Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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

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

Nathan Phillips (activist)

Lengthy discussion about subjects military service. Seems a bit of whitewashing and proclaiming POV when anyone makes a well sourced edit. Seems the sources get scrutinized, which is good. However also seems when sources and citations meet wiki reliability standard reverts to claiming POV. The concern is reports of subjects “Vietnam vet” and “Vietnam veteran” claims are being whitewashed and undue weight is being given to editors who appear to want the subject is a more favorable light. Using the word veracity to paraphrase multiple reports that were sourced is not POV. Highly concerning. Also as soon as someone makes an edit that is sourced but less than favorable on the subject, proclaiming POV is definitely not wp:agf.0pen$0urce (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it kind of seems like you're just accusing other editors of bias. That's not the point of this board. What content would you like to see changed and why? Nblund ^talk 02:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That’s an opinion, elaborated on issues with the article and how the article is being aggressively policed and seems to give undue weight to one POV. Very active reverting on sourced edits. As soon as a new contributor comes along, makes edits, sources edits, they are accused of POV. Would think be ideal if a larger cross section of the community get involved and chime in. The talk page is lengthy and goes in circles.0pen$0urce (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you said what article is under discussion. The link in the heading is to a disambiguation page. Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC) [Fixed 10 April 2019. Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)]

Lot of back and fourth several folks tried to contribute sourced mention of the subjects embellishment or exaggeration of Vietnam service. Current edit states Vietnam Era Veteran, however misleading and subject is did not serve in Vietnam and did not meet the criteria to earn Vietnam Service Medal. I came along and saw folks were trying to make edits but every source got stonewalled Unreasonable sourcing demands So I figured ok maybe the souyrces are the issue fine, lets see what I can find, found about 3 carefully curated sources, tried to be careful in my wording stay NPOV, and almost immediately was accused of POV edit and reverted. Just seeking additional input here--0pen$0urce (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Again: this board is not the place to air grievances about other editors. It's about content. Why does it matter if whether or not he qualified to earn a Vietnam service medal? Can you link to a diff or say what you want the article to say and what sources you want to cite? Looking at the talk page, it actually appears that there are a fair number of experienced editors participating in the conversation. Nblund ^talk 01:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

”Again”, who’s airing grievances? Asking the community via this, npov notice board, to review the military service section for npov. I ask that you keep it civil and assume good faith.0pen$0urce (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The military service section should include sourced criticisms of subjects “Vietnam vet” portrayal, not just a white washed he’s a Vietnam era veteran. Several reports that subject including social media video that was reported on that subject portrayed himself inaccurately as a “Vietnam vet”. Even mention of those reports gets whitewashed, seems very POV. There happy. Geese no wonder Wikipedia struggles to attract new editors no wonder. Civility lacking for starters. 0pen$0urce (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There are no "civility" issues here, so stop with your transparent attempts to weaponize that. You have no suggested edits, only "it's biased". That doesn't work for us. You've had multiple experienced editors tell you that you're wrong. Your comments very clearly show that you are grievance-focused. I think you need to drop the stick and move on.--Jorm (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please focus on content not other contributors. Again keep it civil0pen$0urce (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, @0pen$0urce: Constantly accusing others of incivility is itself somewhat uncivil. I would second (or fourth, or fifth, really) what other editors are telling you: it seems WP:UNDUE to focus on this obscure question, and you're not going to convince anyone by endlessly bludgeoning this issue. It's probably not worth your time to continue tilting at this windmill. Nblund ^talk 15:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting comment about me. “Constantly”. “Undue and obscure”whelp that’s subjective. As well as arbitrarily proclaiming a source is a blog. Reported criticisms of the subjects portrayal of his Vietnam service. Just about every major news outlet that reported Phillips a “Vietnam Veteran” retracted after his service records were recovered under the Nathan Stanard. Additional reported criticisms, some originating from military focused news outlets (Stars and Stripes, Military Times, and yes Task and Purpose). These sources specialize in military centric journalism and can clearly distinguish the “Vietnam Era Veteran, “Vietnam Vet”,”"I'm a Vietnam vet, you know," Phillips said. "I served in the Marine Corps from '72 to '76. I got discharged May 5, 1976. I got honorable discharge and one of the boxes in there shows if you were peacetime or... what my box says that I was in theater. I don't talk much about my Vietnam times. I usually say 'I don't recollect. I don't recall,' you know, those years.-Nathan Phillips Facebook video talking to Native Youth Alliance 2018, as reported by Task and Purpose, re-published Buisness Week “ Not unreasonable to ask folks to comment on content and keep it civil.0pen$0urce (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI, 0pen$0urce provides only blog posts as sources and when they're told they're no good, they cast civility aspersions and template people with {{uw-harrass-1}}. So that's what you're getting into when you tell them that they're wrong.--Jorm (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

