Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:31, 7 April 2022

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Language in the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Okay, folks. I need your input to see how it looks from WP:NPOV. I’ll start here. The issue is the language in the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Short description of the issue we are having --> :

As a result of the Unions in 1385 and 1569, Poland and Lithuania became one country called Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Polish language was already a written language at the time. The Lithuanian language still had no writing system in 1385. Lithuanian writing appeared for the first time in 16th century, although it wasn't used in some documents in the 17th century but remained rather marginal. Books and documents were printed in Polish and Latin, two official languages of the Commonwealth. Between the 15th and 16th centuries, the Polish language was slowly adopted by the Lithuanian political and cultural segments of the society. The Polish language became the tongue of nobility, and it was the primary written/printed language well into the 19th century, therefore their names were written in Polish. The Lithuanian language began to be properly and widely codified in the second half of the 19th century. Nowadays, Polish historians are using Polish versions of the names of historical figures, as they were written throughout the centuries. However, contemporary Lithuanian historians use the Lithuanianized version of their names. An example is the figure of General Romualdas Giedraitis, a Polish and Lithuanian military man, who the Lithuanian historiography calls Romualdas Giedraitis, although according to available sources he used a Polish-sounding name Romuald Giedroyć. Other examples are Laurynas Gucevičius (Wawrzyniec Gucewicz), Mikalojus Tiškevičius (Mikołaj Tyszkiewicz) or Tomas Kušleika (Tomasz Egidiusz Kuszłejko). If a figure widely appears in English-language literature, there is no issue as we can use the version of the name dominant in that literature. But the problem emerges with the minor personalities whose names do not appear in English literature.

- brief visual explanation of the issue (hoping to strive interests of others) -

Now I need to ask you this:

• What language (Polish or Lithuanian) should we use in English Misplaced Pages to document the names of the people whose names do not appear in English literature?

Pinging - Marcelus and Cukrakalnis - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: - In order to avoid bias, I'd suggest that English-speaking users who are neither Polish nor Lithuanian should express their opinions if they are aware of the context. Merangs (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @GizzyCatBella: for creating this discussion, as it was created at my request. For my part, I would just like to add that we are talking about people whose first language was Polish and they grew up in Polish or Polish-Lithuanian culture. I would not like to focus here on their self-identification, which was often complicated and different from how we define Lithuanian and Polish today. I would like the discussion to be about the writing of the names only. I would ask for the discussion to be factual, without resorting to accusing others of bad intentions. I would also like to point out that the problem concerns also some figures from the borderland of Polish, Ukrainian and Belarusian history. This is not only a Polish-Lithuanian problem. Marcelus (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Just an example to illustrate Marcelus' point of view. Yesterday he stated that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was called Poland (his edit). So despite polite looking statements, he does not seek for WP:NPOV, but aims to Polonize everything as much as possible. -- Pofka (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm literally tired of arguing with you, once again seeing how dishonestly you present it I said. I never stated that the GDL was called Poland, but that the entire state of the Commonwealth, has been referred to as Poland very often since at least the late 17th century. In doing so I cited specific historical sources.

Let me remind you that you are the one with a history of creating false historical evidence, when, in order to prove that the Lithuanian term for the coat of arms of Lithuania "waikymas" has a usage older than the early 19th century, you falsely used a page from an early 18th-century German religious book as evidence, hoping that no one would figure it out. Here is our exchange on the topic, here is the my deletion request on Commons.Marcelus (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

One of the examples of Marcelus' recent hatred of the Lithuanian language: his edit. He is basically hunting Lithuanian words in Misplaced Pages. Moreover, his acts of Polonization were also performed in Vilnius article: 1, 2, and he is also trying to Polonize an ethnic Lithuanian family name of Alšėniškiai and Principality of Alšėnai (see: HERE and HERE). It is clear that he is performing Polonization activities on a daily basis and it's not because he seeks for WP:NPOV as he is performing it even without waiting for some kind of consensus here. -- Pofka (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka please, ad hominem arguments are not helping here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: It clearly show his aims in Misplaced Pages as he is performing Polonization of names before any WP:CONS is reached here. -- Pofka (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka I warned you once, but since you didn't stop with your insults I will report you for your harrasment of me. None of the examples you showed prove anything you are accusing me of.Marcelus (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment: Polonized names were used in Polish texts, so it is not surprising that Polish authors also use the Polonized variants in their English publications, however the Lithuanian authors are using a vice versa approach and are using proper Lithuanian names in their English language publications. So to avoid biased interpretations violating the WP:NPOV we must use names based on the people's nationality. @GizzyCatBella: your statement "The Lithuanian language began to be properly and widely codified in the second half of the 19th century." is not completely true as already in the 18th century (when the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was still fully functional) the Lithuanians were printing thousands of Lithuanian language primers (see: Mokslas skaitymo rašto lietuviško). Moreover, Universitas lingvarum Litvaniae is the oldest surviving grammar of the Lithuanian language published in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1737. So why we should Polonize Lithuanians names when thousands of them were studying and using Lithuanian language? This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The Old Lithuanian language had full literacy traditions in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (see: Category:Old Lithuanian texts), so it was not marginal and was widely used in Lithuania proper (spoken and written). In 1552, Grand Duke Sigismund II Augustus ordered that orders of the Magistrate of Vilnius be announced in Lithuanian, Polish, and Ruthenian. The same requirement was valid for the Magistrate of Kaunas. After all, it was the mother tongue of the Gediminids, who later founded the Jagiellonian dynasty, and of many Lithuanian nobles. -- Pofka (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly as Pofka proves, the description provided at the top is historically inaccurate and does not give a full, balanced picture.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No one is trying to diminish or degrade the Lithuanian language. The Lithuanian language and writing in that language developed at its own pace and made significant progress in developing a literary language. It was certainly the living language of the ethnic Lithuanian population, including the home language of a significant portion of the Lithuanian nobility. Nevertheless, the process of polonization of Lithuanian society, especially of the upper classes, was significant. Between 1553 and 1660 about 1500 different books were published in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 44.5% of them were published in Polish, 37% in Latin and 12.5% in Ruthenian. Fourteen books were published in Lithuanian during this period in the GDL. Four in Italian and twelve in German. Overall, about 30 books were published in Lithuanian during the entire period of the Commonwealth. (Data after an article by Maria B. Topolska "Książka na Litwie i Białorusi w latach 1553-1660 (Analiza statystyczna)") Marcelus (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

If there is no English use, we need to discuss this case by case. I'd focus on self-identification, since IMHO it determines the correct cultural context and is generally tied to the language used by the subject, and the name they knew, signed with and responded to. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

That was my initial point of view. But users such as Pofka or Cukrakalnis keep reverting my changes and insisting on using Lithuanian-sounding names, it was really tiresome, so I decided that we need to establish some ground rules. Sadly many Lithuanian editors try to ignore the fact that many people in Lithuania were (still are) Polish speakers. Marcelus (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus - We will hopefully. I’m planing on having more neutral users involved here but that takes time. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It is unknown how many historical sources were lost through the years of various wars, so identification one-by-one is impossible due to the lack of data and it is not necessary because it would create fake presumptions that there were Lithuanians and other Lithuanians. Are we going to allow the raging of the Litvinism monster here? It is absolutely enough that the Lithuanian language was respected and widely used in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so Polish language priority in Lithuanians names is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Do not forget that many Lithuanian nobles also spoke German, French languages, so are we going to Germanize and to French their names as well? And how are we going to do that? By calculating percentage how often each individual spoke Polish, German, French, Lithuanian? That's an utter absurd. The lie that the Lithuanian language was irrelevant should finally stop because it was the mother tongue of residents of the Lithuania proper and allowed to reestablish Lithuania in the 20th century. The Lithuanians certainly did not use Polish names when they spoke in the Lithuanian language. By the way, even the Constitution of 3 May 1791 had a Lithuanian language variant and it was adopted by nobles, not peasants. -- Pofka (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I' have thought self-identification if possible or other ientification like a gravestone or their relatives. The central problem you have though is people edit warring and to fix that you need something that's agreed to that you can point at. Something both the Polish and Latvian Lithuania WikiProjects (sorry) can have a link to. So I'd have thought the best idea woud ebto organise a discussion and then an RfC on one of those projects and put an invitation in to the other to get an agreed policy. NadVolum (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus - In your long history here, do you recall any similar case being solved somehow or this one is unique? I'm witnessing that the conservation of Lithuanian historical names of the Commonwealth is important to some users and often backed by sources. Perhaps we could accommodate that someway, such as creating the policy of using both languages? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella For placenames, we do have WP:NCGN, and extending it to people is common sensical. Generally, both Polish and Lithuanian names should be used in lead. Which name to use for the main title and throughout the body, IMHO, generally needs to be determined on case by case basis, but rule of thumb, the dominant culture with which the given person engaged and felt a part of is the one whose language should be used. That would be Lithuanian for individuals connected to the Lithuanian National Revival and of course modern Lithuanians, and Polish for most of the others. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The Lithuanian culture and language existed before the Lithuanian National Revival as well. -- Pofka (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella, Piotrus, and Cukrakalnis: It seems that it will be difficult to come to a consensus. One thing we can all agree on is that each case should actually be dealt with individually, one by one. I also think that a general rule should be to follow the person's main language - the language in which they created, the linguistic sphere in which they worked.Marcelus (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:EPOV – en.WP Atsme 💬 📧 23:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Menelis, E.; Samavičius, R. "Vilniaus miesto istorijos chronologija" (PDF). vilnijosvartai.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 3 March 2022.
2. "Kauno rotušė". autc.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 3 March 2022.
3. Butėnas, Domas (1997). Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės valstybinių ir visuomeninių institucijų istorijos bruožai XIII–XVIII a. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla. pp. 145–146.

Motion to Add Context to the Persecution of Harari People

A third editor has recommended that we request help in resolving an issue with regards to the persecution of Harari people on the Haile Selassie Misplaced Pages page (section four on the talk page). I personally believe that context should be added as the Emperor is relentlessly slandered on the pretext of tribal and ethnic oppression for political reasons even to this day (see The Romantic Rewriting of Haile Selassie's Legacy Must Stop, Woyane rebellion and the Tigray War for example). Omission of crucial context in the opening paragraph is a subtle yet obvious ploy to promote a political narrative and goes against basic neutrality guidelines in my opinion. The sentence in question is: "During his rule the Harari people were persecuted and many left the Harari Region."

I proposed the following edits which were all consequently rejected:

1. "During his rule the Harari people who aligned themselves with Islamic Somali nationalist political movements were persecuted and many left the Harari Region."
2. "During his rule Harari criminals were persecuted and many left the Harari Region."
3. "During his rule Harari secessionists who collaborated with the Italians during the war were persecuted and many left the Harari region."

I've notified the parties involved, any assistance with this deadlock will be greatly appreciated thanks for all you do.Czar Petar I (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Czar Petar I: & @Magherbin: It would be more conducive if both of you stick to one venue regarding Harari's instead of continue using the talkpage. Talkpage is arguably WP:BLUDGEON or WP:TEXTWALL and may discourage other editors engagement. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above proposals, source backs this. YonasJH (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Feener, Michael (2004). Islam in World Cultures: Comparative Perspectives. ABC-CLIO. p. 227. ISBN 9781576075166. Retrieved 23 February 2017.

Zero COVID

The Zero COVID article relies heavily on primary sources, and some editors are opposed to covering the due criticism of and opposition to this policy, deleting the Opposition section I created , toning down the criticism, and removing POV, BCN and WHO tags appended (and also casting aspersions).

The majority of RS are heavily critical of this policy, in particular to its purported effectiveness as a public health policy, and there is very little scholarship on it. This policy was also cited to "settle the question" about China's alleged undercounting of cases, claiming that this policy works by those countries implementing it , which led to a discussion on RSN .

Here are a few recent articles questioning China's narrative about the policy and its effectiveness: . My main concern is that critical sources are not being fairly and proportionately represented. Any assistance with this deadlock will be greatly appreciated. LondonIP (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes any help with this editor would be great. A group of us have been trying for months to stop the disruptive tagging as seen at Talk:Zero-COVID#‎Disruptive tagging. Seems to be a spill over from an rfc not going their way on other articles (not involved in their other disputes). Wondering if a topic ban for meatpuppets is in order.Moxy- 01:02, 13 March 2022 (UT

Note the aspersions. LondonIP (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Note the evidence that was previously brought up at this board.Moxy- 01:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I edited Alina Chan so I could be MEAT too, but I'm not. This noticeboard is for NPOV concerns, not airing your personal grievances about editors and imaginary cabals. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

No clue what you edit or your POV on this. Think newer editors need to understand that most old timers have a Misplaced Pages:Academic bias.Moxy- 07:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

(involved, here before pinged).
@LondonIP, when escalating issues to noticeboards, it is proper to provide a neutrally-worded representation of the dispute. I feel this post fails that requirement on several accounts: 1) You have failed to mention the academic review articles and government sources which do not support the narrative you've drawn, which demonstrate the prevailing view is that this policy has actually worked, and is now faltering most likely from influence of Omicron and that international sources of infection are difficult to avoid: 2) You are helpfully describing attempts to continuously re-insert a "criticisms" section, which is advised against by NPOV's WP:POVNAMING, WP:STRUCTURE, and WP:PROPORTION sections. 3) You have failed to notify the affected page or any involved editors, as is heavily recommended in WP:CANVAS. 4) You have failed to describe the WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE criticisms and lack of WP:SUMMARY style criticisms many editors have raised about your proposed changes. 5) You have not mentioned the discussions we have had on WP:RSN about this issue, or the result of that discussion. Please make adjustments (with appropriate underlining and strikethrough) to bring this post to neutral-wording. Thanks. (edited 12:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC))

— Shibbolethink 01:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: you are hardly a neutral party here and the Opposition section LondonIP added, is entirely about Omicron and Zero COVID, so it appears you don't even understand this dispute. The seven sources you cite are from 2020 and mid 2021, so it is you who has failed to address the NPOV issue, which is exactly what this noticeboard is for. I would argue that WP:PROPORTION requires proportional coverage for the tremendous opposition and criticism this policy has received, especially in Hong Kong and Mainland China. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The above is a good example of the problem at the Zero-Covid article..... spill over chat from some other articles with no sources or recommendations for the article in-question.Moxy- 07:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the two subjects are connected. Novem Linguae said that China's successful implementation of this policy is proof that China never undercounted cases and deaths , as a justifcation for removing the well sourced allegations from the relevant pages. Shibbolethink supports deleting this content too . ScrumptiousFood (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the problem at the article in question? What is being recommended for the article in question? Moxy- 08:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a terrible notice for the reasons said by Shibbole above. The various criticism has been summarised well, with plenty of citations, there is no need to repeatedly mention the same criticism or to attribute them to specific people, when as you have said, many people have criticised the policy. Xoltered (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned by Moxy, LondonIP as well as few other editors have been repeatedly making disruptive edits, and I will note that it is not just this article but numerous other articles in which they have done so, typically edit warring to try to get their way. Perhaps as Moxy said, some action should be taken. Xoltered (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• (Involved, pinged to discussion.) deleting the Opposition section I created The opposition section wasn't deleted, it was condensed by me. Before. After. The before version had problems with WP:QUOTEFARM. The after version fixed the issue with quotes and concisely summarized the points made by both supporters and opposers. To write the after section, I simply read and summarized the before section, reusing most of the existing citations. The after version was supported by multiple people and seems to have consensus, as documented at Talk:Zero-COVID#Delete section "Views on the zero-COVID strategy"?. If one checks the page history of zero-COVID, two editors in particular have added POV and "who" tags to this article multiple times over the course of months, over the objections of other editors. This is arguably a slow motion edit war. I find this to be a timesink, and WP:AE may be an option worth exploring. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• (Involved, pinged to discussion) I tried to participate in this discussion but it appears that some editors are employing the same tactics they used to suppress the COVID-19 lab leak theory from Misplaced Pages for over a year. This Zero COVID article does not represent all viewpoints as required by WP:NPOV and and Novem Linguae's rewrite of the criticism section has been weasled down to mere "views" without supporting attribution. Zero COVID as a policy is ill defined and has not been implemented anywhere to achieve its stated objective. It is part public health policy, part political slogan. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Opponents of the zero-COVID strategy argue that a vaccine would be required to end the pandemic, that zero-COVID causes the economy to suffer, that before vaccinations were common, elimination strategies lowered herd immunity, that zero-COVID is not sustainable, and that newer variants such as the omicron variant are so transmissible that the zero-COVID strategy is no longer feasible.

  Which view is missing, and what source do you recommend for it? If your suggested addition is reasonable, perhaps you can achieve a consensus for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Its not that views are missing, but that they are not represented fairly and proportionately, and are instead buried in a nondescript "views" section as if they are of little signficance. There should be a section with an appropriate title covering the opposition and criticism and explaining it in greater detail. The opposition and criticism itself should be properly attributed with quotes to explain the position of relevant experts, just like with other controversial topics. Examples are Immigration history of Australia#Opposition to immigration Nuclear power in the United States#Opposition to nuclear power and Great_Barrington Declaration#Counter memorandum. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV tells us that criticisms should not be afforded their own section, but instead contextualized with overall views. That other articles have failed to do this does not make it the right approach. We should do what our policies recommend. — Shibbolethink 13:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION. So any sugestions? any sources any statment to move us forward? Moxy- 13:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink and Moxy, LondonIP's section title Opposition to the zero-COVID policy fits well with what WP:POVNAMING lays out. My choice was Scientific Views on the zero-COVID strategy. but I now think Opposition is better as criticism of the policy is not just about the science, but also the social and economic costs - as I explained in the discussion . Any policy of importance will inevitably face some opposition and in the case of Zero COVID, most RS cover the opposition more than they do support. I can move us forward with sources and quotes, but this noticeboard discussion should focus on clarifying the problem and bringing in cooler heads. CutePeach (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• WP:POVNAMING says: "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X")." Indeed, this is not the most aptly applied part of that policy, given it is about entire articles rather than sections. But WP:STRUCTURE says, similarly:

  Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

  and WP:PROPORTION says: "a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". Similarly, WP:SUMMARY says "Do not put undue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts."LondonIP's suggestion is not advisable per these WP:PAGs. We should not create a POVCOATRACK of various people's negative opinions of the policy, but rather summarize the overall criticisms and praises in a views section in proportion to their coverage in our WP:BESTSOURCES. If anyone here disagrees about the current proportionality, that would be where we should move forwards in discussion, not in continually reverting against consensus and disruptively inserting disputed material to force it into the article. Suggest drafts which are, in your opinion, more proportional, and provide evidence of this proportionality. — Shibbolethink 14:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: neither WP:POVNAMING or WP:PROPORTION are a concern here as RS cover opposition more than support for the policy. The section title is not as serious a concern as the toned-down criticism, and I think it is better to allow uninvolved editors to move this forward instead of us rehashing the talk page discussion here. CutePeach (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

as RS cover opposition more than support for the policy - Do you have a source review which has evidence for this? Including the fact that different qualities of sources (isolated news opinion articles (critical and low quality) vs academic review papers (laudatory and high quality)) do not recapitulate this trend? — Shibbolethink 14:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

There should be a section with an appropriate title covering the opposition and criticism and explaining it in greater detail. WP:CSECTION is an essay, but it is common practice to follow it around here. Long before I edited in the COVID topic area, as a newer editor, I tried adding a criticism section to articles a couple times and got reverted. It is best practice to present positive and negative views side-by-side, not separately. Once this thread simmers down and an uninvolved person weighs in, I am confident they will arrive at the same conclusion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I am involved in the related discussion on Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19#Alleged under-counting of cases and deaths. WP:CSECTION is not a policy and is very rarely wielded to tone down criticism when it is WP:DUE. When opposition rises to a certain level, such as Nord Stream 2#Opposition, it becomes due. I don't have a strong opinion on the title for criticism of this policy but I do think it should be properly attributed and covered in proportion to mentions in RS. There are many RS with qualified opinions from experts calling this policy nonsense and I can't think of a good reason not to include them and attribute them properly . Even China National Health Commission's Liang Wannian now says it is "not sustainable", , while his government locks down Shenzhen . Pious Brother (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"not sustainable" is already covered. Seeing a different view between old timers and newer editors. Not sure why naming people and having a WP:Quotefarm over summary prose with with references naming the who that holds the view is not preferred. If we quote all the sources we're going to be regurgitating the same information just to name individual people. Quote MOS = "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style".Moxy- 05:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it attributed to Liang Wannian with in-text attribution? If not, it should be, and so should Guan Yi's criticism and comments about the efficacy of Chinese vaccines against new variants. The latest lockdowns in China will only increase opposition to this failed policy, and we should be covering it. CutePeach (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Your POV is very clear on that matter ...however we dont write from a dogma POV like that.. luckily people have been watching to make sure of that.--Moxy- 04:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't be condescending. Attributing criticism is based on policy and not dogma. The criticism about the efficacy of Chinese vaccines has also been covered by other sources , so it should not be toned down or elided. The latest outbreaks in China show this policy is not sustainable in the face of Omicron, so this should be the end of this dispute. LondonIP (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This is our problem at the article in question.. talking about problems not in the article coverage.. its not about the efficacy of Chinese vaccines.....no data about it in the article. Now just one Academic named over ALL others. Can people read our policies linked above.--Moxy- 18:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

According to LondonIP's sources and these newer sources , the efficacy of Chinese vaccines has everything to do with it. Why are you so opposed to covering the opposition to this policy? Even International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War cover the opposition to it. Pious Brother (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Not opposed to covering the opposition .....its all there already,,,I added some .....have a problem with junk sources and highlighting one persons opinion over all others after section consolidation.Moxy- 12:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. "Focus - A closer look at China's strict 'zero-Covid' policy". France 24. January 5, 2022.
3. "Chinese Virus Expert Launches Scathing Attack on Covid Zero Push". Bloomberg. 2021-11-10. Retrieved 2022-01-07.
4. "Asian countries are at last abandoning zero-covid strategies". The Economist. October 9, 2021.
5. "Why has Australia switched tack on Covid zero?". BBC News. September 3, 2021.
6. "Atlantic Canada's vaunted COVID-Zero strategy no match for Omicron variant | Globalnews.ca". Global News.

Relevant discussion: How should we include allegations of China undercounting COVID-19 cases and deaths

 You are invited to join in at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 § RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?. — Shibbolethink 12:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

NPOV violation on The Kashmir Files

The Kashmir Files is a film made on a real incident of the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus and two editors, namely Kautilya3 and TrangaBellam have made edits full of bias and not keeping aside their political bias about this film. A big violation of WP: NPOV

• They have used a Film companion quote which does not have a source. No source so how is it even included?
• They had removed the earlier positive reviews and have only highlighted the negative ones now. They even adopt "top critic" status of a critic on Rotten Tomatoes to decide whose views matter the most on Misplaced Pages. Nowhere used in Misplaced Pages film articles.
• The article gives UNDUE EIGHT to negative reviews and the positive reviews are restricted to 2 words but have WP: QUOTEFARM for the negative ones?
• The reception section does not talk about the cinematography, acting, writing but is full of only its perceived politics.
• They also use political opinion as reviews for one source to claim the film is "phobic" to one community. I guess Germans will claim the same about Schindler's List?
• They use two reviews from same publication group just because these are the only few of negative reviews the film has got.
• When I removed an unsourced claim in the article, and started a discussion to discuss the bias, the editor replies with Go to ANI or wherever - I do not care. - clearly accepting that their bias.
• The two editors clearly have problem of WP:IDon'tLikeIt and has no regard for WP: Concensus, despite two other editors pointing out their bias.
• Last but not the least, Kautilya3 adds stuff to the article by imagining things and draws conclusion on his own about a fictional university named in the film to be about an existing but but does not provide any sources, saying " Find a source that says it is not referring to JNU" , violation of ].
• Most importantly these editors use threatening and condescending tone to shut down other editors.

Misplaced Pages administrators need to check into this highly open violations of not one but numerous violations of Misplaced Pages guidelines in this article. I hope strict action is taken against these users.Krish | Talk To Me 07:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

They have used a Film companion quote which does not have a source. - The link will be added pending a whitelist.

They had removed the earlier positive reviews - A single review from someone who is neither a film-critic nor has reviewed any other film before, was removed after discussion. The mere existence of a review does not bind us into carrying it.

highlighted the negative ones now - How?

They even adopt "top critic" status of a critic on Rotten Tomatoes to decide whose views matter the most on Misplaced Pages. - I don't think so. For example, Shubhra Gupta (the only RT Top Critic, who has reviewed the film) is mentioned in the second paragraph of the reception section, after four positive reviews in the first paragraph!

positive reviews are restricted to 2 words - Factually inaccurate; read the first paragraph of the reception section for yourself. How can any review be restricted to 2 words?

WP: QUOTEFARM for the negative ones - Factually inaccurate; read the second and third paragraph of the reception section for yourself.

reception section does not talk about the cinematography, acting, writing but is full of only its perceived politics. - Blame the reviewers. How can I help?

I guess Germans will claim the same about Schindler's List - Welcome to the alternate universe of Hindutva.

They use two reviews from same publication group. - Examples? Adding a disclaimer that Indian Express and New Indian Express are different entities.

When I removed an unsourced claim in the article. - That line did not need a source, as evident from a perusal of the well-sourced Reception section. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You stand exposed here. None of your response makes sense. Calling me political names is not helping your case. Stop personal attack. This is your second personal attack. Here this user had threatened me earlier saying "they have there attention on me" like they "have marked me" or something. I don't feel safe on this site. This user is giving life threats to me here.Krish | Talk To Me 08:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The editor in question has misrepresented data from source given by himself. Dsnb07 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The editor in question did misinterpret data, but admitted to their mistake once it was pointed out and the problem was fixed. Nobody is perfect. X-Editor (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Is the NPOV tag on the article justified? All substantial fringe theories are already included per DUE as evidenced here. The article was promoted to GA in 2019 & remained stable until Cavalryman's proposed merge in 2021; closed 9+/- months later as no-consensus. Soon following, Cavalryman tag-bombed the article so I worked on updating sources, tweaking and clarifying...and then the underlying issue finally dawned on me. The NPOV tag remains, and from what I gather, it's because he wants the fringe theory to be stated in WikiVoice and given more WEIGHT (based on the single sentences or paragraphs obviously cherrypicked from chosen sources, most of which don't mean what he thinks they mean or were taken out of context. A GAR was filed. The thinking behind the theory that an undocumented, non-pedigreed heterogenous group of dogs referred to as bull and terrier is the renamed modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier fails the rule of logic. It based on unverifiable anecdotal accounts dating back 2 centuries. The first logical name choice for a direct descendant of the bull and terrier cross is the Bull Terrier, a TKC recognized purebred developed by James Hinks (1860–1870); a dog that looked very much like the bull and terrier crosses of the 1800s than the modern Bull Terriers of today. It wasn't until a half-century or so later (1935) that TKC would even recognize the modern SBT as a purebred. The various labels/aliases that were hung on dogs in the early-to-mid 1800's adds to the confusion we're dealing with today. DNA studies, cladograms, and multiple RS such as old books and historic documents are corroborated in the published history of the breed by the 3 largest & oldest breed registries in the world: The Kennel Club (TKC), American Kennel Club (AKC), and United Kennel Club (UKC). FACT: 6 distinct purebred dogs descended from the bull and terrier crosses, and share the same ancestry, not just one breed. See the Introduction (pg 9) in the book The Bully Breeds by David Harris which names the 6 descendants of the bull-and-terriers and each chapter respectively covers the history of all 6 modern purebreds. I also contacted TKC for verification because they maintain an extensive library with historic documentation and references. The library manager did the research and sent me email verification that corroborates my position and that of numerous RS: in a nutshell – the 1800s bull and terrier was not a bona fide breed & was not renamed to Staffordshire Bull Terrier. See this information. The email verification is filed under (VRTS Ticket#2022030910008018) and can be accessed by any VRT member or admin with VRTS access. Atsme 💬 📧 09:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Important addition – The Complete Guide to Staffordshire Bull Terriers by Dr Jo de KLERK (Chapter 2, Breed History, pg 18)

The Bull and Terrier was quite a broad term with regional variations depending on the local stock of dogs chosen for crossing. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier that we know today originated from the Cradley Heath type that had more Bulldog blood. In fact, one lesser-held theory is that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier had no terrier blood at all, but was derived from selective breeding of the original Old English Bulldog. This is unlikely, given the successful introduction of Terrier qualities in the Bull and Terrier breed and the unregulated breeding at the time, but demonstrates how the Bulldog genetics are more evident in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. That theory is included in the article which also includes a DNA study and cladogram that supports it. Nowhere do the breed registries that actually approved the name of the SBT state that it is the renamed Bull and Terrier. The NPOV challenge is all based on figurative language, and an illogical and unverifiable theory. Atsme 💬 📧 17:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the article on its face is neutral, and I can't see a reason to keep the tag on it. The dispute is well-recorded on the talk page, and the fact that a given editor is in disagreement about some sourced fact reported in the article is not a basis for having the article tagged forever. Quite frankly, if that were the rule, every Misplaced Pages article could be perma-tagged as NPOV by someone who disagrees with something therein. BD2412 T 09:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Below are the sources listed at the POV discussion:

These sources state all or multiple aspects of:

1. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed in the 19th century
2. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed from crosses of Bulldogs and terriers with no intermediate "original cross"
3. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was initially known by a number of names, but most commonly:
   1. Bull and Terrier - per 19 sources
   2. Pit dog - per 8 sources
   3. Bull Terrier - per 7 sources (Beaufoy, Gordon and Morley all discuss it)
   4. Half and Half - per 5 sources
4. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was given its current name in 1935
5. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the ancestor of all of the bull-type terrier breeds

Most of these points are not included in the article at all. Until this is included in the article with prominence "in proportion to the prominence of ... viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", this article does not present a neutral point of view. Further, caveats like "There are unsupported theories or opinions that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the original bull and terrier" is one editor's opinion that is not reflected in any source whatsoever, so is pure original research. Cavalryman (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC).

As far as I can make out you want the article to say the breed was there before the Kennel Club said so, and that it is the same breed as the various dogs that the modern ones derive from? That sounds to me a bit like trying to say the Romans were Italians or the Angles and Saxons were English. NadVolum (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Editors were not invited here to give their personal opinions in an ongoing debate. They were invited to apply the contents of WP:NPOV to the article. Either the article passes or fails NPOV, and no more. If it does pass NPOV, then editors need to be able to articulate why. If an editor cannot articulate why, then their comments here are useless in assisting in this matter. 14.2.206.229 (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I would think that the burden is on the editor contesting NPOV to demonstrate the contrary. BD2412 T 21:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You thought wrong. The case has been made that the article is not NPOV compliant - you either have facts to rebut that case or you do not. Did you actually read what has been stated above and at the subject article? 14.2.206.229 (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

BD2412 is absolutely correct about WP:ONUS. Have you read it? As for the crux of this disagreement, common sense tells us our cousins can't be our ancestors, WP:CIR. NadVolum properly identified the non-breed issue, which further confirms the lack of merit in this NPOV challenge. To give the fringe theory more WEIGHT would violate NPOV, and create havoc that affects at least 5 other modern purebred dog articles that are reliant upon Bull and terrier for historic reference. And to shine an even brighter light on the ridiculousness of this challenge, what if we did agree to state in WikiVoice that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is "the renamed bull and terrier"? What about the 5 other distinct modern breeds that are descendants of the bull and terrier crosses, all sharing the same ancestry? Are they also the "renamed bull and terrier" since some came before the SBT, or does the SBT somehow become the cousin that is also their ancestor? It defies logic. Atsme 💬 📧 14:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm really not sweating the "did you even read it" take from the IP with a grand total of 4 edits to Misplaced Pages, ever, all in this discussion. BD2412 T 02:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

NadVolum, I would like the article to say what the sources say, and those presented above say the breed existed 75-100 years before kennel club recognition.

BD2412, I have provided over two dozen sources above that corroborate the above five points, yet those five points are largely excluded from the article, what other proof do you require? Cavalryman (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is it you think they show that isn't in the article already? NadVolum (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see 'Staffordshire Bull Terrier' is a defined breed of dog which people take along to dog shows. The othe breeds you talked about were various dogs which were bred for fighting. Some dogs in old pictures might look like the Staffordshire Bull Terrier but that's because the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is derived from and bred to look like them. However if one started attacking the other dogs in a show I guess it would get thrown out. What you've got is like a person wearing a tartan and with a dirk in his garter but the dirk is blunt and useless, they're not an old Scotsman if ever they were like that I don't know. NadVolum (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Seemingly what I referred to is actually a sgian-dubh and dirks aren't all that commonly worn. NadVolum (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

What sources do you have that state the 'Staffordshire Bull Terrier' is a defined breed of dog which people take along to dog shows? I am unaware of any. Cavalryman (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC).

Staffordshire Bull Terrier, don't see anything there about it being good at dog fights. Do you think they are bred to engage in dog fights? NadVolum (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the Kennel Club's breed standard does not include any of the breed's history, but their breed information page says the breed was developed as a fighting dog, and further it says Because of its early association with fighting it was, for some time, difficult to get recognition for the breed and it was not until the 1930s that The Kennel Club recognised the breed. So in their view the breed existed for some time before the 1930s. Further, in the above collapsed box they say Unfortunately for the historian tracing a nice straight line is not easy when examining the background of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier if only because it comes under quite a few names. They might be called Bull & Terriers in some journals and at other times the dogs are called Pit Dogs, maybe Staffordshire Terriers, half-bred dog, or simply come under the general umbrella of the Bull Terrier. Cavalryman (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC).

NadVolum, you are correct. They are not being bred to fight in dog fights - at least not legally or openly. It would be a serious misinterpretation of the facts (per WP:CIR) to think TKC is registering Staffordshire Bull Terriers knowing they are being developed or bred to be fighting dogs today. I seriously doubt the legal system in the UK would allow it. What the TKC actually states refers to the breed's ancestry: The Staffordshire Bull Terrier shares the same ancestry as the Bull Terrier, i.e. Bulldog crossed with the Black and Tan terrier, and was developed as a fighting dog. Centuries ago, the bull and terrier crosses were developed to be fighting dogs until blood sports became illegal in the early 1800s. By 1860–1870 James Hinks was developing the Bull Terrier to be a gentleman's dog - a refined, conformation show dog that was completely different from the non-pedigreed mongrels and crossbreeds of unknown origin except for what were thought to be bulldog and various terrier types and crosses used for clandestine pit fighting. The modern purebred Staffordshire Bull Terrier is even further removed from that ancestry and was further refined as a conformation show dog, but first, a new breed of dog had to be developed for it to be accepted as a purebred - purebreds breed true. The article includes an old photograph of the first dog show, and states "The first Staffordshire Bull Terrier show was held in August 1935 at Cradley Heath in West Midlands. There were 60 dogs and bitches entered in the show." The AKC recognized the breed in 1974, and very clearly explains in the History section: "Since then, more than a hundred years of responsible breeding has transformed both breeds from brawlers to trustworthy family companions." In fact, it took nearly half a century after TKC recognized the Bull Terrier before they would recognize the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a purebred (1935). There were no verifiable purebreds in the lineage when breeders first attempted to get TKC recognition. A group of breeders had to create their own strain of purebred dog per registry requirements which included verifiable pedigrees, updated Stud Books, and records of the crosses and refinements for several generations. Conformation dog shows were the proving grounds where dogs were judged according to the breed standards. For more info, see the history here, and the Dogster article about how the dogs were being used. Everything that should be in the article is in the article, but it does not/should not include figurative language in WikiVoice as statements of fact; that is what the NPOV tag is all about. Atsme 💬 📧 07:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why this is going on when there is already a article about Bull and terrier. There seems to be a number of people if he is right trying to say they are the same thing, I know it is daft but is this a thing about which there is something which can be written about? People can be a bit strange about their pets, do some want to think of their dog like that? Even if they had identical genes they would not be the same any more than a modern Italian is the same as the Romans who went in for kiling people in an arena. NadVolum (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, NV. The argument that there is a NPOV issue is based on a fallacy, not logic or science, or WP:PAGs. Atsme 💬 📧 03:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Staffordshire Bull Terrier - break

Atsme, in the above collapsed box I have provided four dozen sources that state all or multiple aspects of:

1. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed into a distinct breed of dog in the 19th century
2. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed directly from crosses of Bulldogs and terriers (with no intermediate breed in their lineage)
3. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was initially known by a number of names, but most commonly: "Bull and Terrier", "Pit dog", "Bull Terrier" and "Half and Half"
4. the breed's name was later changed to "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" in order to achieve kennel club recognition, this occurred in 1935
5. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the ancestor of all of the other bull-type terrier breeds (except possibly the Boston Terrier which many sources state descends from separate crosses of Bulldogs and terriers that occurred in the US).

In addition to the over three dozen independently authored works (several of which are tertiary, but according to policy they may be used determine due weight), there are three sources from the American Kennel Club, two from the Canadian Kennel Club, and one each from the Kennel Club of Britain, the Australian National Kennel Council, the Raad van Beheer of the Netherlands and the Société Centrale Canine of France (the last three of which are member clubs of the Fédération Cynologique Internationale, the latter has not published a breed history that I am aware of). Additionally, a number of those sources are cited in the article, one is cited nine times.

Given the abundance of these sources, these are clearly mainstream views held by kennel clubs, independent authors and independent publishing houses. Yet the article does not acknowledge four of those points at all, and the one point it does acknowledge is given the tiniest possible mention, and it is wrapped in excusatory language that is not corroborated by any source whatsoever.

Per the majority of respondents to your earlier post at FRINGEN, the article needs to represent all of the views articulated in reliable sources. And it does not do so. @Roxy the dog, JPxG, Only in death, SMcCandlish, Blueboar, Wbm1058, SilverTiger12, Hob Gadling, Justlettersandnumbers, and FunkMonk: apologies if the ping is unwelcome, notifying you all to this discussion as participants in the two previous directly related discussions.

Given the article still excludes this content, both this article and bull and terrier do not present a WP:NPOV, let alone give WP:DUEWEIGHT. Cavalryman (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC).

So you disagree with the very first line of the article "The Staffordshire Bull Terrier, commonly called Stafford, is a shorthaired, purebred dog breed of medium size that originated in the Black Country of Staffordshire in the English Midlands"? You're saying it is the same as "Bull and terrier was the most common name for bulldog and terrier crossbreeds that date back to the early 1800s. Other names used for these hybrids were half-and-halfs and half-breds" rather than being a descendant of them? Do you want to merge the articles and not have an article about the kennel club breed standard? I read those statements as just saying they're like some old bull and terriers. I don't have accessto the book you cited but "originally called the Bull-and-Terrier Dog, Half and Half, and at times Pit Dog or Pit Bull terrier. Later, it assumed the name in England of Staffordshire Bull Terrier. It was called by names such as "Bulldog Terrier" and "Bull and Terrier"... James Hinks, in about 1860, crossed the Old Pit Bull Terrier, now known as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and produced the all-white English Bull Terrier... Bull-and-Terrier types were believed to have arrived in North America in the mid-1880s. Here they developed along different lines with a heavier, taller dog being the result. Today's American Staffordshire Terrier represents that breeding." is just all wrong. If the bit is correct then the Staffordshire Bull Terrier gave rise to a heavier taller dog and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the result. I'm my own grandma comes to mind. And which ones in all those years followed kennel club breed standards or is that irrelevant to you? NadVolum (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you believe it is not possible for animal's physical characteristics to be changed over generations through selective breeding? Cavalryman (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC).

Certainly there are lots of different looking dogs and cows and horses. But back to the question, do you think the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article should be deleted because it is actually a Bull and Terrier hybrid? Or is it actually a defined purebreed that originated in Staffordshire from the bull and terrier crossbreeds? And if it is a defined purebred, how can one then say that others that weren't purebred and didn't follow the standard are the same as the defined purebred ones? NadVolum (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment First of all, the kennel clubs only accept purebred dogs. So, one of the reasons the Staffordshire Bull Terrier did not join the Kennel Club earlier than 1935 is that the KC was waiting for it to be a defined purebred. Which Hinks did eventually. The kennel clubs, started in the late 19th Century, were responsible for all of the breed registration and everything to do with, so I acknowledge all of their history about themselves and the dogs and their purebred status, and breed information. It's a RS. In reviewing the article, I don't find any disparities in the introductory paragraph. But that's just my viewpoint. I'm not sure why adding something to make it neutral means changing what is already there, which is already complete, cited, and factual. Or, is the thought to add some content to it? dawnleelynn 19:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

NadVolum, no one is even suggesting the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article should be deleted. Where did you get that idea?

Dawnleelynn, I agree completely, kennel clubs are not involved in any breed's development, they only recognise breeds after they are established (or imported into a country). The POV tag was placed on the article because the article deliberately omits information that is corroborated by the 48 sources listed in the above collapsed box. Specifically, that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier developed into a breed in the 19th century from crosses of Bulldogs and terriers, it was initially known by a number of names, but most commonly "Bull and Terrier", "Pit dog", "Bull Terrier" and "Half and Half", the breed's name was changed in 1935 to "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" in order to achieve kennel club recognition, and that the breed was imported into the United States in the 19th century and was the foundation stock for the American bull-type terriers. It is stated in some sources that the Kennel Club refused to recognise the breed earlier because of its continued widespread use in blood sports, but to be fair to the Kennel Club there are no accounts of recognition being sought before the 1930s. This is all corroborated by over three dozen independently authored sources as well as the Kennel Club of Britain, the American Kennel Club, the Australian National Kennel Council, the Canadian Kennel Club, the Dutch Kennel Club and the French Kennel Club, all are listed with quotes above. Cavalryman (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC).

You are in effect saying the article is a WP:FORK of Bull and Terrier with the points you make above, and forks should be deleted

• the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was initially known by a number of names, but most commonly: "Bull and Terrier", "Pit dog", "Bull Terrier" and "Half and Half"
• the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the ancestor of all of the other bull-type terrier breeds (except possibly the Boston Terrier which many sources state descends from separate crosses of Bulldogs and terriers that occurred in the US).

When it was as you say known as Bull and Terrier or Bull Terrier, Pit dog, or Half and Half was it a purebred? When it was an ancestor to all those was it a Staffordshire Bull Terrier? How does anyone check if 'it' is a Staffordshire Bull Terrier or not? NadVolum (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

NadVolum, I am not saying anything, the sources are saying it. And unless all of those sources are deemed to be unreliable the article should incorporate what they say, or it does not adhere to WP:NPOV. You keep mentioning purebreds, what is your understanding of the definition of a "purebred"? Cavalryman (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC).

See Purebred. You are interpreting your sources as saying what you say. For instance in order of your sources

• Alderton - 'It was developed..", it here reers to the ancestors of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier not the breed itself.
• American Kennel Club - here you misread originated as meaning it existed then rather then its ancestors were then
• American Kennel Club - It , it refers to the ancestors not to what the breed became.
• American Kennel Club - that cite says the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was bred by James Hinks which is simply wrong - the Bull Terrier without the Staffordshire was bred by them and has another breed mixerd in.
• Australian National Kennel - if you read further you get "But it is important to remember that nearly all aspects of the standard have their origins in the pit," It says it has been renamed and there is no indication the originals were purebred - quite the reverse as it is talking about how he originals were bred.
• Beaufoy - it talks about the development of the breed. Can't figure out how you got this down as contradictingthe article.
• Billet - and eventually? after it was bred and became a purebred and recognized by the Kennel Club.

It just goes on like that. You read what you want to read into it. Purebred is in the first line of Staffordshire Bull Terrier. If you want to get rid of that you want to get rid of the article because it can be subsumed into Bull and Terrier. Do you want to get rid of purebred? Why are you asking me what it means? NadVolum (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

NadVolum, please see WP:CIRCULAR, we don't use Misplaced Pages as a source. But please look at some independent definitions of "purebred": Cambridge, Chambers, Lexico and Merriam-Webster, they all state a purebred is an individual animal that is the offspring of two examples of the same breed. So no breed (including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier) is or ever has been "purebred", but all individual animals with a breed (including individual Staffordshire Bull Terriers) are purebreds. You seem hung up on the Staffordshire Bull Terrier emerging as a breed in the 19th century (which practically every source says it did), no sources have been presented anywhere that state the breed did not exist before the 20th century. Do you know of any? Cavalryman (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC).

Most of the sources you've listed don't say what you think they say - Use-mention distinction; historic references to Staffordshire bull terriers are not references to the modern purebred Staffordshire Bull Terrier – bona fide breed names did not exist prior to the formation of TKC, AKC & UKC. See your own clarification in this diff. Furthermore, most of the RS you've listed have author opinion disclaimers in the Preface, and the context of those books often contradict the logical fallacy that the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the original bull and terrier – mixed breeds of undocumented origin are not an original anything short of being a mongrel. There simply is no NPOV issue in SBT or B&t as proven by your failure to gain consensus, and the fact that at least 4 editors have opposed you in this discussion, and at least 8 overall have opposed your merge, the GAR, and your proposals in the article TP. A quick read of both articles will confirm that all substantial fringe views have been included in both articles. Your tag-bombing of a GA has been highly disruptive, and the tags do not properly identify a problem. You tagged a well-sourced statement as OR, and removed an RS as unreliable. Your argument is based entirely on the logical fallacy that the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the renamed bull and terrier when it is neither verified by the sources themselves, nor supported by factual evidence. The James Beaufoy book you listed provides a perfect example of how you cherrypicked the author's figurative language and presented it out of context without considering the fact that, immediately following his exclamation, he presented 2 theories about the SBT's origins. WP does not present theories as statements of fact, and we certainly don't give UNDUE to fringe theories. I even obtained email verification from the spokesperson of The Kennel Club Library who researched their books, & historic documentation and replied via email, rejecting the claims that the SBT is the original bull and terrier renamed. Any VRT member or administrator with access can read that email via VRT Ticket#2022030910008018. The AKC and TKC are indeed RS. A research article in PNAS considers them the foremost authority, which is further substantiated by multiple citations in Science.gov. Atsme 💬 📧 19:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Request - will an experienced closer or admin please close this discussion? I posted it on March 15, 2022. Atsme 💬 📧 19:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, you cannot just write off language you disagree with as "figurative", are you honestly suggesting the authors of the above 48 50 sources are all universally speaking figuratively? You keep branding the views held by practically every author and kennel club as fringe, but no one at your earlier post at FRINGEN agreed with you on that. You have provided only three sources (de Klerk, Harris and Flaim) that express a contradictory viewpoint, and their views should remain in the article to ensure it is compliant with Misplaced Pages's second pillar. But to exclude what is stated in all of those 48 50 sources is not presenting a NPOV of the subject matter. Cavalryman (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, let's just look at the most simple point, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was initially known by a number of names, but most commonly "Bull and Terrier", "Pit dog", "Bull Terrier" and "Half and Half":

• 26 sources corroborate "Bull and Terrier"
• 15 sources corroborate "Pit dog"
• 12 sources corroborate "Half and Half", and
• 10 sources (including Beaufoy, Gordon and Morley) corroborate "Bull Terrier".

Yet this view is not acknowledged anywhere in the article, so unless all of those sources (which include four kennel clubs) are deemed to be unreliable, by excluding this content completely the article does not present a neutral view of the subject matter. Cavalryman (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't understand why this dispute it still ongoing after all these discussions. We have a pretty common scenario here, of sources that don't entirely agree with each other. It should be a simple matter to write in, with various sources, that the SBT is descended from B × T cross-breeding, once known as "Bull and terrier" as a group, and in this case mostly from a particular sub-type (if we like the source that says so); then with other sources, note that "Bull and terrier" is an ambiguous term because it has been applied to the SBT itself. Note that at the B&T article as well. We know from various sources that other modern, standardised breeds are also derived from B&T stock, and should say so at the B&T article and each each relevant breed article. That should really take care of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

How does one find common ground when they want to put in something like "the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the ancestor of all of the other bull-type terrier breeds (except possibly the Boston Terrier which many sources state descends from separate crosses of Bulldogs and terriers that occurred in the US)." And they disagree with the whole idea of purebred, they take a short dictionary definition rather than what's actually used for pedigree and push it to ridiculous extremes to say the concept is meaningless - so in effect they say the first sentence of the article is wrong or meaningless. NadVolum (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

As a result of all the confusion stemming from SBT's origins, the article requires carefully worded text to avoid adding more, and we have done that in compliance with NPOV and V. The modern SBT did not exist in the 1800s; rather, it was developed and refined later in England & accepted as a purebred by the KC in 1935, a half-century +/- after the Bull Terrier was recognized as a purebred (2 types of Bull Terriers diverged after Hinks' added outcrosses that one group of breeders didn't like). Confusion abounds, which is why it is important for us, as an encyclopedia, to not add more. Bull and terrier hybrids are the ancestors of several modern breeds, not just the SBT. Per AKC: Argument begins when breed experts try to nail down which preexisting terrier breeds reside in the AmStaff’s genetic background. Some suggest that such extinct breeds as the White English Terrier and Black-and-Tan Terrier were part of the genetic mix that led to the creation of the Staffordshire Terrier, forerunner of the AmStaff. Same applies to SBT - see Bull and terrier for more historic reference & why I included DNA studies in the article. If we went by old paintings and photos – as many authors have done in a substantial number of books, including those Cavalryman listed – the AmStaff (formerly Staffordshire Terrier) and American Pit Bull Terrier look more like the original bull and terriers of the 1800s than does the modern SBT which is a conformation show dog/family dog. Also, note the bulldogs of that era look nothing like the modern bulldog, and yes, it is relevant to evolution which explains why the SBT cannot possibly be the renamed bull and terrier. For further enlightenment, TKC Library spokesperson, who researched their historic documents for me, stated the following:

"That the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier more closely resembles the old type of bull terrier - was developed from bull-and-terrier crosses - as it was before being modified in to something resembling its modern form by the efforts of James Hinks is not in doubt. This is evident from photographs and artwork of the period. But general resemblance is not sufficient to make the very definitive statement that this is the same breed of dog under another name. It is certainly a leap to say that the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is simply a renamed bull-and-terrier and to assert that the bull-and-terrier was a breed in the modern understanding of the word." They go on to say: The Australian National Kennel Council’s extended standard states “The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the “original Bull Terrier”, simply a re-named version of the old fashioned ‘Bull and Terrier”. It would be much more accurate to state that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier’s ancestry derives from bull terriers developed in the 19th century. These early bull terriers in turn were developed from crosses made between bulldogs and various terriers, a broad type generically known as bull-and-terriers. It shares ancestry with the modern Bull Terrier, which developed along different lines so that the two modern breeds do not closely resemble each other. ¶Alas, there isn’t anything we at the Kennel Club (UK) can do about what the Australian National Kennel Council chooses to include in their extended breed standard. It looks to me as if their author, in an attempt at brevity, has ended up over-simplifying things.

The sources cited in the article support what is stated by the spokesperson for TKC, along with what they have published, as well as what the AKC has stated and has published. They are the foremost authorities when it comes to purebred dogs. Several books have been cited, as well as articles – there is no lack of diversity in the citations. And that's it in a nutshell, and it applies to both the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Bull and terrier articles. Atsme 💬 📧 20:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

NadVolum, please provide a reliable source that defines whatever it is that you believe a "purebred" is, linking to a largely unsourced article with issues tags tells us nothing.

Atsme, "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source", private email correspondence is not "a reliable, published source". Above I have provided 50 reliable, published sources that articulate the five points you are fighting to exclude from the article, to continue to do means the article does not present all neutral view of the subject matter. Cavalryman (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC).

Cavalryman, it doesn't matter what NadVolum believes is a "purebred" – it has nothing to do with your tag bombing Staffordshire Bull Terrier (GA), or Bull and terrier. My purpose for bringing the discussion here is to get input from uninvolved editors about your tag-bombing a GA based on DONTLIKEIT. So far, you have failed to convince 5 editors who have commented in this discussion, 9 editors overall including other discussions, that the article has a NPOV issue. Please stop playing the same song to an audience that has turned off the radio, and let the process work. They can read the articles for themselves without you pushing your POV. Atsme 💬 📧 09:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Oversight required for Kazakhstan related articles

Would someone mind taking a look at the article on Karim Massimov and mentions of him in the 2022 Kazakh unrest article? The narrative is currently quite speculative in places, which is inappropriate and potentially dangerous given the charges of alleged treason against the individual. For the Massimov article in particular, as a Biography of a Living Person, it is important that the article presents a fair account of all narratives, especially because human rights activists are concerned about the welfare of those arrested in the protests. Ideally I’d prefer to discuss this via email but I do have a list of sources and possible text which might help to make the article more well-rounded; due to how sensitive the situation is I want to check with the Misplaced Pages community what would work best.

As a starting point a level of page protection would be helpful to ensure no misinformation can be added, but if anyone can assist with some editorial oversight and advice that would be helpful and appreciated. MSturgill (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Moderna Page

I am consistently troubled by user Zefr removing vital public information from the Moderna page. He and another user called Acroterion hound the page and always make vague allegations about the information's lack of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The 'tax dodging' section you keep trying to add is the subject of a pending RfC on the talk page (which you were invited to participate in but did not). Please stop edit warring your changes into the article and wait for the RfC to close. (disclosure: I participated in the RfC and have made edits to the page in question regarding the subject of the RfC.)

In addition, Acroterion has made a single substantive edit to the article in question this calendar year (aside from reverting vandalism a couple of months ago), which hardly qualifies as 'hounding the page'. Stop casting aspersions and use the article talk page. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking to you, you are corrupt.

I demand another admin. Surge Of Reason (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks won't help your case. M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The lack thereof sure as fuck isn't helping! Surge Of Reason (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I saw your revert: the information is about the person of Slaoui, not about the company Moderna.

My advice: gain experience through ordinary edits, and only then approach highly disputed articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I know exactly what the problem is and I didn't write anything about Slaoui, who is a board member for crying out loud. Surge Of Reason (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

wp:blp applies to any content that is about a living person, or what they are connected with. Also if there is an RFC running you do not edit until it is concluded. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hagens Berman

My name is Ashley and I work for a law firm called Hagens Berman. I have raised some concerns about the page at Talk:Hagens Berman regarding un-cited claims, citing an op-ed for criticisms, citing one source for half the page, etc. The main author of the page (@Marquardtika:) said they wanted other editors to weigh in. My hope is an editor or two here might be willing to do so at Talk: Hagens Berman. Thank you in advance for any contributions to the discussion. AshleyK1990 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Christian abolitionism

Something about the tone of this one doesn’t sit right. That and the first source on the page being a dead link from a religious site. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean. THe lead seems to be for another of those articles saying how great and enlightened protestants are compared to catholcs but the contents don't really bear that up to any great extent. NadVolum (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

What a thoroughly dishonest article. No mention that 'spreading Christianity' was one of the justifications given for the Atlantic slave trade in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that the tone is off… and that it omits the role Christians played in the creation of the slave trade. However, it is factual that the abolitionist movement (at least in the UK and US) was an outgrowth of the Second Great Awakening, and heavily influenced by changes in Protestant religious sentiments of the era (especially the rise of Methodism). One can not discuss the growth of the Abolitionism without also discussing the changes that were happening in various Christian (and especially Protestant) denominations of the era. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thing that bothers me most is the opening: "Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement." Suggests that Christianity writ large is inherently antislavery, not that it was a split issue within the religion. At the time of the antislavery movement, the faithful were divided, and the religion was as much of a proslavery tool as an anti one. And it conflates the dominant religious framework in society with society itself -- sort of like claiming that slavery was abolished because White males were antislavery, motivated to oppose it by their whiteness. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • As the article mentions despite the tone of the lead, in 1741 Pope Benedict XIV condemned slavery generally. That was well before the Second Great Awakening. Practically everybody went in for slavery, not just white people. It was the slave trade across the Atlantic that was run by white people. In fact most slave trade especially in the last thousand years was of that sort - people enslaving and selling people who were different from themselves. The difference with the abolitionists was they wanted to get rid of it for everyone. As to being protestant, the main early abolitionists were Quakers and some of them don't even believe in God. Overall I don't see what thei article gives that Abolitionism dosn't. NadVolum (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    • @NadVolum: Was going to add that it's surplus to Christian views on slavery as well, but it only took a glance to see that one's a headscratcher as well. Mostly reads as though Christianity has always been against slavery and we don’t know what religion these people were who were doing all this enslaving people in America. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
      • The article is definitely surplus to Christian views on slavery whatever one might feel about that article. I think it should be deleted. NadVolum (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
        • @NadVolum: Not sure I've ever done a deletion, but if you do I'll support it. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ripples at White phosphorus munitions

I was reading in the news about reports of Russians using white phosphorus munitions (ie. in bombs), and came here to read up on the topic. I was not at all surprised to see that the article had been updated with the reported usage in Ukraine; what was surprising is that the wording made it sound like an absolute occurrence (no use of quotes of reported use, etc.). Checking the sources reveals that one is a website with an extremely pro-Ukrainian/anti-Russian slant, and the second source appears to be someone's website space.

I am aware of the limited sources of news from within Ukraine, and that residents are reporting what they see through whatever means they can, but it doesn't seem like it belongs here in the article yet.

I've reverted the content out and initiated discussion on the talk page. I am thinking that this edit is another ripple of propaganda one way or the other, and we should probably stay out of it without the mightiest of reliable sources.

Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is probably a good topic for discussion at WP:NPOVN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Should I move the section to there, or link to this section there? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So moved. Primefac (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Use in the current Ukraine conflict should be removed until it can be proven. There's already a lot of unintentional misinformation going on due to how information is coming about, and this would be a significant claim against Russia if true. It would be different if the claim were made from a more credible source (such as the U.S.). --Masem (t) 02:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Even with a bit more reliable reporting it should still be sttributed to who is saying it until some inspection or suchlike confirms that is really what has happened. NadVolum (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of the term "falsely accused" at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

There is currently a discussion at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Use of the term "falsely accused". It primarily pertains to this statement in the lead:

Russian president Vladimir Putin espoused irredentist views, questioned Ukraine's right to statehood, and falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority.

A similar statement is made in the body of the text at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Russian accusations and demands:

To justify an invasion, Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism, invoking the history of collaboration in German-occupied Ukraine during World War II, and echoing an antisemitic conspiracy theory which casts Russian Christians, rather than Jews, as the true victims of Nazi Germany.

The question is whether, "falsely" can be stated in a WP voice given the present state of the article and/or what should be done? Your comments there would be appreciated. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Well you could always use 'falsely claimed' as is done in the Donald Trump article. If it gets past there surely it is good enough for Putin. I don't see anything there which shouldn't have been said in Wikivoice. NadVolum (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this terminology is widely used in RSs cited in the article. For instance:

• NewYorkTimes: "Neo-Nazis have been a recurring character in Russian propaganda campaigns for years, used to falsely justify military action against Ukraine in what Russian officials have called “denazification.”"
• CBS: "Putin built a false premise for a war against "Nazis" in Ukraine"
• CNN: "The false accusations of Nazism and genocide from Putin and his aides against the Zelensky government have drawn outrage."
• NBC: "Putin has long sought to falsely paint Ukraine as a Nazi hotbed, which is a particularly jarring accusation given that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish and lost three family members in the Holocaust."
• WallStreetJournal: "The references to Nazi Germany come against the backdrop of Russia falsely alleging that the Ukrainian government is run by neo-Nazis and that one of the aims of its war is to “de-Nazify” the country"
• Politico: "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is Jewish himself and whom Russian President Vladimir Putin has cynically and falsely called a Nazi"
• BBC: "The claim of Nazis and genocide in Ukraine was also a fiction."
• The_Guardian: "Putin’s claim that Russia is invading Ukraine to denazify it is therefore absurd on its face"
• Der_Spiegel: "Just as they now provided false pretexts for the invasion of Ukraine?"
• The_New_Yorker (my personal favourite quote): "Graphically, the “Z” is clearly closer to the swastika than to any prominent Soviet symbol, such as the five-pointed star, the hammer and sickle, or the red flag. Its use seems to require a double inversion: first, the people of Ukraine—a nation that suffered some of the greatest losses at the hands of Nazi Germany and one that is currently led by a Jewish President—are rendered as Nazis; then, the Russians, who claim to be fighting for peace and “de-Nazification,” adopt a visual symbol that appears to reference the swastika."

The use of falsely is strongly backed by Reliable Sources, and the even the exact terminology itself is used repeatedly, so its usage is not placing us outside of the pack in regards to terminology or content but rather smack dab in the middle. It's also worth noting that the accusation itself, that the Jewish President of Ukraine is a nazi whose government is committing genocide against Russian Christians is an instance of Holocaust inversion, which as per Wiki policy is always false. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

As said above, given its frequency in use by RS yes. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A broad problem with the phrase "falsely accused" or "falsely claimed" or other variant is that thus implies the one making the claim or statement knew a proiri it was wrong but still made it. This requires knowledge of what they were thinking, which no source can have at all. It is quite possible Putin knowingly has made false claims but it is impossible to prove, and so thus is language we should avoid in wikivoice. We can say "Putin made accusations that have been shown false that X..." which still keeps the key aspect, that the claims have no weight in fact to them, but avoids that awkward phrasing. --Masem (t) 16:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think "falsely claimed" is different from "lied", the latter of which would require knowledge of what they were thinking. I don't think anybody would object to saying that flat-earthers falsely claim that the Earth is flat, even if they are convinced that the Earth is flat and have no intent to lie. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I also think that saying a criminal prosecutor "falsely accused" a defendant of a crime doesn't imply malintent on the side of the prosecutor; there are perfectly reasonable reasons that false accusations of crime happen. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There is definitely better support for when the phrase is used towards the target of the accusations, since what is "false" can be readily established from their stance, eg saying "The defendant was falsely accused by the prosecuter..." is accepted since the focus becomes the nature of the claims relative to the defendant. Its the reversed phrasing, while essential similar, throws shade on the motives of the one accusing. Eg in the case of the flat earthers, that "they falsely claim the earth is flat..." implies a malicious motive for this stance. Its something that here a slight change of wording keeps the key points (putins made some claims about Ukraine everyone else knows are untrue) while avoiding an accusations tone. --Masem (t) 17:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

If the big difference is essentially the use of the term in the active voice as opposed to the passive voice, we'd wind up with something like Russian president Vladimir Putin espoused irredentist views and questioned Ukraine's right to statehood. Ukraine was falsely accused by Putin of being dominated by neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority. I think the active voice version is better style-wise and I don't really see a substantial difference in the meaning conveyed aside from the slightly more awkward construction. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think that this roughly reflects the sources. The fact that that claim is false is absolutely central to understanding the topic and is highlighted prominently by (as far as I can tell) every independent source that covers it, in a manner comparable to this. There's room to tweak the precise wording a little, but I think we 100% have to make it clear that it is false in the article voice at the first mention given how much weight the sources give that aspect; and I don't see anything particularly wrong with this particular wording. --Aquillion (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, but I don’t think we should use the word “falsely”. Use Putin claims or Putin accused etc. without falsely to be neutral. Readers will draw own conclusions. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  If sufficiently expert sources have called the claims false, we should also make sure they are identified as false in the same way we'd call out pseudoscience. Just that there's other ways to do it without saying "putin falsely claimed.." which ascribes some additional motive. --Masem (t) 18:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  What about the references that do not say falsely  ? ... IDK but to me, the moment we say falsely in an encyclopedic voice, the WP:NPOV benchmark is out the window. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• In real life situations "falsely ......" is inevitably subjective and a characterization. For those my opinion is that if ~90% of sources agree, it's information and OK to include, if only 60% do then it's spin/politics and not info and should be left out. IMO this falls under the 90% and is OK. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It is helpful when inserting claims into the article that they accurately reflect the cited sources. In the first case, our text says Putin "falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority." The source says, "Putin's rationalization for invading Ukraine includes a claim that he is fighting neo-Nazism....While it's true that the Ukrainian National Guard is home to the Azov Battalion — a force populated by neo-Nazis — there is no evidence to suggest widespread support for such extreme-right nationalism in the government, military or electorate." Putin's actual statement was "It is not surprising that Ukrainian society was faced with the rise of far-right nationalism, which rapidly developed into aggressive Russophobia and neo-Nazism."

The source does not say Putin falsely claimed Ukraine was "dominated by neo-Nazis," it says there is no evidence there is "widespread support for such extreme-right nationalism in the government, military or electorate." In fact, what Putin said was "Ukrainian society was faced with the rise of far-right nationalism, which rapidly developed into aggressive Russophobia and neo-Nazism." (Jonathan Allen, "Putin says he is fighting a resurgence of Nazism. That's not true." NBC News Feb. 23, 2022.)

There is also an issue of using an analysis by a reporter as a statement of fact (See WP:NEWSORG.) Another anaylst may say that supporting a neo-Nazi battalion is a problem, even if it is a small part of the military. Allen says the fact that Azoz's party and its allies failed to win a single seat in the 2019 election is proof the far right is not a problem. But he doesn't mention it got 2.15% of the vote and that the election was almost three years ago. We don't know what vote they would get today and other analysts might think that is a high vote for fascists. Far right parties. Also, far right parties got 0.00% of the vote in the 2020 U.S. elections, but some anaylsts think there is a problem with the far right.

The problem with this type of discussion is that some editors don't look for the best sources and ensure that articles reflect them. Instead they decide what the article should say, then look for sources. These discussions never end.

