Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Gaza Health Ministry

Some non-involved editors would be welcome at Gaza Health Ministry.

The context is essentially

• Israel and the US expressed unspecific doubts about GHM's casualty data.
• Organizations like the UN say the GHM's data has historically been reliable.
• Two peer-reviewed articles published in The Lancet did not find evidence of inflated or fabricated data. (Edit: turns out the articles are "correspondence" and not peer reviewed, see here and here.)
• Later, statistics professor Abraham Wyner wrote in Tablet (magazine) that the data contained irregularities, such as a strong negative correlation between male and female deaths.
• Later still, Michael Spagat wrote about GHM's "declining data quality", explained by a shift to user-submitted reports as hospitals have closed.

The current lede is unbalanced, emphasizing the sources that say the data is reliable, while not mentioning opposing viewpoints at all. My various attempts to include brief mentions of the latter (even just "received significant attention and scrutiny") have been reverted.

The argument seems to be that the two peer-reviewed Lancet articles trump non-peer-reviewed sources, making opposing viewpoints somewhat fringe. However, the two Lancet articles are older, and focused on very different aspects of the data. In some sense they support opposing narratives, but they absolutely don't contradict one another.

The current article also quotes a blog comment by "Ken M", with speculation about how the irregularities noted by Wyner might be explained. My attempt to remove that was reverted as well. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you might want to reflect on the concept of Materiality (auditing). No source I've seen thinks the GHM data is dramatically wrong. It's even possible that it's an undercount (e.g., bodies that haven't been found in the rubble yet). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree an undercount is plausible. No reliable sources really claim that the total is clearly inflated, just that it shouldn't be considered very reliable, especially recent data from the current war.

Some milder versions of this viewpoint are very mainstream, even uncontroversial. E.g. The Telegraph factually notes that (at the time) ~54% of the data was from hospital sources, with the rest coming from a combination of media sources and a Google form.

I suppose reasonable editors can disagree about materiality, but I think there are also very objective problems here, such as

• Framing Roberts' article as a refutation of Wyner's, when it doesn't discuss Wyner's arguments at all, only mentions it once in passing
• Using two blog comments to counter some of Wyner's arguments, one from an anonymous "Ken M" with unknown credibility

There has been significant resistance to fixing even the most clear issues like these. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Those blogs are by professors, the first by Lior Pachter, a professor of statistics who dismissed the first argument. The Ken M comment is not in because of whoever they are but because James Joyner, a professor of security studies, said it showed insight. Professor Les Roberts, who is an expert in such matters, has like you say just one comment on Wyner's article - right in the lead: "Israel’s U.N. ambassador and online pundits have purported that the numbers are exaggerated or, as a recent article in Tablet alleged, simply faked. Actually, the numbers are likely conservative. The science is extremely clear." Professor Wyners article was the one in Tablet (magazine) and if that is okay then they're okay too in the article. None of this should be in the lead. NadVolum (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As we discussed on the talk page, Joyner included the "Ken M" blog comment in a compilation of quotes and referred to it as an "insight", but didn't engage with it at all beyond that. It still seems like a pretty clear WP:USERGENERATED violation, since the argument is still from "Ken M", not from Joyner.

Right, Roberts mentioned Wyner's article once, and in some broad sense he's arguing in a different direction, but he doesn't respond to any of the specific points Wyner made. I think that makes "Wyner [...] wrote [...] to which [...] Roberts responded" rather misleading.

Not to mention that Pachter's blog post is framed as a refutation of Wyner's "main point", when it really only applies to a single figure. (The text of Wyner's first argument refers to variance in daily deaths, not the cumulative sum that Pachter argues is misleading.) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Lior Pachter, Les Roberts (epidemiologist), and James Joyner all have their own articles and I would hope that they have some idea of what they're doing when they bother to write things. Just seen Wyner also had something from Joshua Loftus, professor of statistics and data science at LSE, saying "One of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen" and "shockingly irresponsible" about the article NadVolum (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't negate the problems I mentioned. Of those three authors, only one actually engages the content of Wyner's article at all, namely Pachter's criticism of one particular visual that Wyner used. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

