Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 21 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

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

Chief Whip non neutral text[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chief_Whip&type=revision&diff=890466069&oldid=890434350

until 1st April 2019 when [[Julian Smith (politician)]] chose to attack his own government and Prime Minister. Smith went on to use so-called ‘remain [[propaganda]]' in an attempt to overturn U.K. [[Parliamentary Democracy]] when he suggested the [[2017 United Kingdom general election|2017 UK general election]] result meant parliament could overturn the [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|2016 European Union Referendum]] result.<ref>{{cite web|last=Cappuro|first=Daniel|title=''Julian Smith: The beleaguered Chief Whip with a long record of mistakes''|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/01/julian-smith-beleaguered-chief-whip-long-record-mistakes/|date=1 April 2019|publisher=The Telegraph|accessdate=1 April 2019}}</ref>

--Trublu (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:List of works by Leonardo da Vinci[edit]

A request for comment is underway at Talk:List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Talk:List_of_works_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci#RfC_-_Horse_and_Rider. The RfC addresses the following question:

  • Should the wax statue entitled Horse and Rider on the List of works by Leonardo da Vinci page be included in the Recent Attributions or Disputed Attributions section?

All are invited to participate. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Criticism in country article leads[edit]

I don't normally edit country articles, but I noticed that the treatment of criticism in the lead is rather inconsistent. At a glance, it seems to reflect page-specific consensus (or lack thereof) rather than any systematic POV. This is fine in principle, except for the following concerns:

1) The phrase "any prominent controversies" in WP:LEAD gives little concrete guidance about how to measure prominence for subject like a country. Does criticism by human rights organizations create a "prominent controversy" in itself? Should prominence be measured by how often the criticism comes up in the news coverage of the country? international or only English-language press? all RSs on the contemporary politics of the country? Is frequently mentioned corruption an admissible type of "prominent controversy"? How about criticism of foreign policy, economic policy, stance on climate change, etc?

2) Country articles are a prominent feature of WP and there's a fairly standard set of issues that "countries" tend to be criticized for, so there is potential of coming up with some WP-wide points of consensus.

I wanted to start a discussion here to see if there's a potential RfC or two that could go somewhere. Here are a few examples I gathered. If I missed any criticism in the lead, please let me know and I'll update.

  • China: no criticism
  • Cuba: no criticism
  • Iran: Organizations including Amnesty International[39][40] and Human Rights Watch[41] have strongly criticized Iran's women's rights record.
  • Israel: no criticism, unless you count the use of the word "occupied"
  • Myanmar: There is, however, continuing criticism of the government's treatment of ethnic minorities, its response to the ethnic insurgency, and religious clashes.
  • North Korea: several passages
  • Pakistan: no criticism, unless you count "challenging problems"
  • Russia: While many reforms made during the Putin presidency have been generally criticized by Western nations as undemocratic...
  • Saudi Arabia: The state has attracted criticism for a multitude of reasons including but not limited to: its archaic treatment of women, its excessive and often extrajudicial use of capital punishment, state-sponsored discrimination against religious minorities and atheists, its role in the Yemeni Civil War, sponsorship of Islamic terrorists, and its strict interpretation of Sharia Law
  • Tajikistan: has been criticised by a number of non-governmental organizations for authoritarian leadership, lack of religious freedom, corruption and widespread violations of human rights.
  • Turkmenistan: According to Human Rights Watch, ""Turkmenistan remains one of the world’s most repressive countries. The country is virtually closed to independent scrutiny, media and religious freedoms are subject to draconian restrictions, and human rights defenders and other activists face the constant threat of government reprisal.
  • United States: no criticism
  • Venezuela: no criticism
  • Vietnam: no criticism (I'm including it here as an example of a country whose human rights record doesn't get much press coverage, though according to HRW it "remains dire in all areas.")

Eperoton (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You've raised a pertinent issue, Eperoton... --BushelCandle (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Outside input needed on The Great Replacement conspiracy theory[edit]

Looking for some outside input on some discussions on The Great Replacement. The first discussion concerns whether the article should be titled Great Replacement or Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory. The second (closely related) concerns whether or not to call The Great Replacement a conspiracy theory in the article itself or whether to distinguish between "conspiracy" and "non-conspiracy" variants.