TFD (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

We could just cut the Gordian knot and delete the entire passage in question, then relegate it to the body where it can be discussed at length; after all isn't the core problem we're dealing with space and not content? The reason for the word falsely is because the lede is inherently pressed for space. So we move it out to the body where Putin's stated reasons could get a more thorough discussion and where we can talk about the allegation and that the president or Ukraine is Jewish yada-yada-yada. Then replace it in the lede with more accurate reasons as to why Russia invaded Ukraine ie: Ukraine gravitating to the west, fear of color revolutions, mis-appraisal of Ukrainian army strength, colonial ambitions in former soviet realms etc. That would be both more accurate, would leave the reader better informed, and allow controversial statements to be treated in sections where they have room enough to be explored fully. Also just because far right parties received zero votes doesn't mean that far right politicians received zero. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Good points and sounds like a good plan.North8000 (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that would reflect reliable sources with proper weight at all. It would be Misplaced Pages doing OR. His false accusations are a prime motivator in the war whatever the strategic reasons are. I'm afraid this issue can't be swept under the carpet. NadVolum (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

That may be true but we need to be very careful about how we word it so we don't give readers space to imagine their own narratives as to what is happening. The nuance between intentionally and unintentionally making a false accusation is something that may be misleading here so we should try and find a better wording than just "falsely accused", at least at this time. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 06:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It is careful speak the way it is done in newspapers and in courts. We haven't said anything about Putin's internal state or intentions or if he has any, what came out his mouth was false. NadVolum (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that said motivation cannot be adequately addressed in the lead section. It is easy to gloss over critical nuance in the lead section, and I would rather the lead section be replaced with far more general commentary ("Putin repeated dubious claims regarding Ukrainian governmental support", "Putin repeated erroneous statements regarding Ukrainian society", and so forth). Augend (drop a line) 20:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I would not object to the plan to cut the segment from lede entirely if that could prevent jumping to conclusions by readers.Augend (drop a line) 20:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment The problem is that essentially the same statement (I quoted it above) is in the body. The "evidence" that might support it being false then follows. It is being presented "up front" as a fact. Shortly following is the quoted test with a hidden comment. The text previously read "analyst", lacked the third reference and was tagged by me with {{who}}.

... experts<!-- see provided sources; per historians, academics, regional analysts & diplomats --> have described Putin's rhetoric as greatly exaggerating the influence of far-right groups within Ukraine; there is no widespread support for the ideology in the government, military, or electorate.

As far as I can see, the first reference gives no attribution to the opinion therein. The second gives opinion from a former ambassador to Russia, a representative of aUnkrainian expatriate organisation, and a representative of a Jewish community organisation. The third gives attribution to an "analyst" Ruslan Leviev of the the CIT (Conflict Intelligence Team). Leviev is actually a Russian journalist and ABC News would describe the CIT as "It's basically a bunch of independent bloggers slash researchers slash military equipment enthusiasts," said Kirill Mikhailov, one of a handful of the group's core members. Mikhailov, 33, is from Russia but currently lives in Kyiv, Ukraine.

This article is mainly sourced from news sources which naturally, use editorial language. While WP:NEWSORG would say that good quality news sources are generally reliable for "fact", this does not extend to journalistic opinion (editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces) though they may be a source for opinions of specialists and recognized experts. I don't think that many editors at the article are discerning the distinction made at WP:NEWSORG and when or for what news sources can be considered reliable. Consequently we have partisan language throughout of which the subject of this post is one example. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the opposite is true, I think it's WP:CHERRY. The neo-nazi thing gets singled out but the rest is left out. Here from BusinessInsider we have: "Russian President Vladimir Putin falsely described Ukraine's government as a "band of junkies and neo-Nazis" in a television appearance on Friday. In the speech, Putin also said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's government "took control of Kyiv and holds the whole people of Ukraine hostage." Putin urged members of Ukraine's armed forces to prevent "neo-Nazis" from using "your children, your wives and parents as a living shield."" <---This is clearly insane. If the entire thing is put back in to context it comes off like the angry rant that it is. If the quotes get left intact like this one then the ridiculousness of the accusations becomes more apparent. Beyond that are we countenancing this to the extent that are we also going to say the jury's out on whether or not Ukraine is governed by drug addicts? It seems strange to me because we have these accusations which are patently absurd, numerous RSs have been posted such as the NYT and WSJ which state they are false, but it's not good enough so the neo-Nazi accusation gets picked out and then treated as if it could be reasonable accusation. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t even know if "We will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine" and other simillar declarations by Putin are the kind of statements that can be assessed in terms of true or false. To me they look more like policy objectives hinting at regime change, or expressive statements aimed at escalating the conflict. One can embrace them or fight them, but really there's no much point in mantaining that they are "false" as a point of fact. Anyway Putin's statements are not entirely devoid of empirical basis, as there are fascists on the ground in Ukraine and serious reasons for the Russian minority to be worried about violence and discrimination based on language (e.g. ). How dangerous the fascists are, how influential on Ukrainian politics, how worried the Russians should be – these are matter for political judgment where reasonable people can reasonably disagree, and there's no factual error for us to correct ("Putin is wrong! you shouldn't be too worried").

So I agree with TFD and Cindarella157 that WP:NEWSORG is helpful here, especially for the distinction between factual content and opinion content. The true/false alternative here oversimplifies, and I’m afraid that the whole article would utterly fail WP:NPOV if we were to take the immediate reaction by Western media as reliable source for a political judgment as this one, and use "wikivoice" to echo it as ours. We are writing an encyclopaedia, not a daily press review, and we should subject our reliable sources (a handful of editorials in the aftermath of the invasion) to critical editorial scrutiny: a grain of salt. I feel we should refrain from partisan politics, especially in a time of war, and aim at increasing knowledge and understanding rather than labelling and trivializing points of view which we might not fully understand. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG is clear that news sources are WP:RS for fact but not opinion or analysis. They can also be a primary source for opinion offered by "experts" or for Putin's own words. But we should not be painting the term "expert" with too broad a brush as has been done in the example above in a way that is a bit too loose with the truth in order to bolster the apparent credibility of the statement. We should not need to inflate the credentials of the "experts". If Putin's words are clearly insane, let them speak for themselves. If "experts" (ie academics in an appropriate field of study or analysts and such with established and recognisable credentials) are saying Putin is wrong for X reason or his allegations are false, we should be referring to them and not relying on the analysis and opinion of journalists, even though I don't disagree with their analysis and opinions. WP must only maintain a NPOV but must also be seen to be doing so. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Claims that have been universally regarded in RS as "false" must be defined as such in WP pages. Consider QAnon, racist theories by Nazi, etc. This is one of them. Labeling an outright misinformation as misinformation is very important. So, yes, that was correctly framed on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree. I find no obligation as editors to make this differentiation, and given the nuance of the situation at hand (especially noting how Putin's statements, however misconstrued or falsified, has some tangential relation to reality), agree with the aforementioned proposal to strike the contents from the lead section entirely. This combined with the apparent impression of taking sides, which discredits the appeal of the article and provides the perception of an overtly biased page. Augend (drop a line) 20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I find those who argue against labeling Putin's lies ad such may misunderstand how Misplaced Pages works. NPOV does not mean finding a neutral position between lies and reality. Similarly, the "impression of taking sides" is quite natural, when one side has launched a brutal war of aggression on a side merely defending itself. In that case, pointing out the facts is not "taking sides", but merely reporting the facts based on RS. Moreover, the only action that would go against NPOV is if we would follow what these users argue. WP is very clear that fringe theories, conspiracy theories, and outright lies are identified as such, and it would be against NPOV to merely repeat Putin's lies without pointing out that they are just that, lies. Again, there are countless other examples across WP where we clearly label falsehoods as such, so there is nothing unusual in this article. And, quite obviously, we do not make up these claims, but back them up with references to several good RS. In short, the only thing that would violate WP guidelines would be to try to strike some false balance here. Jeppiz (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• NPOV means we represent all significant viewpoints in a neutral way. If 99% if RS say water is wet and one does not we say water is wet, we do not say "water might be wet". If 100% of RS call it wet, or do not offer a judgment we call it wet. Only if there is significant disagreement between RS do we say "alleged" (or whatever word you think fits). There appears to be no disagrement in RS this was (and is) false. As they think its false so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • That's not correct from the stance we represent all significant viewpoints in a neutral way. If all major sources are expressing the same viewpoint, we should of course report that majority viewpoint but as a type of attributed viewpoint, not as fact, particularly if there is current controversy over the matter (and not just strictly looking at what RSes say, but considering the 60,000 ft view). This doesn't mean we have to create a false balance of minority viewpoints, but we absolutely should not be reporting viewpoints as facts in the short term, which is the case here. --Masem (t) 15:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

    I agree with the preceding comment, and I’d like to add the following consideration. If you read carefully the survey of reliable sources here above posted by Alcibiades979, you will see that they all agree on using the adjective "false" but refer it to different objects: that Russia is invading Ukraine to denazify it, that neo-Nazism justifies military action, that the people of Ukraine are Nazi, that the Zelenskyy government is Nazi, that Zelenskyy himself is a Nazi. In order to make sense of this bundle of disparate claims, we came up with "falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis", which actually Putin never said explicitly. So what are our reliable sources (and ourselves) conveying here? To me it is clear: they (and we) are saying that it is false that neo-Nazism in Ukraine is so important as to justify the invasion. But this is a political judgment and, reasonable as it is, it is not objectively valid (true/false), as if we were stating that "water is wet" or debunking a conspiracy theory. Reasonable and well-informed people can have different views on this, and we should acknowledge the fact instead of jumping to the judgmental "It's false! Neo-nazism is not that important in today's Ukraine", which is over-simplistic, incompatible with WP:NPOV and not conductive to common understanding. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• I would observe that the key issue here is perhaps being missed by may commenters here. A general opinion here is that given its frequency in use by RS we can express the opinion/theory/analysis that it is false in a WP voice. The problem is that the sources used are news sources and this is the opinion/theory/analysis of the journalists. News sources are not a RS for the opinion/theory/analysis of the journalists. They may be a source for attribution to a party of "particularly good standing" but few sources are making attribution and where they are, the parties being attributed are a mixed bag with few rising to a level of "particularly good standing". Not only on this particular question but generally, we appear to have jumped on the shirt-tails of public opinion as expressed in the press rather than being more circumspect and writing at arms-length and without the appearance of being partisan. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Agreed; how quickly the public memory fades: irrefutable evidence 14.2.198.139 (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

    Firstly, what matters here is not comparisons with past cases but the specific weight of sources in this instance. The sources are clear Putin's claims regarding Ukraine having a genocidal neo-Nazi government are false. Secondly, Iraq is not comparable. Claims about WMDs were made by a small number of Western (US & British) government officials, and the appropriate stance if it happened today would be to attribute such claims. In this case, there's a deluge of reliable sources calling Putin's (blatant) lie a lie. Anyone can check the previous Ukrainian election results themselves, in case they were in any doubt how much influence the Ukrainian far right has in the current government. Jr8825 • Talk 10:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not sure the argument based on election results is convincing. For most people what matters is how influential aggressive nationalism, neo-fascism and racism are on everyday life, on the ground, rather than the number of MPs they get. Besides, their political influence is not necessarily proportionate to electoral success. Claiming that fascism in today's Ukraine is not that important might fail to acknowledge certain legitimate and reasonable viewpoints. If I were a member of the Russian minority who is prevented from using their language in political campaigning, cultural activities and public events (), or a Roma exposed to fascist violence (), or a Jew targeted by hate campaigns by MAUP's and requests of racial profiling by the police (), I might have different views on the relative importance of fascism. Surely most ethnic Russians, Roma and Jews strongly oppose this hateful invasion, but they know that in Ukraine there's a problem that we shouldn't brush off, as we would do if we were to label other people's judgments on the importance of fascism simply as "false". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine has a far-right problem ≠ Ukraine has a drug-addled neo-Nazi government committing genocide against Russians. I oppose any attempt to give this farcical-if-it-wasn't-so-serious propaganda more credence than the best sources indicate is due. This is an entirely separate issue from thoroughly documenting, in appropriate places and with appropriate due weight, Ukraine's problems with far-right extremism (a problem common to many democracies). To clarify my above comment, just because the falsity of Putin's ludicrous claims (I mean seriously, Ukraine has a Jewish, Russian-speaking president) is transparent, doesn't mean we should be careless in assertion of its falseness. Jr8825 • Talk 11:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

"Genocide denial" and Uyghurs

See discussion here: Talk:Genocide_denial#POV_pushing. Is it okay to include the Chinese government's denial of their genocide of the Uyghurs in the article genocide denial, even though denial that a genocide is taking place is mainstream scholarly opinion? Endwise (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It is definitely wrong to baldly state or imply that there is a genocide of Uyghurs happening without any qualification, especially about what is meant by genocide in that context. However if there is suitable and clearly stated qualification I think it can be included in that article. At the moment it is just wrong , and it needs qualification explaining what is meant by genocide there not just attribution to fix. NadVolum (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

RS have said there is, so we do, but we can say China denies it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. We do not on Misplaced Pages say that China is committing genocide, there is in fact consensus against that. Endwise (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

So if we do not say they have, why do we need to include their denial? Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Huh? I'm saying that the genocide denial article should not include the Chinese government's denial of the genocide of Uyghurs. Endwise (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not seen anything which suggests that "denial that a genocide is taking place is mainstream scholarly opinion" nor have I seen any sources which say that. We can't do OR to invalidate what WP:RS are saying, if WP:RS use the term "genocide denial"(which they appear to do) then its going to be hard for us to second guess them without sources which explicitly do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There was an abundance of sources presented in the RfC at the main article: Talk:Uyghur_genocide#The_first_sentence_does_not_make_sense, and there was consensus in favour of the fact that There exists a serious debate in reliable sources as to whether the events/actions are a genocide. The events/actions may not be labelled as a genocide in wikivoice, that is, as an uncontested fact. To claim that it is an uncontested fact that genocide is taking places goes against existing community consensus. Endwise (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And how do you make the jump from a debate over the name to denial? I don't see any sources referring to the debate over the name as denial, they appear to be pointing to denial that the event is occurring at all when they talk about genocide denial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a case for saying some reliable sources say there is a genocide - but the statement would still needs to be qualified as to what they mean by genocide as the common meaning is quite different from that of the UN convention. The word does not have anything like a unique meaning. NadVolum (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

But thats not what we appear to be talking about, we're talking about genocide denial (which to be clear is not quibbling over the name). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• At a glance I don't think the current sources are appropriate for this. The problem is that "genocide denial" has a fairly specific meaning - I don't think it's appropriate for us to build a section out of news sources where a government simply says a genocide isn't taking place. We should use scholarly / academic sources specifically saying that this is genocide denial (or words that clearly have the same meaning), and should probably attribute to those unless the consensus about what's happening is overwhelming, which I don't think it is. If those sources can't be found then it shouldn't be mentioned at all; the current formulation strikes me as WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There is an extensive Xinjiang denial-industrial complex. I think that coverage of this denial complex is quite apt. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

We could only call it genocide denial if there was a consensus in reliable sources for the description. A lot of the arguments for including it are synthesis - editors conclude it is genocide denial based on their interpretation of the facts and definitions of genocide and genocidal definitions. TFD (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Arguments are not WP:SYNTH when there are reliable sources that explicitly describe the denial of abuses as a very real phenomenon. What are you talking about? — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You first have the problem that the events with Uyghur are not widely considered to be a genocide across all reliable sources in the first place, so to find if there us agreement that China is going to be considered to engage in genocide denial in widespread agreement is going to be impossible. You can certainly cherry pick a few sources but for a claim this great, that's not sufficient.--Masem (t) 19:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is the central problem. Endwise (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't forget that the "genocide denial" contains an implicit statement that the event in question was/is a genocide. Also that being sourced is requirement for inclusion, not anything else such as a mandate or a categorical green light for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't do second level analysis, if the WP:RS says "genocide denial" its not our place to ask "Sure, but was it genocide in the first place?" and by the same token if the source does not say genocide denial we can't say "Well its a genocide so thats genocide denial and we can label it as such" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

We are allowed to try and figure out the meaning of what something says rather than just searching for words and copying. That is particularly important here because of the different meanings of genocide. NadVolum (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Genocide denial means genocide denial, it is not our place to question that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Referring to which definition of genocide? The UN convention one or the dictionary one or something different or changes between sections depending on what you want it to be or you don't care provided the word is used? NadVolum (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thats a level of analysis beyond what we as wikipedia editors do. Please see WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Our job is to summarize sources, and that means being familiar with how a topic is presented across all mainstream and academic works, not just cherry picking a few sources. It was clear from the Uyghur genocide talk page that while the title uses the term, otherwise treating the situation as genocide as fact in wikivoice did not follow agreement from sources, and so knowing that, it us absolutely clear we can't treat this ad a "genocide denial" for the same reasons, lack of source agreement.--Masem (t) 14:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a lack of source agreement? I don't see any case where one source calls something "genocide denial" and another source disputes that characterization. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There is definitely a lack if source agreement on whether it is a genocide to begin with, so by that implication, there absolutely would be the same on whether China's behavior can be called a denial of that. Further, before we go stating this as fact in wikiboice, there better be mass agreement across a majority of sources, and not just pointing to a few sources that use the term (cherry picking) while others do not offer any such claim. Otherwise that's making the minority sources' view UNDUE. We are not married to only considering the story told by RSes but instead have to be fully cognizant if the big picture when we are going to make statements like this, otherwise we become an echo chamber. --Masem (t) 13:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"there absolutely would be the same on whether China's behavior can be called a denial of that." if thats absolutely true I'm sure you can find the sources. As far as I can tell the characterization of "genocide denial" is the majority opinion, I actually can't find its counterpoint expressed in reliable sources... I have to go to places like The Greyzone to find them at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets put it this way...say there are 100 RSes talk broadly discuss the situation re Uyghur. How many of those specificly say "genocide denial"? If it's anything less than say 15 or so, then you are definitely in the realm of cherry picking. It may be majority viewpoint, but if no one else is even providing a viewpoint or taking a side, it us wrong to claim that as a majority viewpoint. That's why it's important to look past just what you can claim the RSes say. --Masem (t) 14:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thats not how WP:DUE works, if the topic is genocide denial (it is, the page in question here is genocide denial, not Uyghur genocide) then we look at sources which cover genocide denial. Why when covering the topic of genocide denial would it be cherrypicking to use sources which cover genocide denial instead of those which do not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"China is engaging in genocide denial" is clearly, by its very nature and due to it being an ongoing event, is a highly contentious statement. It needs to have strong agreement across a wide array of sources to make that claim in wikivoice, or other it has to be treated as attributed opinion (which begs whether it should be included on the genocide denial page to start). This is why I again ask to what proportion of the RSes are making the claim relative to the number covering the topic. If they are in the minority, then it fails being DUE for a controversial topic. To contrary, there is widespread agreement that Russia invaded Ukraine, and not Russia's purported statement on its military encounters, so we run with the invasion angle. --Masem (t) 18:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't find any sources covering the topic of genocide denial which disagree. If its highly contentious then why don't we appear to have any RSes contending otherwise? If you are saying that we should be attributing the claims to the sources that make them thats fine, but thats not what you appear to be arguing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It is surely self-evident that anyone who argues that this is not genocide, or even argues that we don't yet know what it is, is also arguing against genocide denial, even if not stated explicitly. It would be a logical nonsense to say something other than genocide occurred but China is guilty of genocide denial (which is a wholly different thing from simply saying what occurred is not genocide, or even that nothing bad occurred). An absence of sources saying explicitly that Pincrete is not a Martian, doesn't automatically make a small number saying he is, true. All those arguing that there are no such thing as Martians can reasonably be treated as affirming that Pincrete isn't one! Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't get the analogy, in that situation Pincrete's page would need to cover the martian claims per WP:NPOV. Genocide denial also exists whether China does it or not, so martians would exist even if Pincrete is not a martian. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate read of DUE from NPOV, particularly in light of a ongoing or recent situation where opinion and debate are still developing on a topic. (I intend to raise the need for NPOV to address RECENTISM soon here). If Uyghur situation happened twenty years ago and of the RSes that reported on it, the only majority viewpoint was that it was a genocide and that China engaged in it denial, it would likely be okay to say that in wikivoice. But the situation is still ongoing, the investigation continuing, so we know not all opinions and final judgements have been formed. We know that making any claim of finality in wikivoice now is jumping the gun, and thus inappropriate for us now to try to assert the one viewpoint as fact. It can be used as attributed opinion, but that likely means not on the genocide denial page. --Masem (t) 13:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

So where is the appropriate home for the information about genocide denial? We have too many WP:RS for it not to have a home, if that home isn't genocide denial where is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It likely would have to be on the Uyghur genocide page, but included as attributed opinion of those sourced ("According to media outlets like X, Y, and Z claim that China is engaged in genocide denial in relation to the Uyghur situation."). --Masem (t) 12:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think this can be addressed with a simple logic chain. 1. Is it established that a genocide happened? 2. Is an established genocide being denied? I'm not sure that it has been established that this is a genocide thus I'm not sure we should call it genocide denial at this point. Thus, if the answer to the first question is no then the answer to the second isn't relevant. Springee (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Some editors above have hit the nail on the head. Opinions on or acceptance of human rights abuses against the Chinese Uyghur population as genocide is immaterial to whether the topic is covered on this page. As is whether someone or some government has denied this genocide. Genocide denial as a phenomenon, process or area of study is very different from a recorded instance of "X denying the genocide of Y". We need to look at what the RS says and there is a range of literature dealing with genocide denial. I've had a good dig through this and have not been able to find any sources in this field treating the responses to the Uyghur genocide as genocide denial (aside from some opinion pieces ). This is probably because the abuses in Xinjiang are ongoing and #1 rigorous academic publications are not quick to produce and #2 (according to Gregory Stanton) genocide denial is often the final part of the genocide process. In contrast, Chinese government response to abuses in Tibet have been spoken about in genocide denial literature (as in Forgotten Genocides : Oblivion, Denial, and Memory). In summary, regardless of consensus or acceptance of the Uyghur genocide if RS discuss the response to it as genocide denial (not just a news report saying China has denied this - all perpetrators deny their abuses) then it could be covered in this article (with appropriate consideration of WP:DUE as it pertains to the genocide denial topic). Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Easy solution. The article genocide denial is supposed to be about the general phenomenon of genocide denial, rather than specific cases. Focus on sources that are about the general phenomenon of genocide denial and wait to cover the Chinese government's statements about the Uyghur issue until it makes its way into such general sources. (t · c) buidhe 04:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Turkish War of Independence & Atroticies

Previous discussions available at Turkish War of Independence talk page under the headings "Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022", "Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (2)" and "Reply to abstention from mentioning the atrocities against Muslim Turks".

The proposed request for change available at Turkish War of Independence talk page under the heading "Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (2)" and under the subheading "3 ATROCITIES AGAINST MUSLIM TURKS DURING THE TURKISH WAR OF INDEPENDENCE".

The current version of Turkish War of Independence article almost completely omits the atrocities against Muslim Turks. The proposed text explains these atrocities with background information and academic sources. The content in question was mostly unchallenged, nevertheless, the proposal was rejected on the grounds of a lack of consensus. In the absence of any engagement from other editors, it is unclear how it was determined that there was no consensus for the proposed change. Therefore, it is kindly requested this content to be added to Turkish War of Independence article.--176.219.213.70 (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User Stuartyeates

Hi there, I'm unsure how to proceed with this, but I'm concerned about some of User:Stuartyeates's public pronouncements concerning the Listener letter on science controversy and in particular about a number of NZ scientists involved in that controversy. The problem is that recent Twitter comments suggest that he is about to create entries for a number of people as a way of attacking them. On April 3rd, he wrote (with regard to a number of academics who signed an open letter to the Royal Society of New Zealand, 'You know, some of those folks will be getting their own stub wikipedia biographies, just so I can include that fact that they're this racist ...' (https://twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1510566667990237185). On September 21st last year, he asked 'Which other Kiwi villains should I write about?' and 'Here is a series tentatively entitled "Slapping Auckland Turnips"' (https://mobile.twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1440244134715932676) before listing a number of entries he created on the signatories to the Listener letter. (I also have screenshots of these tweets by the way, if anyone needs those.) My concern is not only that this may violate Misplaced Pages policies on neutral point of view, balance in creating BLPs, and perhaps conflict of interest, but also that we may soon have a flood of some purposefully negative entires on NZ academics. I'm not aware of any other issues with this user and I appreciate he has done lots of work for Misplaced Pages, but I wonder whether he might recuse himself (or be removed from) editing entries on NZ scholars involved in the Listener letter on science controversy and those who signed the letter printed here (who he has pledged to create pages for 'just so I can include the fact that they're this racist'): https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/04/02/fellows-of-new-zealands-royal-society-demand-apology-and-full-review-of-the-society-after-poor-treatment-of-two-members/ If this is not the place for this concern or if I've made some technical faux-pas please let me know. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Cleisthenes2 Do you have a specific edit you can point to which has not had a neutral point of view? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

C'mon folks, this Stuart Yeates guy is going around accusing 70+ people of being racist, just because they dared to object to the NZ Royal Society's ridiculous treatment of an esteemed Māori scientist, Garth Cooper, who has devoted his career to improving health and educational outcomes for Māori. And since last year, he's been systematically using Misplaced Pages to grind his axe against the writers of the "Listener" letter from July 2021, *even though* the Royal Society took down their letter against those writers, and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland has also basically retracted her initial critical claims against the letter. She now says "nobody is wrong here," (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/auckland-plans-dialogue-maori-knowledge-and-science) and is sponsoring a symposium at the University to discuss the raised issues of indigenous knowledge and science. I think Misplaced Pages should do something or eventually this guy will get Misplaced Pages sued for defamation. 222.153.123.28 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Stuartyeates is a respected and productive editor on NZ topics on Misplaced Pages. What he (or someone appearing to be him) may or may not have said on Twitter isn't something that should concern anyone unless it's reflected in his Misplaced Pages editing. Unless you can show examples of actual non-neutral editing this isn't going to go anywhere. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to respond to Daveosaurus's doubts about whether User:Stuartyeates is Stuart Yeates on Twitter, the articles Stuart Yeates boasted about creating on Twitter were all then created by User:Stuartyeates. Also, he has the same name and lives in New Zealand. Also, User:Stuartyeates links to his Twitter account on his Misplaced Pages editor page.Cleisthenes2 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, this page creation would seem to display exactly the kind of lack of balance which User:Cleisthenes2 sounds concerned about? It was one of five such BLPs User:Stuartyeates created on the same day using more or less the same material; all were co-authors of the Listener letter. A BLP for a sixth co-signer of the open letter was created by User:Stuartyeates the next day; one already existed for the seventh co-author.

This behaviour seems to exactly match that threatened in the "You know, some of those folks will be getting their own stub wikipedia biographies, just so I can include that fact that they're this racist ..." tweet.

The article name of the BLP page creation I just linked to above was referenced in the tweet reading:

Here is a series tentatively titled "Slapping Auckland Turnips" . I'll get to the others as time allows."

The fact that the subject of that BLP has Māori heritage, but was referred to using a racist pejorative in the tweet suggests that the creator of the article was ignorant of this pretty basic piece of biographical information. Given this, it seems reasonable to wonder about what the motivation behind creating the new article (and the other five) was. Not least because User:Stuartyeates shortly afterwards tweeted:

The last of the authors of THAT letter now have Misplaced Pages biographies including the backlash to the letter... #turnipslapper".

With the greatest of respect, the creation of articles with this apparently biased motivation is likely to do great harm to WP's reputation - our friends at The Daily Mail would have a field day. JezGrove (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

They can complain about Twitter all they want. That is nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. Now go read Misplaced Pages:No legal threats, then go back to work improving the encyclopaedia. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Daveosaurus -- do you really think Stuart Yeates didn't write this? Let's ask him! User:Stuartyeates, did you, or did you not, write this Twitter post?

https://twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1510566667990237185

"@stuartayeates

Replying to @REasther

You know, some of those folks will be getting their own stub wikipedia biographies, just so I can include that fact that they're this racist ...

10:35 PM · Apr 3, 2022"

If you wrote it, be brave and own it. If it's fake, you've got a major problem, someone has been pretending to be you for a long time. 222.153.123.28 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Google 'Garth Cooper Auckland'; the article reflected the secondary sources, this group of academics have had a LOT of press about this trainwreck. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Are the tweets yours, because that goes to the heart of this issue? JezGrove (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Good question. Why won't User:Stuartyeates answer? He's been using Misplaced Pages to dish it out for a long time, can he not take a little criticism? 222.153.123.28 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you read WP:OUTING. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Outing?! Whatever are you talking about? Stuart Yeates's twitter is public, so is his Misplaced Pages activity, it's clear it's the same guy in both places, he himself has admitted it publicly in all ways except personally clarifying it for you right here. You are the only one raising the vague possibility it is someone else, clearly in an attempt to avoid the embarrassing main issue. 222.153.123.28 (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that those editors who criticise Stuart should read Misplaced Pages:Five pillars. The editors may then measure Stuart's WP conduct against these fundamental principles. What matters here is what Stuart does on WP. What Stuart does off WP is nobody's business. The other thing that matters is the conduct displayed in this discussion and I refer to the fourth pillar. Schwede66 22:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

With all respect, if an editor - especially one of such long standing - is alleged to have publicly threatened to create BLP articles specifically so that they can accuse the subjects of racism that is of very legitimate concern. As I mentioned above, the editor involved has already created this unbalanced BLP, and five others very like it, and boasted about having done so on Twitter using the racist slur "turnipslapper". The fact that the articles are now more balanced doesn't detract from the apparent bad faith behind their creation.

(Bad faith is not a phrase to be used lightly, I agree, but it is one that is hard to dance around in these particular circumstances. The public statements and the edits related to them have been taking place almost simultaneously over many months and the editor has so far ignored requests to dissociate themselves from the tweets, despite having visited this page since those requests were made.) JezGrove (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't belong here. It belongs on WP:ANI, at minimum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Also agreed. I am most concerned about the implied legal threats from JezGrove and the attempted outing from the OP and the IP. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Daveosaurus, I'd be genuinely interested to know what you think I've written above that can be construed as any kind of "implied threat", yet alone a "legal" one. JezGrove (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I've opened Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Drama_at_Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

222.153.123.28 you really need to read our outing policy. What matter is whether Stuartyeates has linked their Twitter from Misplaced Pages. It doesn't make if their Twitter is public, nor does it matter if the Twitter account has said they edit Misplaced Pages. If you have concerns about something but it can't be discussed on Misplaced Pages due to outing concerns, then take it to arbcom. Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It's been brought to my attention at WP:ANI that Stuartyeates did link their Twitter account on Misplaced Pages with this edit . That seems to satisfy generic concerns about discussing the Twitter account here. As I also mentioned at ANI this connection really need to be established from the beginning rather than after the fact, and it's also what matters, not any similarity of account names nor what the Twitter account has said about Misplaced Pages. Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC) 14:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Too much drama... An editor's Twitter history may legitimately be mentioned, but it isn't very helpful to building a better encyclopedia and it doesn't need prolonged discussion here. I suggest that the time of anyone interested in the Listener letter on science controversy would be best spent on looking at the relevant articles, and working for a consensus on improvements to those articles.

Also, I don't see anything above that I'd describe as a legal threat and I hope to hear no more about the idea. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: You're mistaken. You cannot discuss an editor's Twitter history unless they have linked to it themselves, our outing policy is clear on this. The editor concerned did do so in this case, however it's entirely reasonable to ask those who wish to discuss it to demonstrate this before we discuss it. Also NLT ultimately deals with the chilling effect of threatening to use external means to deal with disputes on Misplaced Pages. While most commonly this relates to threats to sue someone or report them to some authority, threatening to go to the media may have the same chilling effect so isn't something that should happen either. That said, it doesn't seem to me this was really a threat to go to a media instead just a comment on what may happen. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

report them to ANI, and the page is now on my watch list, and they can read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide

I would like some guidance in regards to calling this group a terrorist group or/and calling there actions terrorism? The contested edits can be found at this dif:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Justice_Commandos_of_the_Armenian_Genocide&type=revision&diff=1081223378&oldid=1081219402 and also see the talk page. Thank you for any clarification. Hardyplants (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Taking a look. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Pizza cures heart disease

Pizza#Pizza_and_health I'm suggesting that this section is unduly using case studies to illustrate a medical point. MarshallKe (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that instead of posting stuff like this you should try to do something useful. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Funny, I feel the same way about you, Roxy. MarshallKe (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep it polite, and take it to your talk pages. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. MarshallKe (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you doing your tone policing on just me, or both of us? Do stoppit. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Both of you, and it is not "tone policing" it is asking you to obey wp:talk "Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating.", I am asking both of you to obey policy. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Requesting close by uninvolved user of user conduct-related comments here, leaving the concern about the pizza article MarshallKe (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I've cut out the offending section. MarshallKe (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The material seems cited to reputable medical journals. This seems therefore to pass NPOV. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I've restored it. Calidum 17:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If this headline is true, then I am likely immortal, and you are all in deep trouble. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Dude I'm eating a pizza right now and I can literally feel my body healing itself in real time MarshallKe (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDRS instead of tone policing people. You'd benifit, and so would we. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• The claims are cited to non-WP:MEDRS sources, so should not be there. As usual, some editors are revert happy without being aware of the relevant WP:PAGs. Calidum is a particular offender in this regard. Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the International Journal of Cancer fail WP:MEDRS. Our respective articles on each refer to them as peer-reviewed medical journals. Calidum 18:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Read WP:MEDRS to see that the requirement for medical sources is rather high, and does not actually depend on the publication of itself. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Just tell me, in plain English, what is wrong with the two sources in question. Enough of this Kafkaesque bullshit. Calidum 18:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    By a quick glance, the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition article is "We conducted a hospital-based case–control study on 507 cases of nonfatal AMI and 478 controls in Milan, Italy, between 1995 and 1999." WP:MEDASSESS has "case-control study" as the lowest form of reference that even qualifies as high as primary, and is nowhere near secondary. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Thank you. Calidum 18:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    "Peer-reviewed" is even a weak argument unrelated to more-stringent particulars of MEDRS. General WP:PST policy (and WP:RS guideline) sitewide would flag any article that is actual research itself ("primary") rather than any sort of review article or independent analysis ("secondary"). DMacks (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think you'll find that you cannot cure heart disease without having heart disease. In that way, pizza is an important first step in curing heart disease. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

That reminds me of why I started smoking: so I could quit and reduce my chances of having lung cancer. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• WP:MEDRS is quite clear about primary sources. What does it say (in bold)? This is basic stuff. Calidum is edit-warring to preserve unreliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Do we need WP:MEDRS to note that any putative benefits of pizza eaten by Italians in their own country may not necessarily be reproduced through consumption of alleged 'pizza' produced elsewhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump an observation about a medical claim should be sourced to MEDRS if possible if it isn't as obvious as "the sky is blue". I think of this in the sense A is a medical statement, A-1 is a hypothesis for why A is the case in some areas more than others, so while not necessarily a strictly medical claim in and of itself it still qualifies a previous medical statement. Especially in a section about pizza's effect on health, we should try to keep all claims up to MEDRS standard imo. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the implication that eating pizza reduces the risk of digestive tract cancer, sourced to a 20-year-old unreliable source, is Misplaced Pages at its worst. Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I had Pizza in Italy once. It was poor compared to Yorkshire Pizza. Pasta is much better. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of snark and crosstalk above and it's all unhelpful. I am not an expect on WP:MEDRS and I appreciate that others are. If the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition and International Journal of Cancer are not a sufficient sources on medical claims about Europeans, then I would appreciate someone explaining to me why not. Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is almost 64K long. I'm not reading it all the way through and then coming back to ask the same question. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Good grief. see WP:MEDRS Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If you want to edit Misplaced Pages cluefully, you need to read the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Man, been a while since I got templated! Mackensen (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

In short, the studies are primary studies rather than meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or clinical recommendations by governmental authorities. See WP:MEDPRI. MarshallKe (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that's the sort of answer I was looking for. Mackensen (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• This whole episode is pretty depressing. There seems to be a number of editors out there who, when an edit is made referencing a WP:PAG think, "Well, I can't be fucked to ready any boring WP:PAGs, I'll just assume the other party is wrong and keep reverting my preferred version". Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  This has been a master class in what I would call anti-persuasion. I don't know that I'd recommend you continue down this path (and I agree with you on the main issue). Mackensen (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

ACORN (PRNG)

ACORN (PRNG)'s principal editor, User:Jwikip, appears to be the developer of the ACORN PRNG. His website, http://wikramaratna.org/, identifies him as Jan Wikramaratna and is signed jw, also used as a signature on Jwikip's user page. Blah2 (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Blah2 this is best discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

No, @Blah2 I am not the developer of ACORN PRNG.
After reviewing your comment and WP COI pages carefully, I may have - but I am NOT the developer of ACORN PRNG, nor am I paid for this or any other of my numerous contributions to Misplaced Pages, where I very carefully try to be neutral.

1. If you agree, please take the name off your above comment. I do not particularly wish or need to be 'outed' and apparently this is against Misplaced Pages rules.
2. I suggest that this detailed discussion be continued on the ACORN PRNG talk page, or on my own talk page, where I would like to add information about notability of ACORN.
3. I am not sure how to proceed - what do do you suggest I should do ? -- jw (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought I was following the correct procedure (I was not entirely clear.) I was only suggesting a COI. Blah2 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

so @Blah2 do you agree to take my name off your comment ? if yes, please do so ! (although I can't say it is ether pleasant or unpleasant to be named here)

how should we proceed with the COI issue ? jw (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Black hole information paradox

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/Black_hole_information_paradox

It seems that Jacob2718 is an active researcher in the field of black hole information using this Wiki to promote his works. His edits have mainly supported the (sometimes disputed) conclusions in journal papers listed below, see the article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Black_hole_information_paradox#Technical_details

1) "Lessons from the information Paradox", PhysicsReports https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157321003720

2) "The Entropy of Hawking Radiation", Reviews of Modern Physics https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035002

Black hole information is an area of active research, and there is sometimes sharp disagreement between experts as to what is known or not known, what has been rigorously established, etc. It seems that Jacob2718 is using this Wiki article to advance his own opinions. He is not fairly describing other work in the field. For example, the work in "Lessons from the information Paradox", PhysicsReports https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157321003720 of Raju et al. have been criticized and are not widely accepted, see e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.04947.pdf.

But this work features prominently in Jacob2718's recent edits. Jacob2718 eliminated a discussion in the Recent Developments section about the work of Calmet et al. He moved mention of published papers in top journals like Physical Review Letters and Physics Letters into the Popular Culture section. It appears that the original reference to this work, written by Jacob2718 himself, described it as supportive of Raju et al.'s earlier papers. It is strange that it has now been moved into the entirely wrong section. How can Jacob2718 justify first citing Calmet et al. as (presumably) important work in the Recent Developments section, supporting Raju et al., and now claim it is only an example of Popular Culture? This is not only unjustified, it shows active bias at work.

It seems that Jacob2718 is an active researcher in the field of black hole information. His edits have mainly supported the (sometimes disputed) conclusions in journal papers listed below, see the article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Black_hole_information_paradox#Technical_details

Clearly, Jacob2718 does not exhibit a NPOV.

Xcalmet (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution