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

Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

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

---

• Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was started and for a long time WP:OWNed by a now blocked sockpuppet of a banned user.

One of the things this user introduced was an extensive primary-sourced section on commentary over the book's withdrawal from Amazon.

There is now a dispute over whether these primary-sourced opinion pieces belong int he article.

They are:

• Dreher, Rod (July 3, 2019). "Amazon.com Surrenders To The Homintern". The American Conservative. Retrieved 5 July 2019.
• Eidenberg, David (May 26, 1998). "It's all in your head". The Advocate. No. 760. pp. 49–52.
• Gander, Kashmira (July 24, 2019). "'Outright abuse of children': Doctor warns Amazon not to sell 'extremely dangerous' books on gay conversion therapy". Newsweek. Retrieved 29 July 2019.
• Hirst, Jordan (August 1, 2019). "Australian booksellers petitioned to pull 'conversion therapy' titles". QNews. Retrieved 4 August 2019.
• Knight, Robert (July 16, 2019). "How Democracy Dies in Darkness". Townhall. Retrieved 11 August 2019.
• Newhauser, Daniel (July 20, 2019). "Exclusive: House Republicans are pressuring Amazon to sell books on gay conversion therapy". Vice News. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
• Nicolosi Jr., Joseph (July 10, 2019). "Amazon Just Banned My Dad's Therapy Books, Caving to LGBT Activists". The Daily Signal. Retrieved 4 August 2019.
• Polumbo, Brad (July 10, 2019). "The complicated case of Amazon banning books promoting gay conversion therapy". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 13 July 2019.

We have at least two solid secondary sources discussing the Amazon withdrawal. It is my contention that (a) we do not need primary-sourced opinion pieces; (b) we definitely don't need primary-sourced opinion pieces with titles like "Amazon.com Surrenders To The Homintern", and (c) given that this is a book promting the pseudoscientific and dangerous practice of conversion therapy we should be really careful to include only secondary sources. The Dreher piece is especially contentious: Google shows 24 hits for the article title, none of which seem to me to establish its significance per WP:UNDUE.

Against that we have an editor who says that there's no policy-based reason for not including primary-sourced opinion pieces from biased sources. Guy (help!) 20:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

1. The commentary is only acceptable insofar as it deals with Amazon's policy; anything that discusses the book's content is subject to WP:MEDRS, which excludes "primary-sourced opinion pieces from biased sources".
2. While "Amazon sells other dangerous produce, so why not this?" is a valid point to make (at least by Wikipedia's usual standards), "these people, these activists, are totalitarian. They are trying to control via pressure on Woke Capitalists what people are allowed to read" (Dreher) isn't. Use common sense and the usual sourcing policies to filter out anything that smells of provocation.
3. Mind that contemporaneous expert reviews may not be up-to-date with current medical knowledge; such reviews could still be useful for historical knowledge, but care should be taken so as not to suggest they're anything but. François Robere (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• A few of the pieces above seem likely to be UNDUE, even FRINGE, especially the Dreher piece, for reasons you've outlined. The American Conservative and The Daily Signal are also really scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as sourcing quality goes. If (as seems to be the case, with Reno) a secondary source has quoted Dreher, we should at least just cite that secondary source and drop the primary source, if not removing Dreher entirely on grounds of UNDUEness (and likewise for the direct citation of the Daily Signal). Secondary sources reporting that "Amazon's withdrawal of the book was criticized [by group X / person Y]" would be better, and higher quality sources would be better, than primary opinion pieces saying "I criticize this!". I note that Newhauser (included in the list above) seems to be not a primary source of criticism but rather a secondary(?) source—albeit not one of particularly high quality—reporting an action by House lawmakers (no?), so using that piece to support the sentence which it supports seems like a different kind of thing from using Dreher to support Dreher's ideas about a Homintern. (I would also echo Robere's point that if any of this were being used to support a medical claim, that would clearly have to go, but it seems that it is only being used to support non-medical claims.) -sche (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  -sche, yes, Newhauser is secondary but Vice is a crappy source. Guy (help!) 09:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  The reception section of the article is far too long, as it currently stands. Vice is not the only crappy source. Townhall, Daily Signal, and Washington Examiner are also "scraping the bottom of the barrel. I concur that a single secondary source summarizing the views of critics is sufficient. As it currently stands, the large number of (poor quality) sources are WP:UNDUE. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Question Does anyone actually oppose the merging of this book's article with the author's article, something I proposed some time ago and which has not received objections here:Talk:Joseph_Nicolosi#Merge_with_Reparative_Therapy_of_Male_Homosexuality? If this is done, the relevance to the subject of the squabbles in the print- and blogosphere-media is drastically reduced and many of the more questionable sources can be dropped and the wording redone from that perspective. Merge first and ask questions later? GPinkerton (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

McKenzie method

I think in article McKenzie method violates the Neutral point of view. The essence of the dispute is set forth in here. The debate concerns mainly the chapter "Effectiveness". NDenPT (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• You have been here under two weeks and have no edits outside this topic, so it's not a surprise that you would misunderstand the difference between WP:NPOV and "balance" for fringe topics. As Alexbrn and Roxy the dog have I think explained, the sources you promote do not counter the facts in the article. We have seen lot of this in relation to, e.g., chiropractic, where chiropractors come along with a paper that says "spinal manipulation as effective as NSAIDs for chronic lower back pain" when in fact what they mean is "NSAIDs don't work for chronic lower back pain and neither does chiropractic". Nothing works well for chronic lower back pain. The human spine is a clinching argument against intelligent design. Guy (help!) 12:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think the sources quite present the positive framing the OP wants (who incidentally, is remaining conspicuously schtum in response to questions about a COI). For example, when a source says "There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that MDT is not superior to other rehabilitation interventions" then it wouldn't be right tor Wikipedia to say it's the "same as" those other interventions, as the OP seems to want. Anyway, once again: NDenPT, do you have a WP:COI to declare? Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• JzG I do not promote sources, but use those that are. Alexbrn sources do not exactly indicate such a negative point of view, as it is presented in the English-language Wikipedia. And during this discussion, I studied all the available Wikipedia articles about the McKenzie method in different languages: none of them have so much negative information about the effectiveness of the method. While the sources used in most cases were similar. Regarding WP: COI. Alexbrn, this is your third time writing to me about this, although I answered you the previous two. Therefore, I repeat, I am a physiotherapist and use the Mackenzie method as one of the tools in my work. When I came across this page, I was very surprised at its contents, as I know how this method works and have an idea of ​​its effectiveness. Therefore, now my aspiration is to improve the content of the article so that it matches the encyclopedic style and displays a neutral point of view. I would attribute my role more to Subject-matter expert. NDenPT (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  NDenPT, you say subject-matter expert, we see COI. You make money from this, and the science shows it to be just another dead end pet theory. Your aim, according to the Talk page, is to make the article reflect your view of the topic, but those who are disputing your edits are some of our most experienced editors of articles on fringe scientific and medical topics. Consider the possibility that we may in fact know more about how Wikipedia represents such theories than you do. Guy (help!) 08:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Science does not show that this is a dead end theory. Unlike the english-language Wikipedia. NDenPT (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

If that is the case, then you'll have no problem presenting references to support your assertions at the article Talk page, will you? That's all we've been asking for all along. You may be a subject matter expert, but you dont appear to know much about science, or how to understand clinical trials or reviews. Remember, we are Wikipedia experts. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair (and I'm not a subject matter expert) from the sources, the Method seems to be based around some fairly unexceptional exercises, despite some unfortunate links to the lunacy that is chiropractic[1]. Like many interventions for lower back pain there seems to be some not very good evidence the Method maybe kinda sort works, but maybe not more or less than other similar unbranded interventions. The executive summary for recent MEDRS on this topic would be "meh"; the OP wishes it to be "yay!". We can't ignore the sources. Non-English Wikipedias are of course unreliable sources and for fringe and medical topics ome of them really suck. Alexbrn (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

All this discussion comes down to ensuring that the information on Wikipedia matches the information in available sources. For example, in some cases, its effectiveness maybe more or not less than other similar unbranded interventions. I think it’s important to talk about it NDenPT (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

We say, per the sources, "Evidence suggests it may be better than some other approaches for chronic lower back pain, but this evidence is insufficient to inform clinical decision making." The sources won't allow anything much more "positive" than that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Your position I understand. Will wait for new high-quality information. NDenPT (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, yup. "Works as well as standard of care" for lower back pain is equal to "doesn't work". Guy (help!) 09:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Let scientists judge it. Guy you are not a scientist? NDenPT (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

NDenPT, this is Wikipedia, everyone here is an amateur. But I have a fair bit of experience of fringe medicine and pseudoscience. By a fair bit, I mean more than I would wish on my worst enemy. Guy (help!) 18:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do you purposely paint the McKenzie Method in bad light on Wikipedia. Personally I have neither experienced nor used the method but I have several relatives who have suffered from bad back pain. After they had gotten treatment in various ways most of them attributed their recovery to the McKenzie Method. This interested me hence why I decided to check up on the method but all I find is that Wikipedia is filled with information about how untrustworthy and simply bad the method is. This lead me to the talk page and that showed me that people have come forward with trustworthy and neutral information about the methods apparent success. But every time people do that, others shut them down with arguably lesser sources. Even though you claim that newer and more neutral sources are better you seem adamant to paint the method in a bad light. I inquire of you: Why are you such a biased person who acts in bad faith against Wikipedia's universal NPOV? There seems like two or more of you (Guy, Roxy, Alexbrn) have a personal vendetta against the McKenzie Method. Whether it's because you have had personal bad experiences with it or not I don't think the two (or more) of you refusing the edits of experienced practitioners are acting in good faith. The only reason they aren't getting their viewpoints across is because you two have more experience with Wikipedia and is using Wikipedia as a form of Gate-keeping them from successfully getting their point accross. This is a gross violation of the NPOV and a clear furthering of your own agenda. Even going so far as to disregard every article in other languages. Doubly moreso considering one of you holds the admin position. MarqReg (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

We need to summarize good sources accurately. That is all there is to it. No amount of hand waving and socking is going to change that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV violations at Race and crime in the United States

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

---

[2]This edit is a NPOV violation and should be reverted.

Two editors on the Race and crime in the United States page (a page that has in the past been used by white supremacists and racists to defend their rhetoric about black people), "Gazelle55" and "David A", are removing all peer-reviewed research from the article about evidence that racial biases among police, juries and judges affect police interactions with blacks, arrests of blacks, convictions of blacks, and sentencing of blacks. These are studies published in the top journals. The editors have moved all of this content to another less prominent page with much fewer pageviews (Race in the United States criminal justice system). The editors are completely incapable of justifying why this content should be moved: if discrimination by law enforcement and judges/juries increases the black-white gap in crime, then it's obviously pertinent to the page Race and crime in the United States, which is primarily about the rates that different races commit crimes. The editor "David A" justified the removal of the studies with:

• "I personally much prefer raw data/statistics over subjective interpretation,"[3]
• by falsely accusing me of being paid by George Soros and that I'm "helping to instigate a violent overthrow of western civilisation."[4]

The removal of content which contextualizes and explains the black-white gap is a clear NPOV violation. Furthermore, the fact that it's happening on a page with a sordid past (the page has been used as a propaganda tool and recruitment tool for racists), it's imperative that the content be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that I went too far. I have just noticed that Snoogans has been completely dedicated to full time onesided editing for a few years now, and tried to politely reason with him that what he is doing seems genuinely dangerous, but I have clinical paranoia, so I automatically see patterns everywhere. My apologies if I brought offense. I will try to butt out of the discussion. My personal concern is simply that I am worried about the incendiary situation in the world as a whole, and would like to try to calm things down. David A (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You're basically admitting to scrubbing peer-reviewed research from Wikipedia because you fear that people will read those studies and be inclined to participate in protests that you disagree with. It's not only bonkers but incredibly disruptive to the Wikipedia project. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I support peaceful protesting against genuine racism. I am only concerned about that there is no longer calm discussion for constructive solutions, but public hysteria instead. Anyway, I just thought that it would be better to split the information between one statistics page and one evaluation page, and my direct involvement was limited to undoing a single edit. Anyway, it is very possible that I made a bad evaluation. David A (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You will need to provide a dif to show that is what the editor actually said vs your characterization of what they actually said. Springee (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It's the comment I'm responding to. You do realize that you do not HAVE to oppose and challenge every single thing I say and defend others who are calling me a paid Soros agent? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Snoog, I would be more sympathetic with your concern if you were the one to receive the first stone vs cast it. You made an uncivil comment about David [[5]] prior to their comment about your editing [[6]]. Springee (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mention Soros, and my mother is Jewish for that matter. I just find it odd that you are able to literally do what you are doing full time without a break for years, and systematically index comments about it in your user page. However, I likely went too far. My apologies. David A (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No just implied it ".you may be paid by Open Society or some similar organisation", please read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. My apologies for being too much of a filter-deprived bigmouth. It was inappropriate, yes. David A (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

David A, if your aim was to come across as an agenda-based editor who views this as a battleground in the culture wars: mission accomplished. Guy (help!) 08:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go that far. The only thing that I did was to stupidly revert a single edit due to not thinking things through, and believing that the information should be split between two different pages. I am also barely active in Wikipedia editing in general nowadays.

However, I have noticed that Snoogans has been engaged full time for years in what may be one of the biggest cases of tendentious editing in Wikipedia history, and given that he also has to eat, and I am a filter-deprived autistic loudmouth with no social skills, I let speculation run wild, which I have repeatedly apologised for, as it was inappropriate. I was insulted first though, and tried to remain polite. David A (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh. It seems like you were referring to my comment above about that I am worried about the current uproar and would prefer to help calm things down. I wasn't intending to refer to this particular incident, but rather speaking in general, and about that I found some statistics that contradict the narrative that all police officers are to blame for the severe crimes of some of them: [7] David A (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

David A, ah, well, that would be one of those things where the problem is defined largely by the POV of the observer. Cops keep killing Black people: "few bad apples". One Antifa dude hit Andy Ngo: Terorrist group. Guy (help!) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Look, I am just uncomfortable with uniformly condemning everybody in a certain group for the actions of some of them. It is one thing if they explicitly adhere to a genocidal and/or totalitarian ideology or somesuch, but otherwise it doesn't sit right with me. I do not think that this is such a controversial viewpoint.

Anyway, I do not dispute that I was an uninformed dumbass who misunderstood this entire situation due to not making an effort to focus and read into it (the ADHD doesn't help either), and then made a bit of a mess. I am not the most mentally stable person in the world, and am already under a great deal of stress, and work very hard in combination, so I wish that I had not impulsively involved myself in any of this. David A (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

David A, I get it. I have PTSD. This is not a good time for anyone. Guy (help!) 18:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I also want things to calm down a lot. There are too many awful things happening right now. There may even be a war between China and India, which would likely drag in the rest of the world into it. I am very stressed out. David A (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

We are not here to right great wrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Snoog, I'm not sure you have made the case that this is NPOV vs simply what is/isn't in scope for the article. How much of the recently removed content was the material you added earlier this month vs long term material? Also, comments like this are problematic when trying to address content disputes [[8]]. Please FOC and remain CIVIL. Springee (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think both sides may be at fault, but I dislike such massive removals without discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That is a very fair point regardless of how much was new vs stable content. Springee (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I probably made a mistake here. As I mentioned, I am just concerned about the general volatile situation in the world right now, but I am also paranoid in general. That said, we were having a discussion in the Talk page regarding the issue. David A (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

David A, is it your position that the conclusions in the sources should not be reported because they have inaccurately analyzed the underlying statistics? If so that is contrary to policy. Wikipedia articles are based primarily on secondary sources and we report their conclusions. Use of raw material is usually only used to illustrate the claims made in secondary sources. It is implied synthesis to present raw data where it is intended to lead readers to a conclusion.

If you suspect that the conclusions in a reliable source are wrong, the correct approach is to find reliable sources that come to a different conclusion and discuss. Note that many conspiracy theory websites use facts or raw data used in reliable sources and come to diametrically opposed conclusions. But policy requires us to ignore them.

Also, I'm a little confused about the discussion of Stalinism. I'm sure that Snoogansnoogans enthusiastically supports American capitalism and it makes no difference what editors' beliefs are so long as they follow policy and guidelines.

TFD (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned, I probably made a mistake in undoing the edit, but I wanted to at least finish the discussion in the talk page for the article before they were reinserted. I also thought that it would better to not feature duplicate content for two different pages.

I am also not good at handling social interactions or Wikipedia bureaucratic procedures. I was just trying to figure out what might motivate Snoogans to be so extremely committed to his editing pattern for such a very long time, and have a polite conversation about it. However, this only seems to have angered him further. David A (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I have to go to bed very soon. I hope that nothing bad has happened when I wake up. I have very limited available time and energy to engage in any additional drama outside of the wiki that I take care of. David A (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I am very surprised to find myself on this noticeboard, and in particular that Snooganssnoogans says I provided absolutely no explanation for the changes. In fact, let me copy here the long message I posted on the talk page:

"Hi, Snooganssnoogans, thanks for posting on the talk page where we can discuss this in more depth. In order to understand the causes of discrepancies between races in crime rates in the data, we have to understand how the data is collected. There are two main sources, as the article says. The NCVS is based on surveying people and asking what crimes they have been victims of and who the perpetrator was, regardless of whether they told the police or whether the person was arrested or convicted. So it doesn't rely on data from the criminal justice system in any way. The UCR relies on data provided by law enforcement (though not the judicial or prison systems), so it could be influenced by policing practices. This is why I initially left the section on discrimination by law enforcement in when I removed some other out-of-scope material.

"However, I then examined the individual sources being cited and it became clear that none of them discussed the nature and extent of the impact of discrimination by law enforcement on crime statistics. Therefore, it violates WP:SYNTH and perhaps WP:OR to invoke these articles in support of a conclusion they did not draw. If you have sources that do draw this conclusion, please add them! However, it is not entirely straightforward to conclude this has biased the crime statistics, for two reasons. Firstly, as the article says, research shows NCVS and UCR data have come to very similar conclusions (despite no potential for bias in the criminal justice system biasing the NCVS data). Secondly, while most of the research cited in the relevant section of the Race in the United States criminal justice system page points to a level of discrimination by police, some research (also cited on that page) has disagreed (see D'Alessio & Stolzenberg, 2003). (It seems to be more unanimous that there is discrimination in sentencing, but again, judicial system data is not being used by either data source.)

"So no, I was not "scrubbing" anything from the page. I was trying to ensure it complied with Wikipedia guidelines. That said, if I have misunderstood something, let me know so we can move forward with improving the article." Gazelle55 (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I was responsible for the vast majority of the edits Snooganssnoogans was complaining about to the article, but let me provide some background on the events. Before removing any material I helped re-organize material into the proper sections, added links, fixed grammar, etc. I also helped re-organize the Race in the United States criminal justice system page, without changing the content except for removing some things that were out of scope (which nobody contested). I then posted on the talk page for Race and crime in the United States explaining I felt some material belonged on the other page. After receiving no response for a day I went ahead and moved the material. Snooganssnoogans then undid some of my edits and proposed a merger of the two articles. I responded politely to his suggestions. He responded very briefly. Two other editors, including David A, agreed that a merger was not warranted. After no response from Snooganssnoogans for another two days, I moved the material again. Snoogansnoogans reversed my edits and posted on the talk page. I responded in depth as you can see from what I copied above. Before I could respond again, he had accused me of an NPOV violation and posted on this board.

At no time did I accuse anyone of bad faith or suggest I was changing the article to right wrongs in the world. I consistently cited Wikipedia guidelines. The material in the lead, which Snooganssnoogans seems most opposed to removing, was adding by Snooganssnoogans about two weeks ago. If I have done something wrong please inform me, but I feel I have been diligently following Wikipedia guidelines and trying to improve the encyclopedia. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do not think that Gazelle has done anything wrong. Snoogans insulted me, after which I was too much of a bigmouth and started to let my pattern-recognition run wild without a filter. I tried to be polite though. David A (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It's okay, David A, you don't need to defend me. I am confident that the people at the NPOV noticeboard can assess the situation fairly and let me know if I have done anything wrong. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(i) "it became clear that none of them discussed the nature and extent of the impact of discrimination by law enforcement on crime statistics." The studies were all about racial biases in police stops, police arrests, and jury/judge convictions and sentencing. You maintain that these studies have nothing to do with the relationship between race and crime? For example, can you explain how this study[9] in the top econ journal has nothing to say about the conviction rates of blacks? (ii) Your other rationale for removing peer-reviewed studies is that you personally believe that two existing datasets on crime show no racial bias and that there is a 2003 study that finds no evidence of racial bias, thus all those other studies must be wrong. If sources disagree, then the solution is not to scrub the peer-reviewed literature from the page, but to include the rebuttal studies. 20:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand better the misunderstanding that has taken place. I agree that any racial bias in police arrests will influence arrest numbers, and that racial biases in juries and judges influence sentencing/convictions. So I don't think I disagree with your reading of the study you linked to above in any way. It is the context in which these studies are being invoked that I disagree with. Crime statistics are not the same as arrest statistics or sentencing statistics or incarceration statistics. There are ways of differentiating between the rates of crime vs arrests vs sentencing vs incarceration. This is why, for example, reliable sources argue that African Americans and Hispanic Americans are disproportionately arrested, sentenced, and incarcerated for drug crimes, even though all races commit drug crimes at similar rates. My point is that we as editors should not be the ones to make that link between crime statistics and arrest/sentencing/incarceration statistics. That additional step needs to be made by reliable sources. If there are sources that make this step, then they belong in the article. But the existing ones are discussing a different topic, that is arrest statistics or sentencing statistics or incarceration statistics, and as I said I checked and none of them claim this infers the crime statistics are biased.

My point was not that I "personally believe" there is no bias in the NCVS and UCR data—I was saying we need reliable sources to say so. Also, I was not saying that one 2003 study on violent crime and arrests invalidates other studies—I was making a side point that we could not treat it as self-evident that the UCR must be biased because it relies on law enforcement data (given the absence of sources drawing that link). Again, my point is just to leave things to WP:RS. Anyway, I would be happy to discuss this further on the talk page (which is why I have left the material in until we can resolve this), but I certainly don't think I have been violating NPOV. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, a bit of an aside, but I think the article should have a section on drug crimes, where I understand the racial disparity in crime does not exist. This would help provide a more holistic view on race and crime. I will need to find sources first, though. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Given what David has said I think this should be closed, before it does any harm.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, I saw your comment about seeking discussion before large-scale removals of content. In the future if I ever think removing a large amount of content is appropriate I will wait longer than just a day for a response on whether it is a good idea. Anyway, I don't want to spend much more time on this and I don't think Snooganssnoogans and I will likely come to an agreement. Is it possible for the editors here to adjudicate whether the contested material is within scope or not? I'm not totally familiar with what this noticeboard does and doesn't cover. Anyway, if it would require going to a separate dispute resolution venue I am tired of this controversy and would rather not bother (would leave the page as is). Thanks for letting me know. Gazelle55 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

My concern is statements by some users about how this is adversely affecting them. So I think it might be best if some form of wp:dr was launched. As we just seem to be going causing undue stress without getting anywhere.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense, closing the discussion here sound like the compassionate thing to do. I am going to leave the page as is for now but perhaps can try to resolve the dispute some week when I am less busy. Thanks Gazelle55 (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Iraqi monarchy

The usual problem of "royalcruft" appears to infect Ra'ad bin Zeid and successors, but with a complication that the British-installed Hashemite monarchy is still apparently recognised by the Jordanian house of Hashem (unsurprisingly). The result is articles that refer to people as Jordanian Prince(ss)es and (crown) prince(ss)es of Iraq despite Iraq being a republic since 1959. This is further compliucated by the recent deprecation of some self-published royalty fansites,m which were the only sources for much of the content, notably the styles and titles. I have switched Ra'ad bin Zeid from {{infobox royalty}} to {{infobox person}}, but Princess Sarah Zeid of Jordan is more complex - is she actually a Jordanian Princess, or a "Princess" of Iraq recongised by Jordan and thus referred to by Jordan as royalty? It's unclear (and the tone of many sources makes Hello! look like the FT). Guy (help!) 10:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, Sarah Zeid's husband, Zeid Raad Al Hussein, does seems to be referred to as a Prince in reliable sources (NYT, IOC). I'll see if I can turn up anything more. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: That was easier than I expected. Ra'ad bin Zeid appears to be a genuine Prince of Jordan; he served as Regent of Jordan as recently as last year as well (Jordanian State Media). Also found this from a UN website. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Persistent COI sockpuppetry on Escobar Inc

Hello all,

I am nominating Escobar Inc to be checked for its neutrality, because it has been the target of so much sockpuppetry over the past month that it is very hard to determine what is biased and what is correct. There have been two opposing factions of sockpuppets connected to or possibly created by people associated with the company - those of WowWashington, who are on the side of former executive Daniel Reitberg, and those of Verbatimusia, who are apparently on the side of current executive Olof Gustafsson. These sockpuppet armies have edit-warred over the page and filed SPI cases against each other. In addition, there are several fishy-looking lone wolf contributors to the page such as Danielreitberg, whom Juanmestizo claims is actually Olof Gustafsson trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and not Daniel Reitberg as his name might suggest. This whole thing is a complete mess and I am hoping someone here can bring back a semblance of normality. Passengerpigeon (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Mustang

There is currently a dispute around the prehistory section in the Mustang article, which has resulted in the article being locked. In essence, the dispute is because there is a lot of argument about whether Mustangs are an invasive or re-introduced species. The taxonomy for Pleistocene North American equines is a complete mess, with over 50 species having being named, often from dubious material. Recent papers sequencing ancient DNA from prehistoric equine specimens from the Late Pleistocene ~(50,000 to 12,000 years ago) have found that some of the specimens are closely related to living horses and have been suggested to be part of the same species, see. . The dispute revolves around the due weight of phrasing this section about the relationship between the north american caballine (horse-line) equines and wild horses (given that this relationship is based on primary sources), the distinction between the E. ferus and E. caballus, and whether mentioning the New world stilt legged horse, Haringtonhippus, which the only other equine in Late Pleistocene North America alongside caballines, and Przewalski's horse are revevant.

Another issue is whether it is due weight to include a footnote about the idea that the horse was present in North America prior to Columbus, the current text is as follows

In 1991, ethnohistorian Claire Henderson put forth a theory based in part on Lakota Sioux oral history that Equus was not completely extirpated from North America, but that the northern Plains Indians had domesticated and preserved horses prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Deb Bennett, a vertebrate paleontologist who, at the time was on the staff of the Smithsonian Institution, expressed skepticism about Henderson's theory, but conceded that "there may have been isolated pockets of grasslands untouched by the glaciers of the Ice Age in which horses could have survived. However, it is generally accepted that, at the beginning of the Columbian Exchange, there were no equids in the Americas. [references have been removed for clarity]

This refers to The Aboriginal North American Horse a statement apparently given by Dr. Henderson (who I can find nothing about) in 1991 in response to a North Dakota bill, the full context of which can be found in this Chicago Tribune article, which includes Deb Bennett views. However, given that this theory is not mentioned in any reliable sources, per WP:FRINGE it should not be mentioned at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Hemiauchenia and Alexbrn, WP:FRINGE is pretty clear on this and it's not WP:DUE. buidhe 11:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• If somebody's "theory" (fringe or not) is not given coverage in secondary sources, then on the face of it any mention would be WP:UNDUE for sure. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK at the History of Poland lead

The lead in History of Poland was overly embellished with phrased such as "thousands of years of human activity", "an inseparable part of western civilization", "intricate history", "innumerable tribes" and "brilliant period of economic prosperity".[10] I took to cleaning it up,[11][12] but was reverted.[13][14] I've looked at the articles of Poland's neighbours' (Germany, Czech Republic, etc.), and none are so embellished; nor are Greece or Syria, whose histories span many thousands of years. I've tried to discuss it,[15] but obviously some editors think it stylish or due. Comment welcome. François Robere (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The “brilliant”, “intricate” and the “innumerable” are def peacock-y, but “thousands of years of human activity” is factual (although it’d be better to be more precise here) and the “inseparable” is a judgement call which we leave up to the sources. Volunteer Marek 20:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the "thousands" to "2,000", but it was removed. "Inseparable" isn't in any source. François Robere (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

How in the world did you get 2000? Volunteer Marek 02:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

One datum or another from History of Poland#Prehistory and protohistory. François Robere (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I tried to fix the beginning of the lead in multiple ways already, (finally by just mostly removing the offending first paragraph of the lead, as it was unnecessary anyway and only recently added), but the two editors there just keep adding back the absurd tourism-pamphlet-style wording back in. (The issues are puffery, but also vagueness/lack of precision of certain phrases.)

To be honest I don't know how to proceed: they are not giving any argumentation or anything, so I can't even imagine what would a compromise-solution be like because I don't know what their position is (except that they like tourism advertisements better than encyclopedias or something). An RfC seems like a potential, but tricky solution: what would I name the RfC; I mean I don't know if there should be a different RfC for each offending phrase, or what? (The whole first paragraph of the lead is horrible, but there is at least one other offending phrase in the next paragraph.) And why would an RfC even be needed for such blatant style and verifiability violations? What do other editors usually do in such a situation? Notrium (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think a single formal RfC is a good idea, as it will draw attention to the issue. Each offending passage should be a individual question for inclusion or exclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur, particularly with regards to clearly specifying which parts I disputed. For example, some peacock terms listed above (and I agree they are peackock-ish) seem to have been removed from the most recent versions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence is also a meandering sea of blue that needs to be rewritten. A laundry list of vague links isn’t as helpful as prose that actually names the respective entities (e.g. Lechites instead of ancient tribes). — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Map of EastMed pipeline

The notice for this article is its map (right side). Quick rundown, the article is about a planned pipeline project with 3 participant countries, Israel, Cyprus and Greece. Carrying gas from Israel to Greece in that order. The POV dispute is regarding the coloring of other countries, namely entire Europe the same color as the 3 participating countries, due to an organization called Union for the Mediterranean. This organization, per the references in the article has no connection to the project, yet it is colored in the map. 3 users (who have pro-Greek histories) have reverted me when I removed this organization from the map. I have opened a discussion and pinged them regarding this unreferenced addition to the map, which they did not respond. Can an administrator share their thoughts on this? ArtyomSokolov (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Map with POV issues

@ArtyomSokolov: This is ludicrous. You clearly fail to understand that the main reason for my reverting is you adding that problematic map (as I explained on the relevant talk page) and not the removal of the existing map. By the way, I'm not on Wikipedia 24/7. We are all volunteers here so give people some time to reply before escalating.

Please read my reply here as well. Esslet (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812

There is currently no dispute but I would like guidance on a couple of issues:

A) I am changing all instances of "Indian" since the term is highly deprecated, and presumably falls into the category of things that should not be said in wikivoice. Where I can discern that it is a particular tribe, I am using the name of that tribe. Where it is more global (since many tribes were involved in this war) I have been using "tribal", "Native" or "Native American." First of all, is there any policy on any of "those" terms? I haven't had to use First Nations yet, as the one battle I have seen in Quebec so far specifically involved the Mohawk.

B) what to do about long pull-out quotes from Americans of the period, some of which are cringeworthy, and at least one of which is pretty racist? Article also repeatedly complains that Indians were preventing Americans from taking good land. I haven't really tackled this yet.

C) article seems very focused on unquestioned US expansionism, but also goes into great length about the British insults to American honor, etc. I have already flagged the article NPOV for this. I am assuming that the thing to do here is write about these things, which do seem to have been factors, as neutrally as possible without seeming to endorse them?

Feedback appreciated. Elinruby (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There are discussions in the archives about this. Modern historians refer to them as Indians which was the term used at the time. The terms tribe and Native American are only used in the U.S. and native and tribe are considered offensive Canada, while the term First Nations is used in Canada to refer to its aboriginal population.

There is nothing wrong with quoting what people said at the time, even if it would be considered politically incorrect today.

Similarly, we should mention the reasons why the U.S. declared war, even if we believe they were unfounded.

Before posting here, you should have posted your concerns on the article talk page. And when you post here, you should other editors on the talk page.

TFD (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a rather dismissive answer.

I have posted on the talk page, actually, as you would have seen if you had looked. Nobody else is currently working on the article. I repeat, there is no dispute here.

I am quite aware that First Nations is the usual term in Canada, but it's of recent vintage, and so far on the Canadian side specific battles have involved either the Mohawk or other specific Six Nation peoples, so that has not arisen. I am not aware that tribe and native are offensive in Canada, but I am here, actually, to check on whether there is some such issue. So would it be better to replace "an Indian" with "an indigenous ally"?

Also, part of my question had to do with a long pull-out quote about how you can't trust an Indian, yes, but the term also occurs dozens of times in the article in Wikipedia's voice, and you seem to have missed that part of the question.

Please do not respond to questions you cannot be bothered to read.

Also, if the words "tribe" and "native" are offensive in Canada then I guess I should not use them even for Native Americans? Even if they are not offensive there? Elinruby (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know you have posted on the talk page, but you have not posted about this issue. As it says above, "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion."

As I mentioned, the issue has been discussed several times and the consensus was always to use the term Indian because that is the term that appears in reliable sources about the topic. The Canadian government renamed the Dept. of Indian AFfairs in 2011, while the U.S. Government retains its Bureau of Indian Affairs. The term Indian is used in the name of many aboriginal organizations.[16] Had the term been that highly deprecated, these names would have changed long ago.:::There is also the problem of what term to replace it with. And it's problematic to assign British and American nationality to them.

TFD (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have since realized that the reason nobody else is editing the article is that you are running RFCs on the talk page about whether Canadian historians can be dismissed as espousing fringe theory, hehe. My bad, I didn't realize that some of those were recent. Nor did I expect contention over the idea that we should follow the Wikipedia policy that we are guided by what the members of a culture call themselves. Hint, that isn't "Indian".

I would like to hear from some uninvolved editors, please, and given the talk page it would be nice to see some sourcing for what you are saying here, because you definitely have a weird understanding of WP:FRINGE. Meanwhile I have changed some instances of "tribal" to "Indigenous" but it is true that there are issues with this, notably that English doesn't have an equivalent to "indigène" and "an Indian" is different than "a First Nation". This is why I am asking for feedback here, but I stand corrected: apparently there is a dispute, and it is you. So noted. Elinruby (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion that Canadian historians would have a different take on history based on their ethnicity is a slur on their professionalism, made without any evidence. TFD (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you seriously maintaining that disagreeing with the US view of its own imperialism is unprofessional? Elinruby (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No. What does that have to do with the discussion? TFD (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This:”Your suggestion that Canadian historians would have a different take on history based on their ethnicity is a slur on their professionalism, made without any evidence. TFD (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)”

No it's not that that would put Canadian historians in disagreement with U.S. imperialism but that it would put them in disagreement with the consensus of historians. Presumably historians base their judgments on weighing the evidence, not on their nationality. Anyway, the U.S. imperialist position would be that they won the war. TFD (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Reminder, the topic here is what terminology should be used to refer to native people in North America Elinruby (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I was notified that I was involved here. When I asked the question about "Indians" I was informed that that was a Wikipedia guideline on the subject. Has that changed?Tirronan (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tirronan: I notified you because you were commenting on the RfC about the infobox. The text is boilerplate and says you"may" be involved in the sense that you may care, and want to comment. This is optional, like all participation on Wikipedia. I am not aware of a Wikipedia guideline to use "Indian". I personally believe that the applicable policy is the one that says that we call ethnic groups the name that they wish to be called. In general this would afaik mean using Mohawk or Cheyenne, etc. But when you have members of more than one tribal group then the usual formulation would be Native American in the US and First Nations in Canada. However at the time neither country existed in its current form, so I understand that "Indian" is convenient, but I have been taught that it is offensive. So I posted here as a question, which has now become a dispute. Incidentally, I do think we should lose the long pull-out quote about how you can't trust Indians. Imagine being a First Nations child reading that.Elinruby (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I always seem to get involved in this article, and I've tried this time to stay out of it. Again without success, so here I am damnit. Look, this war is so confused compared to 95% of other conflicts that it almost defies description. It literally took me a decade to decide that this was not in fact a British victory. Why? Because America asked for terms. The terms proposed were so grievous that the American government balked and kept fighting. So what changed my mind? The letter from Wellington, and the Prime Minister's instructions to the negotiators at Ghent. The American government at the time was and would continue to be on the verge of a breakup of the country. This would continue until the end of the American Civil War. So, America was more than ready to end the conflict. So what does this have to do with an NPOV charge? This, any history article should state the facts, NOT THE OPINIONS, of the events. The outcome was decided by the participants of the war, NOT A HISTORIAN'S OPINION. The article should recite the events faithfully then give the results of the war, in this case, the Treaty of Ghent. The existing well-reviewed documentation proves this beyond contestation. There has, and I am guessing always will be, those that want to put a victory by one side or another to the outcome of this war. This article has been under non-stop assault for the better part of 20 years. This has to stop and editors that are not willing to stop should have a topic ban imposed. I fail to see how the view of a historian changes one elemental fact in the history of the conflict. I see it as nothing less than another of the endless attempts to "spin" the article in a specific manner. The page should be thoroughly reviewed, shortened, and kept to the known facts.Tirronan (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby is mistaken when he says the article stated "British insults to American honor, etc. I have already flagged the article NPOV for this. " It was defeating the British invasions in 1814-1815 (New York, Baltimore, New Orleans) that did that. Historians agree that restoring US honor was a major cause & major result of the war for USA. I have supported that at length at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_of_1812&diff=prev&oldid=964569672 Rjensen (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The topic of this thread -- "War of 1812" -- is about naming, the topic of a different thread -- "War of 1812 - Results in Infobox" -- is about who won. I will try to get back to the topic of this thread. Elinruby says there is a policy about this, but doesn't say where. I assumed it would be somewhere in WP:MOS, but so far I've found only a 2008 discussion and a 2019 failed proposal and a 2019 discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: thank you for coming back to this. I don't have time to look at your links this second, but I am interested and will do so. I found the policy, which is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification. This deals with naming conventions for articles, but the broad principle is the same. If the term "Indian" is offensive, even if only to some people, why use it? We do have a growing consensus on the page (I think) that where possible we should say Shawnee, Six Nations, Muscogee and so on, but when there are multiple indigenous nations on both sides of the conflict, we do need a collective noun, and the usual and accepted terms within Canada and the US (First Nations, Native Americans) are specific to those countries and the article deals with history from before there was a border. My concern is merely that if I am going to replace "Indian" I don't want to replace it with something equally offensive. I would like some documentation of the contention that "native" and "tribe" are offensive to somebody, but if that is correct, we are left with "Indigenous". Elinruby (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The guideline that you point to seems relevant, good catch, but there's another relevant guideline: MOS:IDENTITY. The regular talkers on the Manual of Style talk pages could have other ideas. There's also a short February 2020 query at American Indians - manual of style. And, although I myself mistrust "WikiProjects", your attitude may differ so you might want to join WP:Indigenous. My own interest is weak, I'm just pointing elsewhere because I think there might be better places than WP:NPOVN for discussing this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Your links are helpful, thank you. Elinruby (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Catena (linguistics)

I have discussed a possible COI / Advocacy issue with the author of Catena_(linguistics) on User_talk:Tjo3ya#Possible_COI_/_Advocacy_on_catenas. Since it concerns the entire article, not just some changes, I am not including diffs, but I do copy my original question summarizing the problem as I see it here:

Hello, I'm writing because of a possible Conflict of Interest / Advocacy issue surrounding your edits to the page on catenas. As of now, you have authored around 89.4% of that page, and the bulk of the references there is to your work.

References to the concept of the catena may also be problematic. For instance, on Extraposition#Theoretical_analyses, it is now written: "The words in red in the dependency tree qualify as a concrete unit of syntax; they form a catena." However, it is not clear whether this is a generally accepted statement, given that most of the references on the catena page are to your work.

In short, would it be possible to make the content on the catena page more diverse, and clarify to what extent statements there are generally accepted (in what subtheory specifically)? [...] Kaĉjo (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The user in question has agreed to "likely reduce the number of those sources" on the catena page, but this does not address the main issue of links to that page. This is for me the main source of the issue, since it may give undue weight to the concept of catena in linguistics. In other words: I am worried mostly about undue weight to the concept, less about undue weight to the author.

Guidance would be appreciated, since I am not all that familiar with Wikipedia. Kaĉjo (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Since posting this I found that two others have raised concerns about the treatment of the catena concept by Tjo3ya before. See User_talk:Tjo3ya#(=_xxx) and User_talk:Tjo3ya#Ling/ellipsis_edits,_thanks!,_and_some_suggestions. Kaĉjo (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I have weighed in on this, from WP:3O, here: User_talk:Tjo3ya#Unacceptable_behaviour Leijurv (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is the background of my concerns around Catena (linguistics) if it helps you, Tjo3ya, to understand why this may be an issue: I am learning some syntax, saw a sentence I couldn't draw a tree of, found a relevant wiki, and there it seemed that the catena was a very common way to address the issue. I then discussed with my supervisor and he had never heard of it. Hence my question how generally accepted it is, and whether there is any WP:UNDUE weight. I'd like that others coming across this in the future are not sent down what may be a rabbit hole.

I would suggest we tag Catena (linguistics) with Template:COI, and start a discussion on the talk page there to also look at the incoming links. Hopefully this will attract attention from neutrals who can also tell when there are issues of WP:UNDUE. Is that okay with you? Kaĉjo (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Kaĉjo, Yes, that is acceptable to me. --Tjo3ya (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC regarding J. K. Rowling

More input would be much appreciated at the following RfC:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#RfC: J. K. Rowling

Crossroads ^-talk- 03:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Can we get some more eyes for NPOV over at Falun Gong? Until recently, the article made no mention of a variety of facts, and since then the article has seen repeated and sustained attempts at scrubbing it, including removing anything that the new religious movement would not approve of—such as any discussion about where it is headquartered, its political involvement, and even its status as a new religious movement. Much of the article seems to read as a puff piece. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the lead used to mention FG promoting some dangerous "alternative" medicine and banning real medicine. It is now instead whitewashing FG. Much work is needed. Notrium (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This is indeed a topic I've seen mentioned in secondary literature, such as here ("They said that life in Dragon Springs is tightly controlled by Li, that internet access is restricted, the use of medicines is discouraged, and arranged relationships are common.", NBC News). Of course, English Wikipedia's article on the topic, as you mention, currently makes no mention of it. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it is mentioned currently on Falun_Gong#Dragon_Springs_compound_in_Deerpark,_New_York, but it's probably not being given nearly enough weight in the article or lead. Notrium (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I added that today—it wasn't there before I added that section (which last I saw had been removed once today). The whole article needs a reconfiguration: It downplays the central role of its new religious movement's founder and leader at nearly every turn, and the article frequently parrots FG talking points, often all but verbatim. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

We have this nice template, probably all included articles should be scrutinized together with the main Falun Gong article. No promises from me, though; dunno if I will have enough time. Notrium (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to attract outside editors to this article, you need to provide some information about what the dispute is. Reasonably informed editors know that Falun Gong has accused the Chinese government of persecution, which has been supported by Western media, and that they their well-funded newspaper, The Epoch Times, promotes far right conspiracy theories. Otherwise, what do you expect outside editors to weigh in on? TFD (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right. In short, the major issue at the article is the regular scrubbing of the article of anything that does not align with Falun Gong's narrative about itself. Anything exterior to that sees repeated attempts at removal. This includes basic information somehow absent from the article before last month like:

• Where the new religious movement is based (a controversial compound in Deerpark, New York)
• Its political involvement (Falun Gong is the source of both The Epoch Times, performance company Shen Yun, and a variety of other far-right, pro-Trump, and pseudoscience-spreading organizations
• Its status as a new religious movement (it was founded in the early 1990s by Li Hongzhi, who is also its leader)

See, for example, this diff from today. This has now happened dozens of times since last month.

All of this information is fully referenced to the highest quality sources, both academic and media (here's an NBC News article explaining the new religious movement and its activities, for readers unfamiliar). Nonetheless, the material sees regular scrubbing by several accounts, most of them essentially single-purpose, some of them popping up from nowhere or reemerging from long absences after the article saw the addition of the above information. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The deleted material contains information that would be helpful in understanding them, although I would have left out the reference to the golden escalator. You need to find an article about them in a mainstream source so we can compare it with the article, per WP:TERTIARY. That makes it easier for editors to evaluate whether the article reflects mainstream perception. TFD (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(Indented response) There's no shortage of coverage on this topic. Here are some examples:

• Braslow, Samuel. 2020. "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". Los Angeles Magazine. March 9, 2020. Online.

Quote:

Among other pronouncements, [Falung Gong founder and leader Hongzhi] Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.

In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li.

Relatively unknown before 2016, Epoch Times enjoyed a surge in traffic after the presidential election thanks to stridently pro-Trump content. NBC News reported in 2017 that the site was drawing millions of visitors a year, more than The New York Times and CNN combined. But Falun Gong didn’t restrict its pro-Trump stance to the paper.

This article discusses a shift that occured in 2017, and, indeed, from that time the vast majority of sources start popping up. It appears coverage has only snowballed since, a risk the organization seems willing to take to continue to wield political influence. Let's continue digging through media coverage:

• Roose, Kevin. 2020. Epoch Times, Punished by Facebook, Gets a New Megaphone on YouTube. The New York Times, Feb. 5, 2020. Online.

Quote:

Little is known about The Epoch Times’s finances and organizational structure. The nonprofit Epoch Times Association, which operates it, reported $8.1 million in revenue and $7.2 million in expenses on its 2017 public tax filings. An investigation by NBC News last summer found ties between the outlet and other Falun Gong-affiliated organizations, such as the Shen Yun dance performance series and the video broadcaster [New Tang Dynasty, New Tang Dynasty Television ], and said the organizations 'appear to share missions, money and executives.' ... Three former Epoch Times employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from the organization .. described its staff as primarily Falun Gong practitioners, many of whom had little previous experience in journalism. Editorial employees, they said, were encouraged to attend weekly “Fa study” sessions outside work hours, during which they would gather to study the teachings of Falun Gong’s spiritual leader, Li Hongzhi. ... The Epoch Times has long denied having direct ties to Falun Gong. Mr. Gregory said that the organization was primarily funded through subscriptions and ads, and that "donations are a small part of our income."

More straightforward discussion from MSNBC, reporting on an NBC News article discussed above:

• Ruhle, Stephanie. 2019. "Pro-Trump news outlet The Epoch Times funded by Chinese spiritual group". August 20, 2019. MSNBC. Online.

Caption quote:

NBC News has exclusively learned that the popular conservative news site The Epoch Times is funded by a Chinese spiritual community called Falun Gong, which hopes to take down the Chinese government.

The NBC article refers to an article by The New Yorker:

• Tolentino, Jia. 2019. "Stepping into the Uncanny, Unsettling, World of Shen Yun". The New Yorker. Online.

Quote:

Falun Gong also has its own media outlet, a newspaper called the Epoch Times, which was founded in 2000. (The chairman of the newspaper’s board has said that it is “not a Falun Gong newspaper,” because “Falun Gong is a question of an individual’s belief.”) The paper skews conservative: among its recent pieces are stories headlined “Why We Should Embrace President Trump’s Nationalism,” “Government Welfare: A Cancer Known as Communism,” and “President Trump, Build the Wall.” It also is the world’s foremost purveyor of Shen Yun content, publishing such stories as “Excited Fans Welcome Shen Yun at Taiwanese Airport,” “The Vivid Storytelling of Shen Yun Symphony Orchestra,” and “Shen Yun Audiences Already Waiting for Next Year."

And a few years back, here in Germany, referring to the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD):

• Busvine, Douglas. 2018. "German far right far ahead in use of social media". Reuters. September 13, 2018. Online.

Quote:

Instead, the researchers found that AfD supporters amplified the reach of media coverage of stories that the AfD posted or commented on. Social media users sympathetic to the party often tweeted links to stories in Die Welt, a conservative daily, but also to right-wing media outlets.

These included news sites such as Junge Freiheit and the German edition of the Epoch Times, which is part of a media group set up by Chinese-American members of the Falun Gong sect and focuses on the same immigration issues at the heart of the AfD platform.

These are a few examples of sources regularly scrubbed from the article. The material is strongly referenced to both media and academic sources, which are plentiful. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

SETA or Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research

I'd like to know what you think. about SETA, a Turkish think Tank linked to the Turkish Government and is used as a source in several articles. I'd say it is even more Government linked than the Anadolu Ajansi as it was founded by Ibrahim Kalin, a chief adviser to Erdogan. Press freedom is now not a strength of Erdogan and... They also like to write about YPG terrorists, and say HDP is carrying out the orders of the PKK. These are really just Turkeys views, and in most of the rest of the world, both organizations are viewed as opposing terrorism. I think, I've never read a neutral article of SETA. I think SETA can be used as a source to describe the Organization. But on other topics, if the subject is notable, it should also have an article in an other news outlet and we could then use this one as a source.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I think you can close this discussion, as it is not included in an article in dispute for the moment. I just thought to have a general ruling would be good.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars

The section about about NATO and Western media role in the Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars article was labeled as POV. Meanwhile, the section has been considerably rearranged, references by esteemed and relevant authors have been added, as well as criticism of their opinions.

No one on the talk page made specific objections to the sources and current content. Nicholas Cull, David Holbrook Culbert and David Welch are historians specializing in propaganda. Scott Taylor is a well known military journalist, while Michael Parenti is a well known political and social scientist. Philip Hammond is a professor of media and communications focused on the role of the media in post-Cold War conflicts and international interventions. David Binder was the Harvard University-graduated journalist who reported on Yugoslav Wars. Mark Wolfgram is a political scientist who has published his work in peer-reviewed academic journals. Noam Chomsky's propaganda model has been confirmed by a number of scholars around the world. Here we don't list their views on the war in general, but the subject of the article is propaganda. The authors' relevance to this topic is difficult to dispute. Furthermore, criticism of their claims have been added. Even Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Wesley Clark discussed the “propaganda war” as part of the strategy. There is really no doubt that NATO propaganda is well documented.

Can the POV template be removed now? Also, can the “claims about” be removed from the title of the section, as in other parts of the article? Thanks.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Horacio Gutiérrez

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

---

Repeatedly inserting things like "He is considered one of the great virtuoso pianists of our time.." and "and is considered one of the great pianists." which is a pretty exceptional claim that asserts it is generally accepted as a fact he is "one of the greatest" which needs to be directly supported by exceptional sources. They initially made edit requested one of those phrasing in their edit request, but it was recommended against by another editor in 2011 Talk:Horacio_Gutiérrez#Reworking_by_user:Fluffernutter. The user is now repeatedly edit-warring to re-insert this repeatedly but as far as I can locate, reliable sources don't support this as being general fact rather than them being opinions of opinion writers. The edit summary in Special:Diff/964936714 "body of work and award attest to description." shows the basis for their insertion is WP:OR, because it is a conclusion drawn by Maryphillips1952 based on their interpretation of sources instead of a strong source in their stating that "he is considered one of the greatest pianists"

Previous concerns raised

• Talk:Horacio_Gutiérrez#POV_edits_by_IPS/Maryphillips1952
• SPI complaint about promotional editing
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_143#Maryphillips1952

Graywalls (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

May also be of interest edit history on the same article on German Wikipedia I stumbled upon while Googling the source "Horacio Gutierrez Queen Elizabeth Hall" Maryphillips1952 cited. Graywalls (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

[Moved down from the top of the thread, where it was completely confusing. Not that I can understand what it means now, but at least it's in the right place. Please don't top-post, Mary. Keep the discussion chronological.' Bishonen | tålk 16:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC).] Others have inserted and edited this post. Recently removal of great pianist raised questions since Grraywalls does not consistently delete form other posts. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The insertions in question was already present, vetted, and approved by previous editors. It is a common assertion on many wiki posts (great pianist) as long as appropriate references are documented. There are many wiki posts with "great pianist" with fewer or less appropriate sources. Currently the post reads Gutiérrez's performance career spans over four decades and is considered one of the great pianists.[11] [12][13][14] These citations, body of work, records, and awards confirm this. This is a common statement in many wiki posts of classical artists. Some have blogs, and websites to document "great pianist," Graywalls finds nothing worng with these posts, but takes issue with Mr. Gutierrez'. My concern is inherent bias against Mr. Gutierrez. His wiki is NOW a list of things with references. Removing great pianist must then be done with ALL poorly sourced wiki posts of classical pianists. Graywalls has not removed claim from other edits with lesser sourcee, It appears the issue is with Mr. Gutierrez. His weiki now looks like a list of things. I am not sure if Graywalls is a colleague, critic, or rival. Again, I am a novice and willing to learn what sources you need and what format you want to make a great article. I welcome help to make the post an excellent post to reflect Mr. Gutierrez' life time work. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Further response

Please see comments above regarding the editor. I welcome your help to make Mr. Horacio Gutierrez'article excellent. Maryphillips1952 ([[User Mr. Graywalls - Thank you for your help. I included additional references similar to other classical artists wiki posts. Again, thank you for your help.

Gutiérrez's performance career spans over four decades and is considered one of the great pianists.   User: talk: maryphillips1952Maryphillips1952 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Maryphillips1952 (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your help.

I Added additional references... what references do you need? Other wiki posts from artists have similar claims and have references from blogs and papers. You have not removed or questioned these sources. What would satisfy the post. Since other posts have similar claims you have not removed or found fault.Are you a critic, colleague, rival? Getting paid by others? Currently reads: Gutiérrez's performance career spans over four decades and is considered one of the great pianists.^{[refs 1-4 above]} User: talk: maryphillips1952Maryphillips1952 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN. Please from now on, comment here, not there!

I consider myself a novice and welcome your help. I have edited many wiki pages and enjoy finding citations when needed. One post, Horacio Gutierrez, has been extensively vetted, edited, and approved by several wiki editors. Recently, Graywalls began deleting and finding issues with the post. I locate references and pattern the posts I make after other similar posts so that they follows the wiki format. My concern is that Graywalls may have an inherent bias against Mr. Gutierrez (Hispanic). I am not sure if he is a colleague or critic, or? He is questioning the use of great pianist in his post (which has been there for years). I added additional references and the body of work, awards, records, concerts over 4 decades and career speak for Mr. Gutierrez. Graywalls has placed issues with the article once again that has been already vetted. It barely reads like a biography anymore from his continued edits. Yet, he is still finding issues. I believe his posts (all posts on wiki) need to be reviewed. I am sorry to bring this up. But, I am not sure how to get someone to help me. maryphillips52

I have notified User:Graywalls of this thread. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#User_Maryphillips1952_on_article_Horacio_Gutiérrez which you were notified, and are invited to participate in and I shared the concerns I have with regard to the article. That post is basically a request for others to evaluate for neutral point of view. Graywalls (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong on WP:ANI? The user Maryphillips 1952 complained about this issue on my talk page. The racism clam is very sketchy and really unnecessary.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP:, I started the discussion over there instead of continuing back-and-forth editing any further within the article for other editors to evaluate the statement "considered one of the greatest pianist" in reference to sources presented. This was before they opened the case on ANI. Graywalls (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls:, This board is also WP:AN, for administrator discussions; I meant shouldn't this be on ANI instead? Yes NPOV is a good place to discuss it, as it seems like a content dispute. On the other hand, Maryphillips1952's promotional long term editing on this subject may be something for ANI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP:, that's a valid point, but seeing I already started the discussion over there before all, so perhaps starting another one elsewhere would be viewed as WP:FORUMSHOP Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

User:maryphillips1952, I would say that it is your edits that stop this reading like a biography, but like an advertisement. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

With regard to Maryphilips1952's assertion that "He is questioning the use of great pianist in his post (which has been there for years).", I am not seeing that being said within in the prose, as of May 20, 2019, so I am not understanding why they're saying it has been vetted by other editors and has been there for years. [May 20, 2019 revision] Graywalls (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If you go back to 2006 - This is how the post read (editor Davis Kosner) Gutierrez is known for playing that is imbued with a rare combination or romantic abandon and a classical sense of proportion and is considered by many piano connoisseurs to be one of the greatest pianists of the second half of the 20th century. You will need to go back to much later posts to get a full picture of Mr. Gutoerez' post history. I am trying to make an excellent post with your help. Please refer to the entire history of the post. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

just to skip to the end of this time-wasting, see this post at COIN. The user has a very obvious COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Then it's a good thing the article was changed. Can't you see the difference between a neutral encyclopedia article and a promotional blurb, which that was and seems to be what you want? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Saying he "is considered one of the great pianists' in WP's voice is WP:PEACOCK. We don't say things like that about anyone. Find a respected critic who says something like that and quote them directly with a source.Smeat75 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• [Exhausted by a complicated move from WP:AN, in a trembling voice:] So... Graywalls, why do you hate Hispanics? Or are you merely envious of Gutiérres because he's better than you? Maryphillips1952, we don't say things like that about anyone either. The suspicions against Graywalls that you have expressed in several places are very inappropriate. Stop making these attacks, in edit summaries, on talkpages, and on noticeboards. Take a look at our policy WP:No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Bishonen | tålk 17:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC).

• Saying somebody is "considered one of the great pianists" raises the question - by whom? There are very few pianists where this could just be flat-out asserted without attribution because of the overwhelming weight of sources (Horowitz, Richter ...). Alexbrn (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Maryphillips1952 has been blocked for undisclosed COI (diff). I imagine this wraps up the NPOV issue. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand it raises questions and I referenced many sources, if you read Gutierrez' post, he is considered o a great pianist. Many classical artists use great on their posts. I was following their protocol, but added substantial references. Gutierrez' post was started 9in 2006 and has undergone major revisions. I have sought help to make the entry an excellent, one. I edit wiki as a hobby. My goal is to write excellent wiki articles. My apologies for any problems I am still a novice. I would like to be unbloacked and perhaps if you have a mentor, I can work with one. Thank you for your help. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn - I understand it raises questions and I referenced many sources, if you read Gutierrez' post, he is considered o a great pianist. Many classical artists use great on their posts. I was following their protocol, but added substantial references. Gutierrez' post was started 9in 2006 and has undergone major revisions. I have sought help to make the entry an excellent, one. I edit wiki as a hobby. My goal is to write excellent wiki articles. My apologies for any problems I am still a novice. I would like to be unbloacked and perhaps if you have a mentor, I can work with one. Thank you for your help. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Bishoen- I raised possible questions of bias of editors (not attacks) just as they were raised of me. My goal is to make great wiki article edits and posts. My apologies for any problems. I am still learning protocols. I am willing to change, continue to reference appropriately, and resolve all biased issued raised. I love editing wiki as my hobby. I hope you can help me resolve, I only want to write excellent, unbiased, and referenced posts. Thank you. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• someone uninvolved should close this thread, as its subject is the NPOV edits of an editor who has now been blocked from editing the page in question due to their COI. So the issue has settled.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maryphillips1952: Please drop the stick. COI editors accusing those who oppose their COIness of a conflict of interest is not something we are unfamiliar with. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello - I am trying to be transparent with the wiki community. In this day and age of equity, transparency and belonging, I believe we may need as a community on wiki to make sure that the posts are transparent, equitable, and just for all entries. I am not trying to be accusatory, but make us all aware of our own inherent biases. The posts must be unbiased and fair to all. I believe we must all be vigilante in our posts to make sure there are no inherent cultural biases. I hope you do not see anything wrong with the question I pose.

Every edit I have made has been substantiated with references to published work and my only conflict of interest is my bias towards those people and subjects I am passionate about. I am a fan of Gutierrez and have been a fan for years of classical music, film, and artists. I believe I addressed I was a fan on several occasions on my talk page. I sincerely apologize for any bias on my part. I am committed to writing excellent articles. I am sorry I raised bias concerns for others. My deepest and most sincere apologies. I believe we can all work together to write excellent unbiased, equitable, and trans[parent entries and posts. Please accept my apologies and my regret for any inconveniences. I am willing to learn from the community. I will ask for your advice on future posts. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for any inconvenience.

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

War of 1812 - Results in Infobox

I'd like an expert opinion on this one please! The results of the war of 1812 are debated. At the moment, the war of 1812 article says there are two opinions, in the memory and historiography section. The majority view (more popular in the US) is that the war of 1812 was a stalemate/draw. The minority view (more popular in Canada) is that the war was a victory for Britain/Canada. Both these views are mentioned in the article, and both views are supported by mainstream historians. However, At the moment, only the majority view is listed in the results box. Is this against NPOV policy? Should both views be listed in the infobox (or something like "result disputed"?) the argument being that the one view sums up the views of the article incorrectly? Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

My view is that it does not say that. It clearly states that In recent decades, the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Then it talks about the minority view, which is that Some scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. I am fine with this, but the infobox should reflect the consensus among historians and the de facto result of military stalemate (draw, inconclusive or other similar wording). Deathlibertarian base their argument on the flawed view that there is a national bias, but this request for comments clearly established there is not a national bias.

Deathlibertarian have also showed a clean misunderstanding of WP:Fringe, for example here. Per Calidum (that is the consensus of historians. It should be noted that the infobox had described the outcome as a draw (or a synonym) for many years until it was changed recently) and The Four Deuces (The info-box should say the outcome of the war was a draw because that is the consensus of historians), we should follow the consensus of historians that it was a draw (or similar wording). Per Rjensen, The Canadian-victory viewpoint was widespread decades ago but is no longer found in Canadian scholarly articles & books or university textbooks. It may still be taught at the high school level in Canada, but I think it's now "fringe" in mainstream Canadian reliable sources in 21st century. Old notions become fringe when the RS drop them.

Deathlibertarian propose that we link Memory and historiography of the War of 1812 but that it is not really helpful because (1) per Shakescene, Infoboxes are intended to give a short overview at a glance, which is hardly achieved by directing readers to #Memory and Historiography; and (2) it gives the false impression or imply that there is such a big dispute among experts, that there is not a consensus at all when that is not true. In other words, Deathlibrarian wants us to give equal weight to the minority view (fringe, per Rjensen and others) when that is undue and unwarranted as it does not express the consensus of the majority of historians (mainstream, per Calidum, The Four Deuces and others); and they are accusing me of pushing a view when I could not care less about it and I am merely trying to follow the consensus among historians. They are confusing the popular views (which see the Britain/Canada win viewpoint more widespread) with that of historians, whose majority consensus is that it was a draw or stalemate, which is exactly what de facto happened with the Treaty of Ghent and the status quo ante bellum. For what is worth it, this is my proposal for the infobox.--Davide King (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(1), the views that Canada won, or the US had a draw IS popular within their respective countries. Davide King is bringing up a separate discussion about *historian's* views, not the popular views within countries (2) Davide King is conflating a majority view, with a consensus. The article states there are two different views, a majority view, and a minority view. They are both mainstream views, the majority US/draw view does not override the minority Canada won view. (3) The view that Canada won is fringe theory, is the view of Davide King and a few wikepedia editors who support the opposing view that the US won. NO RS supports that... The article certainly doesn't say it, and a number of respected, mainstream Historians who support the view that Canada won the war of 1812 I am sure would be shocked to hear they are being called Fringe theorists (4) - The idea of linking to the memory and historiography section, was not proposed by me, but in the case of where there is confusion about what is in the infobox, like in this instance, it is the recommended thing to do in this instance, and it states this in the template guidelines for the results section, for military history. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, you conflate popular views and the historians view. I never doubted or claimed that the view Britain/Canada won is popular within their respective countries; what I am saying is that we should follow the views of the historians, which even you admitted the majority view is that it was a draw; but you want to push the minority view as well and make the infobox looks like there is big issue and debate or no conesnsus among historians by claiming there is a national bias. The Korean War is a relevant example as both sides claim victory and are popular [views] within their respective countries, so what is the difference? Yet for the Korean War we follow the historians and de facto view that it was a military stalemate, which is exactly what happened here too; and this is in spite of the popular, not historian, claim that Britain/Canada won. Finally, the parameter for the infobox also suggests Inconclusive which is exactly the same thing and what we should say. The article is currently a mess, so any reference to how it currently is does not mean much; until 30 June 2020, it still included a national bias section despite you being the only one to support in a request for comments. Either way, this back and forth diatribe is useless unless uninvolved users step in, so let us stop and wait for them, shall we?--Davide King (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we agree that the majority of historians view the war was a stalemate, and the minority view (lesser number of historians) believe Canada won. The difference is, I see that both viewpoints should be represented in the results box, but you see that only the majority one should be. The Korean war analogy is not the same. The viewpoint that the war of 1812 was a stalemate is one view, the view that Canada won is the other. Simply putting the fact it was a stalemate in, just matches the popular US view, and ignores he Canada view. I agree, I am happy to wait for a third party to address the issue. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, Simply putting the fact it was a stalemate in, just matches the popular US view, and ignores he Canada view implies there is a national bias when there was consensus not to support that. I think the Korean War example suffices because both countries think they won.--Davide King (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian is correct in saying that a mainstream view of the war is being ignored by editors who confuse minority opinions with fringe theories, on a par with the reading of entrails and voodoo. I am personally not even convinced that Canada didn't legit win the war. It not only repelled an invasion, it invaded the invaders and burned their capital city. But I am content to indulge the American myth that something or other; I actually am not too emotionally invested in the idea that Canada kicked butt, but this war was definitely part of how Canada came to be. And editors claim that this doesn't warrant a mention? That is where we are right now. The article needs major revisions and imho it really doesn't matter much what the infobox says until that happens, because I suspect this will need to be done again ;) Elinruby (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe it is you and Deathlibrarian who do not understand WP:Fringe (an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field)? And you think or see fringe as a pejorative that represents pseudoscientific and wholly unreasonable views when it is also used to mean reasoned theories presented in academic papers (which I believe this is the case). You write but this war was definitely part of how Canada came to be. And editors claim that this doesn't warrant a mention? That is not my point or issue, which is the infobox. The infobox should say Military stalemate because that is what it was and is the consensus among historians. Popular views that see Canadians knowing they won [...], Americans somehow think they won, and the Indians [...] definitely know they lost are already in the main body and I do not really have an issue with that. Here, you write you like two infobox proposals which use Military stalemate, so what are you actually disputing?--Davide King (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Pretty sure that if Canada had won they would still be apologising. Just sayin'. Guy (help!) 18:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  That was just the laugh I needed today... Schazjmd (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Kidd, Kenneth. "The War of 1812, from A to Z". Toronto Star. It's become axiomatic among historians that Canadians know they won the War of 1812, Americans somehow think they won, and the Indians — who'd continue to cede land to American expansion — definitely know they lost, despite fighting alongside British regulars and Canadian militia..--Moxy 🍁 19:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not dispute that the popular views among Canadians, Americans and the Indians is that they know they won, somehow think they won and definitely know they lost, respectively. To me, that is what is saying; it is not about the majority historians views that it was a draw/military stalemate.--Davide King (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

welp, when you go look at the documentation for info box military conflict it says the entry should be accurate, and that it is better to leave it blank than argue about who won by how much. Considering that editors have been arguing on the page for over a decade and a journal article has been written about their intransigence, perhaps they should take this to heart. Meanwhile, it simply isn’t accurate to say that nobody lost any territory. Tecumseh lost, and Spain lost. It’s more complicated than that, but everything always is, and that is enough. Elinruby (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the problems in Wikipedia, is that when there is a conflict between expert opinion and a minority popular opinion with passionate believers, that the same points get argued over and over again. Climate change, intelligent design and fascism=socialism are great examples. The skeptics continue to argue that there is a debate among experts by either misreading sources or finding actual experts who do challenge the consensus. It takes a lot less time to Google search for a soundbite and post it than it does to read the source, interpret it and determine its relative acceptance in the literature. But it's important to do that, because having misleading articles about controversial topics hurts the overall credibility of the project. TFD (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia labeling royalty of imaginary states with titles: micronations

This is kind of related to the recent discussion "Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles: NPOV, BLP, NOR and other policy problems", roughly the same issues are present.

Consider Joan Bates, Paddy Roy Bates or Michael Bates (Sealand); all royalty of an imaginary nation/state within British territory - Principality of Sealand. They all have titles like "Prince" or "Princess" in their infoboxes - that's absurd.

A wider issue is that articles like Micronation or List of micronations use Wikipedia to try to give legitimacy to imaginary nations.