See the convo I linked below, Wyner's article is a minority view and critiqued. Time to drop this. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Four with Joshua Loftus. NadVolum (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And quoting professor Michael Spagat about the data quality declining doesn't justify anything Wyner did. NadVolum (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see why Abraham Wyner's article should be given any special prominence over any other sources. It's just an article in a magazine. To make it any more prominent than that seems like a violation of WP:DUE. Silverseren^C 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that the Gaza Health Ministry#Other analysis section (where Wyner's magazine article is mentioned) should be in the article at all. The article feels a bit more like a deep-dive into details and he said/she said bickering, instead of an encyclopedic summary of the subject. Also, the article is wildly unbalanced; there are ~1300 words on casualty counts and ~200 words total on everything else. Don't they have, like hospitals and budgets and employees and things like that? We're treating them as if their sole purpose is to count deaths. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  +1 Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I suspect the vast majority of coverage of them is in relation to their casualty counts. BilledMammal (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you only look at coverage during the last six months and in the popular press, you might be right. But in the 17 years before that, I think there was other coverage. The 2007 doctor's strike gets a few sentences; perhaps someday this, too, will get just a few sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're right, there should be a lot more about it like how many hospitals and doctors it has/had and it's record in looking after health issues. Do you know of some sort of tag for that kind of issue? NadVolum (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Remember this convo? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Tablet_(magazine)_and_article_by_Wharton_statistician Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I remember that okay. There's been responses by academics now so perhaps the business can end. NadVolum (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  One would hope so. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would be in favor of a WP:SPINOUT article called "Reliability of Gaza Health Ministry casualty data" to correct the balancing issue.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Might be a good idea, put a stop to all this "Hamas run" discussion every ten minutes. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Gaza Health Ministry is fairly short and is a natural place to look about that if a person is bothered. I'm not keen on such a split, at least not without a lot more development of the article. NadVolum (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  To me, this would be an inappropriate split, especially because the article is not long. Further, splitting it off would make it more difficult for due weight discussions, as they would have to occur over multiple articles. If the information isn’t due weight to include in the main article, then a split doesn’t make it due weight. If the main article is too long as a whole, then a split can be considered.

  I also find problematic the splitting of scientific studies from the section below where people voice their support/concern with those articles. This basically gives “double weight” to the scientific studies compared to the governments. Ideally, the most important/discussed studies would be given a sentence or two each, and immediately be followed by at most a sentence or two of that study’s analysis by other academics, etc. Very, very rarely would it be due weight to give credence to someone’s opinion of a study when the study itself isn’t due weight to be included in the article. And even then, only significant criticisms or adoption/agreement should be covered - some studies may not have any significant criticism/adoption and thus would only be covered themselves.

  Perhaps the solution here is to condense the “analysis” into two sections - governmental (and intergovernmental such as UN) analysis, and then a section for academic/independent analysis. Neither section should be too long, and care must be taken to ensure that the balance of general academic consensus is reflected in the article. This is a discussion that should continue on the talk page regarding how to handle that section - with a link to it from here - and only brought here if the talk page fails to come to a consensus.

  To summarize my view: American and Israeli government analysis is too big for now and needs to include information about other bodies, and there is no reason that people repeating scientific papers needs to be in the article - the papers themselves and a summary of their proponents can be covered in a single section. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  The sentence If the information isn’t due weight to include in the main article, then a split doesn’t make it due weight doesn't sound quite right to me. It's obvious that information could be an undue level of detail for our article about History and still a completely appropriate level of detail for our article about History of Gaza. Similarly, something could be undue for Gaza Health Ministry and still appropriate for an article about a subtopic like Gaza Health Ministry casualty data.

  However, I agree that even in a subtopic, it is possible to overemphasize certain things or to go into an unencyclopedic level of detail. We are looking for the Goldilocks balance, even in a specialized subtopic article. I think your suggestions are sound overall. Especially if the content stays in this article, condensing it and removing anything that looks like a "me too" duplication or endorsement would help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that it’s not a subtopic being proposed but a content fork. I agree that I could’ve been much clearer that my comments applied to content forks. Summary style still does apply when a split/sub article isn’t a content fork.