2nd request, please focus on content not other contributors and let’s keep it civil. Can you pleas provide reliable sources, not just subjective opinions that task and Purpose is a “blog” and furthermore that an article written by Task and Purpose’s Editor in Chief then republished by Business Week is merely a blog. I spent significant time researching task and Purpose. Several articles about the company in the Atlantic, huff post. There mission statement is Task & Purpose is a digital news and culture publication dedicated to issues that matter to veterans, service members, and the civilians who care about them. We aren’t just trying to speak to the next great generation of military veterans, we are actively trying to build it. If someone can find a reliable, not subjective source that task and Purpose is a blog. Sure they publish work from contributors. Proclaiming “blog” doesn’t mean it’s a blog and starting to give the perception of status quo stonewalling amongst other things going on here0pen$0urce (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I generically side with OpenSource on this one (as have others, see talk page). The fact that Mr. Phillips has indeed in the past claimed to be a "Vietnam Veteran" (which he is not) and not a "Vietnam-era Veteran" (which he is) is of note and reflects on his credibility. Likewise, there he has made confusing remarks about being a "recon ranger" that were later clarified. This establishes that he's loose/inaccurate with his choice of words, again, leading to credibility issues (see also his lies at the 2019 Lincoln Memorial incident). This is a WP:BLP and must meet those standards. Below is a closer attempt to address the issues OpenSource is trying to address:

Phillips entered the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves on 20 May 1972. During his time in the military, he served as a refrigerator technician in Nebraska and California and was trained as an anti-tank missileman. On 5 May 1976, Phillips was discharged as a private following disciplinary issues, including three AWOL incidents. In accordance with the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Phillips is classified as a Vietnam era veteran

Initial media reports in the wake of the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation were inconsistent as to the particulars of Phillip’s military service, leading to reports that conflicted with his actual service. Several media outlets erroneously reported Phillips was a “Vietnam Veteran” then subsequently issued retractions or clarifications. Contributing to the confusion, in an interview, Phillips stated he was a "recon ranger". He has made multiple statements since that video in which he only claims to be a Vietnam era veteran and clarified his "recon ranger" remarks as a description of his actions during a protest, not that he served in that capacity during his military service.

References

Hopefully that would remove the T&P reference while giving both context to his discipline issues (without whitewashing) and confusing remarks. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: @Jorm: Thoughts? Buffs (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that your contention that the statements "reflect on his credibility" are kind of the problem. It makes this seem like a WP:TROJAN Horse that implies a statement of opinion without simply coming out and citing a person who criticized Phillips. The reliable sources suggest that the initial reports got it wrong (which doesn't reflect on Phillips at all) and Snopes concludes that there is no evidence that he intentionally tried to mislead people about his military service. I'm not sure that really warrants two paragraphs in a fairly short article. Nblund ^talk 20:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

So, there are two issues here. The first is the fact that the media got a LOT wrong in that incident (that's pretty well acknowledged on all sides). The second is that he's also loose with the facts. In the 2019 January incident, he made numerous statements that were demonstrably false and others were doubtful/intentionally misleading. This is a pattern of behavior as he DID claim to be both a "Vietnam Veteran" in a video as well as "Recon Ranger". I welcome and accept his clarification on both points, but it's notable that he's loose on accuracy in spontaneous conversation (commonly known as "exaggerating"). Does this assessment seem accurate? Or is it just too much? Your thoughts? @Nblund: Buffs (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts (which you didn't ask for): your whole post looks a lot like original research. He's loose with the facts; he made numerous statements that were demonstrably false and others were doubtful/intentionally misleading; this is a pattern of behavior. Are there multiple reliable sources that say exactly that? The Washington Post said he "misrepresented his military history", but that's not the same thing as saying he's a wholesale liar and lacks all credibility. I welcome and accept his clarification on both points...: it looks as though you're setting yourself up as judge here, and that does bring your motivation into question. I accepted your edit on the article talk page (and why did you ping Nblund and Jorm here, rather than on the article talk page), because it seemed a good faith summary of some (marginally) interesting facts, but it seems, as Nblund says, that its true purpose is to use verifiable and marginally interesting facts to imply things which are not verifiable. Scolaire (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

So, 3 points here you bring up.

1. Why I pinged them here: I pinged them here because they responded here. Their input pertained to the matters discussed on this page.
2. "it looks as though you're setting yourself up as judge here" Wow. I'm offering a substantiated opinion on the subject that is widely held/supported by third-party sources (see below). That's just putting the facts out there. As I said before,
3. I'm NOT saying he's he's a wholesale liar and lacks all credibility. I am saying that he exaggerates, like some people are prone to do; That isn't WP:OR. "He’s all over the map on his facts." His statements about himself/his actions need to be taken with a grain of salt. Since his own perception doesn't align with what actually happened, we need to give his claims context. For example "'That mass of young men surrounded me and the folks that were with me,' Phillips said, adding that when he did finally find a path to walk through the 'clear space, a person was there. I was blocked.'" when he actually waded into the middle of the students intentionally beating a drum a few feet from a teenager's face.

How I personally feel about Mr. Phillips is hardly the point. WP is supposed to be based on what reliable, third party sources say about the subject. Since these opinions are indeed part of the mainstream, it's important to both include his statements about military service, the errors, and any points of later clarification. To do otherwise is misleading. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to be a little more circumspect, and use better judgement, when citing sources in a biographical article. Looking at the sources you've cited in your comment immediately above:

• The first is a polemical opinion piece, in which the author dismisses the mainstream media as "leftist liars". Regardless of whether you agree with that opinion, it should be obvious to a competent editor that this is not a suitable source of fact for a serious encyclopedic project, much less for a biography, where particularly strict sourcing standards apply.
• The second is a news piece from the Washington Post, and thus an appropriate source, and your summary seems accurate enough.
• The third source is a CNN interview with Phillips, which does not include or imply the gloss you provided. (That is, the source says nothing about any discrepancy between Phillips's statements and his actions—that is your addition, but your text makes it look as if the source directly supports it).
• The fifth source is an opinion piece, which incidentally you have completely misrepresented; rather than calling Phillip's honesty into question, the gist of the piece was the link (in the author's view) between the actions of the Covington students and those of other icons of white supremacy.

So please, if you're going to cite sources, review this site's guidelines. Specifically, claims about living people require high-quality sources. Opinion pieces should not be used to support assertions of fact. And you need to honestly represent the content of sources you cite—that is not negotiable. You note, correctly, that Wikipedia must reflect what "reliable, third party sources say about the subject", but your input here is at odds with that goal. I have no opinion on the underlying content question, but any discussion needs to be grounded in site policy. MastCell ^Talk 16:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, MastCell, let's keep it civil and avoid personal attacks, shall we?

The point of my argument wasn't "let's just include these". Someone said I was conducting WP:OR; this was a demonstration that my opinions were not and could be sourced. #1 was from the Chicago Tribune. Regardless of the author's opinion of "mainstream media", that doesn't discount it as a credible source FOR THAT OPINION. Acceptable: Author ABC opined "XYZ was the sole reason...". Unacceptable: XYZ was the sole reason... It doesn't mean that it cannot be used, even in a WP:BLP. #2 is ok. #3/#4 are merely records of what Mr. Phillips said and how inaccurate they were is CLEARLY indicated in the article. But, I'm not citing their specific opinions. Only the facts of what was actually said. While some might view the incident and statements through various lenses, the facts (not their assessments) are the same in these accounts and can be used as such to document the facts; they have the reputation of these reputable publications behind them. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• The purposed text seems to be an improvement with decent sources. I think it should be fine to add it. PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  I appreciate the feedback! Buffs (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC:Accusations of Anti-Semitism as an ideology of Hezbollah from some very POV pro-Israel editors