Nblund talk 17:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Phillips (activist)[edit]

Lengthy discussion about subjects military service. Seems a bit of whitewashing and proclaiming POV when anyone makes a well sourced edit. Seems the sources get scrutinized, which is good. However also seems when sources and citations meet wiki reliability standard reverts to claiming POV. The concern is reports of subjects “Vietnam vet” and “Vietnam veteran” claims are being whitewashed and undue weight is being given to editors who appear to want the subject is a more favorable light. Using the word veracity to paraphrase multiple reports that were sourced is not POV. Highly concerning. Also as soon as someone makes an edit that is sourced but less than favorable on the subject, proclaiming POV is definitely not wp:agf.0pen$0urce (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it kind of seems like you're just accusing other editors of bias. That's not the point of this board. What content would you like to see changed and why? Nblund talk 02:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
That’s an opinion, elaborated on issues with the article and how the article is being aggressively policed and seems to give undue weight to one POV. Very active reverting on sourced edits. As soon as a new contributor comes along, makes edits, sources edits, they are accused of POV. Would think be ideal if a larger cross section of the community get involved and chime in. The talk page is lengthy and goes in circles.0pen$0urce (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It would help if you said what article is under discussion. The link in the heading is to a disambiguation page. Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC) [Fixed 10 April 2019. Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)]

Lot of back and fourth several folks tried to contribute sourced mention of the subjects embellishment or exaggeration of Vietnam service. Current edit states Vietnam Era Veteran, however misleading and subject is did not serve in Vietnam and did not meet the criteria to earn Vietnam Service Medal. I came along and saw folks were trying to make edits but every source got stonewalled Unreasonable sourcing demands So I figured ok maybe the souyrces are the issue fine, lets see what I can find, found about 3 carefully curated sources, tried to be careful in my wording stay NPOV, and almost immediately was accused of POV edit and reverted. Just seeking additional input here--0pen$0urce (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Again: this board is not the place to air grievances about other editors. It's about content. Why does it matter if whether or not he qualified to earn a Vietnam service medal? Can you link to a diff or say what you want the article to say and what sources you want to cite? Looking at the talk page, it actually appears that there are a fair number of experienced editors participating in the conversation. Nblund talk 01:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
”Again”, who’s airing grievances? Asking the community via this, npov notice board, to review the military service section for npov. I ask that you keep it civil and assume good faith.0pen$0urce (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The military service section should include sourced criticisms of subjects “Vietnam vet” portrayal, not just a white washed he’s a Vietnam era veteran. Several reports that subject including social media video that was reported on that subject portrayed himself inaccurately as a “Vietnam vet”. Even mention of those reports gets whitewashed, seems very POV. There happy. Geese no wonder Wikipedia struggles to attract new editors no wonder. Civility lacking for starters. 0pen$0urce (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There are no "civility" issues here, so stop with your transparent attempts to weaponize that. You have no suggested edits, only "it's biased". That doesn't work for us. You've had multiple experienced editors tell you that you're wrong. Your comments very clearly show that you are grievance-focused. I think you need to drop the stick and move on.--Jorm (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Please focus on content not other contributors. Again keep it civil0pen$0urce (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, @0pen$0urce: Constantly accusing others of incivility is itself somewhat uncivil. I would second (or fourth, or fifth, really) what other editors are telling you: it seems WP:UNDUE to focus on this obscure question, and you're not going to convince anyone by endlessly bludgeoning this issue. It's probably not worth your time to continue tilting at this windmill. Nblund talk 15:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Interesting comment about me. “Constantly”. “Undue and obscure”whelp that’s subjective. As well as arbitrarily proclaiming a source is a blog. Reported criticisms of the subjects portrayal of his Vietnam service. Just about every major news outlet that reported Phillips a “Vietnam Veteran” retracted after his service records were recovered under the Nathan Stanard. Additional reported criticisms, some originating from military focused news outlets (Stars and Stripes, Military Times, and yes Task and Purpose). These sources specialize in military centric journalism and can clearly distinguish the “Vietnam Era Veteran, “Vietnam Vet”,”"I'm a Vietnam vet, you know," Phillips said. "I served in the Marine Corps from '72 to '76. I got discharged May 5, 1976. I got honorable discharge and one of the boxes in there shows if you were peacetime or... what my box says that I was in theater. I don't talk much about my Vietnam times. I usually say 'I don't recollect. I don't recall,' you know, those years.-Nathan Phillips Facebook video talking to Native Youth Alliance 2018, as reported by Task and Purpose, re-published Buisness Week “ Not unreasonable to ask folks to comment on content and keep it civil.0pen$0urce (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI, 0pen$0urce provides only blog posts as sources and when they're told they're no good, they cast civility aspersions and template people with {{uw-harrass-1}}. So that's what you're getting into when you tell them that they're wrong.--Jorm (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

