Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Emergent changes of strategy in the COVID arena

I have limited experience with issues like this so please bear with me. It appears that there are divergent strategies emerging for the management of COVID, like the recent decisions by Sweden, Norway, and even in the UK, where the independent advisory committee still does not recommend vaccination in ages 5-11. Denmark has removed all mandates and restrictions including masks and booster shots. How this creates a problem is on articles like the Joe Rogan Experience, where Rogan's statements are described(by RSes, indeed) as misinformation or false, even though his opinions are comparable to the Scandinavian approaches—specifically on the subject of vaccinating children for COVID. I am certain there are many articles affected. I have not yet made additions on these pages(regarding the sources below); I think it would be better to front-run potential edit disputes with a discussion, and to have a harmonized discussion on the matter.

Sources that are divergent, just to list a select few:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-recommending-covid-vaccines-kids-aged-5-12-2022-01-27/
https://apnews.com/7d45f190a96e4d22e62c40345a1c39b3
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/denmark-covid-restrictions/621482/
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-pandemics-united-nations-ca046d38f7e78ad7150a0a8d95d81433
--SmolBrane (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Just because they're doing it, doesn't make it a good idea (or make his statements true). Sumanuil 02:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The decisions aren't based purely on how many people in total will be badly affected or die. A vaccine must be far better than the alternative, rather like self driving cars must be far better than human drivers. People seem to not be so worried if a person catches a disease and dies, but get worked up if it is a side effect of a measure supposed to help them - even if many fewer might die overall. Also covid vaccines can occasionally have bad side effects so there's a balance to be made. So different countries and governments can come to quite different conclusions. Decisions here are a bit like the trolley problem. Anyway the best Wikipedia can do is just document anything that seems to have become worth noting according to reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I probably should have used the phrase 'POV fork' in here, since that's really the issue at stake. I agree that there's 'a balance to be made', but RSes are happy to declare those alternative positions as false or misinformation. At least when stated by Rogan. If RSes are divergent, yet speak in certainties, it's our job to clarify that right? Perhaps the 'false' statements by Rogan could be appended with “some jurisdictions have hesitated to approve or recommend COVID-19 vaccination in children”, with appropriate sourcing. SmolBrane (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@SmolBrane: can you describe what part of the article you feel needs to change? Because AFAICT, neither Joe Rogan nor Joe Rogan Experience make any commentary on vaccinating children whether now or when you first posted [1] [2]. The only thing close is this part Rogan made false remarks about COVID-19 vaccines, in particular claiming that young, healthy people do not need to be vaccinated against the virus.' and 'Part of the criticism was that there have been notable cases affecting young, healthy people.' But it's clear from the cited sources that this is not referring to children. The example given by Rogan is "But if you’re like 21 years old, and you say to me, should I get vaccinated". This is even quoted in a footnote in Joe Rogan although weirdly not Joe Rogan Experience.

Perhaps we could also quote what Rogan said in a footnote in the Experience article to make it clear that Joe Rogan is not referring to children, personally I don't see any harm in that. Although IMO even without a quotation, "young, healthy people" doesn't suggest children, it's not the way you'd normally refer to children, especially not 5-11 year olds. Rogan himself (as per our sources) said "if you're a healthy person, and you're exercising all the time, and you're young, and you’re eating well, like, I don't think you need to worry about this." which even without him having specified 21, is the way you might talk to a 21 year old, or maybe an older teen, but probably not the way you'd talk to a 14 year old let alone a 5-11 year old.

Per our source Rogan also

suggested that COVID-19 is not “statistically dangerous for children.”
“I can tell you as someone who has — both my children got the virus. It was nothing,” he continued. “I mean, I hate to say that if someone’s children died from this. I’m very sorry that that happened. I’m not in any way diminishing that. But I'm saying the personal experience that my children had with COVID was nothing.”

but this is not something we comment on.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way looking at sources that don't even halfway mention the topic i a good indication on Wikipedia that one is involved in WP:OR. The articles should be based on reliable sources that are pretty directly releant to the topic. NadVolum (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The one thing I do wonder about is the amount of his article spent on this compared to his other views. Surely his views on this don't warrant so much coverage compared to everything else? NadVolum (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, evidently I don't have the time to re-address this. SmolBrane (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Update, herd immunity

This matter seems to be emerging more clearly on the matter of herd immunity, please see my edit here: Talk:Great Barrington Declaration#Herd immunity – Watch this space, POV. Pinging editors here:@Sumanuil, NadVolum, and Nil Einne:. Please see my related edit here [3] that appears to generate the type of POV fork I'm concerned about. SmolBrane (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused, is this about Joe Rogan Experience or what? If it's about Joe Rogan Experience, we would need a source which links what Iceland have done with the podcast. Again as it stands, it's unclear to me why such a link would exist, at least based on what we say in our articles. Iceland have said that they don't think vaccinations are sufficient, but they didn't recommend healthy 21 year olds don't get them. They have not recommend people take ivermectin. These are the sort of things our article says Joe Rogan Experience has been criticised over. I don't know what Joe Rogan's views over herd immunity are but it's not something we seem to criticise him over. I'd note that even if herd immunity does make sense for Iceland at this time, it doesn't mean it makes sense for the US at this time, or in the past or whatever so even with Iceland's approach it doesn't mean that Joe Rogan's views are in agreement with experts even on this matter since AFAIK, Joe Rogan tends to mostly speak about the US. That's one of the many reasons we need sources which can analyse what Joe Rogan has said and compared it to what experts have said etc rather than trying to OR something Iceland does with something Joe Rogan said. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

These are examples of a bigger problem—as per the section title. Emerging changes in COVID strategy. I suspect this issue will get worse so I'm hoping to have a centralized discussion on the matter. The Rogan vaccine matter is pretty nuanced so I'll concede there. I am concerned about POV forks emerging since RSes are now diverging. The Great Barrington Declaration article reads:

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, warned against the idea of letting the virus spread in order to achieve herd immunity at an 12 October 2020 press briefing, calling the notion "unethical". He said: "Herd immunity is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached … Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it."[9][12] Tedros said that trying to achieve herd immunity by letting the virus spread unchecked would be "scientifically and ethically problematic", especially given that the long-term effects of the disease are still not fully understood.[9][12] He said that though "there has been some discussion recently about the concept of reaching so-called 'herd immunity' by letting the virus spread", "never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic."[9][12][42]

And the COVID-19 pandemic in Iceland article reads:

On 23 February 2022, the Ministry of Health lifted all remaining COVID-19 restrictions, including gathering limits, restricted opening hours for bars, and border restrictions. Adopting a herd immunity approach,[120] the ministry stated that “widespread societal resistance to COVID-19 is the main route out of the epidemic,” and “to achieve this, as many people as possible need to be infected with the virus as the vaccines are not enough, even though they provide good protection against serious illness”.[121]

If this isn't a POV fork yet, it's heading there. This will be easier once RSes acknowledge the divergence no doubt. If more jurisdictions explicitly endorse this approach it will definitely make things easier. SmolBrane (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

How about waiting till "RSes acknowledge the divergence"? It's not Wikipedia's job to generate news. NadVolum (talk)

Agree also IMO when such a thing happens it'll probably be better to start a new discussion. This discussion started off mostly about Joe Rogan Experience but now seems to be focused on other things which is confusing. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Please re-read my initial paragraph on this section; the intent was very holistic and the JRE example was only that--an example. Same with this matter of herd immunity. As far as waiting for RSes to acknowledge--this is not the strategy employed by our NPOV policy; if RSes diverge, we have to prevent POV forks. This is the closest to SYNTH and OR that wiki engages in, for good reason, but we cannot permit POV forks as per policy. POV forks are incoherent and regarded as non-collaborative as per the guideline("All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies"). I'm not in a hurry to resolve this as Iceland's policies still remain an outlier. Do you not identify a POV fork here? SmolBrane (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't see any WP:Content forking here never mind a POV fork and I don't think there is any actual problem or contradiction in the cases you brought up. NadVolum (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@SmolBrane: Whatever your intent, your focus was entirely on Joe Rogan Experience. It was the only example give both in your first reply, and your second followup. You gave no other examples. Within Joe Rogan Experience, the example you gave wasn't something we even discussed as I pointed out. You latter followed up with two completely different articles with very different issues. Yet even then you failed to actually show any sources demonstrating this alleged contradiction. You've also alleged a POV fork when there's no evidence of that. Precisely what makes sense for Iceland in 2022 with all that has been learnt about COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 since then, including the development of new drugs and evidence for benefit of old ones, the development of vaccines etc; is very disconnected from a controversial proposal in 2020 and the negative reaction to it. If you have sources which make a connection between the two, then you need to present them and we can discuss how to implement these details if needed. Even if you do present such sources, that doesn't mean there is a PoV fork but simply articles which need to be updated as new sources emerge. Ultimately it's your choice where you want to discuss stuff but I stand by my assertation that it's unhelpful to discuss the addition of new sourced information about any divergence in strategies in different articles when the discussion started off more or less completely about Joe Rogan Experience without any sources making any link you wanted to make, and in relation to something we didn't even mention in the relevant articles. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, yes we are still disagreeing here. The general approach I am pursuing here was a little too general, and a bit too ambitious. No need to exclude objections on that basis though. I still see some content problems here but I don't have the time to address them, unfortunately. Updating articles with updated information is important to preventing POV forks or other issues of POV. SmolBrane (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide – community consensus vs NPOV?

An RfC has just been closed at Uyghur genocide which has resulted in the first sentence of the article stating that China is committing genocide in wikivoice, when RS indicate this is a highly difficult determination to make, and a controversial claim. Closure review at WP:AN may be the best option, but my concern is less about whether the closer has reached an accurate reflection of the discussion's consensus (I'm not sure they have – but I also think it's clear there isn't a consensus among discussion participants), and more about what should be done when a plurality of editors are supportive for a sentence which other editors firmly believe violates NPOV and appropriate academic caution for a tertiary source such as an encyclopedia (I count myself among this group). I'd appreciate others' thoughts, and suggestions of where next to take this discussion. Jr8825 • Talk 21:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The PAG prescribe a very particular course of action here, when an editor believes a local consensus is not reflective of wiki-wide consensus. You have a very narrow set of options. I've always found WP:1AM helpful here, even if it is a bit flippant at times.

1) you can just go find another part of the wiki to edit, which would be what I would recommend, as I actually disagree and think the consensus was fairly accurately summarized. (Full disclosure, I also participated in the discussion and favor the conclusion)

2) You can bring it to a noticeboard for others to weigh in on (as you have done here). A rather firm consensus would need to be established here in order to overturn the RfC consensus, and I frankly don't really see that happening.

3) You can take it to closure review at WP:AN, as you have said you may do. But it's a pretty high bar to overturn a closure. No one will (or should) examine the actual arguments and their merits at such a review, and instead will examine whether a reasonable editor would agree that the closure was made in good faith and accurately summarizes the discussion. I think the closure is well within those boundaries. I do not foresee such a closure review being successful, but it is absolutely within your rights to open it.

I don't really see any other options, but I also may be missing something. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with what Shibbolethink has said above. Additionally, I will say that it seems clear to me that editors participating in that RfC as well as the closer understood how serious it is to call something a genocide in wikivoice. I don't see a way for the RfC result to be overturned, personally, unless the community feels we cannot call things genocides in wikivoice as the RS analysis necessary to do that under current wiki modus operandi was done in the RfC. A wider analysis could be possible, but as is I don't suggest the discussion be taken as of now. Note: I did not (IIRC) participate in the RfC. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Closure review at AN is the right route. Per WP:DISCARD opinions voiced which are contrary to NPOV shouldn’t be taken into account in determining consensus. If that is what has happened (and I’m not making any comment on that discussion as I haven’t looked at the discussion) then it was an incorrect close. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a clear content violation. We cannot call something a genocide when there is no consensus in reliable sources. Unfortunately, when there are a large number of editors are willing to set aside policy in favor of a preferred outcome, administrators will side with them and their decisions will be upheld upon review.

The assumption is that RfCs will attract outside editors who will look at the arguments objectively. Unfortunately in many cases outside editors don't participate or may not consider all the arguments when responding, particularly if the question is poorly worded or there are walls of text.

I have seen many AfDs (which use a similar process), where lots of editors show up and say there are lots of sources for the topic, so it meets notability. But on examination there are few or no sources for the topic. But of course the closing administrator does not take that into consideration.

There should be a procedure where the facts presented in support of arguments is tested. Compare this with a trial. The judge determines the facts based on the evidence presented, as well as argument. But suppose the judge determined the facts by the number of witnesses repeating them. So if the state provides five eyewitnesses, the defense supplies ten of his or her friends. The judge decides that the accused is innocent because more witnesses support his or her version of events.

TFD (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree - this is reflective of the type of problem that we have had on WP for several years being far too eager to rush to include the opinion and claims of mainstream news of current events when NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM say otherwise, particularly for such a case as serious as this (that is, claiming CCP is committing genocide in wikivoice). We've gotten far too complicit to take mainstream opinion as fact when we're still too close to such events, instead we should be far more distance and dispassionate. This RFC closure should definitely be reviewed at a larger scale --Masem (t) 02:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It's worse than that. In most cases it is taking claims reported in mainstream media as fact. TFD (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The events around Uyghur people are still far too recent to describe a term like "genocide" in unattributed Wikivoice, no matter how many RSes claim it is. It's going to be a matter if any international bodies formally call out China's actions as such, or if in time (like decades from now) that is the general sentiment of academic sources reviewing the matter. --Masem (t) 04:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm the closer of this discussion, so I would like to make a comment. Firstly, the crux of discussion was, considering a wide range of WP policy (including WP:NPOV and WP:EXCEPTIONAL), whether or not this should be called genocide, and both sides understood the implications of calling this genocide. I saw no comment's that would account as WP:DISCARD and if I did I wouldn't have considered them in the analysis. I completely understand the concerns of The Four Deuces and Masem with some of the ways decisions are made on Wikipedia. I agree this consensus based system is not perfect, it has it's obvious flaws, but it's still the way we get things done around here. When I was closing this discussion I did not make a judgement on what I believed was right, that's not how closers should conduct themselves. I don't have the liberty to decide what we should and shouldn't be doing from the closing end. The community decided on its own will considering all the evidence, the policies, and sourcing that we should indeed call this genocide in wiki voice. That's the plurality, the overwhelming polarity. Over half of editors supported A out of the 6 choices. I personally would have chosen B if I had participated in the discussion, but it would have been grossly improper for me to interject my opinion into the consensus analysis. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that you made the correct decision based on how RfCs should be closed and as I said it would survive a review at AN.

In the first A vote, an editor argued, "factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." Other A voters made similar arguments.

While that may or may be a valid argument, its premise is false. According to a recent article in the official journal of the Smithsonian Institution, "over the past ten years, as documents have been leaked to the press and more Uyghur activists have escaped the country, a bleak picture has emerged, leading some observers—including the U.S.—to classify China’s ongoing human rights abuses as genocide." (Lorraine Boissoneault, "Is China Committing Genocide Against the Uyghurs?" Feb 2, 2022.) That is the type of phrasing routinely used in mainstream major Western media, which supports B. Whether or not the news reporting is reliable for this type of determination is of course another issue.

As long as there is political disagreement in the world, this type of problem will continually arise. But there is no mechanism to deal with it, although in some cases ARBCOM has stepped in.

TFD (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To me, at least, this is where using NOT#NEWS or RECENTISM would be a solution, but we would also have to recognize that reporting today is not as objective as it was decades ago (see "accountability journalism"), particularly when we heavily rely on western sources to cover news about China. NPOV gets there, but I think more needs to be added to bring it up to date with newer trends and making sure WP doesn't take sides too early in any controversial topic. --Masem (t) 05:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your stance here and sympathise. The outcome is quite worrying. Although there is a slim chance of overturning, you should take this to WP:AN. It was quite a sloppy closure - I think this veered closer to no-consensus. This was a bad RFC too with the amount of options given, being so close to a previous RfC and certain options phrased badly. There is a growing difficulty with editing about China following NPOV without being accused of being an apologist. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that this discussion is largely procedural, but an issue that IMO has dogged the article and RFC discussion was ignoring the vast number of sources that did not/do not characterise the present repression of the Uyghur with ANY over-arching single 'legal' term (including the BBC and all major UK news sources that I know of), therefore the most commonly used 'accusatory' legal term was chosen by WP. As if we were obliged to choose between 'genocide' and 'crimes against humanity' or 'cultural/demographic genocide'. The possibility that we are all persuaded that bad things are happening in China, but the evidence does not yet exist as to how best to characterise those 'bad things' was not accepted. Nor was the proposition that "may be genocide" is light years away from "is genocide". The more neutral sources I spoke of simply reported attributed accusatory legal terms and specifics (mass detention, coercive contraception etc) and used general terms like 'abuses' or 'persecution'. I obviously don't speak for the BBC or other such sources, but they may well have decided that attempting to decide WHICH crime China is guilty of is entirely pointless when the 'crime scene' has not yet been visited, the 'accused' identified or interviewed and when there is not a cat-in-hell's-chance of any prosecution being brought against anyone in China in the foreseeable future. That would certainly be my own assessment.

I risk invoking Herr Godwin here, but WP has just decided to use its own voice to directly accuse the Chinese Communist leadership and party of perpetration of the crime of "genocide" . This is an accusation which it is not even able to directly make against Adolf Hitler! (Most historians accept that there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence that AH inspired, knew of, and directed the Holocaust, but they almost universally acknowledge that no "smoking gun" documentary evidence has ever been found to directly link him to its execution - WP records what we know, what we don't know and what most historians think, as we should). Pincrete (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I had a look through the RfC and the dissent in reliable sources seems to me to be between the common definition of killing masses of the people and the UN definition as used in Wikipedia which includes things like mass sterilization or destroying a society as such or causing them servious harm rather than killing the people. Even though I agree with the UN definition I do not think the article should just say genocide without qualification, reliable sources have pointed out the problem of just saying genocide as a straightforward description but I think it could be put in with the qualification of following the UN definition and sayying it is not mass killing. Since genocide is in the title it needs definition in its use to distinguish between common use as under the Nazis and newer use in the UN. NadVolum (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is important information that must be given to the reader if consensus here (and WP:AN) maintains the RfC closure. Playing loose with the definition of genocide when said so assertively can only attract trouble imo. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@NadVolum: I agree with the general thrust of your comment, but I just want to correct one thing you said: the UN definition actually does require mass killing, or other measures to physically exterminate a population. The UN definition has been seriously misrepresented in the discussions on Wikipedia, which has given rise to a general assumption that it differs significantly from the definition that lay people use. The UN definition is actually very close to the common definition. People who argue otherwise have seized on one line from the definition, which mentions "preventing births". They argue that preventing births is therefore genocide, while omitting the fact that the UN definition only considers "preventing births" to be genocide if it is part of a deliberate plan to physically annihilate a group of people (i.e., it must involve prevention of all births, in order to drive the population to zero). Nothing of the sort is even alleged in Xinjiang, where the Uyghur population continues to increase. What is alleged is that China is strictly enforcing its birth control policies (which apply to the Han population as well, and which now generally limit each family to three children) on the Uyghur population. By the UN definition, that is not genocide. But of course, the article doesn't really spell out what the genocide accusation consists of, so most readers will assume that China is carrying out mass executions, rather than enforcing a limit of three children per family. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point to something that says what you say. I am following Genocide Convention wehich very clearly and definitely does not require anybody to be killed for a genocide to happen. Which is quite different from what any dictionary I've looked at says. EIther I am very bad at reading the article or the article needs fixing if you are correct. For instance stopping a people speaking their language and practicing their culture is genocide according to that convention. Taking their children away and raising them in another culture so the previous culture dies out is also genocide. Having all the people have very bad conditions just because they are of a culture is also genocide. NadVolum (talk)

It is 100% OR as Wikipedia editors to judge if something fits under a given definition, particularly around something this controversial. We can let other sources make that claim and we can report that claim, but we can't be factually making that as an original claim in WP voice. --Masem (t) 21:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: I should have been more explicit, I was replying to @Thucydides411: about their assertion that the UN genocide convention is like the dictionary definitions in requiring there to be mass deaths for a genocide to happen, and by article I meant the article on Genocide or the Genocide Convention one, not the one about the Uyghur genocide. NadVolum (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@NadVolum: Here's a UN page that explains the genocide convention: [4].

• does not require anybody to be killed for a genocide to happen: It requires an attempt to physically annihilate a group, which historically has always meant mass killing. The only exception that the Genocide Convention mentions is if extermination is carried out by completely preventing any births. Nothing of the sort has even been alleged against China.
• stopping a people speaking their language and practicing their culture is genocide according to that convention: No, it isn't. As the UN page on the convention explains, To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice (emphasis added).
• Taking their children away and raising them in another culture so the previous culture dies out is also genocide: Again, this is just incorrect. As the UN page explains, Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group (emphasis added).
• Having all the people have very bad conditions just because they are of a culture is also genocide. This has nothing to do with genocide as defined by the Genocide Convention, and if this were the definition, the word would lose all its meaning. Almost anything could then be argued to be genocide. One ethnic group has a lower life expectancy? Genocide. One ethnic group is treated unfairly by the justice system and has far higher rates of incarceration? Genocide. It's difficult to think of a major country that would not be guilty of genocide against several ethnic groups at once if this were the definition. But this isn't the definition. Again, genocide is defined by the convention to be a deliberate attempt to physically annihilate a group.

I don't know how it became conventional wisdom on Wikipedia that the Genocide Convention has some sort of extremely broad definition that is radically different from the dictionary definition. That just isn't the case (if the Wikipedia article on the Genocide Convention claims otherwise, then it's just plain wrong). Just read the UN's own explanation of the Genocide Convention. It directly refutes a lot of the claims being made by editors at Uyghur Genocide. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We were talking about what that page called the physical elements of genocide of which only one is killing members of the group. The mental element of "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" was not part of what I was talking about. Yes cultural destruction in itself does not constitute genocide if there is no intent, but if there is intent to destroy a group using that as a means then it certainly can constitute genocide according to that convention and that would not require anybody be killed. The convention realy does extend the normal definition of genocide quite a bit. NadVolum (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

p.s. if you want to try and change this 'conventional wisdom on Wikipedia' that you disagree with I suggest starting at Genocide or Genocide Convention. NadVolum (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A few simple questions. We have RS say it is a genocide, correct? Some say "it's called a genocide", true? do we have any RS that says it is not genocide?Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't find too many sources that state negatives. For instance, there are no sources starting the NBA all star game was not a genocide. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

True, but then you can't find any RS that says it is. So the claim it's not is not a contested one. So for this to not be a fact (as RS have said it is) we would need RS to say it is not, other wise it is not a contested claim. We only need to think of NPOV where a claim is contested by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What we should be looking for is not just sources that say it is a genocide or the lack of sources that contest that, but that in reviewing all sources across coverage of it, it is nearly agreed upon by all sources that it is a genocide as for us to be able to call it a genocide in Wikivoice w/o attribution. Otherwise, we fall into danger of cherry picking. And because this is still an ongoing event and one that hasn't been fully resolved, we are still dealing with officials and others trying to analyze the situation to come to a conclusion of what is acttually happening, so some simply aren't calling it a genocide or opposing it being called a genocide. Thus this is a situation we should be far more careful about. And contest claims should not require sources to be contested - just mere use of a highly contentious term like "genocide" should be taken as prior establishment that there is contested claims around it. --Masem (t) 14:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

But we can't view all sources, we must take a snap shot. So why not both sides look for and present your best (say 5) sources, and then we can judge whose sources are better?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Because we'd be grossly over-simplifying a very complex issue (imo), Slatersteven, by limiting ourselves to x number of "best" sources. How to qualify which are best would be a whole additional mess, too, so it's not practical either in my eyes. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Because it is all we can do. As to best sources, how about academic ones only, not media opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We should actually use academic sources -- which will take several years to come out with disinterest opinions and analysis about the events. But as we are still in RECENTISM period here, most of the coverage is going to be mainstream media, and thus we should be careful about how they will take the topic. And "it is all we can do" is false, we absolutely have the ability to do deep source surveys to make sure a term is used across the board or not if we're going to want to state that in wikivoice without attribution. It may take much more time, but there's no deadline to make sure we get it right. Otherwise, we can always opt for the more conservative (middle ground) use of attribution. --Masem (t) 14:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned that we maybe falling into the trap of false NPOV in the name of NPOV. Hence why I would like to see each side present its best sources, so I can get a measure of who is saying what. for example france officially calls it a genocide [[5]]. So then let's have a list of sources.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are news articles:

• ""Genocide" is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang". The Economist. 13 February 2021.

• By the common understanding of the word, it is not. ... By accusing it of genocide instead, in the absence of mass murder, America is diminishing the unique stigma of the term.

• Lynch, Colum (19 February 2021). "State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China". Foreign Policy.

• The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide

• Boissoneault, Lorraine (2 February 2022). "Is China Committing Genocide Against the Uyghurs?". Smithsonian (magazine).

• But over the past ten years, as documents have been leaked to the press and more Uyghur activists have escaped the country, a bleak picture has emerged, leading some observers—including the U.S.—to classify China’s ongoing human rights abuses as genocide. ... Clarke argues that cultural genocide is a more accurate description for China’s systematic campaign against the Uyghurs.

Here is an NGO:

• ""Break Their Lineage, Break Their Roots"". Human Rights Watch. 19 April 2021.

• Human Rights Watch has not documented the existence of the necessary genocidal intent at this time.

Here are scholars:

• Sachs, Jeffrey D.; Schabas, William (20 April 2021). "The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified". Project Syndicate.

• There are credible charges of human rights abuses against Uighurs, but those do not per se constitute genocide.

• Smith, Nicholas Ross; O'Brien, David (2021). "Responding to China's crimes against humanity in Xinjiang: why dialogue is the only pathway for the emerging "coalition of the willing"". Global Affairs. 7 (1): 79–86. doi:10.1080/23340460.2021.1921605.

• Whether China’s actions against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang deserves the label genocide or not has garnered significant debate in recent years.

• Smith, Joanne Anne (2021). "Why Scholars and Activists Increasingly Fear a Uyghur Genocide in Xinjiang". Journal of Genocide Research. 23 (3): 348–370. doi:10.1080/14623528.2020.1848109.

• The new statistical evidence on forced sterilizations in Xinjiang [in June 2020] has led scholars, media commentators and international barristers to consider the possibility that a full genocide – rather than what had to date been cautiously described by most as a "cultural genocide" – might be taking place. ... Cultural genocide, however, was excluded from the UN Genocide Convention, and destruction of dignity is not considered genocide in international law, which requires the intended physical destruction of members of a group.

• Rossabi, Morris (15 January 2022). China and the Uyghurs: A Concise Introduction. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-5381-6299-6.

• From 2017 on, many Western newspapers and magazines ... and the Communist-sponsored Global Times have devoted an extraordinary amount of space to Xinjiang. ... Loaded terminology such as “genocide,” “atrocities,” and “terrorists” frequently characterize these reports, and the sources are either not cited or not fully identified.

• Byler, Darren; Franceschini, Ivan; Loubere, Nicholas (25 January 2022). Xinjiang Year Zero. ANU Press. ISBN 978-1-76046-495-0.

• In compiling this book, we have been mindful of three key controversies that have held sway in debates about Xinjiang in recent years. The first is whether we should resort to the term ‘genocide’. While particular aspects and effects of the post-2017 system in Xinjiang do meet legal definitions of the term ... the system does not seem to be one of intentional mass death.

