Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:39, 7 May 2023

Leo Frank short-description

In this edit @1Trevorr replaced the use of "lynching victim" in the Frank article's short-description with "convicted murderer."

Our reliable sources say that Frank was both a convicted murderer, and a lynching victim. It was reverted by @Beyond My Ken. Seeing that it is objectively true that Frank was both a lynching victim, and a convicted murderer, I made a compromise between the two: I edited it so that Frank is both a convicted murderer, and a lynching victim. @1Trevorr did not seem to have a problem with this, but @Beyond My Ken and @DeCausa did, and the latter reverted it in this edit.

I brought it up with them on the talk page. They both conceded that Leo Frank was a convicted murderer, but claimed that it was biased to mention it in the short-description, as well as evidence of one's antisemitism. @Beyond My Ken, without consensus, then changed the short-description again, omitting convicted-murderer, and adding that Frank was wrongfully convicted. This goes against Misplaced Pages guidelines for short-descriptions: they are supposed to use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional. That Frank was wrongfully convicted is both controversial and judgemental--that he was convicted of murder and lynched is not.

Furthermore, @Beyond My Ken and @DeCausa claimed that the onus was not on them to make consensus, because they already had it; but they have so far been the only editors to support their additions, and @1Trevorr and I have both opposed it. If I am doing math correctly, that seems to be a draw. When I tried to change it back to what it had previously been before any of us had touched it, BMK changed it back to his new verison.

It is one thing to disagree with the addition of "convicted murderer", though I think it is ridiculous to do so, as this is an objective fact backed up by reliable sources already used within the article; that he was wrongfully convicted is not an objective fact, and Misplaced Pages's guidelines suggest against making judgements like these in short-descriptions.

But the two of them have also made new additions to the article, without consensus.

I'd like to ask, which is evidence of controversial, judgmental, POV bias: the claim that Frank was a "lynching victim and a convicted murderer", or that he was a "wrongfully convicted lynching victim"? @DeCausa and @Beyond My Ken are alleging that it is the former. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that ITrevorr has been indeffed for Jew-baiting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Harry Silbelius is clearly a POV editor, whose only purpose at Leo Frank is to present the subject in the worst possible light. Thus he wants the SD to say "convicted murderer", without mentioning the fact that the overwhelming consensus of subject experts is that Frank was wrongfully convicted. HS's short description would leave the reader with a distorted and incomplete impression of Frank, while the one he opposes touches all the pertinent points of a significant event in American history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Saying someone is a convicted murderer implies that they committed murder. In this case the mainstream view is that Frank was wrongfully convicted and so we should not imply he was guilty. TFD (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

As BMK says. This article is a target for some fairly unsavoury POVs. More of an ANI issue than this noticeboard. DeCausa (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Would the subject be notable if they weren't lynched? I would tend to think the lynching part is what is most significant. Springee (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes he'd still be notable (high profile case, trial, appeals, wrongful conviction), but the lynching is significant. The current short description does seem to be hitting the highlights, but it's pretty long. I don't think that's a concern for this noticeboard, but while I'm here I might as well throw out the 36-character "Man wrongfully convicted and lynched". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If people think that's better, I can live with it. I do realize that the current one is kind of long for an SD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Although in bio SD's typically there's some indication of nationality and dating. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Just to note here that a brand-spanking new editor -- account created just hours ago and headed straight for the article talk page -- has shown up to support Harry Sibelius. At first I suspected a possible sockpuppet, but they say on their talk page "The Leo Frank case was resently brought to my attention..." , so it's somewhat more likely that off-wiki canvassing has brought a WP:MEATPUPPET into the discussion. It would be useful if the editors who expressed opinions here would also do so on the article talk page, so the question of where consensus lies could be clearer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  See User talk:1Trevorr#Leo Frank Doug Weller talk 14:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken et al; the short description should not describe someone as a "convicted murderer" when the consensus is that the conviction was unjust. Mackensen (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

A problem with a claim about a political figure

Well there is this Romanian Politician, Mircea Diaconu. On his page there is a claim that doesn't seem to be supported by given source and another editor keeps refusing to change it, reverts my change constantly and doesn't motivate his point. I will really apreciate a third opinion on this.

Here is the Talk page: Talk:Mircea_Diaconu DiGrande (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we will need input from some editors who speak Romanian for this. Category:Romanian_Wikipedians would be a place to look. Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Romania is another place you could ask and probably the best. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, the problem really has to do with neutrality, I honestly don't know, I haven't came apon a situation like this before. Over all the text discused can be translated well even with say google translate. The other person just doesn't want to admit the source doesn't support the claim he makes. DiGrande (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The source in question reads, in translation:

agriculture is on Mircea Diaconu's list of electoral promises, most likely because he is counting on the rural vote. His proposal is "aggregation into large agricultural areas", a phrase that was intensively used by Ion Iliescu, at the time when he opposed the restitution of lands confiscated by the communist regime. Like Ion Iliescu, but also like the vast majority of Social Democratic leaders, Mircea Diaconu pleads for the unification of the small properties that were revived after the year 2000.

I render this as:

“His policies were seemingly targeted at a rural electorate and recalled those of the 1990s and early 2000s, when Ion Iliescu was president.”

I don’t think this is especially controversial. — Biruitorul 22:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

my take on it is:

"His policies have been described as similar to those of the 1990s and early 2000s, when Ion Iliescu was president."

Beacause the article doesn't suggest that Diaconu had done anything with the intent to apeal to any voter base. "Targeted" is definetly the wrong word there and this claim definetly wasn't made nor proven by the source given to it.