2nd request, please focus on content not other contributors and let’s keep it civil. Can you pleas provide reliable sources, not just subjective opinions that task and Purpose is a “blog” and furthermore that an article written by Task and Purpose’s Editor in Chief then republished by Business Week is merely a blog. I spent significant time researching task and Purpose. Several articles about the company in the Atlantic, huff post. There mission statement is Task & Purpose is a digital news and culture publication dedicated to issues that matter to veterans, service members, and the civilians who care about them. We aren’t just trying to speak to the next great generation of military veterans, we are actively trying to build it. If someone can find a reliable, not subjective source that task and Purpose is a blog. Sure they publish work from contributors. Proclaiming “blog” doesn’t mean it’s a blog and starting to give the perception of status quo stonewalling amongst other things going on here0pen$0urce (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I generically side with OpenSource on this one (as have others, see talk page). The fact that Mr. Phillips has indeed in the past claimed to be a "Vietnam Veteran" (which he is not) and not a "Vietnam-era Veteran" (which he is) is of note and reflects on his credibility. Likewise, there he has made confusing remarks about being a "recon ranger" that were later clarified. This establishes that he's loose/inaccurate with his choice of words, again, leading to credibility issues (see also his lies at the 2019 Lincoln Memorial incident). This is a WP:BLP and must meet those standards. Below is a closer attempt to address the issues OpenSource is trying to address:

Phillips entered the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves on 20 May 1972.[1] During his time in the military, he served as a refrigerator technician in Nebraska and California and was trained as an anti-tank missileman.[2] On 5 May 1976, Phillips was discharged as a private following disciplinary issues, including three AWOL incidents.[3][4] In accordance with the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Phillips is classified as a Vietnam era veteran[1]
Initial media reports in the wake of the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation were inconsistent as to the particulars of Phillip’s military service, leading to reports that conflicted with his actual service.[5][6] Several media outlets erroneously reported Phillips was a “Vietnam Veteran” then subsequently issued retractions or clarifications.[7] Contributing to the confusion, in an interview, Phillips stated he was a "recon ranger".[8][9] He has made multiple statements since that video in which he only claims to be a Vietnam era veteran[7] and clarified his "recon ranger" remarks as a description of his actions during a protest, not that he served in that capacity during his military service.[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Copp, Tara (January 23, 2019). "Tribal elder in viral standoff video was not a Vietnam veteran, military records show". Military Times. Retrieved January 26, 2019. Nathan Phillips, 64, spent four years in the Marine Corps Reserve and left in 1976 with the rank of private, or E-1, the Marines said in a statement providing his personal releasable information.
  2. ^ a b Did Nathan Phillips Falsely Claim He Was a Vietnam Veteran?, Snopes, Dan Evon, January 23, 2019
  3. ^ Lamothe, Dan (January 23, 2018). "A group representing Nathan Phillips wrongly said he served in Vietnam. Then came the accusations". The Washington Post.
  4. ^ http://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/news/well-known-navy-seal-don-shipley-obtains-nathan-phillips-military-records-p3Gs--zUpUiwJPURPIlzxg/
  5. ^ Copp, Tara (2019-01-23). "Tribal elder in viral standoff video was not a Vietnam veteran, military records show". Military Times. Retrieved 2019-03-31.
  6. ^ "Nathan Phillips, Native American in standoff with teens, faces scrutiny of his military past". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 2019-03-31.
  7. ^ a b "WaPo Issues Correction after Falsely Labeling Nathan Phillips a Vietnam Vet". news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2019-03-31.
  8. ^ http://www.vogue.com/projects/13542941/return-to-standing-rock/
  9. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/01/23/nathan-phillips-man-standoff-with-covington-teens-faces-scrutiny-his-military-past/?utm_term=.439e8c55145d

Hopefully that would remove the T&P reference while giving both context to his discipline issues (without whitewashing) and confusing remarks. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

MS-13[edit]

The MS-13 article has been held in a non-neutral state by a particular user User:Snooganssnoogans for the past few months. Several users have attempted to remove or change non-neutral language only for their changes to be immediately reverted by the user in question. There are numerous complaints on the talk page about the neutrality of the article.

I have made some efforts to remove or change non-neutral language, however there is still a lot more work to be done and any edits made are constantly being reverted. I would appreciate if anyone could help to build consensus in the talk page and change the language of the article to be more neutral, as right now it is embarrassingly biased.

PaganPanzer (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said on the article's talk page just now, it seems like your objection isn't really to our article but to what the sources say, ie. you object to sources saying that some of the claims about MS-13 are false and want to "tone it down" to 'some people object' or the like. But WP:NPOV is about reflecting the sources, not about giving the WP:FALSEBALANCE appearance of neutrality - when the sources unanimously say eg. "there is no evidence of X", we have to say so unambiguously. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to present such things as seriously contested when they are not. --Aquillion (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Come on, the sources are all left-leaning news articles that do not provide any sources for their own claims. Take the claim "There is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime or gang activity" for example, both sources simply make the claim without evidence. By your logic I can just change all the sources to right-leaning news articles that claim sanctuary cities do cause crime and then state "Trump is correct, sanctuary cities do cause crime" as if it were a hard fact. Even if the sources were academic and reflected the majority-view in academia, the tone of the article is still clearly biased. PaganPanzer (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
For reference, here are the sources you removed or downplayed with your last edits: Washington Post , NBC News, Propublica, AP News, factcheck.org. Explain what's left-leaning about those sources - they seem like mainstream reliable sources to me, and since they're reliable news sources we can take their statements on things like this at face value. If you're defining them as left-leaning based on your disagreement about what they're saying on this topic, then your arguments are obviously self-justifying, ie. no sources that state those things would ever be acceptable to you. --Aquillion (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the two sources I just mentioned, MSNBC is self-admittedly left-leaning [1], and the Washington Post article is very clearly written as a left-leaning opinion piece. So once again, by your logic, I am allowed to replace the sources with right-leaning news articles and then claim that their contents are factual? So you won't mind if I cite [2] and then claim that sanctuary cities experience increased crime? And the tone of the article is still very clearly not neutral, as numerous people on the talk page have already pointed out. PaganPanzer (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that I am not defining something as left-leaning based on my disagreement with its contents. I do not have an agenda, I do not necessarily support Trump's policies or rhetoric. I simply value neutrality and believe that the MS-13 article is embarrassingly biased. PaganPanzer (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
NBC News =/= MSNBC. The "right-leaning" content that you want to use in the article to rebut RS content is a statement by a Louisiana politician.[3] It should of course not be added to the article, just as we would never add statements by Democratic politicians to rebut RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
NBC News is also left-leaning, and they may as well be the same entity. The statement made by the Louisiana politician is not a rebuttal, in fact the way I have presented the information it is the reverse: the left-leaning news sources are the rebuttal. The statement made by the Louisiana politician is of course relevant if the content is Republican discourse on sanctuary cities. I can instead change the wording so that the Louisiana politician is not named, and instead it is simply claimed that sanctuary cities experience an increase in crime, since that is what is said in the right-leaning sources. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You changed the reliably sourced sentence "There is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime or gang activity." to "According to Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, crime has risen in sanctuary cities across the nation, although it is disputed whether any evidence exists that sanctuary cities increase crime or gang activity." This is a NPOV violation, as it falsely portrays RS as being mixed on whether sanctuary cities increase crime when RS clearly state that here is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
My sources are RS. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You used one source for the Louisiana politician's fringe statement (which should not be in the article at all), and then altered the language sourced to the WaPo and NBC News so that it no longer stated clearly that there is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I used two sources. Can you demonstrate that it is fringe? Since the RS authors agree with his statement. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The Daily Wire is not a RS by any stretch, and there is no consensus about the reliability of the Washington Examiner.[4] Furthermore, it's a brazen lie to say that the Washington Examiner agreed with his statement. WaPo and NBC News clearly and unequivocally state that there is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)  
Which as far as I care is all well and good except that this is being used to argue for the dedication of half the lead of the article to a "Republicans are liar liar pantses on fires!" which is absolutely an NPOV issue. This is not an article titled "MS-13 as depicted by Republicans since 2016ish", it's an article titled "MS-13". 199.247.43.85 (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The fact that the party which controls the government in the world's largest democracy has made MS-13 a core part of its messaging in elections and uses the gang to justify family separations, mass deportations and calls for a closure to the Mexico border is extremely notable. The coverage of GOP messaging about this group is entirely commensurate with RS coverage of MS-13. This is the kind of content that clearly stands the test of time, and which will attract most readers to the article today, 5 yrs from and 50 yrs now. This is the reason why this relatively small gang is renowned whereas the larger and demographically similar 18th Street gang has nearly no name recognition at all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This is speculative. MS-13 were a well-known gang before Trump became president. Please stop making excuses to push your agenda. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The biggest problem with the article is that the vast majority of its text is tick-tock of non-notable crimes; compare Crips and Bloods, which do not attempt to chronicle the minutia of every single crime ever committed by a gang member. If there's anything which needs to be trimmed, it's that. What will be considered important in 50 years — the minute details of a random drug bust or this gang's impact on presidential politics? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
And it's not just presidential politics. This gang features heavily in congressional politics (e.g. extremely prominent in the last few election campaigns, in particular 2018) and state politics (e.g. it was front and center in Virginia's 2017 state elections). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I may be biased but from where I'm standing it's looking like a consensus in the talk page that, at the very least, the degree of focus in the lede is undue. 199.247.44.10 (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Rent regulation[edit]

There is a stale RfC at Talk:Rent regulation as to whether the article should state that there is a consensus in the economics field about the effects of rent control, and if so, what the nature of that consensus is. I'm not necessarily interested in closing the RfC right now, but I am particularly interested in understanding the issue in question from a WP:NPOV perspective. Would the article be maintaining a neutral point of view if, for instance, it states that there is a "broad consensus among economists" that rent control reduces the quantity and quality of available rental housing? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 16:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox neutrality[edit]

Infoboxes shouldn't contain an alternative facts version, generally, they should be non-controversial. The "Casualties" section on Infoboxes should be for casualties only. In particular, the case of the Philippine Drug War, where one side in the "conflict" dehumanizes the other as a media strategy. This article is as far as I know the only one where the casualty figure is not treated on its own as a casualty figure. Is there some rule that covers this, or do people agree that it should not be used in this way to promote a POV? zzz (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that the “casualties” parameter should list deaths (and perhaps wounded)... and that “arrests” are not “casualties” and so don’t belong under that parameter (as is the case in the Philippine Drug War infobox). However, I see this as a case of well intentioned editors trying to squeeze information into a pre-formatted template, and not a case of POV pushing. The number of arrests is a valid bit of info to put in that article’s infobox. The solution is simple: add a new, separate parameter for the arrests. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017[edit]

In Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017#NPOV issues/claims, as well as Template:Did you know nominations/Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 and other talk page sections, some editors arean editor is claiming that sources are "clearly POVed" and "biased towards Israeli/Jewish POV""Jewish" or "Israeli" sources (which would seem to include Newsweek, and "Israeli" seems to cover mainly Haaretz which has a rather strong Jewish-American section)are inappropriate for a protest by a few hundred nationalists in New York City in which there was Holocaust denial rhetoric and antisemitic signs were carried. Sources include: Newsweek, Forward1, Forward2, TOI, Haaretz, JC, Tablet, as well as on TPM([5], [6], [7]). This was also condemned by the Wiesenthal center. While certainly there has been coverage in Jewish oriented outlets, this is not surprising given this was in New York City and antisemitism is of interest to Jews. Outside input appreciated.Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Struck + modified with direct quote per request below.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC) As a single editor is quoted - use "an editor" and specific TP quote section.Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"some editors are claiming that "Jewish" or "Israeli" sources (which would seem to include Newsweek, and "Israeli" seems to cover mainly Haaretz which has a rather strong Jewish-American section) are inappropriate "
Holy freakin' crap that's an utterly dishonest description of the dispute.
NOBODY said that "Jewish" or "Israeli" sources are inappropriate!!! Why is Icewhiz putting this in quotation marks (as if was said by someone else)??? This is some devious shit.
Here the word "Israeli" does not appear at all. The word "Jewish" does, given the topic, but the words "Jewish sources" or anything even close to it does NOT.
Here the use of Israeli sources is mentioned but the commentator actually says they're reliable. The mention is by ONE editor so it's not even clear why Icewhiz is referring to "editors", plural.
I'm sorry but this is straight up lying. The actual problems with the article have to do with WP:SYNTH (sources which barely mention the topic of the article), misrepresentation of sources by Icewhiz (failing to note that the sources are not reporting in their own voice but rather are conveying what somebody said) and possibly WP:BALANCE. One more time: nobody, absolutely nobody, said that "Israeli" or "Jewish" (sic) sources were "inappropriate". Icewhiz is trying to make an odious insinuation here, in order to smear fellow editors and win a content dispute. This is horrible behavior on his part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I did (just now) come close by saying I can see why this might be an issue in a BLP. But that was after this was posted. But I would ask that we do not discus editors action here, if there is lying its a violation of policy and should be reported.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Quote: This article uses primarily newspapers, some of them clearly POVed (ex. Israeli newspapers - reliable, but of course biased towards Israeli/Jewish POV; currently no Polish sources are used to show the POV of the other side). - top post in Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017#NPOV issues/claims. Multiple RSes are describing a protest involving Holocaust denial/antisemitism by a small (a few hundred) group of Polish nationalists in New York City. No RSes have been presented coloring this protest in any other light.Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
"top post in Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017#NPOV issues/claims" - Yeah, I mentioned that. But:
  1. You said the same claim about "inappropriateness" was being made at Template:Did you know nominations/Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017. Can you link to a statement on that page which mentions "Israeli" or "Jewish sources"? No? Then don't make stuff up.
  2. You said the claim was being made by "editorS", plural. Can you link to statement by another editor who says anything related to "Israeli" or "Jewish" sources? No? Then don't make stuff up.
  3. You said "some editors" (sic) were claiming that "Israeli" or "Jewish" sources were "inappropriate". Can you provide a quote where an editor says that such sources are "inappropriate" rather than a quote which says something entirely different? No. Then don't make stuff up.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I have now posted other sources. Polish media refers to the protesters simply as Polish Americans. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz, are you going to retract your false accusations or not? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Per your request, I struck and replaced with direct quote above. Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep going User:Icewhiz. There's also #1 and #2 up there. Especially since your use of plural and reference to the DYK talk appears to attack me personally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Per your request, I struck editors plural as a single editor is quoted. I will note that diff - a different editor referred to "use of crappy sources which make obviously outlandish and false claims" in regards to rather mainstream English language sources at the DYK nomination. Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please take this who said what spat to DR or ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of Anti-Semitism as an ideology of Hezbollah[edit]

Hi. When I was reading the blue-locked article about Hezbollah, an organisation which has an Anti-Zionist view, I noticed Anti-Semitism listed as one of the ideologies in the infobox. I looked at the article's talk page and found that a discussion was already underway. The editors who supported labelling Hezbollah as Anti-Semitic were highly acclaimed editors who were very pro-Zionist, and one of them had even explicitly written on their user page that their 'mission' on Wikipedia is to promote the views of the Israeli Zionist Government! I am quite concerned that their activities and approval on this website will push towards leaning to a pro-Israeli or even Zionist bias. Could somebody please help? Thank you! ^ - ^ -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I am writing this because Anti-Zionism ≠ Anti-Semitism. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I've looked at several articles regarding Hezbollah, and the statements about antisemitism are very well-sourced, to scholarly books on the subject as well as newspaper articles and statements from Hezbollah leaders and spokespeople. Generally, if a group claims not to be something but the preponderance of independent sources say they are, then the article should reflect the independent sources, while still noting the group's denial. That appears to be the case here. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Concur. You can be both anti-Semitic AND anti-Zionist, just anti-Semitic, or just anti-Zionist. The terms are not exclusive. As to their applicability in this instance, they are well-sourced and should stay. While someone may want to push an agenda/interest, that doesn't mean their edits are incorrect. Focus on the edits, not the editor. Buffs (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little on the fence as to whether (per WP:CATDEF) it's a defining feature of the group because there is a lot of anti-Semitism among Islamic fundamentalist political parties. It also seems like one of the cited books is actually questioning whether Hezbollah is anti-Semitic: the author criticizes Jeffrey Goldberg and others for claiming the group is anti-Semitic without doing much actual reporting on the organization. That said, I think the weight of the scholarly evidence favors the view that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic, and I think we would need more than just one book in order to justify treating it as a contested claim. Nblund talk 18:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it's of note that they claim to only be anti-Zionist (violently anti-Zionist?) but that their ideology and actions do not seem to make such a distinction. This article provides a generally appropriate balance with examples: Ideology_of_Hezbollah#Jews_and_Judaism Buffs (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Anti-Semitism is not an ideology, although it can be part of one (such as Nazism) and therefore should not be included. The Cambridge Dictionary defines ideology as "a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based."[8] Anti-Semitism is best seen as one of the those beliefs, not the entire set. It would only be something like Jew Watch where the central mission of the organization is anti-Semiiism that it could conceivably be described as its ideology. Some groups have more than one ideology, such as the Democratic Party of the U.S., which represent specific factions. But Hezbollah does not have separate Islamic nationalist, anti-Semitist and anti-Zionist factions competing for control.
Also, per Contentious labels, we generally do not describe groups as anti-Semitic but say that they have been described as such.
TFD (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
But Hezbollah being against the Israeli colonisation of Palestine is definitely not Anti-Semitic. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
1) That is not the major reason reliable sources describe Hezbollah and antisemitic, and I really think you should read the ideology article again to get a sense of where that designation is coming from; and 2) it actually doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not. It would appear that the dominant point of view of reliable sources is that Hezbollah is antisemitic. If that doesn't sit right with you, prove that the dominant point of view is something else or at least more controversial than described, by citing reliable sources. Or you could attempt a rational argument that the sources used for the claim are not reliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The Jerusalem Post is a highly pro-Zionist news organisation, which promotes the message of supporting the Israeli regime, and is quite likely to spread statements that are not entirely true about its anti-Zionist opponents. I believe that a label that is disputed should not be forwarded as the 'ideology' of the organisation in its article's infobox. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The Jerusalem Post may or may not be biased, but it's only one of the four sources cited for that claim in the infobox. And if you look at the article section about Hezbollah's views on Jews, there are a dozen more sources. Out of all of these, some might be flawed or biased. But others are, as far as I can tell, very high quality academic sources on Hezbollah and on antisemitism. If you want to dispute the label, I'd recommend finding equally high quality sources that say Hezbollah is not antisemitic. Cherry-picking single sources out of almost 20 and pointing out flaws is not going to work. Even if you succeed in having the Jerusalem Post removed from the article, it wouldn't change the content, since other sources back that material. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
