Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 18:03, 13 January 2025

Randa Kassis and connected pages

In the light of the recent fall of the Assad regime in Syria, I have been trying to update a bit the articles about the Syrian opposition. There, I noticed that a lot of importance was given to Mrs Randa Kassis, which made me suspect that this could be a case of WP:UNDUE. Please note that this version presented her as the "leader" of the Syrian opposition, as a "leading figure of the Syrian opposition" and a "Leading secular female figure", all in the biographical infobox. A lot of content in the Randa Kassis page seems to rely on primary sources. After a simple research I could find that Mrs Kassis is controversial among the opposition due to her alleged ties to Russia. 1, 2, 3. Other people within the opposition have presented her and her groups as Russian-backed operatives. This may or may not be true, but it has to be mentioned in the article.

Also, several pages have been created about the groups created or chaired by Mrs Kassis, namely the Movement of the Pluralistic Society, the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians and the Astana Platform (the latter of which should be rewritten).

While the Astana Platform is notable enough to warrant a page, I have my doubts about the first two, so I proposed to first merge the Movement of the Pluralistic Society page into the Randa Kassis article.

As a result, an IP accused me here of being "obsessed by Randa Kassis", and commented that what I did was "revolting" and amounted to "an harassment or sectarian political activism aimed at erasing or muzzling anyone who does not have his opinions". There were also accusations of malicious libel, presumably also against me.

Several references mentioning Kassis' suspected role as a pro-Russian operative were removed. The merger request was also unilaterally removed (I just put it back). Please note this comment (I guess that "the admin" is supposed to be me, even though I am no admin). This comment, this one and this one also appear to be about me.

Apart from the personal attacks against me, I think that the pages about Randa Kassis and her initiatives need to be monitored and rewritten in order to ensure their neutrality and avoid WP:UNDUE as well as WP:PROMO and WP:Advocacy.

I have also added back these parts, which had been removed as it seems normal to mention the controversies within the opposition.

However, I will now abstain from editing the page about Randa Kassis as long as it has not been reviewed by third parties. Thank you. Psychloppos (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m from Egypt, and Randa Kassis is well known to many of us for her courage. Since 2007, she has spoken openly about social, political, and religious taboos and has appeared on numerous Arab media outlets. She was one of the first to champion secularism.

You can observe that the secular coalition she created and presided over, alongside other opponents in 2011, preceded the formation of the Syrian National Council (SNC). After her expulsion from both the SNC and the secular coalition due to her warnings about Islamists, she ceased presiding over the secular coalition, and its fate remains unknown.

She was the only member of the opposition to adopt a pragmatic approach, going on to establish the Astana Platform in 2015 and the Constitutional Committee in 2017. Both initiatives were later recognised by the UN, Russia, Turkey, and Iran. 102.188.124.44 (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind mentioning this, as long as it is duly sourced and does not make the page look like a promotional piece. What we must also mention, however, is that Randa Kassis' ties to Russia have been controversial and widely reported by the media. Psychloppos (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added a NPOV tag to the Randa Kassis page as it still looks heavily promotional. Psychloppos (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, regarding the edits on Carolina Amesty

I disagree with the edits made to the Carolina Amesty article. I have noticed that a user is adding information with a negative bias against Carolina Amesty instead of maintaining an objective and neutral approach. For my part, I added and removed information based on the official report. However, the Orlando Sentinel, a source that has maintained a critical stance towards Amesty and published a series of negative articles, has been used as a reference. To avoid conflicts, I will not undo any further edits, as I believe this is the appropriate space to resolve disputes between users. I prefer to wait for an impartial third party to review and determine the best version of the article. It is important to be cautious with sensationalist sources. If the information were accurate, it would be appropriate to include it, but this is not the case. I recommend reading the official report to ensure a more objective approach. Bilonio (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You are edit warring to add flowery language to the article and someone reverted you. Take it to the article talk page and stop complaining here. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:F53D:BE32:B541:C2C1 (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocking of studies indicating possible negative health effects of erythritol

Asking for help here to avoid an edit war. As can be seen on the Erythritol talk page and edit history, one editor is arguing that several cohort and experimental studies possibly linking the substance to cardiovascular risk should not be mentioned. The editor previously asked for more studies to emerge before mentioning this possible side effect. These studies have in the meanwhile emerged (producing indicative but mixed results - a fact that should be transparently communicated to readers) but have not changed the editor's position. Even more oddly, the editor now instead enforces the new criteria that until the FDA warns against the substance these studies should not be mentioned in the safety section. This strikes me as very US centric and odd.Psychwilly2 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of neutrality, it is an issue of sourcing. Nothing has been presented that meets WP:MEDRS. And your summary of the other editor's argument is incorrect - they are drawing your attention to WP:MEDASSES, specifically the first paragraph. The FDA is an example, not a requirement. MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

OP is pushing primary sources for medical claims; WP:MEDRS would be needed. Nothing to see here. Bon courage (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

User:BubbleBabis

Hi everyone, I'm not quite sure if this is the appropriate noticeboard to discuss this, but I would like to note my concerns about the edits of a particular user by the name of User:BubbleBabis. This editor has had a continuous and longstanding inability to add content in a neutral point of view with regard to articles concerning Israel and Iran. I believe that their edits have had an overall detrimental value to this wonderful website, its editors, and its readers. They have created multiple hoaxes, have added content with unreliable sources, have repeatedly added copyrighted content and the synthesis of published material, have frequently added off-topic information to articles, and possibly has trouble with their interpretation of the English language. I have previously voiced my concerns about their edits on Talk:Qasem Soleimani#Hoax and Talk:Mohammad Reza Zahedi#A hoax?. Other than what is mentioned on the aforementioned talk pages, many more edits display their publications of original research, problems with citing sources, and especially their inability to mention the authors of the sources they use to contribute with. They are often prone to the interpretation of opinions by one individual, or events mentioned by one person or reported by one think tank as indisputable facts. Their most recent edit, a large addition to the article for Ali Khameni, demonstrates this. In the edit, one source used by BubbleBabis is a blog written by Jonathan Schanzer, who was the director of policy for the conservative Jewish Policy Center think tank which is connected to the Republican Jewish Coalition, that was published by the U.S. opinion magazine The Weekly Standard. BubbleBabis uses this to say many things not mentioned by the blog. They use the source to say that "in 1991, evidence of increasing economic and military links between Sudan and Iran was revealed", this is not what the source says at all, it just mentions alleged events that took place in 1991 and does not mention anything about the reporting of the specific events in media or at what time they were reported to media. The words prior to the sentence are unsourced original research. The article does not mention sanctions or Iranian "isolation". Next BubbleBabis wrote that "In November 1993, Iran was reported to have financed Sudan's purchase of some 20 Chinese ground-attack aircraft.", however the article they cite does not mention this. In one paragraph they added in the edit about the Bosnian War, they improperly cite several books without giving proper attribution. I am highly suspect of the other paragraphs they added in the edit, especially the 2010 and 2020 sections, where they use bare url citations to paywalled articles I am at present unable to verify. They write as if they are constructing argumentative essays, which is not what Misplaced Pages is for, and are habitually unable to provide sources or proper attribution for their additions, or if they do provide sources, many times they are misrepresented, bare urls, or just entirely unhelpful. It is my hope and desire that this does not continue. Aneirinn (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

For concerns about any long pattern of behavior by a specific user, the right venue is WP:ANI. On WP:NPOVN we are primarily focused on content.

Also, before you post this to ANI, if you will, try to make this shorter, and add paragraph breaks and bullet points. Otherwise, people will end up skimming over your post, giving your post less attention than you may hope for. NicolausPrime (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy

I am kind of new here. I came across a reference to an organization called Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy while reading a news article - this one https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/us-colleges-world/2024/02/16/how-texas-ams-qatar-campus-suddenly-collapsed - and went and read the Misplaced Pages article about them to find out who they are, and the Misplaced Pages article seems like, I don't know, propaganda. Can more experienced people look at it? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basalmnine (talk • contribs) 10:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Basalmnine Any specific concerns? I think there is too much self-sourced material in it. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I had a look at the article and I think the issue is that no criticism of the org exists within the article which makes its often controversial claims about campus antisemitism seem more trustworthy than might be required by neutrality. My question to Balsamnine is whether they have any RSes for criticism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

but also the editor should be aware this article is affected by the Israel/Palestine edit restrictions and requires participation from EC editors. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

If the article in question is Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, it seems pretty balanced. It's biases/advocacy and what it tries to do is well described, if you are on either side of the conflict you won't be thinking that the article is unfairly describing what it does, i.e. alleging antisemitism and terrorist links for all pro-Palestinianism in US higher education.

I added an edit to the lead just now describing its recent work on researching allegations of antisemitism on university campuses. as long as we don't go about in wikivoice, without attribution, describing pro-Palestine protests as inherently antisemitic (and I don't think that article does), we are probs fine. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess the biggest issue with the article is that some of the sourcing are the white papers produced by the institute itself. we really shouldn't be using material produced by the institute itself to attribute the research it does, though it also seems there are secondary sourcing quoting the research that is also cited. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Doug Weller talk 21:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

For NPOV, it would certainly be a good source for both facts and findings/perspectives on other Wiki pages. Scharb (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

thats a convo for WP:RSN not NPOVN Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Biased article

The 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence article is completely biased. More editors need to get involved and make it more neutral.-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

yeah, 45% of text is from User:CosmLearner, who was blocked for sockpuppetting.

another 15% is from User:B'Desh-In_Outlook who is a sockpuppet of CosmLearner.

almost all the contributions are from sockpuppets actually, clicking most of the users by text-added indicates many were blocked for sockpuppeting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Operation Olive Branch and false consensus

There is a 3 user "consensus" on the article Operation Olive Branch being called an invasion instead of an operation. I have provided Google search results and prominence of news outlets/countries' reactions on the talk page. The word "operation" appears 122 times (except for the title "Operation Olive Branch") while invasion appears as 17 times (now 18) after the false consensus. @Bondegezou: and @Traumnovelle: have been ignoring my evidence regarding WP:UNDUE. @Applodion: also explained how this is not an invasion. The issue here is cherry picked sources calling this an invasion, while vast majority of the sources calls this an operation. Example for earlier google search results:

"afrin offensive" (16,000 results)

"operation olive branch" (72,200 results)

"olive branch operation" (56,300 results)

"afrin invasion" (2,990 results)

Misplaced Pages consensus formation considers all available, valid source material. For simple matters like titling and style questions, we directly depend on aggregate results (Google Ngrams that track string-usage frequency in books over time; Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books search results and the patterns they reveal in sources; etc.). The idea that they are to be ignored, or are second place to what just happens to be cited already in the article as of this timestamp, is not only unworkable but absurd. It bears no resemblance to how Misplaced Pages:Consensus is actually formed. per Misplaced Pages:Fallacy of selective sources.

TLDR: users imposing minority view despite of undue weight. Beshogur (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

... I mean, by any definition, isn't it an invasion? I'm not a fan of euphemisms like "cross-country 1.3 year operation".

also folks have pointed out that google search counts are useless, if a thousand blogs by random folks on internet say its an operation, but 10 reliable sources call it an invasion, we should go with rs. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

What do the actual reliable sources say? Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't care actually who calls it invasion or not, for example part of my comment on the talk page: European Parliament source contains 5x Operation Peace Spring (name of the operation, propaganda in this case), 12 times operation (except Operation Peace Spring, and title 1x), 1 time invasion.

I don't care about operation as well. "was an offensive" is possible (best NPOV imo). However this is definitely not an invasion. if a thousand blogs by random folks on internet say its an operation, but 10 reliable sources call it an invasion I have provided evidence for RS calling this operation however. The issue here is undue weight. More sources calling this an operation rather than an invasion. These are just example RS calling this an operation (nothing to do with prominence).

• European Parliament: Turkey's military operation in Syria and its impact on relations with the EU
• CNN: Turkish operation in Syria undercuts US gains in ISIS fight
• AJ: Turkey’s operation in Syria’s Afrin: The key players
• NYT: Turkey Begins Operation Against U.S.-Backed Kurdish Militias in Syria
• Reuters: Turkey's military operation against Kurdish YPG in Afrin

As I explained, this offensive had more Syrian troops than Turkish.

cross-country 1.3 year operation regarding this, the offensive took only 2 months (57 days according to Turkish ministry of defence), the insurgency phase doesn't have a date at all, someone just added a begin and end date. Imo should be removed, SDF insurgency in northern Syria already exist. Beshogur (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The amount of Syrian troops doesn't mean this can't be called an invasion. The Wars of the Roses uses the term invasion even though most if not all the troops were English.

Are you even reading your sources? The first one says: 'Though the decision of Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to invade the north-

east Syrian region governed by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD)...'

The second says: 'Turkey’s military incursion against Kurdish groups in Afrin, Syria...'

The New York Times says: 'Turkey has made several incursions into Syria.'

So half your sources support it being an invasion, that is hardly 'undue weight'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you even reading your sources? The first one says are you even reading my comment? Stop cherry picking one word. The first one used 12x more operation. This is simply lying in order to gain advantage. Beshogur (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Being referred to as an operation doesn't exclude it being an invasion. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is here not operation. I am open to change it to "an offensive", more neutral tone. And this is not an invasion. It's invasion according to a minority, which makes it undue weight. Beshogur (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

For reference Assad regime and Cyprus are the only countries calling this an invasion. France calls it, if it becomes an attempted invasion. Other countries? Nothing. Arab league and EU called this an intervention. Beshogur (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The EU parliament document refers to it as an invasion, countries might be wanting to avoid the term to maintain good relations with Turkey. We rely on reliable sources and not specifically government sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Because of one word from the pdf? That's straight up Misplaced Pages:Don't lie. Stop. Operation appears 12 times.

European Parliament source: Turkey’s military intervention in the Kurdish-controlled enclave of Afrin in Syria Beshogur (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't call me a liar. The source clearly refers to it as an invasion, it doesn't need to repeat the term invasion several times once it has already characterised it as such. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

2 times vs 12 times (except for "Operation Olive Branch")? You're ignoring this. All sources contains the title operation and you're cherry picking one word from the text below. Beshogur (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Literally the first page.

Title: Turkey's military operation in Syria and its impact on relations with the EU

SUMMARY

Operation Peace Spring', launched on 9 October 2019, is the third major Turkish military operation on Syrian territory since 2016, following the 'Euphrates Shield' (2016-2017) and 'Olive Branch' (2018) operations. Though the decision of Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to invade the northeast Syrian region governed by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), may have come as a surprise to some, it is in fact consistent with the rationale of a regime that counts the fight against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) – considered 'terrorist' not only by Turkey, but also by the United States and the EU – among its top security priorities.

And you pick one word, which means undue weight. That's misleading readers. Beshogur (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Just like what DanielRigal said the terms aren't mutually exclusive. An operation can be an invasion e.g. Operation Downfall. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Syrian troops invading Syrian soil. I'm done. How can I explain those aren't same things? Beshogur (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

By this logic, the Bay of Pigs invasion wasn't an invasion either. But both arguments would be OR so this really isn't a tangent worth indulging furthe. _signed, Rosguill 00:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill: just a question, how come this can be described an invasion despite of minority views? Because few users agreed here doesn't mean it's the truth? Am I wrong? I have provided many evidence regarding this. Verifiability doesn't mean truth? Beshogur (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

What the other editors are arguing is that this isn't actually a minority view, and that it's inaccurate to argue that "operation" and "invasion" are mutually exclusive. The best evidence against such an argument would be RS stating that it is not an invasion, or else a demonstrated, overwhelming majority of RS that avoid using the phrase "invasion". _signed, Rosguill 20:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Noting that the Google Scholar results arguments in a separate thread below are a valid argument in that direction, although the search terms surveyed are not quite comprehensive (there's a lot of other ways that the operation could be referred to other than "Afrin ", and "Afrin invasion" is much less likely to be used than "Invasion of Afrin" , "Occupation of Afrin" or "invaded Afrin" ). A lot of the same sources also come up across these various searches. My sense is that the raw results are close enough that a closer reading of RS text is needed (not all Scholar results are of equal quality). _signed, Rosguill 20:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENT is a policy and we have articles like 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria. To be honest I'd suggest renaming the article to a more descriptive title, perhaps one with the word "invasion" as it would be much clearer to the reader.

Note that there are RS that use the term "invasion", for example The Kurds in a New Middle East by Gunes (2018), p. 77 and The Kurds in the Middle East by Gurses et al (p. 153). Alaexis_¿question? 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not denying people calling this an invasion, but I am saying this is undue weight. You should look how majority of news outlets / countries reacted, not some cherry picked sources. I'm trying to tell this all the time. I can also bring source calling this a liberation, etc. Do we even include it?

Comparing this to Israeli invasion is comparing pears and apples. It can be compared Turkish incursions into northern Iraq. These Syrian areas isn't even governed by the Turkish military. Beshogur (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, they can hardly be compared as the Turkish operation had a much greater scale.

Regarding the sources, they are books written by experts. These are higher-quality sources than media outlets. Alaexis_¿question? 21:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"Operation" is a word that imparts very little information at all. It is a very broad term and it does not in any way imply that something is not an invasion. Many undisputed invasions have been known as "Operation (something)", as have a great many other things that were not invasions. When deciding whether to call this an invasion all that is required is for sufficient Reliable Sources to say that it is and insufficient Reliable Sources to say that it isn't. The ones who only say "operation" are not saying either way. Such abstentions should not be counted as endorsing either side of the question. DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Well I agree on the title being not NPOV, (it's already criticized in the article) but it was chosen for the common name since the sources referred that way, similar to Euphrates Shield, however the issue is the first sentence. It doesn't make sense since rest of the article is called operation almost everywhere. Beshogur (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If the operation was an invasion then it can be described as such, even in the first sentence. We should try to be as specific as possible where it matters but it doesn't matter if the word "operation" is used more frequently than "invasion" in the body, only if the description of it as an invasion is significantly denied or contested in Reliable Sources. DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you please describe how this is an invasion exactly while Syrian troops are more than Turkish ones? That's I'm trying to tell since 0. Turkey isn't governing over the areas (yes keeping it's Syrian proxies). But the whole war is a proxy warfare. The area wasn't even controlled by the legitimate Syrian government back then. "was an offensive" is a good solution imo. I don't try to force operation here. Beshogur (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC?

Do we need an RFC to settle it? I think I saw @Selfstudier: actually coming down against calling it an invasion on the page talk, but otherwise, I can't quite tell if Beshogur is the only one advocating against the invasion terminology? Were there others? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Idk what it should be called, except that by title it is currently called an operation, why I suggested an RM to decide if that is appropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

i am confused. the rm would determine article title, while beshugoar is complaining about descriptions in the lede of this being described as an invasion? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

We’ve had lengthy discussion on this issue. There is a clear majority view. This is largely Beshogur alone being unhappy about that view. Bondegezou (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

3 users? Clear majority view? With cherry picked sources that doesn't reflect the weight? Beshogur (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I put up an RM, should sort it out there rather than going around in circles here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but the proposed title had to be more descriptive imo. It's pretty vague. Beshogur (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It's an RM, suggest something else. Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

We had a lengthy discussion. People put forth various lines of evidence and of argument. We ended with 4 in favour (not 3) and just you, Beshogur, against. That’s how Misplaced Pages works. I don’t see any value in re-opening the discussion. I would suggest that there is plenty of other bits of Misplaced Pages that you could usefully contribute to rather than continuing this. Bondegezou (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Lengthy discussion with only argument of 5 sources, and ignoring the fact how prominent they were. You couldn't prove otherwise regarding news outlets, search numbers. This is just a false consensus. Misplaced Pages consensus formation considers all available, valid source material. For simple matters like titling and style questions, we directly depend on aggregate results (Google Ngrams that track string-usage frequency in books over time; Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books search results and the patterns they reveal in sources; etc.). The idea that they are to be ignored, or are second place to what just happens to be cited already in the article as of this timestamp, is not only unworkable but absurd. It bears no resemblance to how Misplaced Pages:Consensus is actually formed. Beshogur (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Last comment regarding this. Academic book argument:

• Afrin invasion 9
• Afrin offensive 71
• Afrin operation 205

Beshogur (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think these searches are a bit limited in their grammar. Additional search terms:

• Invasion of Afrin 101 results
• Occupation of Afrin 84 results
• "Afrin" "Turkish invasion" 310 results
• "Afrin" "Turkish operation" 191 results

My sense, prior to having done any further analysis on these sources, is that these search results are in the range where either term is plausible as a correct canonical term, and closer reading (which in practice would mean: the assembling of a working, high-quality bibliography for the article and analyzing how each of these sources refers to the topic) could provide basis for new and stronger arguments. These results, don't, however, suggest that "invasion" is an obviously remote minority among terms. _signed, Rosguill 20:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean in mainstream media, it's mostly called operation or offensive (as well as countries' reactions), however the 2019 one (still the same type of operation) was sanctioned by many countries, had more reaction. Here it didn't happen, and internationally it had no consequenses. I wonder how does this fit in an invasion description? Since English is not my first tongue, am I just confused? Invasion and occupation isn't the same thing too right? Beshogur (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems that enough time has passed that there are now many peer-reviewed sources, such that we can reduce our reliance on news media that serves only as the first draft of history. Ultimately, provided that the sources in question are reputable and peer-reviewed, their internal reasoning for choosing one term or another doesn't matter, we simply follow their lead.

Regarding invasion vs. occupation, I wasn't trying to imply that they were the same thing, apologies if it gave that impression. It simply seemed to be another relevant, similar, value-laden term to refer to the operation and its consequences, that evidently does have some purchase in the literature. It popped up in the previews when I was searching for the other terms I listed so it felt worthwhile to see how common it was itself. _signed, Rosguill 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirecting Afrin offensive (January–March 2018) to Operation Olive Branch

Relevant discussion, just notifying folks here. See Talk:Operation_Olive_Branch#Requested_move_31_December_2024, someone already attempted to blank out Afrin to do the redirect. Would like more eyes on this to confirm what right action is. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman: This redirect was removed by a blocked user (see talk page), also the content is 90% the same with an older revision of this article. It's basically the same offensive. Beshogur (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Changed it to "offensive". Beshogur (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus here to change it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus on invasion as well. Invasion is POV, if you find operation POV as well, offensive is the most NPOV term here. Beshogur (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Beshogur, do not make tendentious edits. We've discussed this at length and everyone else disagrees with you. You've tried a bit of forum shopping by coming here, but still can't get other people to agree with you. Don't start an edit war over this. Bondegezou (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with "operation", but Turkish forces did invade the territory. Hence, I do not see a significant POV issue. Of course one could also call it an "incursion". My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Muslim grooming gangs" again

• Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Halifax child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Manchester child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Newcastle sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Oxford child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Peterborough sex abuse case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rochdale child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Telford child sexual exploitation scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aylesbury child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Banbury child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bristol child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Derby child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Huddersfield sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was previously a consensus to merge Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom a few months ago, which I carried out. About two weeks ago a user edited the article, which sought again to push the "Muslim/Asian grooming gang" narrative. It would be good for people to keep an eye on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" page to make sure it fairly covers the topic, since further disruption is likely given Elon Musk's recent involvement in the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There's been an uptick of IP/SPA activity trying to push the Asian grooming gang" narrative in several articles related to the individual grooming rings in recent days, like the Oxford child sex abuse ring, Huddersfield grooming gang, Derby child sex abuse ring and Halifax child sex abuse ring, seeming to correspond to a massive rise in views. Further vigilance is needed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Also looking at several articles of the individual child sexual abuse rings (e.g Oxford child sex abuse ring), they give lists of the names of the convicted. Is this a DUE/BLP issue? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah wtf that's def WP:BLPCRIME issue... honestly also WP:NOTDB issue too Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

they were convicted, so we can mention them. Arguably question is if its due to include names like this, or if it looks too much like WP:DB Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Most of the disruption today has been on the Huddersfield sex abuse ring article, where IPs and SPAs have been variously changing the lead sentence to describe the gang as "Muslim/Pakistani" contrary to reliable sources (who generally describe it as "Asian") as well as adding unsourced commentary. Further eyes on this particular article would be appreciated. 22:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory about inclusion of anti-Chinese racism in lead

Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Should_we_mention_in_the_lead_the_"increased_anti-Chinese_racism." Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Sarfaraz K. Niazi

Sarfaraz K. Niazi is full of what I would consider to be promotional and non-neutral content. I have tried to clean it up, but @CarlWesolowski has been reverting my edits and claiming on my talk page that I'm the one breaching NPOV by cleaning it up. I'm bringing this here to get another opinion. Jay8g 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the content you removed tended to be promotional and POV, and that it should have been removed. Personally, I would have gone further, removing statements like He has published multiple books...on the subject and peer-reviewed research papers... cited to sources by Niazi. They're already listed on the subject's website. If they're important enough to mention in an encyclopedia, then we should let reliable, independent, secondary sources mention them—and we can cite those secondary sources. I also see a press release used as a source, and plenty of medical claims that appear to be citing non-WP:MEDRS sources. Woodroar (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Woodroar and Jay8g. Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

S. Niazi appears to be prolific. For example, using Google scholar for "sarfaraz niazi profile" lists 623 entries, whereas mine only has 53 entries, and I am at around the 90% for publications (ResearchGate). I have a problem with the way you classify reliability for medical papers. For example, a lot of mine are methods papers backed up by mathematical proofs. That I would consider better evidence than any double blind crossover study because the latter can only answer questions like "Is pain relief from a drug dose more effective than pain relief from 1/2 that dosage." Said otherwise, all a double blind crossover study can do is give a binary answer, or worse, yes/no/maybe. Moreover, double blind crossover studies are very expensive and are used to prevent solid theoretical questions with definitive science from interfering with the clout that only monied firms with one billion dollars per drug can offer. Gone are the days when a single medical doctor can abandon his strictly scientific principles in order to save lives, although fictional, the novel Arrowsmith explains how things used to be. Currently, we let people die rather than use common sense. Now consider what you are doing by following the influence of monied interests even when, and it is uncomfortably frequent, that influence is perverted. One other thing I do is write and review guidelines, which is what I should be doing rather than waste my time trying to convince you of anything. IMHO guidelines are very useful to present authoritarian views that can then be cited as being foolish, I have little other use for them. So, whilst you "paint by numbers" with your silly classifications, please allow that such pictures are not art. Now, to set things back to where they ought to be, you have to allow reasonable criticism and the FDA paragraphs in the S. Niazi presentation was an attempt to begin, without billions of dollars in conflicted interests greasing palms, to do that. Decide now just how much you risk going to a doctor who paints by numbers rather than take enough time to figure out how to cure you, and yes, finding a doctor who will go to any length to advocate for his patients is becoming vanishingly rare. You cannot imagine just how difficult that role has become, I can, because I have at times taken my career in my hands to do that. So, choose what is the right thing to do, or, join those who have no common sense. My experience with Misplaced Pages has leaves me cold, the convoluted tissue of lies and deceit is distinctly off-putting. What are you asking for, a double blind study on whether the FDA should be reorganized? A review paper funded by the FDA on whether it should be reorganized? Where is your common sense? I ask you to remove what you consider excessive language leading to the impression of NPOV, but not delete it wholesale. For my own part, I will continue to advocate for patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlWesolowski (talk • contribs) 23:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If we're going to be using insulting words like silly to characterize other editors' judgments ("your silly classifications"), then I'd say that the claim that mathematical proofs have anything to do with reliability of medical papers ("a lot of mine are methods papers backed up by mathematical proofs") to be the silliest statement I've seen on a Misplaced Pages talk-page in years. NightHeron (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Dose response, if organized as a mathematical function with confidence intervals has an infinite number of possible answers and would be an organized method of presenting dose response. Compare that to the result of a binary comparison of Dose A versus Dose B in a double blind crossover trial wherein there is no guarantee that either A or B has any effect, nor any guarantee that either dose is nonlethal. In the first case, it is easier to identify optimal dosing, in the second case, you still would not know, but it would be more likely than not that neither dose is optimal. Why do you resist reducing medicine to physical law? You are entitled to your opinion, but please do not think that the attempt to sort out how the body works, how it scales, the mechanics of drug effect, and all of the extensive scientific literature on that subject is "the silliest statement I've seen on a Misplaced Pages talk page in years." Misplaced Pages is filled with many moments of pure insanity, so why you would choose to pick on my calling something outrageous as merely "silly" is beyond me. CarlWesolowski (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The word "proof" has a well-defined meaning in mathematics, namely, a rigorous, irrefutable argument demonstrating beyond any doubt that a certain mathematical statement is correct (e.g., "a proof of the Pythagorean theorem"). It does not mean using statistical techniques to get support for a claim or evidence of a possible effect. NightHeron (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

MRAsians

I don't know if this is the best place for this but some more eyes on MRAsians might be good. The article was created in April but today seems to be getting a lot of attention from an associated subreddit and subsequent influx of editors here disputing it's POV. I've reverted to the stable version as it looks to be sourced, but I'm not 100% about that, particularly with only five sources. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I put in a request to WP:RFPP to increase page protection while its contentious. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Imran Khan

Withdrawn for now: There has been an ongoing effort to turn Imran Khan into a WP:FANPAGE for quite some time. While I have been trying to address this issue, I would appreciate assistance from volunteer editors on this forum, as no one is infallible, and I could be mistaken as well. Recently, an editor created a summary section (Talk:Imran Khan#Summary of Premiership) that, in my view, excludes any criticism or negative aspects of his premiership and is focused solely on achievements and praise. Could someone review the discussion in that thread, along with the Premiership of Imran Khan article and the content in the current section (Imran Khan#Prime Minister (2018–2022)), to help ensure that the proposed summary is more balanced and neutral? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: While a discussion is opened at this noticeboard about this BLP, I have concerns over the Imran Khan#Controversies section which OP has been told not to create per WP:CSECTION in the past, but has created nevertheless. I have proposed it to be merged into the rest of the article in the past and given due weight, which multiple editors have supported but they have opposed it. Please can someone familiar with these NPOV policies review the amount of weight being given to controversies and if this famous politician and former Prime Minister requires an independent section for controversies. Thank you. Titan2456 (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have temporarily withdrawn my request since I have another ongoing dispute about the same article at DRN, and Rule D there requires avoiding multiple discussions about the same article across different forums. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Vladimir Bukovsky

There is a disagreement between myself and another editor on how to describe the child pornography charges against a Soviet-era dissident. I humbly request your input. Thanks – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Anne drew, I added my two pence at the talk. Alaexis_¿question? 21:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

2024 United States presidential election

Multiple editors have raised concerns over NPOV on 2024 United States presidential election I will list here some of there concerns and WP policy related to them.

1. Trump is talked about way more then Harris to the point that almost only he about him. My suggestion here is to add more about Harris or remove/shorten some of things about Trump. The article also is having size issues so this would help fix those.
2. The article does not follow WP:WORDS when talking about Trump. As it often says Trump claimed... which needs to corrected to follow WP:WORDS.
3. It hardly every talks about the election from a Republican view point. Which per WP:NPOV should be included as it is at least a large minority view point.

This is not a complete list of things that have been discussed on talk:2024 United States presidential election.

At this current point there has been an attempt to put a notice on the article about NPOV issues, but has been reverted. There have been multiple discussions about NPOV on its talk page over the last few months. So since it kept coming up and did not appear to be getting resolved I decided to bring it here.

Thank you for taking the time to look at this. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

On point 3, you are arguing for an equal balance which is not what NPOV says. We look to present a neutral point of view based on what reliable sources say, and the largest problem is that most sources that would report on the Republican view are not reliable (eg sites like Fox News). We don't create a false balance if the support isn't there in RSes. — Masem (t) 22:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Another factor… over the last few years, Trump dominated the news (either to extol his virtues or condemn his flaws, depending on the outlet)… the simple fact is that the Media didn’t discuss Harris to the extent that they discussed Trump. This imbalance in coverage by the media impacts our own coverage. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Harris was only a candidate from July 2024 on, Trump declared his candidacy in November 2022. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Masem Let me quote what WP:NPOV says:

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

Also see Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Writing_for_the_opponent as it talks more about this.

@Blueboar Correct but there is almost nothing on Harris, just read the article and you will see what I mean. So we may have to do more digging then with Trump.

@Muboshgu Can you describe your comment more? User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 22:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Much digital ink was spilled on Trump's candidacy starting in November 2022. Then it was "Biden vs. Trump" until Biden dropped out. Of course the media talked less about Harris' candidacy, and trying to even out the page between Trump and Harris would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean there, and agree with you on that point. The main issue that I saw was on Point 2, as WP:WORDS clearly states that such words should avoided/not used. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

That being said, I do think the page needs some rewriting. Some things, like January 6 and Trump's criminal trials, ended up not mattering nearly as much as our page gives them weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Key in what you quoted is "in reliable sources". The bulk of sourcing for the GOP viewpoint on the election cones from unreliable sources. Hence we already have our hands tied. Yes, we should try to include what RSes did say, but per Due, the weight of coverage is based on the predominance of viewpoints as published in RSes. Anything else is creating a false balance. — Masem (t) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

There is much misinformation online, even from reliable sources. We don’t have to rely completely on news articles, we can rely on other things like statistics and other reliable sources. Much of the news is heavily biased one way or another, and at least I believe that neutrality is more important than perfect balance. LessHuman (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sources need to be neutral and not just reliable. You could then say that CNN isn’t a viable source either like Fox News. Most of the sources used, whether reliable or not, are highly biased, mostly to Kamala Harris / Joe Biden. LessHuman (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It usually takes a few years before American politics articles are no longer closely watched by people who want to show how awful the other side is (whether they be Trumpist trolls or #Resistance trolls). And it's around then that we get proper retrospective sourcing which can then be used to indicate balance. I agree that someone should go through and fix any WTW issues, but besides that I don't have much hope that it's going to give a proper overview of the topic any time soon and don't see a point in maintenance tags if there isn't an identifiable, fixable issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu's comment above - the article currently contains a lot of information about things that didn't end up being as important as they're made out to be. I do think that it's fair for the article to talk about Trump more often, simply by nature of there being more to say about him, and it's also fine to give fair weight to his enduring controversies in the context of their impact on the election.

I'm in favor of adding the WP:NPOVD template to the article because 1) the issue has been brought up multiple times and continues to be brought up, and 2) as long as editors are engaged in a discussion regarding the disputed neutrality of the article, like we are right now, there should be a notification stating that fact on the article - which would also help encourage other editors to offer their input.

Thebiguglyalien I almost entirely agree with you here but I'm genuinely curious - is there some sort of unspoken "time limit" for how long a NPOVD tag should be on an article? I feel like I've seen them stay up for a pretty long time before but I could be wrong. To be honest it was one of the things that originally got me interested in editing, after seeing the notification at the top of a page and starting to go down the talk page rabbit hole. Big Thumpus (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally they're supposed to stay up while discussion takes place, but in practice they can hang around longer. On a wider point, this sort of article I would expect to always have some sort of balance or weight issue. That is, an article that was an upcoming or current event turning into a past event. It has the issues of being written while in the news, which means a lot of coverage of perhaps minor or trivial points, combined with being shortly in the past which means being reformatted into a new style while maintaining all these hangovers from the upcoming/current event style. As TBUA says, it takes awhile for things to settle down source-wise. CMD (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

My thought process isn't that there should be an "end time" for the tags so much as a "start time". Right now, the tag can't be meaningfully resolved. So there's no real upside to including it, but there is the downside of people arguing about the tag. Of course, if there's an active discussion on the article's talk page about an actionable proposal, then it would be good to add the most applicable tag linking people to the discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

NPOV doesnt mean equal balance. It means fair balance to both parties, according to reliable sources. The article is pretty neutral with that EarthDude (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

As one of the largest contributors on this page, there have been frequent claims of bias going back for months now. All discussions that were raised resulted in consensus that the concerns had been addressed or were rejected on false balance grounds. Concerns raised by individuals largely failed to address specific changes they would like to be made, instead making broad generalizations about bias without much discussion on the reliable sources used. Several of those alleging bias are repeat users who make a new talk page post rehashing prior points after a few weeks. Recent comments on the page include several broad generalizations and declarations that "this is a biased and unencyclopedic article" and that "a Democrat partisan wrote it" without providing much detailed discussion on specific examples or sources that are used. BootsED (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you did in contributing to the page. With respect, I don't think that we should be surprised that the talk page discussion hasn't gone into much specific detail - the talk page discussion is about whether or not the NPOVD template should be added to the article, in order to formally begin the discussion on neutralizing aspects of the article. The template was placed but then removed 15 minutes later by one of the editors involved in the discussion.

If the neutrality of the article has come into question multiple times, the neutrality is disputed by definition. As far as I'm aware, the NPOVD template hasn't ever been on the page, and the entire point of the template is to encourage further discussion. Who knows, maybe nothing changes once a discussion is had - but we can't know until that happens. Big Thumpus (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion has already happened several times and has been resolved. The same user starting the same discussion over and over does not qualify as a serious dispute of neutrality. Prcc27 (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If the issue was actually resolved as you say it is, there would not be an equal number of editors in favor of and against adding the NPOVD template. If the article was truly neutral, there would not be people showing up every few days trying to discuss it. This would be open-and-shut, otherwise. Big Thumpus (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that this whole discussion over whether to include a NPOV tag is WP:DRIVEBY. The reasons raised for adding a tag have been discussed multiple times in the past and dismissed. I'm not really seeing any specifics of what people have an issue with and providing specific examples of what they think fail NPOV. All discussion is in broad, vague terms about the page being biased and some arguments that have been repeatedly dismissed as false balance. BootsED (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The !votes are equal due to canvassing, to say the least. There is no consensus for a dispute tag. Prcc27 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Prcc27, you have accused others of canvassing, sockpuppetry, SPA, bludgeoning and disruptive editing in almost every single post throughout this discussion. Some might say that this is legitimately disruptive and uncivil. If you're really concerned about canvassing or one of the other offenses, take it to ANI. But otherwise, please stop trying to shut the discussion down. Big Thumpus (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I won't accuse anyone of canvassing, but I was very surprised that curtesy pings that were sent out by a user who I know is aware of me due to our several interactions and disagreements on the talk page in the past failed to include me in their pings to re-debate neutrality on the page. BootsED (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

In fairness to that user, they seem to be occupied in their personal life and have committed to broadening the scope of future pings. Big Thumpus (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

In fairness, that user admits their pings were limited. So they basically admitted to violating WP:CANVASS, even if unintentional. I would say the “accusation” was warranted. Prcc27 (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Prcc27 I am sorry, but this is the first discussion I have started. And I am mostly concerned with the WP:WORDS issue. You also have COI on this topic as you are a democratic official that ran for election. You also have commented multiple times on other discussions about how you strongly feel against this tag. You also have made many claims of other users for things like sockpuppetry, canvassing, and much more. And at this point there is no need for you to keep trying to make your point.

@BootsED Are you saying that the WP:WORDS issue is not a problem? Cause I don't see how it can be any clearer. Here is some text examples:

"Trump made false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, and continued denying the election results."

"In the lead up to the 2024 election, the Republican Party made false claims of massive "noncitizen voting" by immigrants in an attempt to delegitimize the election in the event of a Trump defeat. The claims were made as part of larger Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 election and election denial movement. Trump continued spreading his "big lie" of a stolen election and predicted without evidence that the 2024 election would be rigged against him. Trump also falsely accused Biden of "weaponizing" the Justice Department to target him in relation to his criminal trials. Trump and several Republicans stated they would not accept the results of the 2024 election if they believe they are "unfair"."

"Trump's previous comments suggesting he can "terminate" the Constitution to reverse his election loss, his claim that he would only be a dictator on "day one" of his presidency and not after,"

"Trump and many Republicans have made numerous false and misleading statements regarding Trump's criminal trials, including false claims that they are "rigged" or "election interference" orchestrated by Biden and the Democratic Party, of which there is no evidence." Here I would like to note that the last section of this sentence sounds like an opinion.

I could list more if you wish, but it appears to me that this is does not comply with WP:WORDS. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 23:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

There's some clunky phrasing in the four examples you've listed -- and the second one in particular (where I recommend cutting the phrase "big lie," true as it may be, because of its loaded connotations) -- but they are accurate in their essentials and generally cite to reputable sources. To take just the first example, Donald Trump did say many times from November 2020 until at least November 2024 that he would have won the 2020 election if not for voter fraud. He went to court repeatedly to make that case in 2020 and lost every time, so it is correct to characterize his statements as false. And it is significant, i.e., worth mentioning in an article on the 2024 election, that one of the candidates was repeatedly making false claims about his previous election. But perhaps you could suggest an alternate way of writing that sentence that, in your view, comports with Misplaced Pages's guidance on unbiased language? NME Frigate (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is how I would word them:

1. Trump stated there was voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, and that election results were incorrect. (Please keep in mind that this is saying what Trump said and does not mean that he is correct.)
2. In the lead up to the 2024 election, the Republican Party said there were massive "noncitizen voting" by immigrants. Trump continued stating that the election would be stolen and that the 2024 election would be rigged against him. Trump also accused Biden of "weaponizing" the Justice Department to target him in relation to he criminal trials. Trump and several Republicans stated they would not except the results of the 2024 election if they believe they are unfair.
3. Trump's comments suggested he can "terminate" the Constitution to reverse his election loss, he stated he would be a dictator on "day one" of his presidency and not after,
4. Trump and many Republicans have made numerous statements regarding Trump's criminal trials, including statements that they were "rigged" or "election interference" orchestrated by Biden and the Democratic Party.

There is some room for other ways for wording it too, as I used a less aggressive tone towards Trump then some people may think I should have. The parts in (...) are not to be included they are just a note for this discussion. The main issue I see with how it is worded currently is that it sounds like a biased statement against him and not a neutral perspective, which is what WP is trying to do. In which I understand there are many sources that use a very aggressive tone towards Trump. I am not against saying bad things about Trump I just think that we need to tone down the article in it's current form, to comply with WP policies. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 05:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. Nos. 1, 2, and 4 are all of a kind:

1. If Donald Trump said during the 2024 campaign that the world was flat, should it be noted in this article that was he said was incorrect?

2. If the Republican Party said the sun revolved around the earth and Donald Trump said that Antarctica was located in the northern hemisphere, should it be noted in this article that was they said was incorrect?

4. If Republicans had said that forest fires were being started by Jewish space lasers, should it be noted in this article that what they said was incorrect?

What Donald Trump and some of his supporters actually said were every bit as incorrect as my examples and should be treated the same way that Misplaced Pages would treat any such statements. If that means not using accurate descriptors like "false," so be it. But then let's all be clear-headed about giving up the truth.

Turning to no. 3: this one is a bit tricky. You've taken two phrases and turned them into a (run-on) sentence, but you've omitted the point of the original sentence. Here is the full original sentence, with my emphasis to show what it's actually about:

Trump's previous comments suggesting he can "terminate" the Constitution to reverse his election loss, his claim that he would only be a dictator on "day one" of his presidency and not after, his promise to use the Justice Department to go after his political enemies, his plan to use the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military for law enforcement in primarily Democratic cities and states, attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, continued Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election, Trump's baseless predictions of voter fraud in the 2024 election, and Trump's public embrace and celebration of the January 6 United States Capitol attack, raised concerns over the state of democracy in the United States.

In other words, the sentence consists of a list of eight statements and actions that Donald Trump (and some Republicans) made and took, which collectively suggested to some notable observers (per their comments during the election) that Trump intends to take the U.S. in the direction of Russia or Syria, which are (were) democracies in name only: there are elections, but the incumbent (until December in Syria) always wins by a ridiculous margin that no one believes is real. Those commentators may have been wrong to interpret Trump's statements that way, but this alarm over how Trump seemed (to many) to be intending to change the U.S. was a major campaign theme.

And that list (and as far as I can tell, the whole article) doesn't even mention (1) that Trump and his allies suggested in 2024 that if he won, he ought to be able to run again in 2028 -- regardless of the 22nd Amendment -- because he was supposedly "cheated" out of the 2020 election and (2) that Trump said that his supporters, if they voted for him in 2024, need never vote again. These examples would further strengthen the impression of a not insignificant segment of the public that Trump hopes to bring democracy to an end. (Whether he really intended to make that impression is unknowable. Whether he means to follow up on those apparent plans, and whether is capable of doing so, remains to be seen.)

My big problem with that paragraph-long sentence is this phrase: "his claim that he would only be a dictator on 'day one' of his presidency and not after". This would more aptly read "his claim that he would temporarily act as a dictator".

Here's what the editors are up against: there have long been a collection of norms within U.S. politics -- and generally agreed-upon framework of acceptable behavior -- that Donald Trump completely breaks. Almost all politicians lie a little bit. By contrast, Trump tells the truth a little bit. If that's the new normal, Misplaced Pages isn't really built for it.

So for example, Trump's comment about temporarily becoming a U.S. dictator was made when Sean Hannity, a television news host who is very friendly toward Trump, was trying to give Trump the opportunity to rebut what Hannity thought was a ridiculous claim being made about Trump by some Democrats: that Trump wanted to be a dictator. Hannity expected Trump to say something like, "Of course not. That's an example of how out of touch with reality Democrats are, that they would suggest I wanted to be a dictator." It was a softball question. The answer Hannity expected was the answer that every single Democrat or Republican presidential candidate would have given. Instead, Trump said he did intend (temporarily) to be a dictator.

That's not normal. Your proposed language suggests that this article should be written as if it is normal. NME Frigate (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Where in the world (pun intended) did you hear this? (Quoted from above comment by NME Frigate) "And that list (and as far as I can tell, the whole article) doesn't even mention (1) that Trump and his allies suggested in 2024 that if he won, he ought to be able to run again in 2028 -- regardless of the 22nd Amendment -- because he was supposedly "cheated" out of the 2020 election and (2) that Trump said that his supporters, if they voted for him in 2024, need never vote again. These examples would further strengthen the impression of a not insignificant segment of the public that Trump hopes to bring democracy to an end. (Whether he really intended to make that impression is unknowable. Whether he means to follow up on those apparent plans, and whether is capable of doing so, remains to be seen.)"

Ok so my version is quite soft on Trump. I am ok if someone rewrites it with a more aggressive tone, as long as WP rules are followed. The issue I saw was with the use of the word "claims" since WP:WORDS clearly states that it should be avoided quite heavily. I sadly can't write an article well, I am much better at fixing spelling and grammar.

I understand the issue we have, Trump is very different from any other president that we know, and so people and WP don't know how to respond. At the same time though we should not sound like a newspaper article. With the current way it is written it looks and sounds like something I would read in a anti-Trump newspaper, which needs to be corrected. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 08:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Donald Trump having suggested several times over the past four years that he might run for a third term, here's the headline and subheadline of just one article, published in November by the New York Times:

"No, Trump Cannot Run for Re-election Again in 2028. The Constitution sets a two-term limit for presidents. Still, Donald J. Trump has repeatedly floated the idea that he might like to stay in the White House beyond his next term."

link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/politics/trump-third-term-2028-constitution.html

There are multiple other sources confirming what he said about this over the years. I follow the news a fair bit and heard him say these things at the time he said them.

Regarding Donald Trump suggesting on one occasion that his supporters would never need to vote again if they voted for him in 2024, here's a quick summary with links to original reporting and evidence that his comment got a lot of attention from alarmed observers:

link: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/vote-four-years/

What did he mean by that comment? As noted at the link, he was asked by Laura Ingraham in a subsequent Fox News interview to clarify, and he responded with this: "So with respect to like a statement like I made that statement is very simple. I said, vote for me. You're not going to have to do it ever again. It's true, because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group. They don't vote, and I'm explaining that to them: You never vote — this time, vote. I'll straighten out the country. You won't have to vote anymore. I won't need your vote. You can go back."

That's very hard to interpret. If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Kamala Harris had said during one of their presidential campaigns that, say, union members who voted for them would never need to vote again because "I'll straighten the country out," conservatives would be making similar inferences. Because what can a president do that can never be undone by a later president or Congress? Nothing, unless there are no later presidents or Congresses.

And then Ingraham, who supports Trump, clearly recognized the risk of his comment being interpreted as she would interpret a similar comment from a Democrat, because she followed up with Trump, noting that his statement about never voting again is "being interpreted, as you are not surprised to hear, by the left as, 'Well, they're never going to have another election."' So, can you even just respond?"

Once again, a Fox host was giving Trump a softball opportunity to clarify his point and mock critics who were alarmed by what he said. Any other Republican would have said, "Of course we'll have another election in 2028. It's crazy the Democrats would suggest otherwise."

But Trump didn't say that. He didn't address that point at all. He just reiterated his first answer.

So there you have it: the man who will be president in eight days would not confirm, not even to a very friendly interviewer, that there will be an election in 2028. NME Frigate (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I actually think what he's getting at with the "won't have to vote anymore" comment is pretty clear, which is that he's asking what he sees as a traditionally non-voting group to come out in force for a particular election in order to ensure that a party which supports their viewpoints is elected - and then they "won't need to vote anymore" since, when in power, he will "straighten the country out" and enact enduring policy that reflects those viewpoints. Big Thumpus (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If it were that clear, then (1) a friendly Fox News interviewer wouldn't twice have asked him to clarify and (2) he would have responded to her straightforward question with a clear answer. If Laura Ingraham (on this point) and Sean Hannity (on the "dictator" point) think a Republican presidential candidate has gone too far and needs to clean up his statements, that's newsworthy. And this comment was even more alarming (and much discussed at the time!) when considered in the context of the previous item I mentioned: his repeated references to being eligible for a third term.

We really must stop pretending any of this is normal. Here are two further examples of how much this Misplaced Pages article on the 2024 election is bending over backward to be generous to Donald Trump:

1. A *lot* of people thought there was one very obvious reason that Trump ran for a second term. It was brought up repeatedly in the media. Here's one example from the BBC: "Is Trump Running for Office Mostly to Avoid Prison?" (link: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66402180)

Here's another example: Congressman Will Hurd, a Republican from Texas, said in 2023 that Trump was "running for president to stay out of prison." (link: https://thehill.com/homenews/4222638-hurd-trump-only-running-to-stay-out-of-prison/).

Yet nowhere does this article mention that.

2. As Joe Biden's advanced age became a major issue during the campaign (a subject which is discussed in this article), quite a few people pointed out that Trump, should he win in 2024, would be even older upon taking office than Biden was in 2021. Nikki Haley had raised this concern about both Trump and Biden during her presidential campaign. And that concern about Trump predated the campaign: Elon Musk had tweeted in 2022 that Trump would be too old at the end of a second term. Again, there is absolutely no reference to those concerns in this article. (There is one passing reference to the simple fact that Trump will be the oldest man ever to take the oath, but nothing about why prominent people thought that might be an issue.) NME Frigate (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I am sure many users are registered with a political party, and ergo, affiliated with a party one way or another. I happen to have been elected to a local leadership role (I haven’t even taken office yet), but I do not anticipate being involved in federal politics. I think it’s pathetic to insinuate I oppose the template because of my party affiliation. Many users, including myself, took the neutrality concerns very seriously, and I even made a suggestion on how we could potentially improve the lead. However, we do not tolerate disruptive editing on Misplaced Pages, and that is why I take great issue with the template. Not because of my political affiliation, but because the consensus was already decided, whether we like it or not. FWIW, I was actually accused of being biased in favor of a Republicans in 2020 when I advocated for waiting to color Georgia blue until all major media organizations made a unanimous projection. I guess that’s the thanks I get for being a productive user that strives to edit neutrally. Prcc27 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I will say again that it only makes sense to put the NPOVD template on the page if we're this far into a thread about the disputed neutrality of the language of the page. If we're getting into specific language that needs to be changed, the template should be on the page. It doesn't make sense to not do it at this point. Big Thumpus (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

No. If that were the case, the template would be on the article indefinitely. We shouldn’t have a badge of shame, every time a user (and the same user(s) at that) has a neutrality concern. Prcc27 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I have to side with Big Thumpus on this one. Prcc27 WP policy makes it clear that template should be on the page. Also WP:NPOV states in the lead that the policy is not non-negotiable and can not be superseded by consensus. So any "consensus" that you claim was established before has no power then or now. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I won't repeat every here, but I advise people to look over my comments at Talk:2024 United States presidential election for a more detailed understanding on my position on the neutrality of the article.
The TLDR of my view is is that sources do exist that aren't being used. Some people are claiming using them is WP:FALSEBALANCE but this ignores the context that Trump's entire campaign hinges on media attention.
Plus, there is a just a tad of emotive language thrown in. Case and Point:

Trump called on House and Senate Republicans to kill the bill arguing it would hurt his and Republican's reelection campaigns and deny them the ability to run on immigration as a campaign issue. This ignores all the other points brought up in the referenced sources, but okay.

Harris was tasked by Biden with protecting democracy through voting rights legislation through her work on the For the People Act. I would call this WP:PUFFERY. I struggle to find how Harris was important with creating the bill other than voting for the bill. The article never mentions any criticisms of Harris either, to my knowledge. Fantastic Mr. Fox 17:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

A couple more examples:

- The lead states that The Trump campaign was noted for... engaging in anti-immigrant fear mongering even though the next paragraph mentions that illegal immigration was one of the biggest issues for Americans during the election.

- Numerous election offices are dealing with an increase in retirements and are overwhelmed with public records requests, owing in part to the electoral mistrust planted by former President Trump's loss in the 2020 election Aside from being in an odd tense that reads like a news article, the two sources cited in order to associate Trump with the overwhelmed election offices actually spend more time detailing the lack of appropriate funding and increasing work requirements for election workers. One source is even from 2022.

The article is full of stuff like this. Stuff that may have seemed meaningful in the lead up to the election, but after Trump's win feels more like sour grapes and mudslinging. I think it's entirely possible for an encyclopedia to inform readers of Trump's flaws without bloating out the article about the election. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My advice… give it time. The election is still fairly recent, and so dispassionate analysis has not yet occurred. Currently, all we have to go on is what is said in the news media, which tends towards hype and exaggerated things that end up not being important. However, as time passes, historians will write about it - and they will sort out which events were important and which were not. Once that occurs, we can (and should) completely rewrite the article. We can cut the fluff and hype of recent news media, and instead focus on what historians have to say. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's nice to see some specific examples. Regarding the third example: can't it be true both that immigration was a major concern of voters and that Donald Trump's specific comments about immigrants trafficked in fear? Here are two well-known examples from 2024: (1) Trump claimed without evidence that Haitian immigrants living in Springfield, Ohio were eating people's cats and dogs. (2) Trump said that immigrants were "poisoning the blood of our country." I cannot recall similar comments about immigrants from any major party presidential nominee (except Trump himself in 2016) over the past 50 years. Both comments seemed beyond the pale to many people, which is why they were the subject of so much media attention, and thus worthy of one sentence mentioning them in the lead. NME Frigate (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

These statements are only made with the consensus of reliable sources. We have numerous reliable sources that say as such, which is why we say it. Due to the exceptional nature of some of the statements, we have dozens of citations in ref bundles to back them up. It is not biased to say that Trump's claims of election fraud are false or without evidence, and this is not an opinion. Again, it's all backed up with multiple reliable sources. You also say that the statements ignore the other sources, but what sources? BootsED (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• These statements are only made with the consensus of reliable sources.
• Answer: Aside from the fact I am able to find WP:SYNTHESIS statements and statements that look very oddly phrased to not mention of what the sources also says, just because a certain collection of sources say that someone is secretly the devil themself doesn't translate to us calling that person the devil as a fact, since that is defamatory and also completely bogus. The same logic can be applied to Trump. It may deserve a mention, but as mentioned by others above right now the phrasing of the statements looks like mudslinging.
• It is not biased to say that Trump's claims of election fraud are false or without evidence, and this is not an opinion
• Answer:Correct but it is worth mentioning and it's widely accepted by sources that such claims are false, not "passing mentions in the context of a article that says other things on the subject too" or WP:SYNTHESIS
• You also say that the statements ignore the other sources, but what sources?
• Answer: I'm not sure what you refering to here. If you are referring to my first quotation, exactly one source attached reads "kill the bill" while the others mention it as a side reason for Trump opposing the bill and focuses on several different reasons for the bill being opposed by Trump and the Republican Party.

