Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 89

Archive 85

←

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

→

Archive 95

RFC on sourcing decisions in the R&I topic area

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.

---

Are the sourcing decisions described here compatible with WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV? --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Background

On May 1, an RFC was opened at the RS noticeboard raising a pair of sourcing issues that have resulted from the decision to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory (that is, the hypothesis that variation in average IQ scores between racial or ethnic groups has a genetic component). This decision has resulted in about 45 otherwise reliable sources being removed or excluded from Wikipedia articles, and in Charles Murray's and Heiner Rindermann's entire bodies of work related to this topic being declared unreliable sources ([1] [2] [3]). It also has required articles to include material that several editors consider to misrepresent the sources it cites. Two days after being opened, that RFC was shut down as improperly formatted.

Immediately following the RFC's closure, a discussion was underway about opening a new RFC at the NPOV noticeboard which would properly address these sourcing concerns. However, before that could be done, a new RFC was opened on the article's talk page which reiterated the question of whether or not the hereditarian hypothesis is a fringe theory, without addressing the underlying issue of sourcing. The goal of the present RFC is to address this issue of sourcing that some editors feel needs to be addressed, as was suggested in the other RFC: "If there really is a fundamental issue not addressed by this RfC, then this RfC does not prevent someone from opening a proper RfC to address it." --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Views

Add your signature, with an optional comment of 1-2 sentences, under one of the two options below. All non-vote comments, including threaded discussion and replies to another's vote, should be posted in the "discussion" section.

Option 1: Yes, these sourcing decisions are compatible with the named Wikipedia policies.

Option 2: No, these sourcing decisions are not compatible with the named Wikipedia policies.

• WP:SCHOLARSHIP says, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Declaring an author's entire body of work about a topic to be unreliable sources regardless of where it's published, as has been done in Murray and Rindermann's case, is not consistent with that policy. --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

If the current RFC concludes that this approach to sourcing is incompatible with WP:RS, WP:V and/or WP:NPOV, but the separate RFC on the article's talk page concludes that the hereditarian hypothesis is a fringe theory, it will mean one of two things: it will mean either that the decision to classify the hypothesis as a fringe theory should no longer require these outcomes with respect to sourcing, or that the community will have to make an exception to these policies for articles about race and intelligence. In other words these two RFCs are asking two separate questions, which may have two separate answers. --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (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.

Because it is implied in the above that I endorse opening this RfC, I would like to observe that the implication is totally dishonest; that this RfC is obviously tendentious; and that the closure is appropriate. --JBL (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify something about the decision here. In the past two months, the issue of sources being misrepresented and/or declared unreliable has been raised at three different noticeboards: at the NOR noticeboard in March, [4] at the RS noticeboard earlier this month, [5] and most recently here. All three discussions were shut down within a few days, before the community could decide whether these sourcing decisions were compatible with policy, and the reason given for the closure was different in each case. In your comment that I quoted above, you initially made it sound as though you had no objection to these sourcing issues being addressed in a separate RFC, but now it's clear that you object very strongly to this being done.

My understanding of these decisions, taken together, is that editors who think that these sourcing decisions are incompatible with Wikipedia's policies cannot be allowed to raise that question to the broader Wikipedia community. Is that correct? And will any future noticeboard discussion that attempts to raise these issues also be quickly shut down? --AndewNguyen (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

AndewNguyen, A better interpretation of these decisions would be that starting discussions with nonneutral opening statements is just going to get them closed down early, no matter how many times it is attempted. MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That isn't a reasonable interpretation, because having a non-neutral opening statement was not the closure reason given in discussion above, nor was it the closure reason given in the discussion opened by Stonkaments at the NOR noticeboard. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Has it not occurred to you that you should have asked my opinion before attributing a view to me? The previous RfC question was not proper, so an RfC whose question is "[insert previous RfC question here]" also is not proper. To pretend that a person who opined against the propriety of the previous RfC would support this one is evidence of either serious dishonesty or serious incompetence. I am frankly very close to starting an ANI thread asking for you to be indefinitely blocked over this obviously shitty behavior. --JBL (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) @AndewNguyen: As usual, you are posing the issue very tendentiously. Sources that promote racial hereditarianism are included in the R&I article, but they're cited in a context that makes clear the fringe nature of that theory, in accordance with last year's RfC. For example, the fervent racial hereditarian Jensen is cited 6 times in the article and Jensen-Rushton is cited 5 times. Per WP:FRINGE, such sources must not be used as reliable sources for "balance", and so opponents of last year's RfC would have to overturn last year's RfC in order to achieve your objective. The current RfC at the R&I talk-page revisits last year's RfC. After five days we see 3 editors arguing to overturn last year's RfC, and more than 30 arguing to endorse it. NightHeron (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Andew cannot even be bothered to do 150 edits worth of productive editing or vandal fighting to get ECP says it all, really. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

After almost a year-long hiatus, Andew popped up on Ferahgo's RfC with this comment: Okay, THIS looks like the thing that I've been waiting for over the past year. Depending on the outcome of this RFC, perhaps it's time for me to become active again. [6] To me this looks like an admission of being an WP:SPA. They do not currently appear to have any other interests on WP besides overturning the consensus on race and intelligence. For this reason, I would suggest that the best response to their shenanigans would be to WP:DENY recognition as far as possible (until such time as their disruption rise to the level of a sanctionable offense). Generalrelative (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the list of the 45 excluded sources? There are no Jensen sources on the list, and the Jensen & Rushton 2005 paper is not on it either. I've looked through most of the removal diffs. The list seems to be completely accurate.

Every time someone has tried to raise these sourcing issues, you've accused them of "beating a dead horse" and tried to get the discussion shut down as quickly as possible. If you want to ensure the broader community cannot discussing the sourcing issue, so be it. I just want us to all be honest about what's actually going on here. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Including a large number of additional citations to sources that promote racial hereditarianism would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. NightHeron (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It's funny how the person opening this read my comment and read it completely opposite to what I intended.. I thought I was clear. This should be discussed among editors to form a good RfC before any RfC is opened. I have the same problem with this one as I do with the one currently active - neither provides information on the topic area and there is no good summary available anywhere, leading to many !votes based solely on opinions/beliefs/politics, not based on reliable sources. Until a good summary of reliable sources that are out there exists, a useful RfC on this topic cannot be had. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your comment. I'm not going to start another RFC about this issue, but if you wish to make an attempt at starting one yourself (and are confident you could prevent it from being closed immediately), I'd be glad to assist with collecting sources for it. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• All of the complaints here are complaints about WP:PROFRINGE and WP:UNDUE. That's it. There's nothing more to discuss about this. This is pure whining with a heavy dose of beating a dead horse thrown in for good measure, all while refusing to listen to anyone else. The next step is arbitration enforcement, as this topic is covered by discretionary sanctions specifically to prevent this very type of disruption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

POV edit warring at Eastern Security Network

Eastern Security Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over the past week or so, the above article has had a ton of POV edit warring by various IPs and SPAs. I don't feel qualified to clean up the article or start a discussion, but the article's badly in need of attention from an experienced editor—hopefully someone here can help sort things out. Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The damage is pretty minimal (they are all reverting each other), but yes this page needs some protection at the very least. JBchrch (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the damage is minimal—the current wording of the lead seems to mostly come from this POV IP edit about a week ago, though it's been toned down a bit. Gaelan 💬✏️ 05:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Claiming that a leader caused socio-economic outcomes

I've noticed a common pattern in the articles for political leaders whereby socio-economic outcomes that happen under their rule are implicitly or explicitly linked to the leader's policies. Rarely, if ever, are such claims supported by strong RS, such as high-quality RS and academic sources. It's frequently just stated that improvements happened under the rule (which is verifiable) and attributed to the leader (which is rarely verified). The problem with that is that socio-economic outcomes are not necessarily caused by a single leader's policies. A specific example of this is the article for the Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame, which emphasizes in the lead that he has "prioritized national development, launching programmes which have led to development on key indicators, including healthcare, education and economic growth." The problem with that statement is that it's hard to imagine a country embroiled in a civil war not to improve its socio-economic outcomes during a subsequent period of peace. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say about Kagame's role in the economic development of his country? --Jayron32 14:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Could we have some eyes on the Julian Assange article, where talk page discussion has repeatedly rejected UNDUE coverage of a certain bit of content regarding his imprisonment and where a minority of editors has laid out their support of such content at considerable length. Thanks. The talk page threads are Health and Less is more. The associated article content is referenced in them and can be seen in a recent string of reverts of my trimming some of the disputed text. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, $DEITY yes. It's WP:OWNed by a handful of Assange cultists. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Please strike this aspersion. It would also be best if you would delete your own BLP-violating comment at Talk: Julian_Assange. I think you know exactly what comment I'm talking about. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, that's a great example of the problem. The article is dominated by obsessives who give every appearance of believing that Assange is the Messiah. But he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not appropriate behavior (to put it lightly), particularly coming from an admin. I asked you to strike your personal attack on your fellow editors and to delete your really needless insults against a living person, but you've doubled down. At some point, the community will have to evaluate whether or not it wants to maintain someone who behaves in this manner as an admin. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This looks to be yet another case where if we asked editors to write towards the 10/20-year view of things, we would have a far better article. There is no need for this level of detail this soon after events even though it may be possible to document it from RSes. Editors need to write like these events happened 20 years ago and take a broader picture of his career/biography. Obviously there will be points necessary to slow down and detail coverage, but the fact much of the article is written in PROSELINE tells me no one has attempted a summary approach yet.--Masem (t) 14:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your wise counsel Masem. The immediate need is some more editors on the article page and talk page to break the logjam of revert warring and refusal to accept any cuts whatsoever. Nobody's proposed entirely eliminating the Melzer bit, but from the 20 year or now even the 2 year vantage point, it is indeed just a bit. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Masem, precisely my point as made on Talk. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Reaction here seems pretty clear. Meanwhile over on the article and its talk page, progress remains blocked against any trimming at all of the UNDUE content. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Smear campaign against Mark Levin?

A former Wikipedia editor claimed in an article that this site engaged in a multi-year smear campaign against Mark Levin. Is there any merit to the accusations? I decided to post this here because I have not gotten a response from the talk page of his article. X-Editor (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's not give a site banned editor another platform. YODADICAE👽 20:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Why was he banned? X-Editor (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate was banned by the Arbitration Committee for "continuing harassment of other editors" diff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Also see WP:GAMERGATE for more background to that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. This guy was clearly in the wrong. X-Editor (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that I spotted in that that has anything potentially actionable related to sourcing is removal of conversive-based reviews of his book (eg such as the series of edits that start at this one [7]). I have no idea who expert reviewers are in this political space, but RSOPINION would allow reviews from non-RS sources as long as that person is considered an appropriate expert in that field (eg as to avoid every Tom Dick and Harry review being added). We are not just going to add conservative reviews just to balance those from liberal, but if there are notable expert reviewers in that area, we should including their reviews appropriately. But again, I personally can't judge who would be expert in this area so I can't being to access if this can be actionable on WP.

Broadly, Levin' page tends to suffer the general problem of documenting all bits of negative commentary about him that has been published rather than seeking out how to describe his views from a 10/20-year view. It does need more treatment in broad strokes than specifics, but that's not something of discussion in said article. --Masem (t) 12:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Masem hits it on the nose. What the article needs is summarization. This is a common flaw in BLPs (especially in BLPs of active politicians and politically outspoken pundits)... we have a tendency to go overboard on the details of what the person has done or said, rather than presenting the “big picture”. We stick in every idiotic thing the subject says or does, when a few well chosen examples would suffice. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Mundane "organizational chart"-type content on police depts and businesses

Wikipedia pages on police departments have a systemic problem of copy-pasting mundane "organizational structure"/"organizational chart"-type information from the websites of the police departments. I believe this type of content is a flagrant violation of WP:WEIGHT. Not only is the content of no interest to most readers, but it fails WP:RS and fills pages to the brim with filler that diverts readers from actual substantive encyclopedic information. For example, here is just some of the content that I tried to remove from the Los Angeles Police Department page (all of which is sourced to the LAPD itself) and all of which was immediately reverted[8]:

• "The Chief of Staff is responsible for coordinating the flow of information from command staff to ensure that the Chief is fully informed prior to making decisions, performing and coordinating special administrative audits and investigations, and assisting, advising, and submitting recommendations to the Chief of Police in matters involving employee relations. The Office of the Chief of Staff is composed of the Board of Police Commissioners Liaison, the Public Communications Group, the Media Relations Division, and the Employee Relations Group"
• "The Information Technology Bureau is responsible for providing Information Technology services to the department.[27][4] The Information Technology Bureau is composed of the following subordinate units: Information Technology Division (ITD), Application Development & Support Division (ADSD), Emergency Command Control & Communications Systems (ECCCS) Division, Innovation Management Division (IMD)"
• Every subdivision of the "Office of Support Services"
• All the subdivisions of the "Detective Bureau"[9]
• An enormous list of the dozens of types of awards that the LAPD gives to its staff[10]

I noticed that this problem is also somewhat common on pages for businesses, but it is generally easy to remove it without any pushback (there are no passionate defenders of keeping the organizational chart of the subdivisions of the accounting department at McDonalds). The police department pages are more problematic because (1) the "organizational chart"-type content appears to have been systematically edited into the pages in the first place, and (2) There is pushback in removing it. Surely it fails WP:NPOV (in particular, WP:WEIGHT) to keep this kind of "organizational chart" copypasta content? While there is value in basic information about the organizational structure, surely there is no encyclopedic value in the "Office of Chief of Staff [does Chief of Staff-style actions] and has four subdivisions which have the names ABCD"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above, with a few comments: My take is that most of the org structure and medals sections are of interest to only a small subset of readers and that unless these are sourced with Independent Sources are generally WP:UNDUE detail.

I'm not an expert in "standard" or "normal" police rank/department structure, but unless an Org's structure is NOTABLY unique, I would say that there should be little detail discussing it. Some articles on large churchs/denominations have one or two paragraphs of explanation on their structure, but not as large of sections as in the LAPD article. I have seen the same list of medals/insignia/rank structure in other PD pages as well, and think that it shouldn't fill the page, as anyone interested can get this from the Department's website. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the Oakland Police Department article is a good example of how this type of content should look, but it could use a lead that better summarizes the article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Do other encyclopedias include rank structure and organization (beyond the "top of the chain" and obviously like main groups/departments within)? Remembering that we are not limited by space maybe it is encyclopedic, but if they don't include it I think we should strongly consider that maybe this sort of information isn't encyclopedic in the first place. Certainly a table of ranks is not encyclopedic in nature - it's trivia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, this kind of straightforward factual material is exactly the reason that WP:ABOUTSELF exists. Wikipedia is meant to be a general reference work, not a newspaper. Organisational details aren't exciting and they're not going to be written about in the New York Times, but that doesn't mean that they're trivia. Wikipedia provides context. Whereas the media quotes Assistant Commissioner Jones or states that Officer Martin is a twelve year veteran with a Medal of Distinction, an encyclopedia should explain what an Assistant Commissioner and a Medal of Distinction actually are. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, to address the elephant in the room, Snooganssnoogans, I feel that you're making an error when you see organisational information as a distraction from police misconduct. I don't know if you're familiar with Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch reports, but they typically include a chapter laying out chain of command of the groups involved. May seem mundane, but its an crucial part of establishing institutional responsibility. Explaining the structure of a police force is complimentary to detailing the scandals, not detrimental. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• My view is much more in line with RaiderAspect (full disclosure: this thread was opened regarding my revert of the OP). There is a thread on that talk page: Talk:Los Angeles Police Department#More removals. As I said there, I agree that there may be some excessive detail in there; however, [the] claims of it being unencyclopedic and of no interest "to anyone" are 100% subjective....we have to keep WP:PRESERVE in mind regarding material for which better sources likely exist. WP:PRIMARY sources also are not banned. There are many sources that talk about policing in detail, how it's done and how it's organized, and not just from a perspective of focusing on brutality. WP:TE is editing in a partisan and skewed manner, which I believe applies to editing police department articles only to add stuff about brutality and corruption and removing other stuff. We should be editing so as to speak of the good and the bad per due weight, not all one or the other. Articles on major American police departments absolutely need more eyes from editors focused on upholding NPOV. They get very little attention except that over the past year, there's been a big push to add stuff about police misconduct to the leads of these articles, most of which are very short, while at the same time attempts are made to gut other material. See New York Police Department, Los Angeles Police Department, Chicago Police Department, and Philadelphia Police Department, among others. Yes, we should of course cover misconduct with WP:Due weight. However, this is happening at the same time that almost no attention or effort whatsoever (and literally zero on the part of some editors) is going into editing any aspect of law enforcement other than misconduct, except to remove material on it. Any of those articles' histories and talk pages show this. How is this NPOV? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• I don’t see this as a WEIGHT/NPOV issue. However, we should not be simply copying the language directly from a PD website and pasting it into WP. THAT has potential COPYRIGHT problems. The organizational charts are beneficial, but need better summarization. Simplify, don’t omit. Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Problems in articles on American police departments

