This was originally listed at [[WP:RSN#LA Times in Chloe Cole article in regards to the Kaiser lawsuit]] which concluded it was a question for here. [[User:TheTranarchist|TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:TheTranarchist|talk]]) 17:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
This was originally listed at [[WP:RSN#LA Times in Chloe Cole article in regards to the Kaiser lawsuit]] which concluded it was a question for here. [[User:TheTranarchist|TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:TheTranarchist|talk]]) 17:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
*honestly I think the entire article in its current state needs attention from uninvolved editors experienced with NPOV and FRINGE. I just looked through it and there's not a single reference to any criticisms this activist has had. I'm not going to repeat anything that has already been said, but in my assessment it's highly unlikely that a notable activist on such a highly controversial topic hasn't received a single criticism throughout her career, and I think that's a stronger sign that something is off here than any individual discussion I could point to. I'm mostly staying out of it because I'm even less experienced than the editor above me and honestly I don't need a 600 page ANI discussion in my life, but it's becoming a problem and shutting up about it is not the way to solve that problem. ----[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 21:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
In the article
Minneapolis > Cuisine, is this image non-neutral content? Many sources, including the Minneapolis Star Tribune explain a 60-year-old rivalry between Matt's Bar and the 5-8 Club over invention of the Jucy Lucy. I feel picturing one bar and not the other is unfair, and that picturing both is too many dive bars. I would prefer no image, or a different image. Earlier, I failed to have the image replaced (I closed that RfC with WP:SNOW). This has been discussed on Talk:Minneapolis at length since it was introduced into the article on October 25. I will notify the editor who added the photo. Thank you for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion where User:SusanLesch claimed "this photo violates WP:NPOV" was at Talk:Minneapolis#Jucy Lucy. Other editors involved were User:The Banner and User:Bobamnertiopsis. My comment at that discussion was "First, the most recent photo choice was made by consensus at an RFC you initiated. Second...and let me get this straight...because there is a rivalry between these two restaurants about which one invented some greasy local cheeseburger, you feel it would be unfair to feature the photo of one restaurant over the other. Is this correct? Seriously?" Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how a one sentence mention of a cheeseburger variation requires a photo of a restaurant, especially if it creates a perception of non-neutrality. Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The plan was also to replace the photo with a poor picture of another restaurant where SusanLesch was working on. So the NPOV could also been seen as: I don't like photo A (the present one), refuse any alternatives (both competing restaurants) so let us replace it by a photo of another restaurant with doubtful notability or by a half eaten burger. The Bannertalk00:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 5-8 Club was founded in 1928 as a speakeasy; it claims to be one of the creators of the Jucy Lucy cheeseburger.
Two notable restaurants, 5-8 Club and Matt's Bar, both claim to have invented the Jucy Lucy. The article currently displays an image of one of those restaurants, with the caption stating: "it claims to be one of the creators of the Jucy Lucy cheeseburger." How is this POV? Where in MOS:IMAGES does it say every notable building in a city must be included, lest someone's feeling be hurt? The current image was selected because of its relevance, as it should be. Moreover, the photo caption completely removes any hint of POV by acknowledging the burger feud, and that this is one of the claimants to its creation. A simple solution to this POV issue would be to remove that sentence from the caption.
A glance at Talk:Minneapolis shows many discussions between User:SusanLesch, myself, and others, regarding the content of the cuisine section. My editing of that section has primarily involved removing what appeared to be over-the-top puffery, and excessive details about Owamni, a restaurant where SusanLesch is top editor. Past discussions about photos of Owamni include:
Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#Owamni/Fuji Ya exterior photos - SusanLesch announced that they had contacted the copyright owner for two photos of Owamni, and the copyright owner agreed to release them to Wikimedia. "These were the best I found out of about 2,000 images".
Gentlemen, Owamni is a separate matter and your conclusions are wrong. You argue that James Beard's best new restaurant in the United States should not be pictured in Minneapolis, the birthplace of the American Indian Movement. I did not expand the Owamni article until after the RfC and after it was flagged{{Notability}}, {{POV}}, and {{Weasel}}. Then I "worked on" Owamni, incessant sparring continued there, and I became its top editor. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Matt's Bar and the 5-8 Club feud is more than 60 years old. Wikipedia does no one a service by acting a scofflaw[1] on a non-negotiable policy: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.". To stop this battle, in fairness I prefer no image. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Philadelphia is fortunate that Pat's and Geno's are close enough to each other that you can get both in a single shot (see Philadelphia#Cuisine). Note that buildings are depicted, and not a cheesesteak. I don't think including one photo over another amounts to taking sides in a rivalry; the important question is what image (or images, if there's space), best represents cuisine in Minneapolis. There are other notable alternatives, such as Al's Breakfast or the Band Box Diner. Mackensen(talk)14:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RFCs are supposed to settle issues like this. Continuing on with this after the RFC didn't go your way is starting to look disruptive. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have to conclude that this noticeboard went nowhere useful. This was my first ever such appeal. Disappointing, guys. Not counting Mackensen who was looking at alternatives, this !vote stands at 3 to 2 demanding use of a tourist trap to illustrate a city. Nobody even pinged User:Sectionworker who participated in the original discussion. P.S. And neither Matt's nor this bar made the Star Tribune's list of the city's 15 best dive bars. This NPOV noticeboard makes no sense. We are stuck with somebody's arbitrary preference, an image that takes sides in a decades-long dispute. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should realize that by choice of venue, your questions is "does this violate WP:NPOV?", not "should the image be included?". My opinion on the first question is "probably no clear violation" and "probably best decided by an RFC" On the second my thought "best to leave it out". Being one of two contending claims for invention of a local hamburger isn't enough to include an image in the top level Minneapolis article. And since including it is inherently promotional ofan individual restaurant, I'd advocate requiring an even stronger reason to put it in. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Cullen328. Why has the photo of one restaurant been picked over a photo of the other restaurant, and why is a photo necessary? On the Talk page, it appears SusanLeschsuggested using an image that depicts both restaurants (which hopefully now shows in this thread). What is wrong with that option? -Location (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images are a form of editorial direction, and WP:WEIGHT applies to them too; they shouldn't just be used for decoration. I absolutely can see how the choice to privilege a single establishment to illustrate the cuisine section is undue weight. I don't think SusanLesch's attempt to replace it with Owamni is any better, but frankly I don't think the status quo is much better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then just change the caption to acknowledge both restaurants. Easy-peasy. I could come to this board every day and complain about cities with 10 NRHP buildings, but only displaying one of them. Why does the article have a picture of the city hall, and not a firehall, or city train station, or police headquarters? Is city hall privileged? MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE doesn't mention that every notable building needs to be mentioned, lest others will be...less privileged. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SusanLesch clearly has concerns about perceived bias in showing only the 5-8 Club and not Matt's Bar due to the competing claims about Jucy Lucy (which is completely different than deciding whether to show a photo of city hall over police headquarters). In order to resolve that issue, Susan started an RfC asking if the photo of the 5-8 Club should be replaced by a photo of Owamni. Although the RfC only last 2.5 days, I think she properly closed it when it was clear that editors did not think that was the right way to solve the problem. Today is the first time that I was aware of this issue, but I agree with Susan that there is a perceived neutrality issue here that is unresolved and from the comments I have read I think other editors see that, too.
I'm not inclined to go along with claims of forum shopping. "Unless you come with another RFC..." was proposed by The Banner[2] and that is effectively what Susan has done by bring the issue here. Options to "include both" and/or "remove both" were also brought up by other editors on the Talk page (see Collin[3] and Sbmeirow[4]) and here. For formality's sake, my ivote is to include both or remove both. [Edit: Stricken after commenting in RfC below.]-Location (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged to this discussion by Magnolia667. I have followed the Minneapolis article since its FA promotion, and have carefully watched it for the last three years as SusanLesch has worked to prepare it for a much needed FAR. Working alone (relative to a decade ago, where all of Minnesota WikiProject pitched in to help build a singularly impressive suite of Minnesota FAs), SusanLesch has toiled diligently to respond to numerous long lists of items I've given to bring the article in line with FA standards. [5] I've never encountered a difficulty with her, and have found her willing and eager to work as hard as possible to meet my requests. It is true that the article was overcome by quite a bit of Minnesota boosterism, but Susan has not balked at removing that when I have pointed that out.
In that environment, the ongoing issue over images has been most discouraging; as I've mentioned several times on talk, I wish content issues would be addressed first.
That said, there is a serious neutrality issue here, and SusanLesch is right to raise it. The verylongstanding rivalry between the two restaurants over the Jucy Lucy is very well documented in reliable sources, and apparently quite a passionate topic among Minnesotans. Portraying one, while leaving out the other, is decidedly non-neutral, and places Wikipedia in the position of advancing one side over the other, and that affects small business owners. If this is what was decided on talk, it's wrong, and local consensus should be dealt with by a broader consensus.
Now, to the bigger picture, have we never heard of {{Multiple image}} ? This is a big rivalry, and there's nothing wrong with a 3-image multiple image including the hamburger and both restaurants.
Regarding the link you suggested, the article says, "these include chef Sean Sherman—whose restaurant Owamni received James Beard's 2022 national award for the best new restaurant." Am I missing something? Saying any more about this one restaurant, while leaving out all the other notable restaurants in Minneapolis, is decidedly non-neutral, and places Wikipedia in the position of advancing one restaurant over the others, and that affects small business owners. If readers want to know more about Sean Sherman or Owamni, they can read the articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple image solution has been proposed a few times, but SusanLesch has previously not been supportive (see comment in the RFC). If that compromise is now on the table, I think it would be a good way to settle this for good. MrOllie (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Minneapolis have no image for Cuisine per WP:WEIGHT. NPOV is a non-negotiable policy, "This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well." How easy is that? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean removing about 100,000 images of businesses from city articles, lest we not show bias. I have an idea! Why don't we just pick one image...how about the one decided by a consensus of editors at this RFC? And to avoid accusations of bias (and not put any small business owners out of business) we could add a Commons link to this category. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC attended by a total of five users is hardly some ironclad consensus that should never be looked at. Especially since a lot of what people here are talking about isn't the framing of the RfC (replacing the image with another, versus side-by-side or just removing it altogether, which I agree with.) As for the rest of your comment, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk21:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And any of those restaurants is more important than one in Minneapolis. But the point is that that page is irrelevant in regards to image placement in the Minneapolis. You've got multiple uninvolved editors (Cullen, North, Location, me) pointing out that a paragraph in the article doesn't require any images, selecting a representative one is subject to NPOV the same as any article content, and you're being combative (Personal attack removed) in your responses. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk22:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Christ Church Lutheran Ah, I get it. It's about the greasy cheeseburger rivalry. What about the picture of Christ Church Lutheran? It's the only church pictured in the religion section, and this certainly shows bias and privilege towards Protestants. Why not a picture of Church of Saint Stephen? There has been some rivalry between the Protestants and Catholics you know. Let's remove the photo, lest Wikipedia appear biased. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a significant rivalry between Christ Church Lutheran and Church of Saint Stephen which has received extensive coverage in WP:RS? If so I would say we should absolutely be careful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnoia677 please stop this OTHERSTUFFEXISTS going-in-circles. The one-restaurant image is creating a blatant bias and needs to be removed. In this case, no image is better than this bias. I agree with Fuchs (both or neither). And the over focus and going in circles about images has impeded the one editor who is trying to work through lists on content from progressing, and some of the reasoning is approaching the obtuse/obfuscation; we're here talking about a clearly established rivalry and one image. Not every problem in every other article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" ... you're being combative and/or willfully dense in your responses. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)" And you have not yet removed the image that creates a bias. It is my understanding that you added it, but there's too much persistent edit warring from you at that article to be sure. Please remove the image, and read WP:FAOWN, and gain consensus on talk for edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion started last year. Has there been a consensus yet? I don't see one. Look above, has User:The Banner agreed? User:Mackensen suggested Al's Breakfast. When I added Al's Breakfast to the article yesterday, SusanLesch deleted it. Has User talk:MrOllie agreed? Please have an uninvolved administrator close this discussion before you start threatening editors with sanctions. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is the discussion of what/if to remove an image for POV; a separate issue is what, if any, image(s) to add. In all of the many discussions about same, could you please point out where you gained consensus to add the POV image to a Featured article? Unless you had consensus to add it, then it's up to you to remove it. (So as not to prompt an edit war.) Oh, The Banner is in this discussion, too? How surprising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image wasn't POV when I added it, and I don't need consensus to add anything. My suggestion would be to find an admin to close this multi-year discussion. You do realize I asked SusanLesch today if she would agree to swap out this image, for an image she uploaded. No luck. I'll remove the image, and start a discussion on the talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a sprawling discussion, but the consensus appears clear enough. There is consensus against a solo image of the 5-8 Club, and a consensus to include an image of both the 5-8 Club and Matt's Bar. There is also some support for using a different image, rather than the two Jucy Lucy inventors, but nothing concrete formed out of that discussion because it was a bit unfocused. There was support for the Jucy Lucy picture, a small collage, a breakfast place, and a then there were a bunch of other pictures no one opined on (COI notice: I love a tater tot hotdish). The broadest support there was for the collage with the two restaurants and the burger. It may be worth having a further discussion on the talk page on if a collage would be an improvement over the two restaurants alone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Two separate questions are being asked. The first section addresses whether to Keep or Remove the single image of one burger restaurant. Please enter a declaration in only one section (Keep, Remove Neutral). The second question is open ended and addresses whether different images should be used in the cuisine section, and if so, which. Different options may be proposed, and first, second, etc choice can be declared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Solo image of 5-8 Club
Claiming to be the creator of the Jucy Lucy cheeseburger in the 1950s, the 5-8 Club was founded in 1928 as a speakeasy
Comment - SandyGeorgia, first, there was an RFC about this less than two months ago, Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#RfC: photo in the Cuisine section, and it was withdrawn by the nominator because it was a snow. Second, you just threatened sanctions against me for not removing what some felt was an obviously biased image, and now you are giving editors the choice to reinsert that same biased image? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having read the single sentence in the article that discusses this restaurant (and the other), an image of just the one is undue weight. Schazjmd(talk)22:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing wrong with the image. Unless we're going to do a collage of every restaurant in town, promoting one place over another isn't a concern. - MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Given the competing claims about Jucy Lucy, I believe there is perceived bias with the inclusion of one restaurant and not the other. I am currently neutral on all the other propositions. -Location (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wrote most of the article on the 5-8 Club but having photos of building exteriors tells us next to nothing about the cuisine of Minneapolis except that it is served in buildings. I support showcasing a food item or dish here (even a "greasy cheeseburger" as it has been described because, yes, regardless of who created it there are numerous credible sources to support this greasy cheeseburger being invented in Minneapolis) or going with no picture at all. —Collintc02:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just now realize we're on the NPOV noticeboard; with that in mind, I do think there's merit to the case that favoring one of the two purported creators of this burger but not the other with an image goes against the spirit of seeking a neutral POV. Based on that, I affirm my above opinion: remove any images or put in an image (or images) of food. —Collintc05:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:SandyGeorgia. Additionally, even if we knew which restaurant invented this burger, it would be better to show an image of the burger instead of an image of the restaurant. Both restaurants can be mentioned in the burger image caption. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When it works, it works because subheadings categorize supports and opposes. But the 'supportive' categories below were opened with oppose comments. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; but would accept as second choice, Minneapolis is well recognized for an abundance of quality restaurants, and there is no reason (like lack of space in the article) to leave out an image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking all my (other) !votes in this section; as long as the POV image in the first section is removed, I don't care what is added or not in its place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Cuisine subsection covers a lot of names. Frankly, the food desert information seems the most meaningful; if there were an illustrative map, I think that would make sense. But otherwise I don't think the section needs an image at all. Schazjmd(talk)22:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - other articles on American cities have a restaurant or food item depicted, I think it's reasonable to include something here. --Sable232 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but as a shared thumbnail with the two pictures adjacent and with a single description talking about the historical rivalry (as done in the adjacent example). I think two whole pictures on their own along with another is too much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We have a section about the cuisine of a city, that cuisine includes a silly "we put the cheese inside instead of outside!" creation called a "Juicy Lucy" that's well-known in the area, and there are two restaurants with a decades-long feud over who invented it? How is this even a choice? Yes, obviously include a photo of both! Preferably with a dramatically lit photo of the burger in between them! Go back to Matt's to take a photo that orients it so they can be "facing" each other, too! This is the the kind of interesting, illustrated bit of information-drama that readers like to come across in articles (not to mention, say, Depths of Wikipedia/Annierau), and it's entirely policy-compliant. I wouldn't say that including one and not the other is a big NPOV problem, but if we have a photo of both, it's just good article writing to include both rather than one. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minneapolis is known for a bunch of particular foods. See here. If we put images of that cuisine in the cuisine section, it will clutter things up a lot to also include photos of places where those items may have originated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So expand the cuisine section or break it off into a daughter page. If something has gotten more coverage than the Juicy Lucy you can propose changing the picture, but you seem to be operating backwards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This seems the best way to resolve this issue. We have good pictures of both restaurants, both are equally worthy of inclusion, so let's use them both. --Sable232 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Owamni may be a wonderful restauraunt, but it makes for a poor image since it occupies only a portion of a mixed-use building. What we get is a photo of a nondescript building. - MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support First off, the is an excellent photo. It shows the attractive entrance and also shows the upstairs restaurant seating section with the window view. And secondly, I feel that the Native American menu adapted for an award winning cuisine is quite remarkable and deserves note, including a photo to show the establishment. Sectionworker (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, last choice, we have possibilities for a well-documented rivalry over what a Chicago Tribune writer called the "best cheeseburger in America" or an innovative award-winning and internationally recognized indigenous restaurant; no need to go fishing for an alternate image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tater Tot HotdishFresh walleye being cooked over a fireLefsedessert barsWild rice stir fry
Support an image of the Jucy Lucy instead of any image of the restaurants that claim to have invented it. The restaurants don’t look unusual, it’s the unusual cuisine itself that should be the focus. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Collin's reasoning along with Anythingyouwant have convinced me. An image of a building does not convey anything about the cuisine of Minneapolis, and could risk looking promotional regardless of which is chosen. So for the same reason, I'd not opt for the proposed (on talk) Al's Breakfast either, or the interior of the Owamni (also proposed here). An actual food item, such as (but not limited to) the Jucy Lucy is more descriptive of cuisine. Cuisine of Minnesota gives us little to work with, and is more about regional dishes than Minneapolis per se, while regardless of which restaurant(s) claim it, that the Jucy Lucy was invented in Minneapolis is easily sourceable. That doesn't mean we have to be limited to one food item; the FA India offers ideas for how to use multiple images, in case anyone can come up with something else unique to Minneapolis, or an image of an indigenous plate from the Owamni. Apparently the Jucy Lucy was good enough for Obama as a sample of Minneapolis cuisine when he visited Minneapolis, and we have a source calling it "the best cheeseburger in America", so that works for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - When brought up in the past, there was a tepid reception to this idea, at least partly because commenters didn't like either of the available images. I like Rhododendrites' suggestion to incorporate both the burger and the two establishments. --Sable232 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Oppose. No good reason to fixate on unhealthy food. Don't need or want tourist trap. Why is this RfC a moving target? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Susan, if no clear consensus emerges for any single image, a second RFC can be run after the options are narrowed down. The more important issue, the image some found as POV, is addressed separately, and having that resolved will make it easier to move forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin will sort that, and likely make suggestions for what were the definite findings of the RFC, and likely options for a followup if one is needed. This is not an urgent matter, an RFC takes time, more people will weigh in over time, and trust that it will get sorted eventually. Meanwhile, content matters at Minneapolis can proceed while this image RFC runs it course-- the good news is that we are now seeing feedback from independent editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strongly support the juicy lucy restaurant over something different, and since it would be biased to chose one over the other we would need to include both. Juicy lucy burgers have been around for decades and the only food item that a president has asked for. Sectionworker (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Anythingyouwant. The purpose of images is to help readers understand the subject matter. The images of the two restaurants show unremarkable buildings and don't help me understand the fact that they purport to have invented a special hamburger. The photo of the Jucy Lucy helps me understand the description of a food item I've never seen before. Ajpolino (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a reasonable position, Sandy, but in that case I’d suggest narrowing the header to cuisine unique to Minneapolis, or cuisine invented in Minneapolis. This source does say that Minneapolis is known for the food items I have discussed, but you’re right that other places are known for some of them too. DISCLAIMER: My Minnesota ancestors lived in Norway, Minnesota rather than Minneapolis! Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to alter the header, in the event others agree with your position, I don't see why we should chunk up Minneapolis with images that would duplicate images that should be in the Cuisine of Minnesota article. Jucy Lucy is uniquely Minneapolis; none of the others are. I also reject the (non-policy-based) POV expressed by others that says we should leave out "unhealthy" images; if that's what Minnesotans eat, it is what it is. Tater hotdish is also unhealthy, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we have any evidence that the Jucy Lucy is what Minneapolitans eat regularly. It is a curiosity more likely to be what visitors eat. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:SandyGeorgia, you’re apparently saying we should leave the tater tot hotdish out of the Minneapolis cuisine section not because it’s unhealthy, but rather because it neither was invented in Minneapolis nor is unique to Minneapolis. Minneapolis is known for this dish, but so are other places. If we tragically decide to omit this delicacy, then maybe we can narrow the header to unique aspects of Minneapolis cuisine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than narrowing the header, I'd prefer to let others opine. To me the scope of the Minneapolis article is obvious, but what do I know :) For example, we don't repeat the entire history of Minnesota for Minneapolis ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Minnesota, both Mpls and da range, and in my experience none of those photos are representative of Mpls foods. They are Northern Minnesota dishes, especially church supper, walleye [the walleye lakes are up north], anything wild rice is northern where it is harvested (except I don't know what that stir fry thing is and I've never heard of it) etc. See here for Mpls cuisine: Cuisine of the Midwestern United States. Also read Hotdish. Sectionworker (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have struck some of my commentary above. I still support including an image of Juicy Lucy, but no other images of food unless they were invented in Minneapolis. I don’t think any unremarkable image should be shown of a restaurant where Juicy Lucy started, but if such an image is included then an image of the other restaurant making that claim should be included too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General discussion
Re Magnolia's question at 21:39 above, it has been pointed out already that the previous RFC was about something else, and no consensus has formed in the five-person discussion on a talk page, and this disruption has gone on for several years now. It's time to get it settled at the community level so progress towards restoring the article's featured status can be made. The questions being asked here are broader than those in previous RFCs, and will hopefully end this undue focus on one image in an article needing content work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three people do not a consensus make, the dispute has drug on for two years and has impeded progress on content at the article, the issue was not being settled above even after becoming the oldest thread on this board, and so I put forward every possibility for a broader group to opine. This campaign needs to end so progress can be made on content; now please stand aside and let the broader community decide so you can once-and-for-all hopefully let this issue go and let others make progress on content. It would not be helpful to move to yet another forum; the discussion was already here, so let the community opine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if Mackensen wants to add Al's Breakfast, I'm sure he will. The talk page discussion was going in the same circles it has for two years, which is why Mackensen asked you and SusanLesch to stop interacting there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SusanLesch, just as an FYI, I'd LOVE to come to Minneapolis and eat a meal, or ten. My sister in law lives there and I'd like to visit. And obviously I need to determine which Ju(i)cy Lucy is the best. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie regarding your concern above, there are two different issues to settle here, hence two different formats. The first was a stalled discussion when Magnolia677 had refused to remove an image that they added but that many had opined was POV, and hanging on to a local consensus that didn't address that question, rather a different one. Hence, for that discussion, it's Remove the image, Keep the image, or Neutral (don't care). There are only three choices; that's to settle the POV question, which was stalled at Magnolia677's refusal to remove the image they added in spite of several editors seeing POV. The second question is more open-ended; do we add images or not to the cuisine section, and if so, which ones. There have been a variety of ideas put forward. I envisioned that people would order them by choice as I did. If you think this explanation helps, we could add some statements to this effect above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Magnolia677 removed the POV image and I thanked him. Ultimately, this noticeboard had a positive effect on the article. Thank you. I have no appetite for more arguments. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of Minnesota's smallest restaurants, Al's Breakfast received the 2004 James Beard "America’s Classics" award.[1]
As an independent contributor, feel free to adjust as needed. Just please keep the basic questions, with all options on the table. The invitation to adjust does not extend to involved contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the first set with three options is mutually exclusive and you'd only argue "support" under one right? But people seem to have argued both support and oppose even though that makes no sense. The second set with four questions is partially mutuality exclusive, supporting the first category means opposing the other three and vice versa but someone could support all three other options (Add image of both burger restaurants, Add image of Owamni, and Add a different image). The only crossover between the two is that support for "Add no images" automatically counts as support for Remove solo 5-8 image but people have commented both places. Do I have that right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back I'm open to suggestions, or you're free to adjust it yourself. I've already laid out above (in my response to MrOllie) what the two-fold intent is: a) Remove or Keep the single image, b) add or not another image, and if so, which one or ones. (How unfortunate that Magnolia677 didn't just remove the POV image before we had to come to this, but the image issues at that article have gone on for two years, so let's get everything on the table, else it will pop up in yet another discussion on yet another forum.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back if that means removing my declarations, go for it, no problem ... I only entered them as I thought it would make it clearer what the bullet format was. Once you restructure, I can easily (or not) re-enter -- feel free to delete and move at will. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back Well, another possibility is to remove the whole first section about the solo image, since Magnolia677 finally removed it (after it came to this). Would that help ? Would it make sense? With the two-year disruption, I fear that if I remove it, that issue will come back as unsettled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the two-pronged RFC, to establish global consensus for both -- 1) the sole burger restaurant image, and 2) whether to add other images and which -- was in fact necessary, as I suspected. Glad to know it's not a further waste of our time. Re your claim to feel threatened and intimidated, see the post just above the one you link; review your treatment of other editors for several years across several Minnesota town/city talk pages, and then User talk:SandyGeorgia and User talk:David Fuchs are that-a-way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your caption is unrealistic and may bias editor's decisions. Please wait for others to comment about the appropriateness promotional captions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know it shouldn't have been done and that even good-intentioned attempts at humor can be derailing, and personally I get really irritated when editors try to be funny in serious discussions and I hate to encourage that behavior...but that edit made me laugh for so long, I simply had to appreciate it. Sorry. Schazjmd(talk)15:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion above. Stop edit warring, and stop misinterpreting a mere suggestion (taken from earlier captions). Please add back the sources and stop editing other editor's posts, and stop edit warring during an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your caption is unrealistic and may bias editor's decisions. Please wait for others to comment about the appropriateness of your promotional caption. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK… this whole thing has gotten so out of hand that I now must support the extreme boomerang position… omit all mention of food and restaurants. No pics, no text… nada. Place sanctions on the article to enforce it. Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar I share your frustration, and could also support this option, but the image issues at Minneapolis and Minnesota articles have extended beyond food and restaurants, so I fear that would be just a bandaid to the underlying problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We now have an admin altering captions for humor (funny, but it encouraged further disruption and led to an edit war over captions), when the RFC is about images, and captions were only suggestions. Could we come to consensus to remove all captions in the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Add images section, so we can focus on images and stop the edit warring and editing of other people's posts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been ten days since any new feedback here, and there remains the possibility that a second (clarifying) RFC will be needed. Does anyone care if I put a Request to close at WP:AN? Or do you want to run the full 30 days? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Apologies LegalSmeagolian, I missed your reply/question. The issue is lessened now that the page has been protected from IP edits, but see the last three items on the talk page. There have been multiple disputes going on, including over sourcing, original research and POV language. The film promotes Serbian nationalism so has had negative responses from Bosnian activists, and the editing disputes have been over how this should be framed (e.g. how much space to give the criticisms and the director's responses to these). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried raising this at the talk page but got no response.
The lead is primarily trivia about Donald Trump's run that seems inappropriate for a general article on the 2024 Primary. As I noted on the talk pages, the content about him is almost two-thirds to equal length of previous Republican primary leads.
Looking further today, the Vice President speculation section isnt much better as it is focused again on Donald Trump.
IMO the 3rd paragraph of the lede should be chopped outright. "If this", "If that", just dumb speculative trivia. Also remove Tucker Carlson form the list of declined candidates, his comments about "running" should not be taken at face value. He's a pundit Zaathras (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the latter part of that comment. Tucker Carlson is in the "Declined to be candidates" section and has been listed there for a while. Do you take him at face value when he says he won't run for president? If not, that would imply that you think that he might run for president. --Metropolitan90(talk)16:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Fox News pundit was never a serious candidate. Carlson "declining" to run is as meaningful as me saying I'm not running for the spot. Zaathras (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case where waiting for the situation to be better resolved would help write that level of detail in the lede. At this point, there's only two affirmed candidates (Trump and Haley) along with the strong indicators that DeSantis will also be running. And that's all that's needed. Explaining details around any of those can be discussed in some depth in the body, but at this point, that lede is just far too long for as little is known. Masem (t) 17:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the time has come for this article to be re-written (and trimmed). Now that we are beginning to get “official” candidates, we can cut back on some of the more speculative content (such as listing people who might run… we can always add them back if they do decide to run). I would also cut the “declined to run” section entirely (its undue fluff and a lot of these were never serious contenders). Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's not surprising that Wikipedia has fandom-level intricate detail in an article like this ("politics is sports for nerds" as they say). It was created before there were any candidates in the running, and there's still only two (one of which is a massive media magnet and a former president, so it's not surprising more of the coverage is about him). Thoughts: cut out the "declined" section entirely (anyone can be asked if they want to be president; that doesn't mean it should be included here when they say no). Cut the "potential" section or transform it into a single sentence of prose elsewhere. Don't know why we need vice presidential speculation before there are even candidates for the primary. Cut endorsements of people who aren't even running yet. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish collaboration
The article Collaboration with the Axis powers has a section on Jewish collaboration that deals exclusively with individual Polish Jews. I am not an expert in this history but this seems undue. The article is oversize and we're removing entire regions and countries. Eyes welcome. Elinruby (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you move this section? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC
It was moved to Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany, which was formerly a redirect - although at a glance I'd say article / stub is in terrible shape (because the section that was moved into it was in pretty bad shape.) The first sentence is a particular problem due to misusing a source that probably isn't good enough for that statement in the first place. --Aquillion (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty bad article as it is now, the Jewish collaboration needs to be put in some context. Naming persons such Gancwajch and Rumkowski in one sentence, on the same level without any context is misleading and in my personal opinion harmful for Rumkowski. Marcelus (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently these individuals have been dead too long for it to be a BLP violation. At least, I got shut down at BLPN when I tried to raise the issue there. The people who said this are probably right; I don't usually do anything with BLPs. Nonetheless, I would not like it if my grandfather were called a collaborator.
It's even worse than that, though. Piotrus and I agreed on moving the text to the former redirect rather than simply removing it, in my case because my focus is on the broader article but hey, if it could be fixed, then fine. But somebody else felt I wasn't complying fast enough and reverted the text back in and refused to remove it again. So all this badly sourced UNDUE (see current RSN thread) is now in Wikipedia *twice* and nobody but me is working on it. And I am sure as squeak not the person to determine whether Jan Grabowski is correct about whether pretty much the only source that isn't getting scoffed at at RSN, failing verification or in Polish only is a fringe theory.
(a little later) in fairness, some fail verification and some cannot be verified on Google. Those two may we'll be fine. Elinruby (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article deals with organized collaboration and/or collaboration on a massive scale; the cases covered in the "Jewish collaboration" section are mostly individuals and local crime organizations, so questions of DUE-ness are due. In addition, the section is poorly-sourced (see article and talk). François Robere (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, if the same level of detail were to be adopted for other categories (listing individuals) then some sections would have to be a dozen screens long. Marcelus (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly we shouldn’t list every individual, but some individuals’ collaboration might be particularly noteworthy, so removing ALL content about individuals would create its own problems. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple of sentences about a Hungarian general who made a secret side deal that sucked Hungary into the war on the Nazi side. I think he should be an exception because look at how much power he apparently had, but somebody else objected on the basis that Hungary joined the Axis. However it hadn't yet, until this guy made his secret deal and the prime minister committed suicide, so think he's a valid exception. There's another definition of collaboration in the lede of Wartime collaboration that I agree with, that basically says that the power or influence of the person is a factor. I probably should add it t to this article.
Lord HeeHaw might be another exception based on influence, but there were probably enough people like him for an article specifically about them, I dunno. All these things are discussable, especially now that I've started to try to address all the volunteers in name only, another huge problem, and another editor has split off collaboration with Japan and is working on untangling all that stuff. Bottom line we are less stressed for space now that we were the last time I commented on this, and If you want to add Lord HeeHaw in a section that could be split off later, I guess that's OK. But if you do, I am adding Louis-Ferdinand Céline, who was also notorious. And wasn't there a Tokyo Rose? Too tired to opine on this right now. Elinruby (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could use some backup please. Somebody please review the work I've done in the dedicated section at Collaboration with the Axis powers. I've checked the sourcing since I tried to delete the section and no, I still don't think the scolding I got was well-founded (see lengthy archived talk page threads), and I narrowly avoided a three-month block the last time I touched Poland in the Holocaust, for allegedly white-washing Nazis or some such. (see Azov Battalion) Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Muhajirs (Pakistan) has been subject to massive edit wars going back years, mostly to do with POV pushing and inserting of promotional edits. This article has been semi-protected at least twice from IPs in the past year because of this. Now, registered users are resuming these promotional edits in violation of NPOV and sourcing them to mostly personal commentaries as well as to sources that contradict the claims of Muhajirs being an "ethnicity." Additionally there is vandalism of reliably sourced edits in order to give Urdu-speaking muhajirs priority over non-urdu ones. To give the main example, here is a promotional paragraph on the intro cited to unreliable sources, at least one which contradicts the claims of Muhajirs being an "ethnicity." Have a look please:
"The Muhajirs are the most educated, and affluent ethnic group in Pakistan.[1][2] Because of this, they constituted a influential community in the earlier years of post-partition Pakistan.[3]"
As you can see the above text is highly promotional. The current editor repeatedly inserting promotional edits while removing reliably sourced edits such as the infobox seems to have a opinionated connection to the subject as seen on their profile page. Sylvester Millner (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the issue of misrepresenting sources. The previous article lead introduces Muhajirs to be multi-ethnic and multi-lingual. Now this misleading intro, in contrast to sources, claims them to be an ethnicity and speaking one language while being able to speak other languages, rather than those "other languages" being their native language. Please review the quoted text first and see the sources as well as the misquoting of sources.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough to immediately know what's right here; I would need to evaluate what the sources say vs what's being stuck in the article, and I've no time, sorry. Barely had time for Wikipedia this past week. Vanamonde (Talk)04:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look and it is going to be really hard for anyone to figure this out. I must say though that, since the Mujahir refers to people who migrated to Pakistan at the time of partition, it seems logical that they will be of many different ethnicities since the migrations were from many different parts of India. Unless I've misunderstood this entirely. I also notice that the main editors involved are apparently deeply interested only in this topic. Not that there's anything wrong with that! --RegentsPark (comment) 19:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra I do not have time to get into rest of difference of opinions. Here I would like to comment as far as above quoted contested sentence is concerned it is likely to be contextual to the next sentence. What it needs is quotations from the citation to see if it supports the statement. If sources mean to say some thing like ".. At the time of partition/ independence, the Muhajirs were the most educated .. hence influential in that era" (emphasis on past tense) would sound factual and not promotional to me if supported by properly sourced citation.
As stated earlier my above comment is limited to above discussed sentence only. The other user seem to be @ article t/p much before this user IMO they give more time @ t/p point by point discussion. Bookku (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deepfriedokra, yes I have. It's on the article talk page. I also notified them of this discussion. We currently have an issue of not just citing personal commentaries and other unreliable sources, but now even misrepresenting sources. For example the infobox citations. None of the sources claim Gujarati, Rajesthani or any other are "defunct languages" spoken by the Muhajirs. See and tell me if I missed anything. The user also displays a phony award on their profile related to the subject, apparently given by themselves. Is that even allowed? They even seem to have a POV connection with the subject from their profile, which I linked here. Have a look. User:RegentsPark, I've edited a number of South Asian topics since I joined. This article is one of them. Right now the main issue is the reliability/neutrality and correct representation of the sources, which the current user is seems to be connected to by the looks of their profile. Also I need someone to look at the article intro which I pasted above and bolded in black. It seems like unreliable POV texts and sources. Not at all NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvester Millner (talk • contribs) 03:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The defunct citation in provided in the linguistic groups section. I have provided two for gujaratis and one for the other small groups. FLA-ALP-1 (talk)04:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "vandalism" but removing POV and restoring reliably sourced edits. Your current edit that Gujarati, Rajesthani, East Punjabi Punjabi are "defunct" is not supported by the sources. The lead edit is obviously promotional and needs to be removed as well. It's not reliably sourced.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As of the time of publication of the review, the author was a MA in "Nonprofit Management and Public Policy". The discipline is not remotely relevant to the topic of the book, she was not even pursuing a PhD, and there is nothing to suggest that she had any expertise in the field of sociology/history of Holocaust!
As of now, she is a Professor of Sociology and specializes on the body art of youth. As far away from the contours of Holocaust Studies etc. as possible. So, nothing to suggest that she developed any expertise in the field of sociology/history of Holocaust!
The journal is a fringe-y journal — initiated by someone who took umbrage at American Sociological Association and split away — and is not indexed in any selective bibliometric database. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support inclusion on the following grounds:
the author was a junior scholar and became a regular scholar. She is a reliable. She is also a sociologist reviewing a book by another sociologist
the journal is indeed pretty minor but nothing suggests it is not reliable. According to [9], it is indexed in four "Specialized databases".
WP:BOOK recommends that a reception section about a book should "quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews... Because this section involves opinions, it should be heavy with quotes and citations." Nothing suggests we should exclude reviews from minor scholars/journals, as long as they are properly attributed. An article about a book, in its reception section, should mention all reliable reviews.
One thing that I'll add is that (per WP:PROPORTION and WP:BALANCE) the lenght of quotations etc. might be adjusted, so that for example a review by a well-known expert in a major journal should be longer than that of a minor scholar in a minor journal. But as long as a book review is from a reliable source (not some crazy WP:FRINGE Journal of Flat Earth Studies), it should not be removed (censored) out of an article about a book it is reviewing. Here, WP:POVDELETION is very relevant: "there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary... Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." Is her review "Especially contentious"? If not, it should remain in the article (after some possible rewording/balancing for lenght/etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to her Linkedin profile, she graduated in Sociology and Gender Studies from Rutgers University in 1989, taking six years. Three years later, she received a MS in Nonprofit Management and Public Policy from The New School. She would enroll for her next degree — PhD in sociology — in 2008 at University of Wroclaw. Thus, as of the time of the review, her highest qualification was a MS in Nonprofit Management and Public Policy. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having a hard time finding a faculty page for them on Kean's site. Kind of surprised to not see Adjunct Instructor at Raritan Valley Community College on that Linkedin profile because thats the only place I can find which lists them as faculty[10]. Keen has an adjunct faculty search feature[11], it doesn't show a Lisiunia Romanienko, anyone named Lisiunia, anyone named Romanienko, and the only Lisa is another woman. There is also no rate my professor profile for them at Kean, the only rate my professor profile has them teaching at Farmingdale State College in 2020[12]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Her website gives us the requisite info: she was an "instructor" at Keane from 2014 to 2018; then, she transitioned to some non-academic role for a Pennslyvanian NGO. Further, it sheds some light on her academic training:
"Louisinia State University: Doctorate of Philosophy 1996-2005 Sociology ABD {until Hurricane Katrina)"
Ok, so let me get this straight... At the time she wrote the book review she A. was a PhD student B. was not a professor C. had no academic background in holocaust studies whatsoever D. had never been published before? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. It wasn't her first publication. In 1999 she published: Gender differences in adaptation patterns among scientists in developing nations: exploring the case studies of Ghana, Kenya, and Kerala, link. In 2000 she published Structural impediments to managerial mobility in industrialised nations, link. And
Dual labor market theory and the institutionalization of farmers' markets: marginalized American workers adapting to inhospitable conditions, link. Marcelus (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understood "never been published before" as a query about whether she had been published in any relevant fields. Which of these third-tier publications have some connection — however tangent — to the Holocaust in Poland? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Romanienko's publishing history [13] it appears that this book review was their first piece of published work and they wouldn't publish again until 2007. How an unpublished student came to be writing a book review I don't know, but it doesn't say good things for the reliability of the source which published it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...even if it's not a book about sociology? So if a sociology writes a cookbook, it should be reviewed by another sociologist? Any, she wasn't a sociologist when she wrote the review. (Nor a "junior academic", which is not a real thing.) Levivich (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Tagged in below, commenting up here to address the "unpublished student" thing.) Unpublished students frequently write book reviews; it's a relatively easy, low-ball kind of publication to put on your CV (which is why they aren't counted for much in tenure/hiring discussions). If you're not capable of doing a book review, you aren't going to be able to write a dissertation either. If anything, ABD PhDs are actually pretty well-placed to write them, since becoming ABD typically involves reading all the relevant recent literature in your field. I don't think any of these things really have to do with any individual book review can be seen as a reliable source or not. There are careless reviews written by senior scholars, and attentive ones written by students. I will say that there is enormous pressure on ECRs ("early career researchers", the more common term for "junior academic", which absolutely is a thing, sorry Levivich) to review books overly kindly, since obviously you don't want to piss off a senior academic who might end up being a future coworker (or the deciding vote on a hiring decision).
I also don't think any of this is particularly relevant to this issue. The issue here is "should this review be cited in this article", with some editors being for and some editors being against. The editors against have given many reasons, the editors for have mostly argued against those reasons, rather than showing that this review is particularly fundamental to the article or particularly useful in this context. This doesn't look like a case where there is some possible consensus compromise - either the review is cited, or it isn't. What's the argument for using it? What is it adding to the article that readers won't get if it's not there? If there isn't one, doesn't it just make sense to remove it and move on with writing the encyclopedia? -- asilvering (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem particularly due to me, given the apparent lack of subject-matter expertise in the reviewer. Is there any evidence that this review reflects a broader consensus on Piotrowski's book, or has it just been selected for its positive response? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are really only three reviews (the one being discussed here, and the other two currently cited), there clearly can't be a 'broad consensus' at all. Which leads us back to the question as to why we should be placing so much emphasis (a third of the relevant material) on a work by someone with no apparent subject-matter expertise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump I think there was one more review, now removed and under discussion on the article's talk page. In either case, I fully agree we should not place much emphasis on a minor review. I fully agree about restructuring the content so that reviews by minor scholars in minor journals are not made to look (by lenght, for example) as those by their more expert/senior collegues in more major outlets. My preference would be to expand on what the more senior/expert sources say rather than cut down on what the minor sources say, if given the choice. What I am opposed to, however, is a total and complete removal of the very fact that this review exist from the article in question (unless we judge the source to be unreliable). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: To quote from our article, Klaus-Peter Friedrich writing in Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung criticized the work as an "apologetic" tract.[7] Jan Grabowski characterized the book as a "collection of quotations taken out of context" — among other ahistorical claims, Piotrowski held Jewish "collaborators" responsible for the Holocaust in a major part and blamed Polish antisemitism upon the Jews.Friedrich was entrusted by the Yad Vashem, Bundesarchiv, UoFreiburg, and other affiliated institutions with the editorial responsibilities of two of the four volumes on Poland as part of the magisterial The Persecution and Murder of the European Jews by Nazi Germany, 1933–1945. And, we have a long article on Jan Grabowski.So, we have reviews by domain-experts. Interestingly, the review by Romanienko is quite effusive but I am sure that this is a coincidence. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a journal published by Rice University that publishes papers with titles like "The Difficult Topos In-Between The East Central European Cultural Context as a Post-Coloniality" [15] can be described as "fringe Polish nationalist". Can you articulate what exactly you're basing that assessment on? Volunteer Marek 21:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't published by Rice its just archived there (it went belly up in 2017). It was published by the Polish Institute of Houston as the link you provided makes clear. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now, can you explain why you claimed that it was a "fringe Polish nationalist" journal? What thought process or research led you to make that assertion? Because even a very quick glance at the articles in the journal strongly suggests that it's nothing like that. I mean, "fringe Polish nationalists" don't usually go for post-structuralist discourse and rhetoric. Volunteer Marek 21:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you provided says "Published by: Polish Institute of Houston." How is the "Polish Institute of Houston" not inherently nationalist? Nationalist doesn't mean fascist, they often go for post-structuralist discourse and rhetoric. Also note that the Rice page you linked to is contradictory, the description says that but the documents actually don't they say "The Sarmatian Review is published by the Polish Institute of Houston, an independent, publicly supported not-for-profit foundation."[16] so not published by Rice, independent of it. Looking at the board though I do retract me claim of fringe, obscure appears to be more appropriate. What is your opinion of using a PhD student for a book review? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a strange definition of "nationalist" you have there. Are "Mexican Restaurants" nationalist too? Cuz you know, they also state their nationality in their name. And the description is not contradictory at all if you're familiar how partnerships between academia and "independent" institutes usually work.
Is that rhetorical? The answer is yes, I take it you don't have much of a background in food politics? On the topic at hand we generally consider both author and publisher, especially for something like a book review which is largely the authors own opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so let's be clear: the "Polish Institute of Houston" (affiliated and published by Rice University) is "nationalist" in the same sense that a local Mexican restaurant is "nationalist". Um... then why does that matter? Why are you even bringing it up?
Oh, then that's fine. It's a reliable source, published by Rice University with peer review and an editorial board staffed by professional scholars. Volunteer Marek 23:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, having deja vu... The last time someone tried to play games with me it was you [17][18]. Who was the other editor then? Oh right it was Volunteer Marek, what the hell is going on here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Peer review"? Piotrus said the same thing. We're talking about book reviews here, and book reviews aren't peer reviewed. And "staffed by professional scholars" also doesn't matter when the author isn't a scholar. Romanienko was a PhD student in 2000 when she wrote this review. When PhD students write reviews of books written by established scholars, what do you think the chances are that the review will be negative? Or even a little bit negative? Also, what qualifies a PhD student to review a work by a scholar, under any circumstances? Is it really a "review" or is it just a "write-up", reporting on the fact of publication, as opposed to offering a qualified opinion on the quality of the book. Levivich (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know within my own field they aren't, I think its the same for most. Book reviews work almost the opposite of most articles, they begin with the journal reaching out to the author and requesting that they write a review. The author then sends their review in and its published after being reviewed by an editor (often the same one who requested it). It generally is not sent out for peer review. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it is up to the journal to decide whether to send a book review to an external reviewer or just review it in-house. We don't know what happened in this case. At a minimum it will have been read carefully by an editor; nothing is published sight-unseen. Since peer review is not a fact-checking process except in limited disciplines like mathematics, it is hard to see the difference. Zerotalk03:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the lack of peer review means that we treat book reviews (along with editorials) as opinion content, most of the time that makes little difference because the author is a subject matter expert and as such their opinion is notable. The flip side is that book reviews by non-subject matter experts have almost no uses on wikipedia (as with all opinion pieces by non-subject matter experts). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So now we're down to arguing that book reviews shouldn't be included in Wikipedia articles on... books... because some people think they're not "peer reviewed". Well, that kind of speaks for itself. Volunteer Marek 05:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is arguing that. What has been suggested however it that we take into consideration the subject-matter expertise of the reviewer when deciding whether to include such content. We want 'expert opinion', not just 'opinion'. Same as with Wikipedia content generally... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying very hard, per WP:AGF, to imagine that if Romanienko's review had been less than enthusiastic about Piotrowski's book, the same contributors would be making the same arguments here. Evidently I need to try harder still, because I can't seem to convince myself of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My 2c, based on what's been said above: initially, I'm not seeing a strong case for including this review; as another user said above, some editors are presenting reasons why it shouldn't be used (e.g. it's by someone who wouldn't have been considered a subject-matter expert at the time, there's no evidence it was peer-reviewed, and in a contentious topic area we should use the best sources and not borderline ones) and other editors are mostly arguing against those (e.g., it's possible that, deviating from the norm, this specific review secretly was peer-reviewed) but not really making much of a case for why it does need to be included. I understand desire to represent the full spectrum of views, but if other reviews are by more established authorities and are negative, and only this one of questionable quality is positive, we need to be wary of false balance. However, if there are other more reliable sources that do attach weight to the review / its viewpoint, that might suggest that some summary of the parts of it which other works attach weight to could indeed be due. So, what works consider Romanienko's view/review significant (one by Messina is suggested above), and how reliable are they? -sche (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I can't see where any of the sources use the phrase "race privilege" at all, leading me to believe this is just WP:OR designed to grind an axe around Japanese people. — Czello13:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it discrimination to judge my editing with my user page? You wouldn't have doubted my editing if I hadn't revealed on the user page that I was a resistance nationalist. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be entirely OR and is not suitable for mainspace. @Mureungdowon: Are you willing to draftify your article so you can work on devloping it and getting feedback from other editors? The alternative is likely deletion. ––FormalDude(talk)13:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an acceptable feedback, I'll accept it. However, there is racial privilege similar to the white privilege Japanese have in their relationship with Korean/Chinese other Asians. The content must be supplemented in the article about this part. It would be nice if other users who are interested in social justice could add it to the article. Mureungdowon (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest issue is that "Racial privilege" is a term that isn't in any of the sources. As far as I can see this topic is WP:OR. That's why you should take this back to draft format to expand on it. — Czello14:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mureungdowon: There's already an article about this topic at Racism in Japan. If there's a significant omission, then it can be corrected by using WP:Reliable sources that provide the information. We don't come up with our own conclusions based on what we think is true, we don't use Wikipedia articles to promote social justice, and we do not under any circumstances express contempt or dislike for racial or ethnic groups. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a translator error. There is racism against the Japanese in South Korea. But it is insignificant compared to discrimination against other Asian races, and rather there are more Japanese ethnic privileges that offset it. The problem is that when we say anti-Japanese sentiment, Westerners users take it as racism. For example, South Koreans demanding compensation from the Japanese government, victims of the past World War II or anti-Japanese sentiment by South Korean feminists are not racist. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, 반일 generally does not mean racism. Racism against Japanese in South Korea is called 혐일. However, English language does not distinguish the two. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. This category is not used only for Korean racism against Japanese people. It is even used in articles unrelated to Korean racism, such as Yasukuni shrine, Japanese war crimes, events related to Japan's attempts to colonize Korea, or articles related to law, which Japan has done unilaterally wrong. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This category is not used only for Korean racism against Japanese people. It is even used in articles unrelated to Korean racism, such as Yasukuni shrine, ... Why?! Rotary Enginetalk01:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't so much that those articles aren't examples of "anti-Japanese racism", but that they aren't examples of any definition of "anti-Japan", and they aren't... you know... in Korea. Reliable sources do not describe Nippon Steel, Mitsubishi Group, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as being "Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea", and yet, somehow, they're all in that category. There's been a failure, by some editors, somewhen, to understand WP:Categorization. "Category:Anti-Fooness in Barland" isn't mean to include everything that makes some Barlanders upset at Foo. Rotary Enginetalk03:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LA Times in Chloe Cole article in regards to the Kaiser lawsuit
There is currently a discussion at Chloe Cole#LA Times lawsuit opinion on whether the LA Times, which provides both Cole and this specific lawsuit WP:SIGCOV is WP:DUE source for the following paragraph:
Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik described the lawsuit as "part of a concerted right-wing attack on LGBTQ rights, in which the health of transgender youth is exploited as a pretext for bans on gender-affirming care" and stated it "incorporates what seem to be misleading or inaccurate descriptions of developments in the gender dysphoria treatment field."[1]
honestly I think the entire article in its current state needs attention from uninvolved editors experienced with NPOV and FRINGE. I just looked through it and there's not a single reference to any criticisms this activist has had. I'm not going to repeat anything that has already been said, but in my assessment it's highly unlikely that a notable activist on such a highly controversial topic hasn't received a single criticism throughout her career, and I think that's a stronger sign that something is off here than any individual discussion I could point to. I'm mostly staying out of it because I'm even less experienced than the editor above me and honestly I don't need a 600 page ANI discussion in my life, but it's becoming a problem and shutting up about it is not the way to solve that problem. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The starting paragraph states without any proof that "Most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis". I am not aware of any such survey to make such a conclusion. Given that this article is such an important one, I don't think such strong assertions should be made without any evidence to back it up.
The source points to Gorski's article but there is nothing to back this claim in the article itself.
There's more sources in the article, the summary at the top is supposed to summarize the article. I hope this isn't people responding to the FBI. Please note it is the CIA who deal with foreign stuff not the FBI and they are both to a quite large extent political in their 'findings'. The CDC and peer reviewed articles are the right place to look at. If you want a less scientific take have a look at the Snopes articles on this. In June 2021 they were saying the lab theory should be properly investigated, but then in July they had moved to why scientists didn't think it came from a lab, and then to why occams razor has not shifted in favor of a lab release. Factcheck.org says similarly. The sentence is neutral given the reliable sources. Personally I guess there there is a vague chance of a leak even with the evidence against but if it did it was some precursor a long time before and was nowhere near so infectious until it mutated in the general population into the very infectious form, probably in November 2019. NadVolum (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is probably wrong but I definitely wouldn't start classifying the lab theory as pseudoscience or extraordinary in any way. There hasn't been full access to everything and there's lots of unanswered questions. Just that having the FBI's unsupported word is about as lame as I can think of and I practically count it as evidence of the opposite of what it says. NadVolum (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Baker's claims have much merit. He seems to be upset that Wikipedia doesn't treat his article as a hagiography.The negative material is well sourced and I don't think it is undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a WP:COIN posting is probably in order, if the IP doesn't want to admit to any COI. And therefore a lil notice on the talk page of those pages and a request that this person not edit the article directly. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)18:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an article subject complaining about their biography is a COIN issue. This happens all the time and is usually handled at BLPN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)
The mentioned article cites the historian Hasanli, who possesses a clear conflict of interest as he openly disavows the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide, [20] which has been widely acknowledged by the scholarly community. Furthermore, considering the ongoing hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is pertinent to note that Hasanli served the Azerbaijani government for a decade. Given his evident partiality towards one side, it is advisable to exclude him from the page's sources as his inclusion would compromise the objectivity and credibility of the encyclopedia. Therefore, I strongly advise against using such sources that lack neutrality and undermine the scholarly standards expected in an encyclopedia.Nocturnal781 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For most countries of the world, Wikipedia accepts articles for villages of these countries. There are categories for these villages in Bangladesh or North Macedonia., However there is an exception which covers the two Romanian talking countries Romania the Republic of Moldova.
I would expect Wikipedia to apply the same rules to Kall countries. There should not be second hand countries having villages unworthy to have a separate article. All information regarding these villages are included in the articles if the communes in which they are included. This is incorrect as communes are administrative units, whereas villages are settlements.
I suggest that there should be a consistent approach with the same rules applicable all countries of the world/ At present the same rule is applied to big countries, such as Russia, and small countries such a Liechtenstein. What is wrong with Romania and the Republic of Moldova?Afil (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg?lang=en)
.jpg?lang=en)