There are some good sources that argue that it is a genocide. There are many good sources that exercise more caution and avoid using the word directly. There are some good sources that openly contest that it is a genocide. 171.66.135.49 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, not its the other sides turn.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)—

@Slatersteven: in all honesty, I don't think there's a need for more sources. Yes, there are sources arguing that it's genocide. But the mere existence of the sources above (a range of quality RS contesting or urging caution about the genocide label) is surely a clear indication that the term is seriously and legitimately contested by experts, and therefore it goes against NPOV (WP:WIKIVOICE) to state in article voice, in the first sentence, that China is committing genocide. I completely understand the desire to avoid having Wikipedia defend or qualify the evil actions of the Chinese government against Uyghurs, but this does not stand up to the importance of editorial detachment and a clear-headed examination of sources. And if the above sources aren't enough, when you pick up a quality newspaper and read an article about China, do you find it typically refers to a "genocide" in Xinjiang, or to mass human rights abuses/repression? Jr8825 • Talk 16:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm really not looking forward to watching a tennis match in a noticeboard... I don't see how thinking of this matter as turns or a 5v5 pickup game will benefit our ability to cover the matter neutrally. Perhaps it should just be taken to AN for more experienced hands to handle because the way your comment makes it seem like we're just rehashing the RfC won't lead to a very stable solution to the problem. I do really appreciate IP's summary and hope those that feel the use of "genocide" is warranted also present plenty of sources so we are informed here, but let's try to keep the idea of teams or sides out of the noticeboard (imo). NPOVN does not have jurisdiction to my knowledge to overturn the results of an RfC nor should we act like it has. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback above. To move the discussion on in a productive way I will open a closure review request at AN, per the advice of several editors. Jr8825 • Talk 16:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

i would like to address the point that no reliable sources say it is not a genocide. it's not a binary choice between is/is not genocide, but saying there is insufficient evidence is also possible. We do not say for example that someone is guilty of a crime because they did not prove their innocence. We don't say that a new hypothesis in science is true just because no one has disproved it. In 2011 for example, CERN reported that they had observed neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light. (Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly) Without extensive information about the observations, scientists lacked evidence to say the finding was false. But that did not mean it was true. (In fact, CERN later retracted.) TFD (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: actually several of the sources linked above do say it's not a genocide. Although in my view, these analyses are generally weaker than those which outline the controversy in a more nuanced manner, explaining that there's evidence to suggest the abuses could amount to genocide, but that it's a notoriously difficult determination to make with authority. Jr8825 • Talk 16:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not seeing that. The Economist article for example says that the term genocide is misleading because most people think it means killing people. Also, are any of these writers experts? But it does bring up another issue. if we are going to use technical terms that most readers would not understand, in fact would probably misunderstand, we should follow WP:JARGON and explain what we mean. TFD (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly my feeling. The Collins and Oxford dictionaries and Wiktionary all say it involves the killing of large numbers of people. What's happening is not that. The use of genocide is a technical meaning as in the UN Genocide Convention and described in the Wikipedia article Genocide. Just finding it in a reliable source doesn't mean it is used in the non-jargon sense. Comparing the use of word is like saying 'nothing' has the same meaning in 'a crust of bread is better than nothing' and 'nothing is better than a good meal' and trying to decide if one or the other is true. NadVolum (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia has an article about the problem! Genocide definitions. NadVolum (talk)

One thing I pointed out there but which I want to emphasize is that many people arguing for "genocide" in the article voice are citing sources that are careful to always say cultural genocide (a relatively new term which those sources are careful to define and establish as distinct from traditional definitions of genocide.) I feel that sources like that are an argument against using unqualified genocide in the article voice - after all, using them in a way that erases a distinction or qualification that they make is misusing them as a source. This ties into something else that was mentioned in terms of WP:RFCBEFORE not really being satisfied - this is basically just a rerun of the previous RFC; not many new sources were actually presented. If the people pushing for genocide in the article voice had taken it more slowly and compromised by eg. defining and using the term cultural genocide in the lead, things might be a bit different. But trying to crowbar in "genocide", unqualified, in the article voice as if it is uncontested fact that this meets the traditional definition of genocide simply does not reflect the sources as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in and say that I disagree with the way the closing was handled largely due to the emphasis placed on what was essentially a vote tallying. I'd like the closer to remember WP:NOTVOTE for the sake of similar RfC's in the future. 50.24.63.63 (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Whether a news article says its genocide or not is irrelevant. If the actions described in the article fall under the definition of genocide then we can say the article adds weight to the idea that genocide is being committed. The actions of the Chinese government, described by the vast majority of articles I've seen, fit the definition provided by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, signed by 152 nations. Netanyahuserious (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

To determine if actions even meet an established definition is 100% original research; WP cannot state this in wikivoice in this fashion. --Masem (t) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No it's just rewording, as we are encouraged to do. They describe genocide.Netanyahuserious (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You chose a particular definition of gnocide which is differen from what most dictionaries say and using that without explanation in the first sentence defiitely conflicts with MOS:LEADSENTENCE. NadVolum (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is the world's foremost authority on the subject. Sure, something about how these actions are in violation of the convention should be put in the lead. Netanyahuserious (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the MOS says, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." The average person is not aware that genocides can be non-lethal or at least not involve mass killings. TFD (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence is in plain English and there is further explanation later in the lead. I really don't see how to fit the UN definition into one sentence.Netanyahuserious (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that we are working from various reports which, while unlikely to be falsefied, still haven't had full corroboration, then the suggesting that we turn these reports into factual statements and then subsequently use that within a definition of genesis is a massive OR problem. This is akin to naming a person guilty of a crime before a court of law does. We absolutely do not do that. --Masem (t) 04:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say this user's reasoning is not representative of the RfC participants. I disagree with their reasoning, but they come to the same conclusion as many others who relied on RSes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

From a wiki-process standpoint, I think that all is proper. But wrong from a policy standpoint. So this probably shows a weakness in the process. Using an unneeded, value laden, contested characterization (in sources) in the voice of Wikipedia that doesn't add any info the the article. To put it more succinctly, a far reaching claim where sources substantially disagree, and one "side" is put in as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Despite statements and efforts to the contrary, some RFC's can turn out to be essentially mere opinion polls.North8000 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I'd prefer to use the word genocide for it, but with my wiki-hat on would weigh in against doing so. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Flag of malaysia majour design source

In this article flag of malaysia. In the designer section in flag of malaysia wikipedia page. at this wikipedia page. Malaysia flag is design by mohammad hamzah which is inspired and borrow 2 major design from johor flag and east india company flag. But this section say that malaysia flag design which is red and white stripes is from majapahit kingdom. Red and white stripes is from east india company flag. Because before malaysia indepence east india company flag is use in malaysia teritory under british rule. this section say east india company flag is from majapahit flag . I think this is not true. And this source for this section https://www.republika.co.id/berita/pw1udm385/getahgetih-majapahit-dwi-warna-hingga-bendera-malaysia this section source is from news web in indonesia language i think. I dont think we can use news web to become source. Is not book or international journal is news page. And I dont know how to read indonesian . But this wikipedia page is in english. So better use source in english language so the other editor can read too. And when i add in talk discussion my discussion is deleted and no one respond. I need third party editor to end this dispute. If can i need editor from england or united kingdom who know history about malaysia and east india company. This is the section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tota negi (talk • contribs) 10:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: The OP has been blocked for WP:SOCK and I've restored the content they removed per WP:EVADE. Non-English sources are acceptable per WP:NONENG as long as they meet the definition of WP:RS. The source in question does have an English language website and maybe there's an English version of the same article. If there are concerns that the source isn't reliable, then the perhaps the best thing to do would be to discuss it on the article's talk page. The OP did start Talk:Flag of Malaysia#Flag of malaysia design source, but only about 15 minutes before posting here at NPOVN. Article talk page posts are always responded to immediataly and you sometimes just have to more patient than 15 minutes. It might be a good idea to seek input from the members of WP:MALAYSIA and WP:INDONESIA since that's where you're likely to find editors knowlegeable of both the source that's being cited and the content it's intended to support. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Autism spectrum

There's a merge request at Talk:Autism spectrum#Merger proposal; Outdated terminology/taxonomy. I'm not entirely sure if this is the best place for the request but it does have to do with a certain point of view and its incompatibility with WP:MEDRS. (I also recommend seeing: User talk:Wretchskull#'Stop edit warring and achieve consensus' (re: autism spectrum)). Thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wretchskull please replace your non-neutral wording here with a neutral notice, such as {{Discussion notice}}. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope it's better now. Thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd remove the link to your talk page, but this is already much better. Thanks :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There is also a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC on sources justifying a merge of "autism" and "autism spectrum". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Critique of work

An editor has repeatedly added a liink at the top of the Critique of work article to associate that page with the recent subreddit called R/antiwork, on which we have a separate article here. The "Critique of work" is a body of work that dates back to the Marxist writer Paul Lafargue over 100 years ago. The current subreddit is a separate and distinct topic that has recently been added to the Critique of work lead here]. The entire Critique of work page has been written by a single editor as a separate page rather than as part of the R/antiwork page.

How do others suggest sorting this out to avoid conflating the current online subreddit with the historical scholarship and polemic ? SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Rheinmetall sourced entirely to corporate website

The article for Rheinmetall, Germany's largest defense contractor, has been sourced entirely to the firm's corporate website. User:RandomCanadian blanked most of the prose two weeks ago. I would like to put in some work this weekend to try to get it up to snuff. I think the content should be restored for the time being. Tagging Wikipedia:Nazi affiliation task force User:Shushugah, User:Ermenrich, User:asilvering, User:Ploni, User:buidhe. Schierbecker (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've found instances of content critical of Rheinmetall being scrubbed: criticism section deleted, "Nazi" deleted. An editor who claimed to be a Rheinmetall spox also made several content additions. Another editor apparently straight up copied a Rheinmetall press release. Schierbecker (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I may not be able to help much in the coming days, but thank you for bringing this to the NPOV noticeboard and pinging the task force. From the Nazi-affiliation side of things, the fact that even the last good version leaves a gap in the company's history between 1938 and 1956 definitely needs to be addressed. (See e.g. [6], [7]. Heck, even the corporate website mentions their use of slave labour during the War.) –Ploni (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Gosh, what a mess. I tried the de-wiki article and it's got similar problems - mostly all "company website" or "critical news articles". I'll start a talk page thread for collecting sources, since none of this is useful to expand the article at this stage. -- asilvering (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As a matter of principle, I don't think there's any reason why we would want to keep the article in its current state, even as a temporary stopgap. It is full of corporate jargon and reads pretty much like a PR release [I might have purged some of the more egregious bits earlier], even the lead is total bollocks, and every single source is from the corporate website (a big no on multiple grounds, including not just NPOV but the basic fact that the company's website is a primary source and encyclopedias should most definitively not be based entirely on primary sources, less so when they are clearly likely to distort some important historical elements, even on a temporary basis). Having little, but correct, information, is better than having much, but mostly hogwash, of the same. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It's possible to find some sources about the company on JSTOR ([8]); and looking for specific periods in time (ex. WW2) also yields results. So it should be possible to rewrite this, WP:TNT-style, without having to base this extensively (or, ideally, without a trace of it) on the company's website... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Allegations and falsified sources (citations) in Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism page

The page Qatar and State Sponsored Terrorism looks very well sourced on the face value, but a careful examination of all statements and sources used to back them would reveal that this article is standing largely on falsified sources. It might have been started as a political attack and propaganda against the subject. The tone is largely tilted against the subject with several unsupported allegations.

