Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:23, 27 June 2020

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

Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

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

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

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

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

They are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rfc about the addition of the Praise & Criticism section to Jacobin (magazine)

Does the Praise & Criticism section contain editorializing?

Does the Praise & Criticism section contain poor writing?

Is the sourcing in the Praise & Criticism section unreliable?

Are the topics chosen in the Praise & Criticism section worthy of inclusion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jacobin_(magazine) BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note that this is a copypaste of an RfC on the article talkpage. Please respond there, not here. Bishonen | tålk 12:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

Edward Colston

Edward Colston was the C17/18 merchant and slave owner trader whose statue in Bristol was torn down recently. The disagreement between editors is whether he should be described as a "philanthropist" in the opening paragraph. He gave money to causes he supported, and in the past has been described as a "philanthropist" in many biographies and on the plaque on the monument itself - but there is a strong view among some editors, myself included, that he should not be described neutrally, in Misplaced Pages's voice, as a "philanthropist" now. Comments and thoughts from disinterested editors are welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The sources given to support "philanthropist" include the ODNB; historicengland.org (which describes him as "Bristol's most famous philanthropist, now also noted for his involvement in the slave trade."); and Gardiner, Juliet (2000). The History Today Who's Who In British History. which per what other editors say, 'begins "slave-trader and philanthropist" and concludes: "His life demonstrates how it was possible for the morally righteous to play leading roles in the slave trade while elsewhere pursuing good works."'. Since this was improperly notified on article talk: @Sufcmad, DeFacto, The Land, and Deb: hopefully I didn't miss anyone? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Note also that this is being discussed on the article talk page and there's already a rather long thread there (/*Introduction) so maybe one of them should be closed as WP:FORUMSHOP to avoid splitting the discussion? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Its reasonable to post a notice here, but I agree the discussion should not be split between multiple forums or threads.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• To quote Ghmyrtle, " gave money..." that makes someone a philanthropist. Cassianto 15:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

contribs) 15:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - This arose in the context of a rewrite of the introduction to the article on Colston following the recent Statue of Edward Colston. My particular concern was to reflect the way Colston is now regarded in the city and elsewhere, which has changed significantly over the past thirty years. In 2018, the local authority tried to address this by adding a reference to the slave trade on a plaque attached to the statue. However, the plaque was not placed because of a general unease about the proposed wording, which included the words "benefactor" and "philanthropy". My view is that we should be sensitive to the current climate by making it clear that, although Colston was for centuries regarded as a philanthropist, he is not regarded in the same light now (as the article makes clear), and I therefore proposed that the introduction should say "he came to be regarded as a philanthropist", rather than that he was one. User:DeFacto considers this to be "weasel wording" and asked me to explain what was the problem with the word "philanthropist", which I did. I thought that I had consensus for the change, but as soon as I amended the wording, DeFacto altered it. I don't mind it being altered if there is consensus to do so, but I do not agree that the change is unnecessary.Deb (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• WP:PRESENTISM. At the time, and why he was honored with a statue then, was from his philanthropy. That now we have considered that his money that he used in that was build off slave trade which over the past decades and very much more recently has became a taboo thing should not reflect how he was historically seen to start. A "legacy" section (maybe not best term) can be added though to talk about modern reflection on that there's rethinking if he really was as "good" a person as when the statue was erected. But we should not be wiping out how he had been historically seen for more than decades by historians. --Masem (t) 16:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, here you go - here's someone who agrees with you: Deb (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Deb, please keep politics out of this. Has there been a link to Karl Marx when talking to you? No. Get a grip. Cassianto 16:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I gave you a source, that's all. Why start a slanging match over it? Deb (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• What Masem said. Cassianto 16:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• As I see it, he was literally a philanthropist ("A person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes."). It isn't disputed that he donated a large proportion of his accumulated wealth to charities, particularly in the city of Bristol, England and reliable sources use the word when describing him (see above). To try to water down his past role now, because he has over the last few days been reviled in the press, feels like whitewashing and recentism. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

He may have sought to promote the welfare of some others who followed his particular beliefs, but he certainly didn't promote the welfare of those he trafficked as slaves. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

He contributed charitably to a lot of organisations in Bristol, agreed? He also traded slaves, agreed? So he did both things; now simply because he did one doesn't mean we should not mention the other... As I said, the only "opinion" that matters here is that of reliable sources (such as those I quoted in the first reply above), and they unanimously say that he was both of those things... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I would be perfectly happy with a wording in the introduction that said that he donated substantial sums of money for charitable causes in Bristol. That is what I did in this edit. So, that is not the issue. The issue is on some editors' insistence on describing him as a "philanthropist" - which has wider implications of, essentially, being a worthy person - rather than using any of the other, more neutral, descriptions that could be used. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, PRESENTISM. Historically he has been described as a philanthropist. That today that many do not feel that term applies is a reasonable fact/assertion to include somewhere but you can't wipe the historical record away of how he was seen at the time he lived or in the many decades that followed. --Masem (t) 17:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, "... he donated substantial sums of money for charitable causes in Bristol" - for that, read "philanthropy". Cassianto 17:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, or read "charitable giving", which would be far less emotive. Deb (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

...which is...er...philanthropy? Cassianto 19:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, slavery, as barbaric as it is now, and in my opinion, has always been, existed and was accepted 250 years ago. You cannot rewrite history. Cassianto 17:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There are two ways of covering this. Either we say that in the past he was regarded as a philanthropist - that's fine - or we say that he donated money for good causes in Bristol - that's fine. No-one is arguing against including one or both of those statements in the introduction. But, there is no reason to be fixated on the use of a single word - philanthropist - which, like it or not, is now seen as having wider connotations and can no longer be used as a neutral descriptor of him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

By whom is it seen as having connotations? Certainly not by the ODNB or other reliable sources. If you have a problem with it, fine, but your opinion is not what matters for WP:NPOV. He wasn't "regarded as a philanthropist in the past"; since that's not what reliable sources say, so we write what they actually say (see my first post above) and not what amounts to modern WP:PRESENTISM and revisionism. Leaving a statement that he is a controversial figure (as already done) seems fully appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, I beg to differ, but it is you who is fixated on the word "philanthropy", no one else. Shall we do away with "slave trader" too? Leaving that in skews towards negativity, which isn't very neutral. I tell you what, sod it, if you want total neutrality, let's delete the article altogether? That's about as neutral as you can get. Or how about push the darn thing into a lake to hide history? That, if I'm not mistaken, is what you want to do here, hide the good and focus on the bad. Cassianto 17:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: not matter how often you rinse and repeat the same argument, he was still a philanthropist, so the article should say exactly that. See my reply when you last made exactly the same point for my reasons. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

History regularly gets rewritten Cassianto. That is why at least two schools have ditched the name Colston and why the Colston Hall will be renamed before the Fall. He was a big donor/"benefactor"/sugar patron, that's clear. Philanthropist, in the sense "lover of all humanity", that is less clear. -- SashiRolls 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I disagree; history is written and you cannot change it. You can change the future, but not the past. History cannot be forgotten or ignored. The oxymoron is that history exists. This discussion seeks to hide Colston's philanthropy because it doesn't fit the 2020 narrative. That is wrong. Cassianto 18:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, there's been a fight going on about that very old plaque (1905ish if I remember correctly) for years. Synonyms like "donor" or "local benefactor" might make everyone happy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto - No-one is trying to hide the fact that he gave money for charitable causes - quite the reverse. What is needed is a description of that activity in neutral terms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, I didn't say that; I said you're trying to hide his "philanthropy". If you are now saying that "philanthropy" and "giving money to charitable causes" amounts to the same thing, then what's the point of all this bruh-ha? Cassianto 19:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose any change suggested here, I am not going to try and follow 15 separate threads.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Modern attitudes to this sort of thing dont alter the historical facts, just our attitudes to this sort of thing, sorry. Colston has always been a slave trader and philanthropist, and our attitude to slavery now should not colour our recording of the details. I have one of the affected articles on my watchlist, and make no apology for my edits to the lead of that one. Also, what MASEM and Cassianto said. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This is also wp:notforum.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"Edward Colston was a slave trader who invested much of his wealth in philanthropic efforts, particularly for the benefit of his native Bristol, where he also served as an MP." is a very nice compromise I think. The key to neutrality is not applying value judgements, it is about letting the reader make up their own mind about what they think of such a man now, in the 21st Century. Krypto Wallace (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Krypto Wallace: But that's not what the sources (see, again, my first post above, since apparently nobody noticed it) say (how much of his wealth he made from slaves and how much he made from other more mundane affairs is unclear); and the purpose of WP is not "letting the reader make up their own mind" but report what reliable sources think of the matter, even if it doesn't match up with what our personal view of "neutrality" is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that description of neutrality comes directly from the people who created Misplaced Pages. It stuck in my mind because it is the reason the article on Hitler doesn't say he was a bad man, it just describes what he did. I doubt there are any sources that contradict my wording on that score, he traded slaves and used the money for philanthropic causes. Draw your own conclusions, no commentary required. Detailing exactly how much money he made from slaves, is going to be mere detail, since it obviously wasn't a non-trivial amount. Krypto Wallace (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's because WP:NPOV is part of the fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages. Saying that someone is/was "a bad man" isn't informative and doesn't help our readers. For the record, neither dodes Britannica describe Hitler as "a bad man" (the only mention of "bad" or "evil" comes when they paraphrase Hitler's antisemitic views), since it is written in the style of a scholarly work, like Misplaced Pages should be. @SashiRolls: "philanthropist", while it might be etymologically traced to the meaning you give, does not actually mean that (see the Cambridge Dictionary for what it actually means) and neither did it mean that back when Colston was alive. Changing this simply because it offends modern sensibilities is WP:PRESENTISM. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What are you disputing then? What sources supposedly contradict my wording (and more importantly, why, if not simply because they are dated). He traded slaves and did philanthropy off the back of it. Historical facts, perfectly neutral. Potential bad/good man conclusions are certainly offered by this merely descriptive text, depending on your moral compass, but are certainly not given. No other route to go, without addressing the problem of whether "philanthropist" is offered in the introduction here and now as a value judgement, not a description. Krypto Wallace (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

But reliable sources such as the ODNB (which is undoubtedly neutral) use this term as a descriptive without any worries bout "value judgement". If the ODNB doesn't have a problem, then I don't see why Misplaced Pages should. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Lots of robber barons have become philanthropists... especially if they're heirless as Colston was. Personally, don't care much. "Local benefactor" is possibly more accurate than philanthropist (he was also apparently fairly particular about which local projects he would fund (unsurprising given that Wesley was lobbying against slavery (slight anachronism))... maybe I'll find the reference I read that talks about that and report back to the TP). -- SashiRolls 19:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Many bad people have been "philanthropists", and personally I dislike the fact that the English language has a word for a special category of charitable giving that is only attainable by the very rich. However, the word "philanthropist" is usually applied based on how much someone has given away and not the source of the funds, however unethical. The Land (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

So you don't think we should include what most people think of him now? For example, this article is headed "How Bristol came to see the slave trader as a hero and philanthropist". Do you think we should add to the article that he was a hero? And if not, why not? Deb (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Deb, "hero" verges on POV. I'm surprised you've felt inclined to ask that, if I'm honest. Cassianto Cassianto 19:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Both "philanthropist" and "hero" are POV terms. If you are supporting one, then why not the other. Deb (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Whilst "philanthropist" has the weight of reliable sources to support its use, it could be that "hero" has not. However, if it has, then it should be used too. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Above I quoted two sources in which the accuracy of the term "philanthropist" is questioned. So why not just say that he made financial donations? Why get hung up on such a disputed word? Deb (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Deb, I couldn't see which sources you meant in the above wall of text - please re-state. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There's this one and this one. It's not difficult to find others . I accept that the sources may not be impartial ones, but they do make it clear that the description of Colston as a "philanthropist" is by no means universally accepted and is in fact rather controversial.Deb (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: they look more like moment-in-time click-bait-headlined political opinion pieces to me, rather than anything resulting from serious fact-checked research. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see why that eliminates them from consideration. They are opinion pieces - someone's opinion - and I believe there are now a lot of people who find the continued use of the word "philanthropist" in relation to Colston insulting. Deb (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Deb, it is you who is getting " hung up" on the use of the word philanthropist. Cassianto 18:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Deb, sorry, philanthropist has a very clear meaning, as defined in the dictionary. "Hero" could mean anything and introduces ambiguity. Sure, this guy traded slaves, terrible, but he also did some good, the results of which defined the city of Bristol. It seems to be an alt-left-wing narrative that no matter what good someone has done in life, crimes against social justice by today's standards will always outweigh it. That seems to be the case here and that is not very balanced. Cassianto 18:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto Three somewhat different definitions there, but in two of them, giving money is by no means an essential feature of a philanthropist. Deb (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

But the fact is we should prefer more "serious" sources (such as the ODNB and the like, which apparently properly understand English and do not ascribe the incorrect "lover of humanity" meaning to the word "philanthropist). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing incorrect about that. That's the literal meaning. It's the idea that simply giving money meets the definition of philanthropy that is inaccurate. Deb (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No, "lover of humanity" is the etymology. The following sources all give the meaning above; i.e.

"A person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes." Oxford and co.

"a person who helps the poor, especially by giving them money:" Cambridge

"A philanthropist is someone who freely gives money and help to people who need it. Collins

Whether people think it is positive or neutral, it is the wording used by neutral sources such as the ODNB and the others I mention above in my first post. Whatever other objections remain to the term appear to be WP:PRESENTISM. That, as some point in time he was considered a "philanthropist", is a fact, not an opinion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

However, given how many times - before the last few weeks, that "philanthropist"/"philanthropy" and "Edward Colston" are used, its near unavoidable. I understand that the term generally carries a positive image with it, but it is a neutral word and that meaning is something people only read into it themselves. We shouldn't try to soften past terms that may seem wrong to use today. --Masem (t) 17:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no argument over the fact that "at some point in time he was considered a "philanthropist"." But that does not mean that we need to describe him as a philanthropist now. We can say, "he was regarded as a philanthropist" in the 19th century, or whenever. That is more accurate and correct than using a disputed term to describe him as such in the 21st century. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Masem That sounds strange, surely Misplaced Pages should reflect the best of current knowledge, not reflect out-dated thinking. Why not use a perfectly good compromise term like Benefactor. Misplaced Pages neutral but still fairly positive. (Personally I think the term philanthropist is a bit over used term on Misplaced Pages, any well off generous celeb can get the term added to their lead). ~ BOD ~ 21:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there an "English do-gooder" category? Has it been purged of any inadvertently admixed English givers or English humanity lovers? In fact I might have unwittingly swiped that term from the Wikiverse, come to think of it ... though in fairness reference #2 in the Edward Colston entry does use "benefact" 8 times. :) -- SashiRolls 22:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I will also remind users to observe wp:npa, it dos not matter how right you are or how riotous your cause, comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Stick with philanthropist for the lead. It what he was, according to both the reliable sources and to any dictionary definition of the term. That doesn't stop him also being involved in the slave trade - the two were not mutually exclusive. The POV of editors over whether they consider him to be a philanthropist or not is neither here nor there: we go by what the sources say. Every time and without fail: use the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The cult of Colston

The problem with many sources about Colston is that they are very biased, due to the Colston societies and other organizations such as the Society of Merchant Venturers promoting a biased view of him from at least the 19th century, Colston Day having been in effect a public holiday in Bristol since the 1720s.

This source: Ball, Roger (2018-10-14). "Myths within myths…Edward Colston and that statue". Bristol Radical History Group. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-10. contains the follow remarks:

The statue actually marks the high point of the reinvention of Colston as the ‘father of the city’ in the Victorian era.

Jordan’s point is that the historical figure of Colston was being reinvented in the Victorian period to represent the economic, social and political perspectives of the Bristol business elite.

Ritual commemoration, celebration and memorialisation of Edward Colston in the Victorian public domain were crucial to propagating both the elite concept of Colston and the belief that this concept was validated by long-standing tradition.

The organisations used for propagating this Victorian version of Colston were primarily the four charitable societies; the Dolphin, Anchor, Grateful and Colston (or Parent) Societies. Leading members of these associations were tied closely to other organisations of the Bristol elite such as the Society of Merchant Venturers.

So, when reading about Edward Colston, one must be careful to critically evaluate the source. Just because it's been published doesn't make it a WP:RS since so much of the published material is intentionally biased mythologising.

One must consider if the source is pro-Colston propaganda, written to promote the mythological view of him created in the 19th century? Or is the source reliable and neutral?

If a claim can be traced back to the intentionally biased Colston societies or the equally pro-Colston Society of Merchant Venturers, it should not be used unless it can also be attested to in a WP:RS, such as the work of a historian or other unbiased writer working independently of the pro-Colston organizations.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Michael F 1967: I wonder how WP:RS-compliant that self-published content, hosted on a history reformation activists' website, is. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The Website belongs to a history project, of which that author is a member: it's not a self-published piece as you incorrectly claim. And it's far more reliable than any content published under the banner of the historical revisionists who created the false Victorian myth of Colston-as-virtuous-civic-minded-do-gooder.

My point there is that reliable sources tell us that the myth of Colston as a good man was made up in the 19th century by Bristol societies created in order to promote Colston, reliable sources also tell us that slave trading history has been swept under the carpet in this country for a long time now, and reliable sources tell us that some aspects of history do in fact need to be reinvestigated and - dare I say it? - corrected. So those working on reforming history are on the whole good people doing good work in good faith.

I suggest that a properly referenced work of history re-assessing existing views based on propaganda lies invented in the 19th century (as is the case with Colston) is indeed likely to count as a very reliable source. And that work is properly referenced.

If you think it's wrong, find a WP:RS which says so. If not, accept it without making unfounded insinuations against what seems to be a well referenced and reliable work created in good faith. Michael F 1967 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Insinuate? I was direct about my concern as to whether that website would be considered to be an WP:RS. Probably best to test it at WP:RSN. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The above points are why it's useful to make reference to the work of serious professional historians such as UWE's Professor Madge Dresser whose work does count as WP:RS, including the text developed for a proposed second plaque on the Bristol city centre Colston statue which was erected at the instigation of the Colston societies to promote their mythological view of the man. The source I cite above strongly suggests that the wording on the plaque attached to the statue: 'Erected by citizens of Bristol as a memorial of one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city' was a flat-out lie and known to be so by those promoting the statue. They knew perfectly well that he was a typical merchant of his time, cut-throat in his dealings and out for as much personal profit as he could get. Nothing fundamentally wrong with that: it was how things were done in the late 17th and early 19th century.

In fact, the idea for the statue came from James Arrowsmith, president of the Liberal dominated Anchor Society. Arrowsmith was a wealthy businessman who owned the largest printing and publishing company in the city. Despite his efforts, the citizens of Bristol proved unenthusiastic about funding the statue and it seems that Arrowsmith had to put up a very large fraction of the money himself.

More reliable sources such as this need to be referred to - by that, I mean sources such as the text of the plaque developed under the supervision of UWE historian Professor Madge Dresser cited here

Cork, Tristan (2018-08-23). "Row breaks out as Merchant Venturer accused of 'sanitising' Edward Colston's involvement in slave trade". Bristol Live. Reach plc. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-09. Dr Dresser said she disagreed with the third proposal, claiming it 'sanitised' the slave trade.

Whether the sources are biased or not, the simple fact that he was a philanthropist is mentioned in multiple independent sources. There is no use continuing wasting our time on a disputed plaque text which we`re not going to include in the article (it was rejected...). We probably shouldn't take either of the Victorian grandiose mythologizing or the modern 'no-quarters' approach in the article; simply mention both views, which I believe is already done. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm astonished that you think it doesn't matter if a source is biased. That point of view is antithetical to Misplaced Pages, which demands the use of reliable sources WP:RS; no matter how many biased sources make a claim, they should not be used. Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Michael F 1967, per WP:BIASED, Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Schazjmd (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my mistaken impression. Still, if a source is biased, then that bias must be recognised and taken into account. Michael F 1967 (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that multiple sources describe him as a philanthropist does not matter if those sources are not reliable sources - and how can anyone check that if you don't cite them? There is no use continuing wasting time talking about 'multiple sources' unless they are cited and assessed for reliability.

Ah - I've just read the start of the discussion where you did cite multiple sources. I see that one cited source describes him as "slave-trader and philanthropist", so why not put that formulation in the lede, for example? Personally, I'd prefer to describe him as a merchant involved in the slave trade who engaged in philanthropy, thus avoiding what I see as pointlessly contentious language Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

As for the plaque in question: the only people who have disputed its text are pro-Colston activists. Since it was produced under the supervision of an eminent historian, there is no reason at all not to treat it as a reliable source.

We should take a neutral point of view using reliable sources. Modern research has proven beyond doubt that 19th century pro-Colston activists succeeded in falsifying history. Therefore, it is wrong to use on Misplaced Pages any information from pro-Colston sources such as the Society of Merchant Venturers.

Your reference to the modern 'no-quarters' approach implies to me that you have a bias against modern historical research and are unwilling to assume good faith on the part of modern historians.

The only correct approach is to cite a source, and assess it for reliability when you read it. If it's properly referenced and written by a serious historian, then it's reasonable to trust it. If it derives from propaganda promoted by any of the Colston societies or the Merchant Venturers, then it should be treated as what it is: intentionally dishonest mythologizing. That is not my opinion: it is a view attested to by a reliable source I've already cited.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "the modern 'no-quarters' approach": what I was referring to was WP:PRESENTISM. We shouldn't and can't ignore the historical perspective simply because it offends modern tastes about somebody who did something wrong in their life. Are you also going to say that the ODNB is "propaganda promoted by the Colston societies"? Regarding "slave trader": the real issue is flow, since the text should read like there was some thought put behind it, not like an attempt to loosely cram everything without too much structure. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Consider also: multiple sources refer to Colston as a slave trader, but apparently calling him that in the introduction is not appropriate. What is the justification for insisting on calling him 'a philanthropist' but not 'a slave trader'? That is a serious question: please address it.

Two example sources calling him a slave trader are: "Edward Colston statue pulled out of Bristol Harbour". BBC News. BBC. 2020-06-11. Archived from the original on 2020-06-11. Retrieved 2020-06-11. A statue of a slave trader that was thrown into a harbour by anti-racism protestors has been retrieved from the water.

King, Jasper (2020-06-11). "The removal of Edward Colston statue from Bristol Harbour in eight pictures". Bristol Live. Reach plc. Archived from the original on 2020-06-11. Retrieved 2020-06-11. The statue of the slave trade was pulled out by Bristol City Council</ref>

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It does the lead says involved in the slave trade. You cannot say for sure that he was a slave trader, all previous sources state that he was involved in a company that was involved in slavery, they never said that he personally took part in it. Now come off it Michael that BBC source has one mention of slave trader and does not give any background whatsoever and the BBC seem to be very biased in this situation (the other day they said what I wrote above and now suddenly Colson is a slave trader?!). The lead is fine stop trying to squabble over a very minor point that frankly boils down to semantics. Games of the world (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is a disagreement about facts amongst reliable sources, then that should be discussed in the article, with due weight given to each. It's not up to Wiki editors to judge which is the more correct. Similarly, for difference of opinion, all notable opinions, duly weighted and duly attributed (whose opinion it is) should be discussed in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I don't to get involved in this particularly, but the word philanthropist has throughout history been applied to people whose professions are less than "human-loving". Colston's philanthropy is the completely normal self-serving kind of euergetism that has always characterized the concept of philanthropy. I don't see any reason not to call him a "slave trader and philanthropist". Philanthropy is an Ancient Greek concept and anyone who was anyone is the classical world owned slaves and thought nothing of it. Everyone from the Historical Jesus to Thomas Jefferson owned or traded in slaves, and many can be described as philanthropists. In this particular case, it would be jarring to avoid the philanthropy of Colston while still having to explain the Victorian statue of Colston as Colston the Philanthropist. The statue was for the money he and the RACo. brought the city and its institutions, not for the slavery he obtained it from. Post-abolition society did not venerate slavers as such, but as explorers, colonists, warriors, industrialists, statesmen, euergetes, and yes, locally prominent philanthropists. GPinkerton (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  GPinkerton, indeed. We have long described the Koch brothers' "philanthropy", which consists in large part of large self-interested donations, funding think-tanks and buying influence to ensure they are allowed to continue profiting from the destruction of the planet. Guy (help!) 09:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Paleolithic Diet Article's Bias

Please, review the Paleolithic_diet article. The article's opening section seems to imply the diet is highly (entirely) flawed, yet, the article contents both support and refute the diet.

I suggest removing "mistakenly" from "mistakenly assumed".

The phrase "mistakenly assume" (in the article's opening section) is redundant or incorrect. Any assumption is, by definition, not proven. Thus, until proven, the assumption has the potential to be either a mistake or correct. It's the same as a theory upon which scientific research is based. If the assumption is proven wrong then the phrase "mistakenly assume" is redundant. If the assumption is proven correct then the phrase "mistakenly assume" is a contradiction. I'd suggest "mistakenly" be removed from the phrase so as not to bias the reader with hyperbole.

Please notice, too, that other editors were concerned with using the phrase "fad diet" in the opening sentence.

Any suggestions are appreciated.

Liberty5651 (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Jumping straight into criticism seems WP:UNDUE. In my view, the order of the second and third paragraphs should be swapped, so as to give context to the criticism. "Fad diet" and "mistakenly assume" seem well sourced. But perhaps "Supporters of the diet . . ." can be changed to something like "Many supporters of the diet. . ." given that no source can confirm every single supporter's views. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• The paleo diet is nonsense. Our article says why. This is not a problem. Guy (help!) 12:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Doc Antle

People who watched Tiger King may recall Doc Antle, and probably would not be surprised that a great deal of the sourcing about Antle following the documentary has been critical (other than the sources about how he was unhappy with how critical the series was). Our article, however, seems to have some PR work going on, with a whole section of primary sourced conservation work and critical language reframed. It's not something I have the capacity to work on at the moment, but I figured there are enough people into those related articles that posting here might attract the necessary attention. — Rhododendrites \\ 04:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

McKenzie method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV violations at Race and crime in the United States

This edit is a NPOV violation and should be reverted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Center for Countering Digital Hate

Center for Countering Digital Hate (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

User:The Anome could use some help. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Thank you! Any help would be much appreciated. -- The Anome (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Huh. Should have seen that coming, I guess. Watchlisted. Guy (help!) 08:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of peer-reviewed criticisms at Supply-side economics

Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that argues that tax cuts bolster economic growth far more than what other economists think. Supply-siders frequently argue that tax cuts will not have the adverse effects on net tax revenue that other economists claim they have, with some arguing that the tax cuts made by Reagan, Bush and Trump would pay for themselves (either that they would be revenue-neutral or that revenues will go up). Per all RS, Arthur Laffer is a prominent supply-siders and the Laffer Curve is a key concept in supply-side economics. I added two peer-reviewed studies to the article which explicitly refer to supply-side economics and explicitly assess the validity of the supply-side argument that tax cuts will pay for themselves:

• John Quiggin's Zombie Economics (Princeton University Press) which says that it's "incorrect" that the US is on the wrong side of the Laffer curve
• Saez et al. in the Journal of Economic Literature, which explicitly refers to supply-side economics and explicitly assesses its claims regarding revenue-maximizing tax rates and finds that "the U.S. marginal top rate is far from the top of the Laffer curve."

However, both of these studies are being kept out of the article by two editors who are engaging in gatekeeping. It is clearly a NPOV violation to solely include pro-Supply-side economics content while removing peer-reviewed studies which conflict with the pro-Supply-side economics literature. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion of this issue is being talked about here: Talk:Supply-side_economics#tax_cuts,_Laffer_curve_and_revenue ---Avatar317 20:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No opinion on the specific content but Snoogans, perhaps if you tried a more convivial tone when dealing with disagreements the talk page discussions might be more productive. Springee (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: You got that right. Not sure what the strident tone (just about all the time) is about.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This is (of course) misrepresenting things. First off, I didn't touch this when it was added to the article....and secondly, I said I didn't "have a opinion on Bonewah's" removal of it either (on the talk page). So I'm not sure who these "two editors" are. Secondly, a discussion broke out on the talk page regarding how central a tenet revenue maximization actually is to supply-side....since the article (thanks in part to Snoogs edits) now seem to focus on it. In the Saez reference for example, he/she claims that it "explicitly assesses its claims regarding revenue-maximizing tax rates". However when challenged on the talk page to point out exactly where the article makes explicit claims on what supply-side economists say....I get nothing. There is also no claim in that article about the "key/central tenet" of supply-side being about revenue maximization. So in short, this is a misrepresentation by a editor who is clearly pushing a POV and doing OR. You can look at numerous edits where he/she has done this. (See some of the other sections on the talk page.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

As i have said several times on the relevant talk page, in so far as supply side proponents claim that "tax cuts would pay for themselves" we are free to cite material which are relevant to those claims (such as refutations). The problem here is that the citation here are simply glued into a section that covers the history and theory of Supply Side apropos of nothing. While it is a related concept (and is treated as such) this is not an article on the Laffer Curve. Similarly, it is not an article on US taxation and maximal rates, and so, the citations provided are inappropriate as they are currently being used, in my opinion. I dont see why the rush to this board when the talk page discussion is still ongoing. Bonewah (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The study literally says "Following the supply-side debates of the early 1980s, much attention has been focused on the revenue-maximizing tax rate," and then assesses that the US is not on the wrong side of the Laffer curve (i.e. a tax cut would not be revenue-maximizing): "the U.S. marginal top rate is far from the top of the Laffer curve." The claim that this has nothing to do with supply-side economics is patently absurd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So how does that statement make revenue maximization a "key/central tenet" of supply-side economics? How does it reflect what supply-side economists actually claimed? You are running with your interpretations of things.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

A study that explicitly refers to supply-side economics in the context of revenue-maximizing tax rates cannot be included to the article because it does not explicitly describe Laffer curve-style arguments as "key tenet" of supply-side economics? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is what the peer-reviewed book that Bonewah deleted from the page said: "The strongest version of trickle-down economics is the “supply-side" school of economics, which came to prominence in the late 1970s, with the claim, summed up in the so-called Laffer curve, that a reduction in tax rates would produce an increase in revenue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Again: I didn't oppose/approve it's removal. And secondly: this is a peer reviewed book? (His statement isn't even sourced.) This is more like a book intended for the general public. Your next source does call it a "central" tenet later on, but the introductory paragraph doesn't mention (government) revenues at all. The next source calls it "the most controversial and widely discussed proposition of this particular school of macroeconomic thought". (Not exactly "key" or "central".)Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Iraqi monarchy

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

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

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

The Muslim 100

I'm not sure how to handle this one. It's about a book, although it doesn't have any real discussion of the book, and is used mainly for a list of the top 10. At the top of course is Muhammad, described as "The last prophet of God, Secular and religious leader, shepherd and merchant", which is clearly a violation of MOS:ISLAM, and the long bit on his influence starts with "Muhammad was revealed to Islam, the Qur'an was revealed to him..." I'm not at all sure that all this detail on the top 10, which doesn't seem to come from the book, belongs in the article. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Persistent COI sockpuppetry on Escobar Inc

Hello all,

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

Mustang

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. Weinstock, J.; et al. (2005). "Evolution, systematics, and phylogeography of pleistocene horses in the New World: A molecular perspective". PLoS Biology. 3 (8): e241. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030241. PMC 1159165. PMID 15974804.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
2. Barrón-Ortiz, Christina I.; Rodrigues, Antonia T.; Theodor, Jessica M.; Kooyman, Brian P.; Yang, Dongya Y.; Speller, Camilla F. (August 17, 2017). Orlando, Ludovic (ed.). "Cheek tooth morphology and ancient mitochondrial DNA of late Pleistocene horses from the western interior of North America: Implications for the taxonomy of North American Late Pleistocene Equus". PLoS One. 12 (8): e0183045. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183045. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 5560644. PMID 28817644.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
3. Heintzman, Peter D.; Zazula, Grant D.; MacPhee, Ross D. E.; Scott, Eric; Cahill, James A.; McHorse, Brianna K.; Kapp, Joshua D.; Stiller, Mathias; Wooller, Matthew J.; Orlando, Ludovic; Southon, John; Froese, Duane G.; Shapiro, Beth (2017). "A new genus of horse from Pleistocene North America". eLife. 6. doi:10.7554/eLife.29944. PMC 5705217. PMID 29182148.

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

WP:PEACOCK at the History of Poland lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Map of EastMed pipeline

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

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

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

War of 1812

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's a rather dismissive answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catena (linguistics)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC regarding J. K. Rowling

More input would be much appreciated at the following RfC:

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

Crossroads 03:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Caption quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

SETA or Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution