Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
 Sections older than 21 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcut:
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66

Fringe source in WWII bio article

I would appreciate third party input on the matter. A disagreement arose about a citation currently present in the Ernst Lindemann article; here's the diff.

The publication in question (Range, Clemens (1974). Die Ritterkreuzträger der Kriegsmarine (in German). Stuttgart, Germany: Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 3-87943-355-0. ) has been described as neo-Nazi in this discussion: User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2016#Neo-Nazi publications.

The citations supports the subject's numerical position among all the other recipients, namely that he was 94th:

"Lindemann was the 94th recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in the Kriegsmarine.Range 1974, p. 116."

I consider the material to be trivial, while the source being used is highly questionable and unsuitable for a Featured Article, which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work. However, I'm unable to convince the other editor. The related discussion can be found here:

I have notified the other editor here: diff.K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This individual has tried to label all books published by this house as Neo-Nazi, without offering a shred of evidence the authors are engaged in this kind thing. This latest round is symptomatic of his behaviour. His attacks on the German-related articles, specifically related to World War II, looks like a crusade. I am pleased that a score of other editors have helped rebuff his attempts to project his own views on to these articles. The fact that he will dispute such a small (but not trivial) detail is typical of his unhelpful and destructive "contributions". Dapi89 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's not turn this discussion into personal attacks, shall we? (To report editor behaviour issues, pls see: WP:ANI).
As it happens, some articles on German WWII personnel contain indiscriminate amounts of information; ps see this recent discussion: Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel#Intricate details, where sections of the article are described by another editor as meticulous investigations of insignificant details.
In the case of the Lindemann article, such intricate detail is cited to a highly problematic source. I consider this information to be superfluous (along with editor Ian Rose who has commented on Talk), and I'm seeking third party input on the matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I see a couple of questions here, one is sourcing, and one is inclusion. A quick glance seems to indicate that the source is a published book, presumably not a self-published book, and probably meets wp:rs criteria. More to the point is whether the statement of receipt the award is wp:sourcable. It looks like a pretty straightforward statement and I don't see it's veracity being contested.

The next question is whether to include it in the article. One might interpret some guidance on this from WP: NPOV but I'm thinking not. So then it comes down to editorial discretion. In that area it is a matter of opinion, and mine is that a sentence on receipt of an award like that is appropriate for an article on that person. North8000 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Clarification -- the matter of the award presentation is cited to other sources. Range is used to cite that the subject was 94th such recipient in this branch of service. This is is not remarkable as he was neither the 1st nor 4th, for example. I clarified above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This is another strand of a larger problem with Coffmann: a very narrow view of what is and isn't notable. Would he care to venture a guess, as to how many captains were awarded the KC for the command of a capital ship in battle? Dapi89 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
How does this relate to the current discussion on the need for the article to include that the subject was 94th recipient? Please help me understand. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Range, born 1955, is a former Bundeswehr officer turned journalist and well known for his far right political stand. His recent publications have been thrashed by historians for inaccuracy, bias and distortions of historical facts. Rainer Blasius alikened Range's "biographical dictionary" of former Wehrmacht officers in the Bundeswehr to the romancing attitude of Der Landser. [1] I do not think that his very early work was much better.--Assayer (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

"Part of a larger crusade"

I consider the information on the Rudel article that user K.e.coffman has considered "trivial" to be actually at least as important, if not more so, than the subject's WWII service. So if a recipient of an award was 94th, so what? If he was 10007, so what. As for including whether someone was the 94th or the 93rd, can you tell me why this is NOT relevant? We note that a person graduated 286 in a class of 500, is that any less relevant? This is part of a larger "crusade", I suspect, to discredit a series of articles about military personnel in WWII in Germany. The service of Germans in their country's war is a fact. The award of medals is a fact. This are not alternative facts, regardless of who publishes the information. The "romancing" of WWII German military personnel may itself be questionable, but this does not change the facts about their service. auntieruth (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Since we are back to the topic of who may or may not be campaigning, I would appreciate if editor Auntieruth55 would clarify the exchange below, as it could be perceived as a coordinated action in support of promoting a MilHist article to Featured status:
We who? What was the outcome of this discussion? And did it have any impact on the voting at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)/archive1. Answers to these questions would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I've notified the editor here: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The outcome was that one person got some sleep and played cricket with his kids, and I graded some papers. No one has clarified for me what the outcome of the previous discussion was. I'm still wondering about that and why you are so anxious to discredit these previously approved articles! auntieruth (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I am interested in evidence as to the status of the publishing house and the author; I have not found any though this is sometimes difficult to track down with German publishing houses. I am troubled by a few things--User:Dapi89's accusation of a "crusade", a charge repeated by User:Auntieruth55, whose scare quotes do nothing to alleviate the lack of good faith. And I don't understand a few of the comments in this last section--"So if a recipient of an award was 94th, so what?" doesn't make a lot of sense after it was stated that the information is "at least as important" as the person's service. And that someone graduated 286 in a class of 500, I have never seen that noted in an article, though I grant that I don't MilHist much. Anyway, I've seen K.e.coffman's work, and I have never had a reason to doubt their good intentions; I would appreciate it if you all could drop the "crusade" language, since it only discredits the person using the term. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The 'so what' I believe is in reference to it being an uncontentious piece of information. The fact he is recipient of the award is not in doubt, Coffman however is saying the sourcing provided is not reliable to state the fact that he was the '94' recipient. Ultimately unless you are the first or last recipient of almost all awards, you are just a link in the chain of winners, so it really is not important if they were 94th, 95th, 105th etc. If the fact of the award is not disputed, I have not seen any evidence above the source is not reliable to say they were the 94th. If they are a right-wing publisher, then you can expect them to have done some research on right-wing figures. Its not beyond the realms of feasibility they might puff up subjects *where there is a benefit in doing so*. I cant see any reason it would be biased or romanticising to say "Subject X was the 94th recipient of award Y" over "Subject X was the recipient of award Y". Where is the motivation? If people are going to argue a source's political stance influences their reliability, you need to actually make a credible argument there is a *reason* for them to publish unreliable material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't dispute your statement, User:Only in death--and at any rate, the rank is not the most important matter. You are right in that a right-wing outfit can be trusted to do their homework, but that same outfit can also be trusted, probably, to skew the facts whenever appropriate, as I have found in many Nazi and neo-Nazi accounts of German history. The basic statement "person X got a medal", sure, I suppose. But I'm really more interested in the evidence for the supposed POV than the medal. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Drmies should be aware there a quite a number of editors that feel that way. Dapi89 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to tell her that, Dapi; no doubt Drmies will tell you that COIN is not the place to address this topic. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Then why did you bring it up? Dapi89 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't, Dapi89, you did. I'm only saying that those matters are not for here. Now kindly drop the attempt to blackball your opponent. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Drmies: The source (Range) is described above by editor Asssayer: Range, born 1955, is a former Bundeswehr officer turned journalist and well known for his far right political stand. His recent publications have been thrashed by historians for inaccuracy, bias and distortions of historical facts. Rainer Blasius alikened Range's "biographical dictionary" of former Wehrmacht officers in the Bundeswehr to the romancing attitude of Der Landser. [2] I do not think that his very early work was much better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • K.e.coffman, I read that article yesterday or the day before (I think it's linked from the German article on Range?), and it's not enough for me to make such a condemnation that the material would be unreliable, though it's clear that the tone of his writing is indeed ... fishy. A source to use with care, a source whose judgment calls should not be repeated in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Drmies....nah, I didn't. Dapi89 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand: That book by Range, published when he was only 19 years of age, is bad. It's biased to the extreme (Range uses peacock words to describe Lindemann in nearly every sentence: vorbildlich, besonnen, erfolgreich = exemplary, considerate, successful) and it does not contain much information anyway. I cannot imagine that a historian would refer to that work while writing about Lindemann. The same information, that he was the 94th recipient, could easily be referenced with Manfred Dörr (1996), Ritterkreuzträger der Überwasserstreitkräfte, vol. 2, already being used in the article. So, as was pointed out very early on, one question is sourcing, the other inclusion. The first could be resolved quickly, although I am not sure, if there isn't an interest to keep Range as a source anyway. The second touches upon WP:DUE. These kind of articles, i.e. articles dealing with Knight's Cross recipients, are stuffed with small details. Those details lend authenticity to a narrative which actually distracts from the violence of war. The article features a whole chapter on the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, but skips over the fact that Lütjens and Lindemann, following Erich Raeder's order, were responsible for the hopeless final fight and thus for the death of most of their crew. (Holger Afflerbach: "Mit wehender Fahne untergehen". In: VfZ 49 (2001), p. 609.) Sure, that's the usual German military glory stuff of Wikipedia. But if "romancing" is to be critically discussed at some point, it has to include a discussion of how "facts" are selected and how they are presented. Such insight is completely missing with many of the MilHistProject.--Assayer (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
My original statement in the thread was: the material [is] trivial, while the source being used is highly questionable and unsuitable for a Featured Article, which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work.
The larger question is, should Wikipedia promote articles that contain a highly selective set of facts and are largely sourced to, let's say, specialised literature (militaria / phaleristics / WP:QS and / or fringe sources, up to & including neo-Nazi publications)? For a related discussion, please see: Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel#Intricate_details & Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel#Sources (with the same editors, actually). Or, for a more humorous take, see:
K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Once again, scrapping at the bottom of the barrel. Words like "exemplary, considerate, successful" does not make the source biased. They are observations.
And what does Coffmann mean by "selective set of facts"? Are there any "alternative facts"? What does this 'Trumpist' speak mean? Are there conflicting sources?
 ::::I think it is obvious to any passing observer that these two individuals are intent on causing fights over the most trivial matters. K.e.Coffman seems to think that "anti-shipping" (maritime interdiction), "air raids", "sorties" and "missions" are also Nazi euphemisms. Now that is funny. Dapi89 (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Reading this thread was a headache. Everyone, please keep to the point. '94th' is only published in one book, that book is not a reliable source, and so '94' should not be included. There is no reason to discuss triviality or notability of the fact, or predisposition of editors. There is nothing in WP:RS that discusses pulling facts that are probably true from unreliable sources just because the unreliable source is unlikely to fabricate that particular point. WP:RS is clear, the source must be reliable for the fact to be verifiable. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Does this source have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? If not, strike the 94, and move on. 2604:6000:7B0E:8C00:B91F:4407:3AF6:3B15 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The Teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but the whole article seems to be a copy-paste from a religious text. Can someone with more familiarity with Islam either revert to a clean version or take the article to AfD. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It's copied from a translation, probably originally this one and may be copyvio. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Stubbed, copyvio deleted. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

I am besides myself on the article about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Another editor added the following[3] which was reverted[4]. Editors on the page are arguing that Trump's response isn't related to the article about the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I have never seen Wikipedia editors literally arguing that articles about a topic are off-topic. No matter how much I explain that it's not our job as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong, it falls on deaf ears.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Ukraine A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not about RS, it is about Undue. The argument is that this is a throw away line by Donny that has nothing to actually do with Russian interference and thus has not place in that article. No one questions the sources, they question the weight.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that WP:Reliable sources are wrong. If numerous reliable sources have reported on this (which they have), it's our duty as Wikipedia editors to report this. AQFK (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
They are not saying they are wrong, they are saying this is irrelevant as it tells us nothing about Russian hacking.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course, you are. Reliable sources have determined that this is relevent. You just admitted that you think it's irrelevant. AQFK (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Trivializing one party's claims or responses in a dispute they are centrally involved in is completely inappropriate for NPOV. UNDUE here would apply to views of those that are in no way involved with any of the claims; we don't want to give excessive weight to voices that aren't central to the matter and that represent fringe views. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
We have one sides response to the accusations of Russian interference, this has nothing to do with that. As the source says (which the suggested text failed to mention) there are some key differences between this event and the Russian interference.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
In addition if we have this we must also have the DNC's explanation/denial.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The proposed material is a diversion. It is not a direct response to the serious revelations of possible collusion with an adversary state. It doesn't matter if the material is covered by 10,000 reliable sources; consensus among editors is what determines what goes in an article. Consensus (so far) has concluded that this material is not meaningful and not relevant to the subject of the article.- MrX 16:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, there's no reason to not include the DNC's response to the accusations of collusion with Ukraine, as rebutting to Trump's assertion. But omitting Trump's assertion, being the central figure out this, should be included if has been given that much coverage. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Some here seem to be forgetting the basic principle "A source is relevant if I like what it says and irrelevant if I don't". It's in our policy WP:POLICIESIJUSTMADEUPTOWINANARGUMENT... Clearly when the democrats accuse the Trump administration of colluding with the Russians in order to win an election, a direct response by the Trump administration accusing the Democrats of colluding with the Ukrainians in order to win an elections is relevant and has sufficient weight. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Great so Sean Hannity is Donald Trump? As far as I can see that is who the source ascribes this claim to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not Twitter. God help us if we start writing articles that essentially say: "That's what you are, but what am I?!" By the way, it's not just Democrats saying that the Trump campaign may have colluded with Russia. Even a casual reading of a few sources makes that abundantly evident. - MrX 17:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It'd be nice if you went and joined the ongoing discussion on the article talk page before making changes like this. There's a survey up and everything. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Almost all of the oppose comments seem to be rebutting strawmen, e.g. "this is irrelevant as it tells us nothing about Russian hacking"; "there are some key differences between this event and the Russian interference." I explicitly acknowledged key differences between the scale of Ukrainian and Russian influence efforts in my initial comment on the matter, but then no-one has suggested creating a new section on "Ukrainian interference" in the election, and not even Sean Hannity has implied that Russian interference is somehow negated or justified by Ukrainian interference. The White House response was limited to the Trump campaign–Russian meeting, i.e. that there is an obvious and direct parallel between Don Jr. accepting Russian opposition research and the DNC accepting Ukrainian opposition research, which has not been refuted. (As Glenn Greenwald says: "What's the argument as to why that's illegal but not this?") If this content is considered too far removed from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to be allowed to stay, then so is the "Meeting with Russian lawyer" section, and probably much of the article focusing on circumstanial ties between Trump associates and Russian nationals.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
See also "Trump Jr. Was Told in Email of Russian Effort to Aid Campaign," The New York Times, July 10, 2017: "The White House press office, however, accused Mrs. Clinton's team of hypocrisy. The office circulated a January 2017 article published in Politico, detailing how officials from the Ukrainian government tried to help the Democratic candidate conduct opposition research on Mr. Trump and some of his aides." If America's paper of record considers this news fit to print, in its article on the Trump Jr. affair, maybe Wikipedia should follow suit.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The story of Russian interference in the election has had massive, daily coverage in RS for some time now. Given the number of ongoing investigations, the story is likely to continue for quite a while. A few days ago, Trump basically said that Hillary did something bad somewhere else. This is actually an old story that was in RS for a brief period of time and faded away so quickly most of us forgot about it. What are the chances that this accusation will stay in the news related to the Russian interference in the 2016 election? If it does, it can be included then. But, even RS look at this as an attempted diversion. And with the massive amount of play this story has and will continue to receive, we can’t include every tit-for-tat. WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT, WP:DUE. Objective3000 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Well besides The New York Times, a secondary reliable source - an open supporter of Clinton even - there are others dedicating entire articles just to the response of the White House press secretary and others, such as The Atlantic[5] (the OP mentions others in the tp), or to the DNC's response to it, such as CNN[6]. There's also others criticizing the response but dedicating an article to it, such as WPo[7]. The excuse to white wash away the response on this one-sided BLP violation of an article is "meh, not enough"? You'll have to do better than that. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't read past: an open supporter of Clinton. There is a difference between news pages and editorials. Objective3000 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So, we're going to have to include everything Donald Trump and/or Sean Hannity say to try to distract away from the Russian meddling. No matter how far off-topic it is? No matter how implausible? Just because some sources covered (and debunked) it? Where will we find space to write about things that actually happened and that actually involve Russia meddling in the election? This falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. And while Wikipedians may habitually give a lot of coverage to statements that come from the White House, I'm afraid that we're living in a different world for the time being. Geogene (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No, not everything, just responses notable enough such as this one. And please read the material, no one "debunked" it, some people criticized the response, no one said the accusation was false or denied the Ukrainian story. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Except that this is not notable (more correctly, it is UNDUE) because it got hardly any coverage at all compared to the article's topic. (In fact, to answer your next argument I'm looking for a source now by searching "Democrats Ukraine" and I'm not even able to find any today, and will have to go dig that WaPo piece out of the article's talk page to do so. And what little coverage it did get was primarily negative, or in other words, RS are debunking it as a talking point and distraction[8]. That will be the same tone it will have to get in the article, if it must go in, and so inclusion will only make Trump's defenders look worse. Sorry, it's bunk even if it's DUE. Geogene (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
There have already been numerous sources provided, and your inability to find more is besides the point. Please move on. I don't care what Trump or his supporters will look like, I care about the article including responses to an accusation that made the headlines on every newspaper (the response). If the response was criticized so be it, that is not a reason to censor it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The reason I can't find those sources today is because in the last few days they have been utterly buried by thousands of other sources about other aspects of the topic. That can only have happened because it's such a trivial aspect of the subject. Therefore, UNDUE. Just because something you like can, in theory, be reliably sourced if you search hard enough for a handful of news articles does not guarantee inclusion, and I'm afraid that if you think that it does then you profoundly misunderstand a key aspect of the editing process. Geogene (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't need to "look hard enough", it's right there on every headline screaming at your face. Yes, newspapers cover different news different days, who would know! And yes, mainstream media has a well known feud with Trump, so you see more articles about things said against his administration than responses by it (who would know!). The fact that even so it got such ample coverage goes to show. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
mainstream media has a well known feud with Trump. I'm sorry, but that you would state such as fact on the NPOV board suggests that you don't understand the principles behind NPOV. Objective3000 (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
And again, you dismiss every point with "you don't know what you're talking about". I feel like this discussion is moot. I've made my point. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
May I suggest that in future you never put words in quotes that were never spoken? Objective3000 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am surprised that no one has suggested the obvious solution... which is to create a stand alone article on the Ukrainian interference in the 2016 United States election. There was obviously enough media coverage for it to pass Notability for a stand alone article. Plus, with a separate topic we get a different evaluation of what is DUE and UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That is a story that came out six months ago and died. Doesn’t pass WP:RECENTISM. Objective3000 (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it's important that we don't blindly parrot every instance of finger pointing in Washington. We need to carefully judge how significant a comparison the Ukrainian interference is to the Russian. I made an attempt at doing this, skimming the Politico article, which said that Ukraine's involvement, while straining "diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections", did not rise to the level of what Russia was doing. Quoting from paragraphs 4-6 of the article: "The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race...But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails. Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials...There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine." I'll leave it to editors with more time and knowledge than I to investigate further. ~Awilley (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Well put. Our job as editors is not all that complex if we simply rely on RS. Takes away any burden on us to perform OR/SYNTH. The Ukraine thingy came up about six months back (if I remember correctly) and died. The Russian thingy has been going on for at least seven months and is daily fodder in RS. An attempt to bring the Ukraine thingy to the forefront in an article on Russian interference in the 2016 elections as a distraction is unlikely to last. If it does, then we can include it. But, it’s four days old. Patience will out. Objective3000 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Per RECENTISM, we shouldn't have an article anywhere close to the depth of what the current Russia Interference is. We have no idea in the long term how much of this is actually significant, as we're still dealing with accusations and no firm conclusion. If editors are going to chose to be that indepth, then they need to treat all relevant angles with the same in-depth coverage, but per RECENTISM and NOTNEWS, this article is realistically far too much that we as an encyclopedia should be covering. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree. And I find the public opinion polling egregious. But getting consensus to shrink an article isn't easy. Geogene (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter if we discus the key differences between these two incidents here, or even on the talk page of the article. Any text we include in the article must reflect the RS's doubts about the similarities. The suggested text did not do that, but rather only put the fact thew the Trump campaign had made the association. The problem with this (as well as making clear that the DNC have said that there were no official contacts) Is that we then get a paragraph or two over what is a rather lame (failed) deflection. This there is an issue with undue weight here. But until we actually see some suggested text that actually reflects what the RS have said about this I most oppose inclusion of this on principle.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This is what I meant by the RECENTISM problem. As soon as you start including every accusation and criticism made towards Trump and/or Russia, to be NPOV for the controversy you need to add Trump and/or Russia's own accusations and criticism, and then the counter-criticism to that. This all creates a huge rabbit trail that is puffing up the article size tremendously. None of this should be called UNDUE or FRINGE, particularly since it can be readily sourced. The other option is to keep the article at the bare bones, stating core facts and enough to establish the importance, and omit all the punditry until the matter is well and fully resolved, at which point as an encyclopedia we can write with 20/20 hindsight on the actual points of opinion that best represent the closed situation to focus us. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps editors should wait until/if indictments occur, before bloating up the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps editors should refuse to let a Wikipedia article contain accusations against a living person while not allowing that person's direct response into the article. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and those who allow it should be ashamed of themselves. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
"Oh, but it is only his view so it must be FRINGE and thus UNDUE to include" will be a response, which is BS. UNDUE/FRINGE should not be applied to those views directly at the center of a controversy, only to those viewpoints that are not directly party to the situation (eg most of the media in this case). --MASEM (t) 19:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Maryam Mirzakhani

The article has been here some time ago, but there is currently a massive pro-Iranian POV pushing in the article. The pushers want to define the subject as an Iranian mathematician. She has an Iranian nationality, but has not been employed in Iran even a single day. Consensus to define her as Iranian-American mathematician (as a compromise) has been established in the past at the talk page, but the pushers are challenging it and there are too many to get their hand. I gave up and unwatched the article, because to be honest I am tired of these battleground behavior, but someone may want to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Christian communism

This is about [9]. I do not feel like reverting it, but I would like advice from third parties upon whether this is OK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Bakersfield, California

It seems to me that this edit creates some balance issues. I don't think it gives a very balanced portrayal of the recent history of the city. Not quite sure what to do about it, though. I am tempted to revert it, but parts of it are probably usable. Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Rothenberg Ventures

Here to see if there's anybody willing to take a look at a COI request posted at Talk:Rothenberg Ventures, about updating the Controversies section to make it easier to follow, and remove extraneous detail. The request is by me, as I've been advising the firm on the article. Another editor has replied to say that controversy / criticism sections aren't great practice, and I don't disagree. However, I think this my proposal is nevertheless an improvement, and more neutral than the current version. If anyone here is willing to have a look and weigh in, I'd appreciate it. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100

A user is frequently removing the entire mentions of Elvis Presley from this article, despite reliable sources mentioning his 17 hits every time they talk about this list. Discussion is on: Talk:Artists_with_the_most_number-ones_on_the_U.S._Billboard_Hot_100#Systematic_removal_of_Elvis_Presley. Excelse (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

0.999...

I have concerns over the neutrality at the article 0.999.... I have started an RfC on the matter. Opinions are welcome. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The use of the term "illegal alien"

I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue, but I'd like to explore the possibility of banning the use of "illegal alien" across Wikipedia unless it's part of quotes. I've noticed that it's a term that editors regularly try to introduce to Wikipedia articles related to immigration (see the edit-warring on this article[10], for instance) whereas other editors try to remove it. While lots federal and state agencies do use the term (some have moved away from it in recent years), the term is rarely, if ever, used by reliable news sources:

  • The Associated Press Style Guide[11] doesn't allow it.
  • The Washington Post style guide: "The Post does not refer to people as “illegal aliens” or “illegals,” per its guidelines."[12]
  • The New York Times style guide doesn't allow it, even describing it as "sinister-sounding".[13]

Is is therefore jarring when Wikipedia uses a term that is (i) widely seen as offensive or sinister, (ii) has not been used by any reliable news outlets in decades, and (iii) has far more suitable (common in reliable sources and non-offensive) substitutes, such as "undocumented immigrant" and even the flawed "illegal immigrant". So, it's not only bad style to use it on Wikipedia but the fact that the term is allowed on Wikipedia leads to lots of needless edit-warring as users try to introduce the offensive term to pages and others try to remove it. I've also started a discussion on the Manual of Style board[14] to get their take on the term. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I know there was a discussion of this on a noticeboard, but I can't find it. However, in principle, I agree that we should not use "illegal alien" unless it is a quoted word, if we are describing the meaning of the term, or in cases of historical context where the term was more common (as one might find in older works of fiction, avoiding reversioning of the past). If we are talking about a contemporary issue, even if the sources use "illegal alien", if we can paraphrase that to something less offensive but still accurate, that would be better. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what relevance my weigh-in on this will have, but I was intrigued when I heard a United States judicial member once clarify that no one is an "illegal" anything unless they are found guilty in a court of law. Until then, they are merely "undocumented". I found that very interesting. For what it's worth. Maineartists (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Excellent sources. The term is most often used to describe living people that have never been convicted. The term is used as a derogatory label WP:LABEL. There exists perfectly adequate language to express this without such terminology. Yes, we can use it in a properly referenced quote. Objective3000 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The term should be used where appropriate, as the term is the correct legal definition of a foreign national living without authorization in a country they are not a citizen of. Yes the term is politically charged, but that does not preclude it from being used in a encyclopedic tone. Keeping WP:GEOSCOPE in mind, the term "Alien" is in use outside of the United States where it has fewer negative tones, and in the English speaking world has the same legal standing. As far as sourcing is concerned, the federal government of the United States employs the term ([15] [16]) as do a number of dictionaries ([17] [18] [19].) Like all terms that could induce offense or be used to defame, the term "Illegal Alien" should be used in the proper context to better serve the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that my vote is below.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Illegal alien is the proper legal term. It definitely should be used in any wiki text covering statutes and policies in which it is defined, and possibly elsewhere. There is nothing inherently sinister with either alien (a person who is not a citizen or resident) or illegal (a person who has entered illegally without a proper visa). Just because some PC speech activists are trying to move away from the proper legal term is not a reason we should do so. If at all we should ban non-legal pseudo euphemisms such as undocumented immigrant (which for instance assumes the illegal alien's intent is imiigration and not some other intent).Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
"some PC speech activists" = Virtually every single reliable news source. Seriously. I dare you to find one reliable news outlet that uses "illegal aliens" except in quotes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Left leaning press has endorsed this - which is what you brought. However US code and regulations are full of the term. Want to hazard a guess as to how many times alien appears in the us tax code, guidelines, and forms? I could see how calling a BLP an illegal alien would be a violation of BLPCRIME prior to conviction. However if we are talking about an unspecified group or alternatively individuals who have been convicted or deported there really should not be a problem to refer to them as such.Icewhiz (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Labeling the NYT, WaPo and AP "left-leaning press" on the NPOV board is, IMHO, an example of irony. Objective3000 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Despite being leading RSes (and really leading, the first newsorg you would want to cite), NYT and WaPo do have a clear editorial angle. Does not mean they are not reliable (in fact they are highly reliable, and perhaps the most reliable US sources). But reliability does not equate with adopting their style guide which reflects their editorial angle, which unrelated to reliability.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC) The NYT, as a RS, recognizes that it is perceived as liberal [20].Icewhiz (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal, which is about as conservative as the NYT is liberal, doesn't use "illegal alien" either.[21] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The source you provided, which might or might not be a rs for wsj's policy, actually say they prefer to use illegal immigrant. They avoid alien due to possible popular confusion with E.T. In popular news reporting that may be a concern, but in a wiki article actually dealing with a statute that uses the term? Finally I will note that if Wikipedia will blanket avoid the term, it will paint Wikipedia as biased, as avoidance of illegal in this context clearly places a source in a particular camp. Undocumented immigrant is just aas POVish as illegal.Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I cannot imagine the logic behind this statement: Undocumented immigrant is just as POVish as illegal. Objective3000 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Use of one over the other allows a quite stong statistical inference of the writer's political position.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Perception is not reality and I’ve never before heard the claim that The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage is politically influenced by the editorial board.
BTW, the NYT states about the author of that piece: "Her opinions and conclusions are her own." That is, it is not RS. Objective3000 (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support As the npr ethics handbook says, "Strive to use words and phrases that accurately deliver information without taking sides on emotional or political issues."[22] When we use the terms "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant," we are taking a position on the issue. I think there should be a section on "politically loaded language" in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Words that may introduce bias that includes the terms, "homicide bomber" and others. TFD (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Could be an addition to WP:TERRORIST. Objective3000 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. SamHolt6's position seems perfectly sensible to me, as there will be times where "illegal alien" is the correct term to use. I'd also like to note that this appears to be drifting into avoiding "illegal immigrant" as well which, irrespective of the current culture war going on in the US, is still perfectly acceptable elsewhere.(UKIrelandNZSouth Africa) Bromley86 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • It would be helpful if you would read the links you provide before providing them. The first story in your UK search for example ("Grenfell fire: 'I was too afraid because I'm undocumented'", BBC), doesn't use the word "illegal immigrant", it refers to "undocumented residents." The term "illegal immigrant" redirects to "undocumented residents," which is the preferred term in UK reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep, saw that. Perhaps you missed the quote marks? Did you see the second article? "... among 18 suspected illegal immigrants found in a lorry..." Third: "Eighteen suspected illegal immigrants from Iraq..." Forth: "Egypt says the detainees are illegal immigrants..." Fifth: "An illegal immigrant who was caught working..." Etc. Admittedly, I've been out of the UK loop for a couple of years, so things may have changed, but they were always, without question, called "illegal immigrants" rather than "undocumented migrants" in the UK in 2015. From my memory, anyway. Bromley86 (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I support the use of the term provided the context is appropriate. For example, the term should not be used in an article that has content cited to any entity that does not use the term per their manual(s) of style. However, the term still has legal standing, and remains a definition provided by a number of dictionaries. From a legal standpoint, in the United States a 2015 opinion by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ([23]) confirmed that the term has basis in legal documentation. The parlance of our time is changing, and while the term may well fall out of favor (a counter to my 5th Circuit point would be that the term has not been granted a legal opinion by the US Supreme Court), it remains in use. Without doubt the term is politically charged, but that does not preclude it from being used in a encyclopedic tone if the situation (and more importantly, the source cited in the concerning instance) warrants it. The question should always be if or not it is tactful to use the term, or if a better one can be employed to suit the same need. Per my previous posting, like all terms that could induce offense or be used to defame, "Illegal Alien" should be used in the proper context to better serve the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Dictionaries do not characterize the term illegal alien as disparaging nor offensive. It is a neutral term, used to describe "a foreign national who is living without authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen." Just because very left-leaning media outlets like the New York Times and WaPo don't want to use a term doesn't mean Wikipedia should conform to their preferred terminology. Setting a standard for adopting euphemisms in place of appropriate wording isn't a good direction for the project. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Who is to blame for the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election?

We seem to have a content dispute issue at James Comey. It's a bit of a journey, but I will sum up the highlights. First, the material in question for reference:

1. Disputed: "His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts to have likely cost Clinton the election."

Suggested: "Comey's July 5 press conference regarding the controversy, as well as his letter to congress related to the discovery of new Clinton emails, was met with bipartisan criticism."
Reasoning: The "analysts" are two bloggers and three writers from a fashion magazine, and per WP:V, if reliable sources disagree, they must be represented. However, I and other editors prefer the much more neutral suggested material.

2. Disputed: The fifth paragraph of the lead, regarding the dismissal.

Suggested: Either reduce the entire paragraph to one sentence ("On May 5, President Trump dismissed Comey.") or at least include Trump's reasoning, instead of cherry picking those given by his critics/the New York Times/the Washington Post.
Reasoning: The vast trimming is preferred by myself and a few others, as the dismissal is covered extensively later in the article, as well as its own fork. Also, only one point of view is represented and omits perhaps the biggest bombshell report of this saga: him to Comey testified that Trump never asked stop the Russia investigation, refuting tremendous speculation and insinuation of the contrary.

3. Disputed: Using WikiVoice to state the claims by the New York Times as fact: "Trump stated that he fired Comey to "ease" the Russian investigation against him—calling him a "nut job" and "In a private conversation with the Russian government, Trump stated that he "faced great pressure on the Russian investigation. That's [now] taken off"."

Suggested: Adding "reportedly" and/or "According to the New York Times" before stories exclusively reported by the New York Times.
Reasoning: These two stories were reported solely by the NYT, and unverified by any other media outlet. Additionally, the reporting is allegedly based off an anonymous source's anonymous letter read over the telephone. All of these facts are significant, and it's important to note that the source of the two allegations.
  • I was WP:BOLD and overhauled the lead. Reverted by MrX. He expressed his view of my content: "the vast majority of it was bad," and opined that Trump's responses regarding to the dismissal ("he wasn't doing a good job," "he's a showboat and a grandstander") were "dubious," implying that Trump's reasons for the dismissal should be excluded on based on MrX's views of the reasons.
  • After replying that MrX's personal views of Trump's reasons are irrelevant [24], MrX bowed out of the discussion.
  • After further discussion with Cbs527, he agreed with my proposed changes regarding the speculation about why Clinton lost, and shortening the dismissal paragraph in the lead to one sentence. I re-added some of the proposed material[25], but then was quickly reverted by Bbb23, an administrator[26], reasoning that the material is "not neutral and convoluted." I invited Bbb23 to the talk page to discuss his concerns as well as my own concerns with his prior interactions with Volunteer Marek [27] (who had been reverting and tinkering here and there in between all of this back and forth), but Bbb23 chose not to accept my invitation and never appeared on the talk page.
  • TheTimesAreAChanging came to discuss, and after we agreed upon the neutral material, I implemented the material for which mild consensus had been established[28][29]. Volunteer Marek quickly reverts[30] (echoing Bbb23's "convoluted and POV" summary). Volunteer disappears from the article's pages for about three days while I and other editors continue to discuss.
  • JFG, Cbs527, to a lesser extent, TheTimesAreAChanging, and myself reach an agreement, and so I add it to the article[31]. Volunteer arrives about an hour later to revert[32], and complains that using the phrase "reportedly" to describe a report that only one media outlet has been able to verify is "POV." He also accuses me of using this language to somehow "cast doubt" on the reports, although I point out that due to the stellar reputation of the New York Times in the minds of many people, it should only lend credence to its reports.
  • Power~enwiki arrives, agrees that Silver does not deserve special recognition and removes his name from the lead, but has left the speculations of Vanity Fair and Vox in-place. The slight alteration still excludes the opinions of numerous RS and scientists who do not concur with the bloggers/writers. (Note: Clinton herself has blamed Netflix, the DNC, and Macedonian hackers for her loss, and the Comey letter is just one of dozens of excuses floating around in the ether).

Since only a few editors have actively participated and hardly any are returning to continue to the discussion, it seems an RfC wasn't exactly feasible. Thanks for reading - uninvolved third-party input would be greatly appreciated in helping us sort this out on these three issues! Hidden Tempo (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

1>Whilst it may be true that the sources being uses are "The "analysts" are two bloggers and three writers from a fashion magazine" it is not true they are the only people who have said this [[33]].
2> I have no problem with shortening the lead of any article, I would rather they were no more then two paragraphs. It should just say he was fired, leaved the detail for the body.
3>Again, we may be only using one source, but other sources repeat this. But yes we should still not be saying this is a fact. According to media reports should do it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
1. This replaces a concise summary, with a wordy version that dilutes the important information. The important information is that Comey is thought by many to have cost Clinton the election, not that there was criticism. It's fine to also summarize a significant minority view that Comey's press conference did not cost Clinton the election, but let's not confuse readers by avoid the meat of the topic entirely.
2. This is simple: Trump is not a reliable source. The New York Times, Washington Post, and dozens of other sources that have covered this are. Comey's post-firing testimony that Trump never "asked" him to stop the Russia investigation is an straw man that has been amplified and echoed by the far-right media to promote their alternate reality.
3. The "nut job" quote can be omitted as I'm concerned, and I'm not opposed better wording for this material. It's debatable that it needs attribution; I'm not aware of reliable source that have challenged its veracity. Also, the material is reported as accepted fact by other news sources [34][35], so the claim that it is "unverified by any other media outlet" is misleading.- MrX 12:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
How can Trump not be a reliable source as the one in authority to dismiss Comey? We can talk hidden agendas and implied rationales behind the dismissal, but if Trump said he let Comey go due to X in official statements, that's a fact. Mind you, then all the non-official stances that are pulled in (eg relating to the Russia investigation), that throws a lot more bias in the lede. The lede is not the place to get into details of a much larger political issue for a BLP, the last para should definitely be something "Comey was dismissed from his position by President Trump on (date) amid the investigation into potential Russian ties into the 2016 election." Period. The body can spend details on all the speculation. --MASEM (t) 12:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
"How can Trump not be a reliable source as the one in authority to dismiss Comey? " Because he has a well-documented habit of contradicting himself, deflecting, equivocating, and lying. His rambling statements frequently tend to defy comprehension and logic, and this case is no exception. - MrX 13:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
On his opinions, such as the "fake news" thing, sure. But if he says his reasoning for dismissing X, as it is his authority to do so, it is absolutely against our policies to say what is saying is wrong. You can frame it "Trump said that his reasons to dismiss Comey were X", which attributes it appropriate, rather than "Comey was dismissed for X", which frames that as a fact. I'm sure there's a lot more context that Trump's public comments have, but there is zero allowance to say "oh , but Trump lies, so we can ignore these". --MASEM (t) 14:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Surely no has has suggested we say he did not have the right to sack him?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Masem" Let's not forget that Trump is a primary source. Our obligation is to summarize what is recorded in reliable third-party sources. We are not obligated to treat Trump's statements as factual, or to assign them more veracity or importance than what is reported by reputable news organizations. You seem to conflate his "authority to dismiss federal employees" with truthfulness. - MrX 15:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The only primary source, and the only "fact", is the letter/paperwork on Comey's dismissal and the reasons stated on that. Anything else, including what Trump has said that is not in that paperwork, is a secondary source. And because this is a controversial firing, his stance has the same valid weight for inclusion as Comey's statements, and the opinions of the media, as long as WP:V can be met (which it obviously can). Obviously, we can't just include Trump's comments, since we know that the dismissal created a media outpouring of complaints. But to ignore Trump's comments (the one that made the dismissal) over others is completely against NPOV in writing about controversial topics. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
In this case, opinions of three analysts are cited as evidence that "a number of analysts" hold this opinion. That type of wording is discouraged per "Unsupported attributions". It implies a degree of acceptance which is something that should be cited to secondary sources that report on the various positions. Although Clinton probably lost votes when Comey re-opened the investigation, we do not know if she would have lost anyway. Furthermore, since the vote was close, had any of a number of things been different, she might have won. And it is questionable whether Comey was to blame for reporting that he had found new emails. Clinton should not have kept emails on a private server, they should not have been sent to Weiner's laptop, and she should have told the FBI that they were there or taken a hammer to the hard drive. TFD (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Kind of messy trying to discuss three disputes at once. But:
1. I think Hidden Tempo is too dismissive referring to the sources as two bloggers and a fashion magazine. Nate Silver is certainly more than a blogger; and Vanity Fair is certainly more than a fashion mag. In any case, there are far more RS. I have no problem with "His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having cost Clinton the election" as a substitute.
2. I object to HT’s comment: …by his critics/the New York Times/the Washington Post. The NYT and WaPo are RS. They report news. HT has repeatedly suggested that they are not RS and his user page states that he intends to have their classification as RS re-examined. I agree with MrX’s comments on this.
3. I have said before that we have to be careful with the word anonymous. That incorrectly suggests that there is one source and it is unknown to the NYT, which is ridiculous. The sources are simply unnamed. I have no problem with removing "nut job". I also have no problem with attribution. Although Trump is not a RS for why he did something, his claims as to why in a response are allowed by NPOV. Objective3000 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)