  I tend to think that, at least at this point, there is not a real need to split it off for size, and I’m not sure the casualty data can be covered in its own article without it turning into a POV fork. If and when the article becomes large (adding more history/operational/etc information, if possible), then the casualty data would be a good option for a split and summary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that there's no WP:SIZE problem here, but I'm not sure that it's actually possible to create a POV fork about casualty data. The only reason to split it would be that it's overall too detailed (i.e., about all of the POVs) for the general article, not that there isn't enough room for extra details about a single viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  If it’s too detailed about all of the POVs, that’s a sign that we may be being too broad in the coverage. Everyone and their mother can publish an opinion about the evidence/beliefs - but not all of them should be in the encyclopedia. Not even all of the authors/academics with articles who have opined should be covered. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's foolish to assume we'll know anything for sure while the situation remains live and articles could avoid all of this by observing that, in my view. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I have removed all mention of Wyner from the article as despite what is here @XDanielx: has started trying to dress up what he did as an actual analysis and is saying criticism would be a BLP problem. NadVolum (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx has re-added this disputed content under the guise of "balance". I think it's a false balance, and I think it should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for any kind of equal weight here, but I believe the consensus (considering all past discussions) was that this is a significant (non-fringe) minority view.

We should probably discuss mainly on the article's talk page (RfC?) or a new thread here, since this will be archived soon. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, threads on this page are archived 21 days after the most recent comment (not the first one). We therefore have another 21 days to go.

I think we should remove all of the non-official (e.g., government) and non-scholarly responses.

Separately, I also think we should say less about this. Supposedly this article is about a 17-year-old government agency, but you can't really tell that because it's turned into a coatrack article about bickering over how good they are/aren't at just one of their less important duties during the last nine months (4% of its existence). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps GHM reliability is a notable enough topic to get its own small article? In which case the main GHM article could have just a brief summary section on it. Not a typical WP:SPINOFF but it might make sense here? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It might make sense, but even then, it might not make sense to include Wyner, and it probably wouldn't make sense to include Wyner as if his were just one of many equally valid views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Niedermayer

The article Thomas Niedermayer is in some places worded rather strangely; seven months ago the first sentence of the article was edited in an apparent attempt to downplay the role of his abductors in his death.

Another editor is defending the current wording based on some rather dubious lines of argument; such as claiming that the word "killed" is in all circumstances a synonym of "murder", and claimed I was trying to relitigate a court case. When I brought the definitions of "murder", "manslaughter", and "killing" to their attention they simply refused to respond. When confronted with multiple reliable sources which disagree with their position, they cherrypicked a single source and now claim that the article needs to mitigate the culpability of his abductors to an even greater degree despite the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources being in opposition.

I do not believe they are acting in good faith, since they do not directly address any points raised and refuse to engage with legitimate concerns. I do not yet wish to take this to the incidents noticeboard and hope the situation can be dealt with by drawing attention to the article and its issues here. 92.21.248.228 (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 92.21.248.228 I'm a non-administrator editor, but saw your entry here. I gave my support to the current RfC of "kidnapped and killed" on the article talk page. I noticed that an editor who commented before me about a different topic on the Noticeboard ALSO supported usage of "kidnapped and killed' on the talk page. We did not coordinate! It was coincidental. While I was there, I cleaned up the article a bit as there were duplicate refs, some misspellings, and unsourced content.

Although I have no power to remediate, I observed the comments made by that other editor, not just to you, but to several others, in a tone that is atypical for creating an encyclopedia in good faith:

1. "I couldn't care less what you say"
2. "We're not interested in your own opinions"
3. "We're not interested in your own "observations"
4. "Your reply is specious and not germane to this discussion"
5. "The article didn't discuss that at all, until I made sure it did"
6. "For many years this article was in fact wrong, until I recently fixed it"
7. "The article needs amending in the exact opposite way you want to change it"

I DID notice that Niedermayer's death is described not as a killing but as a murder in the Wikipedia List of Kidnappings and is properly sourced (see section for 1950 to 1979, as I couldn't link directly) and by a recent WP:RS secondary source, "Documentary film traces trauma of a brutal IRA murder" (10 August 2023) via The Guardian. A court of law sentenced two men to between 5 and 20 years in prison for Niedermayer's death and the men admitted in court to having pistol-whipped Niedermayer to death, then buried his body in a shallow grave. Therefore the other editor's insistence that Niedermayer's death was an accident or due to unknown causes, while being rather rude to at least four editors, seems to me to be something that needs to be addressed.--FeralOink (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

List of South Korean girl groups has an RfC

List of South Korean girl groups has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC - Gaza Health Ministry qualifier

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier

 – ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Maté

Article is using citation methods that goes against WP:NPOV for an example citation/source 8 refers to a third party subjective opinion on the person in the article and uses this as a basis to make seemingly objective information. If this source were to be used, it should correctly state that this is an opinion by the Jewish Chronicle - or described in an article by the Jewish Chronicle, not used as a source to standing alone to use as basis of using adjective terms to describe the person or his current employer. Further, it is disturbing that editors with privileges has locked it and not adressed this issue, but kept as is even though they have continously been made aware of it by the community. Hapsback (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion should be put in the Talk Page of the article.

Locking down pages is normal for edit warring and for certain contentious topics. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the guidelines are not being following according to guidelines on neutrality, and the lock is only enforcing this by ignoring the problem. That is why I posted this. Hapsback (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hapsback, if you want to open an RfC on whether it the Greyzone is a "fringe, far-left site", you can. Otherwise, I believe the consensus is to include that. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit war at Kirk Shaw

While patrolling recent changes, I found that this article about a Canadian film producer is the subject of an edit war in which both sides' preferred versions have significant WP:NPOV and WP:BLP problems. One camp appears to be associated with the article's subject, and the other associated with people involved in a labor dispute with him. For details, see my post on the talk page. Huntthetroll (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

American Legion

American Legion has some POV problems. I have tried to fix many of them, but I do not live in the USA so it would be nice if someone who does can take a look at it.

Polygnotus (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Jinn: RfC: Proposed additions of text 1

Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

User inputs and comments are requested at:

• Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1.

Bookku (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Blacklist/whitelist

I would like some editors to review if these removals at Blacklisting, Blacklist (computing), and Whitelist on "UNDUE" grounds were warranted. Nardog (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Not warrarented. The issue over the racial connotations of those terms is well documented by academic sources so definitely not undue. — Masem (t) 19:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

These controversy sections are in part based on self-published sources, which should be removed, and are firmly rooted in Anglo politics and cultural sensitivities, and wider Western colonial context, which don't make much sense elsewhere in the world. It's WP:UNDUE to devote them sections this long, in proportion to the rest, in articles about technical concepts. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal was not warranted, but I'd agree that the sections were probably longer than they needed to be. @NicolausPrime can you clarify which self-published refs you thought should be removed? I have some WP:SYNTH concerns with a few refs from the Whitelist and Blacklist articles, especially the Martin 1991 ref as I didn't see any mention of either phrase in it, but nothing jumped out as an WP:SPS. There are quite a few refs though so I suspect I'm just missing it. CambrianCrab (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@CambrianCrab: In both Blacklisting and Whitelist, evident self-published sources were [1] and [2], as the former is a blog and the latter is an advice website.

In Blacklist (computing), a large portion of the controversy section text was sourced to:

• A company announcement, [3]
• Twitter post, [4]
• Git commit, [5]
• Another git commit. [6]

These too are WP:SELFPUBLISHED and WP:PRIMARY sources. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I had missed the first two. I did see the ones on Blacklist (computing), but figured those fell more under WP:ABOUTSELF (with the exception of the Git commits, which I agree feel a little more like WP:PRIMARY). Regardless, the bullet points for each company were a bit overkill and I don't think any of those refs are necessary for the articles in question CambrianCrab (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The controversy section in the blacklisting article was preposterous -- considerably larger than the section on every employment blacklist from 1774 to the present (including the Hollywood blacklist). I don't know if it's appropriate to remove the whole thing, but it does not seem reasonable for it to be as gigantic as it was. I feel like one paragraph would suffice, and that's pushing it. jp×g🗯️ 06:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Blacklist (computing) -- this one is less bloated, but it's still quite long, and includes 5 bulletpoints to say the same sentence over and over. There is also weird stuff like "The issue and subsequent changes caused controversy in the computing industry, where "whitelist" and "blacklist" are prevalent (e.g. IP whitelisting)" -- at the end of the section, in an article that just got done explaining what these things were. This also feels like it could just be a single paragraph. jp×g🗯️ 06:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Whitelist -- I would argue the same is true here (four gigantic paragraphs where one would have done the job equally well).

In general I think that these could just be condensed into a single paragraph in a section about the origin of the term. jp×g🗯️ 06:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations

Content on this page appears to be heavily controlled by Michael Jackson fans who will not allow neutral/referenced points they do not agree with or like to be added to the article. The article appears to have a non-neutral point of view/bias towards highlighting that Michael is innocent, and that his accusers were only after financial compensation, e.g. with loaded text such as "Chandler demanded money from Jackson, threatening to go to a criminal court" opening the second paragraph in the introduction.

My recent edit was to provide context to the claim that "The investigation found no physical evidence against Jackson", by adding the factual statement that "less than five per cent of child sexual abuse allegations have medical evidence available, and prosecution typically relies on testimony.", with a supporting reference backing up this statement. The text I added in no way implies Jackson's guilt or innocence; it merely provides context that physical evidence in child sexual abuse cases is the exception, not the norm. Yet multiple editors have reverted my edit, for a bunch of different reasons - none of which appear to be valid.Nqr9 (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The source for less than five per cent of child sexual abuse allegations have medical evidence available, and prosecution typically relies on testimony doesn't mention Michael Jackson, so it is original research. Geogene (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Why does a report on facts about child sexual abuse, in an article relating to an accusation of child sexual abuse, need to mention the alleged perpetrator? That does not make sense.Nqr9 (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Because of Wikipedia's rule against synthesis, WP:SYN. If you want to make this point you need a source that relates to the specific case at hand. MrOllie (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The example of Synthesis at WP:NOREX is very similar to this: Intelligence officers of the attacking forces claimed to have telephoned the residents of buildings where military assets were suspected of being stored, to warn them to leave before it was bombed.[Sourced to an article about the bombing] During the war, 90% of the telephone system was down.[Sourced to an article that does not mention the bombing] (Implied: Thus the attacking forces could not have warned 90% of the residents whose buildings were bombed.) As MrOllie said, if there's a source that applies the testimony statistic to the Michael Jackson case, this won't be a problem. Geogene (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

OK...Nqr9 (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is incredibly biased/non-NPOV in general, though.Nqr9 (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Geogene. I attempted to explain to him one of the potential reasons his edit was reverted. He proceeded to accuse me of being a sock puppet. I am still a newbie and learning to navigate Wikipedia. I fully intend to stick around and contribute to unrelated articles.

Here are his Reddit posts about the situation:

[Redacted]

Here is our conversation on his Talk page:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Nqr9#c-Magnesium77-20240725204400-Nqr9-20240724022300 Magnesium77 (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

What I post on other sites has absolutely zero relevance to what I post here. Any reasonable editor would understand my skepticism on being lectured on Wikipedia rules by an account that was opened less than 48 hours ago, and has only posted on topics relating to Michael Jackson's sexual abuse allegations or discussion relating to this, when I have been posting here for over 18 years. Nice try, but you are not very convincing.Nqr9 (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not attempting to convince you, Nqr9. I merely expected a balanced, neutral and tactful approach from you due to your 18 years of editing experience.

As I explained in the Talk page, I am familiarizing myself with the platform. Reading Wikipedia’s editing rules is part of the process. If that makes me a so-called sock puppet, so be it. Magnesium77 (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Why did you feel a need to mention that I am a cancer patient in one of your replies on my talk page if you are as butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-your-mouth innocent as you claim to be? Using someone’s illness to make a point against them is really quite low and nasty.Nqr9 (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Stay on topic. I was not using your diagnosis to make a point against you. I was simply making an observation. In fact, I even encouraged you to prioritize health and wished you healing on your cancer journey earlier in the conversation. Magnesium77 (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Would WP:DRN be a possible useful place as well? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The Tortured Poets Department and album variants

On the article The Tortured Poets Department, there is disagreement regarding whether the following passage is worthy of inclusion in the article:

"Sales were boosted by the release of "variants" of the album, each containing one bonus song, such as acoustic tracks and voice memo demos. The The Tortured Poet Department is below average for vinyl variants among top-10 selling U.S. physical albums in 2024, with five variants against an average of seven. However, the album had double-digit variants in the mediums of both digital and CD. The trend of releasing significant numbers of physical variants of the same album was popularized by K-pop groups and grew rapidly in 2020. Individual sales of a physical variant album count as a full album sale, weighing as much as 1,500 song streams according to the RIAA. Previous Swift albums—including Folklore, Midnights, and 1989 (Taylor's Version)—also saw large numbers of vinyl variants that similarly proved popular with fans."

References

My position is that it is worth inclusion, while Ippantekina disagrees. Previous discussion on this can be found in this talk page section, with some similar discussion occurring in this earlier talk page section and this RSN discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion: I originally inserted this material because, despite months of coverage from numerous reliable sources, there was only a single sentence on the role multiple album variants played in the album's dominance of the charts in continues volume of sales. This sentence was targeted for removal and ultimately resulted an overwhelming majority at RSN recognizing its relevance. The passage being discussed here focusses on identifying the significance of the multiple variants (over 30 in total) by selecting a couple of the innumerable RS articles from over a multi-month period that covered the subject (a sampling: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]). It neutrally establishes the context for Swift releasing the multiple variants within a broader industry trend and acknowledges her previous employment of the sales tactic in the past. I believe the persistent minimization of this content, while subjective material received extended coverage in the lead, reflects an NPOV issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 Harehills riot

Hi all

I'd like to request help, please could someone assess the NPOV of the article 2024 Harehills riot and if the actions of any editors are breaking any rules and what can be done to discourage future NPOV additions. This is not really an area I work on but for context the event has been a strong focus of racist online forums, Facebook and the right wing press. I have not contributed to the article, but my reading of the situation there are several editors (or maybe one editor with multiple accounts) are being extremely NPOV:

• A number of accounts which don't appear to have edited any articles or many articles before are edit warring with established editors, the fact that they appear to start when the previous one stops might indicate they are sock puppets
• The information they are adding is what I read as a British person as British tabloid style racist dogwhistles to the great replacement conspiracy theory; that Pakistanis, muslims and Roma 'taking over' areas of the UK, they're even trying to include anti Palestinian and anti Romanian dog whistles somehow.

If someone could take a look and suggest a good course of action that would be really helpful, if the article coud be protected in some way that would be helpful I'm sure.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That Background section is highly dubious. I've just posted this on the talk page in the already opened thread on the Background: This section is very WP:SYNTHy. It's using sourcing pre-dating the incident (largely) to editorialise what editors here in Wikipedia think is relevant to the incident. Those issues should be strictly limited to what the sourcing reporting the incident is giving as relevant background. I'm seeing very little of that. DeCausa (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much DeCausa, I guess my question is is there any protections that could be added given what has happened (lots of edit warring, lots of dubious edits) that would discourage this continuing, it looks like a lot of work to stop it becoming very NPOV. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act

Hi all, requesting help from non-involved editors to keep this article neutral and suitable for an encyclopedia.

• The bill is currently making its way through the California legislature and has become the subject of heated online debate.
• Recent additions are welcome but have made the article unbalanced. Would like to see the article become weighted more evenly between support and opposition if possible.

Thanks for your help. Astudent (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, the article is much improved from the extra attention. Removing the Unbalanced template. Cheers. Astudent (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it NPOV or UNDUE to include basic details about the ownership of Reform UK in the main articles including those of MPs?

User:Czello and I are having a very collegial discussion about their edits here[15] where I added details about the ownership of the party, including the its share holders and also added "Reform UK is a limited company (Reform UK Party Limited) controlled by Nigel Farage." to the lead. This is a unique situation in the UK and little known I believe, and I think it is relevant and important for the sake of transparency. It's an uncontested fact, stated on their web pages and by Farage himself as well as reliable sources. I've told Czello I'm posting here and would like other opinions. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, on their page, but we did not need it on every page. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems entirely undue in bios of the MPs. Do WP:RS even mention this when discussing them? We don't discuss the complex relationship between the Labour Party and Trade unions in articles on their MPs, or the equally-convoluted relationship between local Conservative Associations and the broader party in tory MP bios. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That's entirely different. Those relationships don't involve legal ownership. I don't understand how they can be compared. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This feels like coat racking unless that ownership issue is specifically discussed in context of the MP biography. — Masem (t) 16:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

On main page, sure, not on the others unless RS are explicitly linking them to the fact for some reason. Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Presumably it's ok on the BLPs of the shareholders? Doug Weller talk 16:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No, as its still not about Reform. After all (other stuff alert) I am unsure this is a common practice to list a person's share holdings. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Nigel Farage's page lists share holdings (other than these). Doug Weller talk 17:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And I can't understand why an article about an officer of the party shouldn't mention that they also own shares in it. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

So not then, its not usual. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to mention this in the articles about the party and about Farage himself as we do have RS describing the "unusual arrangement." I don't think it should be mentioned in the articles about other members of the party, unless RS overwhelmingly do so. Alaexis_¿question? 17:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I am in opposition to mentioning it for the reasons I laid out here, but to summarise:

• It is, ultimately, WP:UNDUE. McMurdock is one of their MPs, but is not a shareholder or otherwise seemingly involved in the mechanics of how the party runs.
• Talking about the technicalities of how the party runs, no matter how different to regular parties, it outside of the scope of his article. If anyone wants to learn how it works, they can visit the Reform UK article page.
• Fundamentally, the article is about McMurdock – not the stocks and shares of his party.
• We do not mention the internal mechanics of other political parties on their respective MPs' pages.
• The sources do not mention McMurdock at all, which indicates that how the party runs is not notable in relation to McMurdock himself. (As a general rule of thumb, if a source doesn't mention the subject then it's probably there to support something that shouldn't be there.)
• I am, however, in favour of mentioning such a system on the Reform UK page and on the pages of Farage and Tice (each of whom own shares in Reform), as these seem more relevant.

Also worth mentioning DeFacto is also in opposition (pinging per WP:APPNOTE), although this user is currently under a short block. — Czello ^(music) 18:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

In the article for the party and maybe to a smaller extent in the article for Farage himself, but I don't think it's necessary not repeat it in every MP's article. That is unless secondary sources make note of it in relation to the specific subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

So besides Farage, the only other shareholder with an article is Richard Tice who is mentioned in several sources. Thanks guys. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

From the sources I've seen I'd think Farage and Tice would be fine because of their roles in the party, their shareholdings and the unusual relationship. I'd probably steer away from other MPs though unless there was something more in RS. I'd think the party's article should be fine too, again given the unusual set-up and that it is well covered in RS. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre

The article is subject to an ongoing edit war which I am involved in, but not the primary instigator. The current point of contention is the first sentence, for which I've submitted an RfC. It's my understanding that there are some differences between the meaning of Srebrenica massacre / Srebrenica genocide and between proposed terms in the opening sentence to qualify it as any of massacre, genocidal massacre, and/or genocidal killings. There are implications to the edit war which violates NPOV by way of introducing terms which exclude the totality of what is meant by these terms and appear to objectively lessen the totality of crimes denoted by the terms. In particular, the opposite party has for multiple days now been submitting a revert which would exclude rape and deportation. I previously notified an administrator who is aware of the edit warring but may not of their own volition have time to address it. 122141510 (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)