It was started in 2015 with 24 sources, but all 24 sources were unverifiable as they all lead to dead end. The sources used to start the article contained single words while some were phrases as title of the sources but provided no further details such as the name of the publisher, date of publication, page number(s) (for printed or offline sources), the authors of the sources, and links (for online sources), ISSN or ISBN etc. For example, the sources only contained words such “Mendick” used 7 times, “Pecquet” used 4 times, “Dettmer” used 3 times in the article. Please see the first version of the article here and scroll down to the references section for proper examination of the sources. The sources were completely unverifiable against the statements contained in the article, but how this article escaped proper vetting to emerge in public space and remained since 2015 is difficult to understand.

In all sections of the article, sources cited do not relate to the statements in the article. I am not a Wikipedia editor but I have often used Wikipedia as a starting point of my research due to quality sources it provides which serve as lead. But in this particular article the sources cited are largely misleading. What the creator and those who extensively edited this article did was taking random links, change the titles of the sources to reflect the statement it claims to support. A casual look at the citations would make readers believe that the sources cited are relevant to the article due to falsified titles (headlines) but when the source is visited, one only finds completely different titles and contents that are miles apart from the article’s focus.

Now look at the following statements in the article and the sources cited in the following section and subsections:

ISIL

Almost or all sources cited in this subsection are non existent. Have a look at the paragraphs below and the sources cited:

“Abd al Rahman al Nuaymi, a Qatari citizen, worked as a go-between of ISIS's predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), with donors to AQI from Qatar. “More rumors about Qatar's alleged cooperation with ISIS affiliates surfaced in early 2015. On February 11, 2015 Sudan Tribune reported controversial statements by Yahia Sadam, an official of the Minni Minnawi Sudanese liberation movement who accused Qatar of endorsing the genocide perpetrated by Sudanese militiamen in Darfur by funneling money though the Sudanese branch of Qatar Charity, active in Darfur since 2010. Sadam claimed that Qatar Charity, which has purportedly signed a cooperation agreement with the Sudanese troops, was "building housing complexes in remote and isolated areas to harbor and train extremist groups". Those camps are believed to be hosting ISIS fighters, a concern voiced by attendees from the intelligence community at a March 2015 event at the United States Institute for Peace”. Now see the sources cited here

Al-Qaeda

In 2003, The New York Times wrote: "Private support from prominent Qataris to Al Qaeda is a sensitive issue that is said to infuriate George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence. After the Sept. 11 attacks, another senior Qaeda operative, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who may have been the principal planner of the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, was said by Saudi intelligence officials to have spent two weeks in late 2001 hiding in Qatar, with the help of prominent patrons, after he escaped from Kuwait."

Please check the source cited for the above statement in the article. It is not verifiable. And it leads nowhere. And gives no clue where the original source cited may be found.

Here is another one:

“Khalifa Muhammad Turki al-Subaiy and Abd al-Rahman bin Umayr al-Nuaymi are senior-level financiers of al-Qaeda. Al-Subaiy was a previous employee of the Qatar Central Bank. In 2014, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David Cohen, announced that the two men were living freely in Qatar. Both men were on a worldwide terrorist blacklist.[4] The two men were tried and acquitted due to Qatari intelligence being unable to demonstrate evidence without "compromising its intelligence gathering capabilities" In response to Cohen's announcement and the release of the U.S. intelligence report, reporters from The Telegraph contacted Qatari officials. According to the Telegraph, "Qatar has refused to answer"

For the statement above, check carefully the sources cited in the article here

Below are three lengthy paragraphs in the article, read and examine the sources cited for these paragraphs:

“At one time, Al-Nuaymi was the president of the Qatar Football Association. The U.S. report said that he sent more than 1.25 million British pounds per month to Al-Qaeda jihadist fighters in Iraq. He sent hundreds of thousands of pounds to fighters in Syria. The United States designated Al-Nuaymi as a terrorist in 2013. Britain sanctioned him in 2014. Al-Nuaymi is knowingly associated with Abd al-Wahhab Muhammad 'Abd al-Rahman Al-Humayqani, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) whom the US Treasury sanctioned in 2013 for his role as fundraiser and executive for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The US Treasury claimed that in 2012 Al-Nuaymi supported financially a charity directed by Humayqani.[39] By exploiting his status in the charitable community, Humayqani allegedly raised funds and facilitated transfers from al-Qaeda supporters based in Saudi Arabia to Yemen.[39] Reportedly Humayqani had high level connections with al-Qaeda top operatives and often acted as an AQAP representative while meeting with Yemeni authorities. On behalf of AQAP, he allegedly recruited individuals for several murderous attacks in Yemen, and personally directed a "group of armed AQAP associates that intended to carry out attacks on Yemeni government facilities and institutions, including a Yemeni government building in al-Bayda Governorate". About ten months after being sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury, Nuaimi was also restrained from doing business in the UK.[38] Al-Subaiy and Al-Nuaymi have close ties to senior leaders in the Qatari government. Robert Medick, a reporter for The Telegraph's "Stop the Funding of Terror" campaign, wrote in 2014 that Qatar "turned a blind eye to terrorist financiers operating within their midst". According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Subayi also provided financial support to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Pakistani al-Qaeda senior officer purported to be one of the architects of the 9/11 attacks.”

Now let’s look at this subsection:

Jabhat Al-Nusra

“Qatar has sponsored al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, the al-Nusra Front since 2013. The jihadist group, established within the framework of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's plans for an Islamic State in the Levant, has parted ways from ISIS in 2013 due to leadership conflicts.[49] The group was designated as terrorist entity by the UN, the EU, Canada, the U.S., Israel, Hong Kong, Switzerland, and Australia. Nonetheless, Qatar has continuously supported it through ransom payments and fundraising campaigns as a strategic ally in Syria, committed to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad”.

Here are some of the sources cited for the statement above

Below is another paragraph with another weighty statement with the sources cited here

“In addition to ransom payments, the Qatar government as well as Qatari citizens have sponsored large-scale fundraising campaigns to solicit "support for the procurement of weapons, food and supplies for al-Nusra in Syria" which have often relied on social media.[51] "Madid Ahl al-Sham", a fundraising campaign launched in 2013 and shut down by Qatari authorities only in 2015, became "one of the preferred conduits for donations intended for the group"

This page no doubt was created in bad faith and the intention was to attack the subject. 1600-1700s (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The statement regarding the sources in the 2015 version being "unverifiable as they all lead to dead end" is utter nonsense. The citations, to “Mendick” etc, are single names, certainly - the names clearly being the authors of the material named in the bibliography.

As for problems with article content now, I'd certainly agree that there seem to be at least a few questionable sources cited, and the article would clearly benefit from input from uninvolved contributors familiar with Wikipedia policy (and with people willing fix the inconsistent citation formats used). I'd advise 1600-1700s to tone down the rhetoric, to look more carefully at citations etc before jumping to conclusions (note that e.g. the statement that the 2003 The New York Times citation "leads nowhere" is again due to not looking at the material in a 'bibliography' section, where 'Tyler' is the author of the NYT material cited [9]), and to at least attempt to discuss issues on the article talk page first. This is clearly a difficult subject, but wild rhetoric [10] followed by attempts to remove the article entirely [11] really isn't the best approach. If talk page discussions get nowhere, there are options available for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution which can be followed. If that doesn't work, then maybe the rhetoric could be justified. But convincing people it is justified will require doing the groundwork beforehand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your comment but describing my statement that the sources in the first version of the article are unverifiable as “utter nonsense” only tells who you are but I would not go that low with you. I urge you to kindly take some moments to review the statements (allegations) and all sources cited in the article and be honest enough in your judgment.

All those sources are misleading. Do not just rely on the titles in the references but review the sources cited one-by-one and you would see that there are very dubious. The sources cited do not support the statements (allegations) they claim to back. If you can’t review the entire sources in the article, Please review few sources in the article I cited here as misleading.

I never knew anything about article’s talk page, but thank you for drawing my attention to it. But it seems to me that you too did not visit the talk page before attacking me. If you did, you would see the lengthy discussion that had taken place in the talk page and all concerns and issues raised against the biased nature of the article are consistent with the issues I have raised.

If all unsupported statements and fake sources are taken down from the article, the title of the page too would have to change.

And I would propose that the title should be “Terrorism Allegation Against Qatar”. I think that the proposed title is fair and objective than the current title.

Since everyone can edit Wikipedia I will possibly learn how to edit. But first, I will post the suggestion being made here on the talk page. 1600-1700s (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@1600-1700s: I'm not going to review any of the sources. Whatever you want to call it, in the opening comment you made this comment

It was started in 2015 with 24 sources, but all 24 sources were unverifiable as they all lead to dead end. The sources used to start the article contained single words while some were phrases as title of the sources but provided no further details such as the name of the publisher, date of publication, page number(s) (for printed or offline sources), the authors of the sources, and links (for online sources), ISSN or ISBN etc.

Yet a quick review of the article [12] shows you are wrong. The full details for all those citations seem to be in the article as AndyTheGrump has already said. Frankly, even without reviewing, it was easy to guess you were probably wrong. The original article used some variant of WP:CITESHORT which is a valid albeit uncommon style on Wikipedia. Possibly the names of the sections and their locations should have been moved around, not sure but that's a minor issue. I'd note even if the article had used inline WP:Parenthetical referencing, while this is deprecated now, it wasn't then. More importantly even with the use of such a style, the further details are still provided (or should be for the style to be valid), it's just that we don't accept it on Wikipedia for various reasons. The citations are still as valid as they would be with an acceptable style, they just need to be modified to comply with our norms. And when you didn't notice the full details were in the article and so were spectacularly wrong about such a crucial detail I don't think it's surprising editors are reluctant to investigate your other claims further. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

On the off chance anyone cares, OP has been sock-blocked. CU has them related to a couple blocked socks in the page history, such as Mr J Stone and Jidano.. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Language in the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

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

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

- brief visual explanation of the issue (hoping to strive interests of others) - [13]

Now I need to ask you this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lithuanian primer Mokslas skaitymo rašto lietuviško, published and widely used by hundreds of thousands / millions in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1783)

Universitas lingvarum Litvaniae, the oldest surviving grammar of the Lithuanian language published in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1737)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Motion to Add Context to the Persecution of Harari People

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

I proposed the following edits which were all consequently rejected:

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

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

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

References

Zero COVID

The Zero COVID article relies heavily on primary sources, and some editors are opposed to covering the due criticism of and opposition to this policy, deleting the Opposition section I created [14], toning down the criticism, and removing POV, BCN and WHO tags appended (and also casting aspersions).

The majority of RS are heavily critical of this policy, in particular to its purported effectiveness as a public health policy, and there is very little scholarship on it. This policy was also cited to "settle the question" about China's alleged undercounting of cases, claiming that this policy works by those countries implementing it [15], which led to a discussion on RSN [16].

Here are a few recent articles questioning China's narrative about the policy and its effectiveness: [17] [18] [19]. My main concern is that critical sources are not being fairly and proportionately represented. Any assistance with this deadlock will be greatly appreciated. LondonIP (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

(involved, here before pinged).
@LondonIP, when escalating issues to noticeboards, it is proper to provide a neutrally-worded representation of the dispute. I feel this post fails that requirement on several accounts:

1) You have failed to mention the academic review articles and government sources which do not support the narrative you've drawn, which demonstrate the prevailing view is that this policy has actually worked, and is now faltering most likely from influence of Omicron and that international sources of infection are difficult to avoid: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

2) You are helpfully describing attempts to continuously re-insert a "criticisms" section, which is advised against by NPOV's WP:POVNAMING, WP:STRUCTURE, and WP:PROPORTION sections.

3) You have failed to notify the affected page or any involved editors, as is heavily recommended in WP:CANVAS.

4) You have failed to describe the WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE criticisms and lack of WP:SUMMARY style criticisms many editors have raised about your proposed changes.

5) You have not mentioned the discussions we have had on WP:RSN about this issue, or the result of that discussion.

Please make adjustments (with appropriate underlining and strikethrough) to bring this post to neutral-wording. Thanks. (edited 12:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC))

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, the two subjects are connected. Novem Linguae said that China's successful implementation of this policy is proof that China never undercounted cases and deaths [27], as a justifcation for removing the well sourced allegations from the relevant pages. Shibbolethink supports deleting this content too [28]. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shibbolethink and Moxy, LondonIP's section title Opposition to the zero-COVID policy [29] fits well with what WP:POVNAMING lays out. My choice was Scientific Views on the zero-COVID strategy. [30] but I now think Opposition is better as criticism of the policy is not just about the science, but also the social and economic costs - as I explained in the discussion [31]. Any policy of importance will inevitably face some opposition and in the case of Zero COVID, most RS cover the opposition more than they do support. I can move us forward with sources and quotes, but this noticeboard discussion should focus on clarifying the problem and bringing in cooler heads. CutePeach (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• WP:POVNAMING says: "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X")."

  Indeed, this is not the most aptly applied part of that policy, given it is about entire articles rather than sections. But WP:STRUCTURE says, similarly:

  Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

  and WP:PROPORTION says: "a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". Similarly, WP:SUMMARY says "Do not put undue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts."

  LondonIP's suggestion is not advisable per these WP:PAGs. We should not create a POVCOATRACK of various people's negative opinions of the policy, but rather summarize the overall criticisms and praises in a views section in proportion to their coverage in our WP:BESTSOURCES. If anyone here disagrees about the current proportionality, that would be where we should move forwards in discussion, not in continually reverting against consensus and disruptively inserting disputed material to force it into the article. Suggest drafts which are, in your opinion, more proportional, and provide evidence of this proportionality. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

I am involved in the related discussion on Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19#Alleged under-counting of cases and deaths. WP:CSECTION is not a policy and is very rarely wielded to tone down criticism when it is WP:DUE. When opposition rises to a certain level, such as Nord Stream 2#Opposition, it becomes due. I don't have a strong opinion on the title for criticism of this policy but I do think it should be properly attributed and covered in proportion to mentions in RS. There are many RS with qualified opinions from experts calling this policy nonsense and I can't think of a good reason not to include them and attribute them properly [32]. Even China National Health Commission's Liang Wannian now says it is "not sustainable", [33], while his government locks down Shenzhen [34]. Pious Brother (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please don't be condescending. Attributing criticism is based on policy and not dogma. The criticism about the efficacy of Chinese vaccines [35] has also been covered by other sources [36] [37] [38], so it should not be toned down or elided. The latest outbreaks in China show this policy is not sustainable in the face of Omicron, so this should be the end of this dispute. LondonIP (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

According to LondonIP's sources and these newer sources [39] [40] [41], the efficacy of Chinese vaccines has everything to do with it. Why are you so opposed to covering the opposition to this policy? Even International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War cover the opposition to it. Pious Brother (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The Kashmir Files

There are few users who are making The Kashmir Files biased and despite many suggestions and request not adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnb07 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Moscow

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I realize this is a touchy subject, but User:Caltraser5 is tearing apart the Moscow article, putting the Ukrainian flag in lieu of the current infobox image, ect. I've tried reverted the Caltraser5's edits, citing NPOV, but the user has been engaging me in an edit war. // A Raider Like Indiana 03:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Putting a random flag on a article about a city does not infringe on wikipedia's policy of neutrality.--Caltraser5 (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You're the one who seems to be connecting the flag with something, other than that it's a simple random flag--Caltraser5 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If that were true (which it quite clearly isn't), it would be simple vandalism, liable to result in an indefinite block when accompanied by personal attacks. [42]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV violation on The Kashmir Files

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

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

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

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

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

highlighted the negative ones now - How?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the Ted Kaczynski page

This is a wearisome dispute with a persistent user that I'd like resolved quickly. As of now, I have three disruptive editor notices thanks to this person; at first, I had one for actively daring to reveal this user for their history of edit warrings and edit blocks for incredibly unprofessional and disruptive behaviors. Then, out of nowhere I received three as he'd evidently decided to skip notice two. I have wanted a third party opinion since this morning; I had stated that I would concede, assuming my edits were not found to be in good faith. Since everything in regard to links is available in this section, I will copy-paste it from the Ted Kaczynski talk page:

Evidently, it has come to my attention, thanks to user Mathsci that my edits are continually in violation of WP:NPOV. The assertion is that the "High school" section regarding subject's later confessions of never having a real friend or being singled out in gym class as an adolescent to his brother (in addition to several quotes of peers concerning subject's unkempt, immature condition) disrupts the tone of the overall article. However, if you view the previous section, titled "Childhood," there are several instances of quotes, reflections, and other such ruminations from various people in subject's environment at the time as well.

In fact, my edit seems to be entirely consistent with that of the previous section that discusses various thoughts of family members and his being bullied in contrast, with cited events such as subject being shoved into a locker and his being a misfit even amongst the "eggheads" at Evergreen High. According to this editor, this is not only an extremely biased edit, but highly disruptive with the tone of the WP:FA. He then went on to point out—with poor reasoning and spelling—my predominant edits concerning various serial killer articles on WP, as if that makes his decision in any way credible or valid according to policy. The absolute irony of pointing out my edits, however, is the fact that he consistently and recurrently runs into trouble regarding edit-warring—though it does not apply to WP:BLP articles—before actively removing any opposition in the form of confrontation, something I have never engaged in or had trouble with. Nevertheless, I responded with my arguments which are accessible here, and conveniently collapsed (something he has been known to do with other users before being blocked or cornered into submission) for any passersby. To quote Johnuniq:

"Mathsci is great on developing properly referenced, high quality encyclopedic content, and I have seen Mathsci interact well with other users, even when there is a disagreement. However, once a problem reaches a certain point, Mathsci can switch and adopt an inappropriate approach which involves total annihilation."

Nevertheless, I had made another edit omitting the well-documented opinions of those around subject, only to have them removed once more. Since I refuse to engage in WP:EDITCON, I have been forced to defer to this page to reach a general consensus as per WP:CON of whether or not said content is appropriate for the "High school" section of this article. If you look at my edits, there is nothing to suggest that I have added negatively to subject's reputation through these edits. In truth, there are obvious improvements reverted such as pointing out that subject's father worked at Kaczynski's Sausages, and his actual dealings with his peers at a young age.

If his "unkempt" condition is said to be an exaggeration, that could have been tweaked; in spite of this, the entire contribution is reverted, including the bit concerning Kaczynski's Sausages, edits of the "Childhood" section which are complete improvements and in tandem with the tone of the article content. These reverts are limitations which are at best pernicious and highly disruptive of contributory effort. It feels highly inappropriate and uncouth to confront a particular user like this, but the unreasonable measures taken are so brazen—and poorly written to note—so as to leave me with no choice. If I am wrong, I concede, but I feel that this information is pertinent to the life and crimes of subject.

I want to reach a consensus according to policy, as I am much newer than most to WP anyhow, and this will be tiresome and according to "inappropriate approach" otherwise.

--Edd Wesson (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Evans Hall, UC Berkeley, where Kaczynski taught mathematics

The OP's edits show edit-warring on the WP:FA/WP:BLP. I have edited the article Ted Kaczynski several times, mostly correcting vandalism, as it is subject to pending changes protection.[43] The OP has spammed the article talk page with a wall of text, repeated here. The article is on the watchlists of numerous editors, who have jointly collaborated to create a stable article, which changes rarely apart from small tweaks. The only recent significant changes have been when it was reported that 79-year-old Kaczynski had health problems and had been transferred to a hospital prison. Here are the OP's edits, all very recent:

• First set of edits not deemed up to standard for an WP:FA, so not approved by me.[44]
• Second set of cosmetic edits not deemed up to standard for an WP:FA, so not approved by me.[45]
• Third set of cosmetic edits not deemed up to standard, so not approved by User:Firefangledfeathers.[46]
• Fourth edit removing a comma, contrary to the grammatical rule of non-restrictive appositives.

The OP's edits have been to articles on serial killers (there's an associated WikiProject). I have edited the article on Adolf Hitler two days ago,[47] helping out User:Diannaa for a missing curly bracket—I was not consciously thinking about serial killers. Diannaa publicly thanked me for my edit. The OP also publicly thanked me twice. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged to here and article talk. I responded at the latter because that is where discussion should start. The framing of the "wearisome dispute" above is not appropriate for this noticeboard. At NPOVN, there should be a diff showing text being added to or removed from an article, and a link to the article talk page showing where the discussion regarding that edit occurred. That should be followed with a brief statement concerning WP:NPOV and what question is being asked at this noticeboard. Do not complain about other editors on a noticeboard like this (use WP:ANI for that but don't go there until exhausting the procedures I outlined at article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I made only two edits (see the 2 diffs above) having seen several edits of EW. User:Firefangledfeathers then made one edit having seen edits of EW. All three sets of EW's edits were reverted because they did not improve the WP:FA. The sources (3 press reports from 1996) have not changed, nor has the stable version of the content, developed jointly by many editors through wp:consensus (it seems they tried to give a balanced picture avoiding anecdotes). The quality of writing in the article has enabled it to become a stable WP:FA. The pending changes restriction helps maintain the quality of the article. The statistics are available for the editors who helped to construct the article:[48] Over 3,300 users have edited the article and some of the top 20 are household names (SandyGeorgia, jpgordon, etc). Mathsci (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Staffordshire Bull Terrier

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

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

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

RS with accurate statements of fact that disprove the fringe claim

829 Is the Staffie the True Bulldog? by David Hancock - "I believe it perfectly reasonable to consider the Staffie as the contemporary example of a bulldog and am saddened that we can no longer view the pedigree Bulldog as the sporting breed it once was. For the English Bulldog to lose its claim on its own breed title is more than a shame, it's a tragedy." "The Staffordshire Bull Terrier shares the same ancestry as the Bull Terrier, i.e. Bulldog crossed with the Black and Tan terrier, and was developed as a fighting dog. When the founder of the Bull Terrier James Hinks added other breeds like the Collie to change the head shape of that breed, devotees of the original type of bull terrier cross remained loyal to their preferred type. Because of its early association with fighting it was, for some time, difficult to get recognition for the breed and it was not until the 1930s that The Kennel Club recognised the breed. It carried the name Staffordshire as the breed was developed in the “black country” of Staffordshire and northern parts of Birmingham. "As dog fighting became popular, a new type of dog began to emerge – one that possessed the strength and courage of the bulldog but also had the agility, tenacity and intelligence required to excel in this new sport. To achieve this the breeders of the time crossed the bulldog with various breeds of small terrier. Not yet a breed in their own right, it was this cross between the Bulldog and the terrier that resulted in the early forbears of the Amstaff, known at the time as the bull-and-terrier. This bull-and-terrier would eventually evolve into a number of our modern breeds, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Bull Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier." "From among the profusion of breeds created in this way, most now extinct, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, perfected by one James Hinks, of Birmingham, England, in the mid-19th century, emerged as one of the most successful and enduring. The breed name that finally came to these burly, broad-skulled terriers is a nod to the county of Staffordshire, where the breed was especially popular." NOTE: The beginning statement in the History was misconstrued by Cavalryman as is the case in many other RS from which he cherrypicked single statements but when read in context, it is clear that his interpretation is incorrect. "The story of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a relatively brief one in the grand scheme of canine history, but it can be confused by the several different names hung on the breed at various times. The Bull-and-Terrier, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Pit-dog, and the Brindle Bull are a few of the Stafford’s historical aliases." The keywords are "confusion" and "hung on the breed at various times". Atsme 💬 📧 20:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC) "From Bull-and-Terrier to Bull Terrier Another breed that descended from these rough-hewn crosses was the Bull Terrier, which was molded into a distinct breed by James Hinks of Birmingham, England." "Test data from the UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory has also found the dominant haplotype 1 of the English bulldog in the French bulldog, Bull Terrier, Bull mastiff, Miniature bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, Wire-haired fox terrier, Beagle, and Coton de Tulear." J Appl Anim Welf Sci. - "Furthermore, what was perceived as a Staffordshire bull terrier in the United Kingdom tended to be classified as a pit bull in the United States. Although what is deemed a pit bull is clearly of greater importance within a specific country or within a locale subject to BSL than it is between countries, it does bring into question the validity of determining breed identity based on appearance." In our study, some of the largest differences between UK and U.S. participants' responses to whether each photographed dog was a pit bull were for the two dogs who more than 90% of UK participants considered to be Staffordshire bull terriers (Dogs 11 and 17). A high percentage of UK participants did not consider those two dogs to be pit bulls, whereas a high percentage of U.S. participants did consider them to be pit bulls. This is likely because in the United Kingdom, the Staffordshire bull terrier breed is perceived as separate from the pit bull and is not banned under the Dangerous Dog Act." "Bloodsport and the Michael Vick Dogfighting ¶Case: A Critical Cultural Analysis by Wil Massey – "Dogfighting was particularly prominent in the Black Country’s landlocked coal and iron mining county of Staffordshire, where the new Bull and Terrier breed came to be known as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier (Semencic 1984)."

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

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

Sources that contradict the current article

Alderton, David (1987). The dog: the most complete, illustrated, practical guide to dogs and their world. London: New Burlington Books. p. 102. ISBN 0-948872-13-6. The origins of this breed [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] are far from illustrious. It was developed primarily as a fighting dog in the early nineteenth century from terriers crossed with Bulldogs ... "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". The American Kennel Club. 2022. Retrieved 8 February 2022. The Bull-and-Terrier, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Pit-dog, and the Brindle Bull are a few of the Stafford’s historical aliases. "Extended breed standard of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier" (PDF). The Australian National Kennel Council. 2015. Retrieved 8 February 2022. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original Bull Terrier", simply a renamed version of the "Bull and Terrier". Beaufoy, James (2016). Staffordshire Bull Terriers: a practical guide for owners and breeders. Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd. ISBN 9781785000973. The result of the decision to breed more athletic dogs for fighting purposes was the emergence of the so-called 'Bull and Terrier', sometimes referred to as the 'Pit dog'. This is of prime importance in the story of the development of our breed as 150 years later this dog would be recognised by the Kennel Club as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier! Billett, Michael (1994). A history of English country sports. London: Robert Hale Limited. p. 39. ISBN 0-7090-5238-3. ... a new breed known as the bull terrier, or the 'half-and-half' breed. It was also called the pit dog and eventually the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Buckland, Jane (1961). Terriers. New York: Viking Press. p. 7 & 13. ... the owners of bulldogs turned to dog fighting, but here they found that their heavily-built bulldogs were too slow and cumbersome in the dog-pits. So they crossed them to courageous and lively terriers, probably black and tans, and the bull-and-terrier had arrived as a definite breed. ... The original bull-and-terrier fighting dogs remained unrecognised until 1935, when they were finally registered as the Staffordshire bull terriers. ... the heavily-built bulldogs were severely hampered in the dog-pits by their lack of agility; so their owners crossed them to lively terriers of proven courage and the bull-and-terrier, or pit-dog, had arrived as a definite breed. ... [They] remained unrecognised for sixty years, finally to emerge in 1935 as the Staffordshire bull terriers. "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". The Canadian Kennel Club. 2022. Retrieved 8 February 2022. The Bull and Terrier might have disappeared if not for a group of fanciers led by Joseph Dunn, who appreciated the dogs for their own sakes and persuaded The Kennel Club (England) to recognize the breed as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier... Coile, D. Caroline (27 May 2001). "Back to the time of the gladiator". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 18 July 2019. It [the name pit bull] is a generic designation for several breeds including the American pit bull terrier, which was the first breed registered by the United Kennel Club (UKC) in 1898; its counterpart, the American Staffordshire terrier, which was registered by the American Kennel Club (AKC) in 1936; and the ancestor of both breeds, the Staffordshire bull terrier. Coile, D. Caroline (1998). Encyclopedia of dog breeds. Hauppauge: Barron's Educational Series. p. 146. ISBN 0-7641-5097-9. The result [of crossing Bulldogs with terriers] was aptly called the Bull and Terrier, later to be dubbed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cunliffe, Juliette (2002). The encyclopedia of dog breeds. Bath: Paragon. p. 250. ISBN 0-75258-018-3. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier was not recognised by the English Kennel Club until 1935, despite being bred in the UK in the nineteenth century. "Staffordshire bull terrier". Encyclopædia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 2022. Retrieved 27 February 2022. Staffordshire bull terrier, breed of terrier developed in 19th-century ... created by crossing the bulldog ... with a terrier ... Once known by such names as bull-and-terrier, half and half, and pit bull terrier ... It is an ancestor of the somewhat-larger American Staffordshire terrier ... Fleig, Dieter (1996). Fighting dog breeds. Neptune City: T.F.H. Publications. p. 48. ISBN 0-7938-0499-X. Added 4 March 2022. ... they [Bull and Terriers] finally were recognised as a legitimate dog breed in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Fletcher, Walter R. (19 September 1971). "A Breed That Came Up the Hard Way". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 May 2019. His [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's] ancestors are believed to be the bulldog and English terrier and he was known as the Pit Dog or Pit Bull Terrier. Gallagher, Cynthia P. (2006). The American Pit Bull Terrier. Neptune City: T.F.H. Publications. p. 8. ISBN 0-7938-3625-5. The result [of crossbreeding Bulldogs with terriers] was the bull-and-terrier, or half and half ... To avoid confusion with the Bull Terrier, the half and half was renamed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Gordon, John F. (1983). The Staffordshire Bull Terrier. London: Popular Dogs Publishing Co. Ltd. p. 13. ISBN 0-09-152771-6. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier ... has existed in Britain for the best part of 175 years. Horner, Tom (1984). Terriers of the world: their history and characteristics. London & Boston: Faber & Faber. p. 190. ISBN 0-571-13145-X. Before obtaining Kennel Club recognition, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was known variously as the Pit Dog, Bull-and-Terrier, or even the Half-and-Half! Jones, Arthur Frederick (1964). The treasury of dogs. New York: The Golden Press Inc. p. 165. He [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was first known as the Bull-and-Terrier Dod, then Half and Half, Pit Dog, Pit Bullterrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Jones, Arthur F.; Hamilton, Ferelith (1971). The world encyclopedia of dogs. New York: Galahad Books. p. 481 & 484. ISBN 0-88365-302-8. Quite apart from the name “Bull-and-Terrier” used freely in literature for many decades [for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier], respected authors like Pierce Egan in the Annals of Sporting (Vol. I.), 1822, refer to result of these crossings for the first time as “Bull Terriers”. The American Kennel Club registered the [Staffordshire Bull Terrier] breed in August of 1936 [as the Staffordshire Terrier] ... America's Staffordshire [Terrier] does go back to England's [Staffordshire Bull Terrier], but added elements have made it truely a product of the U.S.A. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier and its ancestors (PDF) (Exhibition brochure). The Kennel Club Art Gallery. 2014. Retrieved 8 February 2022. Unfortunately for the historian tracing a nice straight line is not easy when examining the background of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier if only because it comes under quite a few names. They might be called Bull & Terriers in some journals and at other times the dogs are called Pit Dogs, maybe Staffordshire Terriers, half-bred dog, or simply come under the general umbrella of the Bull Terrier. Lane, Marion (1997). The guide to owning a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Neptune, New Jersey: T.F.H. Publications Inc. p. 3. ISBN 0-7938-1880-X. The new breed went by many names: Bull and Terrier, Half and Half, Pit Dog, Pit Bullterrier and later — for the region where it originated — Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Lee, Clare (1998). Pet owner's guide to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Lydney, Gloucestershire: Ringpress Books Limited. p. 10. ISBN 1-86054-082-1. The Bull Terriers attracted a higher-class owner than the older Bull-and-Terriers, and these latter were officially christened the Staffordshire Bull Terrier in 1935. Marples, Richard, ed. (1985). Encyclopedia of the dog. London: Peerage Books. p. 155. ISBN 1-85052-036-4. Bulldogs which were too slow and ponderous for the 19th-century Corinthians who introduced a dash of terrier blood to give speed and agility and so laid the foundations of the ‘Bull and Terrier’ breed. By virtue of its association with the Black Country this breed was to become the Staffordshire [Bull Terrier]. Morley, W. M. (2004). The Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Midhurst: Beech Publishing House. p. 17-18. ISBN 1-85736-256-X. it is generally accepted that the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a direct descendant of dogs of mixed origin, generally known during most of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as the Bull and Terrier. Morris, Desmond (2001). Dogs: the ultimate dictionary of over 1,000 dog breeds. North Pomfret, VT: Trafalgar Square Publishing. p. 346, 363 & 364. ISBN 1-57076-219-8. The first recorded name of this dog [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the Bull-and-terrier. It has also been referred to as the Bull-dog Terrier, the Pit dog, the Brindle Bull, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Pit-Dog. In the 1870s Staffordshire Bull Terriers began to arrive in North America from England, for use in organized dog-fighting. Soon, it was felt that dogs of the foundation stock were too small, so selective breeding was undertaken to make the body taller and heavier [creating the American Pit Bull Terrier]. The American Staffordshire Terrier is the show-dog version of the fighting dog called the American Pit Bull Terrier. "Staffordshire bull terrier". The Société Centrale Canine. 2022. Retrieved 4 March 2022. It [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was created in the 19th century in Staffordshire, by crossbreeding the Bulldog and various terriers (machine translation) Stahlkuppe, Joe (1995). American pit bull & Staffordshire terriers. Hauppauge: Barron's Educational Series. p. 12. ISBN 0-8120-9200-7. The Staffordshire bull terrier ... only recognized by the Kennel Club of England in 1935 and the American Kennel Club in 1978, the Stafford[shire Bull Terrier] is thought to be the oldest of the bull-and-terrier breeds... Many of these dogs found there way ... to America where they played a key part in the development of the American pit bull terrier and the American Staffordshire terrier. Wilcox, Bonnie; Walkowicz, Chris (1989). Atlas of dog breeds of the world. Neptune City, N.J.: TFH Publications. p. 118, 119 & 811. the AKC [American Kennel Club] called the [American Pit Bull Terrier] breed American Staffordshire Terriers ... The American Staffordshire Terrier's ancestor, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, was developed in England and brought to the United States in the mid-19th century ... This [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the original “Bull-and-Terrier.”

These sources state all or multiple aspects of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dissolution of Czechoslovakia

I just read that article and I feel it pushes a mild anti-Czech narrative, especially in the Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia#Aftermath section. It is mostly small stuff (example: WP:OR in Slovakia has higher political stability than the Czech Republic. As of 2018, Slovaks have had only four prime ministers since 1998, but the Czechs have had ten.), though some passages are more egregious (example: (...) followed by a shaky centre-right cabinet, which (...) did not want to adopt the euro because of (...) the Civic Democrats' ideological stance.). (I also vaguely feel a pro-union / anti-dissolution bias, but I cannot really point to a given sentence.)

There are many "citation needed" tags and I could probably just remove large portions with an edit summary of "don’t revert unless you give a source" but that seems a tad brutal. On the whole, the article is not so bad. Someone with knowledge of the countries (i.e., not me) might be able to easily cut the fluff and source the rest. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

China Horse Club

I have noticed that several new accounts have added promotional material to the China Horse Club article. I think the version I initially created should be returned to. The club is somewhat controversial in horse racing and there is plenty to add about it, but the current version is flat out promotion with mostly unreliable sources. Thriley (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Cancel culture

The article in question is Cancel culture.

I am asking anyone who is interested to please participate in this discussion: Talk:Cancel_culture#WP:SENSATION

This is the diff that is being debated: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Cancel_culture&type=revision&diff=1077199312&oldid=1076998178

The section of the article that was removed was called "Examples of cancel culture as reported in the news."

This is the content that was removed. I support including the content. As of right now, everyone else in the discussion opposes including the content. I would like to hear the opinions of anyone else who might want to participate in the discussion. Thank you. Here is the content that was removed:

Content

In 2020, Civis Analytics fired David Shor, a data analyst, after he tweeted, "Post-MLK-assasination race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests *increase* Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage." Shor's tweet also included a link to a paper by Princeton professor Omar Wasow, which hypothesized that peaceful protests were more effective than violent ones. New York magazine wrote, "At least some employees and clients on Civis Analytics complained that Shor’s tweet threatened their safety." New York magazine also wrote that Shor's firing had caused him to "become a byword for the excesses of so-called cancel culture." PBS mentioned Shor's firing in an article called, "‘Cancel culture’ debate bubbles up in politics and beyond" Politico mentioned Shor's firing in an article called, "How Everything Became ‘Cancel Culture’" In an opinion column for the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg wrote, "One of the more egregious recent examples of left-wing illiberalism is the firing of David Shor." In 2020, the University of Tennessee successfully pressured a newly admitted student to not attend the college, after someone sent the college a video of a private Snapchat conversation which had taken place three years earlier, where the student had said to her friends, “I can drive [racial slur].” The New York Times referred to the university's action as "cancellation," with the word "cancellation" including a link to an older New York Times article called, "Tales From the Teenage Cancel Culture." In February 2021, Disney fired actress Gina Carano from her role on The Mandalorian after she tweeted, "Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors.... even by children" and "Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?" She was dropped by her agent and Hasbro removed her Star Wars action figure from the shelves. The phrase "cancel culture" was cited in reports of her firing. In March 2021, Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced that it would stop publishing six books by Dr. Seuss, which it said included “hurtful” portrayals of cultural stereotypes. Dr. Seuss Enterprises told Associated Press, "These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong." Citing examples, Associated Press wrote, "In And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, an Asian person is portrayed wearing a conical hat, holding chopsticks, and eating from a bowl. If I Ran the Zoo includes a drawing of two bare-footed African men wearing what appear to be grass skirts with their hair tied above their heads." The same Associated Press article also stated, "The move to cease publication of the books drew immediate reaction on social media from those who called it another example of 'cancel culture.'" References

Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oversight required for Kazakhstan related articles

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

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

Moderna Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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