Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:42, 27 July 2020

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

McKenzie method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all, I hesitate to jump into what is clearly a heated debate, but I want to offer some sources that I believe speak to the viewpoints expressed here. Just in case it could be of help, here are the URL's for some articles from medical journal which speak to the efficacy of the McKenzie Method. Some of these may have been used in the article already up but some of them have not been. I hope this can add value and shed light on how the article can be made more robust. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29602304/ , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539720/ , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4596425/ , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28701365/ , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421491/ , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16641766/ . In addition, there is also this review which looks at a few different studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6642883/ . Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's a rather dismissive answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I always seem to get involved in this article, and I've tried this time to stay out of it. Again without success, so here I am damnit. Look, this war is so confused compared to 95% of other conflicts that it almost defies description. It literally took me a decade to decide that this was not in fact a British victory. Why? Because America asked for terms. The terms proposed were so grievous that the American government balked and kept fighting. So what changed my mind? The letter from Wellington, and the Prime Minister's instructions to the negotiators at Ghent. The American government at the time was and would continue to be on the verge of a breakup of the country. This would continue until the end of the American Civil War. So, America was more than ready to end the conflict. So what does this have to do with an NPOV charge? This, any history article should state the facts, NOT THE OPINIONS, of the events. The outcome was decided by the participants of the war, NOT A HISTORIAN'S OPINION. The article should recite the events faithfully then give the results of the war, in this case, the Treaty of Ghent. The existing well-reviewed documentation proves this beyond contestation. There has, and I am guessing always will be, those that want to put a victory by one side or another to the outcome of this war. This article has been under non-stop assault for the better part of 20 years. This has to stop and editors that are not willing to stop should have a topic ban imposed. I fail to see how the view of a historian changes one elemental fact in the history of the conflict. I see it as nothing less than another of the endless attempts to "spin" the article in a specific manner. The page should be thoroughly reviewed, shortened, and kept to the known facts.Tirronan (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby is mistaken when he says the article stated "British insults to American honor, etc. I have already flagged the article NPOV for this. " It was defeating the British invasions in 1814-1815 (New York, Baltimore, New Orleans) that did that. Historians agree that restoring US honor was a major cause & major result of the war for USA. I have supported that at length at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:War_of_1812&diff=prev&oldid=964569672 Rjensen (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The topic of this thread -- "War of 1812" -- is about naming, the topic of a different thread -- "War of 1812 - Results in Infobox" -- is about who won. I will try to get back to the topic of this thread. Elinruby says there is a policy about this, but doesn't say where. I assumed it would be somewhere in WP:MOS, but so far I've found only a 2008 discussion and a 2019 failed proposal and a 2019 discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: thank you for coming back to this. I don't have time to look at your links this second, but I am interested and will do so. I found the policy, which is Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification. This deals with naming conventions for articles, but the broad principle is the same. If the term "Indian" is offensive, even if only to some people, why use it? We do have a growing consensus on the page (I think) that where possible we should say Shawnee, Six Nations, Muscogee and so on, but when there are multiple indigenous nations on both sides of the conflict, we do need a collective noun, and the usual and accepted terms within Canada and the US (First Nations, Native Americans) are specific to those countries and the article deals with history from before there was a border. My concern is merely that if I am going to replace "Indian" I don't want to replace it with something equally offensive. I would like some documentation of the contention that "native" and "tribe" are offensive to somebody, but if that is correct, we are left with "Indigenous". Elinruby (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The guideline that you point to seems relevant, good catch, but there's another relevant guideline: MOS:IDENTITY. The regular talkers on the Manual of Style talk pages could have other ideas. There's also a short February 2020 query at American Indians - manual of style. And, although I myself mistrust "WikiProjects", your attitude may differ so you might want to join WP:Indigenous. My own interest is weak, I'm just pointing elsewhere because I think there might be better places than WP:NPOVN for discussing this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Your links are helpful, thank you. Elinruby (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

SETA or Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research

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

Ok, I think you can close this discussion, as it is not included in an article in dispute for the moment. I just thought to have a general ruling would be good.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812 - Results in Infobox

I'd like an expert opinion on this one please! The results of the war of 1812 are debated. At the moment, the war of 1812 article says there are two opinions, in the memory and historiography section. The majority view (more popular in the US) is that the war of 1812 was a stalemate/draw. The minority view (more popular in Canada) is that the war was a victory for Britain/Canada. Both these views are mentioned in the article, and both views are supported by mainstream historians. However, At the moment, only the majority view is listed in the results box. Is this against NPOV policy? Should both views be listed in the infobox (or something like "result disputed"?) the argument being that the one view sums up the views of the article incorrectly? Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

My view is that it does not say that. It clearly states that In recent decades, the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Then it talks about the minority view, which is that Some scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. I am fine with this, but the infobox should reflect the consensus among historians and the de facto result of military stalemate (draw, inconclusive or other similar wording). Deathlibertarian base their argument on the flawed view that there is a national bias, but this request for comments clearly established there is not a national bias.

Deathlibertarian have also showed a clean misunderstanding of WP:Fringe, for example here. Per Calidum (that is the consensus of historians. It should be noted that the infobox had described the outcome as a draw (or a synonym) for many years until it was changed recently) and The Four Deuces (The info-box should say the outcome of the war was a draw because that is the consensus of historians), we should follow the consensus of historians that it was a draw (or similar wording). Per Rjensen, The Canadian-victory viewpoint was widespread decades ago but is no longer found in Canadian scholarly articles & books or university textbooks. It may still be taught at the high school level in Canada, but I think it's now "fringe" in mainstream Canadian reliable sources in 21st century. Old notions become fringe when the RS drop them.

Deathlibertarian propose that we link Memory and historiography of the War of 1812 but that it is not really helpful because (1) per Shakescene, Infoboxes are intended to give a short overview at a glance, which is hardly achieved by directing readers to #Memory and Historiography; and (2) it gives the false impression or imply that there is such a big dispute among experts, that there is not a consensus at all when that is not true. In other words, Deathlibrarian wants us to give equal weight to the minority view (fringe, per Rjensen and others) when that is undue and unwarranted as it does not express the consensus of the majority of historians (mainstream, per Calidum, The Four Deuces and others); and they are accusing me of pushing a view when I could not care less about it and I am merely trying to follow the consensus among historians. They are confusing the popular views (which see the Britain/Canada win viewpoint more widespread) with that of historians, whose majority consensus is that it was a draw or stalemate, which is exactly what de facto happened with the Treaty of Ghent and the status quo ante bellum. For what is worth it, this is my proposal for the infobox.--Davide King (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(1), the views that Canada won, or the US had a draw IS popular within their respective countries. Davide King is bringing up a separate discussion about *historian's* views, not the popular views within countries (2) Davide King is conflating a majority view, with a consensus. The article states there are two different views, a majority view, and a minority view. They are both mainstream views, the majority US/draw view does not override the minority Canada won view. (3) The view that Canada won is fringe theory, is the view of Davide King and a few wikepedia editors who support the opposing view that the US won. NO RS supports that... The article certainly doesn't say it, and a number of respected, mainstream Historians who support the view that Canada won the war of 1812 I am sure would be shocked to hear they are being called Fringe theorists (4) - The idea of linking to the memory and historiography section, was not proposed by me, but in the case of where there is confusion about what is in the infobox, like in this instance, it is the recommended thing to do in this instance, and it states this in the template guidelines for the results section, for military history. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, you conflate popular views and the historians view. I never doubted or claimed that the view Britain/Canada won is popular within their respective countries; what I am saying is that we should follow the views of the historians, which even you admitted the majority view is that it was a draw; but you want to push the minority view as well and make the infobox looks like there is big issue and debate or no conesnsus among historians by claiming there is a national bias. The Korean War is a relevant example as both sides claim victory and are popular within their respective countries, so what is the difference? Yet for the Korean War we follow the historians and de facto view that it was a military stalemate, which is exactly what happened here too; and this is in spite of the popular, not historian, claim that Britain/Canada won. Finally, the parameter for the infobox also suggests Inconclusive which is exactly the same thing and what we should say. The article is currently a mess, so any reference to how it currently is does not mean much; until 30 June 2020, it still included a national bias section despite you being the only one to support in a request for comments. Either way, this back and forth diatribe is useless unless uninvolved users step in, so let us stop and wait for them, shall we?--Davide King (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we agree that the majority of historians view the war was a stalemate, and the minority view (lesser number of historians) believe Canada won. The difference is, I see that both viewpoints should be represented in the results box, but you see that only the majority one should be. The Korean war analogy is not the same. The viewpoint that the war of 1812 was a stalemate is one view, the view that Canada won is the other. Simply putting the fact it was a stalemate in, just matches the popular US view, and ignores he Canada view. I agree, I am happy to wait for a third party to address the issue. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, Simply putting the fact it was a stalemate in, just matches the popular US view, and ignores he Canada view implies there is a national bias when there was consensus not to support that. I think the Korean War example suffices because both countries think they won.--Davide King (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian is correct in saying that a mainstream view of the war is being ignored by editors who confuse minority opinions with fringe theories, on a par with the reading of entrails and voodoo. I am personally not even convinced that Canada didn't legit win the war. It not only repelled an invasion, it invaded the invaders and burned their capital city. But I am content to indulge the American myth that something or other; I actually am not too emotionally invested in the idea that Canada kicked butt, but this war was definitely part of how Canada came to be. And editors claim that this doesn't warrant a mention? That is where we are right now. The article needs major revisions and imho it really doesn't matter much what the infobox says until that happens, because I suspect this will need to be done again ;) Elinruby (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe it is you and Deathlibrarian who do not understand WP:Fringe (an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field)? And you think or see fringe as a pejorative that represents pseudoscientific and wholly unreasonable views when it is also used to mean reasoned theories presented in academic papers (which I believe this is the case). You write but this war was definitely part of how Canada came to be. And editors claim that this doesn't warrant a mention? That is not my point or issue, which is the infobox. The infobox should say Military stalemate because that is what it was and is the consensus among historians. Popular views that see Canadians knowing they won , Americans somehow think they won, and the Indians definitely know they lost are already in the main body and I do not really have an issue with that. Here, you write you like two infobox proposals which use Military stalemate, so what are you actually disputing?--Davide King (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Pretty sure that if Canada had won they would still be apologising. Just sayin'. Guy (help!) 18:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  That was just the laugh I needed today... Schazjmd (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Kidd, Kenneth. "The War of 1812, from A to Z". Toronto Star. It's become axiomatic among historians that Canadians know they won the War of 1812, Americans somehow think they won, and the Indians — who'd continue to cede land to American expansion — definitely know they lost, despite fighting alongside British regulars and Canadian militia..--Moxy 🍁 19:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not dispute that the popular views among Canadians, Americans and the Indians is that they know they won, somehow think they won and definitely know they lost, respectively. To me, that is what is saying; it is not about the majority historians views that it was a draw/military stalemate.--Davide King (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

welp, when you go look at the documentation for info box military conflict it says the entry should be accurate, and that it is better to leave it blank than argue about who won by how much. Considering that editors have been arguing on the page for over a decade and a journal article has been written about their intransigence, perhaps they should take this to heart. Meanwhile, it simply isn’t accurate to say that nobody lost any territory. Tecumseh lost, and Spain lost. It’s more complicated than that, but everything always is, and that is enough. Elinruby (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the problems in Misplaced Pages, is that when there is a conflict between expert opinion and a minority popular opinion with passionate believers, that the same points get argued over and over again. Climate change, intelligent design and fascism=socialism are great examples. The skeptics continue to argue that there is a debate among experts by either misreading sources or finding actual experts who do challenge the consensus. It takes a lot less time to Google search for a soundbite and post it than it does to read the source, interpret it and determine its relative acceptance in the literature. But it's important to do that, because having misleading articles about controversial topics hurts the overall credibility of the project. TFD (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages labeling royalty of imaginary states with titles: micronations

This is kind of related to the recent discussion "Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles: NPOV, BLP, NOR and other policy problems", roughly the same issues are present.

Consider Joan Bates, Paddy Roy Bates or Michael Bates (Sealand); all royalty of an imaginary nation/state within British territory - Principality of Sealand. They all have titles like "Prince" or "Princess" in their infoboxes - that's absurd.

A wider issue is that articles like Micronation or List of micronations use Misplaced Pages to try to give legitimacy to imaginary nations.

And the use of the word "micronation" on articles for "micronations" (e.g., Liberland) is itself very suspect: I ran a Google Scholar search for micronation and there does not seem to be any good results. The present results do not seem to be scholarly, and the most cited paper is cited only 3 times; except for the top result, which uses "micro-nation" and a completely different meaning than used on Misplaced Pages - applying the term to Liechtenstein. This suggests the neologism "micronation" is powered by cheap press, which may have just picked it up from Misplaced Pages anyway. Notrium (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Certain micronations have a long history, and there leaders are commonly referred to by their titles, but the media and in interviews, magazines. It's the norm to refer to them by that title. Probably the best known case of this is Prince Leonard Casely (of the Hutt River Province) a factiva search, or a google search, you will find the majority of article refer to him as Prince. Even local govt beauracrats will refer to him as that.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Notrium, "styles himself as" would be fine, but using the title in Wiki-voice would be absurd. Guy (help!) 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: so you agree the infobox person parameter "honorific_suffix = Prince of Sealand" should be removed, as it implies that the title is recognized? Notrium (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Notrium, fuck yeah. Guy (help!) 18:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. No "Prince of Sealand" needs a title in wiki-voice. "Sealand" is a retired UK military fort. Someone cannot just claim unused military land as their own land. If we recognise that nonsense where do we stop? "I hereby declare this NPOV/N article to be mine, and I am hereby the king. I require thee, my loyal subjects, to affix my great name to the head of this page, and affix "Prince of NPOV" to my userpage at once." ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Murder of Rina Shnerb

At Murder of Rina Shnerb several users have said that including material on the attack occurring in a spring seized by Israeli settlers is "justifying the murder" and "POV" and "UNDUE". The material is based on this Haaretz feature that discusses the killing of Shnerb within the context of the takeover of Palestinian springs at length and this NYT source that likewise discusses the springs being frequent hot points due to settler takeovers of the springs. It has been argued that these are "op-eds" (I think that is pretty clearly untrue). The edit in question has been this wholesale removal which has been removed without comment a couple of times before the above arguments were offered. Is it undue weight to include material cited to this Haaretz feature and this NYT news article or are these actually "two partisan op-ed" that demonstrate no weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nableezy (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed this (above not signed, @Nableezy:), not been involved in it up until now. There seems no reason why this material should not go in, is it necessary to wait for the outcome here before doing that?Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Of course it's NPOV and UNDUE, firstly, you are relying primarily on one opinion, that of Amira Hass. Then, the proposed background section is not a background but an existing article. We have "see also" for a reason. If you want to include one or two sentences, that would be one thing, but including what Nishidani currently put in is indeed POV and UNDUE. Sir Joseph 20:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Amira Hass is not the author of either of the sources listed here. Are you even clicking the links to read the articles? Neither of those are opinion pieces, neither of them are written by Hass. nableezy - 20:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Most of the sources that dealt with the murder didn't include such background so its clearly WP:UNDUE --Shrike (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain what in WP:UNDUE says anything close to that. nableezy - 22:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and textbook WP:SYNTH. That's interjecting unnecessary political opinions into this article. I can see why other editors would think that's an attempt to justify the murder. This is a complex political issue, we don't need Wiki-voice putting political opinions and making its own political analysis on the causes for the murder. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Joseph Mercola

I would like to raise a concern about the label American “charlatan" on Dr. Mercola's Misplaced Pages page.

The reference used to support this claim is the Chicago Magazine article. The article used the word “charlatan” as a speculation of the writer, and not as a fact. Here is the direct quote.

"Warrior or quack, straight shooter or charlatan, the question is the same: How has a site built on ideas so contrary to mainstream science—so radical that even some staunch alternative health advocates are uncomfortable with some of his positions—become so popular?"

I believe this is a violation of Misplaced Pages's two core policies:

• WP:NPOV – Neutral point of view. The word “charlatan” is a derogatory term that signifies bias against Dr. Mercola. • WP:V – Verifiability. The reference that made use of the word “charlatan” as a matter of fact, and not opinion, is not factual.

I've brought this up in the Talk page, but editors have denied my request.

As a Misplaced Pages reader and user myself, I am aware that this site aims to disseminate information, and I am open to accepting criticisms as long as they are appropriately backed by reliable factual sources. But this seems like a direct attack on Dr. Mercola to unfairly taint his image in the public’s eye.

What I would propose is to strike out the label from the first sentence of the bio, and instead directly use the quote from Chicago Mag, so Wiki readers can see that it is a speculation/opinion, and not a fact.--Lein23 (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think People accused of crime applies: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." Apparently he has received warning letters from the FDA, but there is no information that he has been convicted of fraud. TFD (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the writer of the Chicago Mag article, which was used as the source, isn't even claiming the charlatan label as his own opinion, but is stating it as one of several possibilities - none of which even he has established any certainty.--Lein23 (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales called all such people "lunatic charlatans", see WP:QUACKS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Lein23, what's non-neutral about describing America's best known quack as a quack? Guy (help!) 23:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree, there is no violation of WP:NPOV to state that Mercola is a quack. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales made no specific reference to Dr. Mercola when he said that statement, but instead was referring to his response to the Change.org petition. No doctors were named in that petition.

The main issue here would be the use of the label "charlatan" as it is taken from a reference that used the word as a matter of opinion, and not a fact.

If the Chicago Mag article will be used as a reference for the charlatan tag, then it should be posted in its entirety, rather than cherry pick a word the author used. That would count as information suppression, which is another violation of Misplaced Pages policies.--Lein23 (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

From the same article: Steven Salzberg, a prominent biologist, professor, and researcher at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, calls Mercola “the 21st-century equivalent of a snake-oil salesman.” Which is synonymous with "charlatan". Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The University of Alberta magazine Folio calls him a "wellness quack". An Irish Times article on quackery, snake oil salesmen and charlatans uses Mercola and Gwyneth Paltro as the marquee examples. The LA Times uses him as an example in the article titled "Reporting on quacks and pseudoscience: The problem for journalists". Gawker (remember them?) called him "Quack doctor Joseph Mercola". The Natonal Review, a fairly serious source, says that mentions "fearmongering quacks (such as Joseph Mercola, who has repeatedly been disciplined by the FDA)". The only substantive question I am seeing here is whether the lede should call him a quack or charlatan. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Could the lead be changed to include both Quack and Charlatan? Both fit the subject of the article, and are WP:RS. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It was not Folio that called him a wellness quack, but a writer of a commentary piece they published, which therefore is not a reliable source. Gawker is considered generally unreliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, while there is no consensus for the reliability of the National Review. Ironically Gawker went bankrupt because of defamation judgmentss against it. Not a good example to follow. We've got to stop typing in "mercola" "charlatan" into a google search and list whatever comes up. Articles are supposed to summarize the information about someone, not whatever we think is important and can source. As I mentioned above, we cannot accuse living persons of criminal activity unless they have been convicted by a court. TFD (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironically Gawker went bankrupt because of defamation judgmentss against it.

No, it didn't. Bollea v. Gawker involved "invasion of privacy, infringement of personality rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress", not defamation -- the sex tape was real, after all -- and Gawker could have appealed the $140 million judgment but couldn't afford the $50 million appeal bond to do so. Ironically, it's bad for someone suggest a source uses misinformation based on misinformation about the source. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Mercola is, by a wide variety of sources, a quack. He's gotten warning letters from the FDA, so it's essentially official. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @TFD, the policy you cited WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to individuals who are public figures. Does Dr. Mercola meet criteria for being a public figure? If so, then WP:PUBLICFIGURE clarifies, “If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.” There are multiple sources documenting these allegations, so I think it’s fair to include that he has been accused of being a charlatan or quack, if he is indeed a public figure. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Master architect, master chef, master navigator, etc.

Except in cases of certifications or master-apprentice-type guilds, is it ever okay to start an article with was a master "? I would say no, based on WP:Peacock and article precedents? ɱ (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If a notable majority of reliable sources say someone is a "master chef" or some such, then I think it can be okay, though I would prefer to use "known as a master chef" or the like. --A D Monroe III 00:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Are there precedents you can find that support it? ɱ (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked into precedents, beyond vaguely recalling a few "known as the father of X", etc. I don't see listing specific precedents as significant, since we're proposing a change to be followed from here on, right? --A D Monroe III 19:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally to be avoided, but remembering that in some areas, and especially in the past under the guild system, the term was not vague peacockery, but a very specific and important status, for which you had to pass exams etc. But I still wouldn't use it in the first sentence. At least in England, some 19th-century & maybe later census returns record people as eg "Master docker", which I expect was very different from being a "docker". Seamen still have master certificates etc, which are important. See Master mariner, Master seaman, Ship's captain (aka Master), Shipping master and so on. There are also a number of specific roles called "Master of...", notably the Master of the Rolls. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  See also Master builder. BD2412 T 02:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I know, that's why I started with "Except in cases of certifications or master-apprentice-type guilds". So outside of that it should be avoided?" ɱ (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally, yes. But Master builder or mason would be one exception, up to 1800 perhaps. It tended to be what they called architects before they had the word. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The case in question is Christopher Columbus, where "master navigator" seems to have been what they called some people at the time (piloto mayor). Columbus was not one of these figures. I don't believe, based on this discussion so far, that he should be given that peacock term when none of the articles on the most notable architects and other explorers use such wording. ɱ (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Amerigo Vespucci is as notable an explorer who did hold the title, yet he even hasn't had a mention of it anywhere in the article, nonetheless the lede. ɱ (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's not an actual rank or role (or, if it is, but the person didn't hold it...!), it seems like modern peacockery, and I would avoid it, unless it's so commonly used in RS that it's due to say something like "known as a master x", as A D Monroe III suggests. -sche (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Depends on historical status I'd say. Back in the mists of time, being a master craftsman was a thing. Now anyone can claim it. Guy (help!) 12:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Scrubbing at Kamala Harris

There has been a report by The Intercept that there was scrubbing at Kamala Harris. This issue was discussed in the section it got noticed. I've started a discussion on what editors believe is the best option moving forward to resolve the issues, namely being revert to last good version and readd in updates, or stay at the latest version and vet ~500-600 edits and undo/readd options as necessary. Input from editors is appreciated at Moving forward with NPOV issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, by "scrubbing" they appear to refer to minor tweaks to legitimately questionable material. The Intercept are immensely progressive, and Kamala really isn't their kind of person. Guy (help!) 23:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, The Intercept probably has a bias, yeah. But I'm not relying on news coverage to call it scrubbing (the media never seems to understand how Misplaced Pages works anyway), just that they appear to have caught it before any of us did. I took a look at diff comparisons across chunks of their edits (harder to compare overall diff, due to structural changes). There was indeed lots of blanking of controversial content, and various tweaks of eg "Harris was criticised for her view in ___" changed to "Harris was reported to be ___". The article in its current form isn't neutral. I don't think the editor in question was a bad faith editor, or paid, but I do think they lack understanding of NPOV, and amongst their various good structural changes they have done some blanking and alterations to fit their admitted political views. On a good note, they did also remove some poorly sourced content (although, hard to say better sources didn't exist for that, since nobody else had the chance to try).

Some across the chunks Drmies reverted (Special:Diff/956103125/956103478, Special:Diff/956103478/956103913), in which removal of sentences like "Harris also accrued negative publicity." is visible. Blanking and promotional-esque wording is visible in Special:Diff/956533236/956753152, removing of unflattering info (Special:Diff/961922030) supported by RS including . Unflattering content removal in Special:Diff/954310981. Removing examples of campaign contributions by Republicans in Special:Diff/958027492 (paragraph containing Harris was the only Democratic candidate for the Senate to receive a campaign contribution). Nicer wording in Special:Diff/954661588. To his credit, of course, he's removed a lot of garbage, like in Special:Diff/956351080 and Special:Diff/954310981. But I don't know how we can feel confident, given the amount of examples of POV edits, that this article can ever be free of neutrality issues. Even if the content is reintroduced (which itself is difficult, due to major structural changes), there's lots of little wording changes across 90k readable prose which makes a big difference. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, tbh, I don't see anything there that goes beyond a good faith reading of ensuring WP:BLP compliance. No article on any politician is ever likely to be entirely free of POV edits, one way or another, and that applies doubly when half the subject's party thinks they are a class traitor. Guy (help!) 11:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

English people

• English people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"The English people are a nation and an ethnic group native to England who speak the English language, and share a common history and culture. The English identity is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Angelcynn ('family of the Angles'). Their ethnonym is derived from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who migrated to Great Britain around the 5th century AD. England is the largest and most populous country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the majority of people living there are British citizens."

This is being used to argue that, for example, Idris Elba is not English.

As far as I can tell, this lead paragraph is a massive dose of WP:SYN. When addressing ewthnicity, for example, the Office of National Statistics uses "Whiote British", not "English". English is not an ethnicity and never has been. The idea that speaking English is a qualifying factor would have been an inc onvenience in the early days of the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha or even the early Hanovers. Common history and culture? The English national dish is either fish ands chips (invented by Italians in Glasgow) or chicken tikka masala. Then we get to the religion part. Anglicanism? Not according to Voltaire, who documented numerous religions including the Quakers, who were the last to abandon the familiar "thee" and "thou" of old English.

This article reads to me as a giant pille of WP:SYN. What do others think? Guy (help!) 23:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't have viewed "English" as an ethnicity personally, I'd think of Anglo-Saxons or perhaps Britons for the ethnic group, but this isn't an area I understand too well. This seems to be a common trend across many European countries: French people, Germans, Italians, etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, if it's common then it needs fixing, but I am mainly concerned here witht he English people article, as that was what dragged me into this cesspit. I have started looking for academic sources that support "English people" as an ethnicity, but any that do so always qualify it as, e.g. white English people, which is in line with the Office of National Statistics ethnicity categories of white British, black British, British Asian etc.

I can't yet find a single reliable source that unambiguously defines the English (as opposed to white English or Anglo-Saxons) as an ethnic group. I would wager a small sum that there will be similar difficulties for France etc. Germanic people, maybe, but German people in a way that defines out everyone but the white? There's some historical precedent for that being a bit shitty... Guy (help!) 11:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that at the source of this disagreement is the fact that "English people" can mean different things, which overlap but aren't always the same. Those meanings range from a civic sense of the term, to mean someone born in England, to a narrower, ethnic sense. If you have access, I'd recommend this source on some of these complexities. This also looks like it would be helpful, but I don't have access to a copy. Finally, I'd be wary of assuming that official classifications of ethnicity in the UK match up with sociologists' understandings of ethnicity (Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom#History and debate covers this a bit). Cordless Larry (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, yes, which is why sources clarify that "white English" or "white British" are the ethnic groups, and English is a nationality. Guy (help!) 12:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Some do, but not all: see this and this. This source is also potentially helpful, explaining that Englishness "is a somewhat nebulous descriptor that hovers between ethnic and national identity" - which is basically my understanding too. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, e.g. within this narrative the countryside has tended to be deployed as an endangered and essentialised symbol of what Englishness is and this chapter has suggested that rural nature has been invested with the meanings and representations of English ethnicity etc - in other words, it's a narrative, not a fact (and the text goes on to make this even clearer). And that is pretty much my point: the idea of the "ethnic English" is a narrative, and one with a profoundly unattractive provenance. Guy (help!) 23:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that we're discussing a social construct, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a fact to be found here. Ethnicity is all about narratives. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I disagree. Anglo-Saxons are an ethnic group, white British are an ethnic group, English people are people who are English. Casting the definition of English people as an ethnic group comprising white people with white English culture is no doubt hugely popular with racists, but it';s not accurate. If you want an article on the ethnic group it would be white British or even white English. As it is, the article on English people effectively defines Englishness as synonymous with gammon, and that is a bit of a problem. Guy (help!) 10:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't "want" anything here. I was just responding to your call for sources, by pointing out that there can be disagreement about whether the English are an ethnic group or a nation, or both. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, on "common history and culture", sociologists generally argue that ethnic groups are characterised by belief in a shared history and culture, not a shared history and culture in an objective sense. As the ethnic group article puts it, "presumed similarities such as a common language, ancestry, history...". The presumed is important. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I think that you'll find more agreement about common culture among Black British people in London than among British Asian people in Birmingham. It seems likely to me that at least some of this would be due to the difference between the heritage of slavery and that of empire, but that's my personal view. Guy (help!) 12:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