And the use of the word "micronation" on articles for "micronations" (e.g., Liberland) is itself very suspect: I ran a Google Scholar search for micronation and there does not seem to be any good results. The present results do not seem to be scholarly, and the most cited paper is cited only 3 times; except for the top result, which uses "micro-nation" and a completely different meaning than used on Wikipedia - applying the term to Liechtenstein. This suggests the neologism "micronation" is powered by cheap press, which may have just picked it up from Wikipedia anyway. Notrium (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Certain micronations have a long history, and there leaders are commonly referred to by their titles, but the media and in interviews, magazines. It's the norm to refer to them by that title. Probably the best known case of this is Prince Leonard Casely (of the Hutt River Province) a factiva search, or a google search, you will find the majority of article refer to him as Prince. Even local govt beauracrats will refer to him as that.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Notrium, "styles himself as" would be fine, but using the title in Wiki-voice would be absurd. Guy (help!) 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: so you agree the infobox person parameter "honorific_suffix = Prince of Sealand" should be removed, as it implies that the title is recognized? Notrium (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Notrium, fuck yeah. Guy (help!) 18:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. No "Prince of Sealand" needs a title in wiki-voice. "Sealand" is a retired UK military fort. Someone cannot just claim unused military land as their own land. If we recognise that nonsense where do we stop? "I hereby declare this NPOV/N article to be mine, and I am hereby the king. I require thee, my loyal subjects, to affix my great name to the head of this page, and affix "Prince of NPOV" to my userpage at once." ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Murder of Rina Shnerb

At Murder of Rina Shnerb several users have said that including material on the attack occurring in a spring seized by Israeli settlers is "justifying the murder" and "POV" and "UNDUE". The material is based on this Haaretz feature that discusses the killing of Shnerb within the context of the takeover of Palestinian springs at length and this NYT source that likewise discusses the springs being frequent hot points due to settler takeovers of the springs. It has been argued that these are "op-eds" (I think that is pretty clearly untrue). The edit in question has been this wholesale removal which has been removed without comment a couple of times before the above arguments were offered. Is it undue weight to include material cited to this Haaretz feature and this NYT news article or are these actually "two partisan op-ed" that demonstrate no weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nableezy (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed this (above not signed, @Nableezy:), not been involved in it up until now. There seems no reason why this material should not go in, is it necessary to wait for the outcome here before doing that?Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Of course it's NPOV and UNDUE, firstly, you are relying primarily on one opinion, that of Amira Hass. Then, the proposed background section is not a background but an existing article. We have "see also" for a reason. If you want to include one or two sentences, that would be one thing, but including what Nishidani currently put in is indeed POV and UNDUE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Amira Hass is not the author of either of the sources listed here. Are you even clicking the links to read the articles? Neither of those are opinion pieces, neither of them are written by Hass. nableezy - 20:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Most of the sources that dealt with the murder didn't include such background so its clearly WP:UNDUE --Shrike (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain what in WP:UNDUE says anything close to that. nableezy - 22:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and textbook WP:SYNTH. That's interjecting unnecessary political opinions into this article. I can see why other editors would think that's an attempt to justify the murder. This is a complex political issue, we don't need Wiki-voice putting political opinions and making its own political analysis on the causes for the murder. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Joseph Mercola

I would like to raise a concern about the label American “charlatan" on Dr. Mercola's Wikipedia page.

The reference used to support this claim is the Chicago Magazine article. The article used the word “charlatan” as a speculation of the writer, and not as a fact. Here is the direct quote.

"Warrior or quack, straight shooter or charlatan, the question is the same: How has a site built on ideas so contrary to mainstream science—so radical that even some staunch alternative health advocates are uncomfortable with some of his positions—become so popular?"

I believe this is a violation of Wikipedia's two core policies:

• WP:NPOV – Neutral point of view. The word “charlatan” is a derogatory term that signifies bias against Dr. Mercola. • WP:V – Verifiability. The reference that made use of the word “charlatan” as a matter of fact, and not opinion, is not factual.

I've brought this up in the Talk page, but editors have denied my request.

As a Wikipedia reader and user myself, I am aware that this site aims to disseminate information, and I am open to accepting criticisms as long as they are appropriately backed by reliable factual sources. But this seems like a direct attack on Dr. Mercola to unfairly taint his image in the public’s eye.

What I would propose is to strike out the label from the first sentence of the bio, and instead directly use the quote from Chicago Mag, so Wiki readers can see that it is a speculation/opinion, and not a fact.--Lein23 (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think People accused of crime applies: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." Apparently he has received warning letters from the FDA, but there is no information that he has been convicted of fraud. TFD (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the writer of the Chicago Mag article, which was used as the source, isn't even claiming the charlatan label as his own opinion, but is stating it as one of several possibilities - none of which even he has established any certainty.--Lein23 (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales called all such people "lunatic charlatans", see WP:QUACKS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Lein23, what's non-neutral about describing America's best known quack as a quack? Guy (help!) 23:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree, there is no violation of WP:NPOV to state that Mercola is a quack. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales made no specific reference to Dr. Mercola when he said that statement, but instead was referring to his response to the Change.org petition. No doctors were named in that petition.

The main issue here would be the use of the label "charlatan" as it is taken from a reference that used the word as a matter of opinion, and not a fact.

If the Chicago Mag article will be used as a reference for the charlatan tag, then it should be posted in its entirety, rather than cherry pick a word the author used. That would count as information suppression, which is another violation of Wikipedia policies.--Lein23 (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

From the same article: Steven Salzberg, a prominent biologist, professor, and researcher at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, calls Mercola “the 21st-century equivalent of a snake-oil salesman.” Which is synonymous with "charlatan". Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The University of Alberta magazine Folio calls him a "wellness quack". An Irish Times article on quackery, snake oil salesmen and charlatans uses Mercola and Gwyneth Paltro as the marquee examples. The LA Times uses him as an example in the article titled "Reporting on quacks and pseudoscience: The problem for journalists". Gawker (remember them?) called him "Quack doctor Joseph Mercola". The Natonal Review, a fairly serious source, says that mentions "fearmongering quacks (such as Joseph Mercola, who has repeatedly been disciplined by the FDA)". The only substantive question I am seeing here is whether the lede should call him a quack or charlatan. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Could the lead be changed to include both Quack and Charlatan? Both fit the subject of the article, and are WP:RS. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It was not Folio that called him a wellness quack, but a writer of a commentary piece they published, which therefore is not a reliable source. Gawker is considered generally unreliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, while there is no consensus for the reliability of the National Review. Ironically Gawker went bankrupt because of defamation judgmentss against it. Not a good example to follow. We've got to stop typing in "mercola" "charlatan" into a google search and list whatever comes up. Articles are supposed to summarize the information about someone, not whatever we think is important and can source. As I mentioned above, we cannot accuse living persons of criminal activity unless they have been convicted by a court. TFD (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Master architect, master chef, master navigator, etc.

Except in cases of certifications or master-apprentice-type guilds, is it ever okay to start an article with [Firstname Lastname] was a master [occupation]"? I would say no, based on WP:Peacock and article precedents? ɱ (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If a notable majority of reliable sources say someone is a "master chef" or some such, then I think it can be okay, though I would prefer to use "known as a master chef" or the like. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Are there precedents you can find that support it? ɱ (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked into precedents, beyond vaguely recalling a few "known as the father of X", etc. I don't see listing specific precedents as significant, since we're proposing a change to be followed from here on, right? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally to be avoided, but remembering that in some areas, and especially in the past under the guild system, the term was not vague peacockery, but a very specific and important status, for which you had to pass exams etc. But I still wouldn't use it in the first sentence. At least in England, some 19th-century & maybe later census returns record people as eg "Master docker", which I expect was very different from being a "docker". Seamen still have master certificates etc, which are important. See Master mariner, Master seaman, Ship's captain (aka Master), Shipping master and so on. There are also a number of specific roles called "Master of...", notably the Master of the Rolls. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  See also Master builder. BD2412 T 02:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I know, that's why I started with "Except in cases of certifications or master-apprentice-type guilds". So outside of that it should be avoided?" ɱ (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally, yes. But Master builder or mason would be one exception, up to 1800 perhaps. It tended to be what they called architects before they had the word. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The case in question is Christopher Columbus, where "master navigator" seems to have been what they called some people at the time (piloto mayor). Columbus was not one of these figures. I don't believe, based on this discussion so far, that he should be given that peacock term when none of the articles on the most notable architects and other explorers use such wording. ɱ (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Amerigo Vespucci is as notable an explorer who did hold the title, yet he even hasn't had a mention of it anywhere in the article, nonetheless the lede. ɱ (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's not an actual rank or role (or, if it is, but the person didn't hold it...!), it seems like modern peacockery, and I would avoid it, unless it's so commonly used in RS that it's due to say something like "known as a master x", as A D Monroe III suggests. -sche (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Depends on historical status I'd say. Back in the mists of time, being a master craftsman was a thing. Now anyone can claim it. Guy (help!) 12:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC including Audrey Strauss's political party

Issue deals with WP:NPV. Editors might be interested. Can find it here: Talk:Audrey Strauss#RfC including Strauss's political party . Casprings (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Scrubbing at Kamala Harris

There has been a report by The Intercept that there was scrubbing at Kamala Harris. This issue was discussed in the section it got noticed. I've started a discussion on what editors believe is the best option moving forward to resolve the issues, namely being revert to last good version and readd in updates, or stay at the latest version and vet ~500-600 edits and undo/readd options as necessary. Input from editors is appreciated at Moving forward with NPOV issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, by "scrubbing" they appear to refer to minor tweaks to legitimately questionable material. The Intercept are immensely progressive, and Kamala really isn't their kind of person. Guy (help!) 23:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, The Intercept probably has a bias, yeah. But I'm not relying on news coverage to call it scrubbing (the media never seems to understand how Wikipedia works anyway), just that they appear to have caught it before any of us did. I took a look at diff comparisons across chunks of their edits (harder to compare overall diff, due to structural changes). There was indeed lots of blanking of controversial content, and various tweaks of eg "Harris was criticised for her view in ___" changed to "Harris was reported to be ___". The article in its current form isn't neutral. I don't think the editor in question was a bad faith editor, or paid, but I do think they lack understanding of NPOV, and amongst their various good structural changes they have done some blanking and alterations to fit their admitted political views. On a good note, they did also remove some poorly sourced content (although, hard to say better sources didn't exist for that, since nobody else had the chance to try).

Some across the chunks Drmies reverted (Special:Diff/956103125/956103478, Special:Diff/956103478/956103913), in which removal of sentences like "Harris also accrued negative publicity." is visible. Blanking and promotional-esque wording is visible in Special:Diff/956533236/956753152, removing of unflattering info (Special:Diff/961922030) supported by RS including [17][18][19]. Unflattering content removal in Special:Diff/954310981. Removing examples of campaign contributions by Republicans in Special:Diff/958027492 (paragraph containing Harris was the only Democratic candidate for the Senate to receive a campaign contribution). Nicer wording in Special:Diff/954661588. To his credit, of course, he's removed a lot of garbage, like in Special:Diff/956351080 and Special:Diff/954310981. But I don't know how we can feel confident, given the amount of examples of POV edits, that this article can ever be free of neutrality issues. Even if the content is reintroduced (which itself is difficult, due to major structural changes), there's lots of little wording changes across 90k readable prose which makes a big difference. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, tbh, I don't see anything there that goes beyond a good faith reading of ensuring WP:BLP compliance. No article on any politician is ever likely to be entirely free of POV edits, one way or another, and that applies doubly when half the subject's party thinks they are a class traitor. Guy (help!) 11:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

English people

• English people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"The English people are a nation and an ethnic group native to England who speak the English language, and share a common history and culture. The English identity is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Angelcynn ('family of the Angles'). Their ethnonym is derived from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who migrated to Great Britain around the 5th century AD.[8] England is the largest and most populous country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the majority of people living there are British citizens."

This is being used to argue that, for example, Idris Elba is not English.

As far as I can tell, this lead paragraph is a massive dose of WP:SYN. When addressing ewthnicity, for example, the Office of National Statistics uses "Whiote British", not "English". English is not an ethnicity and never has been. The idea that speaking English is a qualifying factor would have been an inc onvenience in the early days of the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha or even the early Hanovers. Common history and culture? The English national dish is either fish ands chips (invented by Italians in Glasgow) or chicken tikka masala. Then we get to the religion part. Anglicanism? Not according to Voltaire, who documented numerous religions including the Quakers, who were the last to abandon the familiar "thee" and "thou" of old English.

This article reads to me as a giant pille of WP:SYN. What do others think? Guy (help!) 23:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't have viewed "English" as an ethnicity personally, I'd think of Anglo-Saxons or perhaps Britons for the ethnic group, but this isn't an area I understand too well. This seems to be a common trend across many European countries: French people, Germans, Italians, etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, if it's common then it needs fixing, but I am mainly concerned here witht he English people article, as that was what dragged me into this cesspit. I have started looking for academic sources that support "English people" as an ethnicity, but any that do so always qualify it as, e.g. white English people, which is in line with the Office of National Statistics ethnicity categories of white British, black British, British Asian etc.

I can't yet find a single reliable source that unambiguously defines the English (as opposed to white English or Anglo-Saxons) as an ethnic group. I would wager a small sum that there will be similar difficulties for France etc. Germanic people, maybe, but German people in a way that defines out everyone but the white? There's some historical precedent for that being a bit shitty... Guy (help!) 11:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that at the source of this disagreement is the fact that "English people" can mean different things, which overlap but aren't always the same. Those meanings range from a civic sense of the term, to mean someone born in England, to a narrower, ethnic sense. If you have access, I'd recommend this source on some of these complexities. This also looks like it would be helpful, but I don't have access to a copy. Finally, I'd be wary of assuming that official classifications of ethnicity in the UK match up with sociologists' understandings of ethnicity (Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom#History and debate covers this a bit). Cordless Larry (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, yes, which is why sources clarify that "white English" or "white British" are the ethnic groups, and English is a nationality. Guy (help!) 12:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Some do, but not all: see this and this. This source is also potentially helpful, explaining that Englishness "is a somewhat nebulous descriptor that hovers between ethnic and national identity" - which is basically my understanding too. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, e.g. within this narrative the countryside has tended to be deployed as an endangered and essentialised symbol of what Englishness is and this chapter has suggested that rural nature has been invested with the meanings and representations of English ethnicity etc - in other words, it's a narrative, not a fact (and the text goes on to make this even clearer). And that is pretty much my point: the idea of the "ethnic English" is a narrative, and one with a profoundly unattractive provenance. Guy (help!) 23:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that we're discussing a social construct, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a fact to be found here. Ethnicity is all about narratives. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I disagree. Anglo-Saxons are an ethnic group, white British are an ethnic group, English people are people who are English. Casting the definition of English people as an ethnic group comprising white people with white English culture is no doubt hugely popular with racists, but it';s not accurate. If you want an article on the ethnic group it would be white British or even white English. As it is, the article on English people effectively defines Englishness as synonymous with gammon, and that is a bit of a problem. Guy (help!) 10:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't "want" anything here. I was just responding to your call for sources, by pointing out that there can be disagreement about whether the English are an ethnic group or a nation, or both. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, on "common history and culture", sociologists generally argue that ethnic groups are characterised by belief in a shared history and culture, not a shared history and culture in an objective sense. As the ethnic group article puts it, "presumed similarities such as a common language, ancestry, history...". The presumed is important. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I think that you'll find more agreement about common culture among Black British people in London than among British Asian people in Birmingham. It seems likely to me that at least some of this would be due to the difference between the heritage of slavery and that of empire, but that's my personal view. Guy (help!) 12:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

And President Obama was not American, I am shocked, this is a bit highly offensive. The history of the England is a well known mix of people through out history. Yes the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians settled in what is now England and southern Scotland, but while they pushed some Romano-Celtic tribes to the west, the majority of the British celts stayed put, see Extent of the migrations, the invaders forming the upper levels of the society. Though the percentage of Celts increased towards the west and north, even in the 10th century in the East Anglican kingdom the were laws specifically relating to the local British population. But before the English came to England among the Romans, especially along Hadrian's Wall, the were legionaries from North Africa, Syrians, Algerians and Iraqis who mixed with the local population [Borders folk may be descended from Africans] [When Syrians, Algerians and Iraqis patrolled Hadrian's Wall]. After the Anglo-Saxons came further waves of settlers Danes, Norwegians, Normans, Huguenots, Jews (one lived in my small town in the 13th century) etc etc. And then Britain had its international Empire, with peoples from all round the world coming here from all round the globe and modern England has been multicultural ever since, the English society and customs have always been a mongrel mix. Sorry this is all well known, I was just shocked by the assertion that Elba was not English ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Russia's role in the War in Donbass

Could be rather interesting, see Talk:War_in_Donbass#Recent_controversial_edits. Heptor (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

According to some sources, the present the war in Donbas is hybrid war between Ukraine and Russia, where patriots of Ukraine fight the little green men invading from Russia. I go on out on the limb and say that reality is more nuanced, and the local discontent with the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, linguistic disputes and other divisions in Ukraine played a significant role in the events, and indeed that far from instigating the rebellion in Donbass and using it to destabilise Ukraine, Moscow has largely been reacting to events and trying to gain some control of a process which was originally almost entirely outside of its control. This is maybe a bit surprising to read for some people, but please check the references and consider sharing your opinion on the talk page. Thanks Heptor (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, unlikely - there are compelling sources for the little green men, and Russia shamelessly annexed Crimea "because destiny". Guy (help!) 23:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

sooo.. No chance we can have a little of both? Some shameless green men, some pissed-off locals because their votes got smacked in the revolution

The article already allows for 'both'. Indeed, we have a whole separate article on the protests. That's not what you're asking for: what you're asking for WP:FALSEBALANCE. RGloucester — ☎ 00:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is presently very vague about the causes of the war. It only mentions the Euromaidan in passing, at the end of a rambling sentence. The article doesn’t mention anything about the divisions in Ukraine that led to this conflict, including the linguistic, cultural and political schisms that are widely studied in the literature. Heptor (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, the fact that Russia exploited divisions it had stoked in Ukraine is not in doubt. Neither is the fact that this was not a "popular uprising", but an invasion. Guy (help!) 10:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's discuss the literature? Heptor (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

...no takers? Heptor (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Of archdukes and princes

There's an interesting discussion going on at Template talk:Austrian archdukes right now over the inclusion, and implicitly the titling, of articles on members of the former royal house of Austria, after the Habsburg Law abolished the nobility. Put simply, some sources (i.e. books about royal houses) continue to style members of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine as "archduke" and "crown prince" and such, but the government does not, and the archduchy does not exist. In recent months a number of the sources used to support some of the more fanciful titles have been identified as unreliable - self-published by non-experts. That reduces the number of sources making the claims, but does not eliminate them. It's a knotty problem: does Wikipedia violate NPOV by talking about Stefan von Habsburg-Lothringen as if he were an Archduke, listing his titles and styles as "His Imperial and Royal Highness", and saying that he married morganatically when there is no recognised title to inherit? As I say, the template talk discussion is interesting. Guy (help!) 23:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

My approach to the broader question of royalty w/o a kingdom is to avoid using the titles in wiki-voice. Instead I generally put a note in the personal lives section that the subject is sometimes accorded certain royal/noble honorifics on an unofficial basis as a courtesy, often by monarchists. I also note the country in question is now a republic and that the titles have no legal standing. Royal titles should not be included in info-boxes or the lead if they have no official recognition. That seems to solve the issue. See Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, that's entirely reasonable. I have moved several of these articles along exactly those lines, but DWC LR has reverted at least some.

Apart from anything else, how confusing is it for the reader to be presented with an article that claims active royal titles for a country that the linked article proclaims to be a republic, and where following the succession boxes gives an article on the last holder of the title, described as such? Guy (help!) 08:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG that's great that you think the law of a country is the be all end all. For centuries if you take the French royals, titles have been attributed to deposed royals and that is reflected in hundreds of sources (not just Self Published websites, I have a book shelf full of Reliable Sources I could use). Take the Court of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, a sovereign state, "L'Archiduc Carl Christian d'Autriche et l'Archiduchesse Marie-Astrid d'Autriche, sœur du Grand-Duc ont également respectivement reçu ces deux distinctions.". It's only within Austria its illegal there is no guarantee the people even live there. Wikipedia is guided by sources not editors POV. Here's the official website of Bran Castle in Romania owned by the late Archduke Stefan's siblings "On June 1, 2009, the Castle fully re-entered the possession of its legal heirs, Archduke Dominic, Archduchess Maria Magdalena and Archduchess Elisabeth.". But how can this be Austria says there are no Archdukes. - dwc lr (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

How can it be? Because anyone can say they are anything, that's why. The promotional website of a castle owned by members of a formerly-royal family and operated as a tourist attraction is not a reliable source as to whether someone is or is not actually the holder of a royal title. There isn't actually an archduke - there's someone who calls themself an archduke but does not rule an archduchy because no such archduchy exists.

I am with Ad Orientem on this matter - if there isn't actually a recognized royal family anymore, a title should not be stated as if it has a factual or legal basis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So a Hungarian born male now says there female. As the law says they can't legally change gender we refer to them by their legal gender? - dwc lr (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone's gender is their own private matter. Someone claiming to be an archduke is claiming to have some sort of monarchical power or authority which hasn't existed for more than a century. The two are not remotely comparable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, it is the be all and end all. You cannot be a king of a place that has abolished the monarchy, you cannot be a prince of a place that has abolished princes, you cannot be an archduke of a place that has abolished archduchies.

I note that you have moved one of these back to Archduke Markus of Austria (see talk:Archduke Markus of Austria). He was born in 1946. He was never an archduke. It really is that simple. We can say that he styles himself thus, but we cannot call him this, per NPOV, and we absolutely cannot subscribe to the absurd fantasy that he is styled "His Imperial and Royal Highness". The last Emperor of Austria-Hungary was Charles I. There was a war and everything. Guy (help!) 08:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So Hungary says legally you can't change gender. So we refer to transgender Hungarians's by their legal gender yeah? - dwc lr (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not just an issue of the law. Didn't the house of Habsburg renounce all their claims and titles 60 years ago? Referring to someone by a title they legally cannot hold and that they personally do not claim seems like a BLP violation. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No just Otto von Habsburg, his brothers and other family members for example explicitly did not. If they don't claim a title, renounce said title, that's useful and should be put in the article. - dwc lr (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, it's not up to them. The title no longer exists. They don't get to choose. Guy (help!) 10:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The answer to the original question is exceptionally obvious, and has been iterated and reiterated above: man or woman X can claim to be the archduke/duchess·of Y, but if country Z has abolished archduchies, then Y no longer exists as a legal title to be held.

Advice, DWC LR: there's a danger that you build a reputation for yourself as a POV-pusher: if that happens, and you continue this editing pattern, blocks are likely to follow. FYI!

Particularly if you continue with the strawman of lgbtq rights in Hungary, which has literally nothing (that I can see) with its ancient nobility. ——Serial ^# 09:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The only crime I’m guilty of is citing a load of reliable sources which say X is an Archduke. I’m more than happy for an article say Austria does not legally recognise the title Archduke but that does not change the facts they still are attributed and use the titles. The Hungarian point is valid, in trying to understand here do we pick and choose which laws we respect? Are we guided by national laws even though we are not bound by them? What is our consistent view on this it’s an important Community issue with wide implications. - dwc lr (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, we know there are royalty fandom sources that use titles that no longer exist. That is a problem only when people try to reflect that fantasy as if it were a reality.

Ask the government of Austria who is the reigning Archduke, what do you think they will say? In the end, the choice of who rules is not solely down to those who wish to do the ruling. Guy (help!) 10:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s well established practice that deposed royals are still attributed titles, these titles pre date most modern states. Hence the countless sources one could cite. I’m not stupid so I wouldn’t ask that question? I’m well aware that they are not reigning that’s made perfectly clear all over. The Head the House of Habsburg considers he decides who is an Archduke, it’s a defined group of people which is reflected in Reliable Sources. We can argue this stuff for ever the fact is lots and lots of reliable sources and the Head of the House of Habsburg say they are still Archduke, we are not bound by Austrian law we present this matter in a NPOV. Yet that is not good enough for some who want there POV and there’s alone. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I just don't understand the motivation of editors who seem to want to pretend that WW1 never happened and the Hapsburgs still rule. It's a fantasy world and if there are people who want to play an alternate reality game there is no reason for WP to join in. It's an insult to Austria to say "you think your government abolished Archdukes more than 100 years ago, but you're wrong, we know better, you can't abolish them, so there." Every article on WP that labels people with abolished titles should be revised or deleted, this ridiculous practice needs to stop. Smeat75 (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree. It is OK to say something like "X claims to be and Archduke of Austria despite Austria dissolving all archduchies in 1918" but it is not OK to call anyone after 1908 "Archduke of Austria". --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The simple fact is titles are still recognised, perhaps not in Austria but recognised none the less. No one is pretending WW1 did not happen as no one is saying Karl von Habsburg is the Emperor of Austria. You know Austria doesn’t rule the world, it can only control what happens inside it own borders. The Belgian Monarchy says Princess Astrid married Lorenz, Archduke of Austria-Este, so what are the Belgian Monarchy getting at, are they living in a fantasy land or maybe they’ve been conned, go Guy Macon, go tell them it’s not ok tell them the title was abolished they obviously missed the memo. Titles are still attributed to deposed royals that has been the way of life for hundreds of years, this is common practice. But unfortunately some Wikipedia Editors can’t get there heads round these facts and try to impose their POV because WP: I just don't like it. I don’t have the first clue what the legal name of Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark do you? You’d have to engage in serious Original Research cook up some utter nonsense like your supporting over at Archduke Markus of Austria and violating BLP. If anyone is pretending it’s your good selves that titles are not still attributed, used and recognised. - dwc lr (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Austria-Este (a noble house) not Archduke of Austria.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s a title and inheritance gifted by the last Emperor of Austria to his second son, the father of Lorenz and legally abolished with the rest of the Habsburg’s titles in Austria. - dwc lr (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

And? If that is his title that is what we should use if we must have a title.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree Reliable Sources recognise and use it, we should be guided by them. - dwc lr (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If RS say they are Archduke of Austria, if RS say "X claims to be and Archduke of Austria " so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to note in the body of the article "so and so would be Princess or Archduke or whatever of such and such had the position not been abolished and sometimes people still call him/her that" but the name of the article and the info box should not include those defunct titles, although hundreds do. Also articles should not say someone "claims " a defunct royal position unless there's a reliable source with a direct quote from the person making such a claim. Again, hundreds of articles say someone "claims " to be holder of a defunct royal title with no evidence. It's a BLP violation, I don't believe most of those people are really so delusional as to make such ludicrous "claims ".Smeat75 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources referring to Karl von Hapsburg as Archduke include Tatler Vanity Fair and The New York Times, in Austria he appears to be mostly referred to as "Kaiser enkel" literally meaning emperor's grandson. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well NYT seems to say "otherwise known as Archduke Karl of Austria", Vanity fair “ the ancestral archduke of Austria” and Tatler (is that an RS?)   Austrian Archduke Karl von Habsburb (which is the closer to saying he is archduke of Austria, but it is not worded as a sole title). Sorry I am not sure any of these say he is "Archduke of Austria" at best they treat it as a courtesy title.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, yes, that's how Hello and other sleb pages represent it. But at the same time, it asserts feudal lordship in a context where no such lordship exist. Guy (help!) 15:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hence why I say we can say "is called" or "claims" but we cannot say it as a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What do people think about the titles that are part of the now abolished Greek Monarchy? Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece, Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark,Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark and Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark, obviously this is a different issue as the monarchy was abolished much more recently and they are also part of the still existing Danish monarchy and are referred to as such in The New York Times, among other sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Again we go with RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

::Agree with Slatersteven follow the Reliable Sources which may well recognise the title and for a NPOV add a note to the article the monarchy was abolished, title not recognised there whatever the case may be, Wikipedia is supposed to be simple like that where people don’t let there POV get the better of them. - dwc lr (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment A quick note here. The legal approach to titles in former monarchies since turned republic is not uniform in Europe. Austria has taken a fairly hard line on the subject. But in France (how ironic) titles have not been legally abolished and are still used and subject to actual government regulation. They have no legal status and confer no privilege but are treated as part of the family name. The Ministry of Justice has jurisdiction for regulatory purposes. In Germany titles also have no legal standing but many aristocratic families have incorporated their old titles into their legal names and this has been generally accepted. Spain and Belgium are both current constitutional monarchies and I have heard (though have not confirmed) that in official court documents (royal court, not legal court) they use the former titles of the Hapsburgs when referring to members of the family in the present tense. Which would seem to suggest some level of formal acceptance of the titles within those states. I haven't found any discussion of this on the part of the civil governments there, leading me to suspect that they probably just don't give a bleep. In short, the question is a bleeping mess. All of which said, I still stand by my suggestion above. Wikipedia should not be conferring any formal recognition of titles that do not enjoy some level of official recognition within the country where they are claimed to originate. Of course in the case of the Hapsburgs (and Romanovs etc.) there are a lot of people who do privately recognize the titles and routinely use them, myself included. That needs to be noted, but not in the lead or in any info box. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• How would you treat the style of the Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein, they say she is HRH [20] but that comes from her birth into the deposed Royal House of Bavaria. I’m sure the majority here would want us to contradict that Sovereign State and insist she is actually just HSH like her husband and in laws. - dwc lr (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question, reinforcing my point that this subject is messy. In this case I would have to defer to the government of the Principality since that is where she lives and she is a member of the ruling family. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Here is my interpretation of how we should treat nobility:

• Wikipedia has articles defining various titles, their histories, and their holders. There is ample coverage of how noble titles are/were treated in the cases where states and/or monarchies were dissolved or where people abdicated.
• These articles are ideally built from the abundant academic sources describing the status of nobility before and after abolition of their monarchies.
  • In fact, it is almost certain there are more reliable sources discussing as unquestioned fact the abolition of Austrian titles than there are equivalent-quality sources operating under the assumption the titles are extant.
• If Wikipedia purports, in wiki voice, the consensus understanding of royal and noble titles in a particular country, that view should be consistent between articles.
  • We could even say the meaning and history of a title are transcluded in all articles and templates in which they are wiki-linked...
• Therefore, wiki-linked title A ascribed in wiki voice to person X on their page or in a template/category should carry the same parent-article-supported meaning that it does in the article for person Y.
  • Stated another way, an article should not have a separate wiki voice interpretation of an externally-defined faculty.
• In cases where a wiki-linked term, through novel use in an RS, conveys a different or secondary meaning than that covered by the parent article, that meaning should be attributed. If that usage becomes widespread among multiple RS and is applicable to several articles, but there is no corresponding change in the consensus understanding--that is, (ideally academic) RS are not discussing an evolution of meaning in the term itself--a new category might be created reflecting this usage and its context.

Right now, what we have instead is:

• We are affirming the current existence of a constitutionally-abolished title in wiki voice. With templates like this and this, we are unequivocally declaring Ferdinand Zvonimir (born 1997), great-grandson of the last Emperor of Austria, Charles I, holds the exact same title as everyone else listed. A small note mentioning titles of nobility were abolished in 1919 does not provide sufficient context to the reader. How are they to know from the template that this guy was called "archduke of Austria" by Austrians and the Austrian government, but this other guy is only called "archduke of Austria" by foreign press and in fact it is illegal for him to title himself in Austria?
• We are putting forth contradictory statements. Despite our extensive coverage of Austrian nobility and its abolition, we have articles like Archduke Markus of Austria (born 1946) and Archduke Stefan of Austria (1932) that call them archdukes (and princes of Tuscany) without challenge. Even within the same article (e.g. Archduke Carl Christian of Austria) we will mention the fact that the subject belongs to the former ruling house of Austria, but then go along calling him an archduke anyway. We label Archduke Sigismund of Austria (born 1966), in near-adjacent templates, as both a "Titular Grand Duke of Tuscany" ("title in pretense") and a prince of Tuscany. Conversely, the names of articles on people with identical lineage may or may not include a title depending on the availability of media coverage and who the most recent editor was. JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC) got logged out somehow?

RfC

How should Wikipedia represent people who claim to defunct titles? Guy (help!) 09:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Background

As noted above, there are a large number of titles of nobility that have been abolished, usually by the founding of a democratic state. The titles of the former nobility may be formally banned (as for example the Archduke of Austria, which is forbidden under the Habsburg Law, they may be converted to family names (as with Prinz von Bayern, for the former princely family of Bavaria), or they may simply fall into abeyance. Translating the family name Prinz von Bayern yields "Prince of Bavaria" in English, which is assumed to be a title where it is not - note for example that Manuel Prinz von Bayern publishes in the scientific literature as Manuel Prinz von Bayern or Manuel von Bayern, he does not translate the name. Royalist sources such as Almanach de Gotha routinely use the titles as if nothing happened. Many of the articles drew on sources that are self-published royalty fansites (e.g. Royal Ark, Online Gotha), and which have now been deprecated as unreliable. Society pages also use the titles, again as if nothing happened. In some cases, such as the Prince of Prussia, the country itself no longer exists as such. In many cases royalist sources and society reports are the only sources, these may be people who are "famous for being famous", which is certainly an additional complication for WP:V when the sources insist on using a nonexistent title - up to as point this is also a WP:TRUTH/WP:V conflict, but only superficially as most of the sources that remain as RS do not in fact claim that the tiles are still extant.

So we have a conflict between COMMONNAME and NPOV and TRUTH and the rest: a classic Wikipedia dilemma. Complicating this, we have competing RS: some calling a person by a title, and others, generally much more substantial, saying that this title no longer exists. Good faith editors argue both for use of the titles as if they still exist, because sources do so, and for non-use, because that is inherently misleading and confusing when a title no longer exists This is resolved inconsistently between articles, and attempts to make it consistent result in revert wars and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS sometimes of only a handful of interested editors. The desire for a consistent approach seems reasonable, though we should not bend over backwards to enforce consistency where an exception makes sense. Accordingly, I propose the following:

Proposal

Titles should not be asserted in Wiki-voice after their abolition. Thus: article titles must not reflect titles that were abolished before accession. Implicitly, then, holders of titles current during their lifetimes should be identified by the title (e.g. Archduke Ferdinand) but holders of titles abolished before they were ever assumed (e.g. modern-day descendants of the Prince of Prussia) should be identified by the family name, with a suitable descriptive narrative describing succession, but should not be included in navigation templates etc. as holders of the abolished title of nobility. Timelines, navboxes etc should not ascribe titles of nobility to those who would only have assumed them after their abolition. {{Infobox nobility}} and variants should be used for those who held titles of nobility up to and including the title's abolition, and {{infobox person}} or variant should be used for those who never held the title before its abolition. Edge cases such as crown princes whose titles were abolished before accession, or pretenders to recently abolished titles prior to establishment of a stable alternative, should be handled case by case.

Opinions

• Support, as proposer. We should not be pretending that there is still a place called Prussia that has princes, or that Austria still has an archduke. Guy (help!) 09:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support I am not sure we should be making the decision that a title is defunct. But we should also not be pandering to the egos of purely honorary titles. So on balance I would rather we did not use honorary titles in people names.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose For article titles use WP:Common Name and Reliable Sources and judge each case on its own merits, you can’t have a one size fits all approach. This is textbook Wikipedia:I just don't like it and goes against every policy Wikipedia has, NPOV, Verifiability and No Original Research. Take Margareta of Romania what’s her legal name? Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark what’s her legal name? Maximilian, Margrave of Baden what’s his legal name? These are BLP’s of people who are known by titles yet this proposal seemingly wants to invent fantasy names for them, when we won’t have the first idea what the legal name is. We can’t just go around engaging in Original Research making up unverified nonsense which is ultimately what this proposal does. The Almanach de Gotha for example was mentioned, this is not a “Royalist Source” it’s a Genealogical, Diplomatic and Statistical journal. There is no need for Self Published websites to be used anywhere and they shouldn’t be, as there are many reliable sources and Sovereign States which recognise titles of deposed royalty which could be used instead. dwc lr (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose enforcing the usage of legal names instead of common names. The use of common names is a policy of this project; the use of legal names is not and has never been. Surtsicna (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  To elaborate, people should be called whatever they are called in reliable sources. By that I do not mean genealogy publications such as Almanach de Gotha (because Wikipedia is not a genealogy database) but reputable media outlets and academic publications. I wish there would be a more concentrated effort on establishing the notability of these people. What I think we would find is that a vast majority of the articles should be deleted rather than renamed. For those who are indeed notable it should be easy to establish what the common name is and use it. The content of the article should, of course, make it clear that the title used, if any, is not legally recognized. I think there are easy ways to achieve this. Here is a suggestion. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support to stop, in each and every case, labeling people with abolished titles. This has always seemed to me a mere fantasy game playing. I also think it is extremely disrespectful to Germany and Austria, for instance, to imply "you think you abolished royal and noble titles for any of your citizens more that a hundred years ago, but we know better, you can't abolish them,such titles are eternal, people still call them Princess and Duke etc. and so do we, so there."Smeat75 (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  The fact that neither Germany nor Austria have had any sort of a diplomatic row with the United Kingdom, Monaco, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Liechtenstein, etc, over this matter suggests to me that neither country gives a toss, let alone finds it extremely disrespectful. I would be much more wary of being disrespectful towards individuals by imposing on them names that they do not use or even legally bear. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support strongly for article style, templates, timelines, succession boxes, as well as (unmentioned explicitly) categories. Support with provisos for COMMONNAME for article titles; per DWC LR above, I will grudgingly admit that there are some pretenders whose actual legal name is sufficiently murky, and whose claimed title is sufficiently prominent, that it's better to just use an article title in the style of their claim, but it should be clear that this isn't the default policy. When this happens, though, the article content should make clear that it is the same amount of deference given to, say, Emperor Norton or Queen Latifah - that these are just names with no legal backing. To go into a bit more detail - when Wikipedia presents a claim as "according to this old rule set / according to this branch of royalists", it's fine. When Wikipedia presents something as a real, actual government-approved title, it needs to actually be true. This is maybe more obvious with existant-but-contested positions: If somebody claimed to be a mayor who wasn't actually the mayor, it'd obviously be ridiculous and misleading for a Wikipedia article to just accept the claim. Yet that's exactly what we do for government-abolished and hypothetical titles, far too often. SnowFire (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Wait...what? You mean Lady Sovereign isn't an actual sovereign and Duke Ellington isn't an actual duke?? Who knew? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, there's lots of them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support for excluding claimants of abolished titles from navboxes, categories, and other templates and referring to them in wikivoice. I laid out my reasoning in the prior section (accidentally as an IP: diff) and echo the statements of Guy, Smeat75, and SnowFire. I think the article title is a different issue that should be addressed separately for COMMONNAME considerations (per Surtsicna, dwc lr, and Slatersteven). I would suggest amending the scope of this RfC to cover only how we treat the nobility title (in the article body and templates) as its own defined entity external to the person using it. There is a semantic difference between calling oneself or being called "Archduke of Austria", and being "Archduke of Austria". JoelleJay (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Huh. My comment says "oppose" but I find myself entirely in agreement with JoelleJay, who says "strong support". It goes to show that the scope of the RfC may indeed be a bit too wide. Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I would support User:JoelleJay's proposal, especially as User:Surtsicna would too, which makes it seem that conflicts would be unlikely. Smeat75 (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose creep. Wikipedia already has established policies and guidelines which cover these cases. DrKay (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support in general. The idea that countries such as Austria, Hungary, Germany and Russia are not republics is WP:FRINGE, and we should not be assigning people royal titles that they do not hold. This applies particularly in infoboxes, templates and article bodies, but it should at least be the presumption in article titles as well. Kahastok talk 22:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Mostly support, but COMMONNAME might be significant. I definitely agree we should not be doing defunct royalty boxes and similar, any more than we would do "Secretary of State" after that position ceases to exist. We certainly shouldn't be asserting anything like that in Wikipedia's voice as if it exists. However I'm not familiar with these articles and I see potential that the COMMONNAME could be significant in some cases. In the extreme, the claimed-title could be the only thing we have. If we have a normal/legal name and a credible case for going that way, then we should prefer normal/legal name and mention that the "title" is an unofficial alternate. If a defunct title really is the exclusive or significantly dominant COMMONNAME we might have to treat it sort of like "Queen Latifah" with care and explanation. Alsee (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:RECENTISM. I sympathise with the intention, but as written this is overly broad. The proposal isn't simply going to apply to a bunch of socialites with slightly unusual genealogies. It's also going to apply 18th century Jacobites, and 19th century Bonapartes, Bourbons and Carlists. Wars were fought over those claims; they've arguably got more in common with unrecognised states or governments-in-exile than they do with modern pretenders. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• General support. If I'm understanding correctly, the proposer is not proposing that we go back and change historical figures but that we avoid attributing a non-existent title to individuals just because they claim them. That seems quite reasonable. Deb (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• This is a minor nitpick, but re "crown princes whose titles were abolished before accession" - I wouldn't consider reigning crown princes when a title goes defunct a particularly edge case - they clearly were a "real" crown prince at one point in time, so that kind of title is fine, as long as it's Crown Prince and not King. SnowFire (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• SnowFire, yes, those are the edge cases, and we can handle them case by case (a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and all that). But let's not be deceived: Duke Ellington never claimed to be the Duke of Ellington, there never was a Duke of Ellington, so the stage name causes no confusion. Queen Latifah is not claiming to be queen of anywhere. The only real outlier there is Emperor Norton, and he was a very singular case. Even then we should probably use his birth name and say that he styled himself Emperor.

DrKay we have guidelines, and we have policies. Correct application of those has been resisted by (e.g.) those who want to claim that there is an Archduke Marcus of Austria. We have a mountain of really substantial sources that say Austria is a republic and that the archdukes were banished and their titles dissolved in 1918, so any proper assessment of sources will weigh that against the royalty fandom sources that pretend the archduchy persists, and reject them as fringe. However, that's not what's happening, so we need a specific guideline. Guy (help!) 20:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Surtsicna, COMMONNAME is a style guide, not a policy. Policy is NPOV and V. Per NPOV and V, there are no archdukes of Austria, no princes of Prussia. Not since 1918. Guy (help!) 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Guy, WP:COMMONNAME is not a style guide. It is indeed a policy. The notice on the top of the page clearly says: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy." Surtsicna (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Well said user:JzG!Smeat75 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

And I totally agree with what User:Surtsicna says above "the vast majority of the articles should be deleted rather than renamed." There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of articles about people whose only claim to notability is that they are, for instance, the small child or teenaged offspring of the person who is the sister of the person who would be reigning Duke or King if there still were one. Sooooo ridiculous and I tried to have some of such articles deleted seven years ago but met fierce opposition and gave up. I am hopeful that things have changed somewhat. Smeat75 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Being a genuine lawful King of a country is a claim of significance and will avoid speedy deletion, but even a lawful King is not WP:Notable unless there is sufficient Reliable Source coverage. Pretty much the same goes for people with defunct titles, or people claiming relationship to defunct nobility. It would probably survive speedy delete, but insufficient Reliable Source coverage is (should be) an AFD-delete. I would hope any AFD-closer would be competent enough and self-confident enough to flat out disregard any !vote that amounted to empty royalty-fandom. "I like it" is not a valid keep rationale, and closes should not be a blind headcount of keeps/deletes. Alsee (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the Genetic Literacy Project

More input would be very welcome at Talk:Genetic Literacy Project#RfC about the word ''nonpartisan'' for the Genetic Literacy Project. NightHeron (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)