• Adding on to my comment earlier, the OP and editor who is spearheading the adding of this misconduct material into PD leads, Snooganssnoogans, is continuing POV editing. Here they add stuff to the lead of Columbus Division of Police about a DOJ complaint from 1999, as well as a judge's injunction from that same week a couple days before the edit (WP:RECENTISM, anyone?). (5/14 EDIT: RECENTISM is only referring to the recent injunction.) Here's the kicker: The very AP source they were using to label the Columbus Police as engaging in racial profiling, in context of the DOJ complaint, also stated in the very next sentence, A federal judge in 2002 dismissed the lawsuit after the city, which had fought it, made changes on the use of police force and handling of complaints against officers. Omitting this is a smoking gun of POV editing. In fact, material on that was already there in the body, albeit unsourced, and was removed in that very diff! There is absolutely no legitimate reason to omit that verifiable fact and thus imply that nothing has been done about those problems. How many more sources are being presented one-sidedly in these police department articles? How many sources are being excluded that present a more balanced picture? If this continues, I will have no choice but to seek a topic ban. WP:Tendentious editing, "partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole", is absolutely not allowed. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Edits per misunderstanding below. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is what the body said without any source: "Since that time many of the DOJ mandates have been implemented through policy changes and additional training." The AP News story does not support that language. Furthermore, the AP News story[11] is literally about how the department in 2021 is rife with the very same problems that prompted the DOJ to conclude that the department engaged in racial profiling and police brutality in 1999. That said, the 2002 decision by the judge should be in the history section and I would have added it had I seen it in that particular source. If there is anyone who should tread carefully with NPOV violations, it's you. It's you who is systematically scrubbing and downplaying reliably sourced content about police departments engaging in racial discrimination and misconduct from page after page, even when such content is sourced to a plethora of peer-reviewed studies and DOJ investigations. It's the kind of behavior that is contributing to the Racial bias on Wikipedia whereby the experiences of and misconduct against non-whites are systematically minimized in Wikipedia content through decisions by editors, who for whatever reason, believe that racial discrimination by police is just not important (even when WP:DUE appears obvious, as in the cases of the NYPD and LAPD where the racial discrimination is legendary and highly consequential to the organizations). I have on the other hand added content sourced to studies and high-quality RS, and sought external input through RfCs whenever you have tendentiously blocked such content. In all instances that I recall[12][13][14], the Wikipedia community has supported the content I proposed and expressed opposition to your whitewashing proposals. Having been wrong side of every content dispute on the topic, you're now calling for me to be topic-banned because I didn't keep unsourced content in one article and I didn't add content that I missed from a particular RS? I have taken the challenge to improve how Wikipedia portrays race and gender, and part of that is to reflect how non-whites have historically and presently been treated by some police departments. It is unfortunate that other editors respond to that by scrubbing reliably sourced content and downplay that history, and call for banning the few editors who bother to actually beef up the sourcing in those articles (e.g. with peer-reviewed history books, social science books, widely-reported-on DOJ investigations). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  The solution to problems of "whiteness" of Wikipedia editors is not to elevate information in the lead that doesn't merit it based on the body. I don't disagree with the edits you made - but you focused only on the misconduct, and didn't focus on improving the lead overall by including, as Crossroads stated, the rebuttal to the claim you made. Intentionally only presenting one side (i.e. the "misconduct") without including the other information is an example of being here to right great wrongs - which is even more clear when reading this response from you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  "Elevate information in the lead that doesn't merit it based on the body"? The largest and most well-sourced section in the entire article is about the department's controversies related to race and misconduct. I believe it's entirely consistent with WP:LEAD to reflect what sizable parts of the body says. Personally, I think that's more consistent with WP's lead policy than listing every single squad the MPD has and telling readers that the MPD has dogs (which is what the current lead says). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  After Crossroads's edits on the CPD page, readers will not be able to read about the CPD's history, unless they sift through the unreadable mundane details copy-pasted from the CPD website into the Wikipedia article's body and make it to the end of the article where they can learn that the DOJ did conclude that the CPD engaged in systemic racial discrimination and police misconduct, and that these patterns persist to the present day. Is that your idea of neutral? Is it neutral that the only content actually sourced to high-quality reliable sources is dumped at the bottom of this article? In my view, it's a good example of how the experiences of non-whites are minimized and downplayed on Wikipedia, and it startles me to see editors defend it. Am I going to edit-war to fix it or tendentiously block edits by other editors? No, as always, I let the community decide. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  They can literally see "misconduct" right there in the contents and click on it. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's false and you know it that I've been on the "wrong side of every content dispute on the topic". At Talk:New York City Police Department/Archive 3#RfC on neutrality of lead, literally no one except for an IP editor agreed with your version of the lead, and there were 12 other participants, including me. And all of these other disputes ended up with you being quick to start an RfC with a gish gallop of sources (e.g. Talk:Chicago Police Department#RfC: Police misconduct). Given what you excluded from the AP source, and your approach to the topic, I am skeptical of the neutrality of your presentation of these sources and choice of sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  That RfC does not show support for your version of the lead. When I put the specific contents of your version of the lead up to a RfC, it concluded with a consensus against[15]. My version of the NYPD lead is largely what the current version is, so your claims that the community decided against it are inaccurate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Funny - there are two completely different RfC's being discussed, and both of you are using them to say "you're wrong" to the other person - Crossroads, the RfC you reference I can't find any evidence that the options you presented were either heavily edited by Snoogansssnoogans. On the other hand, Snooganssnoogans is using an RfC on one particular sentence to attempt to claim that Crossroads is persistently against consensus in this topic area. Both of you should really take a step back - you're both getting heated. And on the subject of Snooganssnoogans, you've made some comments here that clearly put your edits in this topic area into RGW territory, and I think Crossroads has a clear case if they were to formulate such. I recommend you rethink how you're approaching your effort to reduce systematic bias in these topic areas - because it's clear to me (and likely others) that you're overcompensating heavily. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  The July 12, 2020 lead version that was voted down at the RfC I linked was that way due to material added by Snooganssnoogans in this edit on June 5, 2020: [16] Incidentally, this edit also contained the claim that "The NYPD has strongly resisted attempts at criminal justice reform", a massive overgeneralization and exaggeration from the source, a Politico article about the NYPD (and the mayor, governor, and many other Democrats!) blaming a specific bail reform law for an increase in crime - not "strongly" resisting all or even several reforms nor even doing any resistance other than blame. I didn't have time to read all the other sources being cited for the rest of all that material added then. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC) added Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I checked Crossroads's editing since August 2018 and I have found no instance of Crossroads adding any substantive negative content to articles on police departments, even though the editor has edited pages for several police departments, and has edited a lot on those pages since the killing of George Floyd (a juncture in which historical and present misconduct came to the forefront of public discourse and was covered comprehensively in contemporary RS). Furthermore, if you look at Crossroads's complaint about me not using every part of this AP News source (because I didn't see one sentence at the end of the piece)[17], doesn't Crossroads fall afoul of the same violation when he fails to add content on how the CPD are vastly more likely to use force against Blacks: "Records show that Black residents, about 28% of the Columbus population, accounted for about half of all use-of-force incidents from 2015 through 2019"?[18] If he's using the AP News source, why does he cherry-pick one positive sentence and omit pertinent negative content? That's the same complaint the editor is making against me. I certainly don't think any of the above merits a topic ban (or sanction of any sort for that matter), but I find it hypocritical to be calling for bans on others for purportedly lopsided editing in the other direction. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen you add any content except negative content to articles about police departments. Resisting POV pushing is not POV pushing itself. As for why I didn't add that, you are comparing apples and oranges - it's not like I added other contrary material about race and use of force from the source and left that out. You, though, cited that AP source about a DOJ lawsuit from 1999 and completely omitted the very next sentence where a federal judge dismissed it on the basis of reforms made. How you 'missed seeing it' I have no idea. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment/Issue - Firstly, I have seen very little of the overall editing on police departments by both editors disputing here so I can't comment on that, but I would like to make a point or raise an issue.

Media nowadays does publish stats like what Snoo stated: "Records show that Black residents, about 28% of the Columbus population, accounted for about half of all use-of-force incidents" ... but this type of reporting leads the reader to a false conclusion of racism. Here's a fact: Males make up about half of the US population, but account for close to 95% of all use-of-force incidents by police departments nationwide, and make up about 95% of prisoners. Does that mean that police and the justice system are sexist and should incarcerate more females? No, it just means that males commit more crime, and more violent crime. This may be true for black people (not because of skin color or genetics, but because of poverty and racial discrimination breeding anger)...for example, the number one killer of young black males (18-25) in the US is other young black males. That statistic is not the case for young white males.

My take is that I oppose having statements that LEAD the reader to believe that racial disrimination exists, when the science doesn't specifically say that. To compare here, as an example: we need rate of police violence against (whites who resist arrest) vs. police violence against (blacks who resist arrest). Studies by criminologists should be more represented than simple population ratio to police violence ratio statements. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"Resisting arrest?" What? Science? How about simple verified facts? SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that police officers are far more likely to use the excuse of "resisting arrest" to justify violence against black people than they are against white people. --Jayron32 14:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• This looks like a typical political POV argument to me, so I'm largely going to stay out of, but I was curious so I started reading the section. I was immediately struck by the absurdity of someone citing WP:RECENTISM to complain about events from 22 years ago being mentioned in the article, using sources from this year. The edit in question is pretty much the best possible edit from the standpoint of WP:RECENTISM. I don't know about the rest of the issues here, but that one... Well.. Hoo boy... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  MjolnirPants, I can tell this is about my statement above, and it is a misunderstanding. I have clarified the comment above. The criticism of RECENTISM applies only to the addition of an injunction from mere days before the edit being added to the lead. (diff) The rest I addressed in the remainder of my comment and below. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but establishing that this is something that's still being litigated after 22 years doesn't really justify it much. It's akin to AfDing scientific racism per WP:NOTNEWS because Richard Lynn published a paper last week. Just because something's had a recent development doesn't mean it's a recent thing. Conversely, if we're going to talk about something that's still being litigated 22 years after it began, I would fully expect WP's coverage to edge right up to the current day's news on the subject, when it comes to developments like a judge's ruling, which isn't bound to change with time. I mean, even if it's eventually overruled, it still seems WP:DUE to mention it.

Now, if that edit had contained mention of some RS pontificating about the "impact" or "precedent" of the recent ruling, even if that RS were the world's foremost legal scholar on LTL weapon use by police, I'd be right there with you on citing NOTNEWS (more specifically, WP:RECENTISM). Those sorts of things are bound to change, and RS views on them improve with time. But simply stating what the judgement was and quoting the basis for it like that is so dispassionate that there's no downside to including it within seconds of the source being published. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, RECENTISM was never claimed to apply to the 22 years ago stuff, so your analogy doesn't apply. As for the very recent material, I was not against including it in the article, just in the lead. And yes, it is POV and basically SYNTH to combine some stuff that happened 22 years ago ending with a federal judge being satisfied with the reforms with a news piece about a super-recent ruling to spin a narrative of long-time corruption and brutality and to stuff the lead with it. There will always be at least a few people "litigating" complaints about law enforcement; how we handle that is all about WP:DUE and WP:NOTADVOCACY. To establish DUE-ness, and especially regarding the lead, we should be sticking to peer-reviewed and academic sources (WP:SOURCETYPES), and surveying sources more broadly, and not only seeking out sources about misconduct, picking out only the negative bits of those sources, and adding them to the most prominent places. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC) clarified Crossroads ^-talk- 16:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC on ethnicity of Ahmed ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi

Looking for NPOV experts on the matter, the article currently has an ethnicity dispute section however the lede contradicts this by establishing an ethnicity to the subject. I think this violates our NPOV policy see WP:VOICE. The question on the RFC is should the lede state the subjects ethnic background? [19] Magherbin (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

SoftSwiss

As stated in the article's Talk page, three users removed every single mention of content that might be considered negative about the company, even though the sources were reliable (for example, official announcement by European and Australian authorities). This was a very bold move that was repeatedly done without providing a real evidence. I wish to remind that removing such content - and even deleting entire section entitled "Controversies" - is blatant advertising. I would also recommend on conducting an investigation into the three relevant users as they are probably sockpuppets.

Here is the link to the version of the article before the blatant advertising by removing specific content (published on May 3, 2021). On May 7, 2021, User:Antiantonio removed every single mention of negative content, obviously for promotional reasons (link to diff), but it was immediately reverted by User:SunDawn.

During a single day on May 7, the three users tried again to promote the company by omitting information and rephrasing the article. Here are few diffs for example:

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3

I reverted the removal of the content, but user User:Vlavluck kept reverting my edits.

The revision history of the article clearly shows the questionable edits SoftSwiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I am sure that further investigation will show these account also have conflict of interests with the relevant company. --Fact789 (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This should probably also be at WP:COIN all three are SPAs with a likely conflict of interest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Please visit the talk page of the mentioned article SoftSwiss to see the report about why this edits been done and to find the consensus.

User:Hemiauchenia, User:Fact789 As stated in the article's Talk page, according to Wikipedia:Content removal the deleted part of article have been removed because of WP:INAPPROPRIATE WP:ICW the links used for citation failed verification, not reliable, have no information about quoted text. In addition to this, few unconfirmed theses contain traces of the original research. They have been tagged by Antiantonio and Coldmanviktor you can learn it through history of changes bad source tags According the principles described in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not this part of article have been removed by me Vlavluck (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC) There are no problems between me and negative comments about the company, there are only problems with shit links that does not contain information about the quoted text. User:Hemiauchenia We can't leave such a poor supplied thesis in the article. Check following "Report about detected original research case" under or make your own one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlavluck (talk • contribs)

Report about detected original research case

Theses deleted from the article:

• "In 2021, multiple gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were banned in Australia as well as several European countries, following formal investigations into illegal activity by the respective Gambling Authorities". - There are no any mentions on resources that SoftSwiss is operates any of blocked casinos. Softswiss as article says is a software developer, not a casino operator. There're even no mentions about SoftSwiss in the link which support the theses, look through them

• "In February 2021, multiple illegal offshore gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were blocked due to illegal activity, following an order given by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to Australian internet service providers (ISPs). The ACMA also urged Australian users of these sites to withdraw their money" - references do not contain information supporting this thesis, look through them

• "In March 2021, Spillemyndigheden, the Danish Gambling Authority (DGA), announced the blocking of several online casinos operated by SoftSwiss subsidiary, Direx N.V. According to the DGA, these gambling websites operated without a license and offered Danish users unfair and illegal gambling products. The Swedish Gambling Authority (SGA), Spelinspektionen, also recently banned some of SoftSwiss' online casinos, but later revoked the decision" - References do not contain information supporting this thesis, look through them

Deleted theses violate the principals described in Wikipedia:No original research, and also demonstrate disrespect to the requirements for verifiability and reliability of references described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Vlavluck (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

References

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

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.

---

The discretionary sanctions page is clear that noticeboards are off-limits to non-EC users. Even ignoring that this is blatant forum shopping... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[[20]] The following is copied directly from the discussion there. They keep throwing the same arguments, even though I've countered them each time again and again. The following text, taken for example from the lead section, is considered an NPOV work-in-progress with serious holes that paint Israel in a seriously negative color by omitting crucially important context: On 10 May, (...) Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school. Israel began a campaign of airstrikes against Gaza; by 16 May, some 950 targeted attacks had demolished (...): 18 buildings (...), 40 schools and four hospitals, and also struck the al-Shati refugee camp. In addition, at least 19 medical facilities have been damaged or destroyed by Israeli bombardment. The al-Jalaa Highrise, housing offices of the Associated Press and Al Jazeera as well as 60 condominiums, was destroyed on 15 May, prompting outcry. By 17 May, the United Nations estimated that Israel had demolished 94 buildings in Gaza, comprising 461 housing and commercial units. As a result of the violence, at least 248 Palestinians were killed by Israeli bombardment in Gaza, including 66 children. Palestinian rocket fire has killed 12 in Israel, including one child. On 11 May, the Israel Defense Forces said that at least 15 of the Palestinian casualties were members of Hamas, and also said that some Palestinian civilian casualties were caused by errant rocket launches within the Gaza Strip. As of 20 May 2021, the Palestinian National Authority reported injuries for at least 1,900 Palestinians, while as of 12 May Israel reported at least 200 injured Israelis. That text should be changed to the following: On 10 May, (...) Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip targeted at Israeli cities and civilized areas, hitting multiple residences and a school. Israel began a campaign of airstrikes against targets in Gaza; by 16 May, some 950 targeted attacks had demolished (...): 18 buildings (...), 40 schools and four hospitals, and also struck the al-Shati refugee camp. In addition, at least 19 medical facilities have been damaged or destroyed by Israeli bombardment. The al-Jalaa Highrise, housing offices of the Associated Press and Al Jazeera as well as 60 condominiums, was destroyed on 15 May, prompting outcry. By 17 May, the United Nations estimated that Israel had demolished 94 buildings in Gaza, comprising 461 housing and commercial units. As a result of the violence, at least 248 Palestinians were killed by Israeli bombardment in Gaza, including 66 children. Palestinian rocket fire has killed 12 in Israel, including one child. On 11 May, the Israel Defense Forces said that at least 15 of the Palestinian casualties were members of Hamas, and also said that some Palestinian civilian casualties were caused by errant rocket launches within the Gaza Strip. As of 20 May 2021, the Palestinian National Authority reported injuries for at least 1,900 Palestinians, while as of 12 May Israel reported at least 200 injured Israelis. (...) The IDF has expressed that it targets terrorists in Gaza while trying to eliminate Gazan casualties as much as possible, while Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad have fired countless rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. Some of the Israeli civilians harmed by the rockets identify themselves as Palestinian. Regarding the strike of the building that housed the news offices of AP, the IDF Spokesperson Unit said "The Hamas terror organization deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site". The IDF uses various measures to alert Gaza civilians to evacuate, including calling them by phone, sending SMS messages, dropping leaflets, dropping roof knocking bombs (which make loud noises and hit only the roof), and giving them time to evacuate. The IDF operates various defense systems that protect Israeli civilians from rocket attacks, including air raid sirens and the Iron Dome aerial defense system. The IDF said that Iron Dome has intercepted 90% of all rockets launched towards Israel. Gaza has neither air raid sirens nor aerial defense systems that are intended to protect its civilian population. Hamas uses Gaza civilians as human shields and encourages them to stay when the IDF alerts them to evacuate. The article omits the context behind the actions and the intentions of both sides in the conflict, Israel and the Palestinians. By omitting this extremely important context, the article is conveying a negative image of Israel and is considered an NPOV work-in-progress. My proposal aims to fix that. This is not about trying to give Israel "equal weight". This does not break neutrality by showing Israel's side more positively: the proposal itself is neutral; if it makes Israel looks better, it is just a side effect (that I desire to achieve, in this case, which does not make the proposal break the neutrality principle, either). While I did synthesize multiple secondary sources, this does not make the proposal original research, it is just the way by which an encyclopedia is formed. The sources don't just quote the IDF or Israel's leaders, they assert facts and report information. All of the text I've explicitly requested to add in the format of "A->B" is attributable to high-quality secondary sources. I've consulted Wikipedia's list of perennial sources while drafting my edit request (and it took a few hours straight to do this), and the "miscellaneous" sources I've listed at the bottom of my proposal are there just for reference, to be present in the talk page. The IDF press releases are intended to enhance, not replace, the reliable secondary sources. The sources directly support the information, and they're used in the context as secondary sources, not primary, and are therefore not "a mouthpiece for the IDF". The point about Hamas and human shields is a minor point that can be addressed by minimal rephrasing; it does not make this entire proposal lose its stand. Maybe the lead section is not the best place to put the information - I'm not objecting to that; but it's better to improve the neutrality of Wikipedia by including the important context, and later on the information can be reorganized in a better way. (Maybe I could also help with that.) It's better for Wikipedia to present more neutral articles by including crucially important context - especially when it makes the reader see the whole picture in different light, and even if it's not organized as ideally as it should be - rather than omitting that context. As said in WP:NPOVT#Space and balance, "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it". And although the sources might be "outdated" by now, they're still relevant if only to break the barrier of getting the information into the article. Wikipedia articles can always have more sources added or better ones replacing worse ones. Having relevant but outdated sources for this recent event still doesn't justify leaving this important information out.

Comment The editor is, per this Arbpia ARCA not permitted to participate in formal discussions ("edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces"). Because the editor is not happy with being unable to get what he wants at the article talk page, where he is permitted to make edit requests in the normal way, he is coming here in an attempt to get around the limitation.Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• The OP's version is pro-Israel and not at all neutral. They present the IDF views at great length, including some in wikivoice, always assuming good faith of the IDF in preventing civilian casualties; and they present Hamas as evil terrorists. Their bias is obvious from the first sentence with the word choice "civilized" for the Israeli areas. Do they think that the Palestinian areas targeted by the IDF are uncivilized? There's unfortunately a long history of apologists for colonialism using civilized vs uncivilized to justify atrocities by whites against people of color. NightHeron (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with NightHeron. The top version is far more neutrally worded. I suspect the reason it might seem non-neutral is because it spends relatively little time on the damage caused by the rocket attacks, and a lot of time characterizing the damage caused by the IDF response.

Of course, the damage caused by the IDF response far outweighed the damage caused by Hamas, and even if the two were comparable, the amount of RS coverage of the IDF response has far outweighed the coverage of the rocket attacks. So there's nothing we can do, and any attempt to "balance" things back out is a blatant WP:OR and WP:NPOV violation.

And the bottom version doesn't even seem to be an attempt to balance things out, but looks like blatant apologetics for the IDF. I mean, if one is going to point out something as specific as the AP office building and then quote the IDF, I would expect to see the responses from the building owner and the AP denying that Hamas had any facilities there, especially given that the majority of the press coverage I've seen has (for obvious reasons) been about those responses, not about the IDF's justification for it, which generally gets only passing mention. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 24 May 2021 (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.

Talk:Spanish Empire#Colonial empire

There is disagreement over at Talk:Spanish Empire#Colonial empire about whether referring to the Spanish empire as a colonial empire in the WP:LEAD is compliant with WP:NPOV. Further input would be appreciated. TompaDompa (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Title of Rejection of evolution by religious groups

I don't feel particularly strongly about this article's subject or potential title, but I wanted to post this here for wider scrutiny because I suspect it gets to the core of WP:NPOV and its application as it relates to religious beliefs that directly conflict with science. There was only brief discussion on the talk page around this move (Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups#Article title in May 2020, but nothing further, which I was surprised by. — Goszei (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Why?? There's no Wikipedia policy that says that all discussions must take a long time. It seems like a simple and not particularly controversial change in the wording of the title. I don't see the core of WP:NPOV here. NightHeron (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, but I support the move from: "Creation–evolution controversy" to "Rejection of evolution by religious groups": as the editor who moved it (Vsmith) said: "There is no controversy." and that is correct; there is no controversy in the science. I see this as similar to some previous Pope's "Rejection of condoms as a means of AIDS prevention"...we wouldn't title an article "Controversy over the effectiveness of condoms at preventing transmission of HIV" ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Paffrath: Landlord?

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.

---

There's an ongoing discussion between myself and Special:Contribs/73.248.126.206 at the article on Kevin Paffrath about whether he ought to be introduced in the lead as a "landlord" or "real estate investor", and we've reached a bit of an impasse. The article initially described him as "American YouTuber, real estate broker, and landlord", and there was an edit war over removing "landlord", and adding either "investor" or "real estate investor". I suggested the compromise of adding "real estate investor" but retaining "landlord", but 73.248.126.206 believes it ought to be removed. My reasoning is that the significant coverage of Paffrath, outside of the sources focusing on his YouTube channel, discuss his landlording: New York Times Magazine, Curbed. I'll let 73.* summarize their point of view, or just see the conversation at Talk:Kevin Paffrath#Landlord. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

First some background: the usage first came to my notice when GorillaWarfare changed the existing wording in multiple parts of the article from 'real estate investor' to 'landlord,' which I found to be unnecessary and odd. I then reviewed GW's contributions to the article and AfD debate (near or more than 100 of them), all of which either introduced decidedly negative content into the article (specifically the third paragraph in the Career section), or expressed 'concern' about the integrity of editors who voted to keep Paffrath's article (in an AfD debate). The article started off in very rough shape but had been vastly improved by the time GW began to edit.

GW claims the Curbed article cited is the 'most significant' source for the article and thus warrants its prominent role and provides a basis for the change from real estate investor to landlord, but there were originally more than 40 sources, which GW largely by herself cut down to around 20, a few of them on duplicate grounds. I work in the real estate field and had never heard of Curbed; it is a defunct blog that has only ever been covered by 2 unaffiliated publications according to its WP article, and prior to its dissolution only discussed real estate in one city. Without the Curbed article, Paffrath has more than enough notability to warrant an article.

The following sources refer to him primarily as real estate investor: CNBC, Business Insider, Nashville Post (all of which are superior to defunct Curbed in notability). Other sources (including NYT) refer to/introduce him as real estate broker, or YouTuber with a real estate business. Only Curbed introduces him as a landlord and persists with that descriptor.

On a review of the only 24 'American Landlords' on Wikipedia (when there have surely been thousands of notable Americans who were real estate investors), only 7 past and present Americans including Paffrath are described in the first-sentence as landlord. The remaining 24 and others I have looked up in the business are described as real estate investor, real estate developer, businessman/woman, builder, or some other term. Landlord is virtually never used. GW was only able to cite one other article where landlord was used as a first-sentence descriptor.

In the CNBC and Business Insider article, Paffrath's real estate investments outside of landlording are mentioned: fixing and flipping properties, and real estate investment includes fixing and renting. Since Paffrath does both 'real estate investor' wouldn't seem to lack in any sense, and 'landlord' would be redundant. In addition to it being both highly uncommon and redundant, there are other concerns around what appears to be a contrived insertion of 'landlord' into the article, specifically that subject is running for governor amid political talk of 'canceling rent' and especially in a state with the highest rental rates in the nation, as well as to take advantage of the negative historical and contemporary connotations the word sometimes has. While its contemporary meaning is different, 'landlord' historically referred to tribute-taking by royalty, mostly heirs, and among some there is a connotation of passive ownership and oppressive rent-collection, which can engender resentment; much less so than active, hands-on improvement of properties Paffrath (including of non-rental real estate) that the sources discuss Paffrath being engaged in.

This isn't me trying to protect the subject nor to make accusations, just to appeal to use standard, far more common wording (and revert to the wording that was already used, which GW changed) rather than highly uncommon wording, when there might be concerns around ulterior motives (whether real or perceived, and I'm not making accusations) behind such wording. I don't object to the term being used in general, I just don't think it belongs in the opening sentence when it's non-standard, redundant, and the existing term sufficed.73.248.126.206 (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support using "landlord" since he is a landlord. He owns pieces of real estate that he rents or leases to tenants. "Landlord" by itself does not have negative connotations in this context. It is a neutral, accurate description for what he does, and talking about what he does on camera has made him a YouTube personality as well. Use of the word landlord is not at all "odd". All the baloney about cutting sources as if that is suspicious lacks any credibility because many of the sources were duplicates and others were clearly not reliable. The IP ought to be thanking GorillaWarfare for the improvements to the references rather than raising a red herring. The "cancel rent" and "highest rental rates in the nation" and "oppressive rent collection" stuff is irrelevant original research and speculation by the IP editor since none of that appears in either the sources or in the article. The IPs fixation on the Curbed source is a diversion, because the very best source in the article, the New York Times, calls Paffrath "a multimillionaire landlord who once extolled the virtues of misleading tenants and vigorously refusing to rent to people with suboptimal credit scores", and accordingly, Wikipedia ought to neutrally summarize what the best source says. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Landlord, not real estate investor, is the more recognizable term for someone who owns residential properties and collects rents. While the term may have originated from the feudal relationship of lord and vassal, it's pretty common today. Residential tenants (another term from feudalism) do not call their property owners real estate investors, they call them landlords. I think that landlord is more common for residential and real estate investor for commercial. No one calls Donald Trump a landlord. TFD (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

He owns 22 properties (in Southern California, which is equivalent to 50-60+ anywhere else) and has a net worth of $15-20 million. That's not your typical small-time landlord. That it's research to say California has highest rents is ridiculous; it's common knowledge nationwide among anyone not living underground. What the cutting of sources (at least several of which were legitimate, or at least more legitimate than/comparable to Curbed, and not duplicates) did was make the Curbed article more prominent. Curbed is a defunct blog formed by one random guy and has little to no weight. The only reason it's being elevated now is because it supports the points GW wanted to insert into the article. OK, and you have the NYT. Adlan Jackson (no article) isn't God, he's one 25-year-old NYT journalist. So there are 20-40 sources but they're to be discarded and the 'very best' NYT is to govern exactly what the article says? I never knew Carlos Slim and the Sulzbergers had the power to override all other human knowledge and writing-style norms and decide exactly what encyclopedias say. TFD, I work in the industry, and that's just 100% wrong, complete BS to be frank. No one cares whether you're residential or commercial, any different descriptor would be about the size of holdings and # of units. In most areas there is no greater value on a per-foot basis with commercial properties (usually less) or increased prestige; if anything commercial is considered a pain in the butt and riskier with vacancies, especially now, and residential is preferred for rentals and flips. Anyone with more than say 10 properties (in typical US markets; in NYC and San Fran/SoCal that number is lower) or who is otherwise able to make a living from property ownership alone is most commonly called a real estate investor (or 'in real estate,' or a developer if they also build or significantly alter the groundscape of large properties), including within the business. People with fewer than 7-10 properties will typically say ' I have/he has a real estate business' or 'I have an investment/rental property(ies)' or might also call themselves a 'real estate investor' if the income amount is a significant portion of total income, though like with 'stock investor,' bigness is suggested. Very few will say 'I'm a landlord' (except perhaps in self-deprecating terseness/minimalism, or for some other effect) because it's a raw legal title and gives no indication what kind of real estate work you actually do, how many properties (1 or 100), what your future plans are, or how you got where you are. No one calls Trump a landlord because he is big and (like Paffrath) doesn't only rent out properties. Yes, tenants say 'my landlord,' but that is common parlance, and used when referring to contract law. If someone is the president of a larger company, you don't call him 'a boss' or 'the owner' in an encyclopedia just because his employees call him their boss. It's simply not used when describing someone's profession, and there are multiple reasons that it's not used (e.g. it's somewhat crass, it's outdated, and it's often inaccurate/simplistic since it doesn't describe the day-to-day realities of property renovation/management, which involve work and planning not just static 'lording'). That isn't to say it's some grave offense to use when describing someone, it's just non-standard and not optimal.

There is a reason virtually no one on WP uses the term landlord as a primary, first-sentence descriptor out of 6.3 million articles. Even though I made many other strong points, that really says it all; or did you and GW just figure out something the thousands of other editors didn't? But as a nobody IP user, not surprised my points carry no weight, if they were even read and considered. Truth takes a big backseat to deeply subjective 'authority' and 'reliability' here. And no Cullen, I'm not thanking GW. The article was already vastly improved from the original and was better before she got involved. Aside from fixing a few technical issues, all she essentially did in her re-write was jumble the sections around, insert a giant paragraph (one might call it a hit piece) that was largely based on the Curbed source, and whitewash the censorship of Paffrath's campaign by Facebook and Instagram. 73.248.126.206 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the IP editor is highly skilled at writing screeds and trashing the New York Times and its article that they apparently haven't read, and is also on a campaign to deprecate the plain English word "landlord" despite the fact that a Google Books search shows that dozens of books have been published providing advice to landlords that use the word "landlord" in the title. Mentioning Carlos Slim who happens to be a major investor in the NYT but has no involvement with its editorial processes is . . . absurd. Casting unfounded aspersions on a highly experienced good faith editor is not an effective debating tactic and is actually counterproductive. "Hit piece"? One might call it that, but then one would be wrong. Get your hands on the NYT article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No aspersions, I'm just providing examples of what I see GW did. The arguable hit piece is the oversized paragraph that mines all the sources, mainly Curbed, for negative content (whatever the NYT article says, and I'll read it in full, one would think it was mostly negative based on the quotes selected), when that isn't really representative of the overall coverage of Paffrath, which is mostly positive or neutral.73.248.126.206 (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 I agree, but wanted to add that even Paffrath himself calls himself a landlord: "I think I'm a very ethical landlord in that..." (source) As for my "hit piece", see my below reply. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support the use of landlord. The term is used by reliable sources and is a common language description of one of Paffrath's occupations. I am unpersuaded by arguments based on original research or the treatment of landlords in other articles. 7 out of 24 American landlords being described as such in the lead sentence is a hefty proportion and is, if anything, good evidence that landlord is commonly used as a first-sentence descriptor when reliably sourced.
  I would be persuaded by a showing that the vast majority of reliable sources do not use landlord. If there are, indeed, 20-40 such sources, a listing of those would be compelling evidence that landlord is perhaps undue in the lead.
  There are deeper concerns here about NPOV. Either 73 is right and GorillaWarfare has been inappropriately POV pushing or they are making an unfounded accusation of misconduct against another editor. 73, could you perhaps provide a few diffs of the most egregious examples? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but 6.3 million articles, 330 million present Americans and hundreds more million past, and six people (plus Paffrath) is 'hefty' (and that there are only 24 categorized in 'American landlords' is also highly telling)? Whether it's the proportion or the original number; are you kidding me? I've already provided some specific examples but will add more: the third paragraph in Career section is 100% GW, she changed all real estate investor labels to landlord (I then risked being banned to add RE investor alongside landlord), persistently removed references to net worth, and whitewashed the Instagram incident as an 'error' and removed the dollar amounts in question (I believe it was $30 million given from Facebook-Instagram to the Newsom administration). You can decide it's misconduct or whatever you want, I'll just choose to call it bad editing and the seeming patterns coincidences. I agree with your message and responded to it in the edit history.

If we can keep the discussion open for a day or two, I can review the sources and demonstrate that a clear, large majority do not introduce/primarily refer to Paffrath as landlord. Maybe I run in different circles, but as for 'vast majority,' the NYT is not nearly as respected as some of you make it out to be. It has displayed biases far too many times and is just another newspaper that like all others has a journalistic mission but is beholden to special interests. Are we to pretend the Amazon-WaPo is also some sacred publication? Give me a break. Yes, there are still some real journalists who work there, but it's not some temple of human knowledge. We need to look at all the sources, not play favorites. 73.248.126.206 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You think it strange that I am comparing apples to apples, I think it's strange you're comparing apples to all Americans or all Wikipedia articles. Regardless, consider it a throwaway point. More important: it's very unlikely that you will persuade me and others through comparison to other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFF). There being so few articles in the American landlords category is a sign that more articles need to be appropriately categorized and not a sign that we should stop describing landlords as landlords. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If you don't think that 6 or 24 out of half a billion is indicative of something, not sure we're going to get anywhere. The overwhelming majority (probably way over 99%, though it's impossible to trace) of the untold thousands of 'American landlords' who have Wikipedia articles are not categorized as such, but instead as businesspeople which is what they are. For example, Dave Ramsey, who is pretty much identical to Paffrath (real estate investor + podcaster) is tagged as American businessperson (and described in lead sentence as businessman). This clearly indicates landlord as a primary professional label is problematic, it is avoided for reasons some of which I've given.73.248.126.206 (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I just checked out some similar, comparably notable (some cases a little more, some little less) personalities to see how they are described. Dave Ramsey is real estate investor, businessman. Ben Mallah is real estate mogul/tycoon, real estate investor. Graham Stephan real estate investor, in real estate, investor. In the first few pages of Google searches, none of them are described/introduced by others as landlords when all are heavily involved in the property rental business. Will add more later.73.248.126.206 (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I linked you to WP:OTHERCONTENT, and Firefangledfeathers is saying similar: Regardless, consider it a throwaway point. More important: it's very unlikely that you will persuade me and others through comparison to other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFF). I'm not sure why you're continuing to insist on following this line of argument when we've both explained it's a common tactic that is almost always unconvincing to editors, to the point that it's garnered multiple essays. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Catching up on this after being away from my computer this evening; apologies for the length of this but there are a lot of allegations being thrown around by 73.*. A lot of this I've already responded to on the talk page and so I will skip it here.

but there were originally more than 40 sources, which GW largely by herself cut down to around 20, a few of them on duplicate grounds This is a claim you made on the talk page, and I already gave you a pretty detailed breakdown there of the sources I removed and why they were unreliable. I also invited you to specify any source I removed if you thought it shouldn't have been, which you did not take me up on. I see that after you repeated the implication here that I had removed legitimate sources, Cullen328 replied All the baloney about cutting sources as if that is suspicious lacks any credibility because many of the sources were duplicates and others were clearly not reliable. You have doubled down on it without specifying a single source that was removed inappropriately: the cutting of sources (at least several of which were legitimate, or at least more legitimate than/comparable to Curbed, and not duplicates... So there are 20-40 sources but they're to be discarded. If it were true that I had removed multiple usable sources for no good reason, surely you could point to some?

I am glad that you have finally agreed to provide specifics of my supposed inappropriate behavior, though I will note that there is a reason that we usually ask for diffs rather than just descriptions of the behavior, and this is so editors can observe what actually happened without the filter of your personal perceptions, and so it's unambiguous which edits you are referring to. Regardless, I will reply to what I think you are referring to:

• the third paragraph in Career section is 100% GW This is not true; the mention of "landlord influencers", the Millenial Money reporting on the breakdown of his income, and the quote describing him as a "multimillionaire landlord who once extolled..." were all in the article before I touched it (earlier revision). I did add more quotes and descriptions of RS commentary on Paffrath to the section, some of which is critical ("arguably incendiary opinions..."), some of which is Paffrath's response to the criticism ("I separate ethics from business"), and some of which is positive ("The overwhelming majority of Paffrath's content consists of mundane tips that have a neutral or even positive effect on tenants", "Jackson said that Paffrath was 'exceptionally talented at talking to a camera, a natural salesman'"), and some of which has no real opinion to it (Paffrath and others shifted their channels towards COVID-19 stimulus updates).

The last part is very arguably portraying Paffrath 'talking to a camera' as a huckster or silver-tongue, not at all necessarily positive. The paragraph did not exist before and was 100% your doing, so that wasn't false.73.248.126.206 (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• she changed all real estate investor labels to landlord (I then risked being banned to add RE investor alongside landlord) This is where diffs come in handy because I'm not 100% sure which edit(s) you're referring to, but I assume it is this one. There were at the time two sources being used to support the descriptors in the lead, and neither described him as an investor, so it was appropriate to remove. You later swapped "YouTuber, real estate broker, and landlord" for "YouTuber, real estate investor, and real estate broker" and added a Newsweek source which describes him as "an investor and real estate broker"; I changed it to "YouTuber, real estate broker, landlord, and investor" to properly reflect the source along with a clear summary: [21]. I was following the sources here, as the diffs show. As for "I then risked getting banned", that is certainly one way to spin "I edit warred against the status quo and refused to discuss on the talk page as asked".

There's no argument here. Everywhere it said 'real estate investor,' e.g. in the lead and information bar, you removed it and changed to landlord. Then when I came and tried to change it back to what it was, you accused me of 'challenging the status quo' [that you yourself had unilaterally implemented less than 48 hours earlier] and repeatedly reverted my edits, then started warning me and within a minute or two Drmies and other users were threatening to ban me. Eventually I had to settle for putting RE investor alongside landlord, which just looks weird and redundant, yet it is necessary since it is the much more accurate term, and is far more in line with norms as I've demonstrated above. If we could have just removed landlord (aside from 'landlord influencer,' which is fine in context) it would actually read well and be correct, and I wouldn't have wasted half my day debating about a word in an article for a YouTuber whose advice I could do without and a political candidate whose policies I don't remotely support. Alas; I guess I'll chalk it up as rhetorical sword-sharpening on the granite heads of a few editors. 73.248.126.206 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• persistently removed references to net worth This one is true, at least. I have twice reverted attempts to add estimated net worth, both of which I will note were wildly different numbers. The diffs are [22] (summary: I don't think "The Wealthy Niche" is a reliable source, and even if it were, the text is quite clear that this is little more than a wild guess: "Kevin has a combination of income sources pretty much similar to Graham Stephan. It’s hard to tell their exact net worth because their exact mortgage amount is unknown. But, we’ve tried our best to calculate their net worth as accurately as possible and according to our estimates, the net worth of Kevin Paffrath aka Meet Kevin is about $32 Million.") and [23] (summary: appears to be a clickbait website, not a RS).
• whitewashed the Instagram incident as an 'error' and removed the dollar amounts in question (I believe it was $30 million given from Facebook-Instagram to the Newsom administration) Again, look at the article before I edited it (it says that a Facebook spokesperson said that the post had been removed in error) and the current (permalink) version after my edits (which also says that a Facebook spokesperson said that the post had been removed in error). Both versions include that Paffrath believes it was intentional. As for the $30 million claim, the article before my edits said that Paffrath suspects the post was taken down intentionally and points out that Instagram through Facebook donated over 30 million dollars "on behalf of" Gavin Newsom's campaign. I could find no source supporting that Paffrath alleged a $30 million donation by Facebook, and so I removed the dollar value while retaining what was in the source, which is that Paffrath alleged Facebook/Instagram's removal was related to donations to Newsom's various causes. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Well not sure how hard you looked: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-04-27/corporations-donate-226-million-toward-newsom-2020 ; https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-04-30/charity-contributions-california-lawmakers-hidden-donor-advised-funds-nonprofit ; https://ktla.com/news/california/corporate-giants-flooded-newsom-with-record-226-million-in-charity-donations-in-2020/ ; https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/05/07/salesforce-google-facebook-how-big-tech-undermines-californias-public-health-system/ These RS articles which were first four Google results cite $30.7 million in 'behested' payments by Facebook to Newsom, search terms 'facebook 30 million donation newsom.' 73.248.126.206 (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

A quick ctrl-F shows that none of these even mention Paffrath, so I'm not sure how they could support the claim that "Paffrath... points out that Instagram through Facebook donated over 30 million dollars 'on behalf of' Gavin Newsom's campaign." It's totally possible that there are sources out there that report that Facebook/Instagram have donated $30 million, but as far as I can see Paffrath has not made that claim, which is what the article was (unverifiably) saying. If you want to write about Facebook/Instagram's behested payments more generally, that sounds like something for Talk:Facebook or similar, but Paffrath's page is not the place to WP:COATRACK about Facebook's donations to Newsom's causes. Describing Paffrath's interpretation of Facebook/Instagram's motives, Facebook/Instagram's reply, and giving a quick explanation of the payments in question, is perfectly sufficient; going into detail about dollar amounts donated by Facebook and totally unrelated companies (the earlier version was listing donations by Google and Blue Shield of California) is coatracking. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes but this source which is used in the article does: 'Initially, Paffrath said he suspected the social media giant’s donations of tens of millions of dollars to Newsom causes played a role in the removal of his post. But the California-based Facebook noted those funds went to coronavirus relief for health care workers and small businesses and not to the governor’s campaign coffers.' https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newsom-meet-kevin-weanie-baby-censored-instagram (a non-sequitur when used with 'initially' since it draws a false relation between FB's claims and Paffraths's suspicions) Also, why let the fact that Facebook made payments stand as being relevant, but remove the dollar amount, when that number is very well established? Give me a break on the coatracking - so it's too much of a tangent to inform readers it was $30 million (two words, not too unwieldy) rather than $30,000? Google and BlueCross have no apparent relevance to the paragraph and would not need be mentioned. Seems odd to leave the Facebook part, which is relevant, but remove the two-word dollar figure. 73.248.126.206 (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm surprised I need to explain why we can't take a source that says that Paffrath stated they donated "tens of millions of dollars" and use it to verify that Paffrath stated they donated "over 30 million dollars". We can't take a source that only makes a vague statement (tens of millions) and use it to verify a more specific statement (over 30 million). When there are additional sources that are more specific about $30 million, we still can't say that Paffrath stated it was that amount, which is what the article was doing. If you would like to add a statement to the section saying that Paffrath characterized Facebook's donations as being on the scale of tens of millions, be my guest, but don't accuse me of "whitewashing" for removing a statement that was not verified in the source. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Since it's a given that the Facebook/Instagram/Newsom connection was relevant enough for inclusion in the article, the right course of action would have been to cite the Paffrath-suspected-tens-of-millions source (Fox News), then cite a separate source for the dollar figure, which had already been provided by another editor and was easily verifiable, and I believe was already also cited. They don't need to all be drawn back to the same source. Your claim that there is no relation between Paffrath's tens of millions and the actual 30 million is highly dubious IMO. And yes, I will add (i.e. restore) the fact that Paffrath said the donation played a role, and that the same amount ($30 million aka tens of millions) was in fact given. Informed readers can then come to their own conclusions. 73.248.126.206 (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, fortunately we are in a venue where other editors can give their opinions on whether I acted inappropriately, so now that each of our interpretations of the matter have been explained, I shall wait for that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

And yes, I will add (i.e. restore) the fact that Paffrath suspected it, and that the same amount (tens of millions) was given. You are once again misrepresenting my edits. I did not remove the statement that Paffrath suspected Facebook/Instagram's removal was related to their donations to Newsom's causes. The article formerly said, "Paffrath suspects the post was taken down intentionally and points out that Instagram through Facebook donated over 30 million dollars "on behalf of" Gavin Newsom's campaign". After my edits, it says "Paffrath told Fox News he suspected the post was taken down intentionally, and that the removal was related to its parent company Facebook's donations to Newsom's causes". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I was only going off your own representations above: "it's totally possible that there are sources out there that report that Facebook/Instagram have donated $30 million, but as far as I can see Paffrath has not made that claim, which is what the article was (unverifiably) saying." Very dubious IMO to claim that Paffrath's reference to tens of millions is unrelated to the actual 30 million. Going back to the original point, it's odd IMO that you removed the dollar amount. It may have already been sourced other than in the Fox News article, and if not was very easily verifiable and could've been cited separately (or at the very least, $30 million changed to a quote-marked 'tens of millions'). Deciding not to remove the number would not have remotely encumbered the article or amounted to a tangent. 73.248.126.206 (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you have misread me. Nowhere did I suggest that "Paffrath's reference to tens of millions is unrelated to the actual 30 million", I said: "When there are additional sources that are more specific about $30 million, we still can't say that Paffrath stated it was that amount, which is what the article was doing." Regarding the rest of your statements, which you are now beginning to repeat, I am happy that my side of this dispute about Facebook donation amounts has been explained properly and will leave it up to the outside editors now to decide whether my actions were "whitewashing" or "very dubious" or otherwise indicative of some sort of POV issue rather than also repeating myself. It is also 1:30am my time, and well past time for me to sign off for the night; I'll check back tomorrow and reply then if needed if you have responses to my other bulleted replies. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes we can say that. 30 million = tens of millions. If I say thousands donated and it was $5,000, I wasn't wrong. Beyond removing the dollar amount, you also re-ordered the sentences of paragraph to end on (and thus leave the reader with an impression) 'oops, was just an error,' where previously that sentence came earlier in the paragraph and it ended in a way that was less favorable to Facebook, as well as trimmed out another sentence or two of Facebook/Newsom-unfavorable content as I recall, which didn't enhance the paragraph or article.73.248.126.206 (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that it is time for the IP editor to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass because this is getting tendentious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that it is time for 73 to drop the stick. That said... a few quick questions: Can a corporation be a landlord? If so, are its shareholders also landlords? Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that would depend on the nature of the corporation. If it was set up for legal and tax purposes, we would probably use the terminology as if was unincorporated. For example, we still talk about partners in accounting and legal firms, although they are usually incorporated. TFD (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Makes sense. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• I disagree that none of the 6.3 million articles about landlords uses the word. See for example Peter Rachman, who was an infamous slumlord in the 1960s. Also, please see Landlord and Tenant Acts. the terms are still used and the U.S. even has a Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act of 1972, which is still in force. Here's a copy of a California commercial lease. Note that the parties are referred to as landlord and tenant, not real estate investor and [insert preferred euphemism here]. TFD (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Cullen and Blueboar, the horse is very much alive, you're just unable or unwilling to see it. TFD, if you read my previous posts I've noted in spades that landlord is a title/legal status in contract and property law. It's very seldom used to describe a profession/occupation because it's a static role and doesn't indicate work or anything else about what one actually does or how one got to this point (i.e. whether it's 1 or 100 properties owned, whether they were renovated/built or inherited, etc.; see my bold points above for more on this), where having a real estate business large enough to make a living from most certainly involves past and ongoing work and action. Obviously the terms landlord and tenant are still frequently used and always used in contracts, everyone knows that and that was never in question. When you have rented an apartment or home in the past and introduced yourself to others, did you say 'Hi I'm TFD, I'm a Wikipedia editor and a tenant'? Or if you went away for a few months or a year and rented your home out, did you start introducing yourself as landlord? If you own a business or work for someone, do you just introduce yourself as an 'employer'/'employee' or do you instead say what it is you do? The question here is not whether the word should be used - its use is almost always fine - it is whether it belongs in the introductory line in an encyclopedia when describing subject's primary occupation (especially when RE investor, the broader and more accurate term with respect to Paffrath, is already present and needs to be present). The answer is no, and that's why virtually no one on WP has used it there (6 Americans out of 550 million past and present is virtually none). From the post above:

Anyone with more than say 10 properties (in typical US markets; in NYC and San Fran/SoCal that number is lower) or who is otherwise able to make a living from property ownership alone is most commonly called a real estate investor (or 'in real estate,' or a developer if they also build or significantly alter the groundscape of large properties), including within the business. People with fewer (or more) than 7-10 properties will typically say ' I have/he has a real estate business' (which would make businessman/entrepreneur an acceptable alternative to REI and LL, like with Ramsey) or 'I have an investment/rental property(ies)' or might also call themselves a 'real estate investor' if the income amount is a significant portion of total income, though like with 'stock investor,' bigness is suggested. Very few will say 'I'm a landlord' (except perhaps in self-deprecating terseness/minimalism, or for some other effect) because it's a raw legal title and gives no indication what kind of real estate work you actually do, how many properties (1 or 100, 1 shed or parking space or 1 skyscraper), how you got them (bought / built / renovated / inherited), or what your future actions involve. 73.248.126.206 (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Making the same argument but louder is not any more likely to convince people. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I kept it bold because it was bold above and I was quoting it.73.248.126.206 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Noting that neither you nor anyone has made any substantive response to my points here.73.248.126.206 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Multiple people, myself included, have replied to your comments about terminology and common parlance. You are apparently choosing not to listen and repeating your same arguments, even after two people have asked you to "drop the stick"; it is unsurprising a few people have suggested a block may be needed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

False; no one has responded to the points above, either here or in the original post. You are referring to the first exchange. As often happens here, you are deflecting to jargon/acronym policy articles instead of actually responding, and now threatening to use bans to get what you want.73.248.126.206 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You realize people can still see what I said when you immediately misrepresent it, right? In no way is "it is unsurprising a few people have suggested a block may be needed" me "threatening to use bans to get what you want". I have no intention of blocking someone I have been involved in a dispute with. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, can you please cut down on the minor changes to your various comments? I know you've been asked already and said you would try, but there appears to have been no change. I certainly am guilty of making a few tweaks here and there to a comment I made, particularly longer ones, but this is absurd. It's resulting in edit conflicts, flooding watchlists, and making it hard for people such as myself who are trying to respond to your comments to see when you have said something substantive or just made a tiny tweak to a comment (often ones that have already been responded to). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, we both know you don't have to worry about that, I'm sure you know who are just minutes away. And I misrepresent nothing; the point above is quoted from under Cullen's support vote. Neither you nor anyone substantively responded. You simply said Paffrath said the word landlord once, Cullen said that books with the word landlord on them have been published, neither of which had anything to do with my points. I'll try harder to cut down on mini edits.73.248.126.206 (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, we both know you don't have to worry about that, I'm sure you know who are just minutes away. More unsupported cabal aspersions, I see. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Who mentioned a cabal? I am just saying that there are a lot of people involved here, and we both know you yourself wouldn't need to do the banning, not that a ban should occur since this is a debate.73.248.126.206 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• There's an overwhelming consensus here already. 73.248 is completely alone in their interpretation, so my advice is to go ahead and implement this consensus. If 73.248 wants to edit war, then one of the drama boards would be the next stop, with edits like this brought as evidence that a block (or page protection) is needed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You'd block me for that? Wth? I didn't even realize that was GW's work, I found it because it links from Paffrath's article, and I added it for clarity, since not everyone immediately knows what is being talked about with active/passive. My edit also demonstrated there are active/passive hybrid approaches, which are actually the most common in the business; very few investors are strictly active or passive.73.248.126.206 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Point of clarification, but that article is not my work. I also found it via the link from the Paffrath article, and noticed there was a near duplicate article in Real estate investing, so tagged the two for merging and adjusted a redirect; that's the limit of my involvement in that page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• If I can get a substantive, full response to the rebuttal to TFD's point above, I'll back off this discussion. That contains most of the points I've been trying to make.73.248.126.206 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I also want to point out that user Drmies (as well as the editor(s) who wrote the original language into the article) agreed with me on this point on the article's talk page, so I am not alone here. Until I get a substantive response to the points on my side of the argument (where I have answered opposing points) I will assume a consensus does not exist and that the changes GW made to the existing language (not the other way around) are not settled.73.248.126.206 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not the only person ([24]) who is treating the version that was in place for several days (on the face of it a short period of time but this article has only existed for about a week) as status quo. You also do not get to decide consensus in a discussion in which you are involved, any more than I do. As for your comment on the editor(s) who wrote the original language into the article, as far as I am aware none of them have engaged in any conversation about "landlord", though at least one has edited since the term was added and not raised concerns about it. You cannot cite the lack of involvement in this discussion as implicit support for one side or another. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

73., here is a response to the rebuttal. Your claim that landlord is rarely used in this context is provably incorrect. The best way to actually check this kind of information (and not go on one's own gut feeling which may or may not be right) is by looking in a good linguistic corpus. (Cullen will forgive me, I hope – Google Books is fine as an indicator but an annotated corpus is more reliable.) The Corpus of Contemporary American English is here. If you search for "landlord" in texts from the last 10 years you'll find that it is used in written and spoken news media, in fiction, in TV shows (scripted and non-scripted), in academic texts, in blogs, and in other kinds of language as well, to describe a person in terms of their role. Contexts are sometimes negative but just as frequently neutral. This is obviously original research, but I can't find that the claims you have made about the usage of landlord are supported at all, except by your own assertions. The claim about what a person would or would not introduce themselves as is a red herring. In a round of introductions, nobody would say "Hello, I am a short track speed skater" or "Nice to meet you, I am a convicted criminal" except in very specific contexts – and yet those terms (when appropriately sourced) are perfectly fine in the first sentence of a Wikipedia article. Incidentally, the corpus search for landlord did yield a few hits for "I am a landlord"/"I'm a landlord", used in specific contexts and not in "self-deprecating terseness/minimalism". Another red herring is that the word is used when describing subject's primary occupation, since a) nobody in this discussion has said that landlord is given as his primary occupation, and b) again, the lead includes more than a person's primary occupation. More info about what goes into the first sentence in a biography on Wikipedia can be found here. --bonadea contributions talk 12:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• At this point, I have to invoke WP:TLDR... and point everyone to WP:WALLOFTEXT. Take a break, and come back in a few days. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support use of "landlord" per the subject's self-identification. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2021 (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.

RfC on whether name used by less than 1% of the local population should be in the first line of the lede

I've started an RfC on whether a name used by less than 1% of the local population of Bar, Montenegro, should be in the first line of the lede: [25]. Khirurg (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bob Gibson living grandson

I am new to this and was unaware of some of the rules and still trying to figure it out and I do have a coi as I am a relative of the bio grandchild of Bob Gibson. He has a grandson and someone who likely has a coi and is a relative of Bob's son who wants to keep the fact he has a child hidden due to his abandonment of the child. The child was born on July 7, 2010 and had a relationship with Bob but not with his bio dad, Bob's son Chris. The child does exist and shouldn't be forced out of claiming himself as Bob's grandson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troooth (talk • contribs)

There is no reliable secondary source for this, and it is really immaterial, being that the fact is not about Gibson himself, but a non-notable minor child. There is no basis for inclusion in his article. Elizium23 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Troooth, this requires a source. Is there a newspaper or other reliable source reporting on the grandson and Gibson's family?VikingDrummer (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Rent control: "on consensus among economists"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this discussion, the community analyzes a dispute about the phrase: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing". The discussion below contains some socking, and also some extremely helpful and thoughtful contributions backed by sources.

When I was closing this discussion, I treated sockpuppet comments as follows: (1) I gave the !vote of a sockpuppet zero weight; (2) I disregarded the opinions expressed by sockpuppets; but (3) I took the view that an academic source introduced by a sockpuppet is still an academic source. Because Pedrote112 did introduce academic sources into this debate, and because the fact that he was socking doesn't make him wrong, I have given weight to his sources, but not his !vote. If this wasn't the right approach, then I think my whole close is unsafe.

The disputed statement appears in two articles, Rent control in the United States, and Rent regulation. These two need to be taken separately, because from this source introduced to the subject discussion by Mikehawk10, it is clear that the history of rent regulation elsewhere in the world is a somewhat different animal. This source shows (most clearly on page 13) that in the UK, as throughout most of Europe, rents were frozen during the Second World War to protect conscript soldiers who were required to serve at wages fixed by the state, and rent controls remained in place during the post-War reconstruction period when so much housing had been destroyed. These supply and demand factors had a significant effect on the economics of housing. The US was also profoundly affected by that war, but, with its lower population density and its intact cities and infrastructure, is not a particularly good comparator. We should prefer US sources for the article about the US, and a mix of international sources for the general article on Rent regulation.

Because of this, in the case of Rent control in the United States, the disputed statement is supported by the sources and a rough consensus of good faith editors. This doesn't mean it couldn't be improved upon, and I suggest that it is made more specific: perhaps something to the effect that "the consensus of mainstream economists is that in the US, the rent control measures that have been tried so far have been unsuccessful or counterproductive". Qzekrom's incredibly helpful contribution, below, contains a lot of thought that could usefully be taken into account when deciding exactly what to say.

In the case of Rent regulation, as I have explained, I give different weight to the sources. In that case the disputed statement is not fully supported by the rough consensus and should be replaced by wording that is less sweepingly emphatic and more specific. I leave it to the normal editorial process to decide what that wording should be.

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 00:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Two Wikipedia articles, namely "Rent control in the United States" [26] and "Rent regulation" [27], contain a statement that reads as follows: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing".

For weeks, I have been arguing on the article's talk page [28] about how misleading this claim is. I would like to ask for help here, since the case at hand is a blatant case of lack of neutrality.

The sources used to support this claim are:

1) An article by Blair Jenkins (of whom we do not even know if she has a PhD in economics), who has no other publications on this subject and whose article is published in a journal of dubious quality (impact factor 0.920). Furthermore, what the article itself actually states is that 23% of economists either "agree with provisions" (16.6%) or directly "disagree" (6.5%) with the claim that "A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available". This is not a consensus. Moreover, the article is neither reproducible nor replicable, so it cannot be used to substantiate the claim. Finally, there is a conflict of interest between the publisher and the assertion. That is, the publisher is not neutral: The Journal Econ Journal Watch [29] is published by a self-declared "conservative" and "libertarian" think tank called Fraser Institute [30].

2) An opinion survey without peer review process, without methodological sampling and isolated interviews. [31]

3) One report by another self-declared "liberal" think tank [32], [33].

Notwithstanding that the statement is erroneous, is it encyclopaedically appropriate for that phrase to appear as the second entry in the article? I think that here again we are faced with an attempt to promote one kind of view on the rent control mechanism. I think that for the sake of objectivity, one should first explain technically what rent control is and then move on to the assessments that economists, sociologists, and other scientists or sectors of society have to make.

In sum, maintaining the claim in these articles implies a significant ideological bias and a serious lack of neutrality. My position is that the sentence should be removed. If the sentence is to be retained, then for the sake of truth, we should at least edit it to say something like: "According to one study published by a libertarian think tank, most economists agree that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available", while 23% of economists have reservations or disagree".193.52.24.13 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

As best I can tell, reliable sources seem overwhelmingly to indicate the existence of a consensus among economists on the subject[34]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, reducing the returns to any asset is going to reduce the value and quantity of the asset in the market. In the case of rent control, my sense is that yes the text reflects mainstream consensus. However more detailed peer-reviewed literature should be used to specify the conditions under which that broad statement is true and to identify the special conditions under which rent controls are an accepted, widely implemented, and beneficial policy. For example, controls on the rents of legacy housing stock, with no such restrictions on newly constructed units, was widely used to encourage the construction of new housing in 20th century America. In that regard, the proposition that most economists agree that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available" is not true -- most economists would not say that about typical selective controls because indeed it is false. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you SPECIFICO. More evidence:

A 2007 study by David Sims [35] and a 2014 study by Autor, Palmer, and Pathak [36] both look at the effects of the end of rent control in Massachusetts, after the passage of Question 9 by Massachusetts ballot referendum in 1994. Sims found that the end of rent control had little effect on the construction of new housing. He did however find evidence that rent control decreased the number of available rental units, by encouraging condo conversions. In other words, rent control seemed to affect the quantity of rental housing, but not the total quantity of the housing stock. Unsurprisingly, Sims also found significant increases in rent charged after decontrol, suggesting that rent control was effective in limiting rent increases.

A 2007 study [37] by Gilderbloom and Ye of more recent rent control laws here in New Jersey finds evidence that rent controls actually increase the supply of rental housing, by incentivizing landlords to subdivide larger rental units.

A 2015 study [38] by Ambrosius, Glderbloom, and coauthors also looks at changes in New Jersey rent regulations. As with the previous study, they find that rent control in New Jersey has not produced any detectable reduction in new housing supply.

The most recent major study of rent control, by Diamond McQuade, and Qian in 2018 [39], uses detailed data on San Francisco housing market to look at the effect of the mid-1990s change in rent control rules there. They suggest that while the law did effectively limit rent increases, and had no effect on new housing construction, it did have a negative effect on the supply of rental housing by encouraging condo conversions.

With all these references I am not trying to prove that rent control is good, or even that these authors are right. What I am demonstrating is that the statement in the article is totally false. To maintain such a claim in these articles implies a serious lack of neutrality and ideological bias.193.52.24.13 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that proper sources should be used. The Frasier Institute is basically Canada's version of the Heritage Foundation, used to publish studies to counter criticisms of the big oil, tobacco, agribusiness and other unpopular industries. What I find biased about the statement is that it is a veiled strawman argument. It implies that rent control is a failure because it has not increased rental stock or improved quality, when that was not its intended purpose. TFD (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The arguments so far on this page seem to suggest that there are more users against the claim than in favour of it (which is not surprising when the debate is between people who have no specific interest in upholding claims that may be dubious). Regardless of majority rules, the claim is false and we are witnessing a problem of lack of neutrality in the way these pages (Rent regulation, Rent control in the United States, and who knows if others too) are being managed. My opinion is that (i) the claim should be removed because it is false and (ii) the page should be labelled as Template:POV, as there is an imbalance of citations and references in favour of one ideological position. However, there seems to be a group of custodians of these pages who seem determined to prevent any change. On a side note, I just noticed that Robert McClenon had added a Template:POV tag to the page [40], and his change was immediately reversed by another user who is quite active on the page (and who had already been accused of partisanship in the past [41] by Dennis Bratland, precisely in the context of a discussion on the Rent regulation talk page [42]].193.52.24.13 (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the article itself. I put the template on the article simply to reflect the fact that it was being discussed here. The immediate removal of the template without discussion does itself look like an effort to cover up the existence of the neutrality dispute itself, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

To recap what I've said before, most of these sources that claim "consensus" have a tortured defintion of "economist" that is clearly begging the question, in the mode of a no true Scotsman argument: these sources don't count anyone who doesn't see the world the way they do as a "real" economist. An extreme example would be doctor of economics Kshama Sawant. If she had a conventional US business-boosting ideology, she'd count as one of those qualified to be surveyed in their consensus, but somehow she's not. The fact that they obstinately insist on measuring the quantity and quality of housing overall, when they know full well that rent regulation or control schemes are generally intended to increase the supply of something else, affordable housing, is further evidence that these kinds of studies are ideologically biased, and not engaging in good faith with the actual points of disagreement.

It's totally fine to mention the opinions of anti-regulation economists and political advocacy "think tanks", but they're claims to speak for all economists don't bear out. Economics is not a hard science and economic opinions are inextricably linked to political ideology. Anyone who pretends otherwise is entitled to their opinion but cannot be treated as a neutral observer.

Editors who wish to clean up these articles should go and read Wikipedia:Describing points of view. Wikipedia has a structured and reliable process for how we go about describing opinions. These are opinions, not facts. Describe these opinions as per Wikipedia:Describing points of view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

1) I was unaware of this noticeboard discussion when I removed the template; @Robert McClenon: perhaps next time you tag an article you could give at least some rationale? That would have been helpful. I only saw this discussion now that the IP linked here from the RCinUS Talk page.

2) [Personal attack removed by Qzekrom] ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

All the arguments put forward by those of us who question the assertion remain intact. The claim remains false (regardless of the credibility that some or other users attribute to some or other economists). The objective reasons (and references) why the claim cannot stand have been clearly stated by me, SPECIFICO, TFD and Dennis Bratland. In this discussion, that is the majority (although as I said, even if there were no majority, the claim that there is a consensus among economists would still be false). Therefore, I think it is time to remove the statement and label the page as Template:POV.193.52.24.13 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Avatar317, I would describe your ad hominem as not worthy of a reply and not worthy of consideration in any discussion. Please focus on content, not contributors.

You analogy is false for this reason: Andrew Wakefeild has had his medical license revoked. Medicine is a real science with rigorous oversight, and objective rules of conduct. Frauds and quacks are identifiable. Kshama Sawant has not had her license to practice economics revoked, because there is no such thing as a license to practice economics. There can't be because there is no rigorous test to determine if an economic theory is valid or not, or if an economic "fact" is true or false. Nothing an economist could do can be construed as misconduct. Sawant has a PhD in economics. That is equal to any one else's claim to be an economist. The only reason to suggest she is in any way comparable with Andrew Wakefield is if one does not like her opinions, yet cannot rigorously prove them to be false, what with her opinions being economic in nature, and thus not scientific, meaning they are not falsifiable.

You can believe in the magic of the invisible hand of the free market all you want, believe as hard as you can, but that doesn't make it science. It's still mere opinion and should be treated as we treat any other opinion, given appropriate attribution and weight. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Economists often work with empirical data, and anyone doing empirical research in any field for a university would be disciplined for misconduct if they were caught fabricating or falsifying their results. [43] For example, Brian Wansink (who studied consumer behavior and nutrition) was stripped of his research and teaching positions after Cornell determined that he had falsified data. Also, the American Economic Association has a code of professional conduct that requires its members to practice "intellectual and professional integrity," which includes "honesty, care, and transparency in conducting and presenting research; disinterested assessment of ideas; acknowledgement of limits of expertise; and disclosure of real and perceived conflicts of interest." Integrity in the research process is clearly an expectation in the economics field. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

But the definition of who gets to be surveyed as an economist in these studies that claim consensus against rent control don't limit themselves only to university employees or only to members of of the AEA, which is a self-selected group whose political neutrality is not universally acknowledged. Further irony is that these studies are not peer reviewed, so trying to wrap them up in the integrity of university standards is not convincing. And just because the AEA tells us it has standards of good behavior isn't proof they enforce them.

Insulting me by saying I'm no better than an acolyte of proven fraud and quack Andrew Wakefield is both offensive and reinforces my point that all these claims of rationality and rigor among those mansplaining rent control to us ignorant hysterics is a sham. This desperate need to attach the aura of authority to anti-rent control opinions only exposes how weak the argument is.

If you told an astrophysicist you think Pluto really a planet not a mere dwarf planet, they don't huff "how dare you! We have spoken!" They say, well, here's the evidence, here's our line of reasoning. Or consider MOS:PUFFERY. We don't need to put pedantic lecturing like "Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter" into encyclopedia articles. We can simply leave that unsaid and instead mention a handful of the long list of accolades that justify assessment. The claims about Bob Dylan are given in-text attribution so we can see whose opinion that is. If you want to give opinions about rent control, just say it with in-text attribution and not in Wikipedia's voice. If those authorities are respected enough, that speaks for itself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Snoogan's link makes it clear there is a consensus among economists on this issue with respect to the specific claim regarding "reduces the quality and quantity of housing". That doesn't mean we shouldn't note benefits of rent control or note if "quality/quantity" are the only appropriate measure. Also, it would be best if the sourcing in the article is to academic sources vs media sources. Springee (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

How? Snoogan's link is a simple google scholar search whose first entry is Jenkins' article, which is published by a libertarian think tank [44] by a person who does not even have a PhD in economics, in a journal of dubious quality (impact factor 0.920). Moreover, the article itself states that 23% of economists either "agree with provisions" (16.6%) or directly "disagree" (6.5%) with the claim that "A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available". This is not a consensus. Moreover, as Avatar317 themself says here [45], think tanks are NOT academic sources, nor reliable. Furthermore, the list of google scholar articles, besides not being a source in itself, contains the very articles I cite as counterexamples that there is no consensus.193.52.24.13 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I see several sources that make similar statements, not just one. Also, scholarship is not something restricted to PhDs and universities. I've worked for companies that have done scholarly publications. Think tanks can also do such publications. All that is required is getting a document published in a scholarly journal. I do get the concern about low impact factor. I'm not sure what is considered a good impact factor in that field but I also see a number of sources on Snoogan's list making similar claims. This isn't something claimed only by a single think tank. Springee (talk)

The point is that "rent control" is too broad and diverse a set of policies for this categorical statement to be meaningful. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging user @Qzekrom: because that editor did some changes which (in my opinion) improved the article, and was involved in the past discussions.

@SPECIFICO: Yes, rent controls have been implemented in many ways, generally to reduce or minimize the known harms from it, but that doesn't change the fact that we have multiple good sources with economists stating that it (generally) yields certain outcomes. Note, we aren't saying that it is "bad"; we are stating specifically what outcomes it produces.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That does not address the problem I identified. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You said "In the case of rent control, my sense is that yes the text reflects mainstream consensus." But then you went on to make some UNSOURCED claims. You said that ""rent control" is too broad and diverse a set of policies for this categorical statement to be meaningful." - do you have any sources saying that MOST economists do not think that the discussed statement is broadly applicable to rent control? ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN for sources is on you. SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday, based on the arguments provided here, I deleted the false claim from the article and labeled it as Template:POV. Avatar317 has reverted those changes again. I ask the more experienced editors of this conversation SPECIFICO, TFD and Dennis Bratland to verify this so that we can proceed with appropriate action. I consider what we are witnessing a very serious case of lack of neutrality.193.52.24.13 (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

For your information: an active user who acts as a custodian of these articles seems to want to silence me in order to prevent the false claim from being deleted and the article from being labelled as a Template:POV. The thread is here: [46]193.52.24.13 ---- (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the material newly added or long standing. I don't see a consensus one way or the other here. If the content is long standing then we need a consensus to remove. If it's newly added then you need a consensus to keep. Springee (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I have recently been following this discussion. I would like to say a few things:

1. The statement was introduced by Snooganssnoogans on 24 December 2020 at 14:54. As this is not a long-running content, the one who should get a consensus to introduce such a statement is the one who is in favour of it.

2. I consider that the IP is right and that the statement is false. The mere fact that there are economists who think differently should suffice as proof (e.g. [47]).

3. I find it outrageous that the IP is the only user blocked by an edit war given that it is the one who has contributed the most evidence and arguments to this discussion. Pedrote112 (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)  Note: — Pedrote112 (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I was asked to contribute to this discussion. I found a meta-analysis on the effects of rent control by the Urban Institute. For what it's worth, the Urban study discusses rent control's impact on many dimensions, such as neighborhood stability and racial equity. A neutral introduction to a Wikipedia article on rent control would discuss all of these effects, not just the quantity and quality of housing, and it would include the perspectives of social science fields other than econ.

The claim that this discussion has been focusing on is: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing." Let's break this down.

"There is a consensus among economists"

I think this is what computer scientists call folklore: something that many people in a field believe but isn't necessarily supported by evidence. Economists might believe that most other economists agree with them on a claim because all the economists they know agree with that claim, but that might be because they're in an echo chamber. Many sources, like this Freakonomics podcast episode and this Washington Post op-ed, claim that this is something that most economists agree on. However, newspaper op-eds are usually not fact-checked, so any claim in the WaPo op-ed might be false. I think the Freakonomics episode is more reliable, since the podcast creator is obviously very familiar with the econ field, but this claim needs to be substantiated by more sources. It's also worth noting that the claimed "consensus among economists" in these sources is a value judgment ("rent control is bad policy"), which isn't the claim in question ("rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing").

"rent control reduces the quality ... of housing"

"Quality" is a subjective term, and it should be qualified (pun intended). Rent control laws might reduce the quality of apartments in that they cause the apartments to deteriorate physically from neglect; there is some evidence for this (see p. 5 in the Urban paper). However, quality of housing might also be judged by the stability of the surrounding neighborhood and the tenants' social connections, which rent control might promote in some cases. Given the ambiguity of the word "quality," I think we can't say that rent control reduces the quality of housing.

"rent control reduces the ... quantity of housing"

I think the quantity of housing is easier to judge. Studies such as the 2018 DMQ study show that rent control reduces rental housing supply by encouraging landlords to convert their rental apartments into owner-occupied ones. However, when newly built houses are exempt from rent control laws, those laws don't affect the amount of new construction. To me, this pair of observations is enough to infer a causal relationship: that rent control reduces the quantity of rentals. This causal relationship needs to be stated in a reliable source, and I think we have plenty of sources that could support it.

Overall, I think we should not include the claim that "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing," because not all parts of it can be supported by reliable sources. However, we could include a statement about the effects of rent control laws on the amount of rental housing available. I also think that such a statement should be part of a broader discussion of the varied effects of rent control. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. And when you say free-market economists criticize it for reducing the quality and quantity of housing, simply follow that with supporters saying they don't care about the overall quantity, rather their goal is more affordable housing. So what if there's fewer luxury condos if there's more housing for working families? Establishment economic theory doesn't think the distinction matters because over a long enough time, the supply of one increases the supply of the other. Eventually. These studies focus on the quantity of housing stocks over spans of decades, when a person who can't afford a place to live will freeze to death in a single winter. They don't have decades. Much of public policy like rent control exists to address real world problems in the here and now, not an abstract future. In the long run we're all dead. When you describe the structure of both sides' arguments, it's clear they're using different goal posts, different metrics, and talking past each other. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no evidence anywhere that rent control INCREASES affordable housing; it just reduces how much it decreases by. We already have a statement saying that RC is a policy tool cities can use to help low income renters.

The timelines used are NOT different; NYC and many CA cities have had RC for DECADES; why? because these same cities do not allow enough housing construction, so there is a perpetual (government caused) housing shortage. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: Would this fix your issue with the "quality of housing"? - have the statement say: "...quality of housing UNITS." (or housing "stock") This is the maintenance level of rental units, which is what is meant by the term when economists use it, and avoids blurring into the Quality-of-Life issues.

For further specificity, we could add: "...RENTAL housing UNITS." since that is what was studied. Price/supply of houses for purchase is different. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I don't mind that. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been blocked for some religious (or ideological) reason [48], so I'll edit with my IP as long as they let me. I disagree with the current statement and also with the new proposition: both are wrong. The reasons have been explained by several users. The majority here is against the statement. But user Avatar317 seems to have a skewed understanding of the meaning of the word consensus. He/She edits what he/she wants without consensus and launches personal attacks on those who don't think like him/her.

I want to say that the statement was introduced on this article by Snooganssnoogans on 24 December 2020 at 14:54 (so it has been running for a short time) without any consensus. Since this edit was not debated at that time and since we do not have a consensus on it, the ones that must get a consensus to introduce such sentence are the ones that are in favor of it.

P.S. I am against the proposed version of the sentence because there is not a consensus on that either. The claim is false, and the references and arguments have been provided above by some users. 83.33.129.185 (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC). (Self-described block evasion struck) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party here, though a few sources to consider:

• A 2018 review report written by a professor at the London School of Economics states that In some circumstances, e.g. if information to both landlord and tenant is improved, contracts are made more transparent and easier to enforce, then risks may be reduced for both parties and/or constraints on investment may be overcome. It is possible that both landlords and tenants may gain from the intervention. In such cases supply will increase and rents may be lower (or there may be additional demand for the better product). However, in other circumstances, the effect of regulation is to control rents below market levels and/or to provide greater security of tenure or other benefits to tenants which reduce returns or increase risks to landlords. In this case the result will be a reduction in supply; there will be pressure to avoid or evade the regulation; immobility and under-occupation of poor-quality, ill-maintained properties; and higher rents and worse housing for those excluded from the market. In other words, if the rent control binds rents to under what the price would be in a market, quality of units would suffer and supply would be reduced. On the other hand, if the rent regulation provides better information to landlords and tenants then both could be better off due to relatively lowered risks associated with renting.
• A 2007 study published in the Journal of Urban Economics found that Massachusetts rent control was associated with the quantity of rental housing stock and the quality of rental housing stock. The study also found that rent control may have caused individuals to substitute away from renting and towards homeownership and that there were (small) effects on the non-controlled rental stock that resulted from imposition of rent control.
• A 2019 study published in the American Economic Review found that rent regulations in San Francisco reduced rental supply and that reduction in rental supply likely increased rents in the long run. The study noted that landlords substituted their stock away from rental units and towards condos in response to rent regulation.
• A 1985 paper that took a hedonic approach found that after standardizing for quality, rents in the uncontrolled sector were significantly higher than rents in the controlled sector but also that uncontrolled rents likely exceed the rents that would have occurred in the absence of controls.

I can give more input, but these seem to be very typical results on the topic that have occurred over time. Generally, economists have found that the rents of uncontrolled units rises due to rent controls, which negatively affects quality (utility/cost). They also have found that oftentimes rent control results in the reduction of housing stock. Some economists suggest that this is because rent control regulations have been poorly written and that there might exist some rent control regulations that would be helpful, but that rent controls that bind the rental stock to a lower price than the market price would tend to decrease quality of the uncontrolled stock and the quantity of rental stock overall. I'm also aware of some work that has been done on the optimal maintenance rates for a landlord that is facing new rent control regulations (and that the answer is generally to decrease maintenance if the rent controlled maximum price is set below the market price for a unit), though I am unable to recall the paper at this time. I might try to find a textbook if that would be helpful.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Thanks for the sources and discussion! I think a textbook would be helpful, as it would speak to what the CONSENSUS in the economics field thinks about rent control, as that would be what is being taught in schools. I've heard multiple times that rent control is used in Econ101 as a classic lesson, but I don't have an Econ101 textbook, and don't know how to find what (or how many) colleges use which open-source Econ101 textbook. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The idea that supply and quality of units goes down with rent control is supported by at least these two texts, Springee (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I've been able to get my hands on a few microeconomics textbooks, and I found two that explicitly talk about rent controls (within the context of legally imposed caps on the price of units). The first one, notes that markets with a typical supply and demand curve (upward-sloping supply curve, downward-sloping demand curve) will underproduce if the price control is below the unregulated level in general. It then moves to specifically use rent control as an example of this, saying that there will be an "excess demand" caused by rent controls when those controls lower the price of housing, and the source also says that "excess demand in the housing market is commonly referred to as a 'housing shortage'" and that this would result in the market having fewer houses than in an unregulated market. The second one doesn't go in as much detail on the derivation itself, but it agrees with the first textbook regarding the reduction to the quantity of housing that will result from rent controls. Regarding housing quality, the second book also states that since sellers face excess demand for their products, each will be able to make sales even if their products are not as good as those of competitors. As a result, sellers have too little incentive to maintain or enhance the quality of their products. For example, a common complaint about rent-controlled apartments is that they receive little maintenance and no renovations. In context, "to little incentive to do x" is more of a positive description that x won't be done as much (as opposed to a normative description saying people ought to do x more), so I believe that the second textbook is a source that can be used to back the claim of scholarly consensus with respect to decreases in the quality of rental units. Both books are from right before the great recession really got going, though from my understanding there hasn't been any sort of general shift on this belief reflected in relevant literature since then. (On a side note, the copyright dates on the books are both 2008, though online sources say the books were published in late 2007. I went with the dates printed in the books in making the citations.)— Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you are ignoring all the arguments given above by many users. You cannot use two or three or four books, or a survey, or a think tank study to substantiate the claim. The claim is false since there are economists who think differently [49][50]. More references have already been given, there is still no consensus on this page and the claim is still on the article page without consensus. The page is not even marked as having a conflict of neutrality.83.33.129.185 (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC) (block evasion by blocked sockpuppet WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pedrote112 struck) ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The statement that The claim is false since there are economists who think differently doesn't really give an argument against WP:RS/AC. Consensus is not equivalent to unanimity; there can be disagreement by small numbers of scholars and yet a scholarly consensus might be present. When we have textbooks (which are often considered tertiary sources) that are providing a sense of academic consensus on the rent control, I think that the consensus is sufficiently well-sourced. As always, the different views on rent control should be presented in the article relative to their prominence in published, reliable sources However, they should not be given equal weight with the consensus views in the article's description of the academic debates on rent control. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is NOT sufficiently well-sourced. There is not a single credible and reproducible study that verifies such a claim. There is no consensus among the users of this site to support such a claim. The claim was introduced without consensus recently, it remains on the page and the page is not labelled as . If the proponents of this claim had any respect for truth and neutrality, they would remove the claim first, label the page appropriately, and continue debating here.83.33.129.185 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC) (block evasion by blocked sockpuppet WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pedrote112 struck) ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

When Econ text books use this as an example of how artificially limiting prices impacts a market I think we can say there is consensus among academics in the field of econ. Springee (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Many econ macro textbooks teach IS/LM curves, which compare a stock quantity with a flow quantity. I don't think there can be many thoughtful economists who would defend plotting a flow quantity and a stock quantity on the same graph as a principled and entirely coherent practice, and yet the idea is considered something that most undergraduates should become aware of. It is certainly the case that there are many case histories where poorly constructed hard rent caps can be very bad for a city, and undergraduates should become aware of this. This does not mean there is a current consensus that the generalisation given in the article, "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of rental housing units" is true, especially since the definition of rent control given in the lead is a quite broad one, covering practices some mainstream economists actually endorse. I think this conversation should continue on Talk:Rent regulation, since the matter is quite technical, not the kind of high-level issue this noticeboard is best suited for. I am considering putting together an RfC on this point, and if I do I will advertise it here and elsewhere. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have seen a number of scholarly articles directly stating that such a consensus exists. In the face of this, unless and until I saw an equal or greater number of scholarly articles directly stating that this consensus does not exist, I see absolutely no reason to entertain the argument that this consensus does not exist.

Note that I'm making no comment on whether this consensus is entirely (or necessarily) accurate, as economics is a highly complex field of study. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just to check I understand what you are saying: if it turned out that a survey showed 60% of economists believed there was a consensus that P, 20% disputed P and a further 20% were inclined to believe P but thought the contrarian 20% had raised important arguments that needed answering, you would say there is a consensus? To be clear, I think there would not be. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You can change those numbers to 98%, 1% and 1%, and it would drastically alter your point. Pulling numbers out of thin air for the purpose of making a point is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

And for the record, what I have seen (and you may note that these are estimates; not numbers pulled out of thin air) is 100% agreement that there is a consensus, with about 10% suggesting that said consensus is wrong, while acknowledging that it nonetheless exists. Hence my second paragraph. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, my point with those figures was to show narrowly that your criterion for claiming there to be a consensus would allow us to infer the existence of a consensus when there isn't one, and hopefully broadly that showing a consensus for a claim is harder than showing general support for that claim.

The most recent high quality survey of economists says 93% of believe that P, where P is the somewhat specific claim about quantity and quality of housing (this is specific about consequences of rent control, but not about what constitutes rent control). That is just the kind of figure you expect to see if there is a consensus. However (i) at the time there was already a substantial, well-cited contrarian empirical and theoretical literature arguing for the positive effects of some rent control measures that would not see a reduction in the quantity and quality of available rental accomodation, so it may be that there were many economists who believed P but thought that not P was a perfectly reasonable position in view of the available theory and data, and (ii) this survey was from the beginning of the 1970s; the opinion of the economics profession to the kind of marginalist theoretical argument that is most commonly put forward is greeted with a bit more scepticism in the economics profession than back then and if you go back to the 1950s, there seemed to be general support for rent control measures among the economics profession. I don't think the degree of support for P has ever reached the level you indicate: which would be 99% (98%+1%). — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can't understand on your own how your claim that "if the numbers were different, there wouldn't be a consensus" is neither particularly insightful nor relevant to my initial comment, then I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to enlighten you.

The question is whether or not there is a consensus. Literally 100% of economists I've seen who've discussed the issue explicitly agree that there is, in fact, such a consensus. This includes economists who insist that this consensus is incorrect. I've said already that, unless someone can dig up a similar number of sources -again, explicitly- claiming that there is no such consensus, there's nothing to argue here. And that is not my own personal feelings on the matter, it's one of the most fundamental precepts of Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

your claim that "if the numbers were different, there wouldn't be a consensus" - this is a straw man, and one I have explicitly rejected. I was showing that the argument in your comment of 21 Apr rested on an apparent fallacy, not making any assertion as to what the current support for the position was. To misunderstand this point once suggests I have not articulated myself well. But when you repeat the mischaracterisation of what I have said after I pointed it out, I no longer think the fault is mine.

In any case, the right place for this discussion is on the article talk page, not on this noticeboard. Please respond there, and please to do not misrepresent what I say yet again. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I find it hilariously ironic that you would accuse me of claiming your argument was asserting a certain set of number as factual in the same comment in which you accuse me of straw manning your argument. It's a straw-man-ception: You straw man my response to accuse me of straw-manning your argument. Brilliant. I'll be chuckling about this for minutes to come. Well, maybe seconds. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Idk anything about rent control,we look for what a balance of sources say and go with that. If the issue is controversial, then a minority view ought to get a mention with due weight.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Part of the challenge with expressing a minority view, is that you need SECONDARY sources (or tertiary sources) that say that the minority view exists, as well as what % hold the minority view, and that it is not WP:FRINGE. But we currently have secondary sources like this one: Conor Dougherty, an economics reporter at The New York Times. He previously spent a decade in New York covering housing and the economy for The Wall Street Journal. He grew up in the Bay Area and lives with his family in Oakland. - who recently wrote this book: GOLDEN GATES: Fighting for Housing in America, saying in 2018: And yet economists from both the right and the left are in almost universal agreement that rent control makes housing problems worse in the long run. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Avatar317, the claim of Dougherty that you cite appears to be his personal judgement. He might be right, but if he is not citing, say, a study that surveys the views of professional economists, then it is a primary source. — Charles Stewart (talk)https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=2 07:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I join this discussion late. There is indeed a strong consensus among economists on the negative effects on rent control, to the extent that it features prominently in many introductory textbooks to the field of economics. For example, the negative effects of rent control in Stockholm has been a key example in Swedish textbooks about economics for decades (to add an additional example to the mainly anglo-centric discussion). Claiming that there is a consensus for this is perfectly in line with NPOV and it would appear the IP who first object mainly argues from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While rent control may be a complex topic in politics, it is a very straightforward one in economics. Jeppiz (talk)\

There is not a single serious and reproducible scientific article addressing the question of how many economists argue that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing. Not one.193.52.24.13 (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting to note that despite the facts that there is no consensus among users here and the statement was introduced without consensus, Wikipedia has no mechanism to force the custodians of the site to remove the statement and label the page as Template:POV. Time goes on and the false claim remains in the second line of the article. Quite an example of the kind of neutrality our encyclopaedia claims to promote.193.52.24.13 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So? Wikipedia? Are we keeping the claim without consensus among users? 193.52.24.13 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Your reading of both the consensus here and of the sources is deeply flawed. Multiple reliable sources, several of which directly state that such a consensus exists have been introduced here. That is why the article still contains the text you dispute. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

RFC at Talk:Sheikh Jarrah property dispute#RFC

There is an RFC on Talk:Sheikh Jarrah property dispute#RFC concerning whether or not the current article title is an appropriate neutral descriptive title, additional views welcome. nableezy - 03:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC: "joint WHO-China report" or "WHO-convened report?"

Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 has an ongoing RFC for how we should refer to the report authored by the WHO and based on a study conducted jointly with China. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Are the articles Positive psychology and Martin Seligman promotional?

I raised concerns about lack of coverage of doubts about efficacy at WikiProject Psychology here. I listed some sources, but I'm hoping that someone with better psych background than I have could look at those two articles and bring them in line with WP:NPOV. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of antisemitic statements in Mikis Theodorakis article

On the talk page, I listed sources that discuss Theodorakis' antisemitic statements.[51] But my inclusion of them in the article was reverted twice without the opponents of inclusion engaging on talk. I appreciate the attention of uninvolved editors in this dispute; hopefully we can settle this without a RfC. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source so cannot verify the context in which the remarks were made. One of the reverting editors said the remarks were taken out of context. Given Theodorakis' background and beliefs, it seems odd that he would call himself an anti-Semite. Are you able to post the passage in which the quote appears so that the context can be seen? I did find an opinion piece that mentioned part of the quote you referenced. It said that Theodorakis said "Today we may say that this small nation is at the root of evil and not of good". It does not mention Theodorakis describing himself as an anti-Semite, which would have been more noteworthy. It does discuss how Theodorakis' words were then transformed by Thomas Friedman and Israel’s interior minister, Tommy Lapid, into "Jews are the root of evil". Burrobert (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I read the first article from the list you posted on the talk page. It mentions the quote "small nation is at the root of evil" but does not mention that Theodorakis has described himself as an anti-Semite. Do any sources mention this quote? Burrobert (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

:::Here's a source:

During a press conference in 2003, Theodorakis' criticism of Israeli policy reached a new level, as he said, "Today we can say that this little country is the root of evil, not of good, which means that too much self-righteousness and stubbornness are evil." In a 2011 television interview he even described himself as an "anti-Semite and anti-Zionist," adding that "American Jews" had been responsible for the global economic crisis that had hit Greece as well.

[52] He did apologize later in a letter.VikingDrummer (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 14:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That’s not all VikingDrummer - full text below:

Accused of anti-Semitism

During a press conference in 2003, Theodorakis' criticism of Israeli policy reached a new level, as he said, "Today we can say that this little country is the root of evil, not of good, which means that too much self-righteousness and stubbornness are evil." In a 2011 television interview he even described himself as an "anti-Semite and anti-Zionist," adding that "American Jews" had been responsible for the global economic crisis that had hit Greece as well.

Those statements horrified not only people in Israel. In a later apology, Theodorakis explained his position in a letter to the Central Council of Jews in Greece. What he had meant by "root of evil" was the "unfortunate policies" of the state of Israel and its ally, the US. Had he once described himself as "anti-Semitic," he had misspoken after a very long and tiring interview. "I love the Jewish people, I love the Jews!" said Theodorakis.

[53] - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe, are there any records of him saying similar things on other occasions? - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, looks like this has been discussed in the past..[54],[55] and other editors tried to include it back in a day [56], [57],[58],[59], [60] - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it could be added .. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

One of the sentences at issue is "He has described himself as "anti-Israel and anti-Semite," because "this small nation (Israel) is the root of evil"". From the information above, this seems to be a combination of a press conference from 2003 and a TV interview from 2011. Burrobert (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It's fine to mention this since it was considered significant enough to include in his Deutsche Welt biography.[61] But you have to accurately represent the complete story. You mention for example that he once called himself an anti-Semite but don't mention his response when confronted with that. Here's a link to an article about his 2003 interview. While I believe that lots of people are falsely accused of anti-Semitism, his remarks are less ambiguous. It's surprising how little attention it received outside Israeli and Jewish media. But then I guess his fame had faded. So I think the additions provide the proper weight, since weight is determined by overall coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Benevolent human (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Benevolent human:, your RfC notifications seem rather one-sided, all are either antisemitic topics, or Jews, or Israel, etc... Do you think that those who are active on articles such as Islam, Somalia, Islamophobia, Feminism, to name a few, would be interested in participating in this discussion as well? Zaathras (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Zaathras:, yes, this has now been addressed [62]. I think the issue, from my perspective, is that the people who frequent the articles you mentioned are already closely watching the Omar page, and I wanted to balance it out. Benevolent human (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That's known as canvassing and is highly undesirable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Benevolent human, how do you know who is watching which pages? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Tether (cryptocurrency)#RFC about tone

There is an RfC at Talk:Tether (cryptocurrency)#RFC about tone concerning whether the lede (e.g. "Tether is a controversial crypto currency") and the article as a whole are written with an impartial tone. Additional views welcome. -DaxMoon (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Dispute on neutrality of "criticism" section in Eric_Feigl-Ding

The article on Eric Feigl-Ding currently has a section on criticism he has received. The neutrality of this section is in dispute. I have been trying to address this on the talk page, but I have received very little direct engagement on my questions from the editors who have written this section. I believe the entirety of the section violates WP:NPOV, and almost every sentence violates some specific sub-policy.

Rather than me going into detail immediately, I would like to ask you to read the section titled "criticism" and then note your answers to the following questions, which I will argue is misleading:

1) Who was criticizing him? Are their qualifications relevant?

2) Can you name anyone who was praising him? Are their qualifications relevant?

3) What is he criticized for?

4) Who used the app he helped develop?

5) What conclusion is supported by mentioning the app in this section? What purpose is being served by mentioning the Google Scholar section?

6) Is there a source that supports the claim he has “a relevant academic background”?

7) Does the second paragraph of this 2 paragraph section have anything to do with the topic?

The article: https://undark.org/2020/11/25/complicated-rise-of-eric-feigl-ding/ provides some evidence to back up what I say below, but if you're willing to take my word for it, here's some of the concerns.:

a) The people who criticized him are among the most respected infectious disease researchers in the world. Does that come across in the wikipedia article?

b) The unsourced statement made in point 6) above is in dispute. Given that, does this statement promote one point of view above others (c.f., WP:VOICE)?

c) The named person praising him in point 2) above has no infectious disease experience. Does the juxtaposition of his praise with the anonymous criticism violate WP:UNDUE?

d) In point 3) above, did you answer that they were criticizing him for using social media or for not having an infectious disease background? They are criticizing him because they believe much of the information he is spreading is inaccurate and sometimes dangerous, and that he seemingly implied that he had expertise that he did not (which gives undue credibility to his statements). Does the section in any way convey these concerns?

Now consider the sources given about his app development. Both sources are from https://www.hackreactor.com/blog, and regard an app that was developed at Hack Reactor.

e) I believe this is an example of a "publication put out by an organization" about a "topic that organization has an interest in promoting." (c.f., WP:IS).

f) If your answer to 4) above was that it was used for the Ebola response you are wrong. It was never used for this. Hack Reactor is a site that teaches programming skills. I see nothing in the blog posts that clearly states that this was anything more than a class project which was never installed on anyone's phone for the purpose of contact tracing anywhere (the website for the app http://germtheorylabs.org/ mentioned in one of the blog posts is abandoned). I have looked extensively for any other source about this app and I can find none other than Ding's tweets, which came out after extensive prominent work on COVID apps by others was announced. I believe the current wording of the Wikipedia article on this point is potentially misleading, and I think the whole point is actually an example of WP:OR --- see g) below.

Finally, the person who added the comments on the app and Google Scholar said on the talk page:

″Also, the 'zero experience' infectious disease claim seems to be wrong. The two Hack Reactor points out Feigl-Ding was involved in the development of a 2014 contact tracing app for outbreaks. Also his Google Scholar publication record includes many papers on global health and on infectious disease risk factors. We cannot just dismiss all those. Hence added citations to them for balance.″  

g) So these are clearly intended to support the conclusion that he has prior infectious disease expertise. However, the cited sources do not themselves make this point. Additionally the "balance" achieved here also involved watering down the explicit statement from a prominent infectious disease researcher (who had undoubtedly seen his Google Scholar page) that he has 'zero experience' with understanding infectious disease epidemic dynamics. This would appear to me to be a violation of WP:SYNTH as well as WP:UNDUE. As an infectious disease researcher myself I dispute any implication that his Google Scholar page demonstrates experience studying epidemic dynamics.

I have given a detailed explanation of what I consider to be violations of a number of Wikipedia policies in the relevant talk page in the section on "balancing discussion". My impression of the responses I have received is that they have ignored my questions about whether the section violates WP:NPOV in general and WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:IS, WP:UNDUE, etc in particular. Instead they argue that the criticism is "unfair" and "propaganda". The fact that this is their response to the more clinical question of whether a statement exemplifies original research or whether a source is independent makes me believe they are not interested in conveying the content of the criticisms and the responses to them. They are engaging in the dispute rather than describing it, which violates WP:VOICE.

After feeling that my points were being ignored, I added a section "Current Violations of Wikipedia Policy in the Article", to the talk page which has been ignored except for one person who responded positively, and one person who called it "superfluous". There is still no engagement from the relevant editors on the explicit examples I claim violate the various policies.

In full disclosure, I am one of the infectious disease researchers who has criticized Eric Feigl-Ding for what I view as numerous dangerously inaccurate statements he has made on social media. Our primary concern is the inaccuracy. I can point to other people who are also not infectious disease researchers who are commenting about COVID on social media whose content I promote. So it is not about the use of social media, or even being from outside the field. These people who I promote typically make comments on specific subtopics on which they do have expertise. Additionally, it isn't even a difference of opinion about policies --- I am generally supportive of the same policies that he promotes with a few exceptions. The issue with Ding is that he does not constrain himself to things on which he has expertise --- he makes bold sensational comments on things he doesn't understand, and he is often wrong (but he strongly implies he has expertise on the topics). When he makes mistakes he tends to ignore them for a while, and if he ever does anything about it it's usually a quiet delete a week later, with no attempt to correct the record, generally after hundreds of thousands of impressions. When given a choice between an accurate statement or something misleading that might go viral, I believe he chooses the latter. These are my opinions. Because I recognize my conflict, I have refrained from directly editing the page and restrict myself to the talk page.

But I'm tired of my questions being ignored. I believe that the section not only misrepresents the criticism, it has been written to refute the criticism. It needs to get fixed, and I really want to stop wasting my time on it. I was blissfully unaware of how it had evolved over the past year, but when he tweeted out a link to his patreon page asking for monthly donations, I decided to take a look at the article, and I was shocked by the inaccuracy of it.

I would like to see the section either accurately reflect the criticism or be entirely removed. I feel that the criticism should be included, but I would prefer it be removed than that the section be left in its current form. Joelmiller (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@GlobeGores, Sahiljain22, Yug, Smojarad, Zmlpqa01, and Ekpyros:

@Joelmiller: wow, yep, you're right. This is particularly egregious, because people come here to find good quality info. Many of the citations and parts of that section are not of wiki-quality. I'll start helping you fix it!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

+1 to all criticisms highlighted by User:Joelmiller.GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 06:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

John McGuirk and far-right designation

This relate to the John McGuirk page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/John_McGuirk) and particularly to the comment that he is editor of a "far-right" media outlet called Gript. This designation, that Gript is "far-right" has been the subject of an extensive, going discussion on the talk page, but I wanted to escalate that discussion to here as I am concerned that the article has serious issues, and I would like to involve the wider community.

Effectively the issue is that the claim is sourced to a pseudo-anonymous blog, which calls Gript alt-right, and an academic article which says Gript will sometimes "echo" the talking points of the far-right, but does not claim that Gript is itself far-right. During the discussion a third source, which does class Gript as far-right was added.

I have argued that the decision to class Gript as far-right, when it has been widely discussed in Irish media either and has never been called far-right by a reputable mainstream Irish publication, gives undue weight to a fringe publication and appears to be an attempt by an editor to enshrine a personal political view.

I have linked numerous articles which describe Gript as right-wing and conservative, and I attempt to expand the description of Gript on the page to read "He is the editor of the news and opinion website Gript, which has been described alternatively as conservative, right-wing and alt-right." I thought that was a fair compromise, as it included the description of Gript as alt-right even though it comes from a pseudo-anonymous, and openly partisan, blog, whilst showing that that was not the general position - the material was still removed.

It is my view that the article does not represent the wider understanding of Gript in Ireland, but rather privilege's a very particular political perspective on it. I would be interested in other's thoughts, as there are only four of us on the talk page and I do not feel the issues on the page are likely to be dealth with.

As a sidenote, and this may not be of relevance to this board - as a new contributor to Wikipedia I was appalled at the behaviour of one of the other edtiors (Bastun), who seemed to take my edits as a personal affront. He reverted my original attempts to fix the article without reason; mocked me; implied I am innumerate; accused me of lying; said my NPOV dispute was disingenuous; started a sockpuppet investigation into my account; and consistently refers to me as a SAP in a fashion that I take to be an attempt to denigrate rather than a mere statement of fact. It is not what I expected, and I have not done anything to him to justify his venom. It has certainly made me reconsider devoting further time to improving articles if this is the accepted approach towards new comers.

Thank you for your consideration. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a look at that page history, and I have to concur with Bastun. You've been edit warring your own unsupported claims in place of well-sourced information for over a week now, and you ought to be blocked to stop it. And while Bastun isn't entirely blameless here, they're close enough to it that, from where I sit, nothing more than a reminder that WP:AN3 exists is needed. Bastun is enforcing an existing consensus and accurate information, whereas you are making inaccurate changes that contradict the consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I legitimately do not understand how expanding the article to add in the sentence above, all of which was sourced from mainstream reporting and gives a fuller understanding of the topic, can be considered edit-warring or improper in any way? On edit warring, bar the addition of the sentence I highlighted above, and undoing the removal of an NPOV dispute tag, which another editor had accepted the need to add, I haven't made any edits to the article since Bastun undid my original edit.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)(talk) 22:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As someone involved in this discussion, here is my interpretation of the sourcing:

• IrishCentral is an Irish news site founded by journalist Niall O'Dowd and is part of the Irish Voice/Irish America media network. It calls Gript a far-right publication. It also calls McGuirk a Far-right commentator, but we're not using it to make that claim.
• The Beacon is an advocacy news outlet focusing on the far right, especially in Ireland. It calls Gript an alt-right website. The alt-right is part of the far-right, and The Beacon's own subheading is reporting on the far right.
• DCU Institute of Future Media, Democracy, and Society (FuJo) is a media research center with an impressive list of members and an equally impressive advisory board. In the section on "Manipulation tactics", the DCU writes In the US, far-right talking points have been popularised through an eco-system of influencers and partisan media outlets who relay the message in milder terms. In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean...Gript and The Burkean primarily produce opinion pieces while positioning themselves as an alternative to mainstream journalism. It also includes a screenshot of McGuirk tweeting a Gript article using the manipulation tactics that it just discussed. The article itself is titled "How the far-right incite hatred".
• The Belfast Telegraph (Belfast Telegraph) is an Irish daily newspaper published by Independent News & Media. It calls Gript right-wing.
• The Times (The Times) is a British daily newspaper, a subsidiary of News UK which is owned by News Corp. It calls Gript conservative.
• The Journal (TheJournal.ie) is an Irish news site. It says that Gript has a typically right-wing and conservative approach to news and debate. I think that's close to calling Gript right-wing and conservative, but that typically seems to weaken their findings.
• There's also The Irish Examiner, which quotes an Irish Department of Health or Department of Education document that says Right-Wing opinion/news account Gript Media. That statement isn't made in the editorial voice of The Irish Examiner, and it's unclear whether it came from the Department of Health, Department of Education, or a third-party (because the Department of Health outsourced some of their analysis). Ultimately, I don't think there's enough information here to determine who the original source was or if they're at all reliable.

Which gives us 3 sources that say far-right, 1 source that says conservative, 1 source that says right-wing, and 1 source that weakly (in my mind) says right-wing and conservative. To me, this seems like a clear indication that far-right is an appropriate label, although some other description that also includes right-wing and conservative might be acceptable, though these labels are used fewer times.

There are also 5 sources (The Independent, a second Journal article, a second Times article, a third Times article, and The Irish Times) that don't describe Gript's political leanings one way or the other. Perpetualgrasp has been arguing at Talk:John McGuirk#Far-right classification that we need to use the absence of a description in those sources as evidence that we shouldn't describe Gript on Wikipedia. I've explained that this would violate NPOV by balancing around claims that the sources don't make. Woodroar (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar gives a generally fair overview of the sourcing, but to give some slight clarifications for others who may be reading. Firstly the DCU source does not call Gript far-right. It discusses how far right talking mights may get into the public discourse and says that certain far-right talking points are echoed in Gript. I would argue that is an important distinction. That moves us to 2 sources that say Gript are either far-right, or alt-right. The Beacon is of, in my view, questionable reliability and I currently have a query as to its status on the relevant noticeboard.

On Woodroar's point about my linking of material that does not refer to Gript as having any particular political affiliation. I shared that material, not because I think it negates the other sources, but rather to demonstrate that Gript, when talked about in the Irish MSM, is not generally classed as being far-right, and that that would not be the case if the Irish MSM had a consensus on Gript being far-right. I was unable to find a single instance of a reputable Irish mainstream publication calling Gript far-right. Given the impact of calling an organisation far-right, and that in this instance it is also going to reflect on a single living person, I simply thought that was important to demonstrate. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

1) I never called Perpetualgrasp a "sap", I stated that theirs is a WP:SPA. Which it is. (Other editors should note there is currently a sock-puppet investigation open, as one other editor on that talk page has made no other edits except to that talk page and their user page; and one IP was active around the same time, making the same edits (that IP has now stopped, and agrees with the consensus to include 'far-right' as the description of Gript).

2) There is a consensus of 4 editors to one on the talk page that the description 'far-right' is accurate. Even without the IP address that changed its mind, that's still 3-1.

3) Above, Perpetualgrasp again mentions "Here are all these sources that don't mention Gript as being far-right." And they're right, some sources don't mention that Gript is far-right. But as has been pointed out at least twice already on that talk page, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If a newspaper article just describes Gript as a news site or magazine website, that does not mean that it isn't far-right. Perpetualgrasp just won't accept that.

4) Perpetualgrasp again mischaracterises the references used. As pointed out on 25 May on the talk page, The Beacon: Uses a subheading of "Far-right leaks?" when discussing Gript. Reference 2, the Future Media Journal from the DCU Institute of Future Media, Democracy and Society, in an article titled "How the far-right incite hatred", says "In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean." I mean, that's pretty clear.

5) Perpetualgrasp again disputes the validity of The Beacon as a source (after repeatedly doing so on the Talk page). They were first informed about RS/N (if they didn't already know about it, obviously) at 14:02 on 25 May, but only opened a RS/N discussion this evening? And are still asserting it isn't reliable, despite the fact that RS/N won't conclude anything for a couple of days?

6) There are five of us (currently/recently) on the talk page, not four.

7) Perpetualgrasp earlier changed "...editor of the far-right website Gript", to their own preferred version, "editor of the news and opinion website Gript, which has been described alternatively as conservative, right-wing, and alt-right" - completely omitting "far-right" in the process. Sanctions may be required. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page I had planned to hold off on bringing forward the Beacon to RS/N in order to give the sockpuppet investigation time to finish. You had said it was appropriate to bring it to RS/N if I had concerns about its reliability; I have now done so. You are correct about SPA instead of SPA, apologies I mistyped.

On far-right I changed it to alt-right as that is what the Beacon calls Gript. You can point to their subheading, or the site's tagline all you want, but what they are actually called in the body of the text is alt-right. If you want to switch it to "editor of the news and opinion website Gript, which has been described alternatively as conservative, right-wing, and far-right" and link to the Irish Central piece instead of the Beacon that would seem workable.

We have been going over this for days, and it's very clear we're, if left to our own devices, not going to agree on what should be done here, or what weight should be given to the Beacon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualgrasp (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a note, as Bastun asked editors to note it above, that the sock puppet investigation into me started by Bastun has ended with a finding that the accounts Bastun flagged are unrelated. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Coming over from WP:RSN on this after diggin a little more—I'm not sure that describing Gript as "far-right" is the best move with regards to a wikivoice statement. I have significant questions regarding the editorial process and editorial control exherted by The Beacon, and I'm not seeing a WP:USEBYOTHERS that points towards it having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, either. Furthermore, the analysis on its bias based on excluding sources that don't mention a bias seems to be deficient... couldn't that be considered some form of marginal evidence to the website not having an extremist bias? Also, regarding The Journal, their other pieces (such as this one) reaffirm that the site has a generally generally right-wing, conservative perspective, and I think that we can say that the paper provides some evidence against a "far-right" designation. When taking a look at additional sources (such as The Busineess Post, which describes the source alternatively as "conservative" and "right-wing"), it's not clear to me that the analysis above is complete or that a complete analysis would result in us labeling the group as "far-right". "Right-wing" seems to be the median, though it's still not clear to me how to analyze the sources that don't mention a site bias. In the absence of a consensus among RS that the site is "far-right", I don't think labeling them as "far-right" is justified. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

As has been noted, the Beacon is not the only source using the "far-right" label, and at least one of the sources that does appears to be sufficiently reliable. And please let's not get into any outlandish "what the definition of 'is' is" style wikilawyering here. (i.e., "Well they don't actually say they are far right, just that they employ far right tactics and talking points" - seriously?). Now, my position on this and all similar matters having to do with the far right: being wishy washy with how we describe them, whitewashing, etc, can have consequences along the magnitude of, possibly, global security being jeopardised. We should not forget that the far right started World War II, and that one of the (many) factors that allowed them to come into power back then was lackadaisical complacency among the press, etc. Hitler et al were not taken seriously as a real threat by too many people. So, my motivation for my position here is not partisan or ideological - just the track record of who were the ones that caused the biggest manmade catastrophe in the history of the world. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The DCU source on the claim, clearly the most reliable of those used, has been amended to explicitely state that they do not classify Gript as a far-right outlet. The note has been added to the bottom of the piece. It would appear I wasn't engaged in "outlandish" wikilawyering, but rather was absolutely correct about what the source did, and did not, say. https://fujomedia.eu/far-right-disinformation-tactics-in-ireland/

Beyond that the rest of your comment only holds if we presuppose that Gript are in fact far-right. If they are not your points regarding the far-right are simply irrelevent.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above SPA editor is pursuing this issue in three concurrent venues this evening: here, the article talk page, and, for good measure, the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

And you are participating in all of them, although on the talk page I merely made a note that the source had clarified and that I had previously said it was being read incorrectly by certain editors, and on the other we are debating if the Beacon is a reliable source, so I don't accept it is the same issue or forum shopping. You were wrong Bastun, just accept it and work to come to some constructive outcome. This is just undignified. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely WP:FORUMSHOPPING, as has been pointed out by other editors here, not just me. There is no active NPOV dispute on the article, so why are you here? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Bastun you know as well as I do that there was an NPOV dispute on the article, and this conversation has simply continued beyond the point it was active. I'm not in control of that, the conversation will last as long as other editors think there is something to discuss. Having said that, given that consensus was reached when the DCU source was being incorrectly used, I could now see an argument that we should again have an active NPOV dispute on the page.

I've tried to respond to your points fairly and with curtesy Bastun, even though I have noted I think you have been unceasingly uncivil towards me since we first crossed paths, but you now suddenly having all these issues, just after I point out you were wrong, seems to be a fairly transparent act of reprisal. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• MPants at work, Firejuggler86, you may be interested in the discussion ongoing here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

Is this really a neutral term? I can tell you as someone who grew up in the faith (no longer practising but this ain't about me), when I hear the term it raises alarm bells. It is never used as a self-description, it's kind of like "Romanist", "Papist", "Romish" etc, emphasisizing the Pope rather than the catholic (universal) aspect. It came about from point scoring whereby the Church of England wanted to disallow the Catholic church's exclusive claim to the term "catholic", which stems from the Nicene Creed. Is it really such a huge imposition to use the term "Catholic" instead of "Roman Catholic", unless you're distinguishing from "Maronite Catholic", "Chaldean Catholic" etc? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

We have mutiple articles on this question: start at Roman Catholic (term). So the short answer is "it's complicated", and the slightly longer answer is "it depends on context". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should establish a consensus on use of the term, which can be easily linked to by WP:ROMANCATHOLIC, cause the issue is going to come up again. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

wp:commonname, and as said, it all depends on context. But what term would you prefer?Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

We generally use Catholic piped to Catholic Church to refer to individuals, but it does get subtle in more technical articles. Which leaves me wondering, which article(s) trggered this question in the first place? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Well for me it was specifically Ruy López de Segura (I'm a chesshead). in the context of 16th century Spain, "Roman Catholic" seemed very unnecessary to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

For that one I would have gone for "Catholic priest" piped to Priesthood in the Catholic Church. But a more interesting question is the categories Category:Spanish Roman Catholics and Category:16th-century Roman Catholic priests both of which are part of a massive tree structure beginning at Category:Roman Catholic priests. That led me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism, and from there I see that there's an RFC going on at the moment which looks like the place to continue this dicussion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, that RFC is 8 months old and basically settled nothing for us. Elizium23 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

There's also an essay at Wikipedia:Catholic or Roman Catholic? which seems like a place to catch up rapidly on past discussions. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Typically, our usage on Wikipedia is to use "Roman Catholic" to mean "Latin Church Catholic". For example, in our category trees, you will see "Roman Catholic X" in parallel to "Syro-Malabar Catholic X" and "Chaldean Catholic X" and "Byzantine Catholic X". So we use "Roman" in the sense of "non-Eastern". It is a very common consensus and I see it quite often to describe people, organizations, buildings, etc. Anyone who wishes to break this consensus will need to attack our thousands upon thousands of diocesan articles, plus our firmly-entrenched category trees en masse.

Good luck with that! Elizium23 (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

On the rare occasionas where it is necessary to make a distinction between a Maronite Catholic or Chaldean Catholic etc and a "Western" Catholic, the correct term is "Latin Rite Catholic", not "Roman Catholic". So basically I see no context where the term "Roman Catholic" is correct. Yes, it's my POV, but so is gratuitously introducing the term "Roman Catholic" into an article where simply "Catholic" will do the job. It seems many American Catholics have adopted the term and don't see any problem with it, but this is not the case for all. In Ireland, for example, where there is a long history of anti-Catholic laws and discrimination from the British rulers, use of the term will immediately get you on someone's bad side, just as calling Derry "Londonderry" will. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Funny thing about "Latin Rite". It's an ambiguous term. It's sometimes used officially such as in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (canon 1109). However, as we see in canon 1, the official name is the Latin Church. This is not to be confused with the Roman Rite.

For some decades now, the Churches have been working to distinguish "Rite" and "Church". A lot of old terminology is still out there. Elizium23 (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

But anyway most Catholics are not Italian let alone Roman. As in, "I'm not a Roman Catholic, I'm an Irish Catholic!". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a strawman. Elizium23 (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

MaxBrowne2, it used used as a self-description. A LOT. Please consult WP:RS for the official, published WP:COMMONNAME of Catholic organizations. You will find that we have reappropriated the name, and nobody who is Catholic considers it derogatory anymore.

(Actually, if you call an Eastern Catholic "Roman", they may be flattered or they may be offended. You never know!) Elizium23 (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said originally "it's complicated". I'm aware that the RFC didn't resolve anything, but that fact alone was worth knowing. And there was a post there today, so clearly some sort of discussion is still going on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It is sometimes used as a self-description, but rather rarely, especially for people rather than institutions. Individual parishes and churches often so self-describe, to make their denomination clear. To say "nobody who is Catholic considers it derogatory anymore" is certainly wrong, although "derogatory" is not really the right word. It is certainly more othering than plain "Catholic". Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Growing up, I remember praying weekly (or more) for the "...one holy, Roman, catholic, and apostolic church..." I believe the church has changed the Creed since I left, but no parishioner I came across would have considered Roman "othering". We used it in self-reference literally almost every time we went in the building. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The Nicene Creed is used in the Catholic, Orthodox and many of the more traditional Protestant churches, and definitely makes no reference to "Roman", maybe you're misremembering it. It's a reference to the Four Marks of the Church. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• '...disallow the Catholic church's exclusive claim to the term "catholic"' - so your position is that Rome holds exclusive claim to the term "catholic"? That does not sound particularly neutral. yes, the Roman church is commonly called simply the "Catholic Church", and in contexts where this is completely unambiguous that is fine. In English contexts it is somewhat complicated, because the Church of England was part of the larger Roman Catholic Church for many centuries. When they split with Rome, they did not establish a new Church: they considered it to be the same church it had always been, with unbroken succession, and still retaining its "catholicness" while also adopting some reformed characteristics. So, that was one reason for specifying "Roman" - to disambiguate. As for emphasising "Popishness" - considering the Pope had declared the Church of England heretical and had issued a papal bull ordering all faithful Catholics to engage in efforts to violently overthrow the English government & monarch and install a Roman Catholic regime...can you really fault them for that? And meanwhile on the continent Europe was having one of its bloodiest wars in history because a number of countries had turned Protestant and the Pope didnt like it. Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I will also make the point, though, that in the case of that Spanish chess player that prompted MaxBrowne2 to start this thread, just "Catholic priest" without the "Roman" epithet would have been just fine and/or preferable. Context matters, as has been said. Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Whitewash of far right

In Far-right politics in Poland, Jan Żaryn, Lubusz Land, and maybe others there is a whitewash of the far right. Inconvenient associations and history are obliterated from view.Nulliq (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This is, what, third? Fourth? New account with very few edits popping up on obscure articles to edit war? Yeah. Somethings going on here. Volunteer Marek 03:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, SPI time, methinks. You could also go to AE and request ECP protection on the talk page of any article that's getting it particularly bad. It worked for Race and intelligence.

I doubt anyone who's even vaguely familiar with your editing would take this seriously, but the diffs speak for themselves; there's no whitewashing here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Lot's of WP:DUCK sock quacking here indeed, but SPI, sigh, who's the master? Roll the dice... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The misrepresentation of that source by this brand new account (Nulliq) and another editor (Trasz) who initially re-entered that text into the article has been addressed on the article's talk page.[63] - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC) :Not a misrepresentation, though inaccurate. The source has a few detail different on slogans than the text and "Critics" was replaced by "Western experts" which is different. User:Volunteer Marek's edit summary of "unsourced BLP vio" is more than inaccurate, it is dishonest. There is a cited source, and there is no BLP info there.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 14:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

jfc, another brand new account barely a few months old. Anyway, the unsourced BLP edit summary was actually referring to this edit [64] where there’s a big old tag right after the attack text. Volunteer Marek 06:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

:::I watch this noticeboard. The edit summary was on a different edit, and is entirely untrue. There is a source, and it isn't BLP.VikingDrummer (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 14:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

VikingDrummer - Thank you for watching this noticeboard. Since we are dealing with new accounts here, let me make clear that your account is also new, with an average editing cycle of few days per month (Jan. 4 and 30, Feb. 13, Mar. 2, 6, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 31, April 3, 17, 18, 21, 24, 28, 29, May 2, 11, 29 and June 3. You have been editing Wikipedia for a total of 22 days starting January 2021 [65], and you did run into a disagreement with VM before, reverting their edits here on April 21st [66] and posting this notice on VM's talk page [67] - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I have discussed with Marek and User:Tino Cannst on Piast Canal where information on the mythological name was removed by Marek despite sources.VikingDrummer (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 14:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

So not only do newcomers get bitten, they also get attacked and accused of operating in bad faith solely on the premise of their being new? smh. Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

So basically, you've addressed this problem - which is definitely real - by dismissing arguments altogether because of their source. Good job, really. Trasz (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)