A large proportion of the Western sources would say that it is. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
First off, I respectfully ask that =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= removes the caricature they appended here, which is both contentious and irrelevant to this discussion. Second, we're not necessarily naming complete ideologies in that infobox ("the entire set"), which would be nearly impossible in the majority of cases (what does "anti-Western imperialism" means? Is it violent resistance or political action? Does it deny Russian involvement, or accept it? Does it reject Western "soft power", or only "hard power"?), but characterizing them in common terms. If we were aiming for "complete" ideologies, then that box would be near useless: the unique ideology of Hizbollah is "Hizzbollah-ism", and that's a tautology. Keep to the sources, and stop trying to white-wash this organization. François Robere (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The article, "ANALYSIS: HEZBOLLAH’S LETHAL ANTI-SEMITISM", in the Jerusalem Post is by Benjamin Weinthal, who is described as "a European correspondent at The Jerusalem Post and a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies." ThinkProgress, which represents moderate Democrats, describes the Foundation as hawkish, interventionist and defensive of right-wing politics in Israel. It is incorrect to assume that the views in the article necessaarily represent the views of the Jerusalem Post and should be attributed to intext to the author. But that rules out its use in the info-box.
Equally importantly, Weinthal does not say that anti-Semitism is their ideology.
TFD (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a few more: [9][10][11][12] François Robere (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The ICT source you cite there actually seems pretty solid (although I didn't do a deep dive), but its also a little more nuanced: "it should be emphasized from the outset that despite its anti-Semitic motifs, this attitude is not the most significant tenet of Hizballah philosophy." This is the impression I get from a lot of the higher quality sources. I'm not sure what the norm is around infoboxes - is the norm "include all relevant ideological themes" or "include only the most important"? Nblund talk 16:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
None of these sources says that anti-Semitism is the ideology of Hezbollah or one of its factions. In fact the first source, "Anti-Semitic Motifs in the Ideology of Hizballah and Hamas," says "it must be stressed that while anti-Semitism is a basic tenet of these movements, it is by no means the central one, as it was in Western racial and religious ideologies." In fact, the title of the article is a hint that the author considers anti-Semitism to be part of the ideology, not the ideology itself. TFD (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
On the 1st source (ICT) see Nblund's comment; the 2nd source (Fisk) suggests it is common in the organization; the 3rd source (Rosenberg) suggests it's common in the organization's rhetoric; the 4th source (Yaakov) is an example of such in the organization's media arm. François Robere (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The topic of this discussion thread is whether or not anti-Semitism should be included in the ideology field in the info-box. You have provided no sources that anti-Semitism is the ideology of Hezbollah. On the other hand, there are plenty of sources including those presented here that their ideology is based on support of the Shi'ite side in territorial disputes in Lebanon. TFD (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Most the sources above are pro-Israel or pro-West. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
All of the sources are RS. Trying to paint them as political because of location or nationality, as you do, is less than distasteful. François Robere (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
As previously noted, it's not the ideology of anything, but it is a component of many ideologies, Hizbollah included. The sources already in the source, as well as those first presented during this discussion, clearly paint a picture of an antisemitic organization. There's nothing "anti-Zionist" in bombing a synagogue in Argentina - it's an antisemitic act, pure and simple. François Robere (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
That is an accusation... -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought that there should be a NPOV discussion because there was significant dispute on article's talk page about whether the group was just anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic, as well as the organisation officially itself denying it has any antisemitic ideology. I just want the Wikipedia page to be an encyclopaedic article that states what things really are, instead of being another echo of allegations by certain powerful groups and individuals. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Presumably that's the reason you added the irrelevant, highly political anti-Israeli caricature some lines above? François Robere (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, we should start a RfC. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Ranjan Gogoi and sexual harassment allegations; WP:UNDUE concerns[edit]

Ranjan Gogoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Chief Justice of India has been in the news recently as sexual harassment allegations have been made against him by a former employee. There were a couple of unsourced edits, and then sourced edits discussing the event on his biographical article. I had kept out the allegations mainly due to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE concerns. There is no doubt, at this point, that there are credible sources discussing this in the mainstream media. However, WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM concerns remain unaddressed. I have been reverted four times by SPAs over the past 24 hours, so will not go ahead and revert again. However, I would like to draw the attention of regulars at this noticeboard to keep an eye on this, and possibly suggest the best resolution for this.

Pertinent questions at this point of time:

  • Should the allegations of sexual harassment be included in the article?
  • If yes, then how much weight ought to be given to these allegations?

Please note that the subject of the biography is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of India, and that there has been no formal investigation of the allegations as of yet.

Note: I have activated pending changes on the said page after two edits including allegations of sexual harassment and other details (one of which was unsourced). At that time I thought this was necessary as the subject received significant coverage in the news due to this, and that there was potential for further addition of unsourced content, with not enough editors watching the page. If any administrator believes that this was unsuitable, please feel free to deactivate the pending changes page protection.

Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC) 09:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the subject being the Chief Justice of India makes it all the more important because there is an open legal question of WHO IS TO INVESTIGATE THE CJI? The CJI decides the fate of such allegations for every other SC and HC judge but there is no defined procedure for accusations against the CJI. Above all, a 3 judge SC bench including CJI Gogoi, the accused, called for an emergency meeting to address the matter and have passed an order asking media houses to exercise self-censorship in this matter. I have been on the Wikipedia as an editor for about 2 decades now and I have always found BLP being abused in the case of famous people. I brought up the issue of Asaram Bapu rape case and was probably blocked from editing as a result of this unclear, controversial policy. I then complained to Jimmy Wales who agreed with me but he was blocked by an administrator for agreeing with me and was abused and ridiculed by the administrator for "playing God" on Wikipedia. Needless to say that the rape accusations were accepted as valid on Wikipedia. (It is another matter that Asaram Bapu is now a convicted rapist enjoying jail now.) I suspect that BLP is not actually used for protecting individual lives but allowing editors who have a secret dream of practising law in a court, a venue for pseudo-legal wrangling. What wrong would be done and to whom, by mentioning one or two sentences on an issue of such importance that the Supreme Court of India has to address an emergency meeting with the accused acting as a judge in his own case? Would his granddaughter find out about Grampa's dirty little secret that she wouldn't have had otherwise? Let us be real. Keep the accusations; we just need to figure out the extent of relative coverage. They are extremely noteworthy and a matter of court record and no amount of passage of time would diminish the unprecedented nature of what transpired.--Trickipaedia (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Mmmm I can see a BLP issue here. These are unsubstantiated allegations. I would (personally) leave it out until it becomes a formal investigation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, Slatersteven. Could you consider taking out the allegations until the WP:BLPBALANCE/WP:UNDUE issue is conclusively resolved on the talk page? I am a bit hesitant to do so since I have already reverted ~three times in the past 24 hours. In this context, you may please also refer to this specific ruling by the Arbitration Committee: WP:ARBBLP#Biographies of living persons. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Five Percent Nation[edit]

It's tagged for Original Research and NPOV. There has been ongoing debate on the talk page for about a year about the neutrality of certain sections. I'd like outsiders to review and chime in on this. Most of the edits are by user:OjogbonIjinle.

Here are the past and current discussions on this:

For my involvement, I looked at the page some time ago, and noticed a section called "Myths and Realities" that I considered not very neutral. It relied on sources that seem to be FPN apologetics or promotional, and it read more like an essay than anything. Checking the talk page, three users since 2018 have also had issues with the section. I then decided to remove it. It was then added back by OjogbonIjinle and removed by others. Now the section is gone, but a new section called "Social impacts and impressions" is there, also written by OjogbonIjinle. That's where the issue stands now. I find this section with a more essay like tone and style, and has been tagged for original research by others. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)