The other user is just head strong and wants to have final say with minimal effort given in arguing his position or even trying to look for alternative posts. Just look up the talk page, he says "seems like a fair asumtion"...

To not speak of the fact my version was left as the official one by him for 2 months untill he just decided to swich it back to what he wrote... I'm definetly doubting his neutrality or goodwill at this point. DiGrande (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, the article does suggest Diaconu appealed to a rural voter base, by focusing on land reform. The article specifically states that he courted/counted on/targeted (whatever, same thing) the rural vote. — Biruitorul 06:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

SADF Operation Reindeer

Could I please get a neutral observer to take a look at what is developing into an edit war on these two pages: Operation Reindeer and 44 Parachute Brigade (South Africa)? Please look at Talk:Operation Reindeer#Changes to avoid "Glorifying War Crimes" to see my attempt to start a conversation and then at Talk:44 Parachute Brigade (South Africa)#Low quality of the article for the response. The edit history should show everything else that is neeeded. Much appreciated. BoonDock (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Aghlabids

Some users, mostly @R Prazeres and @M.Bitton, have been WP:STONEWALLING the Aghlabids page for quite a few months by trying to hide as much as possible in the infobox the fact that Sardinia is not generally recognized as having been part of the Aghlabid-controlled territories. This goes from blocking every edit on the image's caption (even writing that adding "possible" to it it's OR) and editing it after a consensus was reached and then claiming that that was the consensus and, most importantly, using a map that's an intentional misrepresentation of the source it was allegedly taken from. I will paste here a comment I've already made on the talk page where I explained why:

The authors, at page 24, actually wrote: "The Aghlabids ruled more or less independently until the Fatimid conquest in 909, initiating an Arab occupation of Sicily that was to last more than 250 years and raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy." They clearly only talk about "raiding" Sardinia, while the occupation is only limited to Sicily. Their map there (which is the one that was supposedly used as a source for the one in the infobox) represents Sardinia not with the same colours as northern Africa and Sicily, but with the combination that (in the map legend in page 12) is reserved to non-Muslim "contested/shared over time" lands. In this case, like the text in that same page clarifies, the "contested" means just raids and failed conquering attempts.

I have the book so, if necessary and ok with Misplaced Pages's policies, I can upload the two pages on imgur or somewhere else and link them here, or give you any other kind of confirmation about that. On that same talk page, the two users (one of which, @M.Bitton, has been already blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and nationalist POV-related edit warring) deny that, even thought it's an objective fact, and @R Prazeres is using the argument that the OR map it's allegedly partially supported by other ones (near-identical ones), which is WP:SYNTH. The situation clearly needs an outside intervention. L2212 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you don't agree with the consensus and what's in the published map doesn't give you the right to whinge about it for months on end. Since you're clearly assuming bad faith and started casting aspersions, I suggest you do the correct thing and take your so-called concerns and chances to WP:ANI (unless of course, you're scared that the others would actually see you for what you are). M.Bitton (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I absolutely have the right to point out anything that's wrong, and "months on end"? The only reason why this is still going on it's because you decided to abandon the discussion back then, while not changing your problematic behaviour (including your lack of WP:Civility and your tendency to give ultimatums to people like you own Misplaced Pages) at all. Anyway, I will bring this to WP:ANI if this will be ignored/will go nowhere, I didn't do it now simply because, like it's written there at the top of the page, you should try other dispute resolution methods (like this one) before that. L2212 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I've had enough of this nonsense. Take it to ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Glorification of apartheid-era violent atrocities

It came to my attention that @BoonDock is involved in various articles covering apartheid-era South African military units and operations. Some of these articles are badly sourced. Either overrelying on a very limited number of sources and / or relying on sources that are biased due to their personal involvement within the apartheid era military.

In one such article, the attempt is being made to present a war crime, that has been condemned by the UN Security Council for it's atrocious nature, as a regular military operation against "combatants", when in reality the majority of victims in the destroyed camp were found to be defenseless women and children.

My attempts to improve this article and rid it of hate speech, defamation of the dead and inaccurate information, that seeks to glorify this war crime, were met with hostility by @BoonDock, who keeps reverting the article to the previous problematic state, while failing to acknowledge WP:NPOV and not providing any reasonable way forward.

I have reason to believe that the author is bent on promoting his views irregardless of the facts established by independent researchers and historians, which characterize the event as an atrocity against civilian refugees, with only a small number of armed cadres of the SWAPO liberation movement being present at the Cassinga transit camp, that served to process refugees fleeing apartheid occupation in then South-West Africa on their way to safer regions in the Luanda region of Angola. CraigoGiarco (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

To those observing, this is the response from this editor to being told that his edits didn't meet a Neutral Point of View. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#SADF Operation Reindeer This should show clearly that his intention is promote his particular point of view, with no regard for neutrality. I'm ignoring the outright nonsense of his ad hominem attacks. BoonDock (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

CraigoGiarco, it is not hate speech, defamation, or glorification of war crimes to coldly/emotionlessly describe military actions. You're expected to describe them like that. Editors have been banned for leveling allegations of hate speech over disagreements like this. You should never call something an "atrocity" in wikivoice, and multiple editors have challenged your edits. If you want to expose evildoers to the world, there are many places to do this. Misplaced Pages is not one of them. I'm getting the impression of a WP:SPA/WP:NOTHERE issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

What you're saying is absolutely 100% not true. We describe the Wounded Knee Massacre as a massacre in Wikivoice because the sources do too. We in fact have a whole List of Indian massacres. Many of these were described as battles by the US government and some have some sources still claiming they were a battle, but we don't describe them as such because WP:FALSEBALANCE is not how WP:NPOV works. Loki (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Upon looking at the proposed paragraphs on the talk page of Operation Reindeer and the state of both articles overall, I am at least very suspicious of BoonDock's preferred version. Here's my reasoning:

• A problem common to both versions is that the only source listed in the paragraph is a man who fought on the South African side of the fighting. This extreme reliance on a single source also makes it difficult to neutrally determine what's going on here. However, the fact that the source would tend to be WP:BIASED towards the South African side tends to make me suspect that BoonDock's version is overly sympathetic to the South Africans, and that better sourcing is needed.
• BoonDock's preferred version contains the line As to how many people died in the raid and whether there were women and children killed during the raid depends on whose side one wants to listen too . This feels all kinds of off to me and strikes me as highly likely to be a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE.
• There really is a UN Security Council resolution condemning the South African government action. The UN here is a much more neutral source as to the nature of this than Willem Steenkamp, so this also tends to make me suspicious of BoonDock's version.
• The article on the Battle of Cassinga, a part of the raid, has at least somewhat better sourcing than the article on the operation overall. It's also ambiguous as to whether this is a war crime or not. But it at least gives good reasons to suspect that it was not in fact a military operation.
• The casualty counts listed are very heavily skewed: the SWAPO side had at least hundreds of casualties while the South African side had only 7 killed. In fact they're so skewed that it's hard for me to imagine that the SWAPO side put up any significant resistance.

Now, is any of this fully determinative? No, absolutely not. This is all circumstantial, and because of the lack of good sources here, it's hard to say for sure that BoonDock's version is wrong, just that it seems suspicious to me. So my concrete advice for CraigoGiargo is to go find better sources to add to the article. If "independent researchers and historians" believe it's a massacre, then surely you should be able to find some and post what they say about it, right? Loki (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

In response @LokiTheLiar:

1. This is not "MY" version.What I tried to do was to preserve the status quo ante while the issue was discussed. I haven't given my point of view anywhere in the discussion because I was under the impression we were supposed to strive for a neutral point of view. My expectation was that in the discussion, the actual viewpoints could be discussed and a balanced wording determined. That was something that @CraigoGiarco was not prepared to countenance, insisting that only HIS version should be what the article should say and not being prepared to enter into ANY discussion on the matter at all until I brought the issue here.

2. Steenkamp is recognised in South Africa as the definitive reliable source by combatants from both sides of the fight. He is widely cited and quoted by academics and historians. His access to military records, especially at the time, was unprecedented and gave his writings a legitimacy that few others had. This is something that could have been debated in the talk page, and should have, with multiple editors weighing in comparing him as a source to others. It's not a unilateral decision by a single editor to attack a source because it contradicts their narrative view. He might well be right, but it's not his decision to make unilaterally.

3. The casualty counts are skewed for reasons of military competence as well as available reliable sources. That's sourceable and citable. Also something for the talk page.

My initial point remains though that the article should remain at the status quo ante until there is consensus. Issues of defamation or libel of me should also draw censure, but I'm not going to hold my breath. BoonDock (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved opinion): A brief visit to google books indicated me availability of substantial literature on the subject and most of recent literature is not taken into account even in bibliography sections.

.. Steenkamp is recognised in South Africa as the definitive reliable source by combatants from both sides of the fight. ..

I checked only one academic source Baines, Gary. South Africa's 'Border War': Contested Narratives and Conflicting Memories. United Kingdom, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014. Gary Baines seem to have different opinion on Steenkamp than claimed above.

About conflicts I suppose having regularly updated bibliography sections with separate section for academic research literature may help keep things best possible clear.

Bookku (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, Baines did have a different opinion, but it is/was part of the debate. BoonDock (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC on how to describe DRASTIC over at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory§ RfC: How should we describe DRASTIC?. Thanks! — Shibbolethink 16:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ayacucho massacre

Ayacucho massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are diverging views regarding what NPOV might look like in this article about recent political violence in Peru. Issues are currently being discussed on the talk page here and here. More eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the name of "Ayacucho riots" since the name of "Ayacucho Massacre" is too reductionist and biased. Not all media nor a majority refer to the event as a "massacre". The repression by the police and the army happened in the context of violent protests when protestors tried to reach and take a whole airport, event that is barely covered in specifically the English Misplaced Pages but good sourced in the Spanish version. Reliable source and even some articles sourced in the page to call it a "massacre" also describe the prior events as riots or protests that led the "massacre" to happen, or the attempt to take over the airport

----

Sources already used in the article to call them "massacre" that also refer to the events as riots/protests/violence:

- "El día más sangriento fue este jueves. La violencia se desató en Ayacucho, la región más golpeada por el terrorismo entre los años ochenta y noventa. Un pueblo que convive en un eterno fuego cruzado y al que le es muy difícil respirar paz."

- "La presidenta Dina Boluarte declaró el estado de emergencia por 30 días frente a las manifestaciones y disturbios de los últimos días en distintas ciudades de Perú.

- "De acuerdo con el informe, el día más sangriento fue el jueves pasado, primera jornada de vigencia del estado de emergencia (sitio) en todo el país, con nueve defunciones. Ese día, la mayor violencia se desató en Ayacucho, la región más golpeada por la acción de los grupos remanentes de la organización terrorista Sendero Luminoso." (Note that the article refers to the Shining Path as "terrorist" instead of guerrilla, like the original author of the page doesn't want to include because POV)

- "Entrada la tarde, se registraron actos vandálicos y disturbios mancharon las movilizaciones pacíficas que realizaban los ciudadanos en Ayacucho. Atacaron e incendiaron el local de la Corte Superior, en plena plaza de Huamanga y que recién había refaccionado el ingreso. También incendiaron el local de la Sunarp, Ministerio Público y Telefónica, dejando un saldo de 8 heridos"

----

The original author of the article also like to distort some sources cited while also cherry-picking sources that fit his POV while omitting others that are essential and used in the Spanish Version of the article. For example: the source from Infobae, page that is cited a lot in this article, is sourced in es.wikipedia in the following sentence: "The next day, the consequences of what happened and the lack of a police and military presence in the city led to acts of vandalism, such as looting and burning several unprotected public buildings (traslated)", but @WMrapids uses the same source for claiming the following: "The following day, the repression by the police and military led to new acts of vandalism, such as looting and burning of various unprotected public buildings". Another example is with and , source which @WMrapids source to claim the following "During the presidencies of Ollanta Humala, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski and Martín Vizcarra, the right-wing Congress led by the daughter of the former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori, Keiko Fujimori, obstructed many of the actions attempted by those presidents". The inclusion of "right-wing" in the first source is never mentioned and in the second source is only used to refer to Bolsonaro (not even Peruvian) or the candidate to presidency Keiko Fujimori. Term is never mentioned to refer to the congress. Other of those fake claims are "On that day, demonstrations took place in Ayacucho and the situation intensified when the military deployed helicopters to fire at protesters, who later tried to take over the city's airport, which was defended by the Peruvian Army and the National Police of Peru". Neither of the sources claim that the protests intensified after the army deployed helicopters, and in fact, sources cited in the article while recognize the protests started peacefully , neither of those claims that the protests intensified after the army deployed helicopters. In fact, one of the sources used by the editor claims that the helicopters appeared during noon "Todos los que estuvieron en Huamanga ese día escucharon los helicópteros y el incesante sonido de las balas, desde el mediodía hasta el anochecer." .

----

Now my concern is that when I tried to add information directly extracted from the Spanish Misplaced Pages, the user called @Generalrelative deleted all the info I added without any reason except "POV-Pushing", but when @WMrapids added tons of distorded information, he just stayed quiet. Each time I want to add at least some words to the article, this user, which have no authority over me, reverts each of my edits, like if I was blocked or something (and he even doesn't let me post in his talk page since he deletes any talk I want to make to him). Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

PS: About the last point, he keeps reverting every single edit I've made even tho he just claimed that there's only one point that concerns him, not all my edits should be reverted Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

1) It's not only me. Two other users have recently alerted you on your talk page about the impression you're giving of editing with a strong POV about this and related topics.

2) It's not just "one point", but rather the broad tenor of your edits that concerns me. As I said on the article talk page, the content you are seeking to add "contains many elements which appear to be geared toward altering the POV of the article". That would be fine if the status quo was somehow inconsistent with sources, and you were bringing it into line with them, but instead I'm seeing what appears to me to be a highly selective reading.

3) Not a huge deal, but I use they/them pronouns, not he/him.

Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

So you're going only focus on my last point? The POV used in the page. About "1" Ponyo reverted because I deleted the whole "history of Ayacucho" section, which then never complained about my other edit. About "2" most of my edits were literally corrections of the sources cited (As I said in my second point) or added more data information like quantity of military troops deployed and harmed in the infobox. Didn't pretend to change POV. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for me to debate you. It's a place to invite others to weigh in. Whether or not you "pretended" to change the POV of the article, it is evident that you did. The question for the community to decide is whether those changes are WP:DUE. Generalrelative (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If we are discussing the article title, multiple sources called it a massacre while the The New York Times plainly stated " were unarmed and, as stipulated in military protocols, posed no 'imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm,' to officers or anyone else when they were shot". So, the title seems pretty concise, unless you want to describe it as "Peruvian Army's killing of civilians in Ayacucho" (though not as concise because that has happened before) or something similar. The main story here is not that protesters tried to occupy an airport where helicopters were deployed to fire tear gas at them; the story is the army shot dozens of civilians. There is no question if this was justifiable; the shootings were not only morally reprehensible, but were also illegal under Peruvian law as specified by The New York Times. So, it can be understood why neutrality could be an issue in this situation. Regarding the events at the airport, we can add more information if they are properly sourced and I will take a look at the Spanish article myself to see what is applicable.--WMrapids (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the point that it was not a massacre. The context where they happened were directly violent protests, even if they started peacefully. Occupying an airport is far from being peaceful and it should be reported like it was in the Spanish Misplaced Pages. Here is reduced as a if it was common or something unimportant. Yes, the police also had a violent reaction but the POV in This Just blames the Army. In that case at least add the infobox of civil conflict since it reports the organizations that promoted the protests and the PNP, and the number of soldiers harmed, which, again, is ignored in the version 2800:4B0:441E:5FA:C51:750D:A4E2:1BEE (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing the Spanish article, the English article is much better. The Spanish article has no information about the investigations, the introduction does not mention anything about the use of force or any deaths, if anything, there are more neutrality issues with the Spanish article. The Spanish article oddly mentions a method of transporting protesters by vans, though this is only mentioned in a source in a quote that is mentioning a rumor. Also, no mention in the Spanish article that the protesters did not have firearms. Anyways, whatever was useful in the Spanish article has been placed.--WMrapids (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not surprising that some of the Spanish sources, if they're politically aligned with those who took power in Peru, would report on the official version of events and not seriously question its veracity. Such sources are not RS for this article, although they might be for other purposes. In contrast, The New York Times, as far as I'm aware, has no political alignment with either side in the dispute and is an independent reliable source.

There's a long history of horrendous human rights abuses by the Peruvian military, especially during the long counter-insurgency of the 1980s and 1990s and especially in Quechua-speaking regions like Ayacucho. The Ayacucho massacre is consistent with this history. NightHeron (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not just this article that has a "biased" point of view, the issue is that ALL or most of the articles dedicated to the subject do. To give an example, one of the users mentioned by Alejandro created an article titled "Fujimorist propaganda, which was labeled after a few days as violating various policies and guidelines. And if you don't, by reading all these articles in a row, you are creating a pro-insurgency and anti-government narrative (and I'm not a supporter of Boluarte, but clearly this stopped being peaceful protests a long time ago). Another example I could give is the article on Peruvian protests in 2022-2023, which until I added the IACHR source did not contain any mention of the violence of the protesters. Just compare that with what the Political Crisis in Bolivia article says, which in my opinion is one of the least biased that Misplaced Pages has and the difference in dates is not very long.

Also, another thing that I have noticed is that they try to link everything to Fujimorismo, which in the Peruvian context is exactly the same as linking anyone to Sendero Luminoso or MOVADEF; it is a political accusation. Since Fujimori fell, this political sector has always been marginal and they have never had a majority in Congress at any time (that is another insinuation in which the current articles lie), they have always had the judiciary against them. And at the population level it has had the same rejection as the left. If you want, soon we will talk more specifically about that. In other words, to say that power and the establishment are Fujimoristas is to understand nothing of the history of Peru (or to be too involved in left-wing propaganda).

This would be in summary what I would comment on the matter. And just compare this with for example the articles dedicated to Venezuela. It's not just a problem with this particular item. Armando AZ (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Armando AZ: Bold statement with assuming the motives and methods of people protesting (and of Misplaced Pages users). Also, thank you for the false equivalence with this: "they try to link everything to Fujimorismo, which in the Peruvian context is exactly the same as linking anyone to Sendero Luminoso or MOVADEF; it is a political accusation". If you were to look at the sources (or even the Constitution of Peru), you could see that the current economic and political systems of Peru were developed during the Fujimori government. Another statement you make: "Since Fujimori fell, this political sector has always been marginal and they have never had a majority in Congress at any time (that is another insinuation in which the current articles lie)"; the Associated Press states "Fuerza Popular (Fujimorists) captured a majority in congress. ... its legislators have earned a reputation as hardline obstructionists for blocking initiatives popular with Peruvians aimed at curbing the nation’s rampant corruption". So, should we believe you or the Associated Press?--WMrapids (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't believe me, believe the elections. Fuerza Popular only got 13% of the votes in the first round Armando AZ (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are very clever in ignoring the matter of judicial persecution against Alberto Fujimori, or the conclusions reached by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Here I leave the source of the first thing: https://elcomercio.pe/elecciones-2020/alberto-fujimori-las-cinco-sentencias-que-el-expresidente-recibio-noticia/

The implications that you are giving make no sense with the recent history of Peru. Only recently has broad sectors of society opposed Pedro Castillo, and Congress has always opposed all presidents, count PPK or Martín Vizcarra for example. Armando AZ (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Wanted to let you know that the user(s) pushing this have been banned due to using socks and pushing POV WP:Fringe info.--WMrapids (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the heads-up. Generalrelative (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Chinese imperialism

I refer to the Chinese imperialism article which redirected to Chinese expansionism until early this year. My main concerns is that it contains original research trying to concoct a notion of "Chinese imperialism" but several of the claims are either unsourced or does not match what the source says. Others seem to be taken from articles such as Debt-trap diplomacy and Belt and Road Initiative with all the opposing views taken out.

• The intro claims that Wolf warrior diplomacy and Chinese intelligence activity abroad are examples of Chinese imperialism, with no sourcing and no further mentions. These are foreign diplomatic issues and not inherently "imperialism", and neither Misplaced Pages articles mentions "imperialism" at all.
• It also cites the Uyghur genocide as an example of Chinese imperialism, yet according to the sources cited, they are opinion articles calling out the hypocrisy of critics of US imperialism who blindly defend Chinese human rights violations.
• The history section cites the Belt and Road Initiative as an example of "imperialism". Again the issue is heavily debated, and I added some opposing views from the corresponding article to balance it out.
• The history section also cites Territorial disputes in the South China Sea as an example of "imperialism", citing dubious sources such as the Communist Party of the Philippines, and a partisan US think tank which offers nothing concrete other than common US complaints about China.
• The cultural imperialism section cites Confucius Institutes as "imperialism", based on an opinion article that mentioned it once as a throwaway line.
• The political imperialism section cites Chinese censorship abroad as "imperialism", yet the first article talks nothing about imperialism, and the second article seems to cited the first but added the imperialism label with qualification.
• The section about Chinese military bases contains original research speculating about China having more bases, even though the corresponding article talks about China's difficulties in opening a second base. There is also a false comparison between Chinese foreign aid and US military bases, whereas the editorial by the Economist talks about recommended Western response and stated that Chinese bases need not to be seen as a threat. Again, none of the articles mentioned anything about "imperialism".

While I do think some sections can be salvaged and/or potentially merged with Chinese expansionism, such as the views section, the article as it currently stands is more like a coatrack of that one with many unverifiable claims of "Chinese imperialism" GeneralBay (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the article appears to be synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

There are massive WP:OR/WP:NPOV issues here. We don't get to claim that foreign policy actions and cultural exchange are "imperialism" just because a handful of partisan commentators have used the term. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be removed. The terms 'Chinese imperialism' are used a lot in South Korea. Chinese imperialism exists. Even if it's not imperialism in the classical sense, the terms that are actually used Mureungdowon (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I have already mentioned it might be too much on the territority part at its talk page, but for the rest:

• Replyed at its talkpage.
• Replyed at its talkpage.
• No disagreements on this.
• Now here comes the most confusing part for me, first, I don't know anything about that the United States accuses China of its being imperialism (and why it's problematic), please show me other sources or how. Second, I don't cite CPP's primary sources, instead what I've cited is from the Diplomat, as far as I know Misplaced Pages:UNDUE applys when there are opposing views from other Misplaced Pages:RS, please show me one.
• No disagreements on this and I have stated about this on its talkpage.
• I don't know why there's a question here, if it adds an incorrect label then IMO it's other medias' missions to show disagreements, but not from a Misplaced Pages user. Be amnesia.
• Replyed at its talkpage.

I certainly admit, de jure, that the article is quite a synthesis, yet again, my architecture reference is American imperialism, so I don't know what to do to make it not being OR/NPOV/synthesis (especially regarding that article has never been put into NPOV as much as this one), and I hope User:AndyTheGrump and User:Thebiguglyalien can explain a little more on this issue, regards, ときさき くるみ 23:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems that Chinese imperialism and American imperialism suffer from a lot of the same issues. They're essentially WP:POVFORKs of Foreign policy of China (which is woefully underdeveloped) and Foreign policy of the United States (which also suffers from some of these same issues). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

cc User:Rauisuchian. ときさき くるみ 23:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a big topic, so I can't write a full response right now, but I'd bring up a few major points. First, the article is about the concept that can be named "Chinese imperialism" (but could also be renamed something else) not about the literal term "Chinese imperialism" as it is an encyclopedia not dictionary. All of the topics currently in the article, tend to be discussed in the same vein in many of the same RS articles. So let's ignore the name temporarily and just look at the article subject as whole. How many news articles mention at the same time, at least 80% of the contents of the article -- the overseas espionage, the territorial expansionism, the censorship abroad, Uyghur genocide, etc. -- all at the same time in the same article. A huge portion do, probably the majority of RS articles that mentions China foreign interference, will at least mention a summarized sentence of most of the other topics. This can be seen by checking the sources already in the wiki article and googling or just watching for the next time Reuters/BBC/Guardian mentions China foreign interference. Do most RS's connect PRC's interference in other sovereign countries with its dictatorship, yes, almost all do even if they call it "assertive actions by China" and other editorial decisions of what to refer to it as. What does this mean for the article, it means we should focus less on checking and checking a specific literal term/text string and instead see what the cited RS articles are talking about. The second major point is the essay WP:NOTOR. It's not synthesis to bring up a definition or point in one source, and then elucidate details in another so long as they are separate statements cited properly. Outside of international relations/politics/geopolitics... many many articles are challenged and weakened by talk page editors who say, every single source must use the exact same verbiage as the title to talk about the concept. That would only apply in the case of WP:WORDISSUBJECT which is not the matter of concern here. A final point for now, let's say we were to be pedantic about terminology over content -- if so, the dictionary definition of imperialism is "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force" and many of the supposedly "iffy" inclusions in this article easily fall under that. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Your reasoning is bizarre. "Imperialism" is a contentious word and due care must be given when used per MOS:WTW. An assertive foreign policy does not necessarily equal to imperialism - spying, censorship, territorial disputes and such were done by numerous countries throughout history, and that doesn't make all of them imperial powers. This is a violation WP:NOR, a major WP policy, period. In contrast you're using an essay that has not been vetted by the WP community.--GeneralBay (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Very major WP:SYNTH & WP:OR issues. I checked all the citations. A large majority of the sources that are used to support the "Chinese imperialism" claim, never actually use that word (or colonial, colonization, or related words). Of the sources that do use either those terms, a large majority are opinion pieces. Article could be deleted without a merge; many of these sources don't use the term expansion(ism/ist) either, and there are too many opinion pieces, which shouldn't be used on such a topic. DFlhb (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sex verification in sports

The article in my opinion has severe NPOV issues. The majority of content added in recent years seems to have been added by student editors doing a Wiki Education assigment. I have outlined my concerns in a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks, 86.50.118.50 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You are supposed to propose your edits in order to successfully pursue content dispute. Orientls (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur that the article in its current form has large amounts of bias and is therefore not an accurate overview of the subject. Parts are grammatically unwieldy which overall detracts from the article's readability. Unfortunately, I have a dispute of my own on similar grounds for a related subject. This seems to be a common theme. As such, I am not able to propose corrections to the article at this time, but I would be happy to review proposed edits that will bring the article to a more neutral point. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Kansas SB 180 - Women's Bill of Rights

Please see the talk page here, where I dissect the current article and propose a nonbiased restructuring that can more easily be expanded upon. PhenomenonDawn (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC in Talk:October Surprise conspiracy theory

Please see: Talk:October Surprise conspiracy theory#RfC about the article title. -Location (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add "controversial" to the lead-in sentence

I've tried a few edits in the last week on The 1619 Project. If you are unaware of it, the article as is does a pretty good job showing why it is surrounded in controversy. I recommend reading through the article first to see all the things going on there.

Being that it is controversial, wanting to give drive-by readers the service of knowing that quickly, and in keeping with a very common convention on WP, I endeavored to add that to the first sentence. At the moment, the first sentence reads: The 1619 Project is a long-form journalism endeavor developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones,...

I first tried The 1619 Project is a widely criticized ... with an accompanying talk explainer diff where I discuss reasons and suggest other versions would be reasonable to me. This was was reverted . The discussion spun off somewhere else pretty quick, but the feedback I did get was That tilts the article in a nonneutral way. The second paragraph explains the context, and that is plenty early in the article. After a few days I decided to try the softer version The 1619 Project is a controversial... . Also reverted with the previous criticism repeated verbatim (and also used to justify a revert of two other unrelated edits).

I want to put the word "controversial" in the first sentence. I also think "widely criticized" or similar applies. Based on "historical revisionism" likened to pseudoscience in WP:Fringesubjects it would be due weight to say so prominently. There's other edits I've made that were also reverted and I've made talk messages about it. If that is interesting please discuss on the talk page instead. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Just looks like you're attempting unsourced POV-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Please consider this is the lede, not the body. Numerous sources in the body heavily criticize the project and actions taken regarding the project. The lede summarizes the body. As such, no I'm not "sourcing" it because that's not how ledes work. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The lede already notes there is some criticism and controversy. You wanting the opening line to say it IS controversial as a literal statement of fact is a no-go. Zaathras (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Why? I want it a certain way, yes, but that's not my reasoning given here and on the talk page. Don't we all want pages a certain way? 142.115.142.4 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

And it's not some criticism. Just read the article. There's almost only criticism for it's factual accuracy and historical analysis, questions surrounding NYT's journalistic procedure in making and promoting it (from their own staff even), and stark political reactions that have lawmakers addressing it explicitly in new laws to counteract the push from other lawmakers trying to put it in schools.

It IS controversial, literal statement of fact. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, "controversial" is specifically mentioned as an example of a contentious label. We say what the controversy is without using the word "controversy". On a quick read through, I think the article does. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me this. It definitely requires me to re-evaluate. That page does say are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. So it's not a hard-no rule, but does define well when it should be used. 1. Widely used by RS, and 2. Use in-text attribution. Does that mean it would still work if several sources calling it controversial were cited? Even in the lede? (aside, it's a bit of an unfortunate policy, since left leaning media has a habit of calling lots of things controversial, when really they mean its just not a left leaning thing, not that there's any real controversy over it. Maybe that's why it's considered a value-laden label.) 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe that you're getting Historical negationism (which is where the link at WP:Fringesubjects goes) and Historical revisionism (which is what the 1619 project has been argued to be by commentators) confused. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No, not confused. I apparently misread it. I think the point being made on the page still applies if it really did say revisionism instead of negationism. That is to say, I don't see this as affecting my cite of that policy to support my edit preference. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

In my experience the term "historical revisionism" is used quite often to refer to what is actually historical negationism. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This article seems to portray the subject in a pretty fair, though awkward, way to me. Don't you think that you are overthinking how important it would be to put the "controversial" word in the first paragraph of the lead? I know that sometimes we can underestimate how smart Misplaced Pages's readers are (e.g. "they only read the lead", "they only read the summary on google", "they never scroll down", etc.), but editing Misplaced Pages with this mentality is unevitably bad for the website and our mental health. And most of the times we are wrong, most readers are pretty smart. 🔥 22spears 🔥 05:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I've come to accept your point here. It's not really that important in this case, and MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, shown to me by Muboshgu above, makes it clear that such language needs a stronger than typical reason when used. The article, overall, does show clearly the controversy. But yes, awkwardly written. I see this disjointed writing on the most controversial topics, which sucks because those need the best clarity. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

These labels are pointless. Who criticised it? What did they criticise? What was the response? This is the kind of stuff that can't be encapsulated in an empty cliché like "controversial". The lead already covers all of it with precision, and the body provides comprehensive details for those who care. The label adds nothing, but it would increase readers' doubts about our neutrality and credibility, leading them to downplay all the criticism of 1619 rather than considering both sides thoughtfully. DFlhb (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely right, the guideline referenced above says, “Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies.” There’s no reason to make an exception here AFAIK. The solution is to try and encapsulate why it’s controversial into a short and concise statement that actually informs rather than states an opinion (held widely or not); that would be okay in the lead, if it can be done. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, criticism is not controversy. Sometimes "controversy" is used to denote POV, e.g. we have a whole page called Hunter Biden laptop controversy that one day will be moved to Hunter Biden laptop hoax, the only controversy being its nightly coverage on Fox News TV long after it was debunked. Example #2 we have a page List of controversies involving The New York Times, which gets new additions, sometimes daily, of whatever's in the trough on the aggrieved Republican mass media. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that WP:Talk page guidelines “apply not only to article discussion pages but everywhere editors interact, such as deletion discussions and noticeboards.”. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Pithily linking a behavioral guideline to an experienced editor is akin to templating a regular. This is unnecessarily antagonistic in a discussion such as this. Be better. Zaathras (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

We are to write articles in a neutral, dispassionate, and impartial tone. The first sentence specifically should be free of any type of subjective commentary, so it is inappropriate to force "controversy" in the lede. Later in the lede it can be described as controversial but should be in context, why it is controversial. --Masem (t) 13:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Masem, what's your thinking on the question that often arises: Do we need (multiple) sources that specifically state that there is controversy, or can we infer it as OR from the narratives in the sources? SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

We need sources to say it is a controversy. What often is the case is that we have sources that are critical of some group, but just because there is large-scale criticism doesn't make it controversial. Masem (t) 17:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Philippines and the Spratly Islands

The lead on Philippines and the Spratly Islands currently reads Philippines and the Spratly Islands – this article discusses the policies, activities and history of the Republic of the Philippines in the Spratly Islands from the Philippine perspective. Non-Philippine viewpoints regarding Philippine occupation of several islands are currently not included in this article., which set off my NPOV alarm, but I don't know enough about the subject to evaluate what's going on, so would appreciate further input. Is this a fork of Spratly Islands dispute or just an inappropriately worded lead? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow. This is a classic WP:POVFORK. I'm actually shocked that this article has survived for fifteen years. There was an AFD 11 years ago, here. I'm not sure what is written here that couldn't be written in the main Spratly Islands article. --Jayron32 14:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if that would all fit on Spratly Islands, but certainly the article in its current form is very poor. CMD (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Oregon Forest Resources Institute

The Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) article describes it incorrectly at the top of the article as a "forestry trade association" and "de facto lobbying organization.” The Oregon Forest Resources Institute is neither. It’s a state agency that supports Oregon’s forest products industry through forest education programs for the public, K-12 teachers and students, and forest landowners. This article appears to be written as an attack on OFRI from detractors of the Institute. I represent OFRI and therefore have a conflict of interest, but I believe the most recent editors of the page have a conflict of interest as well and have been citing selective details from several-years-old media coverage of the agency to paint it in a negative light. The article is not written from a neutral point of view at all. Take a look at the talk for more details about our concerns with the way this article about our organization is written. == Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. @Jonesey95 @Silikonz @Tedder @Cyrius @WikiDan61 Jane at OFRI (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

If the issue is citing selective details from several-years-old media coverage of the agency it would be helpful if you posted more recent coverage which you feel better reflects contemporary activities, I will note though that having searched for sources the vast majority of the coverage of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute appears to be negative so the NPOV is going to be on the negative side. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't get covered by the media very often and the vast majority of recent coverage relates to an audit we underwent and our agency's response to it. I've cited this article, which is our most recent media coverage, a couple times on the OFRI Talk page but it has yet to be cited. I've also sought to correct the record about a bill in the Oregon Legislature that would have cut our funding that ultimately died. The Misplaced Pages article does not state that the bill died. Lastly, our website appears a couple of times in the citations but neither of the links work. When I've asked for those links to be updated with functioning links, I'm told to provide third-party sources. All I'm trying to do is fix broken links. Jane at OFRI (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Here's an article that provides some missing context to the lobbying section with regards to the bill that passed the Oregon House but died in the Oregon Senate:

"The controversy also spurred the introduction of a bill that would have eliminated OFRI, but it was later amended to cutting the agency’s budget by two-thirds.

The proposal, House Bill 2357, passed the House, 32-27, but died in the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee when the legislature adjourned..." Jane at OFRI (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The Kerala Story issue

Upcoming film The Kerala Story has neutrality issues. Recently, it was cleanup by User:The Doom Patrol, mostly for WP:VOICE. For now, MOS:FILM structure is not followed and has undue weight on controversy. The film's story is based an actual incident where four women from Kerala joined ISIS. There have been 60-70 cases from Kerala. But as per a character from the teaser, about 32,000 have been recruited within the film's universe. That stirred political controversy. Numerical accuracy should be discussed, "specifically" about the figure "32,000" with reliable sources and correct attributions, without generalizing the whole film. But certain editors took advantage on the discrepancy to make blanket statements and to label the film and filmmakers with political allegations without attribution and with undue weight, and has tone issues. Please review the article sources for NPOV issue in presentation. 137.97.114.182 (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

NPOV issues for John Anthony Castro

The page was initially created using an excessive number of primary sources, and I have already requested a cleanup on the BLP Noticeboard. However, the NPOV issue persists, as the editor Morbidthoughts focused on removing primary sources but also requested a neutrality check. Upon revisiting the page, I found that:

The article predominantly relies on primary sources for presenting information in Wikivoice. The issues related to living persons, and WP:NPOV remain unresolved. Many claims appear overstated or biased.

In more detail:

The lead section omits the subject's occupation as a politician, yet includes the phrase "tax consultant who has unsuccessfully run for several political offices," which can be confusing. Is the subject a non-notable tax consultant, a politician, or both? What is their notability? Is it for filing a lawsuit against Trump? It is evident that simply running a few obscure political campaigns with no media coverage other than primary sources does not warrant a dedicated page. The early life and education section relies on primary sources, with other contentious information selectively retrieved. The subject's career mostly comprises controversial information that demands further verification, seemingly violating BLP guidelines. The inclusion of an electoral history that does not enhance Misplaced Pages's value is questionable. It is clear that this was not a significant political campaign, and it is unclear why any Misplaced Pages editor would create these tables.

Other issues: 1) Ref-bombing with a lot of primary sources. 2) Extensive use of "claims" and "not fully verified information" in biography that led to a very poorly written article. 3) Most of the sources I examined, many sources are self-published, redundant, promotional, or repeating the same news (redundant). Also, extreme overuse of the primary sources that lead to specific opinions and original research (at best). 4) The page appeared shortly after the person became known in the media for filing the lawsuit against the former U.S. President Donald Trump 5) The article represents "original research" at best. MartinPict (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

All of the preceding, vague and un-diffed assertions appear to be completely incorrect. Since there are no diffs I won't bother with a point-by-point rebuttal as it's only possible to rebut evidence, not the absence of evidence.
Just to clarify, and so that does not sound unduly harsh, I do appreciate MartinPict bringing this to our attention and am not trying to castigate them for the form of this OP. At the point of their first edit to this article, 90% (by byte-size) of their lifetime Talk page edits were to the Talk page of this single article so, in a spirit of WP:NOBITING, I'll definitely keep an open mind in case they are able to provide diffs in a future comment. Chetsford (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Coronation of Charles III and Camilla has an RFC

Coronation of Charles III and Camilla has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

An RfC about a tag with a question posed in the negative (which has already seemingly confused respondents). A new low. Bon courage (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution