Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

→

Archive 85

Walter Kuhn

MyMoloboaccount insists on emphasizing that the German historian Walter Kuhn was a Nazi and just generally a bad guy and a hack scholar. This is although I have found numerous sources, including by holocaust scholars Debórah Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt, which refer to Kuhn as an excellent scholar (see here) and the fact that Kuhn continued working and publishing until 1983. MyMolobaccount's focus on Kuhn's maps as propaganda appears to have been caused by this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, in which I was able to show that Kuhn's maps are still being cited in RS in the 2010s.

MyMoloboaccount has created entire sections in the article just to tell us how bad Kuhn is in the title before anyone even reads it (i.e. [1]. When I tried to move this information to the appropriate "Appraisals and Criticism" section [2] he simply restored it. At one point the entire Second World War section was a series of highly charged titles, (compare before and after my edit here [3]). Most recently he added that Kuhn was a Nazi to the lead [4], in his edit summary claiming it had been removed from the lead when in fact the fact that Kuhn joined the NSDAP in 1940 is cited in the lead currently. He has insisted on adding the word Nazi to various other parts of the article, see [5], and has added WP:UNDUE criticism of Kuhn's scholarship to the lead [6].

I have tried to be fair in my assessment of Kuhn, adding most of the information now found in the article about his prewar politics and his involvement as an advisor to the Nazi resettlement program of German minorities during the war. Where criticism of Kuhn has been made, I have added it (see, e.g., my edits [7] [8]). MyMoloboaccount does not appear interested in any nuance on the issue. Often if I am able to check the source he used (sometimes he cites in such a way that this is impossible), I discover that the criticisms of Kuhn that he cites include Kuhn in a list of names and thus do not deal with Kuhn specifically at all, or that MyMoloboaccount has included a critical comment about Kuhn while leaving out a favorable one in the same work. I have only gotten him to use the talk page twice (one time he just went there to say he was undoing an edit I had made), despite having posted there numerous times about various issues.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Kuhn was an infamous Nazi who advocated superiority of German culture and was involved in planning ethnic cleansing of Jews and Poles(euphemistically named “resettlement” above).Like many Nazis he continued to work in post-war Germany.

There is absolutely no reason to remove his Nazi and nationalistic views from the article.And Kuhn is quite pointed out as working with SS on ethnic cleansing in Poland.

The user above unfortunately tries to show Kuhn as some respectable “scholar”, while sources are clear that he was a Nazi involved with ethnic cleansing.

Also,even sources and authors used by user above often mention his connection to Nazis and nationalism-something omitted in above statement, other sources praising him in some cases are former Nazis themselves.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That is blatant POV. One of Kuhn's articles was republished in English in 2017 [9]. Or look at the numbers of recent citations for his main works [10], [11], [12], [13]. The scholars included in these citations include Poles, Germans, English-speakers. While there are justifable criticisms of Kuhn's work, you can't just dismiss him as a Nazi.

And I am not talking about "removing" the things he said or did in support of Nazism. I'm talking about portraying them in a neutral fashion. Kuhn is not "infamous". Only specialists know who he is. He was not a very important figure for the Nazis. He was not in the SS. He advised on the resettlement of Germans, but he was never directly involved in ethnically cleansing Poles beyond having written an academic position paper that had no impact.

And I'm curious how Debórah Dwork or Robert Jan van Pelt can be considered Nazis.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• The question here is WP:DUE weight. The article should devote some space to personal details, some space for pre-war work, some space for post-war work (35+ years as an academic), and some space for the war (and whatever pre-war Nazi involvement). How much is DUE here? I would guesstimate (and this depends on extent of coverage in 3rd party coverage) at 20%-35% of the article - in the lead as well - devoted to role in Nazi period.Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  To determine DUE weight - in RSes with full profiles on Kuhn - how much is devoted to the Nazi period?Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The most balanced profile of Kuhn I've seen is by Wilhelm Fielitz in the Handbuch der voelkischen Wissenschaften which covers his whole life. It offers slightly more than a page to Kuhn before the war, less than a page to during, and probably a whole page to after (the preview isn't showing the middle of the three pages unfortunately). Unsurprisingly, favorable or mostly favorable profiles tend to leave out what he did in the war and just focus on before and after (Angermann, Rhode, Weczerka). I'll note that only Rhode of those three is a former Nazi. At least two articles in the bibliography deal specifically with the problems of Kuhn's work pre-war and during the war (Pinwinkler, Michelsen "Von Breslau nach Hamburg", which only covers Kuhn on two pages though). Otherwise scholarship that mentions Kuhn (Burleigh's Germany Turns East, Haar's Historiker im Nationalsozialismus) mentions him mostly in passing, sometimes with more, sometimes with less, biographical information, but generally not much (if anything) post-war. What I'd consider to be a more balanced portrayal of Kuhn before and during the war (though still largely made in passing) is in Chu's The German Minority in Interwar Poland. He gets mentioned on a single page of a number of books, but these tend to rely on Burleigh, I would say. Most negative citations on Kuhn are from work by Haar, Michelsen, and Burleigh, and don't discuss him in any depth. I'm still waiting on a few sources on that, however. MyMoloboaccount cites prodominently Polish sources and I have found decyphering what those sources are very difficult. I'm currently waiting on what I expect to be a negative scholarly assessment of Kuhn's postwar work by Marek Cetwiński (ironically Kuhn tore apart Cetwinski's dissertation in a review ten years before Cetwinski wrote that).--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Do the Polish language sources cover just the war - or a fuller bio? Fielitz would indicate around 30% to war. Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll be able to speak for Cetwinski soon, assuming Interlibrary loan actually finds the article. The other Polish sources appear just to be one-line pointed barbs aimed at Kuhn/at Kuhn and like twenty other German scholars at the same time, as far as I can tell. But as I've said, I've found it difficult to locate the Polish sources in most cases due to the way that they've been cited. In one case (that I've since removed), Kuhn was cited in the lead as having "anti-Polish prejudices" when the Polish article said something like "Kuhn, despite his anti-Polish prejudices, judged x to be a useful guide" ([14]), so you can see why I'm suspicious of the way that these sources are being used. Like compare this that MyMoloboaccount recently added: {{tq|Zygmunt Szultka writes that Kuhn made unbelievable errors in his work such as estimating growth of German population in Pomerania to be 10% per year in the time period of 1200-1300, which according to Szultka aren't even worthy of debate Doing otherwise violates WP:UNDUE. The map should be switched to this one, but User:Wadaad repeatedly refused to follow WP policies. Ythlev (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

References

• @Ythlev: I'm afraid if you want to get a serious discussion going, you're probably going to have to start with better sources than a link to reddit. GMG^talk 11:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  What's wrong with Reddit? I can throw a bunch of "better sources" if you like. It is absolutely not hard to demonstrate my point. Ythlev (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

References

• The map is sourced.[15] Secondly, Taiwan falls under China according to the UN.[16] Mind you China has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council, a vital component of the UN. Lastly, your proposed map[17] violates the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Somalia as Somaliland is not recognized by any country (literally zero) while Somalia is a UN member-state.[18] Your map strongly violates WP:ADVOCACY and hence should not be included and the status-quo should remain. Wadaad (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• @Ythlev: So your saying that the UN's own information on it's own membership is not reliable? Why wouldn't it be? --Jayron32 11:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  This link that this user keeps citing makes absolutely no reference to Taiwan. Even if UN does consider Taiwan part of China, it is only one viewpoint. Is it the majority viewpoint according to WP:WEIGHT? Ythlev (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  But...on an article about the UN, isn't the UN's opinion the only one that really matters? I mean, opinions may differ about whether Taiwan should be an independent member state. But it's kindof hard to have an opinion on whether they currently are. You can have an opinion about whether Karachi should be the capital of Pakistan, but Pakistan says the capital is Islamabad, and that's pretty much the end of the discussion. GMG^talk 13:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  Regardless of your feelings regarding Taiwan's independence, it is treated, by the UN, as a part of China. And that map reflects this. It would violate WP:NPOV to say otherwise. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  But...on an article about the UN, isn't the UN's opinion the only one that really matters? Says who? What policy says only the subject's opinion matters on its article? WP:NPOV:

  All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

  Ythlev (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, but it's difficult to see how, on the subject of UN member states, a thing that the UN decides by definition, there are any "significant views" other than the views of the UN.

Besides, you appear to be arguing from entirely hypothetical sources. The two you've provided regarding Taiwan don't have anything to do with the United Nations. The map you prefer seems to just throw around autonomous regions and disputed territories willy nilly, with no indication why these are being chosen out of scores of territorial disputes, and dozens of autonomous regions. Northern Cyprus is only recognized by one country. Somaliland isn't recognized by anyone. Transnistria is only recognized by other places struggling for recognition. So you are making the argument of "fairness and proportionality", when what you seem to have done is pick winners and losers in a random selection of conflicts, many of which are clearly not winning the "fair and proportional" debate. When a state has negligible or no international recognition, these do not constitute "significant views" that we must take into account on broad global subjects. Part of recognizing significant views is disregarding insignificant ones. Each of these areas have their own article, and interested readers can go there for additional information. GMG^talk 17:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable way to resolve this would be to make a minor adjustment in the caption to the map to make it absolutely clear that it's the UN's map (without assuming that the reader will look at the source reference) rather than a map that everyone would necessarily agree with. Just change "Map of the current UN member states..." to "The UN's map of its current member states..." There's already a discussion of alternative opinions on Taiwan in the section on criticisms of the UN, so I don't think anything else is needed in order to ensure NPOV on this issue. NightHeron (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Except it isn't the UN map. The map was created by a Commons user. It describes exactly what it is: UN member states. The status of Taiwan may be in dispute in other contexts, but it is not in dispute that the UN considers it to be under the jurisdiction of the PRC. --Jayron32 18:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: My apologies, I saw the citation to the UN and erroneously thought it was for the map. Now I see that the citation is just for the information that was used by whomever constructed the map. If the UN doesn't itself publish a map of this sort, don't we have a problem of OR and SYNTH, since the coloring of countries (such as Taiwan) is based on an interpretation of UN policy by an unnamed person? There are many other countries and regions besides Taiwan that have a complicated history of disputes and shifting boundaries, and the map clearly gives a simplified picture of that history as it relates to UN membership. If the source of the map is not the UN but an unknown person, don't we have RS and SYNTH issues? NightHeron (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

it is not in dispute that the UN considers it to be under the jurisdiction of the PRC. I dispute this. There is no source for this. Ythlev (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you might be well served to read WP:RGW. It is not the place of the encyclopedia to take a position on the question of the claimed territories of any state. The United Nations recognizes the PRC as the government of China, and does not recognize Taiwan's independence. This may have realpolitik reasons (such as China's permanent security council veto backed by a nuclear arsenal) but that's the de facto reality. To treat it otherwise violates WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, you can dispute anything you want. However, your individual dispute does not mean that the world at large is in dispute over the matter. The UN is not confused by its own resolutions and statements on the matter, however, as noted here, which states among other things "The General Assembly...decides to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize [it] as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations." Also, a clarifying statement on from the UN is made here which notes "regarding the Taiwan Province of China, the Secretary-General follows the General Assembly’s guidance incorporated in resolution 2758...The General Assembly decided to recognize the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations. Hence, instruments received from the Taiwan Province of China will not be accepted by the Secretary-General in his capacity as depositary" Other UN documents consistently refer to Taiwan as the "Taiwan Province of China" and not as a sovereign state on its own, and do so unambiguously. Please note that my saying this does not mean that I agree with the UN on this matter (and me saying THAT does not mean that I don't. I hold no meaningful opinion on the issue, not that my opinion means anything) and saying all of THAT also does not mean that the matter of Taiwan's sovereignty is undisputed, but on the very narrow and specific issue of what the United Nations recognizes, the UN clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly since 1971 has recognized the island of Taiwan as being under the Jurisdiction of the PRC. --Jayron32 12:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: @Jayron32: Other UN documents consistently refer to Taiwan as the "Taiwan Province of China". So your interpretation of this view is solely based on how the UN refers to Taiwan? Has the UN stated what territories are part of "Taiwan Province of China"? Does it include Kinmen?

Even if so, the point remains that colouring the map based on this view violates WP:UNDUE: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Colouring Taiwan independently is the majority view in sources. Ythlev (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Not if the map is specifically showing what the UN considers to be the status of Taiwan. This issue with this map is not what the majority view of Taiwan's status is. Only what the UN's view of Taiwan's status is. For other maps showing other views, they may serve to be colored differently. For the map of what the UN considers, this one is correct.--Jayron32 04:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You still don't get it do you? I'm not arguing it's correctness. This is about how information is represented in the article. The UN considers every piece of land part of it? Fine. That can be easily stated with one sentence or a paragraph. This map, if it has any value, can still be in the article, but it is the main map. The main map should be the mainstream view, which is that Taiwan, Kosovo etc have different statuses and are coloured independently. Such a map as the main map only mislead readers, especially when the footnote is not expanded. Ythlev (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: @GreenMeansGo: By the way, File:ICAO.png colours Taiwan independently. Almost every map does. Ythlev (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

That's because the ICAO considers Taiwan to be independent This isn't complicated. --Jayron32 18:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Source? ICAO is an agency of the UN and it considers Taiwan independent but not the UN itself? Ythlev (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The map that illustrates the lead in United Nations is the same one as in Member states of the United Nations, where it is sourced directly to the UN. However, it is too small to see any detail, and so is of questionable value. The footnote gives a qualifying statement, and there are qualifying statements in the original source about the map not implying endorsement of any party in certain disputes. The second map in United Nations, as User:Jayron32 pointed out, is not a UN map; rather, it was composed by someone who is not cited. It also is too small to show any detail, and, moreover, does not include any of the qualifying statements that are in the first map or in the UN source for the first map. I don't really see any reason not to remove both maps on the grounds that neither one is likely to be helpful to the reader, neither one contributes to the article's accuracy, and the second one violates WP:SYNTH. NightHeron (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why. We have maps all over Wikipedia created by Wikipedia users based on data from reliable sources. The maps can be clicked to zoom in for greater detail, as do all maps. This isn't a novel synthesis issue if the map is created from reliable sources, just as text is supposed to be created from reliable sources. The maps are fine, and other than your mis-use of WP:SYNTH, every single map everywhere on Wikipedia is similar to this one in all of the other points you make. --Jayron32 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about all those other maps, just about the two on United Nations. Take the first one, which illustrates the lead. Yes, when you click on it, it gets bigger. But even the bigger version is not informative. Everything is green, except for a few tiny white portions that are unlabeled. Most seem to be lakes, but some might be non-member countries. Not very helpful to the reader. The reason why the second map appears to be OR or SYNTH is that the person who composed the map did not include the caveats that the UN includes in its map, and so it implicitly invites the reader to draw conclusions from the map about the UN's stand on certain disputed areas. The UN itself seems not to want readers to over-interpret its maps in that way. So by including the map without caveats, Wikipedia is deviating from the source and imposing its own interpretation. In addition, as I said before, the map is a historical map that simplifies history. If the UN chose to do that (that is, publish this map), then fine. But the decision to present a simplified version of the history of UN membership was not the UN's decision or the decision of some other RS, but rather the decision of a Wikipedia editor. NightHeron (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Please compare the historical map about UN membership to the cited source, which is the UN's year-by-year list of admissions of countries to the UN. The list has many footnotes explaining complicated cases. For example, in 1973 both the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (two different countries at the time) were admitted, and in 1990 following reunification of Germany they merged into a single member state. There are other complicated cases, as well (two different Yemens were admitted in 1947 and 1967, and they later merged into a single member state). In contrast, the map misrepresents the source by over-simplifying and introducing glaring inaccuracies. It portrays Germany as a united country that joined the UN between 1960 and 1989. A map-maker and a Wikipedia editor may have felt that this simplification/distortion was acceptable in order to have a visual representation. WP:SYNTH tells us "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source," such as that a unified Germany joined the UN between 1960-1989. Presumably the UN would not be likely to publish such a map because they wouldn't want readers to have diminished confidence in the factual accuracy and reliability of UN documents. For the same reason, shouldn't the map be removed from Wikipedia? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The map doesn't display dates of membership. Only the current status. Former states that no longer exist aren't relevant for this map. It doesn't show that information at all, and isn't trying to, so your point is entirely worthless here.--Jayron32 04:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Please don't use insulting language like "worthless" (WP:CIV: "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment"). I think we might not be talking about the same map. Of the three maps in the article, I've been raising objections to the first (for being unhelpful to readers) and the third (for being inaccurate and misrepresenting the source). The latter map has the countries color-coded according to dates of membership. It shows a map of Germany as it currently exists being admitted in 1960-1989. It's a historical map that inaccurately represents the information contained in the source. NightHeron (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Just tacking on here for good measure. If you are using third party source to create maps for articles, please please please include the source on the file description on Commons (I have now added this). This map is currently used on 22 different projects, and there's nothing to otherwise indicate to a Danish editor that the original citation for the map is on the English Wikipedia, as opposed to 21 other places. GMG^talk 12:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry for this long, rambling attempt at weighing in on the situation, but I'm disappointed with how this entire dispute at the talk page has been handled thus far. I'll be honest in saying that I can't be certain that either Ythlev or Wadaad are approaching this without any biases (in fact I'd suspect that this is an issue of clashing perspectives above all else). Despite how my comments at Talk:United Nations overall leaned more in favor of Ythlev's position than Wadaad's position, I must note that I do not support the exact version as proposed by Ythlev for one glaring issue that I should've noticed sooner: it includes Donetsk and Luhansk. I'm not going to articulate any of my own personal thoughts regarding the status of those entities because this is not the place to have that discussion. The key issue is that it defies the consensus at the Limited recognition article. There are exactly 10 non-member states for which it would be accurate to give the title "de facto independent state with limited international recognition." The consensus is that Donetsk and Luhansk don't belong on that list. See [[File:Limited recognition.png]] for the current consensus on this matter.
Our goal should be to provide as much relevant information as possible without going against the consensuses which regard de facto states. I do think it's relevant that Taiwan is a former member of the United Nations, and I think it's preferable to not simply leave Western Sahara et al as empty or gray, as doing so already displays it in a separate color, so we might as well give an informative key so the readers can know why it's displayed separately. With all of that said, I condemn the comments from Wadaad that suggested that entities can be "too small and irrelevant" to put on the map, and I do not approve of Ythlev's version either. In short, it does look like a feud between WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT.
I think a lot of the arguments I'm seeing need to be cut out. If you'd like to suggest that it should simply be a map of the United Nations member states and their legally recognized land claims, then that's fine, but in doing so please be consistent. Wadaad changed [[File:United Nations Members (green–grey scheme).svg]] to list Morocco's borders and the SADR's borders separately, but every other state with limited recognition (including Palestine which is an observer and including Taiwan which was once a member) is not displayed as such. Including 1 but not the other 9 is just as problematic as including all 10 plus Donetsk and Luhansk. Just operate based on the existing consensus so we don't get bogged down by side arguments; if you want to change the consensus, do it at Limited recognition, not here or at Talk:United Nations. The "sides" of the disagreement should either be to display none of the non-member states or to display all of the non-member states, not to display some but not all, not to go too far and display ones which aren't even agreed to count as de facto states.
Lastly, to editors other than Wadaad and Ythlev: Yes, Taiwan is a de-facto independent state with limited international recognition. That's not a matter of whether or not it "should" be. This isn't about whether or not it is independent, this is about whether or not it should be displayed on the map. With all due respect to GMG, cut it out with the comparisons to whether or not a city should replace Islamabad as the capital of Pakistan. We already know which countries are and are not states with limited recognition. This has been settled already after years of RS-based discussions at Talk:List of states with limited recognition, and this isn't the place to change that. This is a highly contentious issue that needs to be handled delicately, and the arguments I'm seeing are deeply troubling because they veer off into unrelated arguments that would take us back to square one by having to argue about what countries even are de facto independent states.
Best wishes,  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Side-comment I hope that my ramblings above didn't come off as too harsh or too offensive to anyone. It's probably very visible that I found this entire mess to be very frustrating, but my intent isn't to burn bridges here.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Does the UN consider Taiwan to be a non-member independent state or does it consider the Taiwanese land to be part of the PRC, another UN member state? --Jayron32 18:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The status quo version does not display all borders only as the United Nations recognizes them. I fully accept that the United Nations regards Taiwan as presently being under the sovereignty of the PRC, a current member of the United Nations, and I believe that it's a perfectly legitimate argument that we should simply display all borders only as the United Nations recognizes them, but I am critical of the fact that this argument has been used as a rationale for maintaining the status quo of the map, not to provide a new version of it. All versions of the green-gray scheme (both the original 2016 version & Wadaad's new version) display Western Sahara separate from the rest of the world by presenting it in gray. Whether the previous version, which displayed the whole of the Western Sahara region as being subject to a territorial dispute, or the new version by Wadaad, which displays the de facto borders of the SADR. By displaying it in gray, we are already making a distinction between it and the UN member states. I'm simply suggesting two things: 1) that we be consistent by displaying the other de facto states in the same color as we already display the SADR, and 2) that we provide a color key so the readers can see why we already display them separately.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The United Nations does not recognize Taiwan in the same way that it recognizes Western Sahara, so that is a bad analogy. Most relevant here, is that the United Nations, in This resolution, which AFAICT has never been revoked or superceded, recognizes the right of the people of Western Sahara to "self-determination and independence" (their words) in a way that it does not for Taiwan. According to the UN's own recognition, Western Sahara is basically an occupied-but-should-be-independent state, while Taiwan is an integral part of the PRC. Please try again. --Jayron32 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

while Taiwan is an integral part of the PRC Source? Ythlev (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanilla Wizard: So minus Donetsk and Luhansk and it's fine? Ythlev (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ythlev: In my opinion, yes. Minus those two polities, it's fine by my own assessment.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 17:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment - The page is about the United Nations, an official organization, with specific members that claim specific territories. This is a crucial aspect of the UN as member-states go to long court battles over what their territory is at the UN recognized International Court of Justice. The map should reflect the norms of international diplomacy (WP:NPOV) and therefore not include unrecognized non-member rebel territories under the jurisdiction of already existing UN member-states as this would clearly violate WP:ADVOCACY, especially not those that are not recognized by any other country on the planet. Wadaad (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

As for Vanilla Wizard's claim that the local consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Limited_recognition should apply to the more formal United Nations is absurd and goes against policy WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.Wadaad (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Where in WP:NPOV is it stated that reflecting the norms of international diplomacy is NPOV? Ythlev (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment - We are both Chinese, there is no difference between us, it’s just fabricated by the western powers. Besides, the whole world recognizes us as one China. Yes, I also agree that other non un regions and Somaliland enjoy barely or none acknowledgment as countries. Lo meiin (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Steve Rothman

Wasn't sure whether to post here or COIN, but more eyes on Steve Rothman are needed. I have started a talk page discussion there. It is one of the stranger biographies I've run across on Wikipedia and appears to have been substantially created by the article subject. Marquardtika (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Marquardtika: It is rather unique. I don't think I have ever seen an article so heavily and obviously edited by those close to him -- if not Mr. Rothman himself. Looking at it further. It needs to be trimmed quite significantly in my book. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this @Dolotta: it looks much improved! Marquardtika (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC on including content about illegal fetal tissue dealers

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy#/talk/8

I'd love some comments on this. Maybe I misunderstand the Wikipedia policies, but at least some of the content seems relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natemup (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Talk:Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy#RfC_on_content_concerning_an_investigation/settlement Poveglia (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Natemup: Please read WP:CANVASSING. It says: "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief" and "at least some of the content seems relevant" doesn't seem very neutral to me. Just so you know for next time. Poveglia (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality of repetitive prefacing of the word "allegedly" when discussing war crimes

Just seeking clarification on whether overtly prefacing an alleged massacre with the words "alleged" creates NPOV. The event is already mentioned as having alleged to have occurred in the initial sentence of the article, and edits have inserted continually, that it was alleged including multiple times in the same sentence.

Article: Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre Edit here [19]:

Previous version:

The Bình An / Tây Vinh massacre (Korean: 타이빈 양민 학살 사건) was a series of massacres alleged to have been conducted by the ROK Capital Division of the South Korean Army between February 12, 1966 and March 17, 1966 of 1,200 unarmed citizens in the Go Dai village and other areas in the rural commune of Bình An/ Tây Vinh area, Tây Sơn District of Bình Định Province in South Vietnam.The massacre was reported' to have occurred over the course of three weeks, in which 1,004-1,200 civilians were massacred. Like other massacres occurring throughout the region, the targets were primarily women, children, elderly men and infants. They were conducted as part of Operation Maeng Ho which formed a part of Operation Masher, and were reported as "enemy KIA" and occurred alongside separate massacres in the region possibly totalling 1,600 people.

New Version

The Bình An / Tây Vinh massacre (Korean: 타이빈 양민 학살 사건) was a series of massacres alleged to have been conducted by the ROK Capital Division of the South Korean Army between February 12, 1966 and March 17, 1966 of 1,200 unarmed citizens in the Go Dai village and other areas in the rural commune of Bình An/ Tây Vinh area, Tây Sơn District of Bình Định Province in South Vietnam. The massacre was reported to have occurred over the course of three weeks, in which 1,004-1,200 civilians were allegedly massacred, primarily women, children, elderly men and infants. They were conducted as part of Operation Maeng Ho which formed a part of Operation Masher, and were reported as "enemy KIA".

Previous NPOV edits by the user has been raised by others, including here [20].

frankly I am unsure about both versions. We should not over use alleged, nor should we put contested claims in our voice.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette as I believe that Deogyusan is a sock of A bicyclette who pushed a particular POV regarding the Vietnam War and particularly real and alleged massacres. Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre was a page reinstated by A bicyclette after having previously been deleted for lack of WP:RS which Deogyusan has somehow come upon today in their 2nd burst of activity since opening their account. The objection to referring to massacres as being alleged or purported was repeatedly argued by A bicyclette and his socks, such as 116.106.89.77 here: [21] and as I noted on the Talk Page on 5 July 2018 Talk:Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre#Restored, but no more WP:RS provided, there is good reason to question what went on at Bình An/Tây Vinh and certainly not enough to say that a massacre took place there. Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you have engaged this issue with several users, as well as other users as shown here [22] and here [23]. The issue in all instances isn't whether it occurred or not, wikipedia isn't the place for this. The issue is whether the phrasing that you introduced introduces NPOV descriptions Deogyusan (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Not several users, the same user and his multiple socks. Mztourist (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Deogyusan has been blocked as another sock of User:A bicyclette, accordingly I believe this can be closed. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Jason Jessee

I am hoping to find better sources than these:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59q343/skateboarding-icon-jason-jessee-is-under-fire-for-use-of-swastikas-and-racist-remarks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZfRX6IMPCA

Do we include stuff like this? Should we?

Poveglia (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

YouTube? no!Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I was unclear, the "Do we include stuff like this? Should we?" is specifically referring to the nazi shit; not those sources. I am sure better ones can be found. I am not sure if we should include this information. I don't know anything about the person, but it seems (based on very very little information) like he moved on and regrets his past (but of course quite a few of the people we write about do, and some of those articles do include negative information about something that happened in the past). And if so, how should we describe something like that? Poveglia (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If better ones can be found yes it should be included, it a serious allegation. AS to how to describe it "There has been a controversy over alleged racist and homophobic remarks and and the appearance of racist symbols in early interviews with him"Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure that “controversy” is the right word. A controversy needs two sides and, so far, the coverage of this has been fairly one sided. Perhaps “condemnation”? Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Good point; the companies that severed their ties with him condemned his "views". Poveglia (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Has he denied it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the limit of ABOUTSELF?

I would like to raise a question that has come up at the Andy Ngo article. Part of the discussion centers around how people describe the subject's political views. We have a number of sources that state Ngo's beliefs are ___. We have at least two sources that are interviews with the subject where Ngo either responds to the claims of others or describes, in approximately one sentence, his own view of the subject.

First question, if 3rd party sources are describing the subject's political views, is it reasonable to include the subject's own claims as to their political views even if those claims are only from interviews rather than widely covered in RS articles (WP:ABOUTSELF related)? If yes, when does this change from a reasonable "aboutself" to self unduly promotional/self serving?

Second question, at what point is a source no longer reliable for an ABOUTSELF claim? My understanding is that in general an interview with the subject can be considered a reliable representation of what they said during that interview. The interview becomes a RS for specific statements made by the subject and thus could be used for ABOUTSELF material.

These are edits I'm interested in reviewing in this context [[24]]. But I would like to have an idea in general as I've seen this sort of thing come up several times though typically in the form of a company/organization's response to accusations made/published in a news story. For instance, a news article comes out questioning a company's actions. Is it reasonable to state the company replied and link to the reply on the company's website etc. Springee (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a person's own explanation of his or her political beliefs is presumptively a reliable source for the fact that he or she holds those beliefs, irrespective of the medium. You don't need to wait for a reliable third-party source to report what was said in the interview. What constitutes undue self-promotion has to be determined by context: are the subject's political beliefs relevant to the article? Does the manner in which they're expressed suggest undeserved praise, or simply rebut the statements of others? Remember, you can summarize relevant portions of what the subject said, without quoting portions you believe might be self-promoting.

I think that the source would be considered reliable for the fact that the subject said it, so long as there's no substantial doubt as to the authenticity of the interview, or the subject's mental state at the time it was given. These concerns would usually have to be raised by some reliable third-party source, unless the subject himself disavows them. Note that this is different from the statements made in the interview being contradicted by the subject's prior or subsequent statements or actions. It's possible for someone's beliefs to change over time, or for the subject to lie or misrepresent those beliefs. If there's substantial evidence that one of these is the case, then that should also appear in the article.

The fact that a company replies to allegations in the news is relevant, as is the substance of that reply, but it would be better to summarize the company's position than to simply link to the company's statement, which could leave readers with either the impression that we don't credit what the company says, or that we consider its statement sufficiently good to make summarizing it unnecessary. Either way, it suggests to the reader that our viewpoint isn't truly neutral, which is why it would be better to describe the company's reply. P Aculeius (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• I do find it interesting that wikipedia editors seem to have no problem deferring to a subject’s expressions of self-identity when it comes to issues such as religious identity or gender identity, but when it comes to political self-identity... we have more difficulty accepting the subject’s self expression. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This is entirely reasonable. There's no real reason why someone would lie about being Christian, but every reason for them to lie about being a racist, say. There are very few bigots who openly acknowledge their bigotry and most engage in all manner of special pleading to explain wy they are not a bigot really, despite all the bigoted things they say and do. Hence we limit ABOUTSELF where it is robustly contradicted by independent sources. Guy (help!) 20:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the view that we generally should allow ABOUTSELF to provide things like their own political beliefs or their opinion of the beliefs etc so long as other RS's broached the subject. I think my views align well with P Aculeius here.

• Non-controversial, basic claims can be stated in Wiki voice absent any reason to question the claim, "Smith was born [date] in [location].[aboutself citation]
• Claims disputed by others but that are closely related to the article/article section are reasonable for inclusion and should be be attributed. "Smith says she is a life long Democrat [aboutself citation] but [sources] say her support is motivated by self interest and has donated to both Democratic and GOP campaigns." In this case it is relevant to the subject that what they say about themselves doesn't align with evidence presented by other sources.
• Response to accusations should be generally OK but with some caution. For example, Smith is accused of being in the pocket of big oil for objecting to a bill aimed at cutting green house emissions. Several RS's say Smith is a GW denier and the article lists several examples where RS's say Smith's actions harmed attempts to curb GW. Smith publishes a reply explaining her position and/or the problems with the accusations made against her. The Wiki article can summarize Smith's response with attribution to Smith and a link to the reply. I do not think this is unreasonable as often the initial claim gets RS coverage but frequently the follow up often does not.

I think in only rare cases would we outright refuse to allow any form of ABOUTSELF reply if reliable aboutself material exists. For example, a terrorist group might publish a manifesto justifying a crime. This is a case where I think unduely self serving is an issue. Another obvious example would be if the material is simply unrelated to any content raised by RSs. So if Smith is notable for her political activities we wouldn't discuss her views on cooking or her upcoming healthy living cook book as this would be self serving (promoting the book) and not related to any of the topics raised by RSs. As a general rule I think we do readers a disservice by trying to keep things like responses to criticism and relevant, self identification type claims out of articles. Wikipedia should simply present the evidence in a neutral fashion and let the readers decide for themselves. Springee (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• The issue with using WP:ABOUTSELF for Ngo's claims about his political position is that they aren't non-controversial by any stretch of the imagination. Ngo was recently recorded collaborating with far-right groups to gain access in exchange for favorable writing. His claims on Joe Rogan's show that he's center-right could represent one of three possibilities:

1. A sincere failure to understand the tenets of centrism.
2. A deliberate mis-characterization of his views to shift the Overton Window.
3. An american political climate so skewed that hanging out with Patriot Prayer is now considered normal behaviour for a centrist.

Furthermore, as addressed at length at article talk, the "but I'm a liberal" defense is an established tactic of far-right figures to deliberately shift the Overton Window. Now Ngo is variously described by multiple reliable sources as falling within the right wing, with some sources calling him "conservative", some calling him "right-wing" and some calling him "far right". Considering that, his claims to centrism seem unfounded at best. And as such, they're . Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I would note that WP:ABOUTSELF item 1 is probably the bar that it fails to pass as his claims to the political center could be seen as unduly self-serving. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It is very strange to have a section about his poltical views but then refuse to include a statement about his view of his political views. Per interviews we had in the article Ngo once said he was center and once said center right. I don't see that there is any controversy over the fact that "he claims to be...". This seems like it treads on NOTCENSORED. Is our intent to inform the readers and let them decide or to protect them from facts that we fear will confuse them? Yes, sources dispute the veracity of his claim but not that he made it. No one claims "Ngo said he is center" isn't true. It's just that many RSs don't agree that he is center. I don't think you have done a reasonable job of explaining why it is unduly self serving to publish that he claims to be center/center right. You could claim it's self serving as he doesn't want to be seen as an extremist but that isn't unduly self serving. In reading through WP_Talk:V and here it seems "unduly" has been reserved for things such as links to fund raising or product promotion. Example, BMW says the new 330 engine has 300hp (not unduly) vs BMW says the engine sets a new standard in smoothness, response and efficiency (unduly). I haven't found a case where people agreed that it was unduly self promotional to say "I think I'm a centrist" when other sources say you are right or left wing. If we say Ngo says he is center-right [sources] and others say he is [far-right] [source] then the readers can decide. Let's give our readers some credit here and let them decide if they agree or not. Springee (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

As Simonm223 has pointed out, there is a history and pattern of right-wing and extreme-right-wing individuals trying to misrepresent themselves or their groups in order to shift the Overton Window and make themselves seem more acceptable. Case in point, the marketing gimmickry of having someone like Matt Schlapp call Marine Le Pen a "classical liberal"[25], a title on which Wikipedia has a wonderfully out-of-date-sourced article on the term while missing entirely the modern usage [26].

To give a concrete Wikipedia example: Carl Benjamin aka "Sargon of Akkad" likes to call himself a "classical liberal". Nowhere in his article is this mentioned because his claim is utterly self-serving and devoid of honesty. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Strike per EVADE [27]. Springee (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

So in those cases how are the readers hurt or worse off if the article says, "Benjamin refers to himself as a classical liberal[cite]. Journalist have called him X, Y, Z [cites]"? Are the readers better or worse informed? Springee (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This is an area where I have seen the FRINGE approach used appropriately. If the bulk of the media reporting on this person have labeled him X (X likely being a more extreme position), but the person considers themselves Y (more centralist/normative), then the statement from the person is included but treated as a FRINGE view. In the above case that would mean you flip the statement around : "Journalists have called Benjamin X, but he considers himself a Y." Gives less weight to the FRINGE view. But that's again, when the bulk of the media shares that. More often, I have seen people cherry pick from three or four sources out of hundreds to say a person is X, which is not making that person's insight a FRINGE view. --Masem (t) 15:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that. In the article in question the original statement was in that form (RS's say ... but BLP says...). My concern is when we refuse to allow BLP (or organization in some instances) to offer their own take. I just can't see how that makes for a better article. Springee (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

If you can't see how making sure we're not repeating abject nonsense or deliberate falsehoods makes for a better article, then maybe there are larger issues with your editing? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:FOC Springee (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous response. You're the one insisting you "can't see how that makes for a better article" so I will ask you plainly, @Springee: how does including abject nonsense or deliberate falsehoods improve an article in any way? There's a reason WP:ABOUTSELF specifically disallows unduly self-serving claims.6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

First, it isn't unduly self serving. His reply was in response to those saying he is "far-right" etc. Second, the subject's own POV on the topic offers more information to the reader. The only reason to censor that material, and censoring is what you are suggesting, is to "protect" readers from the material. Wikipedia isn't supposed to vilify or vindicate a subject, rather the purpose is to present the facts. Springee (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That is not an accurate portrayal of the interview in virtually any regard, and you are way off base in trying to suggest that anyone is trying to "vilify" Ngo by presenting the facts as observed by WP:Reliable Sources. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The wording "4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" could also be read in regard to the question of whether Ngo is authentically representing his political position, given that outside observers classify him so differently. Maybe that point should be clarified in policy as to if it means that, or merely the question of whether the interview or statement truly happened, though. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Strike per EVADE [28]. Springee (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

That isn't a reasonable reading of #4 in this case. No one has questioned the authenticity of the quote. They have questioned if the quote is true but not that Ngo said it. However, I would support asking these questions at the WP:V talk page to clarify that point. Springee (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

While I disagree strongly with Springee about whether item 1 of ABOUTSELF applies, there's no doubt that Ngo made that statement on Rogan; and that is what #4 is about. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• I posted a question about the intent of ABOUTSELF exception #1 (the one containing no unduly self serving) on the WP:V talk page here [[29]]. I've posted this as an open ended question not linked to this discussion but I mention it here since as clarification there could impact the discussion here. Springee (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• In the broadest terms possible, if you have to ask the question whether something is covered by ABOUTSELF, then it's almost certainly not covered by ABOUTSELF. Everything else is going to be determined by context, and there will be situations where ABOUTSELF cannot apply to what would normally be the must mundane personal details. (Everyone please wish Dolly Parton a happy 27th birthday. May 2020 be as happy as 2019 was.) GMG^talk 14:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

See, this is a case where I think it's obvious that ABOUTSELF would apply. Springee (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ngo's entire career has been based around writing attack pieces about figures on the left, falling back on a rhetorical crutch of the reasonable figure at the center. As such, when the majority of sources do not call him center-right, it is unduly self-serving to Ngo for us to give credence to his claims that he's a centrist. And considering his recent, recorded, involvement with the far-right group Patriot Prayer it's also something of an extraordinary claim. As I said above, either Ngo is being dishonest, he's laughably naive to the spectrum of politics outside his echo chamber, or the Overton Window in the United States has shifted so far to the right that hanging out with a group that has been widely described as far-right extremists (Patriot Prayer) is now something we can expect of centrists. In which case, Wikipedia, as a neutral and international source, should be treating pretty much any statement regarding political orientation from the United States as being deeply suspect. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, part of the RS coverage of Ngo is the fact that he is seemingly duplicity, correct? (I mean, I commented on the bus/hammer thing recently). Even in that case, highlighting his opinion on his political POV to what the media calls him seems a valid point to include, because that's part of his overall notability facets, that he misrepresents where he sits on the political scale. Its not unduly self-serving as long as that is used in context of what the media states, it actually fills out the picture more about how to understand Ngo. --Masem (t) 15:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That is the opposite of how his self-description of his political orientation has historically been used on his page. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The material in question was stable and only recently removed. Springee (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any of the sources have accused him of duplicity in his self portrayal of his political views. In most cases the source simply says he is a ____ journalist (or similar). They don't mention his view nor dive into why they feel their description is actually correct. Springee (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Except for we have a whole RfC on his duplicity and your position on that is rather controversial to say the least. And that's excluding all these sources that call him a grifter, troll or provocateur. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Simon is correct here. If you have to have a lengthy (good faith) debate about whether the information is controversial, then the information is ipso facto controversial. This kindof thing happens all the time. For example, we regularly use ABOUTSELF content to support birth dates, up until there is serious question raised about whether the person is manipulating their birth date for self-serving reasons, which is not uncommon for at least female celebrities in the western world, obsessed with youthfulness as we tend to be. GMG^talk 16:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a catch, Simonm223, I believe is referring to my comments as to if we should call Ngo a journalist, writer, right-wing writer, etc. Also, I largely disagree that if others are saying "Ngo's politics are X" that we should censor Ngo's own statements on the subject. Simonm223, alludes to my concern that a number of the sources are clearly unsympathetic to the general view expressed by Ngo and are often assuming the worst when assigning motives to his actions. That's not a great way to build a really neutral article. It's also apparent those views aren't universal. Either way, we get back to my unanswered question, how does this hurt the reader/article? Springee (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you might want to consider that part of the reason so many disparate sources are hostile toward Ngo isn't part of some grand leftist conspiracy to smear the man; it's just that's how he's generally seen. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between the tone of a number of these articles, even the ones that aren't flattering of Ngo. Your claim of "grand leftist conspiracy" is a poor summary of my position. If that is what you read out of my words we have had a clear failure to communicate. Springee (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is how you get to what you want, since at least two of those sources (media matters and second Rolling Stone) support it. The Media Matters article has this critical line Many mainstream media outlets simply identified Ngo as an “independent journalist” or a “conservative journalist,” lending legitimacy to his narrative while ignoring his long record of credibility issues. So what you should be doing in the article to combine all this is to say something like: Many journalists and analysts call Ngo as far-right troll or provacateur for these reasons. These sources have said that Ngo tries to appear legitimate by appearing more centralist with his reporting; Ngo called himself "center-right" on the Joe Rogan show in July 2019, and his writings have some outlets calling him a "conservative journalist". As a result, his writings tend to try to make the views and actions of the far-right seem more acceptable. or something along those lines. Put the political facet in a broader section about Views or Controversy or something like that. You can get to the points that are being made if you don't try to separate the politics from his writings. Boom, you have his stance (so that we're neutral on that facet) but in context that many do not believe it and that it has been used to dupe some sources. --Masem (t) 16:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This is probably a good way forward. It's better than just restoring the removed content (which had been stable in the article) Springee (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• I would definitely say that if third-party RSes have started on the questions of a person's political views, that this has been deemed appropriate to include in the article on that person in the first place, and the person has stated (ideally in an RS, but even if in an BLPSPS) that they actually hold a contrary view specifically in response to the RSes, it is reasonable to include a brief attributable statement to contrast what the RSes have said. This is not "unduly" (the key word at play) because it is being added in specific response to what others have said about that person, and not an unsolicited statement of their view, and balances the NPOV around a BLP. The only exceptions that would be made for this are general biographical elements, which is self-identity of sexual orientation, gender identity, and faith/religion, where unsoliciated statements by the BLP can be used without being unduly. --Masem (t) 15:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem with your response (I'm guessing you have not reviewed the actual source before) is that Ngo's claims are not situated in that way and are not "specifically in response to the RSes", @Masem: but most of the time rather are self-serving, in that they are Ngo attempting to describe himself as "center" or "center-right" to legitimize the slant he places on his journalism. And the Rogan transcript is even more clearly not a qualifying response, the answer was prompted by Rogan[30] asking "If people feel like right-wing people are being attacked and I don't think you're even right wing are you? I mean what are what we just what would if you had a gun to your head or a mace to your face what would you, would you say you're a centrist?" 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

If we are talking about the Joe Rogan statement he made, given that was made in July 2019 which after his major "coverage" in the media from the May + June events, it is reasonable, knowing Joe Rogan's format, that the the question was asked in response to how the rest of the media was covering Ngo. If that statement was in 2016, before he really was a figure in the news, that would be unsolicated. But in the midst of the 2019 events? Clearly the question was selected in response to the media's portrayal of him, and thus his statement was not solicited and thus reasonable to include. (Perhaps "solicited" is the wrong word here, but key is that there was a reasonable driving factor that Ngo stated what his political position was due to external events about him.) --Masem (t) 15:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

To add, this is not stating that we have to treat Ngo's statement as fact or even non-FRINGE-y. Must still be attributed, and still be given less UNDUE weight than the main sources that put him at conservative/alt-right. --Masem (t) 15:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is still that Ngo attempts to describe himself as "center" or "center-right" to legitimize the slant he places on his journalism. It's self-serving in the same way that Fox News, undeniably right-wing and well documented to have been created for the purposes of right-wing advocacy[31], used the disingenuous slogans "fair and balanced" and "we report. you decide". The Rogan quote is the same way - not only is the answer prompted by the host, but the context is in attempting to establish Ngo as somehow uninvolved and an innocent victim, framing him as a "centrist" reporting on "far left militancy" (term used about a minute later) rather than - oh I don't know - someone who we have now found out embeds himself with violent groups like Patriot Prayer in return for giving them favorable coverage? That's what makes it unduly self-serving, by far. It's not just "he calls himself a centrist or center-right, but every news organization that's analyzed it places him firmly conservative/right-wing if not extreme right", but that he uses his own claim of being "center" to move the Overton Window and paint his targets as being "far left" while trying to paint the groups he embeds with as closer to center. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You have ascribed a motive to the discrepancy between various RS's (not all would disagree with Ngo's self assessment BTW) and Ngo's own statements. If you want to imply the motive is deception you would need a source. Currently we have no evidence he doesn't believe his view. Springee (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This (I had a reply, but this is more succinct). 6Years' analysis is on the money, but it is OR on a BLP, which is 100% not allowed. --Masem (t) 15:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You're getting it backwards. This is not something I would write into the article, that would indeed be impermissible WP:OR. It is the analysis as to why Ngo's statements violate clause 1 of WP:ABOUTSELF in being self-serving and therefore under policy cannot be included either. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It's fair to put in that light to consider the statement self-serving but I don't know if I would use that to say it was unduly self-service, given that we are talking about a person that is the subject of negative media coverage and that we have NPOV as policy. We're supposed to be impartial on BLPs, and so trying to ascribe motive to why he said that while he was in the middle of all this negative media coverage (even if that seems a spot on analysis) to determine whether to include or not is not really appropriate. Attribution as has been done here keeps Wikiepdia out of trying to decide if he is being honest or not here. --Masem (t) 15:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Given the first sentence, what would it take for you to agree that something was unduly self-serving? Where do you put the goalposts? We have a situation where the interviewee is being directly prompted for the "correct" answer for the audience, but the prompting was chopped off the front of the quotation that was added to the article here on Wikipedia. Not exactly neutral in that sense either, is it? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I pointed out elsewhere in this that if that interview was taken alone and no other context, it would be unduly self-serving, but in context of the events from May onward that Ngo has been involved with, the question was clearly prompted from what external media was saying about Ngo, so the question and his reply are not unduly in this case - there's a good reason it was asked, even if we are considering the answer to be dubious as to fit what the audience for the Joe Rogan show would be. Is there a clear goal-line here? No, so each case has to be considered by consensus, but there is reasonable allowance for cases like this. --Masem (t) 23:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be a Catch-22. Because on the one hand, if he were stating it under an "alone and no other context" situation, you say it would be INadmissible (but he'd have no standing reason to be self-serving), but the very circumstances that make it highly suspect and self-serving you then claim make it admissible. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me put this in another context. There was a running candidate (name I forget) that had come up on the boards because editors wanted to include her political positions which (prior to a point) were not be reported on by any RSes, nor anyone discussed her political positions. To include her positions from her own writings or comments would be unduly self-serving because no one talked about it, thus they are "unsolicited" (I wish there was a better word but I hope the meaning I'm trying to get across is recognized with that). It would be the same with Ngo if this same interview was years earlier, where he might have just barely been notable and without any controversy around him, it would be unduly at that point. But now that he is a figure embroiled in a controversy around how he presented himself/his writings to a certain audience, and we have sources that have a made a point about his political position, it is now fully acceptable (and sorta required by BLP) to include, with attribution and with reasonable due weight (a sentence, not a paragraph) relative to the press coverage.

Another issue I'm readily between the lines here is a point I've stressed on other boards: WP articles on BLPs embroiled in controversies should not be seen as scarlet letters or walls of shame. As editors, we should not be trying to figure out Ngo's motives, but report as neutrally as possible as presented by the sources. I recognize there is little love of Ngo here on WP (for completely fair purposes), but that does not give us any reason to throw proper BLP adherence to the side. Ngo is not going to have a whitewashed article, it is clear that he is disliked by the press, but we still can stay impartial and just report the facts, which in a case like this, is letting Ngo explain his stance, even if the media strongly disbelieves that. --Masem (t) 04:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

But you still haven't addressed the Catch-22 problem. If he were "just barely notable and without any controversy", you claim it would be undue, but it would also be unnecessary and meaningless because his political positions would be essentially irrelevant. But when he has the MOST incentive to falsely portray his position in a self-serving way, suddenly it's not undue? That's amazingly backwards. As JzG stated, "Hence we limit ABOUTSELF where it is robustly contradicted by independent sources", i.e. where there is every incentive for the subject to falsely portray themselves. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

We as editors cannot care if Ngo was in a position to be dubious about reporting his political view, only that he stated something about his political view in the midst of controversy around his political view. We can let the sources talk about the duplicity, but we can't be doing that as editors -when we do, we lose impartiality. As to "robustly contradicted" here, there are not that many sources that are sufficiently about Ngo to be considered that "robustly". That is, I talked about when someone's own self-statement can be taken as FRINGE, and that's when nearly all the sources about the person state one thing against what the person says. You definitely have a few here for Ngo, but not enough to apply FRINGE. --Masem (t) 04:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

See my frustration lies in that the same group of editors who has most vehemently pushed to include Ngo's self-reported political persuasion are the ones who have most aggressively pushed to avoid the article reporting on his duplicity. My concern is that, in this climate, what you're asking us to do is effectively impossible; the editors who believe we must report Ngo's beliefs have also claimed that the sources that call him a huckster, provocateur and propagandist don't count. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: you keep trying to flip the argument and it's starting to seem like you're not even listening. When you argue "We can let the sources talk about the duplicity, but we can't be doing that as editors -when we do, we lose impartiality. ", you are trying to make a claim about inclusion. But the criteria for WP:ABOUTSELF are clear that the self-serving statement should NOT be included. Let the WP:RSs talk about his position and place his position in the political spectrum appropriately, and leave the "unduly self-serving" (Point 1 of WP:ABOUTSELF) item out of the article, especially as it's not in a WP:RS to begin with. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, look here's some examples of what I'm talking about. In this dif, Springee argues against the use of the Daily Beast and Mother Jones as sources. Both are critical of Ngo. [32]. In this edit, Springee strangely calls sources critical of Ngo "reactionary" and argues against inclusion in favour of more anodyne mentions in Washington Post and the New York Times [33] in this dif, Springee calls Vice and Huffington Post tabloids to argue against inclusion [34]. So this is the challenge we've been facing in specific. Springee, and a small group of editors who hold negative POVs on antifascists, have vigorously fought the inclusion of any source that says anything critical of Ngo. This is on top of explicit resistance to inclusion of anything calling a statement by Ngo false at this RfC. So while I'm trying very hard to assume good faith about Springee's requests on multiple noticeboards, they have not provided a complete picture. If we could easily situate Ngo's comments in context, this wouldn't be an issue. But Springee has been instrumental in keeping any context off the page that might make Ngo seem anything other than an heroic truth-teller. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic at hand. Taking snippets of my arguments here may misrepresent my arguments. Springee (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This is entirely relevant to your discussion, because my concern that I'm expressing to Masem is that while I certainly recognize and respect his position, what he's recommending as a course of action has been actively blocked. By you. In the difs I presented, in which you argued against the use of any source that spoke unkindly of Ngo. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That is not the argument I made. I did not say we should not use sources that "spoke unkindly of Ngo". If you wish to debate that point, please do it at the article talk page. Springee (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This is directly relevant to this question. Masem has proposed a solution. Before I agree to it I need some assurance that the solution is workable. And your resistance to the use of these sources is the principal impediment to implementing this solution. So please answer the question. Are you going to keep calling sources critical of Ngo tabloids? Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"May misrepresent"? This is getting ridiculous. No, Simonm223 did not misrepresent your arguments at any point here, Springee. And he is especially correct that you have filibustered and blockaded against any source that says something you don't like. It's very revealing that you use phrasing like "the duplicity POV" to describe accurate coverage with WP:Reliable Sources. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a rather circular argument. The other side is those who want to keep Ngo's ABOUTSELF out are those who are pushing the hardest to promote the duplicity POV. Springee (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but I believe I'm arguing from the NPOV side here. That it, I agree with the assessment that from the view of what Ngo's trying to do with that comment from the Rogan show is clearly self-servicing and knowing his duplicity, likely unduly self-serving. But, from NPOV, we try to cover all sides of a controversy, though without creating a false balance. Moreso when a BLP is at the center of a controversy (as Ngo) is. A statement from that BLP that directly applies to the controversy that refutes or counters statements made about them is in no such way unduly in that context, from the standpoint of WP's neutrality and impartiality. To put that in a different context, lets say there is another person charged with some behavior from the past (something out of #metoo); those allegations will get wide coverage as we've seen, and nearly always either the person admits to them, or they refute them. The logic that is being used here is that a person's refuting those allegations is "unduly" self-serving because it is clearly trying to present themselves as innocent. But we would 100% include the person's statement because it is a BLP and we are expected to be neutral and impartial - in that context, the statement is not "unduly self-serving" because it is standard practice for editing Wikipedia and not something we are going out of our way to include to better serve that individual. That's the context here - it's not whether or not the statement is excessively supportive of the person, but whether it is excessive within context of its use in the WP article. That's why I've stressed we cannot be looking to Ngo's motives here to decide if the statement should be include, only the context, which in this case is in the middle of a controversy around Ngo. --Masem (t) 13:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So then I'd ask this question of Springee: are they going to continue to resist the inclusion of sources that are critical of Ngo? Because for us to do that, we need to be able to make use of Vice, Jacobin, the Daily Dot, the Huffington Post, etc. without spending weeks on article talk discussing whether they're tabloids. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• There is a similar situation happening at Talk:Richard Stallman#Marvin Minsky and pedophilia where what someone says is Stallman's position is allowed, but Stallman himself denying it is claimed to be not allowed Quote: "Putting Stallman's defense of himself directly from his blog is, now that I've read it, a clear violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB because it is transparently self-serving." Didn't we go through this with Hillary Clinton, with some editors claiming that we can include what others say about her email server but we can't include her response to the accusations? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That's where I think we need clarity on the word "unduly" in ABOUTSELF, and why I suggested something along the lines of that when a self-made statement is in response to something ("solicited" but maybe not the best word) that is directly about their person, that does not make their self-statement statement "unduly". We definitely do not want unwarranted promotion or the like. We also must consider how outing one's sexual preferrences or gender identity may be seen as self-serving to some, but we include those without question. There is a proper limit, but it is nuanced. --Masem (t) 15:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is any dispute about what Ngo's political views are, but which term is most appropriate. Sara Diamond explains that from the 1950s these views were described as extreme right or radical right, but the propents called themselves conservative. She uses the term right-wing.[35] I think first it is important that the article correctly convey to the reader what Ngo's ideology is. I believe that the term right-wing does that, since the term is normally used to describe people to the right of the mainstream Right (Bush/McCain/Romney Republicans, Cameron/May conservatives, Merkel Christian Democrats), who are more often referred to as center-right. Conservative is misleading because it is usually used as a synonym for center-right.

And no, we don't use someone's self-description, because reliable secondary sources don't. Vladimir Putin is not called a conservative, Silvio Berlusconi is not called a liberal and Tony Blair is not called a democratic socialist in their articles. And Bernie Sanders article says he "is a self-described democratic socialist," before quoting a number of unnoteworthy op-eds saying he isn't.

TFD (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Putin: Putin has promoted explicitly conservative policies in social, cultural and political matters, both at home and abroad. Putin has attacked globalism and neo-liberalism and is identified by scholars with Russian conservatism.

Berlusconi: Berlusconi defines himself as moderate,[165] liberal, and a free trader,[166] but he is often accused of being a populist and a conservative.

Blair: Blair rarely applies such labels to himself, but he promised before the 1997 election that New Labour would govern "from the radical centre", and according to one lifelong Labour Party member, has always described himself as a social democrat.[111] However, at least one left-wing commentator has said that Blair is to the right of centre.

Note that we are very clear that these are self-identified labels, not in Wikivoice. That's the correct way to do that. --Masem (t) 19:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Well said. I think the same principle is the answer on the Stallman page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Most people are quite bad at describing their own ideologies. Its not like describing your date or birth. Even if we see Ngo as trustworthy on this topic (and that's questionable) he may not have given a whole lot of thought to his self-description in that interview. At best, it might be acceptable to say something along the lines of "person X describes themselves as BLANK", but even then, editors should be careful to avoid cherry-picking. In nearly all cases, characterizations that show up in reliable secondary sources should be given more weight, and we should avoid elaborating too much when a person's self description are potentially misleading, incoherent, or fringe-y. If a self-description is notable enough for the lead, it will probably be picked up by an RS. Nblund ^talk 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Masem’s take on all of this. Well argued. Blueboar (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

They are reliable for what they claim (I.E. "Bert Terrible has said he is a seven day wonder"), not for it being true. Many people are not honest about their politics.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not comment on users or their actions, if you think any user has canvased report it at wp:ani, please do not discus it here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Springee - Why did you ask for an opinion and then argue with anyone who responded? What does crossed out text mean? Thanks. Eschoryii (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Burgeoning coat rack article: No-go area

• No-go area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here we have an article that is ostensibly about a topic that is both hotly contested and poorly-defined. This is a recipe for disaster. The article's lede section puts forth some plausible definitions for a "no-go area" and the body of the article proceeds to violate that definition six ways from Sunday. Can we somehow agree to limit this article's scope to something reasonable? The recent incidents in Poland are informative: some local governments have declared their territories should be free of a certain ideology. Does that constitute a "no-go area" as defined in this article? At least two WP:RS provided have cited a Tweet containing this claim. Are political Tweets competent to define "no-go areas" sufficiently for inclusion in this article? I am not sure. Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

José Filomeno dos Santos

José Filomeno dos Santos needs a lot of help, since there are definite spin problems, and the sources, which are in English, don't really back up the text. I have made a few changes but would welcome the assistance of other editors. Elinruby (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

BBC News: China and Taiwan clash over Wikipedia edits

Quote from BBC News:

"Ask Google or Siri: 'What is Taiwan'? 'A state', they will answer, 'in East Asia'."

"But earlier in September, it would have been a 'province in the People's Republic of China'."

"For questions of fact, many search engines, digital assistants and phones all point to one place: Wikipedia. And Wikipedia had suddenly changed."

"The edit was reversed, but soon made again. And again. It became an editorial tug of war that - as far as the encyclopedia was concerned - caused the state of Taiwan to constantly blink in and out of existence over the course of a single day."

Source: BBC News: China and Taiwan clash over Wikipedia edits

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Bible POV

I have recently come across several pages reflecting what I would consider a systemic POV problem, regarding Biblical authorship. For example, "Today scholars are virtually unanimous in rejecting Mosaic authorship of the Torah" (Composition of the Torah), and, "It is generally accepted that the Book of Daniel is a product of the mid-2nd century bc" (Daniel 7). Surely countless Biblical scholars would disagree. Whether these scholars are correct is not the point (and not an argument I'd care to get involved in), merely that the expressed views are hardly unanimous. It baffles me that anyone would maintain otherwise.

So far, the examples I've noticed are in C-class or lower articles. The Torah article (B-class), in contrast, claims: "Rabbinic tradition's understanding is that all of the teachings found in the Torah ... were written down by Moses ... The majority of Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian captivity (c. 6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, and that it was completed with final revisions during the post-Exilic period (c. 5th century BCE)." It is at least plausible (and presumably supported by sources) that this is a majority view, and therefore a reasonable statement. (Heck, it even leaves open the possibility that Moses authored some of those earlier written sources.)

I do not ask that authors change their content, merely that they respect NPOV and avoid weasel words. I have discovered, however, that some militantly disagree. I hope a consensus here might resolve this issue. See also: WP:FTN#Daniel 7. –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 19:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Since my original post, I discovered another example where attribution is left out altogether, and the majority view is simply stated as fact (Book of Daniel). 15:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The statement about Mosaic authorship of the Torah is correct unless you include WP:FRINGE sources, which we don't. Many scholars don't even believe that Moses existed. If there is a bias here it is toward academic sources. Both statements you mention are sourced as well. There is no bias problem here.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I believe your statement of policy regarding WP:FRINGE sources is overly simplistic. According to WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE/PS, and WP:RS, non-majority (a.k.a. fringe) views should be represented, albeit without attributing equal validity, so long as they are held by a significant minority of scholars, and are within the realm of scientific discourse (my paraphrase, but accurate, I think). This is the case we are talking about here.

Just because a statement cites a source doesn't mean it's sourced, in the sense of verifiable. For the statement, "Today scholars are virtually unanimous in rejecting Mosaic authorship of the Torah," its linked source states, "There is a consensus among modern biblical scholars that the present text of the Bible is the final product in a long evolution..." This is a much more modest (and plausible) statement in terms of both acceptance ("consensus" vs. "virtually unanimous") and content (it does not reject the possibility that Moses was part of that evolution). I do not have easy access to the other source, but I would wager it, too, makes a more measured claim.

To be clear, I am not challenging the reliability of the sources or their theories, nor would I have the credentials to do so. I am challenging the (understandable) tendency of Wikipedia articles to exaggerate the degree of scholarly acceptance beyond what the sources, themselves, attest; or to misrepresent the theories, themselves, as in the above case. –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 15:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Your 2 quotes says basically the same thing, since "Rabbinic tradition" is a theological position, not a scholarly one (for a certain value of "scholarly"). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: One quote says, "[Biblical] scholars are virtually unanimous...", and the other says, "The majority of Biblical scholars believe..." You maintain those are basically the same thing?

As for the definition of "scholarly", I'm assuming the criteria in WP:SCHOLAR. Do you have a different one? –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 15:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed quotes on pseudohistory and academic bias

Robert Todd Carroll has developed a list of criteria to identify pseudo-historic works. He states that: "Pseudohistory is purported history which: Treats myths, legends, sagas and similar literature as literal truth — Pseudohistory Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God; — Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages) Thank you for your views. Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of academic sources for history. That is how it should be. If archaeology says Beersheba was founded 6000 years ago and the bible says it was founded 4000 years ago, archaeology wins. Zerotalk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

To sum up: fideist scholars from fideist universities and seminaries, who only publish in fideist journals are WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, are you citing Wikpedia policy, or is that your personal opinion? In either case, see above discussion of WP:FRINGE. (I am curious which universities and journals you consider fideist, though. Is Oxford one of them?)

As for what you pasted above (or your more recent comment, for that matter), I don't see anything relevant to the discussion, or anything I'd particularly disagree with. Please clarify if I am missing something. (I presume you're aware that lecture notes do not meet the Wikipedia standard for reliable source.) –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 15:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The question here is one of DUE WEIGHT for views that do not agree with scholarly consensus. For widely held (but minority) views, DUE weight can mean we mention the view, but don’t go into details. However, for extremely fringe views, DUE weight means we don’t mention the view at all. So... what we need to determine in this case is: where on the scale of “fringeness” does a particular view fall. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I concur (although that's not the only question, more below). –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Blue Hoopy Frood: My argument was: biblical inerrancy is WP:FRINGE in WP:MAINSTREAM Bible WP:SCHOLARSHIP. By default, the historical method does not allow for inerrant sources. If from Ivy Plus to state universities and from mainline Protestant to Catholic seminaries all scholars toe the line that the Bible is errant, it is pseudohistory to affirm that the Bible is inerrant.

Collapsed quotes on Bible scholarship

::::Ehrman, Bart (2010). "A Historical Assault on Faith". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780061173943. My hunch is that the majority of students coming into their first year of seminary training do not know what to expect from courses on the Bible. ... Most students expect these courses to be taught from a more or less pious perspective, showing them how, as future pastors, to take the Bible and make it applicable to people's lives in their weekly sermons. Such students are in for a rude awakening. Mainline Protestant seminaries in this country are notorious for challenging students' cherished beliefs about the Bible—even if these cherished beliefs are simply a warm and fuzzy sense that the Bible is a wonderful guide to faith and practice, to be treated with reverence and piety. These seminaries teach serious, hard-core Bible scholarship. They don't pander to piety. They are taught by scholars who are familiar with what German- and English-speaking scholarship has been saying about the Bible over the past three hundred years. ... The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the "historical-critical" method. It is completely different from the "devotional" approach to the Bible one learns in church. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2002) [2001]. "Epilogue. The Future of Biblical Israel". The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and The Origin of Its Sacred Texts (First Touchstone Edition 2002 ed.). New York: Touchstone. p. 318. ISBN 978-0-684-86913-1. It was only when the Hebrew Bible began to be dissected and studied in isolation from its powerful function in community life that theologians and biblical scholars began to demand of it something that it was not. From the eighteenth century, in the Enlightenment quest for thoroughly accurate, verifiable history, the historical factuality of the Bible became — as it remains — a matter of bitter debate. Realizing that a seven-day creation and spontaneous miracles could not be satisfactorily explained by science and reason, the scholars began to pick and choose what they found to be "historical" in the Bible and what they did not. Theories arose about the various sources contained in the text of the Bible, and archaeologists argued over the evidence that proved or disproved the historical reliability of a given biblical passage. Yet the Bible's integrity and, in fact, its historicity, do not depend on dutiful historical "proof" of any of its particular events or personalities... {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Miracles (including genuine prophecy) have been purged from history since the Enlightenment. Some editors are unaware that proclaiming that miracles do happen is pseudohistory (yes, this includes the claim that the Book of Daniel is a 6th century BCE writing). Conclusion: dating it to the 6th century BCE is WP:FRINGE/PS. Oh, yes, Shaye J.D. Cohen has been recorded on vimeo.com by Beardsley Ruml. You could check the first video of the series in order to WP:Verify the above claims. Cohen's course is here: "Free Hebrew Bible Course with Shaye Cohen". Biblical Archaeology Society. 28 February 2017. Retrieved 3 October 2019. (On the background you will see chunks of the above quote.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thank you for the detailed references. I'm still puzzled, though. How does any of this relate to the topic? I've said nothing regarding inerrancy, miracles, or the historicity of the Bible. (BTW, thank you for introducing me to {{Re}}.) –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is about biblical inerrancy... then Tgeorgescue is correct. That is a very Fringe theory. If about something else, we would need to examine in more detail (please supply specifics). Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I introduced this topic with examples of people exaggerating claims of consensus. If someone says, "Scholars are unanimous about X" (or nearly unanimous, or split 74-26), they should be able to back the claim up with sources. If they cannot, they should limit themselves to assertions that sources do support. –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, of course people slip up, and I don't mean to align such authors. Corrections of such errors should be simple, painless, and expected. –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 20:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, Blue Hoopy Frood conflates WP:NPOV with false balance. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Is that a personal attack? If not, please clarify. I am, indeed, new to these terms. –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The term scholar in this context refers to people whose publish articles in scholarly journals and write textbooks. They are unanimous that the Torah was not written by Moses, hence the article should mention this. we mention the fringe view that the Torah is literally true, since we are writing about religious literature, but cannot say that this view has any acceptance among scholars. I don't see why you would have a problem with that. It could be that Moses really did part the Red Sea, but historians lack the competence to accept that. But that's a discussion for religious sites, not encyclopedia articles. TFD (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: "The term scholar in this context refers to people whose publish articles in scholarly journals and write textbooks. They are unanimous that the Torah was not written by Moses..." That's a bold statement. Can you back it up? –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Blue Hoopy Frood: Wikipedia isn't a substitute for adult education. You might read WP:CIR, previously it had a sub-section for bias-based incompetence of editing according to WP:RULES. I think that your bias for biblical inerrancy turns you into a POV-pusher for WP:FRINGE WP:POV. And no, this isn't a personal attack. It is simply obvious to the rest of competent editors that you cannot edit neutrally on biblical topics, see e.g. what ජපස wrote at WP:FTN. In the future please avoid baseless claims of personal attacks. It is not a personal attack that you are a fringe POV-pusher as long as it is manifest that you push frige POVs, such as biblical inerrancy.

Collapsed quotes on POV-pushing

:::: Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC) @Proveallthings: I did overlook Stephen Miller's reasoning, and I did it intentionally. And it's because me and you are attempting to do two different things right now. You're attempting to use evidence to find what is true. I'm attempting to survey the literature to find out what most scholars say about this particular question. That's because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of truth, but a service for summarizing what the scholarly community says. If we were here to discover what is true together on the Wikipedia talk pages, then you would be doing what is right (marshalling the linguistic arguments), and I would be doing something wrong (just quoting a bunch of authorities and pointing out that "your side" here consists only of people with a particular theological set of commitments). So let me be clear. I'm not saying you're wrong about "father". You, and Kenneth Kitchen, might be right. I'm just saying that, in terms of the way Wikipedia weighs sources, Kenneth Kitchen's opinion is out on the fringes in the scholarly world. Alephb (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC) HiLo, saying that someone has a POV or even that their editing with a POV is not a personal attack. At least not in general. Volunteer Marek 00:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Blue Hoopy Frood, there's no need to repeat what I wrote. I am quite able to remember what I wrote. It is quite simple to find sources that no scholars support the view that Moses wrote the Torah. But since you claim the statement is false and want to change the article, it is up to you to find a source that says otherwise. TFD (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed quotes on Daniel, dating (history), Moses and historiography

:John J. Collins stated: The history of Daniel’s influence has been chronicled by Klaus Koch, who has also noted the decline of that influence in modern times. Since the Enlightenment, scholars have increasingly come to view the book not as a reliable guide to history, past or future, but as a collection of imaginative tales and visions that reflect the fears and hopes of beleaguered Jews in the Hellenistic period. In fact, this change of academic perspective was hard won — one need only think of the Fundamentalist crisis that divided American Protestantism at the beginning of the twentieth Century. In academic circles, that crisis is generally viewed as having ended in the defeat of the Fundamentalists. Robert Dick Wilson, one of the scholars who consequently left Princeton Theological Seminary to found the more conservative Westminster Seminary, has been called “the last great defender of Daniel’s traditional authorship.” Fundamentalist readings of Daniel continue to flourish in the popular culture, as can be seen from the best-selling writings of Hal Lindsey, and conservative scholars have continued to fight rear-guard actions in defence of the reliability of the book. In mainline scholarship, however, the great issues that made Daniel the focus of controversy for centuries were laid to rest in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A broad consensus on several key issues has existed since then. It is agreed that Daniel is pseudepigraphic: the stories in chapters 1-6 are legendary in character, and the visions in chapters 7-12 were composed by persons unknown in the Maccabean era. The stories are almost certainly older than the visions, but the book itself was put together shortly after the Maccabean crisis. It must be read, then, as a witness to the religiosity of that time, not as a prophecy of western political history or of the eschatological future. Bart Ehrman stated: This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions! John Van Seters and Israel Finkelstein from Bible Unearthed Discoveries of Old versions of the bible) on YouTube stated: but what about Moses himself surely there must be some evidence for this most famous Old Testament hero perhaps the most famous of all Old Testament figures even if there's no evidence of the exodus they must surely be some record of a leader as important as him the name Moses is a name which is very popular from early periods right down into late periods so it's a fairly common Egyptian name that's that's all that we can say there is no text in which we can identify this Moses or that Moses as the Moses the question of the historicity of Moses is the same as the question of the historicity of Abraham that is to say maybe there was a figure maybe there was a leader I am NOT here to undermined historicity of Moses I think that it is possible but I would say it's beyond recovery Neil Asher Silberman stated: what we're doing is just continuing a struggle a scholarly struggle that's been going on for a hundred years the boundary just now happens to be in the story of the Israelites and the Israelite Kingdom and it's moving forward slowly to separate religious literature and spirituality from what we call history.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. Oh, yes, clarify: WP:FALSEBALANCE. These being said, he is a man with a plan: he wants to make Wikipedia inerrantist-friendly, as it is manifest at User:Blue Hoopy Frood#Bible scholarship and POV. His method is casting doubt upon WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP by giving it equal validity with the inerrantist fringe (aka Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing).

Collapsed quote on WP:SPADE
:: I'd say that your statement of [y]our demand that all content on Talk pages complies with NPOV is absurd is what's actually absurd. I would also suggest that calling what you're doing "POV pushing" is, in fact, accurate, since that's exactly what you're doing. If you don't like being called a POV-pusher, don't push a POV. ... --Calton — [[User: Talk 03:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)]]

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. I also note that here the OP replied always civil, but repeatedly failed to address the arguments of his opponents, namely that giving equal validity to mainstream academic learning and fringe fideism is prohibited by WP:PAGs. His behavior is described by WP:RGW. As Collins stated, fundamentalists lost in the academia (more than a century ago and still very much ongoing). Wikipedia sides with the mainstream academia, therefore fundamentalists lost inside Wikipedia. WP:CHOPSY don't teach fringe fideistic views as true, objective facts. So why should Wikipedia teach those as such?

Collapsed quote about inerrantist nonsense
I think we have to avoid extremes. The minimalists would make out of the Bible a pious fraud and I think that's going much, much too far. On the other hand, if we try as moderns to read the Bible literally in the way fundamentalists do, we make nonsense of it. I would try to avoid both of those extremes. — William G. Dever, Lateline. It Ain't Necessarily So

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you are doing, Tgeorgescu, it is very confusing. I have tried to clean up your quotes of other users with the {{talk quote}} template. Your formatting and overall spamming of these quotes renders the page nearly unreadable. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised to see this talk page tornado come from a Wikipedia user of 16 years. The way you pasted quotes of other users made it look like many more people were talking in this thread than actually were, among other formatting and indentation problems not solely attributable to you. What did you hope to accomplish by this barrage of ill-formatted quotes? Sorry to have to say something but it is some of the most ham-fisted talk page editing I have seen. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I have collapsed the quotes. The role of the quotes was proving that inerrantist dating of the Book of Daniel and Torah, and inerrantism itself are WP:FRINGE and that it is ok to WP:SPADE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, it helps with readability. No disagreement from me on inerrantist or any similar interpretations of the bible being extreme fringe. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup, the recipe is historical method + holy book = blasphemy. Some people didn't get the memo. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Assertion that "peer-reviewed journals" means an absent of POV in an article

As seen at Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson#Article recreated again (permalink here), editors have expressed a concern that the newly-created article Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a lot of POV and WP:Puffery language and/or reads like a fansite. In that discussion, SNUGGUMS and Popcornduff took the time to detail issues with the article.

In the Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson#Peer-reviewed journals means POV? section (permalink here), the article's creator, Partytemple, has asserted that contested text in the article that is supported by peer-reviewed journals means that the contested text does not violate WP:POV. This is despite what WP:YESPOV, WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:INTEXT state. Popcornduff has tried to enlighten Partytemple to the fact that a source being peer-reviewed does not mean that what the source is saying cannot be an opinion. It certainly doesn't mean that how a Wikipedia editor decides to word something based on whatever source is not an opinion and therefore should be stated in Wikipedia's voice. The discussion continued in the following section as well: Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson#One example of subjective POV (permalink here).

Needless to state, we need other opinions on this matter. I will also alert Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view to this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I would think there is something to be said that if peer-reviewed sources said, today, "Mozart was one of the greatest composers of all time." we would be stating that factually, as there's been more than enough time for broad public and academic opinion to be established in a case like this. For Michael Jackson, we may be too close to his death for that opinion to have gelled to be treated as fact. But this should only start when multiple peer-reviewed sources make the assertion as fact, not just one. --Masem (t) 02:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind is that peer review is not the same thing as literature review. We prefer secondary and tertiary sources to primary sources for reasons noted at WP:PSTS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I haven't yet checked to see what, if any, sources in the article are peer-reviewed journals, but the opinion of an author of a peer-reviewed journal is still that author's opinion. And regardless, we have wording and presentation standards. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Popcornduff and I seem to have different interpretations of WP policy. My position is not that the article is entirely absent of POV, but that the issues addressed are not violating POV. Flyer22 please do not misinterpret my words. If you have questions about what I mean, ask first. I also would like more editors outside of the MJ articles to offer an opinion on this matter, as I do not think this issue is limited to the Jackson articles. It would help a lot to clarify some understandings of policy. There are many statements in question. I prefer that these issues should be asked to me directly, instead of accusing me editorial bias. I did not distort or exaggerate any of the claims. If they sound egregious, it's because I cited the author. —Partytemple (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No misinterpretation at all. I read your flawed arguments, just like I read your flawed and deeply troubling understanding of our BLP policy. Nowhere did I state or imply that your position is that the article is entirely absent of POV. But if you think that all or most of the POV issues highlighted at Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson#Article recreated again are not POV issues, I fail to see how that is not you thinking that the article is mostly or completely absent of POV. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I think anyone can see that the article does not comprise of peer-reviewed journals only, which is the material being addressed. And the main statement in dispute was the "child prodigy" statement that was cited with a journal. It would be extremely unfair to me if my words were distorted. —Partytemple (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Without any distortions or misinterpretation, let me make this clear: peer-reviewed journals can and have contained personal thoughts of authors. Same goes for just about any other type of reference one can think of. However, that doesn't mean it's impossible for them or us to neutrally discuss such opinions. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we can say things like "Critics overall felt _____" or "Scholars believe that _______" when sharing stances people have. Now, the Cultural Impact article being discussed above could be vastly improved by attributing some opinions to the authors. I fully realize that not every reference used is a peer-reviewed journal. Regardless of citation type, it is fully possible to insert biased text even when referencing something that supports the opinion conveyed within an article. We're supposed to describe what others have written and their views, but shouldn't make it sound like Wikipedia's own stance. While I fully realize that much of what I've typed here was already written before with different phrasing, I felt it had to be said anyway. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, I read your comments but I did not know how to respond since there were so many and some of them sound like you weren't sure. We can go through every single one, if you'd like. I can provide the source text, but I cannot reproduce them entirely (because of copyright). And as far as I know, of the many academic literature I read, there are certain statements that have multiple scholars saying relatively the same thing, hence an academic consensus. —Partytemple (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I admittedly was iffy on certain parts, though discussion of all my individual points is better for that article's talk page. In cases of academic consensus, see my above comments on WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. In other words, we attribute the shared opinion to the scholars (i.e. "Most/Multiple scholars felt that Jackson ___________"). Hopefully that makes sense. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I will echo what Masem said. There is a policy that says "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." Attaching attributions would make the statement sound like its contested by reliable sources, hence no academic consensus. But I don't know any reliable sources that say Michael Jackson was not a child prodigy (or other variants of this). Wouldn't using attributions so broadly also be WP:WEASEL? And what about this: "When a statement is a fact (e.g. information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution."—Partytemple (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Partytemple does not seem able or willing to understand the POV problems even though several of us have tried to explain them. They either misinterpret policy (taking us on strange rambling philosophical debates about how Wikipedia defines opinions and facts, for example) or claim not to understand the problem. They have reverted attempts to make the article more neutral, and repeatedly removed the puffery template despite the consensus on the talk page. They seem unwilling to work with the numerous editors who now have identified POV problems with the article and I am pessimistic about improvement. As far as I am concerned this is now disruptive behaviour as per WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Popcornduff (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and let's not get bogged down arguing about any one bit of puffery in the article, such as the specific debate about how OK it is say that Michael Jackson was talented. Scan the article and you'll see there are dozens of WP:POV-violating claims. Popcornduff (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Jesuit topics written by a Jesuit

Hello, it appears that user talk engagement will not be effective, so I will bring it to a wider audience. @Jzsj: I must say that your recent patterns of editing have raised some concern in my mind. I have seen a distinct bias of adding Jesuit-friendly sources such as America (magazine) and promoting Jesuit theologians and Jesuit-written articles. (Not to mention the coincidence of Pope Francis being the first Jesuit Pope.) And it's not merely promoting the Society's views, you're removing substantial contrasting views at the same time. You've drastically overhauled Sacrament of Penance — along with a proposed name change to match — and now you've removed some well-substantiated criticism of Jesuit vocations from Society of Jesus because it was in a 'conservative' periodical (and apparently because you wish parity for the removal of an unsubstantiated peek 15 years into the future?)

Regardless of whether you have an actual conflict of interest due to your membership in the Society of Jesus and an ordained representative of the Catholic Church, it would be good to see some good-faith adherence to neutrality in your selections of source material, your reflections of the myriad of perspectives on doctrine and belief in the Church, rather than gradually making Wikipedia as Jesuit as possible, which is what I see taking shape here now with your edits in the past few weeks. Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Jzsj replied on my user talk page: Please be specific about which edits you think are inappropriate. It is not helpful when you refer to "reverts" that don't exist. If you don't think my additions or references are helpful then let's discuss them one-by-one, as we did here. I tried to explain why my original contribution was correct, and your criticism of it was ill-founded, and responded to your criticism by making changes, which didn't please you. But the original sources that I inserted (not my "synthesis" but The New Yorker's) might have warranted your restoral of my first version. You kept making inaccurate statements: most unhelpful! And as to my "drastically overhaul[ing]" the Sacrament of Penance, note the call for this on the talk page: "The history section of this article needs improvement to describe more clearly what was new in various centuries." I then offered to do it 17 May 2017 and no one objected. So I undertook it just now, along with shortening of the verbose lede that the talk page called for. Give me some credit! ... and be assured of my readiness to yield to your wisdom and experience where it is manifest. And shouldn't you open an Rfc if we have an honest disagreement on content matters? Jzsj (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I stand by what you've quoted in the third paragraph. Now I must mention inaccuracies in your first paragraph. I have no intention of "removing substantial contrasting views" and it has never been my practice. Please give references to where you claim to find this. My extensive improvements to Sacrament of Penance were a rare effort of mine to respond to multiple calls for work on an article that was overly verbose and very short on references. I'd invite specific criticism of my arduous effort to record the history there, simply for accuracy and backed up by very reliable sources. Your "well-substantiated criticism of Jesuit vocations" gives no facts on the number of vocations (which I have just added), 28 novices taking vows for the US and Haiti in 2019. You'd have to compare this with the religious congregations that are getting no vocations before giving an objective opinion whether there is any "Francis effect" that vocation directors can most reliably report on. Jzsj (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement for sources to be neutral and in fact most academic sources are not. TFD (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• I hope this section will result in more eyes on Jzsj's editing. He is an SPA for Jesuit-related subjects and IMO a problematic user, see his block log. The latest block listed there, three months for repeated topic ban violations, expired as recently as 24 September. (For his topic ban, see this ANI thread.) It's fairly alarming to see him already brought to a noticeboard for tendentious editing a mere five days after this lengthy block expired, and I have to agree with Elizium23 that this edit to Society of Jesus is downright promotion. I have myself engaged with him on his talkpage, such as here in March this year, but it gets fairly exhausting, since I'm no kind of expert on Catholicism, let alone on the Society of Jesus. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC).

There's been a lot of loose talk about "Jesuit-related" articles and "Jesuit views" etc, but most of the articles mentioned above, such as Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School (run by nuns), Sacrament of Penance and George Pell are just Catholic topics, not Jesuit ones. I don't really see that "this edit to Society of Jesus is downright promotion" at all - in a long article the trend in membership of the order (a much-discussed topic with all types of Catholic clergy) seems something that should obviously be covered. Elizium23 seems also to be a Catholic, but from the conservative wing of the church, with an anti-Jesuit bee in his bonnet, if not quite as strong a one as the duc de Saint-Simon and some other Catholic figures. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I also do not see promotion in this particular edit. The preceding content talked about a decline in membership and the edit in question cited an estimate that is lower than the 17,287 Jesuits, a number indicated in the section's table covering the year 2013. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)