Fantastic Mr. Fox 09:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there's something to what you're saying. Some of the writing in this article is shallow and insufficiently sourced, and it's that aspect, more than anything else, which gives it a sense of being biased against Donald Trump. A better article, as this one will probably become with the benefit of time, would probably present an even darker view of Trump but would feel more "balanced" because it would be deeper and better sourced. And I think the reason the article reads as it does is that, since by necessity editing had to be restricted lest the trolls wreck it, there was just too much to keep up with, especially in the face of the enormous amount of misinformation being pushed (mostly but not only by Trump and his supporters).

Take this phrase from the "Border security and immigration" section, whence comes the "kill the bill" comment that you flag: "Polling showed that most Americans want to reduce immigration".

This is true, but what that sentence and indeed that whole section omits is that the percentage of the American public who wanted increased immigration had been climbing slowly from less than 10% in the early 1990s -- when 65% of Americans wanted less immigration -- to above 30% in the late 2010s. In 2019, for the first time since polling on this issue started in the 1960s, that number (34%) was higher than the percentage of Americans who wanted decreased immigration (28%). The Biden-Harris administration, although taking a hard line on immigration in some ways (Harris famously told would-be immigrants "Don't come" in June of 2021), didn't prioritize action to tighten immigration because they thought the public wanted looser immigration. But then public opinion shifted very rapidly. It had taken 26 years of changing opinion for Americans to prefer "more immigration" to "less immigration," but in just four years, almost that entire transformation in opinion was undone: by 2023, "more immigration" had fallen to 16% and "less immigration" had climbed to 55%. That's when Democrats and Republicans began negotiating the bill that was put forward in Feb. 2024, which would have been the toughest immigration bill in many decades. If the Biden/Harris administration had recognized the changing public mood sooner, that bill probably would have been introduced earlier, and maybe Trump wouldn't have blocked it.

Now obviously this article can't include all of that -- it probably can't even include the name "Lankford" -- and the top of that section does include links to articles specifically about U.S. immigration policy generally and the 2023 immigration "crisis" specifically -- but that one sentence about polling paints such a tiny picture of the truth, and maybe there's a way to get this nuance in. I suggest this:

"Polling, in a reversion to levels before 2019, showed that most Americans want to reduce immigration."

(And of course lately we have seen one of Trump's best-known associates, Elon Musk, say that he wants more foreign nationals in the U.S., much to the consternation of some of Trump's other associates, like Steve Bannon, who has lately described Musk as "a truly evil guy," vowed that he "will have Elon Musk run out of here," and called for Musk to "go back to South Africa." Musk seems to be fairly influential: will American views shift again?)

A quick note about a different sentence in that section: "In 2023 and early 2024, a surge of migrants entering through the border with Mexico occurred." That's awkward. Make it: "In 2023 and early 2024, a surge of migrants entered though the border with Mexico." NME Frigate (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

One note to make is that people in the US are upset about illegal-immigrants not the legal ones. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 08:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the survey I mentioned asks about all immigrants not just illegal immigrants: "Thinking now about immigrants -- that is, people who come from other countries to live here in the United States, in your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?"

At present, 41% (16% + 25%) want immigration increased or kept at present levels, and 55% want immigration decreased.

link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

And the controversy between Elon Musk and Steve Bannon that I just referenced was also about foreign nationals who are or would be legally in the U.S. (on H-1B visas).

Now it's possible that people responding to the survey are answering based on their opinions regarding illegal immigrants and not all immigrants. And also, people are not always consistent in how they respond to polls: they don't think about all the implications of their answers. The same poll also finds that 64% of Americans think that immigration is a "good thing" while 32% think it's a "bad thing," that 47% favor and 51% oppose "deporting all immigrants who are living in the United States illegally back to their home country," that 53% favor and 46% oppose "significantly expanding the construction of walls along the U.S.-Mexico border," that 70% favor and 30% oppose "allowing immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time," that 76% favor and 23% oppose "hiring significantly more border patrol agents" (funding for that was in the bipartisan bill that Congress blocked at Donald Trump's request), that 81% favor and 19% oppose "allowing immigrants, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time," and that 63% favor and 32% oppose "allowing the president and secretary of Homeland Security to temporarily prohibit individuals from seeking asylum when the Southwest border is overwhelmed" (that also was in the bill that Trump killed).

People are complicated! As you can see, some of these findings contradict one another.

For example, 47% support deporting all immigrants who are here illegally.

But 70% support allowing illegal immigrants the change to become U.S. citizens and 81% support allowing the Dreamers (who are illegal immigrants, albeit not by their own choice) that opportunity.

Which suggests that some poll respondents think there are different kinds of illegal immigrants, some who should be deported and some who should get the chance to become citizens. Maybe some of them don't want farm workers deported, even if they're here illegally, because they fear that U.S. crops won't get picked. (That actually happened in California this week when immigration agents starting arresting migrants near a grape orchard, following which that orchard found itself 75% short of the number of people it needed to pick the grapes.) NME Frigate (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This is quite interesting, did not know they had made a poll on this topic. Thank you for posting it! User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 22:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

First off looking at emotive language you've mentioned, kill the bill is a common way of saying to get rid of a bill. For protecting democracy while it is loaded language and we very much could improve on the wording I think it is an apt description of protecting voter rights and doesn't really seem like Puffery to me. Also for the anti immigration fear mongering, the sources says he did that so we say he did that. Also @Big Thumpus I don't think we should necessarily change articles' descriptions of things simply because of who won the election. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

"kill the bill" seems a bit aggressive to my knowledge. As for the "protecting democracy" bit, the statement itself isn't puffery, but Kamela Harris being involved in drafting it is misleading, since it was being worked on primarily by people other than Harris (based on what I read the Misplaced Pages page for the For The People Act). Fantastic Mr. Fox 09:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

"Kill the bill" & "killing a bill" are both well known and used terms in US politics. What them mean is you or someone else wants to stop the bill before it passes. There are many ways to "kill a bill". If you are in congress you can vote against it and try to convince others to vote against it, if you are the vice-president then you can "kill it" if there is a tie in the Senate. The President can veto the bill when he receives it which also "kills the bill". I think that should be a good overview of what "kill the bill" and related terms mean in US politics. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 10:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I incline toward not using the phrase "kill the bill" in this instance unless it can be shown that Donald Trump or a prominent ally actually used that language themselves as regards the bipartisan immigration bill that was negotiated for months between Democrats and Republicans only to wither on the vine after Trump opposed it.

That said, "kill the bill" is indeed commonly used. For example, last month, Elon Musk urged Congress to "kill the bill" in reference to a bill that was to have funded the government. After Donald Trump supported Musk's request, that particular bill, which had been negotiated by House Republicans and Democrats, was indeed voted down. Musk had further urged that Congress pass no bills for a month until Donald Trump's inauguration and said that the government could be shut down during that time. (That probably would have prevented Trump from having a public inaugural ceremony.) Then Musk and Trump urged Congress to pass a different funding bill. Trump in particular wanted the bill to lift the debt ceiling for an extended period of time. Musk seems to have been most eager to have certain regulatory items removed from the bill. That effort also failed. Finally, on their third try, Congress passed a funding bill that split the difference but mostly gave Musk what he wanted while not giving Trump the debt ceiling relief he asked for. NME Frigate (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oldham Council

At Oldham Council there is a dispute about how content regarding a child sex abuse investigation by the council (related to the "grooming gangs" post above) should be handled. Outside input would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Climate change denial

NextEra Energy

Hi editors, I'm Matt and I work for NextEra Energy. I had two edit requests (first one linked here that I think are directly applicable to this noticeboard. Content added some time ago by a now-banned user (Surge of Reason), which was largely copied from the Florida Power & Light article, creates some neutrality issues, particularly as relates to WP:STRUCTURE. The above linked request is to move content in a section titled "Environmental issues" about a power plant that was never built – and therefore can't be an issue – to the History section, in line with WP:NOCRIT.

The second request is a bit meatier and involves removing some content that is pulled directly from a source without attribution and/or uses poor sourcing for negative information that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS, and moving what remains to the History section, again to improve WP:STRUCTURE in line with NOCRIT. I would appreciate any feedback or help you can offer before I make these edits.  Because of my COI I have avoided making these changes myself in the past and I'd like to have this page be reflective of our overall desire to have the page be neutral and factual. Thank you! ~~~~ NextEraMatt (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution