also acknowledge that his scholarship on Muslim casualties is of important merit and scholarly sound too. To those who have an interest in these articles, the same way as genocide denial is painful for Armenians, denial of the horrors of that period by (Christian) Balkan states and their peoples, even of events that happened in current times too is also painful. Such deletions do not assist in any way as Yahya Talatin has pointed out issues with placing one peoples suffering over the other and vice versa. On this article, I agree with Darouet's position on this matter. As for Turkish positions, yes some are by the state, others are not. To make a broad catch all is problematic as the majority of scholars in both the West and East get government funding to do research. The question is when receiving that funding are they beholden to that government or are they allowed to go about research independently? Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Democratic National Committee email leak‎‎

Could we have some more eyes on this article? For the past week I've been attempting to monitor this page to keep it within wiki standards. Most recently a section titled "Racist emails" was added. I haven't looked too closely at these additions yet (from what I can tell it appears to be sourced), but I'd appreciate the extra help. FallingGravity (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Extensive quoting from a propaganda source: the Wehrmachtbericht in articles on World War II German officers

Many articles on German military men of the World War II era contain verbatim quotations from German Armed Forces High Command's communiques, the Wehrmachtbericht. It's based on the (inherently unreliable) war-time Nazi propaganda, and I believe does not belong in the articles on this basis alone. But I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy may be applicable. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify?

This appears to be either WP:NPOV or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. Or perhaps this is WP:NOR? Please see example 1 or example 2. Please also see discussion and more examples at Wehrmachtbericht transcript, take 2, on the Field Marshal Rommel's talk page. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have renamed the section so that it's clearer which propaganda source is meant. The title is a bit unwieldy but I hope it may attract other editors to comment. I'll provide a fuller comment soon. Roches (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: You make a very good observation ïn the talk page about Rommel: "Articles on Allied military units and individuals don't include the text of mentions in dispatches or communiques, and rightly so." As I see it, these are the possibilities for quoting the Wehrmachtbericht in the future:

• State only that the individual was mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht, with no quotations, as in the Rommel article.
• Permit brief quotations, as in Michael Wittmann: "on January 9, [Wittmann] destroyed his 66th enemy tank with his Tiger on the Eastern Front."
• Permit full quotations in German and English, as in Georg von Boeselager.

I do not think it is best to delete the existing quotations. Content would be lost which had to be gleaned from a German source and then translated. (There are alternatives, like moving the quotations to Wikisource.) Roches (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Roches: It appears that you advocate keeping the existing Wehrmachtbericht transcripts. What would be the policy or guideline that would support keeping this material? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like WP:OR -and- Primary to me. As interesting as it is, if your description of the source is accurate, the quotes should all be deleted. The material needs to come from reliable secondary sources, such a historians. The one you mention hardly sounds like such. Based on what has been stated here: I vote DELETE. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely must not be used as a source for facts. Might in some circumstances be used to source claims with attribution that makes it clear that a Nazi propaganda outlet is being cited. Remember that all sources are reliable for their own content, including fictional sources, so it can come down to whether a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht is notable. Zero^talk 02:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you cite the sections of policy and guideline that are the basis of this, especially where you say that claims can be attributed to the primary source about itself? In the Séralini affair I am pretty sure this was rejected, where it was claimed that the "Study itself is not a source for the lede" [26]. A number of editors here at the talk page agreed that Seralini's studies were not RS for the article about Seralini's study. The only thing that mattered is what his critics had to say. If for example, the author never said in the study that GMOs caused cancer, that did not matter, what mattered was not what was actually in the study, but what the critics said was in the study, and so reference to the study itself was relegated to the bottom of the article. Seralini's own opinions (and those of his supporters) about the matter about him were, therefore, considered either WP:fringe or WP:undue and buried among the criticisms. Does that approach seem consistent with your view of how to address the reliability of a source about itself? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the quotes should be removed. Doug Weller talk 07:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: You can read at WP:ABOUTSELF that sources can be used about their own content, even if they are unreliable about things other than their own content. In case my intention isn't clear, two examples. (1) "Generalleutnant Schultz captured Stalingrad single-handedly" (source Wehrmachtbericht by date) is not acceptable since Wehrmachtbericht is not a reliable source. (2) "The Nazi propaganda communique Wehrmachtbericht claimed that Generalleutnant Schultz had captured Stalingrad single-handedly." (source Wehrmachtbericht by date) is 100% within the rules if it can be verified that Wehrmachtbericht indeed claimed that. It would be better if (2) could be cited to a secondary source, but there is no rule against citing primary sources directly. I'm not willing to investigate the Seralini article, but your description of it sounds rather shocking. Zero^talk 13:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The Wehrmachtbericht is not being used as a source; the articles contain verbatim quotations, such as below.

Wehrmachtbericht samples

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
Saturday, 22 June 1940	[In den Kämpfen der letzten Tage haben sich durch unerschrockenen Einsatz in kühnen Einzeltaten besonders hervorgetan: der Oberst und Kommandeur einer Schützenbrigade Neumann-Silkow, der Oberleutnant und Chef einer Reiterschwadron Freiherr von Boeselager, der Leutnant Michael in einem Reiterregiment und der Leutnant Meder in einer Panzerjägerabteilung.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	In the fighting in recent days, in fearless action in bold individual acts have particularly excelled: the colonel and commander of a rifle brigade Neumann-Silkow, the lieutenant and chief of a cavalry squadron Freiherr von Boeselager, the Lieutenant Michael in a cavalry regiment and the Lieutenant Meder in an anti-tank battalion.
1 September 1944 (Addendum)	[In den schweren Abwehrkämpfen zwischen Bug und Narew hat sich die 3. Kavallerie-Brigade durch unermüdlichen Angriffsschwung und Härte ausgezeichnet. An ihrer Spitze fand der bereits Anfang 1942 mit dem Eichenlaub zum Ritterkreuz ausgezeichnete 28jährige Brigadekommandeur Oberstleutnant Georg Freiherr von Boeselager den Heldentod. Sein im gleichen Frontabschnitt kämpfender Bruder, Ritterkreuzträger Major Freiherr von Boeslager, hat sich erneut durch höchste Tapferkeit hervorgetan] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	In heavy defensive fighting between the Bug and Narew has the 3rd Cavalry Brigade particularly excelled by showing relentless momentum and hardness. In the lead, already in 1942 decorated with the Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross, the 28-year-old brigade commander, Lieutenant Colonel Georg Freiherr von Boeselager found a heroic death. His in the same sector of the front fighting brother, Knight's Cross bearer Major Freiherr von Boeselager, again excelled with highest bravery.

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
5 July 1944	[Südlich Minsk kämpfen sich unsere Verbände weiter zurück. Nordwestlich der Stadt wurden heftige Angriffe der Bolschewisten abgewiesen. Hier schoß eine Panzerkampfgruppe unter Führung des Generalleutnants von Saucken in beweglicher Kampfführung in der Zeit vom 27. Juni bis 3. Juli 232 feindliche Panzer ab.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	In retreat, our units keep fighting back south of Minsk. Northwest of the city the violent attacks of the Bolsheviks were repulsed. Here an armoured battle group, under the leadership of Lieutenant General von Saucken, destroyed in mobile warfare in the period from 27 June to 3 July 232 enemy tanks.
9 May 1945	[Dem Oberbefehlshaber, General der Panzertruppe von Saucken, wurden als Anerkennung für die vorbildliche Haltung seiner Soldaten die Brillanten zum Eichenlaub mit Schwertern zum Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes verliehen.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	The commander-in-chief, General of Panzer Troops von Saucken was awarded the Diamonds to the Oak Leaves with Swords to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in recognition of the exemplary attitude of his soldiers.

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
Thursday, 10 April 1940	[Die militärischen Maßnahmen zum Schutz der Neutralität von Dänemark und Norwegen wurden am 9. April von starken Einheiten des Heeres, der Kriegsmarine und die Luftwaffe unter dem Oberbefehl des Generals der Infanterie von Falkenhorst, von Seestreitkräften unter dem Befehl des Generaladmirals Saalwächter und des Admirals Carls und von zahlreichen Verbänden der Luftwaffe unter Führung des Generalleutnants Geißler in engster Zusammenarbeit durchgeführt.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	The military measures for the protection of the neutrality of Denmark were carried out on 9 April from strong units in close cooperation of the Heer, the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe under the high command of General of the Infantry von Falkenhorst, of naval forces under the command of Generaladmiral Saalwächter and Admiral Rolf Carls and from numerous Luftwaffe units under the leadership of Generalleutnant Geißler (sic).

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
Friday, 31 October 1941	[Von deutschen und rumänischen Truppen scharf verfolgt, ist der Feind auf der Krim in voller Flucht. Damit haben die langen und schweren Durchbruchskämpfe ihre Krönung gefunden, mit denen die Infanteriedivisionen der Armee des Generals der Infanterie von Manstein im Verein mit dem Fliegerkorps des Generalleutnants Pflugbeil die schmale Landengen bezwungen haben, die zur Halbinsel führen.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	Sharply pursued by German and Romanian troops, the enemy in the Crimea is in full retreat. With this, the long and heavy breakthrough battles have found their coronation. The infantry divisions of the army of General of Infantry von Manstein in conjunction with the Air Corps of Lieutenant General Pflugbeil have concurred the narrow isthmus leading to the peninsula.
Saturday, 30 May 1942	[Die Luftwaffenverbände des Generalobersten Löhr und des Generals der Flieger Pflugbeil unterstützten in schonungslosem Einsatz die Kämpfe des Heeres in der Abwehr wie im Angriff und schlugen die feindliche Luftwaffe aus dem Felde.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	The Luftwaffe forces under the leadership of Generoberst Löhr and General der Flieger Pflugbeil supported in ruthless commitment the defensive as well as offensive combat of the Army and forced the enemy air force from the battle area.

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
18 August 1944	[Soldaten aller Wehrmachtteile, unter ihrem Kommandanten Oberst von Aulock, haben hier dem Ansturm stärkster feindliche Kräfte in fast dreiwöchigem heldenhaftem Ringen standgehalten und dem Gegner hohe blutige Verluste fügt.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	Soldiers of all Wehrmacht branches under their commander Oberst von Aulock, have resisted here strong enemy forces in nearly three weeks' heroic struggle and have inflicted high, bloody casualties on the enemy.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ping @David Tornheim and Zero0000: -- wanted to clarify that the transcripts are not used as a source; they are reproduced within the articles as shown above. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see now. I also note that the German wiki doesn't have them. It seems to me that they fail WP:UNDUE without a secondary source indicating them as important. Zero^talk 13:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Zero0000. I had seen the transcripts before I commented the first time. If the secondary source is discussing them, then the quotes make sense; otherwise, no. 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been away but want to comment again. I don't think the Wehrmachtbericht (WB) is a reliable source for everything because it uses heavily propagandized terms. But, in these articles, the quotations are clearly presented as coming from a Nazi source, and readers will know there is a bias. I don't think WP:UNDUE applies. How is it adding undue weight to include a quotation that summarizes what someone did? I suspect these are not reproduced in German Wikipedia because the Wehrmachtbericht is available in German, so German readers can access it. English readers likely require a translation... and some of these might be the only available English translations. Roches (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Addition: Since I am probably going to be asked for policies or guidelines: WP:IAR. Roches (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not convincing in this case. Neither is fact that someone took the trouble to translate Nazi propaganda and that now "these might be the only available English translations". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment - without comments or interpretations by neutral secondary sources, how do we know what (if anything) in the quotations from or claims in Wehrmachtbericht has truth to it? And if those comments or interpretations exist, why do we need the Wehrmachtbericht quotations and claims at all? I have seen a similar problem in relation to articles on decorated Azerbaijani soldiers - all the source material regarding their decoration is heavily propagandized, yet such articles cannot be deleted because there are Wikipedia rules that say a soldier receiving a military decoration at a certain level has an automatic level of notability that justifies an article (even if there is no content to put in the article because there are no suitable sources). I think this rule should be changed and that unless neutral secondary sources have commented on the award or on the military activities of the subject there should be no such automatic acceptance of notability. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitic canard

An editor recently added an NPOV hat note to the article Antisemitic canard for unclear reasons. Several editors have tried to clarify on the talkpage, but the another editor added the hat note without clarifying explaining despite the consensus thus far that there is not an NPOV issue. The best I can tell, Godsy feels it's not neutral to claim in WP's voice that the topics addressed in this article are canards (hoaxes/myths). I'm not sure if that's an accurate interpretation of Godsy's issue with the article and we have no idea how Twinsday, the editor who added the hat note, feels. I wanted to get more input here before removing the hat note. Thoughts? —PermStrump(talk) 02:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Twinsday added the {{POV}} template to the article. My opinion can be read at Talk:Antisemitic canard#Neutrality, I'm not going to reiterate it here.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you added it. I updated my original comment. —PermStrump(talk) 03:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Godsy arguments. I also agree with adding the POV tag, this article does clearly have neutrality issues! Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The article does not need a POV tag as no one has articulated how the article fails to proportionally reflect the body of knowledge on the subject. It seems that the POV tag is being used (inappropriately) to warn readers that a couple of editors don't agree with how sources have covered the subject.- MrX 23:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

An antisemitic canard is a false story inciting antisemitism. Despite being false by definition, antisemitic canards often form part of broader theories of Jewish conspiracies.[1] Then it goes on to provide several examples of those said false stories! It is one thing to claim them as minority views and another to just plainly claim them as false. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

We are not claiming them as anything. We're reflecting the reliable sources on the topic. What reliable sources suggest that the antisemitic canards covered are true or even genuinely entertain the idea that they might be true? —PermStrump(talk) 05:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing a valid NPOV complaint here. If the article text accurately reflects what reliable sources hold to be factual, then it is NPOV by definition. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This has little to do with whatever or not sources are reliable. It just doesn't seem right to start the lede by stating those are false and go on with a list of things (it's more of a thesis than an encyclopedic article). The neutral stance would be to at least mention that those are generally viewed as false by scholars. There are also controversial titles like (but not limited to) Accusation of anti-Christian bias or Dual loyalty: ethno-centric bias are common among any groups and Jews aren't immune to that. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what a canard is, so it's perfectly fine to describe it as such. If your complaint is about article structure, then that can be addressed by adding more context, but it has nothing to do with neutral point of view.- MrX 13:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

See above, I already gave two explicit examples. Accusation of anti-Christian bias or Dual loyalty, those two aren't false... because Jews are prone to ethnic-centricism like any other group! Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If they are true, they are not Canards. The key word being 'if'. The anti-Christian bias is based on historial rather than the current situation, so is obviously false. You might as well say modern Catholicism is anti-Islam. The dual loyalty argument is far too complicated to get into here, but *some* Jews do indeed place loyalty to their Religion/Ethnic group over their country. Some dont. The canard is saying that the Jews as a group are more loyal to themselves than their country. Which is obviously a blanket generalisation and easily disprovable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Cites for "Jews are prone to ethnic-centricism like any other group"?- MrX 17:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"This has little to do with whatever or not sources are reliable." WP:NPOV only has to do with what reliable sources say. —PermStrump(talk) 18:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Modern catholicism does imply some form of anti-Islam and vis versa... (this supports my point) also, there is no such thing as solely false claims. Those are claims which are considered as false by majority of scholars (that's different). MrX do you really need citations for the statement above? All self-identification with a particular ethnic group requires a form of ethnic-centricism.

To Only in death, be it historical or not, it is one thing to claim it false and another to stat it has been revisited in most published literature as false! I think we are diverting from the initial question here. The real issue is that we don't get to decide what is true or what is false. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The issue of whether the article should have a POV tag as been resolved. This is NOTAFORUM for discussing original research. - MrX 19:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, we don't get to decide what is true or false. So why do you insist on trying? The sources say these are canards, and we follow the sources. It is not our job as editors to correct mistakes you think you've found in a reliable source, or inject your own opinions into the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

MrX, I think I was clear that I do believe the POV tag goes there and the last time I have checked, there is none. The issue can not be resoled unless there is consensus. And would you please specify what is the original research in question?

Someguy, I have some difficulty following you. I do agree with your central argument (You are correct, we don't get to decide what is true or false.). But lets quote the lede again: An antisemitic canard is a false story inciting antisemitism. I am merely quoting the lede to make my point. Just right there it fails the basics... according to whom (source attribution) the arbitrary selection provided as canards are false? This has nothing to do with my opinions being injected in the article. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS doesn't mean unanimity. There is, however, unanimous consensus here among people making arguments based on WP's policies that the POV template doesn't belong. WP:NPOV doesn't mean uncontentious or showing both sides equally. It means the articles reflect POVs in proportion to how they are covered by reliable sources. Not a single editor arguing for the POV template has provided a single reliable source demonstrating why we should even be having this conversation. —PermStrump(talk) 20:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes but that's Tautological. I am asking no such thing as any equal coverage of the other sides position! I am not even asking any coverage. Just pointing out that there is something wrong to build on what as an axiom has been initially classified as false. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yahya, these canards are false according to the sources used in the article, and I do not see your arguing that this is not the case. Statements of fact need not be attributed when there is a single predominant point of view in the reliable sources. It is your opinion that the falsehood of the canards is not a fact. It is your opinion that is being excluded from the article, and rightly so. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Someguy, again, that's tautological! On top of that we're engaged in a circular discussion. Like I have clarified, my criticism has absolutely nothing to do with the subject itself. It is not my opinion (because nowhere have I stated I believed this, you assumed)that the falsehood of the canards is not a fact. Neither that it is my opinion that is being excluded from the article. I didn't even read the article past the lede and the sections titles. And any comments I have raised have to do with both, not anything else. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"It is one thing to claim them as minority views and another to just plainly claim them as false". Your words. Insignificant but notable viewpoints can be described as false if that is how an overwhelming majority viewpoint describes them. I'm mentioning your opinions because you keep bringing them up, like "ethno-centric bias are common among any groups and Jews aren't immune to that", "Modern catholicism does imply some form of anti-Islam and vis versa". And the wrongest statement of all from your arguments, "The neutral stance would be to at least mention that those are generally viewed as false by scholars." When essentially every scholar agrees that something is a fact, to diminish that to an opinion in Wikipedia's voice is decidedly non-neutral. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Come on someguy, these are straw man arguments. Why am I under the impression that a false dichotomy is being created here? My comment on ethnocentricism was an answer to some specific titles of subcategories, your conclusions (mostly implied) from them are non-sequitur when considering under which context they were made. I clarified with the following which you have excluded from your selections: All self-identification with a particular ethnic group requires a form of ethnic-centricism. The point being made there is that those titles can certainly not be just tagged as false. Besides, minority or fringe theories technically should not be described as false, this goes against editorial policy (which requires some form of source attribution). If the overwhelming majority of scholars endorse a position, this should be reported as such and sources should be provided. Going from there to claim false is logically fallacious (Argument from authority). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I missed this recent edit [27] which is somehow an improvement even thought it still doesn't address the issues with the titles of the categories. I know what I am reporting here is widespread on Wikipedia (Argument from authority in lede) but I had to bring it somehow and the occasion presented itself after a controversy on the Armenian massacres talkpage. In no way I am endorsing views, or supporting opinions from the minority sides, or requesting coverage. Just that it is made clear. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: looking at the article Antisemitic canard and its various subsections, I see no problem with the neutrality of the lead, i.e. in defining these various beliefs (canards) as rumors, false and defamatory. Each item mentioned is its own well known trope. If there would happen to be truth to one of them (though I'm quite doubtful that'd be the case), it could conceivably be struck from the list or qualified, so long as this extraordinary action was very well supported by high quality, reliable sources.

Concerning the cleanup tag, it is therefore obviously unwarranted, unless it is meant to spur development of the lead to summarize various canards. That doesn't seem to be the point of the tag at present.

Lastly, because these tropes have such long histories and because we're talking about article improvement, an introductory paragraph explaining some sociological theory of their general origins might be helpful. But that's another issue. -Darouet (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• All good points, Darouet. —PermStrump(talk) 01:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Darout, this is not about whether or not one sees something wrong in defining those as false or derogatory. We can just not contaminate articles with our own thoughts. Someone has yet to address that it seems to go against editorial policy to just throw an axiom (particularly false) in the lede (without including, with it, whom (could be all of the academia doesn't change anything) is claiming it) and build the rest of the article from that. I don't see someone here having directly raised this here so far (I might have missed though). I have already mentioned that it is considered as logically fallacious to claim something false by merely calling upon authority (Argument from authority). We should be careful to claim consensus on delicate subjects only on number of editors because we might be in a situation of Pluralistic ignorance. See for instance how it was assumed I was holding fringe positions (when I never once even gave any opinion on the content other than the titles of the categories). I am being the devil's advocate here. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 14:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from @Yahya Talatin: we don't want to simply write our opinions as facts, and need to be mindful to carefully attribute various beliefs and positions to their sources. For instance, some scholars view the Russian Revolution as a democratic and egalitarian upsurge, some view it as a totalitarian coup d'etat, and many have views in between. There are respectable scholars on all sides, and all their views would need to be qualified. On the other hand, we don't qualify our writing about the ancient age of the earth (4.6 billion years old), even though some theological sources maintain the earth is merely 6,000 years old. That is because we are sufficiently confident in the age of the earth that we present its age as a fact.

In the case of anti-Semitic canards, I think what you see is that I and other editors regard their existence and falsehood as sufficiently demonstrated, so that we no longer consider the idea just a hypothesis, but rather as an established fact. Conversely, we do not view beliefs that these canards may represent real Jewish conspiracies as contributing any part of educated or scholarly world opinion. That is to say, no sources considered in any way notable or reliable maintain that these conspiracies have basis in fact. Instead, all sources describe such ideas as false. For this reason, we present the ideas as canards without qualification. It is possible we are all wrong, just as we might all be wrong about the age of the earth, but if that's true, we have no way knowing. -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Darouet. The calculated age of Earth is like an institutional solipsism (relying entirely on unstable constructs as its foundations)... claiming it as fact without attribution is therefor a logical fallacy. I would point out that scholarship is leaning towards a constructivist model of [even hard] science (with all its epistemological implications). It was maybe a mistake from my part to target one article for something which seems so widespread on Wikipedia. I will find a more appropriate medium to defend my point. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yahya, I think you will find that the problem you describe is not in any way a widespread mistake - it is extremely deliberate. WP:NPOV explicitly states, Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, and further Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. "Factual" and "uncontroversial" are determined by prominence of such claims in reliable sources, not by whether something is factual according to formal logic. You are not going to change this on an article-by-article basis. Put your ideas together and make an argument at WT:NPOV or WP:VPP. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you that probably I should find a more appropriate platform. Just one last point to clarify, while I can see why the scholarly minority isn't included, yet I can still quote policy and claim that we ought to include it's scholarship consensus that it's false (as the quote above doesn't necessarily imply that there should be no source attribution) rather than it being false (separation between subject and object). But then we could be accused of systematic bias, because someone could then allege it's only Western scholarship consensus. It is delicate, because in this particular case the inclusion of Eastern scholarship would create other problems (particularly from countries like Iran) I need not to mention. With the flow of free information this is the reality we are currently facing. I do have some proposals to address those issues at large, but I would be needing help on where or how to address this. Ideally, having someone fix my grammar in my sandbox prior to posting it. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Really, this is a different topic, and so we should close this particular discussion. Views from Iranian media might be in the minority, but still very important for topics related to Iranian or regional politics. But minority Iranian media views on topics related to Anti-Semitic Canards or the age of the earth would not be helpful. -Darouet (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Darouet, see my reply on the entry above on Heath W. Lowry which you have commented. You will see where I am getting at. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yaḥyā, I think that you are confusing WP:DUE and UNDUE. Playing devil's advocate can sometimes be useful in order to maintain WP:NPOV but, as editors, it is imperative that we use WP:COMMONSENSE to evaluate whether it is WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Conlan Press

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see Conlan Press, where Rosscoe99 recently expanded the page greatly to something that I'd consider heavily non-neutral (bordering on an attack page, really). I reverted them but was reverted again. Could we have some more eyes on it and discussion on the talk page? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:PermaLink/732463033 is pre-expansion, and Special:PermaLink/732463196 post-expansion, FYI. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is now extending to Peter S. Beagle, where I'm reverting as well due to WP:BLPRESTORE. Cross-posting to the BLP noticeboard. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We have been over it many times in the Talk page and getting nowhere, so I am seeking other opinions. At present Electronic_harassment is written in the majority view which is to say: "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." (TIs being people who believe they are subject to covert targeting.) This assumes the psychiatric opinion as fact. However, there has been a significant Washington Post article on TIs, Mind Games, which, it seems to me, says that there may be something really happening to these people, that they may not be deluded. I would like to see the EH article incorporate what I see as the opinion of the Washington Post, which for starters would not have written such an article if they thought that TIs were entirely delusional, they would have written an article on a disturbing mass delusion. There are many points made in that article, and the two other similar articles cited, that support the view that, whilst the article should state the psychiatric opinion it should only state it as an opinion, not as a fact. I will go through the points from those three articles one at a time if that is necessary.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Working through the Mind Games article for instances that support my position that the EH article should be written as an open question as to whether there is real targeting happening, not just delusions, extracts from the first few paragraphs say: "IF HARLAN GIRARD IS CRAZY, HE DOESN'T ACT THE PART. .....At 70, he appears robust and healthy -- not the slightest bit disheveled or unusual-looking. He is also carrying a bag.

Girard's description of himself is matter-of-fact, until he explains what's in the bag: documents he believes prove that the government is attempting to control his mind. He carries that black, weathered bag everywhere he goes. 'Every time I go out, I'm prepared to come home and find everything is stolen,' he says.

The bag aside, Girard appears intelligent and coherent. At a table in front of Dunkin' Donuts inside the train station, Girard opens the bag and pulls out a thick stack of documents, carefully labeled and sorted with yellow sticky notes bearing neat block print. The documents are an authentic-looking mix of news stories, articles culled from military journals and even some declassified national security documents that do seem to show that the U.S. government has attempted to develop weapons that send voices into people's heads.

'It's undeniable that the technology exists,' Girard says, 'but if you go to the police and say, 'I'm hearing voices,' they're going to lock you up for psychiatric evaluation.'"

The Washington Post obviously is of the opinion that Girard might not be crazy and is giving him the space to say that he thinks the government is doing something to him. This surely is saying that the WP is of the opinion that it is an open question not definite evidence of delusions? My first attempt to post the above led to it disappearing on clicking "Save Page" Jed Stuart (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence is too much. Seriously though the article acknowledges the experience of voices etc is real. There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used. (and the second is important - we would need both) Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no real dispute in the WP sense here. We have an WP:SPA editor pushing a WP:FRINGE idea, and everyone else telling this editor to please stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart, you may find the page at WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The OP, a polite but inexperienced WP:SPA, has been told many times by experienced editors that this will simply not fly, but unfortunately has failed to understand. I'm afraid that Jed is coming from an In-Universe POV, and the crowbar of understanding is so far simply not working. We need a bigger crowbar, and a very firm foundation for the fulcrum. Guy's essay ought to help, and WP:OUCH may also be pertinent. I, on the other hand, think it may be too late. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC) -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Replying to all: I am not an SPA. I have 3 separate areas of interest and experience, however I have only done two edits in WP in the 'electronic harassment' article. Both edits are now gone so I have effectively done none. For now I only have limited time for participation and decided to use it to attempt to get that article NPOV rather than 100% weight to the psychiatric opinion and 0% weight to the claims of TIs. To state the psychiatric opinion as fact in that way is to entirely negate the claims of TIs, which seems inappropriate. I am only attempting to integrate the view of the Washington Post article Mind Games which gives the TI claims a 'might be something in it'. I think those claims should be described as a conspiracy theory (although I would prefer conspiracy belief as they are not seeming to come at it from a theoretical perspective, but more from an attempt to describe weird experiences). To pitch the article as psychiatric opinion vs TI conspiracy theory is not to push a fringe idea as is claimed that I am doing. TIs seem to be always willing to admit that they have no hard evidence but nevertheless their claims are gaining considerable traction in alternative mass media. e.g. Coast to Coast AM, Jessie Ventura. So it seems that Alternative View - TIs Conspiracy Theory, or some such, would be appropriate, and not Fringe Delusion.

The article WP:1AM is interesting, but that has not been the situation for long. There have been many other editors on my side of the debate contributing to the Talk page, and who have given up in frustration at the immovable block of editors insisting that TI claims MUST be described as definitely delusions. My attempts to set up mediation only resulted in a fake mediation which was closed before I had the chance to reply. Yes, I was slow to get back to the mediation, but they should be fully aware by now that I only contribute every 2-3 days.

As to the point by jytdog "There is no way however that WP will say that the cause might actually be this high tech conspiracy. It is against WP:PSCI; there are no reliable sources that say these technologies actually exist much less are actually being used." The 'Mind Games' article goes in depth into the question of technology and the possibility that something like an extension of the MKUltra project has been in operation since MKUltra was exposed and closed down. The latter point is consistent with the WP article Project MKUltra section 12 Aftermath [[28]] Jed Stuart (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart It doesn't matter how reasonably well you argue. As stiff as it is, this article (as well as others involving Government crimes) are in the hands of conservative groups, probably a joint of real undercover agents (would you ever believe wikipedia had undercover agents editing it?.. I still have problems believing this but I'm trying to not exclude it) and wannabes trying to "do the work better". Either that, or it's a matter of fact that the vast majority of people cannot accept the chance that Federal agencies are still onto MKUltra and COINTELPRO alike programs. Everyone is entiteld to their opinion and, to quote a good one, "I would give my life to protect your right to have one", but hey.. sources speak clear at loads that Electronic harassment is an open question, not a verified illness. I'm sorry if you feel offended but I really have no personal hate towards any of you thus I don't consider it a personal attack (not to mention I'm doing it for a better wikipedia). This article should be taken to WP:ANI or WP:AE because indeed it is a matter of behavior in a too disputed argument. It's so disputed that even opening a case at WP:MEDCOM would ultimately be justifiable. Specifically WP:Civil POV pushing is what I broadly would invite to look into, but the problem sets immediatly as: how can ANI, AE and MEDCOM be free of "whitewashing agents" looking to basically protect their reputation?

The editors involved in the writing of this article are generally not looking to discuss, they are whether purpotedly or not willfull in coordinating denial over the chance Electronic harassment is an open question which, according to wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it results as such. Yet we have this undercover conservative editors and admins looking after their clerk editing wikipedia reputation, denying vital info that could even alleviate the pain possible victims may be really going through the way it is claimed, which soundss absolutely detestable and repugnant. The way the article is written is unacceptable considering the many sources available. Also every source keeps on being rejected with inconsiderate nonchalance and often bad faith. About bad faith for example, how can you consider alien abductions notable enough to be compiled into such a biased article? How can you compare the chance of State terrorism with that of extraterrestrials abducting humans? Why are you so keen on trying to fool us (editors and especially readers), regular unknown people, simple internet users that never did you any wrong? Let's face it, building 7 could not come down the way we are told. And neither the twins. I must be taking myself too seriously in trying to subvert this specific wikipedia censorship.. but the point I guess, is that I always related to knowledge with pure openness, thus it must hurt to see wikipedia being gamed by a bunch of who knows who nobodies.

However, I'm not here just to shout wishy-washy, I would like to point to the lack of hystorical perspective, mentioned with other words by Jed Stuart in the above comment. There have been many "attempts" to correct the censoring POV of the article throughout the last months/years, but I never came accross anyone mentioning WP:RECENT, a decently important essay. WP:RECENT is spot on firstly because COINTELPRO and MKULTRA are hystorial heavy weighting notable and verified clandestine projects which should be more seriously taken into account, and secondly because fundamentally the whole present bias is based on contemporary years's mainstream news about a modern phenomena revolving around internet communities that show traits of mental illnesses. Nonetheless, various reliable sources indicate the existence of weapons meant to induce mental illnesses thus it really is a gigantic mistake to propose the mental illness theory as fact.

There would be more to discuss about, but it's just too frustrating for anyone to be maliciously outnumbered the way it happens all the time. I guess that's why the degree of incivilty is non-existent on the side of the civil (indeed) pov pushers. What about the pointlessness in WP:SPA accusations? Do you think everyone can dedicate their working day to editing an encyclopedia? Let's resume good ol' Aaron Swartz for a minute:

Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible.

On the other hand, everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they’ve come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Wikipedia. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Wikipedia itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else.

Other encyclopedias work similarly, just on a much smaller scale: a large group of people write articles on topics they know well, while a small staff formats them into a single work. This second group is clearly very important — it’s thanks to them encyclopedias have a consistent look and tone — but it’s a severe exaggeration to say that they wrote the encyclopedia. One imagines the people running Britannica worry more about their contributors than their formatters.

What about that argument about pseudoscience detracting from notability?.. Have a read at what's written at the bottom of this for instance. The point with pseudoscience anyway, is like the one with comparing alien abductions to State terrorism: there are reliable sources citing the existence of these exotic weapons just as we have prove of, at least past, State terrorism (it always shows up after a while for some reason, and it's always about other countries, other cultures, other languages), while on the other hand there are no reliable sources citing the existence of extraterrestrials anywhere close enough to our planet, not to mention the abduction part. I know you will keep on stonewalling anyway, I already came to the understand there's no chance of having a un-POVed debate on this article, thus why am I trying my best to contribute to this article? Probably just because Jed is being treated unfairly. Have a good evening all. 82.59.56.100 (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since mentioning sources, is this one from 2008 relevant in your opinion? Peer reviewed by a University. The author is an academic definitely in good-standing even to date and mainstream nonetheless, Kingsley Dennis. What else is needed to accept Jed's suggestion of writing the Electronic harassment page as an open question? 87.1.117.202 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What would it take for us to conclude that the reality of electronic harassment is an open question?

1. It would have to actually be an open question, which it is not. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Fringe theories and pseudoscience.
2. Your "reliable source" would have to actually say what you claim it says, which it does not. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#First Monday (journal)

Might I suggest [ https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/ ] as a more appropriate place for your theories? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Continual assertions that it is not an open question followed by directions to those Wikipedia policies that we are fully aware of in this discussion and are interpreting differently, says absolutely nothing. Referring to an article that is in question as to whether it is a reliable source, but which nobody has used in the EH article, is confusing the issue. It is the Washington Post article "Mind Games" which has been cited in the article and which is the basis of my opinion that the article should be written as an open question.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless 87.1.117.202 is you editing while logged out, I wasn't responding to you. 87.1.117.202 referenced the First Monday journal in the post I replied to.

As for Mind Games you have received your answer multiple times, the latest at [ Talk:Electronic harassment#open question that covert targeting could be happening? ]. One comment in that discussion stands out, and I agree with it 100%:

"Jed, you have cited that same quote from the Washington Post article on these Talk pages twice before here and here. Both times, the reasons why it does not justify giving credibility to the fringe theory have been patiently explained to you. You ask over and over again why we can't treat the topic as "an open question", and over and over again it gets explained to you. You repeatedly ask why the article can't balance psychiatrists opinions with delusional people's opinions, and it is repeatedly explained to you why our policies can't permit that. Your account is 4 years old, and your only interest on Wikipedia is this one topic. Although you have been polite about it, even politely asking the same questions over and over again is a form of WP:DISRUPTION."[29]

Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe we are going nowhere because this is a case of collective prolongend whitewashing (censorship), either because of unconscious (you can't accept the chance it could be happening) or conscious (wikipedia is flooded with conservative individuals who purpotedly deny the chance it could be happening) psychological mechanisms. I understand, the anxiety can be terrifying when it comes to these arguments. However, I'm gonna give the debate a chance if you wish, Guy Macon.

1. The first statement is your own opinion lacking corroboration other than pointing to a section of the WP:NPOV policy which states:

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other.

Thus the question is: what is the majority viewpoint of scientists? And if there is one: how surpassing is it compared to the minority viewpoint (in order to determine the respective weights, correct?)?

2. So you deny "my reliable source presents the chance of electronic harassment happening"? You are stating it doesn't represent the simple view proposed by Jed Stuart? Then explain to me these quotes from that source which, let me remind you, it is authored by a scientist in good-standing (actually of mainstream media good-standing nonetheless), and peer-reviewed by academics with no bias on supporting conspiratorial claims. I will bold and underline the significant parts:

Increasingly there are indications that the uses of wireless technologies have been developed to target an individual’s biological body, with specific focus upon the neuronal functioning of the brain. In this paper I examine how some of these uses have had detrimental effects, and what this implies for both present and upcoming developments for particular wireless/sensor technologies. I consider whether this is not shifting dangerously towards a psycho–civilised society, where greater emphasis is placed upon social control and pre–emptive strategies. [..] Examples of unplanned attacks on the body’s data–processing capability are well–documented’. He (referring to Military strategist Timothy Thomas) references a Russian military article on the same subject which declared that “‘humanity stands on the brink of a psychotronic war’ with the mind and body as the focus”. [..] The “data” the body receives from external sources — such as electromagnetic, vortex, or acoustic energy waves — or creates through its own electrical or chemical stimuli can be manipulated or changed just as the data (information) in any hardware system can be altered. [..] Documented and declassified evidence shows that what may have begun as a program in standardized propaganda and psychological warfare has now developed into research on wireless information targeting and ‘psychocivilized’ control practices. To this effect the term ‘psycho–terrorism’ was coined by Anisimov of the Moscow Anti–Psychotronic Center and Anisimov admits to testing such devices as are said to ‘take away a part of the information which is stored in a man’s brain. [..] Although neurotechnologies are likely to be put to therapeutic and medical uses, such as for improving emotional stability and mental clarity, they also open opportunities for intrusive strategies of control and manipulation. [..] Part of this paper has been focused on the dangers of an increasingly wireless world. These dangers may include the potential for invasive technologies, based upon transmitted/received signals and wavelengths, to shift social order towards a psycho–civilized society. By psycho–civilised I mean a society that manages and controls social behaviour predominantly through non–obvious methods of psychological manipulations, yet at a level far beyond that of the ‘normalised’ social manipulations of propaganda and social institutions. What I refer to are the technologised methods of psychological interference and privacy intrusions in the manner of creating a docile and constrained society. [..] What are the moral and ethical implications of using wireless scanning surveillance technologies for evaluating pre–emptive behaviour based on thoughts and intentions alone? Is this not a dangerous path towards psycho–terrorising the social public? As Thomas (1998) reminds us, the mind has no firewall, and is thus vulnerable to viruses, Trojan horses, and spam. It is also vulnerable to hackers, cyber–terrorists, and state surveillance. Whilst this may sound a little too far out, they are reasonable questions to ask if technologies are racing ahead of us in order to better get into our heads. [..] This may herald the coming of a ‘wonderful wireless world’, yet it may also signal unforeseen dangers in protection, privacy, and security of the human biological body within these new relationships.

— Kingsley, Dennis, First Monday (journal) of University of Illinois at Chicago at webaddress

.

What's your answer? Does it present it as an open question? 87.3.90.35 (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

My answer (and the answer of at least a dozen other experienced Wikipedia editors who have examined this) is "no". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Guy. Jeh (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Me too. Wikipedia is not the place for this stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And me. Mr. Dennis appears to be commenting from a different reality than the one in which we exist. You need to stoppit Jed, and all the SPA IPs that have magically appeared around this topic since you were told it will never fly. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

To Guy Macon: That is the first time I have quoted that bit from the Mind Games article. The one I was being taken to task about and did end up quoting 3 times due to not being able to get editors to really discuss the issue, was the one where they state their opinion that there could be something in the accusations of covert targeting. I did quote it 3 times in the attempt to get editors to really deal with the issue instead of just repeating assertions and grandstanding as the absolute experts on Wikipedia and I a newbie should piss off or be sent to AE. I have no desire to hit your horse carcass with a stick but surely it is time to bury it.Jed Stuart (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that those wanting to state the psychiatric opinion as fact have put up no arguments to back that, just assertions that I am pushing a fringe view. To state the psychiatric opinion as fact is to contradict the first point made in the NPOV article "Avoid stating opinions as facts" . Perhaps this does not apply to a mainstream well established institution, psychiatry/psychology? In a communist or fascist regime that could easily be the case. However, Wikipedia is a product of liberal democracy and so describing the various is the standard. tolerance of different opinions, pluralism etc That rather than adopting one side of a difference of opinion. So what would it do make the change that I seek. The psychiatric/psychological view would still have most weight, my guess about 80-90%, and the not at all well established view of those who believe that they are subject to intensive covert assaults would get a foot in the door, getting about 10-20% of the weight, just a little "might be" that is all that would be. There is no proof, just a lot of people with compelling anecdotal evidence, enough to get the Washington Post to give a small slice of that considerable attention. It does say something though that my attempts to get this stated appropriately result in such a concerted effort to stop such a little change in the article in order to bring it into line with the Wikipedia policies you lot keep throwing at editors that disagree with you, and don't seem to understand yourselves. Jed Stuart (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough WP:IDHT. I'm done responding. Read the Discretionary Sanctions notice at User talk:Jed Stuart. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have expected more comprehensiveness. Some argumentation. Can you provide those? I think it's very important.. otherwise what's the point in being at this noticeboard nonetheless? This is on even a higher level than a Talk page, thus I suspect we should debate. What you keep on doing is stonewalling mine and Jed's suggestions. But I still have an idea of the why this happens constantly: anxiety towards these unsettling shoking circumstances is the reason, and choosing to be conservative (read as, "in denial") is the safest refuge. I have no idea on what level of your consciousness is happening, I don't know you and I'm not a psychoanalyst. But I can't pretend I don't know there's the seed of psychology here, making a certain form of ethics (the plant) grow, and that it ends producing political results (the fruits) which speciously flow into far-fetched conservative consensus.

Yes, this is about politics, and it looks even Aristotele is on mine and Jed's side, as His philosophical eternal work on politics ends declaring that

the inquiry into ethics necessarily follows into politics

Pretty obvious. Have a good day all, especially Jed though. Note: I'm open to debate majority and minority viewpoints as well as about their weight. But remember you can't write an article on tobacco or alcoholic beverages without giving them hystorical perspective and touching upon production and the harmful health effects. Some things are just too obvious that maybe can slip out of our minds, but they shouldn't. Also, you don't give the same weight to the chance of Political repression via emerging technologies (not pseudoscience) and the chance of being abducted by aliens. 87.6.112.110 (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See [ User talk:87.6.112.110#This IP is a duck ] and [ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit filter? Range block? ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have challenged the editors block at Talk:Electronic Harassment to come here and state their case for violating NPOV as described. It seems to me they have only come here to cast aspersions on my behaviour rather than address the issue. I asked them again and here is my statement and their reply:

"So are any of you going to put up a case for stating the psychiatric/psychology opinion as fact? So far it has been: I am inexperienced, I am pushing a Fringe theory, an SPA, etc. None of you has yet stated that you think the NPOV policy "Avoid stating opinions as facts." should not apply when the opinion is of a well established mainstream institution and the other opinion is just a minority alternative view. You have continually thrown up the NPOV policy article as if it justifies your position, but you fail to say why you think that is so at the NPOV noticeboard. It is not about me, it is about stating the psychiatric opinion as fact. If you don't clearly make your case soon I will attempt to make the change. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Review Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_3, Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_4, and Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_5 for all the many ways you've asked this same question and all the many ways it has been answered for you. Please stop this sea-lioning, it's disruptive. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)"

As it is a one against many there, and quite stressful, please someone convince me that I am wrong. They certainly wont. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Most all experienced editors have been on the losing side of content discussions at one time or another. We learn that we don't have to be convinced that we're "wrong," but that we do need to abide by consensus, and move on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC):

Interesting. Jed Stuart says "it is a one against many" but has not followed the advice I gave at WP:1AM... --05:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have read your document again. It is clearly thought through and communicated. But, to refer to it without saying which section you are referring to gives me nothing as it describes many situations. The one I can most relate to is: "When you think there is a policy violation.In a "one-against-many" dispute, you (as the one) might be upholding a Wikipedia policy or guideline against a majority that isn't following policy. If this is the case, the one prevails over the many. The problem is that for every case where the one is upholding policy, there are at least a hundred cases* where he only thinks he is." I invited you all at EH, who seem to think I am not upholding a policy, to come and state your case. So far it has not been about that at all it has been about my behaviour, which I invite you to take me to ANI over, the appropriate place is it not? Jed Stuart (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

To Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Yes, I will have to move on soon. The reason that I am persisting is that what I see as the NPOV dispute effects the sense of the entire article, and will have negative impact on those vulnerable people, who are claiming to be targeted, if it continues to promote one side of the controversy and negate the other. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If then, as you claim, there is a policy violation, how then do you explain your utter failure to convince even a single other person that the policy violation exists? It certainly isn't from a lack of trying. I and others have looked at your arguments and found them to be less than compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That's easy. You all have the same perspective on the subject. Bye for now. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I challenge the assertion that I and everyone else except you have a perspective that prevents us from seeing clear policy violations. I personally have on multiple occasions removed material that I would have really liked to see stay -- if it violates Wikipedia policy, out it goes whatever my personal feelings. You simply have not made a convincing argument that any policy violations exist in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will try again. Is it not true that it is a NPOV policy to "describe disputes not engage in them" and to "Avoid stating opinions as facts." . Both are prominent statements at the NPOV article. However, it says about the claims of people that they are being covertly targeted: "These experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis," and "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." Both statements are the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists well cited there. However, there is a growing conspiracy theory that disputes this opinion. The TI opinion and of those supporting them is that they are not deluded etc. For the article to be stated in terms that it is a fact that they are deluded is both taking a side in the dispute, resulting in lots of attempts to disrupt the article, and stating an opinion as fact. Thus the article should not say "The experiences of TIs are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders." It should say "It is the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists that the experiences of TIs are hallucinations...etc" or some such. The same for the TIs claims. They should not be stated as facts but as their opinion. I am not that good a communicator, but I think that is my best shot at it. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did indeed try again, in classic sea lion fashion. And, once again, you failed miserably, because your argument contradicts the policy (WP:NPOV) you selectively quoted. The relevant section of WP:NPOV is WP:PSCI, which clearly says:

"Fringe theories and pseudoscience

Further information: Wikipedia:Fringe theories and § Due and undue weight

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked."

I hope this helps but I know that it won't. Please drop the stick. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks as you are playing the skeptical but beyond reason part and accountably, as the conspiracy is quite unbelievable at first glance, while Jed Stuart is being open minded yet reasonably because electromagnetic weapons not only are far from being pseudoscience, they are actually authorized for use since time ago. I consider pseudoscience flat earth and extraterrestrial life and parapsychology, but modern weapons why should we? Also reliable sources are all but poor in supporting the validity of electronic harassment. I'm following this debate and I agree with the open minded side. 149.254.224.221 (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The issues raised at the top of this section have been addressed and consensus is against a change. Per WP:NOTFORUM this page is not available to endlessly debate mind control or other WP:FRINGE stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not. In either case, you keep on failing by recognizing it a pseudoscientific topic which clearly it isn't. Thus what has actually been addressed? 149.254.235.50 (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

yes, the issue I have raised has never been addressed by the editors at EH. I am not for one moment attempting to debate whether what TIs claim is true or not. That will play out in the mass media and relevant government processes eventually, if it is true, and if we still have democracy. I am simply attempting to get a balanced and neutral statement of the situation at present as described in the reliable sources cited. That has nothing to do with a pseudoscience. It is about claims of harassment and worse. It also has nothing to do with giving equal weight to those claims vs psychiatric opinion. You are just attempting to gag the discussion of the NPOV issue by suggesting this is becoming a forum about mind control. Since I started work on this issue it has been about one smart manoeuvre after another and none have ever put a case for stating the psychiatric opinion as fact. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

To 149.254.224.221: False equivalency. The fact that other flat things exist is not evidence for a flat earth that violates the laws of physics. Likewise the fact that directed-energy weapons exist is is not evidence for a mind control device that violates the laws of physics. Every directed-energy weapon works by emitting some form of electromagnetic radiation, be it microwaves, infrared lasers, or X-Rays. Electromagnetic radiation is easily detected. Likewise, all of the non-energy weapons use the some sort of matter, whether it be air vibrating (acoustic weapons) germs, gas, or the kinetic energy of a bullet or bomb. NO UNDECTABLE MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY EXISTS. If a mind control technology did exist, I or any other competent engineer would be able to detect and measure the output of the alleged weapon, just as we can with any other weapon.

To Jed Stuart: Go away. The next time you post your theory that the professional opinions of mental-health professionals are no more valid that the untrained opinions of the delusional people they treat, I will bring this to WP:ANI and ask for a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I have never posted such a theory. It is about the way the article is written not about your or my beliefs about mind control technology. That is all irrelevant. Take me to ANI then. If they are still with the basic principles of Wikipedia I will win. That will be interesting to learn about and find out. I did fully intend to leave it there, but you had to keep going with another challenge and your stuff about sea lions etc. I did check out that sea lion article, but it looked like scorpions poo, so I did not read much. As for you, you are a palaverer. Me, I am a TI supporter attempting to get the article as clear and straight as possible. There is a long way to go. Jed Stuart (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear what I am thinking is appropriate in the EH article. It is not that the claims of TIs are of equal weight to mental-health professionals. I think the reliable sources put the view that there might be some form of covert targeting happening. Which, if there is would lead to some re-thinking by those professionals as to how to categorize and treat people who make such claims, not to TIs taking over the asylum or some such. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:Neutral Point of View is a matter of WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research, especially on medical claims. So it's not clear, how the article can be so supportive of the psychiatric opinion. If I read all the sources and put them in context according to content policies and guidelines and then read the article I find it embarrassing. There is no space to state the claimants of electronic harassment are delusional as a fact, not to mention tagging the article as related to pseudoscience.. it's a conspiracy theory and there's no point in fast-fowarding to debunk it. 149.254.234.126 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What I mean is that medical statements and articles in general, should reflect reliable secondary sources and scientific consensus, and instead the electronic harassment article is based on the so-called psychiatric opinion that claimants of EH are defenately delusional. There is no reliable secondary source stating so, let alone any recognized scientific consensus. On the other hand reliable secondary sources speak of claims with due detachment. The most compelling source used to support the so-called "psychiatric POV" is the paper published in a reliable journal about experimental psychiatric diagnoses which is very attentive in declaring the study was conducted on internet based communities and that it's the first of its kind, but especially it is clear in concluding the claimants are only potentially delusional. So this is basically a reliable source stating something else, and primary nonetheless. And then there are a bunch of news articles or blogs which are full of opinion content used to support medical claims, and according to WP:NEWSORG these sources are to be considered primary, generally not reliable as statements of fact (let alone medical statements). The Washington Post article cited by Jed Stuart is actually the one lacking biased opinion content, but even more the one written with greater insight and offering a neutral analytic standpoint.

Despite all this you have other reliable secondary sources speaking of it in terms of something potentially happening but which get rejected, favoring an accountable yet uncalled, against content policies and guidelines, "debunking POV". 149.254.235.157 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's good to examine the NY Times article to demonstrate the non neutral POV, as the other news or blog articles are either on the same wavelength or even worse (the blog used in the lede for medical diagnoses made in the article is not suitable according to content policies and guidelines for example). Similarly to the Washington Post's article, it lacks opinion content (bias by the author) and the publisher is a reliable one.

Albeit it is rather written from the psychiatric standpoint it's still very careful in describing the claimants mental state, indeed the author uses terms such as "some", "appears", "drawing the concern", "interest of researchers" in key sentences of the introduction, and concludes with "people who may be psychotic". The very difference with the Washington Post's article is the focus of the article, because exactly as with the primary source cited in the previous comment, the author of the NY Times article (and most of the sources cited in electronic harassment) is focused on the possible effects of internet communication on potential (or even likely) mentally ill subjects. The veracity of the claims is not the focus.

The NY Times article rather sheds a slightly brighter light on the psychiatric opinion, yet it's about something other than the claimants mental state, it's about the possible effects of internet communication. It doesn't hint there's a scientific consensus on the claimants mental state: it actually offers mutually challenging opinions in that regard. Again, surely it does supppse a likely pathological condition, but nothing more than that.

Then it is a reliable secondary source, but reliable for what indeed? It seems not for the medical diagnoses presented as a fact in electronic harassment (which even goes as far as substantially hinting this view is unchallenged on reliable sound bases, which is false). Those should be adjusted the way Jed Stuart advises, as well as the whole "debunking POV" to:

• properly use the sources already cited in the article
• embrace other reliable secondary sources offering the opposite POV (First Monday (journal) article, and the expert analysis it cites published at the military website)

To be noted is that the only source justifying the "debunking POV" is the one from Richmond yet it's far from describing a scientific consensus, which should be proved somehow in order to report medical diagnoses as fact. Also, a politician speaking in defence of the government he works for falls under a conflict of interest, and other more influencial politicians supported the opposing POV. 149.254.235.78 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Update: I wrote this comment according to last week's version of the article. In the last days a new NY Times source was added. 149.254.235.107 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

So yesterday, someone added these three edits: [30] [31] [32], which go against the current consensus, yet the talk page is locked so I can't file an edit request. Can someone who's able remove them?Inmate XIII (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Spamlinks and duplicated text have already been removed from those edits. As for the added news coverage of individuals claiming to be electronically harassed, best to bring up any concerns with it on the article Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have re-opened this discussion. I don't accept 'its boring' is a valid reason for closure coming from someone who has not been a participant. If its boring then don't read it. It is a serious discussion about what some of us believe to be a serious policy violation potentially having serious impacts on the lives of TIs. It is not here for Begoon's entertainment. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC) I have re-opened a second time. That closure was also done by someone on the other side of this dispute. That is not acceptable in my view. I would accept a truly uninvolved editor closing it if given good enough reason. This is just abuse of process/sabotage. @Johnuniq:.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

unreliable & NPOV: 2 articles stating 2 different views

Yes I am not a wikipedian & I probably do this wrong.

There are 2 articles on wiki on a subject that is VERY much disputed. in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism it is being disputed WITH references that Hitler was actually a vegetarian ..

But on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vegetarians he is in the table bluntly saying that he was. Though one who CHOOSES to eat meat is actually NOT one. I am not sdaying he should be deleted totally from that page; but Hitler should be on the Disputed List.

It cannot be that 1 page has references saying he ate animals & another page saying he was a vegetarian: vegetarians do NOT eat dead animals - I'm sure we can all agree on that ..

Referring to what I wrote there:

   on the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism it is disputed that he was a vegetarian, WITH sources - so HOW can it be that another wiki page does NOT recognise the sources that are recognised there!? It makes no sense & thus you make no sense above. 2 wiki pages on the same subject say something different. YOU have an agenda on this subject & thus by wiki-law you should not even be editing this page, right? You cannot deny that Hitler's vegetarianism is being disputerd WIDEly: thus he can NOT be on the vegetarians list of UNdisputed ones!
   I am not talking about a little broth that his cook slipped into his meals. When Hitler CHOSE his liver dumplings & fried pigeons to eat, and when he CHOSE to have his last meal WITH meat, NOONE slipped it onto his plate withOUT him knowing! Whe you CHOOSE to eat an animal corpse you choose to NOT be vegetarian: that is nothing UNintentional.
   So, either THIS wiki page in unreliable; OR the other page is ..
   So, the only thing I am stating is that Hitler should be on the Disputed list. His vegetarianism is being DISPUTED by one of your own pages! -With MORE than 1 reference on that page!
   Moreover, when yr docters tell you to eat vegetarian for your healthg (& you then don't) you are NOT a vegetarian .. 

If you look at the EditHistory it is clearly obvious that this Betty Logan has an agenda: to KEEP Hitler being mentioned as a vegetarian; but he/she accuses OTHERS of having an opposite agenda - by her edits in the past over this subject several Wikipedians have even stopped being active on wiki because of it. Agenda!

I am not a wikipedian; but if you take your board / platform seriously - then this subject should be clear: Hitler's 'vegetarianism' IS disputed. On your own pages. Referenced. Noone can deny that. Oh yeah well Betty Logan can .. ridiculous! 83.232.236.169 (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've had a look at the Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism article and I can't see any source indicating anything other than that he was a complete vegetarian after 1942. Between 1937 and 1942 there is some evidence of him eating liver dumplings but no other meat products, at least not knowingly. There is no evidence he ate liver dumplings after 1942. There is no evidence he ate fried pigeons after 1937. There is no evidence of him having meat at his last meal. I can't see any basis in the sources for your objection to Adolf Hitler being listed as a vegetarian. Dmcq (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You must be kidding right?

″Between 1937 and 1942 there is some evidence of him eating liver dumplings but no other meat products [...]″ When your doctor tells you to go vegetarian, and you don't; it does NOT qualify you as being a vegetarian.

So IF you REALLY want him anywhere on that page, he should be listed as a DISPUTED vegetarian ..

"There is no evidence" <-> you yourself wrote he ate meat & wiki's pages have described several meat dishes that he ate .. so it IS disputed. "I can't see any basis in the sources" <-> No, previous well-documented sources have been deleted by a.o. Betty Logan, who has the agenda to make Hitler look as having been a vegetarian ... just read back her many edits in the page history.

Or maybe you people simply do not know what a vegetarian is: they do NOT want to eat meat .. By the logic presented here, ANYONE who has ever eaten a peanut butter sandwich was a vegetarian - what is this - Trump University?

Pfffh I actually do not have the time to waste on such uselesness, this community can really not be taken seriously by reasoning this way 83.232.236.169 (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit - to add: So why is there no wiki page Josef Mengele being a vivisectionist? He did animal experiments before, during and after WW2! (Lots of proof on that!) Maybe you don't want vivisectionists to look like nazi's? 83.232.236.169 (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Lets not have another argument about vegetarians. If you abstain from eating meat *for any reason* you are a vegetarian. Even if you really really want a bacon sandwich the entire time. Please read Vegetarianism and Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism in full. There are plenty of vegetarians who want to eat meat, but abstain from doing so. There are plenty who previously ate meat, then became vegetarians. Unless you have some really good reliable sources that claim Hitler was never a vegetarian, you are on a loser with this one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Jaja let's not coz you dont feel like it? That is EXACTLY why this is ridiculous. As you write yourself: Read the article: he DID eat meat! I didnt say he never ate vegetarian; I said he also ate meat: that makes him a FLEXITARIAN if anything. Now as a vegetarian (of the vegan kind, so I think I kinda know what a vegetarian is & i do NOT have to read what YOU think a vegetarian is) I am telling you that a flexitarian is a DISPUTED vegetarian!

Period83.232.236.169 (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you this, but plenty of Vegetarians do not agree with you on the definition of 'vegetarian'. So no, even as a 'vegan' you do not actually know what a vegetarian is, nor do you get to define it by your personal ethics. Also, Flexitarian (or semi-vegetarian) is where you have a vegetarian diet occasionally supplemented with meat. Do you have any reliable sources that claim Hitler continued to eat meat after the point where reliable sources (include the man himself) state he had given it up? When you give up meat completely and follow a vegetarian diet, you are a vegetarian. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well since you asked & from your own page because Wikipedia disputes it:

"According to Ilse Hess, in 1937 Hitler ceased eating all meat except for liver dumplings,[12] an account that Dr. Kalechofsky found "consistent with other descriptions of Hitler's diet, which always included some form of meat, whether ham, sausages or liver dumplings."[18] Frau Hess's comments are also backed up by several biographies about Hitler, with Fritz Redlich noting that Hitler "avoided any kind of meat, with the exception of an Austrian dish he loved, Leberknödl (liver dumpling)".[19] Thomas Fuchs concurred, observing that a "typical day's consumption included eggs prepared in any number of ways, spaghetti, baked potatoes with cottage cheese, oatmeal, stewed fruits and vegetable puddings. Meat was not completely excluded. Hitler continued to eat a favourite dish, Leberkloesse (liver dumplings)." [20]"

so you are contradicting your own pages. He did NOT give up meat completey, and did NOT follow a vegetarian diet. Makes him kind of .. disputed, doesn't it? To be - on the disputed list. OR delete the info on the other page maybe? Period. 83.232.236.169 (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

See here. The timeline is quite specific and you have yet to actually provide a source that contradicts it. So unless you have some evidence that 70+ years of historians have failed to uncover, this conversation really is not going anywhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism#Analysis is written what Ive just made bigger in my previous post. 83.232.236.169 (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Where it says directly "Today, it is acknowledged by historians that Hitler – at least during the war – followed a vegetarian diet.". So great thats settled then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Since I am being accused of "agenda pushing" I should probably clarify my postion here. Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism and the Hitler entry at List of vegetarians are the subject of a lot of agenda pushing. I have an interest in vegetarianism because I am one; in fact one of my biggest bug-bears at social functions is the inevitable moment when someone discovers you are vegetarian and compares you to Hitler. It would suit me fine if Hitler was not a vegetarian, but the reality is he did adhere to a vegetarian diet towards the end of his life. Both his food taster (a woman who was forcibly recruited) and personal secretary (who had initmate knowledge of his diet) are consistent in their accounts of his vegetarianism. There are no contradictions from 1942 onwards.

Prior to 1942 is more complicated. Hitler was attempting a vegetarian lifestyle from at least the early 1930s although this amounted to a reduced meat intake rather than a full vegetarian diet. This in itself is not that unusual since many vegetarians go through a transitional phase. It is a usual tactic by those who push the agenda that Hitler was never vegetarian at any point of his life to dig up a reference to him eating meat (such as the the infamous Dione Lucas quote who stated that her stuffed squab was a favorite of his) as "evidence" to this effect. The problem with this is that it does not take into account there is a specific timeline in place. Another favorite tactic is the Eva Braun/turtle soup report from Soviet interrogations in which Braun would often order turtle soup for supper. The reports are specific that Braun ordered the soup (incidentally Braun's favorite dish) and there is no evidence Hitler himself consumed it.

The fact his chef may have slipped some broth or bone marrow into his food without his knowledge is besides the point; dietary choices are about choices you willingly make, not about other people's subterfuge. How many people on the List of vegetarians have a food taster to confirm what they eat? It is obviously a contentious topic for some people who feel it reflects poorly on their own ethical choices. In truth this will never be a matter of fact, but rather a matter of historical record and witness testimony, and certainly from 1942 onwards they are consistent and compelling. I believe the anonymous IP editor may be Tatlock from the debate at Talk:Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism#Recent_POV_edits and I am not the only editor challenging his conflation of the facts, just the common link between that debate and the one at Talk:List_of_vegetarians#Adof_Hitler_Heavily_Disputed.21_Embarrasment_to_Wiki. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

People have compared vegetarians to Hitler because Hitler was a vegetarian? It seems people prefer really stupid arguments to ones with any sense when they want to annoy someone. I wonder if stupid insulting is a recognized thing or Wikipedia has an article about it. Dmcq (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• 83.232.236.169, no one cares about your interpretation of things or opinionated arguments -- cite professionally-published mainstream academic sources that specifically say Hitler deliberately, knowingly, and intentionally ate meat after 1942 or go home. Vegetarianism is just a dietary choice, and getting pissy over Hitler being vegetarian in the last years of his life is like getting pissy that he drank water or wore clothes. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Move to close. We shouldn't spill so much ink over this perennial issue. Hitler was a vegetarian and this topic should be closed. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Opposition to Freemasonry within Christianity

I don't seem to recall offhand when this article was started, and I think it used to be Christianity and Freemasonry. Here's the problem: it is sourced, but it's skewed, not only in the title, but it basically says in the lede "not every Christian denomination objects to Freemasonry", but the article itself is basically saying "but we're going to ignore what we said and only go into extreme detail about the ones that do and why" because that's all that the article is actually about in the end. There's no way this is NPOV, and it's no longer a subset article as it used to be. As far as I'm concerned, it is both skirting the rules, and wholly negative, while admitting that it is not an accurate representation of the situation. It's been tagged for almost ten years, and I think it is high time that it was reviewed and dealt with one way or the other, but I don't think it's ever been compliant, and the title change simply made it worse. MSJapan (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Animal Welfare section of Walmart

At Walmart, a user responded to JLD at Walmart's request to remove negative information about some of Walmart's policies, in this edit. Chaheel Riens believes that the discussion of the effects of the company's policies which I included is excessively detailed for an article about the company. I disagree, and believe that it is necessary to briefly discuss the effects of the controversial policies as they appear in media sources. I am interested to get outside opinions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

While we should mention that battery hen farming, which Walmart is phasing out, is considered inhumane, explaining why it is inhumane is beyond the scope of the article. If readers want to know more about why it is inhumane they can follow the links. There are lots of issues that could be coatracked into the article: immigration, foreign trade, labor rights, gender and racial equality, pollution, poverty, etc. TFD (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually that's not at all what this is about. There's not a single word about why battery cages are inhumane. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think either version is a very neutral reflection of the current sources.[33][34][35] The theme in all 3 articles is that animal welfare advocacy groups are praising walmart, which doesn't come across in the version with this wording. On the other hand, in the wording that was reverted, "heralded" and "wait and see method" seem more like puffery than a dispassionate tone.

I assume The Four Deuces was referring to the part that says: "...the birds will be alotted between 1 and 1.5 square feet each, a stressful arrangement which causes cannibalism. Hens raised in such systems have much higher overall mortality rates than those raised in battery cages.The shift also introduces new environmental and worker health problems." which was actually in reference to the new method, but the tone is much more accusatory and decisive than the way it's covered in the sources. If it were to be included, IMO it needs a tone check and in-text attribution instead of using WP's voice since it's contentious. —PermStrump(talk) 00:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The Page "David Packouz"

Concerning the page David Packouz (tied with the War Dogs movie). There have been some recent edits to Mr Packouz's page that are extremely disturbing, and the page is becoming very self-promotional. The page for this individual is also poorly written, as general. The sources also do not claim what they say they do - for instance, see source [1], which does not mention "entrepreneur" nor "inventor". Source [9] does not mention music technology. The entire article reads like an advertisement. Please read through the page which is not very long and discuss as to the best course of action. Specifically the first parageaph and the Beat Buddy section. I have also posted in Reliable source noticeboard, as the page is not reliable at all. Thank you kindly. --Asenathson (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Pegida: "Islamic extremists" who "refuse to integrate," in Wikipedia's voice

At Pegida, Dr.K. and Gun Powder Ma have insisted on keeping language removed by Volunteer Marek implying, in Wikipedia's voice, that Pegida wants to:

• enforce immigration laws against immigrants who "refuse to integrate," [36] and

• oppose the "islamization" of Germany. [37]

Their explanations are that 1) the supporting BBC source justifies the language and "does not include all muslims," and 2) that we don't qualify the grievances of Black Lives Matter, and so shouldn't qualify those of Pegida.

This language is an illegitimate endorsement of Pegida's views through Wikipedia's voice, and the arguments in favor are utter hogwash. The BBC source does not state that some muslims "refuse to integrate," and explicitly describes "Islamic extremism" in terms of Pegida's views, not those of the BBC.

I've made a post at Talk:Pegida and would appreciate outside scrutiny here and there. -Darouet (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Brought here from the article's talk page. Agree that we should not say this in Wikipedia's voice. These are Pegida's views and they are fringe. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Please see my response at the article talk. This is a semantic disagreement and my edit in no way promotes fringe views. I think you know this better than most since you have seen my edits at the article and my opposition to the extreme views advanced by the socks at that article as well as my SPIs against them.

Their explanations are that 1) the supporting BBC source justifies the language and "does not include all muslims," and 2) that we don't qualify the grievances of Black Lives Matter, and so shouldn't qualify those of Pegida.

@Darouet: Please provide a diff where I mentioned anywhere "Black Lives Matter" in any of my arguments, otherwise please retract this part of your statement. Also correct the part of your statement that I reverted the "oppose the "islamization" of Germany" sentence because I only corrected the part about "Muslims refusing to integrate" but did not touch the other sentence. Do not lump me with Gunpowder Ma's arguments and edits. Dr. K. 22:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: I freely admit that I lumped both of your edits together, providing diffs so that anyone can see who said what. I am glad to read that you don't view the BLM argument as legitimate. But even after your Talk explanation I still regard your edit and interpretation of the BBC source as quite wrong. -Darouet (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. As far as the interpretation of the BBC source, the BBC says: "It is against "anti-women political ideology that emphasises violence" but "not against integrated Muslims living here".". It is clear therefore that Pegida does not view all Muslims as refusing to integrate. But the edit you restored says that "...particularly for Muslims whom it views as refusing to integrate." Can you see the difference in the meaning between the two sentences? Perhaps a better sentence could be: ""particularly for those Muslims whom it views as refusing to integrate." or something equivalent. Dr. K. 22:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Dr.K.: I have just (even before reading your comment) made exactly the edit you propose. -Darouet (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I have already thanked you for that edit through the "thank you" button but I may as well thank you here also. :) Dr. K. 23:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

All's Well That Ends Well. :) -Darouet (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Sorry if I was not clear or implied anything negative. I love editing with you and totally assume the greatest of faith in you. I am not saying you're promoting or espousing fringe views at all. I know the page is plagued with socks and you've done a great job with the SPIs. From my reading of the previous version of the text, it sounded like fringe views of Pegida were being said in Wikipedia's voice and that imho needs corrected. Not sure if there's confusion on my end as to which version was the status quo one. The current version with the changes implemented on the talk page seems to be a perfect fix for these concerns. The issue was semantic, but important given the gravity of the topic. Glad a resolution was reached. :D EvergreenFir (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much EvergreenFir for your kind comments. No, you did not imply anything negative regarding my edits, but in the context of the original comments by the OP, which have since been clarified, I thought I would try to give you a ping just in case there was a misunderstanding regarding my edit. By the way, I too enjoy greatly editing with you anywhere, especially the article at hand. :) Take care. Dr. K. 00:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A more serious npov issue is the unqualified use of the label "far-right political movement" in the article's lede. Such political labels are culture specific and are entirely pov in nature. As a source that is used in the article states "By the standards of the European right, however, Pegida’s proposals for dealing with such problems hardly seem radical. ... “In Idaho this would be mainstream,” says Gerald Praschl, the political editor of the most popular weekly tabloid in the former East Germany. “But here it is considered right wing.”" Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point. The question is how much weight should we lend to left-wing media outlets decrying a non-left-wing movement as "far right" (or the other way round)? Is this a factual description or does this rather reflect their own political perspective? This is particularly true of the BBC - from which the source cited above comes - which has come under intense criticism of left-wing bias by conservatives in recent years (e.g. here). Why should a BBC source - and a single, throw-away sentence at that - on Pegida be considered so reliable and valuable that it defines our lede to the point of the exclusion of other valid viewpoints? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Such political labels are culture specific and are entirely pov in nature - What does this even mean? Look, whether such a label belongs in an article or not is solely determined by reliable sources. You cannot dismiss reliable sources by throwing invective at them (such as "left-wing media outlets"). And Daily Mail is nowhere near being reliable here, especially in its criticism of other media (is that suppose to be a joke?). As long as the label is supported by reliable sources, everything's fine. Your original research (both of youse) is inappropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

And 9 times out of 10, whenever I see someone start complaining about "exclusion of other valid viewpoints", it's a clear red flag that someone is trying to push a fringe POV by ignoring UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The NPOV of the article Donald Trump

While the issues are being discussed on the Donald Trump talk page, I want to make note of it here as several editors have tried to remove the POV tag without consensus. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Not doubt this article will have a NPOV tag until the election, if not well after. I hadn't seen the article before, but after reading the lead I don't much recognize the guy in the news with the same name. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

An yet the current status is both NPOV tag has been removed as well as any reference to one of the most reported stories in the history of the United States: "Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing explicitly to racism." Maybe if we changed the name from Wikipedia to WiKKKipedia at least readers would know there is no longer any effort at NPOV in the articles here. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Does NPOV apply to gun articles?

Resolved

 – Moved ahead by creating an RFC. Felsic2 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says to include POVs (and, by extension, facts) "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

When a notable shooting occurs, it makes sense (to me, at least) to mention it in related articles, such as in the history of the place where the shooting occurred, and, of course, the article on the firearm used. Often, these notorious crimes are what make a firearm notable outside the closed world of firearms enthusiasts. They may be the only time that a gun is discussed in mainstream media or academic sources. However some editors insist that even major shootings cannot be mentioned in the articles about the guns used. For example, this text, for the SIG MCX article. It is supported by 14 citations to reliable sources that specifically talk about its use in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Yet it gets deleted.[38]

• An MCX carbine, legally purchased about a week earlier, was used by Omar Mateen to kill 49 people and injure 53 during the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Reference list
References

Arguments against it on the talk page label it as "trivia", while not objecting to minute and unsourced specifications of the gun and its variants that are in the article. Another argument says that WP:DUE and WP:BALASPS actually prohibit any mention of the shooting. I think that a notable crime like this isn't trivial, that it's more important to the history and notability of the gun than any other details in the article, and that WP:DUE says that material like this should be included. FWIW, the editors who oppose it have refused to participate in dispute resolution or mediation. Am I wrong? Felsic2 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a concise statement of fact and well supported. The only obvious reason I can think of for excluding the information is that I might not want readers to know the firearm was used in the Orlando shootings. That's not a neutral approach. -Darouet (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

My first instinct is to say that you are not wrong -- that it's hard to argue WP:UNDUE with so many sources about the gun in relation to the crime. So as a matter of general practice, it sounds sensible to include. What I don't have much experience with is how this is handled with gun articles in general. I'm sure there are people who, every time a gun is specified in a crime, want to add it to the respective article, and there's an argument to be had about to what extent specific uses of the gun is part of the gun as an encyclopedic subject. In this case, it looks like it makes sense, but I can understand why it would be fraught. It looks like WikiProject Firearms has a section about this, but its content sounds like, more or less, "no seriously, WP:WEIGHT". I also see from the link in that section that you are not new to this issue, so you can probably provide links to background RfCs, etc. if they exist. Based on what I'm seeing, I would say it should be included in this specific case. There might be an RfC in your future, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• What??? There should be no question at all that NPOV - including WP:WEIGHT - applies to ALL articles; gun articles not excepted. On taking a closer look at this nonsensical statement I see something curious: Felsic2 seems to think that a mass of citations amounts to weight. Sorry, that is not true.

In the first place, mere repetition of a claim does not make it true, nor lend weight to that possibility. E.g., in the example provided there are 14 citations, presumably supporting the claim that the weapon used in Orlando was an MCX carbine. But how many of those sources have actually seen the particular weapon used? How many of them can state, on their own knowledge, that some weapon shown to them (assuming they have actually seen the alleged weapon) is the one actually used? The only people that can say that would be those who actually saw it. (Or perhaps saw a grainy video of a cop taking the weapon from the gunman.) Without delving into many other epistemological details and possibilities I will just say that primary source here is most likely the police department. Everyone else is just repeating what they heard from someone else. And all that repetition tells us nothing except that a lot of people are saying it. It's more of a megaphone than a microscope.

Second consideration is the difference between a point of view and a fact. If the Orlando police department (presumbtively a reliable source) sates that an MCX carbine was used (and there is no basis for questioning it), then for all intents and purposes, and until proven otherwise, that is a fact. Its weight is determined by the authority (and reliability?) of the police, not by megaphonic repetition in the press. A point of view is about one's perspective, which might affect how one assesses supposed facts (e.g., "the liberal media lies!"). POV tends to be about issues, such as whether easy availability of weapons was a causative factor. In this case there is no indication of any issue tregarding the weapon used, and mere repetition of that fact does not make it prominent.

Felsic2 is here because he got no satisfaction at Talk:SIG MCX#Due weight for history of this firearm. There he was told: "Long established consensus is that this is not to be included in firearm articles", referring to WP:WikiProject Firearms. The latter Felsic2 rejects as being only an essay, although it represents a project-level consensus hammered out over several years. It appears he has also been forum-shopping on this issue.

Felsic2: you wanted outside input, now you have it. I think you are also being disruptive. Note that I have no position on whether your material should be included. What I am saying here is that your argument is faulty. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

J. Johnson, thanks for that detailed reply. However it seems from your comments that you didn't actually read the sources. They do more than just repeat what the Police Chief told them. They discuss the gun itself, how it was used, etc.

More broadly, what about the specifications which are copied from the manufacturer's website or product brochure. What makes those worthy of inclusion while facts about the history of the gun are unworthy? Felsic2 (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

That your sources "do more": so what? Your key point seems to be whether a particular gun has been used in a shooting. On that point it appears that none of your sources have any basis for making such a statement other than they heard it from the police. As to what is worthy of inclusion: that is a matter for the Talk page. As I already said (did you read it?): I have no position on whether your material should be included. What I am saying here is that your argument is faulty. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess I did misread your reply as having a position.

The sources say a lot of things about the weapon's use in the shooting. This is just the shortest possible version. We could write more, but I thought that the shorter the better, as far as being acceptable to others. I'm open to alternatives and compromises. Felsic2 (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Felsic2: you're correct in that, for purposes of argumentation, it is better to deal with a single item than whole net full. While your example text makes about ten statements, I presume that the key issue (carried over from the Talk page) is whether to include the statement of "gun X used at shooting Y". To clarify, what I take issue with here is not whether inclusion or exclusion of that is non-NPOV, but your argument that a statement from a single source (the police) gains any kind of weight simply for being echoed. (But see also comment I am adding just below.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"it appears that none of your sources have any basis for making such a statement other than they heard it from the police" - This is an absurd argument. They "heard" information about this crime from the police. Yes. ("Heard it" as though they got it from some gossip blog rather than one of the most logical sources of such information). We write our articles based on secondary sources because their job is to talk to witnesses, talk to authorities, do some research, carry out due diligence, and bring it together, explain it accurately, explain the context, continue to develop the story as new information emerges, etc. That's what we want. Washington Post, et al. are reliable sources because they have a reputation for that sort of thing. That they aren't eyewitnesses is part of the point, not a reason to say "yeah well what do they know, really, if they weren't there?" It's about verifiability in reliable sources, not Truth. Multiple reliable sources did their own reporting and wrote stories about this gun in connection with the crime -- not stories about the crime that mention the gun, but stories about the gun. Given that those sources look to amount to due WP:WEIGHT, it should be included in some capacity. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I have to correct your statement that I've "forum-shopped". I did attempt dispute resolution but it was rejected by the other parties, so I don't see how those count. I am following the dispute resolution steps outlined at WP:DR and suggested by others. Felsic2 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yikes. First, The citations are obviously not mere repetition of a claim, with multiple independent sources writing about the gun itself. Second, "But how many of those sources have actually seen the particular weapon used? How many of them can state, on their own knowledge, that some weapon shown to them (assuming they have actually seen the alleged weapon) is the one actually used? The only people that can say that would be those who actually saw it." This is not a reasonable requirement to place on sources, and it's not compatible with our requirements for reliable sourcing. In fact, we prefer secondary sources to primary sources. We rely on reputable journalists at reputable organizations like the Washington Post to gather and check facts, and we summarize those reports. Third, "Its weight is determined by the authority (and reliability?) of the police" No, it's not. If the police mention some detail, and nobody reports on it, then there's no weight to it. If there are conflicting sources, perhaps there's a more in-depth conversation to be had about the reliability of various sources, in part based on how they describe their own sources, but that something comes from the police doesn't give it any more WP:WEIGHT. Remember, it's about WP:V, not [T]ruth. Fourth, weight is not just about perspectives on an issue; it's also about aspects of a subject (determining which to include, or not to). Fifth, coming to a noticeboard is what you do when you want more attention to something going on on a talk page, to bring in uninvolved eyes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It seems like it's obvious that that belongs in the article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You really need to consider on exactly what basis anyone can state that some weapon is the weapon used. If any of the cited sources have any special basis for knowing what the weapon was (like, "I handed it to him") then they can make an independent assertion. (And incidentally become a primary source.) If they assert something that conflicts with the police, then we would rely on secondary sources to sort it out. Otherwise these sources are just repeating information from the police. They might be secondary sources if they analyze (etc.) the information given, but without some special source of knowledge they are only repeating what the police gave them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, they do discuss the reporting itself. As it happened, the police mis-reported type of gun orginally, so when the correct weapon was identified it led to some articles about how the mistake was made. Text about that aspect could be added. Felsic2 (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"You really need to consider on exactly what basis anyone can state" - No. We're not on a quest for capital-T Truth. We base articles on what reliable sources say about a subject and defer questions like "yeah but how do we REALLY know?" to those sources. A number of mainstream, reliable sources, engaged in separate journalistic enterprises, have covered this, giving it sufficient weight to include in some way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That police (or any source) made inconsistent reports of a fact is exactly where secondary sources come in, to sort out the inconsistencies. But note: the nature of a WP:SECONDARY source is to provide "an author's own thinking [... containing] an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence," etc. To simply echo first statement A, then statement B, is not any kind of analysis, and adds nothing. The nature of a secondary source is to add some kind of informational content, such as resolving questions. And while they might question, say, the plausibility of some statement, ultimately they have no basis for saying anything about what gun was used unless they were there, or cite someone who was there. That all these "sources" are "separate journalistic enterprises" is irrelevant, as what they are reporting comes from a single original source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I see your point about primary vs. secondary sources. However it's walso worth considering the totality of the article. Right now, it's almost entirely sourced from the manufacturer's website. That's a very primary source, one that is not at all independent of the topic. The news accounts put the firearm into context, and provide independent evidence of the gun's noteworthiness. Also, the use of primary sources is not excluded. I think that the article is much poorer without some reference to its use. Otherwise, it's just a recitation of the manufactuerer's specifications. The NPOV angle comes in because it is regarded as a POV that including historical use in an article is worthwhile. It is, in essence, a point of view that the gun's use in a very famous shooting is worth thinking or talking about in an encyclopedia. Felsic2 (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, your "NPOV angle" is something to consider. But you have failed to mention that at WP:WikiProject Firearms there is project level consensus that gun articles should not include that kind of history. If you object to that you should start the discussion there. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"To simply echo first statement A, then statement B..." This is a rather obvious straw man. These sources are not "simply echoing", despite your repeated claims that they are. That would be an appropriate argument if these all simply said "police say it was an MCX" without adding anything. These are stories which go in depth to talk about the weapon, about what e.g. "AR-like" and other jargon mean, etc. What I think you might be trying to do, however (at the risk of setting up a straw man of my own), is to say, again, that unless the secondary sources see the gun for themselves, then they are somehow "simply echoing". That, of course, would be bogus, as I've said in multiple comments in this thread. Regarding WikiProject Firearms, a WikiProject does not trump other policies and guidelines. If someone wanted to propose a change to the, say, the guidelines for when to include this or that in an article about a gun, that would be the appropriate place. In this case, it's a specific content dispute. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That various sources go on about a weapon (like whether is "AR-like", etc.)is one thing. To definitely state that this is the weapon (the specific point under consideration here) is something else. Of course, anyone can say anything, but a reliable source presumably would have some valid basis for such a statement. Actually being there could be such a basis, and likewise the testimony of eye-witnesses. But if a source's sole basis for saying "this is the weapon used" is the statement of the police, and the source has nothing to add regarding the verity of that statement, then it is just an echo. And an echo, no matter how often it repeats, carries no weight.

Note that this goes to the NPOV/WEIGHT issue that was raised here. If Felsic2 wanted to dispute a project guideline as an NPOV issue he should have formulated the question as such. Until that issue is matured I will agree with you that it should be discussed at WikiProject Firearms. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, looking at the above and the page itself. This looks more like a content dispute than a NPOV issue. It appears article consensus is not to add it. So perhaps the poster of this line would be best of following WP:GETOVERIT Arnoutf (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

A dispute over NPOV/WEIGHT is a content dispute. When an editor feels NPOV is not being respected at an article, this is a typical next stop after the article talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the poster has got a point. In general I would agree that it isn't relevant that a particular gun was used in some shooting. However in this case the gun is specifically mentioned in headlines in reliable sources therefore secondary sources have found it of particular interest. Only those aspects the sources found interesting as far as they apply to the particular type gun should be mentioned, everything else about the shooting should be refereed to the article about it, otherwise it gets into coatrack territory. As far as I can see that seems to be some debate about whether it is an 'assault rifle' or a 'sporting rifle' and I'm sure there's some general debate about that in Wikipedia that can be linked to for most of the issue. The bit 'he worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history' is not what the secondary sources thought was pertinent when talking about the gun. Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Part of the issue I think also stems from the specific article being very short and not sufficiently fleshed out to talk about other, less benign aspects - how many have been made, who are major buyers of the gun, what purposes have they been used for, etc. If all those details were added, the addition of that gun being used in a major shooting spree incident would not look so out of place and beg NPOV. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If there was widespread mainstream media coverage of other aspects of the gun, or even in more specialist press, then I'd agree. But for better or for worse, it seems like this is what this particular gun is most famous for. And it's not the first. I mean, the thompson submachine gun is famously remembered for it's role in, for instance, the saint valentine's day massacre, and it even got a mention in the wikipedia page. Two whole sentences in a 64k article. And others. The mac-10. Glocks. The street-sweeper. The uzi, and the ak-47 (although that may be more hollywood crime).TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess how I see this is that because the only means this gun seems notable right now (given the present sourcing), this is the equivalent of WP:BLP1E (but obviously we're not talking about a living person here, so we're far outside of the BLP aspects). I doubt that there isn't more out there that can be used to expand this article, but it might require specialist material. Otherwise, maybe this should be merged up to the previous generation? I don't know. I do see an issue where the WP article about a product that was manufactured with no malicious intent only really documents a significant very malicious use of that product as something that is "wrong" but I can't point to any exacting policy that says how to fix it or why its wrong, it just feels off. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Omar Matee has an article, so there are legitimate exemptions to the BLP1E principle. Part of the issue here is that there is very little notice of this firearm in reliable sources. There are no previous versions of the weapon, so the only possible merge target would be the guns' manufacturer. That's a tangle because there's a SIG and a SIG Sauer, and the lines between them aren't clear. Also worth noting that the article was only created followng the shooting, a tacit indication that it became notable due to the shooting itself. NPOV says we report information good or bad, with weight according to coverage in reliable sources. If most of the coverage of this gun is due to its use in a particular crime, it would follow that the article should at least mention it. Felsic2 (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

While this is helpful to explain why it may seem like an NPOV issue, I worry that focusing on it blurs the point a bit. I don't think anybody, Masem included, is really arguing "Wikipedians haven't added information on other aspects, so we can't add this one, despite due weight". Ideally, particular uses of a gun would be a small part of a much larger article, and thus I could see objecting to having a giant block of text, but the question is about whether to include at all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion is only justified when reliable sources about the weapon normally mention a crime in which it was used. That the type of weapon used in a crime is normally mentioned in articles about a crime is not sufficient to include it in articles about the weapon. TFD (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

These sources/articles aren't 'crime happened on first street' mentioning in the article that, say, a glock was used in the crime. Maybe if what you say actually was policy, and if the sources were something like 'crime happened on first street' then maybe inclusion of that crime on the article page wouldn't be justifiable. And to Masem, this is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia doesn't exist to play morality police, or to censor media coverage of products to protect corporate interests. And if you're worried about their sales, history shows that this just boosts sales. It's the first rule of marketing. There's no such thing as bad publicity.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The preponderance of sources about the gun mention the crime. As you can see, the article only has a few high quality sources, along with some lower quality ones. TFD's response doesn't seem to address the WP:DUE policy, which says that article content should reflect coverage in reliable sources. Instead, TFD seems to be arguing that article content should be based on the usual material included in gun articles on Wikipedia, or maybe included in gun articles published by gun enthusiasts. I don't think either of those reasons would be consistet with Wikipedia policy. There are, in fact, many gun articles which mention usage in notable crimes.

Including criminal uses in gun articles can be analogized to material routinely included in other types of articles. We list notable residents in city articles. We list notable accidents in airplane articles. We list police departments who've bought a type of gun in gun articles. Listing the use of a gun by a police department, which is often sourceable only to the department's own website, while excluding use by criminals, despite being far more famous, seems to be a direct violation of NPOV which says that we should treat information in a neutral way. Felsic2 (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If by this "normally mention" business you mean WP:WEIGHT, then yes. But otherwise no, a subject is not static such that something is only included if it's consistent throughout the literature. If this were a reference work about gun manufacturing specifications, that might make sense, but given we're a general encyclopedia, we cover all aspects of a subject that receive coverage in reliable sources in accordance with the weight of those aspects in those reliable sources. In other words, we include developments about a subject (after they attract significant coverage), not just some platonic ideal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to add, assuming that it is reasonable to include the link to the shooting on the gun article, the statement above An MCX carbine, legally purchased about a week earlier, was used by Omar Mateen to kill 49 people and injure 53 during the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history. is not NPOV. It coatracks twice: the stance about legal purchase (which many outside WP use to argue against the legal sale of certain weapons) and the part on the worst mass shooting is pleading to sympathy of the reader. Factually true statements, and both appropriate on the article about the shooting, but on the article about the gun, they beg questions. An MCX carbine was used in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. is sufficient (presuming the link is there), for purposes of the gun article. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want an example of coatrack look at the assault rifle article. It spoon feeds you stalin's kalishnakov slash fiction and is generally a dumping ground for pop history. Coatracking in this case wouldn't be a simple innocuous mention taken from reliable sources. Instead it would be an attempt to hide entire alternate history articles in sections of the SIG MCX article, like some BS pop history about some german wunderwaffen. So, for instance, as the mcx seems to be peripherally related to the AR-15, maybe somebody would add in a section about AR-15 minutae, like it's early reliability problems, or to try to push whatever AR-15 agenda they're trying to push, like trying to add a section about how the AR-15 was introduced with a 20 round magazine (true), or, if they were trying to write their own false slash fiction, a section saying that the AR-15 was introduced with a 30 round magazine (false), and then maybe try to make some sort of tortured point about that. Or maybe make up some bullshit section about how the MCX is a development of the AR-15 platform that was created by a farmer cum-soldier who was wounded in battle, and, as he was recovering from his battle wounds and from generally having overdosed on too many poster child injections, he said some drivel that would make a PR hack roll his eyes about how, as he was recovering from his battle wounds, his only thought was of his fellow soldiers, and how he could still do something to help them, so he designed the AR-15... which was then stuck in a bin for a decade because they couldn't work out how to manufacture it efficiently. See how that would be coatracking? By your definition, almost anything would be coatracking. And mentioning that it was the worst mass shooting? What kind of censorship is that? Do you want to go through wikipedia, A to Z and take out all mentions of best or worst? "Sanitize" every "worst" natural disaster? Every worst disaster? If the press thinks that it's notable that that shooting was the worst mass shooting who are you to argue that it doesn't belong in the article?TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about sanitizing anything but recognizing certain word choices stand out that do appear to coatrack even if there was no intent to. The reader gains nothing to know that the shooting was the worst in US history on this article, and makes it appear the gun to be more "evil" than anything else. We can't avoid that it was used in the shooting, and that it killed dozens of people, but for the context of this article, that's all the reader needs to know, and if they do want to learn more, they can follow the link where discussion of the issue of the legal purchase or the largest shooting are all within context, and where the coatrack is avoided. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

So you'd prefer wording something like "This rifle may or may not have been involved in something that may or may not be notable, if you want to know more about it you should probably google the thing we refuse to tell you about because history might be prejudicial but this can't be considered censorship, it's just... look up the definition of censorship, but not on wikipedia, because the definition of censorship might be prejudicial. It's that. So if you want to know about what might or might have happened with this rifle but you don't know about the thing that we won't tell you about in what isn't censorship than I don't know, just google random things. But if you do know about the thing that we won't tell you about then just google it. Basically if you want anything just google it. What do you think this is? Fat man? It was a nuke? What did it do? Why are you asking? Are you a cop? What is knowing what was done with fat man going to do for you? It'll just prejudice you. The holocaust? That's just one big bucket of prejudice. You shouldn't even be asking about it. Who even told you about it? Some troublemaker?TeeTylerToe (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that's obviously not what is being said. Its just that there is a core fact, which out of the context of the article about the shooting, should stay as neutral as possible. Wikilinks are exactly the reason to guide people to other articles that expand more and give more context. And because we are talking about the touchy subject area of guns and gun control, we should make sure even inadvertent aspects of those issues do not get brought out outside of the required context. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Entirely agree that "the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history" is unnecessary. "Legally purchased" does sort of jut out, too (as though an average reader would assume it was purchased illegally?). Adding a bit more context than simply "it was used" just seems like better writing, though. Maybe add something along the lines of "The MCX received media attention in June 2016, when one was used by Omar Mateen in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting." Still doesn't seem ideal as I've written it. I should be clear that throughout this thread, I'm arguing that there's weight for inclusion in the article -- not for any specific text. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

A few thoughts: 1: This section's title is shamelessly leading. @Felsic2:, do better. 2: Why are there about fifty citations for the proposed edit? It looks terrible and is completely unnecessary. Two cites for that sentence would be plenty. 3: Felsic2's false claims of authority, ie [39] (remarkably with another terrible section title, this time in article space), hamper rather than expedite getting a resolution. 4: The question here is whether articles about the shooting should be interpreted, per WP:WEIGHT, as being about this rifle. That's primarily an editorial decision that should be determined by consensus on the article talk page. A WP:RfC would probably be helpful to get some fresh eyes on the discussion there, but I would encourage Felsic2 to do a better job of asking questions neutrally and then stepping back from the discussion if he or she decides to start an RfC. 5. I definitely think a sentence in the SIG MCX article noting that it was used in the deadliest shooting in recent US history is warranted. Compare with Carcano, which has a whole section summarizing an entire article about the weapon used. The consensus at the firearms WP generally makes sense, but this is not a general case. VQuakr (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Very pertinent comments, and a good basis for closing this discussion. Without taking any position on whether the material should go in, the attempt to do so has been very defective. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should respond here or not. I don't know the protocol. FWIW, I add the extra sources to make them available for commenters here and to show the number - it wasn't my intention that they should remain with the text forever. @J. Johnson:, if it's OK I'll ask you on your talk page about how I could have presented this query and the material better. Felsic2 (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think saying the number of people killed and wounded is justified because the debate is over calling it a 'sports rifle' rather than an 'assault weapon' and that debate should be mentioned. Saying it was the biggest mass shooting probably is not. And personally I do think the manufacturer is to blame for making something that can be used to gun down a whole herd and calling it a sports rifle just so they can make money like some heroin dealer. It is pretty obvious that such things will be used in mass killings and have little other use, just because it is legal does not make it in the least honorable. Dmcq (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Even my adding a link to the shooting in a see also section was reverted. What is an uncensored way of including the shooting into the text of the article?TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking again at the references above the article Modern sporting rifle might be a better place as they reference a number of different mass shooting which have used these type weapons. Dmcq (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That article appears to basically be a stub article about a failed re-branding/white washing attempt that doesn't appear to have even reached acceptance among the gun community. What does that have to do with whether or not to censor any mention of the orlando shooting from the sig mcx article?TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I would strong recommend you do not consider this discussion about "censoring" or lack thereof of content. That's exposing a certain POV that you'd like to see on the article, when we're trying to figure out by consensus if it should be included. Omission of information on this article, while there is an entire other article dedicated to the shooting incident, is by no means censorship. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I honestly think in any other case it would be unconditionally considered to be censorship. Saying that the information exists elsewhere isn't an excuse. Three of the top 8 hits on google for sig mcx are about the orlando shooting. If google were to remove those search returns saying that people could find that information somewhere else that would be censorship. I can't see any reason why the article shouldn't include the information and I don't see how you can argue that taking that information out of the article is not censorship.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with some of the comments that material like this doesn't belong in the rifle's article. We had a recent case that was similar with regards to the Ford Pinto and lawsuit about airbags. The group consensus was that because there wasn't something unique about the Pinto with respect to not having airbags, mention in the airbag articles didn't justify weight for mentioning the lawsuit in the Pinto article. I think something similar applies here. Had the shooter had Bushmaster, or other brand AR rifle vs the Sig model used how would it have made things different? The mention of the rifle in the various news articles was focused on the fact that it was an assault weapon/modern sporting rifle/etc. It's mentioned not because it is someone uniquely different than an AR pattern rifle, but because there is a general public debate about "assault weapons". In an article about the shooting it is reasonable to mention the gun because coverage of the shooting mentioned the brand of the gun. In an article on mass shootings it would also be reasonable to mention the gun. That doesn't mean the reciprocal is true. Given how this sort of information can be seen as coatracking and certainly would be seen as political by some I think it is best to leave it out of the rifle specific article and instead leave it for articles that are more focused on the politics associated with that general class of gun. I don't think enough weight has been shown to overturn talk page consensus. I also think exclusion is in line with WP:Firearms guidelines. Springee (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The talk page consensus is three to two for inclusion. See my earlier remark, but simple statement of facts is not coatracking. There are similar inclusions for other guns, like the carcano used in the kennedy assassination and the thompson submachine gun used in the st valentines day massacre. What else is the carcano bolt action notable for other than being used to assassinate kennedy? If the Sig MCX becomes notable for something other than being used in the olrando shooting then sure, add that to the article. Go wild. The article should have that too, if that ever happens.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

My apologies on the consensus. Coatracking referred to the original statement. An argument above correctly noted that some of the information in the proposed material can reasonably be argued to be coatracking. For what it's worth, if I were to post on the talk page I would be against inclusion. The issue remains we are in a gray area for inclusion based on notability. I don't think we have the historical hindsight needed to say this is an example where the particular rifle becomes notably associated with this crime. It's quite possible this is the most notable thing that will ever be associated with this rifle but that doesn't mean that it the two will be historically linked (ie the gun is mentioned and people think of this crime) like we see with the Kennedy assassination or the St Valentines day Massacrer. Anyway, I see no NPOV issue here. Given the recent nature of the crime and the larger political context related to assault weapons I see mention in various news articles as furthering a larger discussion, not speaking specifically to this rifle (would we mention this if the rifle were an AR pattern rifle?). Springee (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see how it would be anything at all like coatracking. Look at the assault rifle article. That article's basically been turned into a coat rack for love letters to mid-century wartime propoganda from nazi germany and the USSR that's become fodder for B-grade pop history. Saying that there was a shooting where the gun that is the subject of the article was used in is not hijacking the article and turning it into a gun control debate. If the section on the shooting morphed into a polemic against guns, or a polemic in favor of guns, then that would be coatracking. A simple, clinical statement outlining factual events without turning it into a gun control argument wouldn't be coatracking. If the orlando shooting or the role of the MCX in the orlando shooting isn't notable a decade from now, or 50 years from now then editors 50 years from now can change the article to focus on whatever else is notable about the sig MCX, like [insert something that does not exist here people from 2066]. Where POV comes into this seems to be where people of a certain POV want to censor mention of the orlando shooting from the article, not because they don't think that it's notable or verifiable, but for some other reason.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry for stepping in here again. I don't know what the protocol is for OPs commenting.

Firearms article routinely list police and military units which use the weaspons. See Heckler & Koch HK416#Users or Smith & Wesson M&P#Users. Those entries are not required meet any threshold beyond a primary source. Why should criminal uses have to meet a high threshold? That's an NPOV issue - different but comparable facts are treated differently.

It's hard to imagine any non-criminal association that's likely to emerge in the future that would eclipse the importance of a major massacre. But that's the assumption this argument makes - that somehow this association is just a passing "recentism".

As for coatracking - WP:COATRACK seems to address the issue where an unrelated topic overwhelms the main topic of an article. I don't see how the use of the firearm that the article is about could be a coatrack. It's not a coatrack when we report on the battles that a warship participates in. It's not coatracking when we list the notable residents of a town.

The use of a gun in a major historical event seems like the kind of content that an article should have, much more so than dry specifications taken directly from the manufacturer's website. The article, as currently written, is basically just made of material from the company's sales catalog. Felsic2 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The coatracking concerns were already explained. I think they are sound. Springee (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to anything in WP:COAT that would support that? Coat Rack is chiefly concerned with an unbalanced article WRT WP:WEIGHT. The best argument that could be made about this article WRT coat is, to the contrary, that it's unbalanced against the orlando shooting, not towards. I don't see how you can even pretend to argue otherwise. Not that you've articulated an argument that I see.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This comment begs the question that this event, tragic thought it is, rises to "major historical event". History hasn't had time to judge that. Without the judgment of history we can't reasonably judge if this is a NPOV issue or not. I would suggest raising the question on the project firearms talk page rather than here. Springee (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

(I moved your comment so it wouldn't split up mine). The massacre was reported on around the world. It was discussed in the presidential campaign. It led to an historic sit-in in the House of Representatives. Forty-nine people died and doezens more were wounded. What is the definition that you'd use for an event major enough to mention?

As for the WP:GUNS project, I don't think they are neutral on this issue. Felsic2 (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to have grasped the concept that though the shooting is notable, a notorious use of the weapon does not necessarily require mention in the article on the weapon. (Consider: should an article on a song include the information that it was being played when the shooting started?) Such an argument could be made, but this is not the place for that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

If it is covered heavily and deemed important by the NYT and other media outlets then why wouldn't it have a place in the article? It's not you, or I that decide notability.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that even the barest of mentions is deleted.[40] Felsic2 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet: @Rhododendrites: @J. Johnson: @TeeTylerToe: @Arnoutf: @Dmcq: @Masem: @The Four Deuces: @VQuakr: @Springee: Pinging everyone who has commented here. Apologies if that's impolite. Please see Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? and comment there if you have an opinion. Felsic2 (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest this thread is closed, pointing to the ongoing RfC on the issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, someone please close this discussion, it is not going anywhere. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I posted a "resolved" tag. Thanks to everyone who commented. Felsic2 (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

This article is... problematic. It's more of a platform to present Sanger's views than a proper biography, and seems to actively attempt to minimise the failure of any project Sanger was involved with. There are some extreme problems - his claims about child pornography are somewhat dangerous to be throwing around without evidence or proof; lesser examples include his attack on Wikileaks, or the attacks on Wikipedia in the Citizendium section and elsewhere.

It also has major issues with being horribly dated: Lots of meaningless details like "On September 22, 2010, Sanger [...] said, at the time, that he would continue to support the project." or the section Larry Sanger#Philosophy which contains entire paragraph-long quotes meanderingly setting out thoughts on the nature of educational material on the internet - which are now between six and nine years old, and thus hideously dated; the internet being one of the most rapidly-changing environments of the modern day.

In short, I think we need a lot more eyes on this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The bit regarding child pornography is actually accurate and well sourced - the BBC and FOX both covered the row, which makes it fairly broad-spectrum. Commons and Wikipedia's images on lolicon etc are child pornography in more than a few jurisdictions. Merely 'cartoons' is not a defense as quite often the legal terms involve 'imagery' rather than 'photographs'. Of course in some jurisdictions it is also explicitly not illegal due to it not being photos, but the bit in Sanger's bio is suitably brief. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Presidential politics and the Louisiana floods

Experienced NPOV eyes would be useful in one section of 2016 Louisiana floods, where eds are trying to figure out how to present acts of Obama/Trump/Clinton .... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

What are presidential candidates supposed to do about a flood except posturing? I don't see it does any good to Wikipedia to allow any extra proxy fronts for electioneering. Re-evaluate in 6 months whether these statements have any encyclopedic interest. Rhoark (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark's suggestion makes good sense to me à la WP:NOTNEWS. —PermStrump(talk) 03:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)