And President Obama was not American, I am shocked, this is a bit highly offensive. The history of the England is a well known mix of people through out history. Yes the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians settled in what is now England and southern Scotland, but while they pushed some Romano-Celtic tribes to the west, the majority of the British celts stayed put, see Extent of the migrations, the invaders forming the upper levels of the society. Though the percentage of Celts increased towards the west and north, even in the 10th century in the East Anglican kingdom the were laws specifically relating to the local British population. But before the English came to England among the Romans, especially along Hadrian's Wall, the were legionaries from North Africa, Syrians, Algerians and Iraqis who mixed with the local population . After the Anglo-Saxons came further waves of settlers Danes, Norwegians, Normans, Huguenots, Jews (one lived in my small town in the 13th century) etc etc. And then Britain had its international Empire, with peoples from all round the world coming here from all round the globe and modern England has been multicultural ever since, the English society and customs have always been a mongrel mix. Sorry this is all well known, I was just shocked by the assertion that Elba was not English ~ BOD ~ 13:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(There is an essay, Misplaced Pages:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, about this issue.) Since ethnicity is a social construct, not a biological category, we call people English if that is how they are described. This is particularly the case with Jewish people in the UK, most of whom are descended from immigrants, many of whom arrived as refugees from Nazism. Or royalty: most of Prince Charles' ancestors were German, but he is considered English. TFD (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Russia's role in the War in Donbass

Could be rather interesting, see Talk:War_in_Donbass#Recent_controversial_edits. Heptor (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

According to some sources, the present the war in Donbas is hybrid war between Ukraine and Russia, where patriots of Ukraine fight the little green men invading from Russia. I go on out on the limb and say that reality is more nuanced, and the local discontent with the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, linguistic disputes and other divisions in Ukraine played a significant role in the events, and indeed that far from instigating the rebellion in Donbass and using it to destabilise Ukraine, Moscow has largely been reacting to events and trying to gain some control of a process which was originally almost entirely outside of its control. This is maybe a bit surprising to read for some people, but please check the references and consider sharing your opinion on the talk page. Thanks Heptor (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, unlikely - there are compelling sources for the little green men, and Russia shamelessly annexed Crimea "because destiny". Guy (help!) 23:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

sooo.. No chance we can have a little of both? Some shameless green men, some pissed-off locals because their votes got smacked in the revolution

The article already allows for 'both'. Indeed, we have a whole separate article on the protests. That's not what you're asking for: what you're asking for WP:FALSEBALANCE. RGloucester — ☎ 00:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is presently very vague about the causes of the war. It only mentions the Euromaidan in passing, at the end of a rambling sentence. The article doesn’t mention anything about the divisions in Ukraine that led to this conflict, including the linguistic, cultural and political schisms that are widely studied in the literature. Heptor (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, the fact that Russia exploited divisions it had stoked in Ukraine is not in doubt. Neither is the fact that this was not a "popular uprising", but an invasion. Guy (help!) 10:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's discuss the literature? Heptor (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

...no takers? Heptor (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Of archdukes and princes

There's an interesting discussion going on at Template talk:Austrian archdukes right now over the inclusion, and implicitly the titling, of articles on members of the former royal house of Austria, after the Habsburg Law abolished the nobility. Put simply, some sources (i.e. books about royal houses) continue to style members of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine as "archduke" and "crown prince" and such, but the government does not, and the archduchy does not exist. In recent months a number of the sources used to support some of the more fanciful titles have been identified as unreliable - self-published by non-experts. That reduces the number of sources making the claims, but does not eliminate them. It's a knotty problem: does Misplaced Pages violate NPOV by talking about Stefan von Habsburg-Lothringen as if he were an Archduke, listing his titles and styles as "His Imperial and Royal Highness", and saying that he married morganatically when there is no recognised title to inherit? As I say, the template talk discussion is interesting. Guy (help!) 23:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

My approach to the broader question of royalty w/o a kingdom is to avoid using the titles in wiki-voice. Instead I generally put a note in the personal lives section that the subject is sometimes accorded certain royal/noble honorifics on an unofficial basis as a courtesy, often by monarchists. I also note the country in question is now a republic and that the titles have no legal standing. Royal titles should not be included in info-boxes or the lead if they have no official recognition. That seems to solve the issue. See Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, that's entirely reasonable. I have moved several of these articles along exactly those lines, but DWC LR has reverted at least some.

Apart from anything else, how confusing is it for the reader to be presented with an article that claims active royal titles for a country that the linked article proclaims to be a republic, and where following the succession boxes gives an article on the last holder of the title, described as such? Guy (help!) 08:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG that's great that you think the law of a country is the be all end all. For centuries if you take the French royals, titles have been attributed to deposed royals and that is reflected in hundreds of sources (not just Self Published websites, I have a book shelf full of Reliable Sources I could use). Take the Court of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, a sovereign state, "L'Archiduc Carl Christian d'Autriche et l'Archiduchesse Marie-Astrid d'Autriche, sœur du Grand-Duc ont également respectivement reçu ces deux distinctions.". It's only within Austria its illegal there is no guarantee the people even live there. Misplaced Pages is guided by sources not editors POV. Here's the official website of Bran Castle in Romania owned by the late Archduke Stefan's siblings "On June 1, 2009, the Castle fully re-entered the possession of its legal heirs, Archduke Dominic, Archduchess Maria Magdalena and Archduchess Elisabeth.". But how can this be Austria says there are no Archdukes. - dwc lr (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

How can it be? Because anyone can say they are anything, that's why. The promotional website of a castle owned by members of a formerly-royal family and operated as a tourist attraction is not a reliable source as to whether someone is or is not actually the holder of a royal title. There isn't actually an archduke - there's someone who calls themself an archduke but does not rule an archduchy because no such archduchy exists.

I am with Ad Orientem on this matter - if there isn't actually a recognized royal family anymore, a title should not be stated as if it has a factual or legal basis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So a Hungarian born male now says there female. As the law says they can't legally change gender we refer to them by their legal gender? - dwc lr (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone's gender is their own private matter. Someone claiming to be an archduke is claiming to have some sort of monarchical power or authority which hasn't existed for more than a century. The two are not remotely comparable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, it is the be all and end all. You cannot be a king of a place that has abolished the monarchy, you cannot be a prince of a place that has abolished princes, you cannot be an archduke of a place that has abolished archduchies.

I note that you have moved one of these back to Archduke Markus of Austria (see talk:Archduke Markus of Austria). He was born in 1946. He was never an archduke. It really is that simple. We can say that he styles himself thus, but we cannot call him this, per NPOV, and we absolutely cannot subscribe to the absurd fantasy that he is styled "His Imperial and Royal Highness". The last Emperor of Austria-Hungary was Charles I. There was a war and everything. Guy (help!) 08:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So Hungary says legally you can't change gender. So we refer to transgender Hungarians's by their legal gender yeah? - dwc lr (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not just an issue of the law. Didn't the house of Habsburg renounce all their claims and titles 60 years ago? Referring to someone by a title they legally cannot hold and that they personally do not claim seems like a BLP violation. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No just Otto von Habsburg, his brothers and other family members for example explicitly did not. If they don't claim a title, renounce said title, that's useful and should be put in the article. - dwc lr (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, it's not up to them. The title no longer exists. They don't get to choose. Guy (help!) 10:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The answer to the original question is exceptionally obvious, and has been iterated and reiterated above: man or woman X can claim to be the archduke/duchess·of Y, but if country Z has abolished archduchies, then Y no longer exists as a legal title to be held.

Advice, DWC LR: there's a danger that you build a reputation for yourself as a POV-pusher: if that happens, and you continue this editing pattern, blocks are likely to follow. FYI!

Particularly if you continue with the strawman of lgbtq rights in Hungary, which has literally nothing (that I can see) with its ancient nobility. ——Serial 09:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The only crime I’m guilty of is citing a load of reliable sources which say X is an Archduke. I’m more than happy for an article say Austria does not legally recognise the title Archduke but that does not change the facts they still are attributed and use the titles. The Hungarian point is valid, in trying to understand here do we pick and choose which laws we respect? Are we guided by national laws even though we are not bound by them? What is our consistent view on this it’s an important Community issue with wide implications. - dwc lr (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, we know there are royalty fandom sources that use titles that no longer exist. That is a problem only when people try to reflect that fantasy as if it were a reality.

Ask the government of Austria who is the reigning Archduke, what do you think they will say? In the end, the choice of who rules is not solely down to those who wish to do the ruling. Guy (help!) 10:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s well established practice that deposed royals are still attributed titles, these titles pre date most modern states. Hence the countless sources one could cite. I’m not stupid so I wouldn’t ask that question? I’m well aware that they are not reigning that’s made perfectly clear all over. The Head the House of Habsburg considers he decides who is an Archduke, it’s a defined group of people which is reflected in Reliable Sources. We can argue this stuff for ever the fact is lots and lots of reliable sources and the Head of the House of Habsburg say they are still Archduke, we are not bound by Austrian law we present this matter in a NPOV. Yet that is not good enough for some who want there POV and there’s alone. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I just don't understand the motivation of editors who seem to want to pretend that WW1 never happened and the Hapsburgs still rule. It's a fantasy world and if there are people who want to play an alternate reality game there is no reason for WP to join in. It's an insult to Austria to say "you think your government abolished Archdukes more than 100 years ago, but you're wrong, we know better, you can't abolish them, so there." Every article on WP that labels people with abolished titles should be revised or deleted, this ridiculous practice needs to stop. Smeat75 (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree. It is OK to say something like "X claims to be and Archduke of Austria despite Austria dissolving all archduchies in 1918" but it is not OK to call anyone after 1908 "Archduke of Austria". --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The simple fact is titles are still recognised, perhaps not in Austria but recognised none the less. No one is pretending WW1 did not happen as no one is saying Karl von Habsburg is the Emperor of Austria. You know Austria doesn’t rule the world, it can only control what happens inside it own borders. The Belgian Monarchy says Princess Astrid married Lorenz, Archduke of Austria-Este, so what are the Belgian Monarchy getting at, are they living in a fantasy land or maybe they’ve been conned, go Guy Macon, go tell them it’s not ok tell them the title was abolished they obviously missed the memo. Titles are still attributed to deposed royals that has been the way of life for hundreds of years, this is common practice. But unfortunately some Misplaced Pages Editors can’t get there heads round these facts and try to impose their POV because WP: I just don't like it. I don’t have the first clue what the legal name of Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark do you? You’d have to engage in serious Original Research cook up some utter nonsense like your supporting over at Archduke Markus of Austria and violating BLP. If anyone is pretending it’s your good selves that titles are not still attributed, used and recognised. - dwc lr (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Austria-Este (a noble house) not Archduke of Austria.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s a title and inheritance gifted by the last Emperor of Austria to his second son, the father of Lorenz and legally abolished with the rest of the Habsburg’s titles in Austria. - dwc lr (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

And? If that is his title that is what we should use if we must have a title.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree Reliable Sources recognise and use it, we should be guided by them. - dwc lr (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If RS say they are Archduke of Austria, if RS say "X claims to be and Archduke of Austria " so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to note in the body of the article "so and so would be Princess or Archduke or whatever of such and such had the position not been abolished and sometimes people still call him/her that" but the name of the article and the info box should not include those defunct titles, although hundreds do. Also articles should not say someone "claims " a defunct royal position unless there's a reliable source with a direct quote from the person making such a claim. Again, hundreds of articles say someone "claims " to be holder of a defunct royal title with no evidence. It's a BLP violation, I don't believe most of those people are really so delusional as to make such ludicrous "claims ".Smeat75 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources referring to Karl von Hapsburg as Archduke include Tatler Vanity Fair and The New York Times, in Austria he appears to be mostly referred to as "Kaiser enkel" literally meaning emperor's grandson. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well NYT seems to say "otherwise known as Archduke Karl of Austria", Vanity fair “ the ancestral archduke of Austria” and Tatler (is that an RS?)   Austrian Archduke Karl von Habsburb (which is the closer to saying he is archduke of Austria, but it is not worded as a sole title). Sorry I am not sure any of these say he is "Archduke of Austria" at best they treat it as a courtesy title.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, yes, that's how Hello and other sleb pages represent it. But at the same time, it asserts feudal lordship in a context where no such lordship exist. Guy (help!) 15:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hence why I say we can say "is called" or "claims" but we cannot say it as a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What do people think about the titles that are part of the now abolished Greek Monarchy? Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece, Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark,Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark and Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark, obviously this is a different issue as the monarchy was abolished much more recently and they are also part of the still existing Danish monarchy and are referred to as such in The New York Times, among other sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Again we go with RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

::Agree with Slatersteven follow the Reliable Sources which may well recognise the title and for a NPOV add a note to the article the monarchy was abolished, title not recognised there whatever the case may be, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be simple like that where people don’t let there POV get the better of them. - dwc lr (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment A quick note here. The legal approach to titles in former monarchies since turned republic is not uniform in Europe. Austria has taken a fairly hard line on the subject. But in France (how ironic) titles have not been legally abolished and are still used and subject to actual government regulation. They have no legal status and confer no privilege but are treated as part of the family name. The Ministry of Justice has jurisdiction for regulatory purposes. In Germany titles also have no legal standing but many aristocratic families have incorporated their old titles into their legal names and this has been generally accepted. Spain and Belgium are both current constitutional monarchies and I have heard (though have not confirmed) that in official court documents (royal court, not legal court) they use the former titles of the Hapsburgs when referring to members of the family in the present tense. Which would seem to suggest some level of formal acceptance of the titles within those states. I haven't found any discussion of this on the part of the civil governments there, leading me to suspect that they probably just don't give a bleep. In short, the question is a bleeping mess. All of which said, I still stand by my suggestion above. Misplaced Pages should not be conferring any formal recognition of titles that do not enjoy some level of official recognition within the country where they are claimed to originate. Of course in the case of the Hapsburgs (and Romanovs etc.) there are a lot of people who do privately recognize the titles and routinely use them, myself included. That needs to be noted, but not in the lead or in any info box. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• How would you treat the style of the Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein, they say she is HRH but that comes from her birth into the deposed Royal House of Bavaria. I’m sure the majority here would want us to contradict that Sovereign State and insist she is actually just HSH like her husband and in laws. - dwc lr (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question, reinforcing my point that this subject is messy. In this case I would have to defer to the government of the Principality since that is where she lives and she is a member of the ruling family. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Here is my interpretation of how we should treat nobility:

• Misplaced Pages has articles defining various titles, their histories, and their holders. There is ample coverage of how noble titles are/were treated in the cases where states and/or monarchies were dissolved or where people abdicated.
• These articles are ideally built from the abundant academic sources describing the status of nobility before and after abolition of their monarchies.
  • In fact, it is almost certain there are more reliable sources discussing as unquestioned fact the abolition of Austrian titles than there are equivalent-quality sources operating under the assumption the titles are extant.
• If Misplaced Pages purports, in wiki voice, the consensus understanding of royal and noble titles in a particular country, that view should be consistent between articles.
  • We could even say the meaning and history of a title are transcluded in all articles and templates in which they are wiki-linked...
• Therefore, wiki-linked title A ascribed in wiki voice to person X on their page or in a template/category should carry the same parent-article-supported meaning that it does in the article for person Y.
  • Stated another way, an article should not have a separate wiki voice interpretation of an externally-defined faculty.
• In cases where a wiki-linked term, through novel use in an RS, conveys a different or secondary meaning than that covered by the parent article, that meaning should be attributed. If that usage becomes widespread among multiple RS and is applicable to several articles, but there is no corresponding change in the consensus understanding--that is, (ideally academic) RS are not discussing an evolution of meaning in the term itself--a new category might be created reflecting this usage and its context.

Right now, what we have instead is:

• We are affirming the current existence of a constitutionally-abolished title in wiki voice. With templates like this and this, we are unequivocally declaring Ferdinand Zvonimir (born 1997), great-grandson of the last Emperor of Austria, Charles I, holds the exact same title as everyone else listed. A small note mentioning titles of nobility were abolished in 1919 does not provide sufficient context to the reader. How are they to know from the template that this guy was called "archduke of Austria" by Austrians and the Austrian government, but this other guy is only called "archduke of Austria" by foreign press and in fact it is illegal for him to title himself in Austria?
• We are putting forth contradictory statements. Despite our extensive coverage of Austrian nobility and its abolition, we have articles like Archduke Markus of Austria (born 1946) and Archduke Stefan of Austria (1932) that call them archdukes (and princes of Tuscany) without challenge. Even within the same article (e.g. Archduke Carl Christian of Austria) we will mention the fact that the subject belongs to the former ruling house of Austria, but then go along calling him an archduke anyway. We label Archduke Sigismund of Austria (born 1966), in near-adjacent templates, as both a "Titular Grand Duke of Tuscany" ("title in pretense") and a prince of Tuscany. Conversely, the names of articles on people with identical lineage may or may not include a title depending on the availability of media coverage and who the most recent editor was. JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC) got logged out somehow?

Comment. What interests me here are the approaches being taken. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect what sources say. Instead of focusing on that and and the implications for how policies are implemented, some of the arguments here are based on what individual editors think the factual truth is, which is immaterial. As an example of the type of argument which should be raising red flags, proceeding from a personal view of the truth, one of the arguments presented is that any sources which which think it the correct form to accord titles to people which relate to legally defunct entities should automatically be regarded as non-reliable.     ←   ZScarpia   20:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC (archdukes)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Misplaced Pages style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

How should Misplaced Pages represent people who claim to defunct titles? Guy (help!) 09:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Background

As noted above, there are a large number of titles of nobility that have been abolished, usually by the founding of a democratic state. The titles of the former nobility may be formally banned (as for example the Archduke of Austria, which is forbidden under the Habsburg Law, they may be converted to family names (as with Prinz von Bayern, for the former princely family of Bavaria), or they may simply fall into abeyance. Translating the family name Prinz von Bayern yields "Prince of Bavaria" in English, which is assumed to be a title where it is not - note for example that Manuel Prinz von Bayern publishes in the scientific literature as Manuel Prinz von Bayern or Manuel von Bayern, he does not translate the name. Royalist sources such as Almanach de Gotha routinely use the titles as if nothing happened. Many of the articles drew on sources that are self-published royalty fansites (e.g. Royal Ark, Online Gotha), and which have now been deprecated as unreliable. Society pages also use the titles, again as if nothing happened. In some cases, such as the Prince of Prussia, the country itself no longer exists as such. In many cases royalist sources and society reports are the only sources, these may be people who are "famous for being famous", which is certainly an additional complication for WP:V when the sources insist on using a nonexistent title - up to as point this is also a WP:TRUTH/WP:V conflict, but only superficially as most of the sources that remain as RS do not in fact claim that the tiles are still extant.

So we have a conflict between COMMONNAME and NPOV and TRUTH and the rest: a classic Misplaced Pages dilemma. Complicating this, we have competing RS: some calling a person by a title, and others, generally much more substantial, saying that this title no longer exists. Good faith editors argue both for use of the titles as if they still exist, because sources do so, and for non-use, because that is inherently misleading and confusing when a title no longer exists This is resolved inconsistently between articles, and attempts to make it consistent result in revert wars and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS sometimes of only a handful of interested editors. The desire for a consistent approach seems reasonable, though we should not bend over backwards to enforce consistency where an exception makes sense. Accordingly, I propose the following:

Proposal

Titles should not be asserted in Wiki-voice after their abolition. Thus: article titles must not reflect titles that were abolished before accession. Implicitly, then, holders of titles current during their lifetimes should be identified by the title (e.g. Archduke Ferdinand) but holders of titles abolished before they were ever assumed (e.g. modern-day descendants of the Prince of Prussia) should be identified by the family name, with a suitable descriptive narrative describing succession, but should not be included in navigation templates etc. as holders of the abolished title of nobility. Timelines, navboxes etc should not ascribe titles of nobility to those who would only have assumed them after their abolition. {{Infobox nobility}} and variants should be used for those who held titles of nobility up to and including the title's abolition, and {{infobox person}} or variant should be used for those who never held the title before its abolition. Edge cases such as crown princes whose titles were abolished before accession, or pretenders to recently abolished titles prior to establishment of a stable alternative, should be handled case by case.

Opinions (archdukes)

• Support, as proposer. We should not be pretending that there is still a place called Prussia that has princes, or that Austria still has an archduke. Guy (help!) 09:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support I am not sure we should be making the decision that a title is defunct. But we should also not be pandering to the egos of purely honorary titles. So on balance I would rather we did not use honorary titles in people names.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose For article titles use WP:Common Name and Reliable Sources and judge each case on its own merits, you can’t have a one size fits all approach. This is textbook Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it and goes against every policy Misplaced Pages has, NPOV, Verifiability and No Original Research. Take Margareta of Romania what’s her legal name? Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark what’s her legal name? Maximilian, Margrave of Baden what’s his legal name? These are BLP’s of people who are known by titles yet this proposal seemingly wants to invent fantasy names for them, when we won’t have the first idea what the legal name is. We can’t just go around engaging in Original Research making up unverified nonsense which is ultimately what this proposal does. The Almanach de Gotha for example was mentioned, this is not a “Royalist Source” it’s a Genealogical, Diplomatic and Statistical journal. There is no need for Self Published websites to be used anywhere and they shouldn’t be, as there are many reliable sources and Sovereign States which recognise titles of deposed royalty which could be used instead. dwc lr (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose enforcing the usage of legal names instead of common names. The use of common names is a policy of this project; the use of legal names is not and has never been. Surtsicna (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  To elaborate, people should be called whatever they are called in reliable sources. By that I do not mean genealogy publications such as Almanach de Gotha (because Misplaced Pages is not a genealogy database) but reputable media outlets and academic publications. I wish there would be a more concentrated effort on establishing the notability of these people. What I think we would find is that a vast majority of the articles should be deleted rather than renamed. For those who are indeed notable it should be easy to establish what the common name is and use it. The content of the article should, of course, make it clear that the title used, if any, is not legally recognized. I think there are easy ways to achieve this. Here is a suggestion. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support to stop, in each and every case, labeling people with abolished titles. This has always seemed to me a mere fantasy game playing. I also think it is extremely disrespectful to Germany and Austria, for instance, to imply "you think you abolished royal and noble titles for any of your citizens more that a hundred years ago, but we know better, you can't abolish them,such titles are eternal, people still call them Princess and Duke etc. and so do we, so there."Smeat75 (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  The fact that neither Germany nor Austria have had any sort of a diplomatic row with the United Kingdom, Monaco, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Liechtenstein, etc, over this matter suggests to me that neither country gives a toss, let alone finds it extremely disrespectful. I would be much more wary of being disrespectful towards individuals by imposing on them names that they do not use or even legally bear. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support strongly for article style, templates, timelines, succession boxes, as well as (unmentioned explicitly) categories. Support with provisos for COMMONNAME for article titles; per DWC LR above, I will grudgingly admit that there are some pretenders whose actual legal name is sufficiently murky, and whose claimed title is sufficiently prominent, that it's better to just use an article title in the style of their claim, but it should be clear that this isn't the default policy. When this happens, though, the article content should make clear that it is the same amount of deference given to, say, Emperor Norton or Queen Latifah - that these are just names with no legal backing. To go into a bit more detail - when Misplaced Pages presents a claim as "according to this old rule set / according to this branch of royalists", it's fine. When Misplaced Pages presents something as a real, actual government-approved title, it needs to actually be true. This is maybe more obvious with existant-but-contested positions: If somebody claimed to be a mayor who wasn't actually the mayor, it'd obviously be ridiculous and misleading for a Misplaced Pages article to just accept the claim. Yet that's exactly what we do for government-abolished and hypothetical titles, far too often. SnowFire (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Wait...what? You mean Lady Sovereign isn't an actual sovereign and Duke Ellington isn't an actual duke?? Who knew? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, there's lots of them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support for excluding claimants of abolished titles from navboxes, categories, and other templates and referring to them in wikivoice. I laid out my reasoning in the prior section (accidentally as an IP: diff) and echo the statements of Guy, Smeat75, and SnowFire. I think the article title is a different issue that should be addressed separately for COMMONNAME considerations (per Surtsicna, dwc lr, and Slatersteven). I would suggest amending the scope of this RfC to cover only how we treat the nobility title (in the article body and templates) as its own defined entity external to the person using it. There is a semantic difference between calling oneself or being called "Archduke of Austria", and being "Archduke of Austria". JoelleJay (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Huh. My comment says "oppose" but I find myself entirely in agreement with JoelleJay, who says "strong support". It goes to show that the scope of the RfC may indeed be a bit too wide. Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I would support User:JoelleJay's proposal, especially as User:Surtsicna would too, which makes it seem that conflicts would be unlikely. Smeat75 (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​(Pinging everyone who has participated in this section) Clarifying my vote/restructuring proposal: 1. Support removing abolished titles from article names of people who never held them, in the absence of RS demonstrating clear COMMONNAME usage. 2. Support a) removing wikivoice assertions that such a person is or holds <title>, and b) removing them from title-dependent templates, lists, and categories. JoelleJay (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

So, make a new rule that's about how you can ignore COMMMONNAME if you don't feel sources make it "clear" enough? That's not solving any demonstrable problem; that's creating new ones. --A D Monroe III 20:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, WP:COMMONNAME is quite explicit that if it isn't clear what the common name is, then other factors may come in to play. JoelleJay's proposal does not in any way conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. Kahastok talk 21:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay I oppose all proposals. These are extremely complex issues that a single policy should not cover, plus Misplaced Pages already has policies in place that handle these issues perfectly. Each and every article and issue should be looked at and scrutinised individually. The templates where there have been discussions (eg Archdukes) attempt to treat the issues fairly and neutrally (NPOV policy) (eg it notes legally in Austria it was abolished etc), it can be cited who is still attributed the title despite this (so meets Verifiability policy) and is so listed on the template, Common Name (another policy) can be used for article titles. To me this proposal says Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it to a particular issue so it attempts to override the existing Misplaced Pages policies. To give you an example of a complex case take the brother of ex King Juan Carlos I of Spain, the Infante Alfonso of Spain as an example. He was born and died when General Franco ruled Spain. His article has the title Infante of Spain, he’s listed on the Infante of Spain template, he’s listed in the Spanish Infante’s category. What would you do with him? Stick to NPOV, Verifiability, Common Name, if a claim is unsourced remove it, if you think someone is known as something else create a move request, if someone is not notable Prod/AFD it. The tools already exist. - dwc lr (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy's proposal already has a provision for case-by-case consideration when there is a pretender to a recently-abolished title in an unstable successor state. Francoist Spain was a de jure monarchy from 1947 on, with Franco claiming it was a restoration of the previous ruling house and personally cultivating the education of Juan Carlos in Spain--even if we now know he didn't end up naming JC as king until 1969, the situation was still very different from that seen in Austria where nobility was legally abolished and there was no ambiguity about where the Habsburg-Lorraines stood in the eyes of the Austrian government. JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good idea. I support that. I don't know if this rfC needs to be revised accordingly.Smeat75 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose creep. Misplaced Pages already has established policies and guidelines which cover these cases. DrKay (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support in general. The idea that countries such as Austria, Hungary, Germany and Russia are not republics is WP:FRINGE, and we should not be assigning people royal titles that they do not hold. This applies particularly in infoboxes, templates and article bodies, but it should at least be the presumption in article titles as well. Kahastok talk 22:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I accept JoelleJay's proposal as a reasonable compromise, fully in line with the appropriate naming guidelines including WP:COMMONNAME. Kahastok talk 21:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Mostly support, but COMMONNAME might be significant. I definitely agree we should not be doing defunct royalty boxes and similar, any more than we would do "Secretary of State" after that position ceases to exist. We certainly shouldn't be asserting anything like that in Misplaced Pages's voice as if it exists. However I'm not familiar with these articles and I see potential that the COMMONNAME could be significant in some cases. In the extreme, the claimed-title could be the only thing we have. If we have a normal/legal name and a credible case for going that way, then we should prefer normal/legal name and mention that the "title" is an unofficial alternate. If a defunct title really is the exclusive or significantly dominant COMMONNAME we might have to treat it sort of like "Queen Latifah" with care and explanation. Alsee (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:RECENTISM. I sympathise with the intention, but as written this is overly broad. The proposal isn't simply going to apply to a bunch of socialites with slightly unusual genealogies. It's also going to apply 18th century Jacobites, and 19th century Bonapartes, Bourbons and Carlists. Wars were fought over those claims; they've arguably got more in common with unrecognised states or governments-in-exile than they do with modern pretenders. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• General support. If I'm understanding correctly, the proposer is not proposing that we go back and change historical figures but that we avoid attributing a non-existent title to individuals just because they claim them. That seems quite reasonable. Deb (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally support for modern pretenders when it comes to article or template text, categories, etc, with an understanding that article titles themselves need to also take COMMONNAME into consideration, as JoelleJay says. Forcing a monarchist POV onto articles is not NPOV. (Considering RaiderAspect's point, I would also suggest that pretenders from well before modern history, e.g. from a thousand years ago, be discussed separately in a discussion focused specifically on them and on looking at how sources most commonly refer to them.) -sche (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per dwc lr's arguments. I don't see a need to invent a new policy on this. Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Following COMMONNAME should be sufficient. If sources have the title persisting despite being "abolished", then WP has no business trying to enforce something over the sources. There's going to be a lot of complicated, subtle, and unique cases under this, ill-served by a black-and-white rule. If we end up with a few "famous for being famous" articles for the time being, so what? Nothing much will link to them, and the'll harmlessly linger in their dusty corners for a few years. The only thing making a rule about this will accomplish is pointless editor conflicts over how to apply this generic rule in a bunch of specific cases -- nothing constructive to improving WP. --A D Monroe III 23:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately, there are a seemingly endless amount of English-language sources (here are some recent ones , , ) that uncritically refer to, for example Karl von Habsburg as "Archduke", or call him "royalty", even though that title that was abolished a century ago and that he has never claimed it. When low-quality popular sources are contradicted by higher quality and specialist sources, we ignore the popular sources. I think it's quite likely in this case that some journalists take their cues from the wikipedia article, which until recently called him "Archduke" in the article infobox. With so many low-quality sources carelessly contradicting reality, this proposal will hopefully provide some guidance to editors an encourage them to seek higher quality sources on these subjects. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:FD72:E8C8:A75A:CC6C (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI this was this IP's very first Misplaced Pages edit... JoelleJay (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have edited before, it’s just that my IP tends to change based on where I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.23.249.111 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME solves this issue. Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: COMMONNAME is for article titles, though? How does it solve the issue of categorizing people with an abolished title alongside those who held the title when it existed? Or listing pretenders in navboxes for those titles? These are clearly different situations. JoelleJay (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that people feel they have to say either yes or no to the proposal as a whole, and many would rather have potentially misleading navboxes on the bottom of the page than an unrecognizable article title on the top. Surtsicna (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, we should follow WP:COMMONNAME here. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP should follow WP:COMMONNAME. And in a large majority of these cases, for all intents and purposes, they are royal. They're related to the royal family in some capacity, are treated like royalty, referred to as royalty in RS, etc. And they meet notability guidelines. No changes needed. --Kbabej (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The issue is too complex for a one-size-fits-all solution. WP:COMMONNAME and a measure of common sense should prevail. TFD (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• While I agree with the ideas in principle, I'm not sure this broad sweeping proposal is the best way to handle it. There is significant variation among how different European countries handle titles, and there is going to be even more variation outside of Europe. Perhaps a distinction needs to be made as well between a title and a position. Someone can claim a title forever, but if the position is abolished then the title simply doesn't mean the same thing. CMD (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• support-ish By and large these people are notable only because of their pretense (or, I'm guessing, others' pretense on their behalf) to these titles. But we need to be clear that the titles are in that way unreal, and thus I think COMMONNAME has to stand aside and have them first identified by their legal name, and then very clearly establish that the tiles are in pretense even if that is how they are most commonly identified. Truth has to come before what people commonly say. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. No compelling reason to encumber WP:COMMONNAME here. As our article on Archduke notes, since the 16th century, "Archduke" has simply been a title denoting membership, to a certain degree, of the House of Hapsburg, and hasn't carried implications of sovereignty, rulership, authority, etc., as asserted in many of the arguments above. Choess (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME should be the main concern here. Just go with title if RS typically use the title, unless the BLP of a person who refuted it by abdication or dislike. To do otherwise would only cause surprise and confusion and force us to craft redirects. Mention both title and any refutation in the body in any case. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a reconfigured proposal that takes COMMONNAME into consideration and separates the article title concerns from the main issue, which is inclusion of people claiming abolished titles in categories alongside legitimate holders of those titles. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Still opposed. I think anything more than current guidance - COMMONNAME AND MOS:BIO - is not needed and not a good idea. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support, but ideally with the proviso in Proposal 2: the proposal is sensible. Articles shouldn’t assert abolished titles.The proposal also doesn’t contradict COMMONNAME, since COMMONNAME was never a bright line or a rule. It’s just a general principle that the commonly used names usually best fit the also-not-a-rule five WP:CRITERIA. The explicit WP:COMMONNAME proviso for relatively unused alternative names makes sense though, as a clarification. — MarkH₂₁ 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Not convinced WP:COMMONNAME solves this currently; using a title in a Misplaced Pages article has substantial implications that are often not present or intended in the sources. Additionally, the sourcing that mentions these people is often relatively low-quality - they are famous only for having an abolished title, so it gets used a lot, but this doesn't really imply the wide acceptance that WP:COMMONNAME assumes such usage represents. Given the concerns unique to this particular subject it makes sense to have a specific note in the policy for it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - even if greater guidance is needed, this is not the way forward. While I am fairly appalled at the fawning tone on some "would-be-noble" articles, I'm not persuaded that this bureaucratic creep solves anything. It should be addressed by using COMMONNAME and clear text within the article itself. I'm also not persuaded that acknowledging that a 'pretender' title exists, and is sometimes used by sources is actually in any meaningful way asserting that either the title or position is real. We rely on text to distinguish between this Buffy and that one, and for that matter between 'entitled' princes and aristocrats and people merely coining these as their names or stage names. What's the problem doing the same for 'real' and 'pretender' aristocrats? Whether some way should be found of distinguishing real/nominal categories is another matter, ditto infoboxes, but inventing 'legal' names for pretenders largely known by their (albeit defunct) royal name is not a solution. Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as second choice; I prefer the reformulation below. As for why, I think Aquillion sums it up well, and in even shorter terms: per all three of the WP:CCPOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, largely per Aquillon. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Deciding what a 'legal' name is just convolutes the problem and conflicts with WP:OFFICIAL. We have an established practice already:WP:COMMONNAME. Also oppose on creep grounds. Zindor (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (archdukes)

Splitting this into two questions and reformulating a bit (additional proviso italicized):

1. Titles should not be asserted in Wiki-voice after their abolition. Thus: article titles must not reflect titles that were abolished before accession. Implicitly, then, holders of titles current during their lifetimes should be identified by the title (e.g. Archduke Ferdinand) but holders of titles abolished before they were ever assumed (e.g. modern-day descendants of the Prince of Prussia) should be identified by the family name, with a suitable descriptive narrative describing succession. In situations where no alternative name is widely used in reliable sources, or where there is overwhelming RS usage of the title when referring to the subject, COMMONNAME considerations should apply, with the article body appropriately clarifying the title's legitimacy.

2. Timelines, navboxes etc should not ascribe titles of nobility to those who would only have assumed them after their abolition. In the Prince of Prussia example, descendants after the dissolution of Prussia should not be included in navigation templates etc. as holders of the abolished title of nobility. {{Infobox nobility}} and variants should be used for those who held titles of nobility up to and including the title's abolition, and {{infobox person}} or variant should be used for those who never held the title before its abolition. Edge cases such as crown princes whose titles were abolished before accession, or pretenders to recently abolished titles prior to establishment of a stable alternative, should be handled case by case.

1: Support. 2: Support. For the reasons I detailed previously. JoelleJay (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, if the title was for an actual office such as Emperor of Germany, King of Bavaria, or Duke of Saxe-Altenburg, where the reigning monarch abdicated and the office was abolished, then we should not describe their heirs as actually holding these offices. But I do not see any problem with using subsidiary titles, such as prince, for their heirs when that is how they are commonly known. And what about the Prince of Orange, who is heir to the Dutch throne? Orange is in France which abolished the the nobility. Or the Aga Khan? The title was bestowed by Iran, which has also abolished nobility. TFD (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Noble titulature doesn't have to correspond to an office for it to be privileged and substantive. Austrian archdukes had the power to ennoble people right up until 1918, with nobility sometimes receiving the right to a seat in the House of Lords--this is why the Adelsaufhebungsgesetz abolished all nobility ("as well as all noble privileges, titles and names in Austria"), not just the title of "Emperor". "Prince of Orange" has a well-documented history with specific treaties addressing who was allowed to use the title, including the retention of the title by the Dutch after the principality was ceded to France. There was no such title transfer for Austrian archdukes that would permit anyone to use that title in Austria. Because "Archduke of Austria" conferred certain recognized rights to its holders before 1918, it cannot be treated as if it is the same as the title held in pretense. Someone being commonly called by that title after it was abolished does not automatically transform the core historical definition and implications of the title for all the previous holders, which is what wikipedia would be doing if we were to categorize great-great-grandchildren born 100 years later as equivalent archdukes. JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Grand Duke of Luxembourg uses various German titles including Duke of Nassau (his ancestor was deposed by Prussia in 1866). Does he need removing from Template:Dukes of Nassau then? Do we need to remove that and the German titles from his full title so we are not “Misplaced Pages’s voice” saying he is Duke of Nassau? The fact is titles are widely recognised and used post abolition, removing such persons from templates etc would seem to be an abuse of NPOV. How the Nassau template deals with the issue seems perfectly sensible and neutral, add an asterisk and some suitable text noting they were born after the legal abolition of the title. - dwc lr (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, there are well-documented decrees regarding title use and transfer within and between countries. When an extant monarchy officially and legally grants a title to one of its members, as with the Grand Duke of Luxembourg in 1890; or when it modifies the succession laws thereof; we have no issues characterizing those people as holders of that title. The government of Luxembourg officially recognizes its Grand Duke as a Duke of Nassau and has recent ducal decrees affirming that title. There is no ambiguity here, just like there is no ambiguity that the government of Austria does not grant or recognize the noble titles that it alone administered before 1918. For what it's worth, I also don't have a problem with Lorenz of Belgium using Prince of Austria-Este or whatever if the Belgian government has declared that an official Belgian royal title for him. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support both: the proposal is sensible and the WP:COMMONNAME proviso for relatively unused alternative names makes sense. Articles shouldn’t assert abolished titles.The proposal doesn’t contradict COMMONNAME, since COMMONNAME was never a bright line or a rule. It’s just a general principle that the commonly used names usually best fit the also-not-a-rule five WP:CRITERIA. — MarkH₂₁ 07:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support both.Smeat75 (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose creep. Common name and handling case by case are already established practices. We've recently had a flurry of edits claiming that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi is a count. We can handle them in the usual way within the current guidelines. DrKay (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose creep. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to the argument from your !vote in the other proposal here (also pinging User:Markbassett, as this functions as a response to him as well).

Among the issues Guy and Smeat75 pointed out here, and that SMcCandlish described in the earlier discussion, was the lack of sufficient guidance on how to refer to descendants of abolished royal houses. This is not a style problem that can be solved case-by-case, because right now the default state of all such articles only reflects the monarchist POV by transcluding all info/navboxes related to the title and its holders, including the subject in all categories dedicated to the above, and attributing titles to them in every single instance they are mentioned. In the vast majority of cases, such entitlement is sourced exclusively to passing mention in a few royalty genealogy books published by nobility enthusiasts and pro-monarchy groups. ...I'm not persuaded that this bureaucratic creep solves anything. It should be addressed by using COMMONNAME and clear text within the article itself. Obviously COMMONNAME does exactly nothing to prevent this from happening elsewhere in the article; for example, in the last nine years since the RfM consensus to move "Archduke Karl of Austria" to "Karl von Habsburg", his infobox has been vacillating between "royalty" and "politician" and between including and excluding "Archduke" from the infobox header, while the royal categories have barely been affected.

I'm also not persuaded that acknowledging that a 'pretender' title exists, and is sometimes used by sources is actually in any meaningful way asserting that either the title or position is real. We rely on text to distinguish between this Buffy and that one, and for that matter between 'entitled' princes and aristocrats and people merely coining these as their names or stage names. The issue is not with acknowledging that some sources use a title for a person. It is with articles stating a person is a holder of the title by including them in royalty templates. It's even more of a problem when, based only on tabloids and genealogy books calling them "prince", we claim someone is a pretender to a throne, which implies active efforts by that person to restore a monarchy in potential violation of the law. "Clear text in the article" clarifying the status of the archduchy is welcomed, but it does not explain why Misplaced Pages discusses the person in question as if they were still entitled and privileged identically to 19th century royalty. Without independent secondary RS covering the deliberate use of abolished titles by/for a specific person, or multiple non-news RS examining its general usage w.r.t. the whole family, it is confusing synthesis to cite instances where it is used as the reason we have multiple royalty templates calling someone "Archduke of Austria" immediately adjacent to a sentence stating the archduchy and all titles are illegal. Incidentally, the source used for the claim that "some people still call Karl 'Archduke'" has the delightful Google-translated photo caption "The word "von" on the homepage www.karlvonhabsburg.at gave someone angry."

And because the templates often already include a post-abolition family member, for consistency and completeness's sake the rest of the family must be included, so a consensus on one person's page will be overridden by the status quo of a template. This applies to individuals without their own articles as well: when one guy with a page happens to have at some point been ascribed a title, all of his non-notable siblings (and their kids) will now have said title on various lists of issue/family trees. The lack of clear guidelines on these matters has led to unsourced navigation box disasters like Austrian archduchesses by descent, wherein 85 of the 93 individuals included in the generations after the monarchy was abolished have no article. It has led to titles for, e.g., Karl's son Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg being constantly added and removed, with both sides citing policy, for over a decade. And this is for someone with his own notable career unrelated to his ancestry; whose coverage pretty unambiguously indicates a non-noble COMMONNAME; whose claim to a title is disrupted not only by it having been constitutionally abolished and made illegal three generations earlier, but also by his grandfather formally renouncing all royal pretensions for himself and his heirs. If such parameters, in addition to the Misplaced Pages article on the title itself stating unequivocally that it no longer exists, are not sufficient criteria to bar a person from being called "archduke" in wikivoice and included in multiple royalty alongside those who actually held a substantive title, then what is? Is an abolished title just automatically, immutably afforded at birth to all descendants in perpetuity?

Whether some way should be found of distinguishing real/nominal categories is another matter, ditto infoboxes, but inventing 'legal' names for pretenders largely known by their (albeit defunct) royal name is not a solution. The main point of proposal 2.2 is how we should distinguish real from nominal titles... And 2.1 explicitly defers to COMMONNAME, particularly when no clear "real" alternative exists, rather than "inventing" a legal name. JoelleJay (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• User:JoelleJay Thanks for the ping. Not a problem. If navbox is in conflict with COMMONNAME and with the article body, that’s not an issue of the proposed, that’s just picking a template that doesn’t match. Trying to instead rule which side in a disputed title is a “legal” one which runs counter to COMMONNAME or V or the person’s abdication choice just isn’t good. Otherwise, your feeling that COMMONNAME and abdication should be respected seems to match what I was suggesting. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Markbassett -- COMMONNAME only affects the article title, though, not the rest of the body or how they are categorized. I would be (and have been) reverted immediately for removing someone from an archduke template whose consensus COMMONNAME does not include his title. And for the people whose COMMONNAME does have a title (or whose COMMONNAME hasn't yet been determined by consensus, but by default has the title), are they always eligible to be put in the "Titleholders of Country" navbox? This is the kind of slippery slope that has plagued these articles for a decade: editors will cite the Almanach and several tabloids that call Miguel LastName "Archduke Miguel" and conclude that is his COMMONNAME--and therefore that we can say he is an Archduke of Austria. But his brother Manuel, who is better known for his research career, is overwhelmingly called "Manuel LastName" by the academic press, making that his COMMONNAME. 100% of the time, he will still be included in all the "Archdukes of Austria" and "Austrian Princes" categories and navboxes, he will still have the royalty infobox periodically edit warred in, he will have several sections devoted to his familial orders and styles, and an ahnentafel will be inserted. Someone will track down his partner's birthdate and describe their parentage, and the full names and dates of birth of his non-notable children will be included as his "issue". However, if we didn't approach these articles with the POV that royal titles are immutable and passed on eternally, and instead defaulted to the century-old legal status of nobility that has been undisputed by the vast majority of the country and world, there would be no ambiguity as to whom Misplaced Pages can declare is an archduke. JoelleJay (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay COMMONNAME or “what is the usual name” is also a theme linking a wide variety of such concerns, for example the top hat there has See Also to WP:OFFICIALNAMES, and the existing policies and precedent in discussions involving names for people, including WP:OTHERNAMES, varied handling for unofficial names Queen Latifah versus “Duke” Ellington, whether to use or even mention names of drag queens being subject to that person’s wishes. So I continue to say COMMONNAME, unless the person abdicated or refuted the title, is enough to have and after that would be article-specific discussions. COMMONNAME has been useful for a wide variety of people. This thread seems still not a problem, or the described events not one of kinds not addressed by the proposal and not one needing new policy. Whether the article for Miguel uses the simple ‘Archduke Miquel’ or enquires it to show enquoted “Archduke” or keeps a disputed title or the title of an extinct kingdom and whether the title existed when the person it went extinct ... is going to face COMMONNAME at least in terms of what V is. Yes, there are a wide variety of situations for nobility titles and whether the title is used, even in the British royal family, but the proposal simply does not include enough detailing of specific categories to clear them up. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett Thanks for the thorough response! However, I am still confused how COMMONNAME is supposed to apply to things other than the article title. The requirements for COMMONNAME just seem to be that it's (generally) the name most frequently used to refer to someone in RS unambiguously -- nowhere does it state COMMONNAME is governed by the same criteria used to determine if someone can be put in, e.g., the "physicians" categories or have an "academia" infobox, or vice versa. This is made obvious by the fact we have the article title Dr. Dre for a non-doctor, but he is still excluded from . JoelleJay (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay COMMONNAME here you can also read as short for WEIGHT of use and the general principles tied in with COMMONNAME. The general resolution for people seems to be use what WEIGHT is most common, with exceptions of respecting objections of personal choice - which for infobox royalty would be by abdication or their name change, not whether there was a change in government decrees. A practical issue to the proposal (beyond just involving hundreds of articles) is that anything else would have difficulty finding V and would be opposing WEIGHT plus requires OR for setting what is “legitimate”. The WP:VNT seems clearly siding with use what is COMMON. The NPOV guidance to portray all POVs in proportion to their WEIGHT similarly would seem guidance to use the WP:IB and hence prominence that goes along with WEIGHT. And WP:NCNOB similarly guides us to WEIGHT, with a section on defunct titles explicitly saying that for these situations. Outside of existing WP policy and guides, I will note that exceptions to that are commonly carved for BLP by declarations of the person, not just of ‘what do they use/answer to/acknowledge’, I think those are linking to the human right of identity in a family and personal choice. (I’m thinking there is something in WP, at least for LGBT about ‘deadnames’, but don’t recall the link.) And while WP should comply with the law, and certainly an article should mention any notable dispute about the title, I think the Austrian law simply does not limit the English WP.

I’m also just thinking about articles out there historically. Nobles have been deposed and later regained positions, and pages are just widely varying case by case, with no new policy - Juan Carlos I of Spain or Shah of Iran for example, and Princess Noor Pahlavi and Edward VIII or Prince Harry. I still think keep it simple, COMMONNAME (except for abdication or personal voice) and otherwise TALK it out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I see what you are saying now, but I disagree that it is OR or unverifiable to not treat a descendant of a legally abolished monarchy as if they still hold royal titles. Rather, the Constitution issuing said decree, and the body of literature surrounding the status of nobility post-abolition, are by far the most reliable sources possible for whether a royal title exists. The Republic of Austria is stable, undisputed, and recognized by every world government--there are no legitimate movements to restore the Habsburgs or any monarchy. This is true for many other republics that abolished monarchies. It is also the case that a much higher degree of verifiability than that used to weight COMMONNAME is required to assert the controversial, legally actionable claim that a living person holds a noble title in Austria this is obviously not a legal threat to you or Misplaced Pages. The clear majority of RS calling someone "Princess Marcella" is usually enough for it to be her article title, but it would be synthesis and OR, on top of non-neutral POV-pushing, to declare that this usage is a) explicitly rejecting a constitutional act (or even affirming a person's titulature at all) as opposed to just being a tabloid colloquialism, and b) these RS carry more WEIGHT than the RS that discuss titles being illegal or nonexistent. Please also note the COMMONNAME deficiencies described by Aquillion and the distinction between criteria used for article titles and what we can state is a substantive title acknowledged by Surtsicna in the other sections.

As for your concession that abdication or name change would affect the use of infobox royalty -- do you acknowledge that this would actually exclude all Austrian (and likely Czech and Hungarian) Habsburgs from having that infobox or being in any royal categories? None of them are officially known by a title or have a title in their legal name, and none of them assert that title. And would you permit the abdication of one member to affect the royal status of all his descendants? JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay Yes, I think that COMMONNAME aka WEIGHT with exceptions for BLP respecting the person’s choice is enough. If for example the Austrians repudiated claims then that’s already covered, no need for more. More than that - this proposal just is not limited to Austrians. There are just too diverse a set of circumstances and decisions out there to accept a “must” rule. It’s not just that the British royal family history. The Shah of Iran was deposed - and yet retained the title before being deposed again - and yet his descendant is still titled. The European crowns have gone into exile during wars - both losing their position by one government and at the same time recognised by another as noble. If the proposal only is looking at Austrians, it’s not needed. If the proposal is looking to be for everyone, then it needs to look for other cases. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Complete nonsense to say that the Almanach de Gotha is a “pro monarchy group” or that books on royalty are published by “nobility enthusiasts”. What’s your evidence for these unsubstantiated claims? - dwc lr (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The modern Almanach de Gotha includes multiple royalist activists from abolished monarchies among its "société des amis" and "comité de patronage" and styles them as if they hold a sovereign title. That is monarchist promotion. And who else besides a nobility enthusiast would publish royal genealogies? These are not academic works. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay Which ones are “royalist activists”? If they were given “sovereign titles” you’d have the King of Italy, Emperor of Brazil not those non sovereign lesser titles. Also presumably you consider the previous President of Germany to be a monarchist because he called Mr Franz von Bayern his Royal Highness? With regard publishing genealogies (I’m not even sure which books your supposedly referring too), I would assume a genealogist would engage in this work? Or perhaps a historian, or a lawyer with an interest in house laws, or even an academic. But these terms are probably too ‘up market’ to fit your narrative. - dwc lr (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support both. This is not "creep", it is a necessary guide to a group of editors who, for whatever reason, favour the society pages over geopolitical sources when naming articles. There is a hierarchy of reliability in sources, and we are dfoing it wrong, and we need to stop. Guy (help!) 08:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support both (and I prefer this proposal to the original one above). This is nowhere near CREEP, as this has been a very, very long-running and ingrained problem that involves all three of the core content policies, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and and WP:V (and its dependent WP:RS guideline).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (proposal 2, archdukes)

• Oppose policies already exist to deal with the issues, such as WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Common Name. - dwc lr (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  DWC LR, and this is necessary because COMMONNAME (a style guide) is being asserted ove r NPOV (one of the five pillars) in order to name articles as if people have titles of nobility that do not exist. Guy (help!) 16:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• dwc lr Do you acknowledge there is a difference between someone being called "Archduke Karl" by some media, and actually being an archduke? JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• JoelleJay What’s your definition of an actual Archduke? Can you say who decides who is an Archduke, is there one body you defer too? The Belgian Royal Family say the husband of Princess Astrid is an Archduke, the Luxemburg Grand Ducal Family say the husband of Princess Marie Astrid is an Archduke. Are they Archdukes or are they mistaken? - dwc lr (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• The relevant body would be the one which authorizes the privileges afforded by a noble title. As far as I can tell, the ruling bodies who determined the scope and usage of "archduke" are as follows:

1. 1358 to 1365: Duchy of Austria under Habsburg Duke Rudolf IV of Austria via forged Privilegium Maius (title not officially recognized by HRE).
2. 1365 to 1414: latent under Rudolf's younger brothers and their heirs, who split the duchy of Austria.
3. 1414 to 1424: Inner Austria under Ernest the Iron (asserts title).
4. 1424 to 1440: Inner Austria under Ernest's son Frederick V (latent).
5. 1440 to 1453: Duchy of Austria under Ladislaus the Posthumous, under guardianship of Frederick V (latent).
6. 1453 to 1457: HRE/Archduchy of Austria (latent). Frederick V is elected Emperor Frederick III of the HRE in 1452, formally recognizes the Privilegium Maius and elevates the Duchy to Archduchy, but doesn't authorize Ladislaus to use the title.
7. 1457 to 1804: HRE/Archduchy of Austria. Ladislaus dies, Frederick III consolidates Habsburg territories and becomes Archduke of Austria (but doesn't assert the title for himself). Frederick grants some other people the archduke title as well, and eventually his son Emperor Maximilian I uses it. Habsburg command of the HRE and Archduchy of Austria is pretty much unbroken (except Charles VII) for 350 years, with "archduke" being used by both the sovereigns of the Archduchy of Austria (who happen to also be Holy Roman Emperors) and cadet members of the Habsburg and Habsburg-Lorraine dynasties.
8. 1804 to 1806: Archduchy of Austria (under the HRE/Empire of Austria). HR Emperor Francis II founds the Empire of Austria and designates himself Emperor Francis I of Austria as well.
9. 1806 to 1815: Empire of Austria: HRE dissolved in 1806, but Francis retains imperial rule of the Empire of Austria and the archducal titles.
10. 1815 to 1867: German Confederation/Empire of Austria. Francis II also becomes President of the German Confederation, with the Empire of Austria being one of its confederate states. His descendants and nephews in the House of Habsburg-Lorraine succeed him in these roles.
11. 1867 to 1918: Austria-Hungary. The 1866 Austro-Prussian war results in the formation of Austria-Hungary, with Emperor of Austria Franz Joseph I becoming head of the dual monarchy.
12. 1919 on: The Austro-Hungarian Empire is constitutionally dissolved and all royalty and titles are abolished and outlawed. The other republics created from and/or receiving land from the breakup of Austria-Hungary have since affirmed or issued their own laws abolishing nobility. Thus, there is no successor state recognizing or authorizing the title of "Archduke" or its privileges.

From this we can conclude that "Archduke of Austria" was an inherited substantive title held by the Habsburg and Habsburg-Lorraine dynasties but always endorsed and recognized by their Austrian Head of State. Royalty sites and genealogy books consider only the first clause, treating the Habsburg House as synonymous with archducal titulature regardless of whether any substantive archducal privileges/power are conferred. But post-1918 "archduke" is empty: it has no legal authority whatsoever anymore, and those that claim it do not receive the government-issued benefits of any of their predecessors. We can of course acknowledge that some descendants are afforded courtesy titles by other states; however, we cannot assume this is blanket recognition of the titles, that such titles are always inherited (such that we can entitle any and all non-notable children of these descendants without having to demonstrate COMMONNAME), or that their attribution by other (monarchic) states meets the consensus required of an encyclopedia. Because they are disputed by the relevant governments, and because they no longer impose the powers they once granted, and further because their interpretation is now inconsistent and fractured, it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages to treat identically pre-abolition titles and the titles as they are used now. JoelleJay (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay So what you’ve shown is the head of the Habsburg dynasty regulates the title and the title has nothing to do with a Head of State, there’s nothing in the constitution about it, the title is regulated by the Habsburg’s House Law. The head of the dynasty (a position you would presumably consider does not exist) to this day considers he has the power to decide who is an Archduke and has used this power to extended the title to any Habsburg born of a Christian marriage which means people who were not recognised as an Archduke (by the head of the dynasty and reliable sources like an Almanach de Gotha) now are. “it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages to treat identically pre-abolition titles and the titles as they are used now.” Misplaced Pages doesn’t, on the Archduke template and in the articles there are notices stating the titles were legally abolished they are just courtesy titles etc. If there are aren’t go find sources and add them, problem solved? The policies to achieve what you want are already at your disposal why waste time on this? - dwc lr (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The head of state was the authority who granted the right to use the archducal title. That was the Holy Roman Emperor in the beginning. That the head of the house actually has the right to recognize the title regardless of sovereignty is a POV (which is fine, and can be reflected in the article). However, this requires RS explicitly confirming that the head of the house (Karl) does consider himself an archduke with the authority to dispense titles. According to our own sources, from which we directly quote Karl, he does not. And even if he did have royal pretensions, the article would have to give due weight to the opposing POV held by the government of Austria. Despite all this, Karl's article has: 1. Austrian Royalty: House of Habsburg infobox according him and his family royal titles. There is no mention in this template that for all the grandchildren of Charles I the title is only a courtesy (which is itself not actually sourced for all of them) and illegal to use in Austria. 2. Titles in pretense table, stating in wikivoice that he asserts a claim to not only the archduke title but also Emperor of Austria. Considering it is illegal for Karl to be a royal pretender in the country in which he lives, this contentious statement would require enormous sourcing to override BLP policies. And yet here it is, completely unsourced, making this claim for TWO living people! 3. Austrian archdukes navbox (pre-collaposed). If you expand this template and read the subheading text you will learn that titles of nobility were abolished in 1919. However, there is no way to tell when 1919 was within the template. Even having superscript annotation (like we do to identify the people who also have a pretend Tuscan prince title) to clarify who isn't legally an archduke wouldn't justify including all the unlinked non-notable people whose position on holding even a courtesy title is entirely unverifiable. 4, 5, & 6: Infobox royalty and the categories "archdukes of Austria" and "princes of Austria" are regularly edited back in and are present on numerous other family members' pages. The article as it stands absolutely furthers the non-neutral, unsupported POV that these modern Habsburg family members hold or at least claim to hold the same title as their ancestors. JoelleJay (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would say there is a world of difference between Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt and Eduard, Prince of Anhalt. You might get some media calling Frédéric a ‘Prince’ but you wouldn’t get respected reliable sources like Almanach de Gotha and countless others which study dynastic house laws for titles, styles, succession rights. But of course such books would clearly be in the “fiction” category for many here. - dwc lr (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support both. As an example of the issue here, Ferdinand Habsburg is a professional racing driver. He is legally and professionally known as Ferdinand Habsburg.

But we don't call him Ferdinand Habsburg. Our article title is Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg. Past article titles have been Ferdinand Zvonimir Habsburg-Lothringen and Archduke Ferdinand Zvonimir of Austria. On Template:House of Habsburg-Lorraine after Francis I he is called Archduke Ferdinand Zvonimir. The same title is implied by Template:Austrian archdukes. The old Template:Austrian Imperial Family referred to him as late as this year - and I wish I were joking on this - as His Imperial and Royal Highness Archduke Ferdinand Zvonimir. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was abolished 79 years before he was born. And he's now old enough to be a pro racing driver.

Our article even claims Ferdinand Habsburg as a colloquialism. No, "Ferdie" is a colloquialism. "Ferdinand Habsburg" is his name.

If this is all sufficiently covered by WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME such that no further explanation were necessary, then this would not be a question. There would be no issue here. But the fact is that there are plenty of templates and articles out there that insist on calling this individual by something other than his legal and professional name. It is clear that further explanation is needed, and this proposal provides it. Kahastok talk 19:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support As per my reasons above. I think this proposal should solve the issue just as well as proposal 1. As for those opposing based on CREEP, I think some guidance from a centralized discussion now could save a lot of time and arguing later. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose A bit too broad of a proposal given the disparity between what each person chooses to go by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:2CEE:E19E:E71F:BDD5 (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you oppose both proposals, or just the one that deals with COMMONNAME (the article title)? JoelleJay (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (archdukes)

• This is a minor nitpick, but re "crown princes whose titles were abolished before accession" - I wouldn't consider reigning crown princes when a title goes defunct a particularly edge case - they clearly were a "real" crown prince at one point in time, so that kind of title is fine, as long as it's Crown Prince and not King. SnowFire (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• SnowFire, yes, those are the edge cases, and we can handle them case by case (a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and all that). But let's not be deceived: Duke Ellington never claimed to be the Duke of Ellington, there never was a Duke of Ellington, so the stage name causes no confusion. Queen Latifah is not claiming to be queen of anywhere. The only real outlier there is Emperor Norton, and he was a very singular case. Even then we should probably use his birth name and say that he styled himself Emperor.

DrKay we have guidelines, and we have policies. Correct application of those has been resisted by (e.g.) those who want to claim that there is an Archduke Marcus of Austria. We have a mountain of really substantial sources that say Austria is a republic and that the archdukes were banished and their titles dissolved in 1918, so any proper assessment of sources will weigh that against the royalty fandom sources that pretend the archduchy persists, and reject them as fringe. However, that's not what's happening, so we need a specific guideline. Guy (help!) 20:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources that say Germany is a Republic, titles and styles don’t legally exist. There are also lots of sources that still recognise said titles and styles. Let’s look at the words of the previous Federal President of the Federal Republic of Germany “Lieber Herzog Franz”, “Königliche Hoheit”. These aren’t words spoken in reference to a foreign royal but Mr Franz Prinz von Bayern/Herzog von Bayern (or whatever his “real name” maybe). Although the use of legally abolished titles really grinds the gears of some Misplaced Pages editors, the real world doesn’t care about this long established and widespread practice. Even I wouldn’t propose moving Otto von Habsburg to include his title because he was commonly known (Common Name) without it (certainly in his later years). We have enough policies in place to deal with these issues. - dwc lr (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Surtsicna, COMMONNAME is a style guide, not a policy. Policy is NPOV and V. Per NPOV and V, there are no archdukes of Austria, no princes of Prussia. Not since 1918. Guy (help!) 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Guy, WP:COMMONNAME is not a style guide. It is indeed a policy. The notice on the top of the page clearly says: "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy." Surtsicna (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Surtsicna, It is not part of 5P. So we have a stylistic preference and genealogy RS set against geopolitical and historical RS that say the titles do not exist. A simple experiment could be arranged: see whether"His Imperial And Royal Highness" can actually order Austrian troops into battle. However, you are entirely correct that most of them should be nuked, especially now the handful of sources that provided much of the content are, by consensus, deprecated as unreliable. Guy (help!) 23:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:Article titles is the sole policy of Misplaced Pages dealing with article titles and it makes it abundantly clear that "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources". Downplaying it will not get us anywhere. Nowhere does it mandate the use of legal names or legal titles. It even explicitly states, under WP:NPOVNAME, that the "prevalence of the name ... generally overrides concern that Misplaced Pages might appear as endorsing one side of an issue". Not that there appears to be any issue in the real world; nobody seems to be batting an eye about these people being called things they are legally not. Surtsicna (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Surtsicna, Who's the reigning Prince of Bavaria? Who's the reigning Emperor of Mexico? Who's the reigning Archduke of Austria? If your answer is anything other than "nobody", go back to square one. Guy (help!) 23:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone does not need to be the reigning Prince, Archduke, Emperor (etc) to commonly be named with those titles. Bonnie Prince Charlie was not a reigning prince after all... yet he is commonly referred to by that name. In fact, one does not even need to be royal or noble to be called a title... Duke Ellington was not actually the Duke of anything. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Duke Ellington and his supporters were not claiming he was the Duke of Ellington. There never was a Duke of Ellington and the position was never officially abolished, as it was with these deposed royal families. Comparisons with stage names are irrelevant. Continuing to refer to people as holders of royal titles after those positions have been officially abolished is ludicrous and misleading.I don't understand why people want to do it.Smeat75 (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Well said user:JzG!Smeat75 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

And I totally agree with what User:Surtsicna says above "the vast majority of the articles should be deleted rather than renamed." There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of articles about people whose only claim to notability is that they are, for instance, the small child or teenaged offspring of the person who is the sister of the person who would be reigning Duke or King if there still were one. Sooooo ridiculous and I tried to have some of such articles deleted seven years ago but met fierce opposition and gave up. I am hopeful that things have changed somewhat. Smeat75 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Being a genuine lawful King of a country is a claim of significance and will avoid speedy deletion, but even a lawful King is not WP:Notable unless there is sufficient Reliable Source coverage. Pretty much the same goes for people with defunct titles, or people claiming relationship to defunct nobility. It would probably survive speedy delete, but insufficient Reliable Source coverage is (should be) an AFD-delete. I would hope any AFD-closer would be competent enough and self-confident enough to flat out disregard any !vote that amounted to empty royalty-fandom. "I like it" is not a valid keep rationale, and closes should not be a blind headcount of keeps/deletes. Alsee (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The proposer conflates two different types of titles: those that denote the holding of an actual office and those that don't. The Queen of the UK for example is an actual position that entails executive, parliamentary and judicial authority. If the UK became a Republic, that position would end and she would no longer be Queen. But the title of Prince of Wales, awarded to her heir apparent, implies no actual authority. Similarly the positions of emperor of Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, etc. as well as dukes of various German duchies have been abolished and the titles should not be used. But it's less clear with the subsidiary titles such as Archduke of Austria or prince of a German duchy. Saying someone is Archduke of Austria does not imply they have any power and did not when there was an Austro-Hungarian Emperor. It only means that if Austria restored the empire that they would become emperor. But that is different from saying they actually are the emperor. So the default is COMMONNAME. If someone lives in a palace, travels the world as an archduke and is usually referred to as Archduke of Austria, then that is what they should be called. TFD (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The proposal text also conflates two ideas, that WP should not ASSERT a 'dead' title - with which we probably nearly all agree - and we should not acknowledge a title, even when sources do. This lady is still known by the surname of a man to whom she is not married - how is that different from a 'pretender' being known by a noble family title that no longer means anything? Existing policies should be able to deal with this.Pincrete (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the Genetic Literacy Project

More input would be very welcome at Talk:Genetic Literacy Project#RfC about the word nonpartisan for the Genetic Literacy Project. NightHeron (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Disputed Quotes at Tell Abyad

We have an issue with 3 quotes at Tell Abyad, where there are three quotes included which as to my account are contrary to Misplaced Pages:Quotations and neutrality, Misplaced Pages:Quotations, Misplaced Pages:Quotations/2, MOS:QUOTE.

• There have been 4 discussions about them, which you can read at the articles talk page.
• Other discussions about them where at the 3RR noticeboard and DNR where as to me no solution was found.

I provide a wikilink here to the section citation of Misplaced Pages:quoatations/2 where it states "Quotes generally should come from notable sources or entities directly of some relevance to an article. The policy WP:UNDUE applies. If the source of the quote is neither notable nor otherwise important to the article, then there's no reason to be using a quote in the first place. Relevant sources need not be notable - for example, in an article about a murder, a sentence by a neighbor may be well worth quoting directly. Naming of such sources should follow notability and BLP. Quotations should not be represented out of context or in articles where they are not relevant to the overall topic; i.e. an article on the Pentagon doesn't include Washington's warning about standing armies."

The Kurdwatch quote:

"None of KurdWatch’s Arab or Turkmen interview partners reported of ethnically motivated mass expulsions from Tall Abyad and the surrounding areas. In fact, we can assume that there have been no large-scale ethnically motivated expulsions in the region. For demographic reasons alone a »Kurdification« of the area is out of the question. The proportion of around ten percent Kurds is simply too low. At the same time, regulations such as only Kurds from ʿAyn al-ʿArab or Tall Abyad can act as a guarantor for refugees so that they can return to Tall Abyad from Turkey clearly discriminate on the basis of ethnicity."

Regarding the Kurdwatch quote: Kurdwatchs authors are not made known to the public, and its content managers were Eva Savelsberg and Siamend Hajo who are closely linked to the ENKS, and have very few hits on google. So no notability is given here. The were both content managers invited to a SETA forum together with Kyle Orton, an Author who equates the YPG with the PKK. Siamends Hajos membership of the ENKS was suspended for his attendance of the forum.. This quote is sure a POV quote as the ENKS was an opponent of the PYD. Eva Savelsberg, as provided in the Youtube link criticizes the PYD for their press freedom record. During the Syrian Civil War there was never as much press freedom as under the Government of the PYD. But even for the ENKS Siamend Heja crossed the line for attending a SETA forum equating the PYD with the PKK.

The Washington Post Quote penned by Liz Sly:

The Kurds formally renamed Tal Abyad with a Kurdish name, "Gire Spi", and proclaim its new identity in signs throughout the town — written in the Latin script used by Turkish Kurds but not readily understood by Syrian Kurds or Arabs. They have also unilaterally detached it from the existing Syrian province of Raqqa and made it a part of their newly formed autonomous enclave, carved from areas traditionally inhabited by Kurds but steadily encroaching also on territories that were historically Arab.

Regarding the Washington Post Quote penned by Liz Sly: The Quote ignores opposing information that shows that the PYD and the Syrian Democratic Forces SDF have called Tell Abyad all the time Tell Abyad and also haven't removed the Welcome to Tell Abyad plate and the entrance to the city. Formally renamed is not really neutral for mentioning that they allowed the Kurdish name to be used as well. Then Latin script was and is common to the Syrian population as it is used throughout Syrians traffic signs. Tell Abyad was also not unilaterally detached from an existing Raqqa Governorate, as the Raqqa Governorate was at the time (2015) called Raqqa Wilaya and mainly controlled by the Islamic State. Therefore I see the Quote as POV.

The quote from The Washington Institute penned by Fabrice Balanche:

In administrative terms, Tal Abyad district no longer belongs to the Syrian government province of Raqqa, but to the Kurdish canton of Kobane. Although the population is predominantly Arab, there is no civil council to represent them as in Manbij, Deir al-Zour, Raqqa, and other Arab-majority locales liberated by Kurdish forces. Instead, the YPG’s goal is to fully integrate Tal Abyad into Kurdish territory, which the group still envisions as an autonomous belt along most of the northern border.

Regarding the quote from The Washington Institute penned by Fabrice Balanche: Besides the fact that Balanche ignores the Civil council consisting of an Arab Majority also mentioned in the Washington Post article (behind a paywall) penned by Liz Sly, and the Tell Abyad canton mentioned in numerous sources, it has also no direct relevance to the article. Balanche has no widely known connection specifically to Tell Abyad, nor has the Washington Institute. Therefore I see the Quote as POV and lacks of Notability for the article.

I support the removal of the Quotes as I did here. I was reported at the 3RR noticeboard for removing a KurdWatch quote, and had to revert and include all the three quotes again, so I come with my arguments to here and hope for dispute resolution.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I already explained here about your edit war.] You want delete reliable sourced content with WP:ORIGINAL local "source" How is this POV? This person keeping seeking new excuses to delete large encyclopedic material from wikipedia. He wants this one POV version ] Shadow4dark (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "Kurdish politician faces threats for opposing PYD/PKK".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

All discussions, we had first 5 people involved but dropped now to 3.https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:EdJohnston#Konli17_Block https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_191#Tell_Abyad And the talk page Shadow4dark (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

essays are not policies that we are required to obey.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, MOS:Quote is not an essay, but within the Manual of Style guideline and links to WP:Quotations right below the title. But true, WP:Quoatations is mentioned as an essay so are the other two which I mentioned. Within MOS:QUOTE there is also MOS:QUOTEPOV which would also be interesting to read regarding the quotes. Then also, for what are essays written and included on Misplaced Pages? For that someone can read it and enhance the information available at Misplaced Pages? I guess this is at least one of the the reasons. We either follow them or refute them, but that's everyones own choice. I chose to read them.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not really sure whether this discussion is needed, given all the previous discussions we had over this across WP. Just to give some background here, after failing on the Talk page and aggressive reverts, user Paradise Chronicle had opened a DRN case about one of the quotes, but did not like the suggestion of volunteer user Nightenbelle. We have beaten this discussion to death on the Talk page of this article and I have refuted all the points mentioned by Paradise chronicle, who was blocked (with another edit-warrior) over their edit-warring behavior in this article, but still they want to keep discussing for ever. Here is a very brief summary of my response (see DRN for more references and details):

1. Kurdwatch is a human rights organization with no political affiliation, unlike the Kurdish sources Paradise C prefers to use (ANF, Hawar, Rudaw, Kurdistan24, you name it..). Their coverage was fair and balanced, including covering YPG human rights violations, hence YPG supporters don't like them.
2. Balanche, a professor of history and fellow with The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is an established expert in the Syrian civil war and author of the reference work Sectarianism of Syria's civil war, and possibly the most informed person about the ethnic/sectarian details of the civil war. He is quoted across WP and elsewhere. He , and the Arab tribes geographical distribution and relations with the government, opposition, YPG, so I guess you can hardly say "Balanche has no widely known connection specifically to Tell Abyad, nor has the Washington Institute."
3. Washington Post reporter Liz Sly was based in Akcakale (the Turkish part of Tel Abyad, separated by a fence), interviewing refugees from Tel Abyad. So, your claim she is not relevant is so funny.
4. The fact that the Balanche and WaPo quotes share so many points make them even more credible and more relevant for this article. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned before, there has not been any real Sysop action in the discussions. Sysops only blocked for edit war and I wish not want to go into it for now. But from Sysops, so far no arguments about the content and significance of the quotes came.

About the political affiliation: Kurdwatch had as a content manager Siamend Hajo, who is a leader of the Kurdistan Future Party, as it was presented several times by Anadolu here and here and by Seta here, both are outlets rather critical to the PYD party, a pro-Kurdish party, the only political party which enabled Kurdish in school. The Future party of is also part of the Kurdish National Council, better known as the ENKS, who is also critical to the PYD. About the relevance:Fabrice Balanche is no expert in the Syrian Civil War, as he ignores several significant facts which I have mentioned above. He has also no clear connection to Tel Abyad, he hasn't lived at the town for a relevant time. Also the Washington Institute can not provide a "unique" connection to Tell Abyad. Then the quote from the Washington Post of Liz Sly is also not uniquely connected with Tell Abyad and has significant contradictions to the Fabrice Balance quote and also to the facts. Just read it, please and also the sources we have provided. Thank you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

As part of the RFC can i tag some neutral people with high knowledge of the syrian civil war, User:EkoGraf and User:Mr.User200. This dispute gets annoying Shadow4dark (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Has Liz Sly ever been to Syria, or is all her information from interviewing the jihadist supporters that Turkey shelters? Balanche has great maps and some of his information is revelatory, but his analysis can sometimes be spotty. The issue here isn't the references or the information in them; the issue is that these quotes, which are contradicted by other sources, are being framed as the only acceptable references, and the information contained in them is being distorted to push a POV. Konli17 (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

1 of the 3 quotes is deleted as per talk page agreement Shadow4dark (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Not so much an agreement as a bullshit pretence at a quid pro quo, agreed between POV-pushers. The issue isn't the sources, but their presentation. Konli17 (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Note, this user above was banned and has dispute with several editors. ]] ] Shadow4dark (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

a comment to the "note" by Shadow4dark: The editor is relevant to the discussion as he was blocked for the dispute about Tell Abyad. He was blocked for allegedly having reverted 9 times. Actually both reverted 8 times, and Ibn Amr (the reporting party at the 3RR noticeboard) was the reverting party in the first place. And while Konli17 was active at the talk page, opening a discussion on the dispute, Ibn Amr literally wrote I don't care what you think. I too was partially blocked for a little time for removing the very Kurdwatch quote that was now removed. Also after having been reported by Ibn Amr at the 3RR noticeboard.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Adrian David Cheok

This article seems biased particularly the political viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:1201:55D3:8D95:85A3:87B9:915E (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you give some specific examples?--69.157.254.92 (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Sampradaya

Hello,

There is a discussion going on at the article for Swaminarayan Sampradaya. There seems to be a discussion going but there is an issue that a break off group BAPS has editors that want to use their texts and version of their ideology to dominate the original groups article.

136.2.16.181 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I reviewed the article and its talk page and found what appears to be WP:BATTLEGROUND. @136.2.16.181 states there is a problem with a specific group. In reviewing the multiple edits and reverts I saw that many developments in the tradition that occurred following the death of its founder, Swaminarayan, were removed thereby reducing the diversity of thought in the article. The article is definitely not about the founder since there is a separate article covering his life. The article’s content is about the denomination, the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, which includes multiple perspectives that are no longer reflected by the recent edits and move the overall page away from NPOV. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the article states all the facts about the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and is not biased towards any of the denominations of the sampradaya and I agree with Skubydoo. The edits made by multiple unregistered users introduced a bias by removing details unrelated to one group. Currently, it has been written for anyone to understand the holistic views of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and its history. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Skubydoo (talk · contribs) and Apollo1203 (talk · contribs). As it stands, the vast majority of materials cited in the article are from independent, secondary sources with primary sources only being used to corroborate details cited in the aforementioned sources. Where relevant, material from all major branches of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is cited. Harshmellow717 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

How come you guys are always agreeing on BAPS related articles? Have you even looked at the sources? They are from Aksharpith and BAPS related articles. I wouldn't be surprised if these users are sock puppets or at minimum members of BAPS. We need some additional users involved. I can assure you that Moksha88 will be here supporting BAPS claims. 136.2.32.181 (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"LGBT ideology-free zones" in Poland

Editors are invited to opine on how to rename or restyle the title so as to make clear that "LGBT ideology" is not a thing. Threads: Talk:LGBT ideology-free zone#Title, Talk:LGBT ideology-free zone#LGBT-free zone, Talk:LGBT ideology-free zone#What is 'LGBT ideology'? François Robere (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead already makes that clear:

"An 'LGBT ideology-free zone'... refers to some regions of Poland which have declared themselves unwelcoming of an alleged 'LGBT ideology.' "

There is no need to call it something other than what those 100 municipalities call it.

Also, it most certainly is "a thing". See Ideology. Ideologies exist. Some are good, some are bad. Some are based on evidence, some are based on bullshit. I can't think of any group or person who is100% ideology free. Why would you think that the LGBT community is different in this regard than pretty much every other community? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think they are saying that LGBT itself is not an ideology and therefore there can't be an LGBT ideology-free zone, but that argument is based on WP:OR so can't be used. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. is an ideology is not the same as has an ideology. Misplaced Pages has an ideology but Misplaced Pages isn't itself an ideology. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

In which case the current title is misleading, as the regulations described in that article are aimed against LGBT people; the "ideology" is just an excuse.Trasz (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether it is an ideology or not is irrelevant. We should follow the name from the sources. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, excelt that it's not the "LGBT ideology" they are banning. It's the ideology of accepting that LGBT people are human. Guy (help!) 21:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

What is 'LGBT ideology'? User talk:Chrisdevelop) 00:50, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Emir, per policy we should not be using "LGBT ideology" in Wikivoice if the best sources agree that no such ideology exists. Newimpartial (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

and/or change Title to 'LGBT ideology-free zones in Poland' (perhaps placing "LGBT ideology" in "so-called" inverted commas) or merge with either LGBT rights in Poland or LGBT history in Poland, or merge all three. User talk:Chrisdevelop) 01:27, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Wikivoice applies to statements of fact, not to titles of things. People use misleading titles for things all of the time. We don't say in the article title that the title they chose is misleading. We can only report in the lead that a notable source called the title misleading. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree that "it's not the 'LGBT ideology' they are banning. It's the ideology of accepting that LGBT people are human". Yes, accepting that LGBT people are human is an ideology -- one of the good ones. And I don't think I need to engage in virtue signalling by pointing out that my opinion on not accepting that LGBT people are human is exactly the same low opinion of everyone else here.

Nonetheless, we don't rename things with new names because we don't agree with the name that the people doing the naming chose. We follow WP:COMMONNAME.

• We don't change Pro Life Campaign to So-called "Pro Life" (anti-abortion, actually) campaign.
• We don't call the National Socialism Association the National Socialism (but they are really fascists, not socialists) Association.
• We don't rename Liberation theology into Liberation theology (well, not really -- the truth is that it is Marxist theology).
• We don't rename People's republic into Falsely-called "people's" falsely-called "republic" (not to be confused with any actual republic).

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Since 'LGBT-free zones' are already discussed in LGBT rights in Poland under a dedicated heading LGBT_rights_in_Poland#"LGBT_free_zones" and there is an 'LGBT-free zone' image posted in LGBT history in Poland, this topic does not warrant its own article, which duplicates what is already in the other two. It should be merged with LGBT rights in Poland under the heading that is already there, and the duplicated material edited out. User talk:Chrisdevelop) 02:29, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Why not just change it to LGBT free zone? It is mentioned in the lead section as an alternative way to refer to it, backed-up by several sources. Whereas LGBT ideology-free zone may be the COMMONNAME, LGBT free zone is more concise, probably more recognizable and more natural, and still precise enough. El Millo (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Chrisdevelop, I am going to ask a good-faith question, and I am purposely doing it before looking at the pages you linked to. Please take this is the spirit I wrote it in; I am not trying to pick a fight. Are you proposing a merge because there isn't enough material to justify a stand-alone article (which would be the right reason)? Or are you proposing a merge as a backdoor way of getting rid of an article title based on the fact that pretty much everyone agrees that "LGBT ideology-free zones" is misleading but some of us don't think that we should go against WP:COMMONNAME? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, not a bad idea, if there are significant sources that use that name. Could someone who understands polish do a web search in that language and tell us how many sources use LGBT free zone as opposed to using LGBT ideology-free zone? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon The heading at LGBT_rights_in_Poland#"LGBT_free_zones" places "LGBT free zones" in inverted commas, which takes care of the "so-called" aspect, since there is not currently a defintion of what LGBT ideology actually is, or purports to be, or is believed to be, nor is there an article on it. Splitting the topic of LGBT+ Rights in Poland across three articles creates quite some duplication. If it is not agreed that there should be a merge of all three of these articles into one comprehensive, then the existing article could itself either be renamed to 'LGBT-free zones in Poland', or expanded to include other states that have the equivalent. There are 'LGBT-ideology free' countries, e.g. Russia, whose Duma passed a Russian_gay_propaganda_law prohibiting 'Gay Propaganda', which amounts to the same thing. User talk:Chrisdevelop) 03:18, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

I made a Google search of both names: Strefa wolna od ideologii LGBT (LGBT ideology-free zone) returns 71 results and Strefa wolna od LGBT (LGBT free zone) returns 108 results. El Millo (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I think we should rename that article "LGBT free zones" immediately and keep discussing whether to merge, and which way. Does anyone object to the move? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename to "LGBT free zones" only if other 'LGBT-free' countries are to be included, such as Russia, which has a Russian_gay_propaganda_law, and Iran whose former president Ahmadinejad declared in Controversies_of_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Columbia_University "in Iran we don't have homosexuals". Otherwise, rename to 'LGBT-free zones in Poland'. Removal of "ideology" is necessary, since no-one knows what 'LGBT ideology' is. "LGBT-free zone" can be conflated in intention with Judenfrei ("Jew-free zone"), since Nazis also exterminated homosexuals. User talk:Chrisdevelop) 04:23, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Rename *For title purposes, the terms used in Polish don't matter at all; per WP:COMMONNAME, titles on enwiki go by the English-language common name. (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources, emphasis mine.) That said, glancing at the English-language sources makes it clear "LGBT free zones" is the most common name in English, so obviously it should be renamed. ---Aquillion (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Could someone who understands polish do a web search in that language and tell us how many sources use LGBT free zone as opposed to using LGBT ideology-free zone?Sure, the organisers of these zones made it clear they do not oppose LGBT people themselves, but rather the LGBT movement and what they believe to be LGBT ideology(as LGBT people do not equal the LGBT movement). Here are two reliable sources from mainstream news sources which describe what their intent was and what they believe to be "LGBT ideology", while distancing themselves from attempts to discriminate LGBT people themselves.

• 1.

Część samorządowców z Lubelszczyzny wystosowała właśnie apel do organizacji i instytucji unijnych pod hasłem "Uwolnijmy Europę od ideologii". Na konferencji prasowej przekonywali, że ich intencje związane z przyjmowaniem uchwał anty-LGBT zostały źle zrozumiane, bo nigdy nie byli przeciwko ludziom, ale przeciwko ideologii.Na spotkaniu z dziennikarzami udowadniali, że celem tej ideologii jest utopia. - Ta utopia oznacza przede wszystkim dyktaturę mniejszości nad większością. Jeżeli pozycja rodziny, która przynosi wielki dar życia i wychowania kolejnego pokolenia, jest poniżana i kwestionowana, to z całą pewnością jest to świat, którego nie chcielibyśmy oglądać w naszych wioskach i miastach. I to jest to niebezpieczeństwo, przed którym chcielibyśmy chronić - mówił Radosław Brzózka z zarządu powiatu świdnickiego. Ten powiat jako pierwszy w Polsce przyjął uchwałę anty-LGBT. Translation: Part of local politicians from Lubelszczyzna issued an appeal to organisations and European Union institutions under the slogan "Let's free Europe from ideology". During press conference they were explaining that their intention connected to issuing anti-LGBT proclamations were wrongly interpreted, because they never were against people, but against ideology.During the meeting with reporters they attested that the ideology has utopia as its goal-This utopia means first and foremost dictatorship of minority over majority. If position of family, which brings great gift of life and upbringing of new generations is humiliated and questioned, than most certainly this is a model which we wouldn't like to see in our villages and towns. And this is the danger we would like to protect from-said Radoslaw Brzozka from swidnicki district. This district was one of the first district who issued an anti-LGBT proclamation.

• 2.

Andrzej Pruś podkreśla, że stanowisko przyjęte uchwałą w żadnym punkcie nie popierało wykluczania społecznego, dyskryminacji, szykanowania przedstawicieli środowisk LGBT, a jedynie miało na celu wyrażenie sprzeciwu i dezaprobaty wobec prób promocji ideologii opartej na afirmacji LGBT. Translation: Andrzej Prus underlines that the statement in no point at all supported social exclusion, discrimination or persecutions representatives of LGBT groups, andwas only intended to express opposition to attempts to promote ideology based on affirmation of LGBT. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename. I'm okay with inclusion of other countries if the concepts overlap. François Robere (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A new heading 'Proposal to rename' has been placed in the Talk page Talk:LGBT_ideology-free_zone#Proposal_to_rename_as_'LGBT-free_zones User talk:Chrisdevelop) 17:46, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Merge discussion

See here. François Robere (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

White Fragility

More input is needed at White Fragility, and on its talk page: Talk:White Fragility#Overhaul. Crossroads 21:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Radhe Shyam

• Radhe Shyam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a dispute between whether there are 2 languages or 3 languages the film is being shot on and whether it is POV and OR as said by ThaThinThaKiThaTha. More input is needed on this talk page: Talk:Radhe Shyam#Original languages. SP013 (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Though I've participated somewhat in trying to broker a resolution between people with differing opinions, one editor has argued that some content, if presented one way, constitutes POV, but I'm not even clear on what they think the non-neutral POV is here. So, sure, more eyes are always welcome in reading and interpreting the points of the discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 Delhi Riots

In article 2020 Delhi Riots there are violations of NPOV. NPOV says"Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." While in the article lead, in there are two following lines which violate this.

1. "Muslims were marked as targets for violence."

2. "In order to have their religion ascertained, Muslim males— who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised—were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised."

Both the statements in RS are in quote attribution to someone else. What is anecdotal in the Reliable Source is presented as an overarching fact in the article. I had discussions on the talk page, but the only reply given is that the source is reliable, which is not even the discussion. Request resolution.

Notice to editors -SerChevalerie and Slatersteven

, , , , , and that is just for starters.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment
• Austrian princes
• American physicians