discussion started by non-ECP editor in violation of ARBPIA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Please read Talk:Hezbollah#Anti-Semitism to find the discussion prior to this one before commenting. Thank you :) ) -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Previous Discussion on Talk:Hezbollah#Anti-Semitism Anti-Semitism It seems like there has been considerable debate on the subject of the alleged anti-Semitic ideology of Hezbollah, but this is by no means a shared consensus either on this website or in the global community as a whole. I propose removing this from the ideology panel, as anti-Zionism and Islamism are the more accurate descriptions for this group that are widely shared by most commentators. This website need not be in the business of supporting disputable claims. --Ðrdak (T) 10:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Beyond the bombing of Argentinean Jewish targets, there is no lack of reputable sources calling the organization antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC) I agree. I hold the belief that the notion of Hezbollah being anti-semitic is purely based off of the party/group being against the ideology of zionism which itself would be like saying anti-nazism is anti-germanism, even though everyone knows thats just ridiculous. Being a controversial statement, it is also only given one source which i think is too little to give them such an extreme label. I have also seen videos and read various articles about how Hezhollah has got a good relationship with both lebanese christians and jews. There are also some western jews that hold positive views towards Hezbollah. I agree that the label either needs more comprehensive non-biased sourcing or should be removed! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Straight from the horse's mouth: [1]. “WarKosign” 11:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC) For most of us there is no way to validate what is being said in the video. Not only because it is a sound-file on top of a picture, but because a lot of us dont speak arabic and there are no subtitles! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC) There is a translation in the video description and a link to the full article. In addition there is a long list of sources quoted here. There can't be any doubt that there is a non-fringe POV that Hezbollah is antisemitic. “WarKosign” 12:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC) It is rather the mainstream view, present in reputable RS. Hezbollah itself doesn't really contest this (nor does antisemitism have the associated stigma it has in the West).Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC) It's a mistake to assume that the prime minister of Israel is simply delivering objective information about the leader of a group opposed to his foreign policy goals, another mistake to assume that an editorial writer is doing the same. There are scant non-opinion stories about Hezbollah in English-language sources but that seems to be par for the course for groups opposed to the US/UK. Some closer investigation is warranted: [2], [3] Asasinarosa (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Hezbollah is antisemitic in the same way water is wet. It is a definitional thing. This isn't up for debate. All scholars on the topic of Hezbollah and on the topic of antisemitism agree on this topic. --GHcool (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC) This is a rather absolutist statement that is, by its very nature, demonstrably false. Surely if "all" scholars on this topic agreed, we wouldn't be having these debates regularly. The point isn't whether an individual editor believes Hezbollah is anti-semitic in their heart of hearts, but rather whether this adheres to NPOV guidelines and the avoidance of bias in articles on this site whenever possible. Ðrdak (T) 03:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC) The New "Anti Semitism" by Carlos Latuff -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC) What is your point? Carlos Latuff is an example of an anti-semite claiming to be merely legitimately critical of Israel. “WarKosign” 15:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Ship to Gaza by Carlos Latuff -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Israeli Side vs Palestinian Side by Carlos Latuff -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC) 04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC) The Zionists' Gaza Ghetto by Carlos Latuff -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC) The Zionist Who Cried Wolf by Carlos Latuff -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC) I don't think your source is NPOV enough. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Unless they officially declare themselves as Anti-Semitic, they are just Anti-Zionist, because Anti-Zionism ≠ Anti-Seminitism. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC) This is not the place for editorial cartoons. Please read WP:NOTFORUM. --GHcool (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Hezbollah "Anti-Semitism" (Bullshit) Two of the refs cited in "Reference #6" disprove the claim, and the other two have no proof of anything at all. Any editor with the ability to edit this page, and a modicum of intestinal fortitude, should read the references and delete "Anti-Semitism" from the list of ideologies. How the fuck did this garbage even come to be included in a so-called encyclopedia??? 174.89.132.146 (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC) See #Anti-Semitism above.“WarKosign” 11:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC) Which source disproves it ? Care to copy a quote here ? The two sources that I can check support the statement strongly, and I can't check the two others. “WarKosign” 11:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC) Hi. When I was reading the blue-locked article about Hezbollah, an organisation which has an Anti-Zionist view, I noticed Anti-Semitism listed as one of the ideologies in the infobox. I looked at the article's talk page and found that a discussion was already underway. The editors who supported labelling Hezbollah as Anti-Semitic were highly acclaimed editors who were very pro-Zionist, and one of them had even explicitly written on their user page that they are 'dedicated' on Wikipedia is to promote the views of the Israeli Zionist Government! I am quite concerned that the activities and high approval of these users on this website will push towards leaning to a pro-Israeli or even Zionist bias. Could somebody please help? Thank you! ^ - ^ -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC) They are User:GHcool and User:WarKosign. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC) I am writing this because Anti-Zionism ≠ Anti-Semitism. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC) I've looked at several articles regarding Hezbollah, and the statements about antisemitism are very well-sourced, to scholarly books on the subject as well as newspaper articles and statements from Hezbollah leaders and spokespeople. Generally, if a group claims not to be something but the preponderance of independent sources say they are, then the article should reflect the independent sources, while still noting the group's denial. That appears to be the case here. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Concur. You can be both anti-Semitic AND anti-Zionist, just anti-Semitic, or just anti-Zionist. The terms are not exclusive. As to their applicability in this instance, they are well-sourced and should stay. While someone may want to push an agenda/interest, that doesn't mean their edits are incorrect. Focus on the edits, not the editor. Buffs (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC) I'm a little on the fence as to whether (per WP:CATDEF) it's a defining feature of the group because there is a lot of anti-Semitism among Islamic fundamentalist political parties. It also seems like one of the cited books is actually questioning whether Hezbollah is anti-Semitic: the author criticizes Jeffrey Goldberg and others for claiming the group is anti-Semitic without doing much actual reporting on the organization. That said, I think the weight of the scholarly evidence favors the view that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic, and I think we would need more than just one book in order to justify treating it as a contested claim. Nblund talk 18:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC) I think it's of note that they claim to only be anti-Zionist (violently anti-Zionist?) but that their ideology and actions do not seem to make such a distinction. This article provides a generally appropriate balance with examples: Ideology_of_Hezbollah#Jews_and_Judaism Buffs (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Anti-Semitism is not an ideology, although it can be part of one (such as Nazism) and therefore should not be included. The Cambridge Dictionary defines ideology as "a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based."[4] Anti-Semitism is best seen as one of the those beliefs, not the entire set. It would only be something like Jew Watch where the central mission of the organization is anti-Semiiism that it could conceivably be described as its ideology. Some groups have more than one ideology, such as the Democratic Party of the U.S., which represent specific factions. But Hezbollah does not have separate Islamic nationalist, anti-Semitist and anti-Zionist factions competing for control. Also, per Contentious labels, we generally do not describe groups as anti-Semitic but say that they have been described as such. TFD (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC) But Hezbollah just being against the Israeli colonisation of Palestine is definitely not Anti-Semitic. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC) 1) That is not the major reason reliable sources describe Hezbollah and antisemitic, and I really think you should read the ideology article again to get a sense of where that designation is coming from; and 2) it actually doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not. It would appear that the dominant point of view of reliable sources is that Hezbollah is antisemitic. If that doesn't sit right with you, prove that the dominant point of view is something else or at least more controversial than described, by citing reliable sources. Or you could attempt a rational argument that the sources used for the claim are not reliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC) The Jerusalem Post is a highly pro-Zionist news organisation, which promotes the message of supporting the Israeli regime, and is quite likely to spread statements that are not entirely true about its anti-Zionist opponents. I believe that a label that is disputed should not be in the ideology section of the organisation's infobox. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC) The Jerusalem Post may or may not be biased, but it's only one of the four sources cited for that claim in the infobox. And if you look at the article section about Hezbollah's views on Jews, there are a dozen more sources. Out of all of these, some might be flawed or biased. But others are, as far as I can tell, very high quality academic sources on Hezbollah and on antisemitism. If you want to dispute the label, I'd recommend finding equally high quality sources that say Hezbollah is not antisemitic. Cherry-picking single sources out of almost 20 and pointing out flaws is not going to work. Even if you succeed in having the Jerusalem Post removed from the article, it wouldn't change the content, since other sources back that material. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC) A large proportion of the Western sources would say that it is. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC) First off, I respectfully ask that =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= removes the caricature they appended here, which is both contentious and irrelevant to this discussion. Second, we're not necessarily naming complete ideologies in that infobox ("the entire set"), which would be nearly impossible in the majority of cases (what does "anti-Western imperialism" means? Is it violent resistance or political action? Does it deny Russian involvement, or accept it? Does it reject Western "soft power", or only "hard power"?), but characterizing them in common terms. If we were aiming for "complete" ideologies, then that box would be near useless: the unique ideology of Hizbollah is "Hizzbollah-ism", and that's a tautology. Keep to the sources, and stop trying to white-wash this organization. François Robere (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC) The article, "ANALYSIS: HEZBOLLAH’S LETHAL ANTI-SEMITISM", in the Jerusalem Post is by Benjamin Weinthal, who is described as "a European correspondent at The Jerusalem Post and a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies." ThinkProgress, which represents moderate Democrats, describes the Foundation as hawkish, interventionist and defensive of right-wing politics in Israel. It is incorrect to assume that the views in the article necessaarily represent the views of the Jerusalem Post and should be attributed to intext to the author. But that rules out its use in the info-box. Equally importantly, Weinthal does not say that anti-Semitism is their ideology. TFD (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC) Here's a few more: [5][6][7][8] François Robere (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC) The ICT source you cite there actually seems pretty solid (although I didn't do a deep dive), but its also a little more nuanced: "it should be emphasized from the outset that despite its anti-Semitic motifs, this attitude is not the most significant tenet of Hizballah philosophy." This is the impression I get from a lot of the higher quality sources. I'm not sure what the norm is around infoboxes - is the norm "include all relevant ideological themes" or "include only the most important"? Nblund talk 16:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC) None of these sources says that anti-Semitism is the ideology of Hezbollah or one of its factions. In fact the first source, "Anti-Semitic Motifs in the Ideology of Hizballah and Hamas," says "it must be stressed that while anti-Semitism is a basic tenet of these movements, it is by no means the central one, as it was in Western racial and religious ideologies." In fact, the title of the article is a hint that the author considers anti-Semitism to be part of the ideology, not the ideology itself. TFD (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC) On the 1st source (ICT) see Nblund's comment; the 2nd source (Fisk) suggests it is common in the organization; the 3rd source (Rosenberg) suggests it's common in the organization's rhetoric; the 4th source (Yaakov) is an example of such in the organization's media arm. François Robere (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC) The topic of this discussion thread is whether or not anti-Semitism should be included in the ideology field in the info-box. You have provided no sources that anti-Semitism is the ideology of Hezbollah. On the other hand, there are plenty of sources including those presented here that their ideology is based on support of the Shi'ite side in territorial disputes in Lebanon. TFD (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC) Most of the sources above are pro-Israel or pro-West perspective. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC) All of the sources are RS. Trying to paint them as political because of location or nationality, as you do, is less than distasteful. François Robere (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC) As previously noted, it's not the ideology of anything, but it is a component of many ideologies, Hizbollah included. The sources already in the source, as well as those first presented during this discussion, clearly paint a picture of an antisemitic organization. There's nothing "anti-Zionist" in bombing a synagogue in Argentina - it's an antisemitic act, pure and simple. François Robere (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC) That is an accusation... -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC) I thought that there should be a NPOV discussion because there was significant dispute on article's talk page about whether the group was just anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic, as well as the organisation officially itself denying it has any antisemitic ideology. I just want the Wikipedia page to be an encyclopaedic article that states what things really are, instead of being another echo of allegations by certain powerful groups and individuals. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC) Presumably that's the reason you added the irrelevant, highly political anti-Israeli caricature some lines above? François Robere (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I thought that Latuff would represent what I was trying to convey. I have removed the cartoon now. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC) A lot of Zionists label anything or anyone against them as anti-semitic... -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC) When Wikipedia is used as a platform by individuals with these POVs, they change a significant amount of content is changed to align with their views, therefore intentionally disrupting the neutrality of this encyclopedia. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Maybe, we should start a RfC. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC) I suggest that this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, because the encyclopedia is being used by editors with pro-Israeli interests to push their views. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Here is a link to the previous discussion on the article's talk page, just in case you were wondering where the discussion is: Talk:Hezbollah#Anti-Semitism :) -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC) I have uploaded a copy of that discussion, above. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC) This discussion is pointless. We have an editor challenging academic sources with..... cartoons? Quite odious cartoons, utilizing old tropes, per reliable aources - [9].Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC) I cannot see why Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. The group can only be undisputably be called anti-Zionist, however, Zionists, who consider any protest against the Israeli state as anti-Semitism, will use this label to delegitimise and degrade any group that engages in such actions. Therefore, I believe that this label is being used on Hezbollah by 'journalists' who are writing such articles to push the agenda of the Western bloc on a group that is in conflict with the West. It is definitely not the role of Wikipedia tfor it to be another medium to echo these rumours. So this label, when not 100% verified to be impartial, shouldn't be used against this group which enjoys a reasonable amount of support from the international community, especially in there in a time of increase US opposition to Iran. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC) We generally follow the POV of mainstream media (or "by 'journalists' who are writing such articles to push the agenda of the Western bloc"). Your personal opinions matter little - and do not jive with Hezbollah's attacks against Jewish targets (e.g, Argentina) or with their speeches and stated aims (which include ethnic cleansing). There is significant overlap between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. And much more importantly - academic RSes disagree.Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC) However, In Conflict with Israel =≠ Antisemitism.? -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC) ...I was not able to find sources on Google that say that Hezbollah is promoting ethnic cleansing. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC) I thought that Wikipedia is NPOV. 'Mainstream media' is only the 'mainstream media in Western countries. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Even on 'Mainstream Media', there is no unanimous consensus that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Hezbollah aims to remove all "Zionists", or Jews, from Israel. Groups may be in conflict with Israel without being antisemitic, however some such griups are antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC) But Hezbollah does not have a racist hate policy against the Jewish people – the group is only against the takeover of the Palestinian land by Zionist groups and the subsequent expulsion of its residents in what would become the State of Israel, who will live in poverty. The group only want the land to be returned to the original residents. That is not anti-Semitic, at all. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Per WP:A/I/PIA the only place that not WP:ECP users are allowed to post is talk page."Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc." So this noticeboard discussion is off limit to them --Shrike (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC) I thought that I should transfer this discussion to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#RFC:Accusations of Anti-Semitism as an ideology of Hezbollah from some very POV pro-Israel editors because it seemed that the discussion is more appropriate there. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Ranjan Gogoi and sexual harassment allegations; WP:UNDUE concerns

Ranjan Gogoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Chief Justice of India has been in the news recently as sexual harassment allegations have been made against him by a former employee. There were a couple of unsourced edits, and then sourced edits discussing the event on his biographical article. I had kept out the allegations mainly due to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE concerns. There is no doubt, at this point, that there are credible sources discussing this in the mainstream media. However, WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM concerns remain unaddressed. I have been reverted four times by SPAs over the past 24 hours, so will not go ahead and revert again. However, I would like to draw the attention of regulars at this noticeboard to keep an eye on this, and possibly suggest the best resolution for this.

Pertinent questions at this point of time:

• Should the allegations of sexual harassment be included in the article?
• If yes, then how much weight ought to be given to these allegations?

Please note that the subject of the biography is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of India, and that there has been no formal investigation of the allegations as of yet.

Note: I have activated pending changes on the said page after two edits including allegations of sexual harassment and other details (one of which was unsourced). At that time I thought this was necessary as the subject received significant coverage in the news due to this, and that there was potential for further addition of unsourced content, with not enough editors watching the page. If any administrator believes that this was unsuitable, please feel free to deactivate the pending changes page protection.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC) 09:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the subject being the Chief Justice of India makes it all the more important because there is an open legal question of WHO IS TO INVESTIGATE THE CJI? The CJI decides the fate of such allegations for every other SC and HC judge but there is no defined procedure for accusations against the CJI. Above all, a 3 judge SC bench including CJI Gogoi, the accused, called for an emergency meeting to address the matter and have passed an order asking media houses to exercise self-censorship in this matter. I have been on the Wikipedia as an editor for about 2 decades now and I have always found BLP being abused in the case of famous people. I brought up the issue of Asaram Bapu rape case and was probably blocked from editing as a result of this unclear, controversial policy. I then complained to Jimmy Wales who agreed with me but he was blocked by an administrator for agreeing with me and was abused and ridiculed by the administrator for "playing God" on Wikipedia. Needless to say that the rape accusations were accepted as valid on Wikipedia. (It is another matter that Asaram Bapu is now a convicted rapist enjoying jail now.) I suspect that BLP is not actually used for protecting individual lives but allowing editors who have a secret dream of practising law in a court, a venue for pseudo-legal wrangling. What wrong would be done and to whom, by mentioning one or two sentences on an issue of such importance that the Supreme Court of India has to address an emergency meeting with the accused acting as a judge in his own case? Would his granddaughter find out about Grampa's dirty little secret that she wouldn't have had otherwise? Let us be real. Keep the accusations; we just need to figure out the extent of relative coverage. They are extremely noteworthy and a matter of court record and no amount of passage of time would diminish the unprecedented nature of what transpired.--Trickipaedia (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Mmmm I can see a BLP issue here. These are unsubstantiated allegations. I would (personally) leave it out until it becomes a formal investigation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Slatersteven. Could you consider taking out the allegations until the WP:BLPBALANCE/WP:UNDUE issue is conclusively resolved on the talk page? I am a bit hesitant to do so since I have already reverted ~three times in the past 24 hours. In this context, you may please also refer to this specific ruling by the Arbitration Committee: WP:ARBBLP#Biographies of living persons. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Five Percent Nation

It's tagged for Original Research and NPOV. There has been ongoing debate on the talk page for about a year about the neutrality of certain sections. I'd like outsiders to review and chime in on this. Most of the edits are by user:OjogbonIjinle.

Here are the past and current discussions on this:

• Talk:Five-Percent_Nation#Myths_and_Realities
• Talk:Five-Percent_Nation#NPOV_and_original_research_in_"Social_impacts_and_impressions"_section

For my involvement, I looked at the page some time ago, and noticed a section called "Myths and Realities" that I considered not very neutral. It relied on sources that seem to be FPN apologetics or promotional, and it read more like an essay than anything. Checking the talk page, three users since 2018 have also had issues with the section. I then decided to remove it. It was then added back by OjogbonIjinle and removed by others. Now the section is gone, but a new section called "Social impacts and impressions" is there, also written by OjogbonIjinle. That's where the issue stands now. I find this section with a more essay like tone and style, and has been tagged for original research by others. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Harizotoh9 (talk), it would be helpful if you would indicate the specific sentences or phrases that you find problematic and what you find problematic about them, so that the charge of NPOV can be properly addressed. The "Social Impacts and Impressions's" sources include FBI files, academic publications, newspaper articles, historical events, and direct quotations from politicians and historical figures. The section does not argue a position; it presents information, quotations, data about various social impacts and impressions of the Five Percent Nation, whether those impacts and impressions are that they are "unreachable, anti-white criminals" or that they are not. Please take some time to isolate the specific sentences you take issue with so that they can be addressed. OjogbonIjinle (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Association for Democratic Reforms

This article seems to have been written to some extent from an "insider" perspective, if anyone is interested to take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

need help in the article History of domes in South Asia

There is non NPOV pushing in the article, some sources claim something which is contradictory to the direct archaeological evidences which are properly referenced and sourced, these sources claim otherwise an have been inserted into the intro of the article which i think is being non neutral. Have tried discussing the matter but there is no resolution. Hammy0007 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

There is certainly some "NPOV pushing" going on - who is doing it is the subject of disagreement. The subject is a complicated one. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it POV to call the SNC-Lavalin affair a scandal?

In the lead, it's described as an "ongoing political scandal" in Canada. Questions are now being raised about if it should instead be "ongoing political controversy". I'm not sure if that's appropriate, or if it would be a euphemism. The talk page section is here. I would really appreciate outside opinion on this, to avoid another long back and forth. Safrolic (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Use of "LavScam" at SNC-Lavalin affair

This should have been announced here long ago. There is an RfC open at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC: LavScam and a supplementary discussion at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#Prevalence of "LavScam" about whether the term "LavScam" has sufficient prevalence in RSes to satisfy WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV concerns for inclusion in the lead. Issues raised include the types of sources that have used the term, and how use of the term is framed and sourced. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Juan Guaidó

I tagged Juan Guaidó as biased and explained my reasoning here: Talk:Juan_Guaidó#Bias (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Mukesh Ambani

Someone should clean up the article - he's one of the wealthiest people in the world and should have a better-written page. Phrases like "life was hard", "loosely monitored by his father", "played all kinds of sports", "Dhirubhai cared very little about Mukesh's grades", "Dhirubhai believed that real life skills were harnessed through experiences and not by sitting in a classroom", "The company was being built from scratch with the principle of everybody contributing to the business and not heavily depend on selected individuals", "Mukesh's father treated him as a business partner", "Mukesh's success gradually increased...because of the great quality service is provided to users for cheap", and "Mukesh makes it a top priority to spend quality time with his children and family every Sunday" sound too much like puff-piece phrases rather than serious encyclopedia work. Dankster (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Estimates of Iraq War casualties

There is a relevant RfC on the Casualties of the Iraq War talk page[10] about how to describe estimates when there is a conflict between reliable academic sources about the veracity of particular estimates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Bde Maka Ska / Lake Calhoun

The largest lake in Minneapolis was renamed from Lake Calhoun to Bde Maka Ska and the Wikipedia article was moved. Minnesota's second-highest court recently ruled the state did not follow proper procedure in renaming it. There is considerable controversy about the two names, both of which continue to be in common use. Several well-meaning editors insist on putting Lake Calhoun in parenthesis to tell readers it is their less preferred name. Jonathunder (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

If it is still a controversy this seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Even hotly contested names like Derry and Liancourt Rocks don't put one name in parenthesis to tell readers which one Wikipedia editors prefer. "Aaaa, also known as Bbbbb,..." is standard. Jonathunder (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

That looks like what's in the lead. I see no issue here. Buffs (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It's sort of like the compromise that's done well with the Denali article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Bde Maka Ska is the local and federally recognized name. The local organizations in charge of the lake also refer to it by that name only. And it is the common name used by the media since the name change. To include the former name without parenthesis is a violation of WP:UNDUE because it implies that the former name is used in some sort of official manner. Similar articles such as Denali, Devil's Tower and Black Elk Peak all follow the same naming convention and are very similar to this page as they are landmarks known by their Indigenous names. Devil's Tower has its English American name presented first because that is its legal name but includes the Native American name in parentheses. Denali and Black Elk Peak have their former English American names in parentheses as the Native American names were officially restored. Bde Maka Ska is similar, therefore Lake Calhoun remains in parentheses to follow common practice. This is not a violation of NPOV and as I said, it would be a violation to have Lake Calhoun presented without.

The mention of the court ruling here is misconstruing. The court did not rule on the name change and did not rule to change it back. It ruled on whether or not the DNR had the authority to change the name. It is being sent to the MN Supreme Court for a final decision. However, on all legal levels, the name is still Bde Maka Ska. I compromised on the issue of the court case by accepting the removal of the word "formerly" from the parentheses as it used to read in the LEAD as (also known as Lake Calhoun, it's former official name). However, it is still the former official name in a legal and common name sense. Again, there's no local, federal or common name recognition for Lake Calhoun being on equal level with Bde Maka Ska, therefore Lake Calhoun should remain in parentheses. oncamera 17:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

List of music considered the worst

For the past few months (and in fact going back even further than that) there has been a hotly debated issue at List of music considered the worst over the inclusion of a specific entry: The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Despite the fact the album is frequently regarded as being among the greatest, most popular, most influential, etc. albums of all time, it is included based solely on the fact a small contingent of people hate it. Since its addition to the article nine months ago, there have been various edits by multiple users removing the entry, only to be reverted by other editors who tell them the album's wider positive acclaim does not supersede the opinions of these few individuals, so they need a consensus before removing it. Over two months ago an RfC was started to discuss its removal, but thus far no action has taken place. The major arguments of the two sides boil down to this:

• Keep - It satisfies the vaguely agreed upon inclusion criteria for the list, which is any song or album, regardless of its overall critical reception, being called the worst by at least two reliable sources.
• Remove - Its inclusion goes against WP:NPOV, specifically (but not limited to) WP:WEIGHT as the majority view is "Sgt. Pepper is a good album", the minority view is "Sgt. Pepper is not a good album", and the view "Sgt. Pepper is the worst album ever created" is an extremely small minority, WP:BALANCE as it misconstrues the critical reception for the album to appear far harsher than it actually is, and WP:SUBJECTIVE as the common interpretation of the album is that it is good.

In addition to the lengthy RfC, a second discussion was started about whether or not the list should be deleted. Over the past nearly fourteen years the list has been nominated for deletion six times (the most recent of which January this year [11]), only to reach the same conclusion each time: Keep but clean up. However, some of the editors in those discussions arguing to clean it up instead of deleting it are actively preventing any clean up from happening. Edits adding music considered the worst are reverted [12], edits removing critically acclaimed music from the list are reverted [13], and edits clarifying the wider held critical views of the entries are reverted [14]. As a result of these actions, it has been inferred by some that their objective is not the improvement of the article but rather to maintain the status quo and keep certain entries on the list.

As with the RfC, this lengthy discussion about a possible AFD is rooted in the fact that Sgt. Pepper appears on the list, and once against it is pointed out numerous times that its inclusion appears to go against NPOV, and by extension so does the entire list. Instead of being a list of music noted for having such overwhelmingly negative receptions they are generally considered to be among the worst ever created, it is merely a list of any music called the worst by at least two people. The album's removal (and exclusion of any similarly positively acclaimed music) would improve the article by bringing it more in line with NPOV and warrant its existence, while its continued inclusion robs the list of any encyclopedic value and calls for it to be deleted, because something being called the worst by two people is not notable.

After months of numerous editors arguing the album's inclusion (and by extension the entire article) violates NPOV with no response, another flare-up over the past couple of days has resulted in two editors, more specifically two admin, who are calling for the album to remain to finally deign to acknowledge and address the argument. One stated the interpretation of NPOV calling for the removal of the album is wrong (but did not explain why) [15], while the other referred to WP:NPOV as "some random alphabet soup page" that "does not produce any forgone conclusion" [16]. Since both sides are deeply entrenched and showing no willingness to budge, and as there seems to be no resolution in sight, the issue is being brought here.

Is the interpretation of WP:NPOV correct? Does the inclusion of a creative work widely regarded as "good" in a list reserved for works considered the "worst" based solely on the opinions of a handful of individuals violate WP:NPOV? And if so, does it need to be removed? 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:F9D8:738:A901:F251 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an active WP:RFC about this matter. This shouldn’t be here, it’s WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

What forum shopping? The notice for the RFC was removed over a month ago, something you know full well as two weeks ago you noted it had been gone for weeks, and therefore every "No" vote that came after its removal was "almost certainly more poorly coordinated canvassing" [17] (instead of them randomly stumbling across the article, being confused about the first entry being a widely acclaimed album, heading to the talk page to find out why it's listed, only see the discussion and deciding to voice their opinion). Until today, the last post in the RfC was two weeks ago. The last "Yes" vote utilizes the same rational as the first "Yes" vote from two months ago, and the last "No" vote utilizes the same rational as the first "No" vote from two months ago. After two months of multiple editors repeatedly arguing the album's inclusion violates NPOV, today it finally got a response. It should not take that long to get a response when there are so many editors in the discussion actively arguing it should stay, but finally one has been given. Those responses were the interpretation of NPOV is wrong, and WP:NPOV is "some random alphabet soup page".

Since the beginning this has been an NPOV issue, but its hard to reach a consensus when one side will not even acknowledge WP:NPOV exists. Side A says a few people hate it, Side B says far more people like it, Side A says it meets the inclusion criteria, Side B says that criteria and the entry fail NPOV, Side A stops talking...until someone tries to remove the album, and then they revert the edit and say a "clear consensus" has been reached that it stays [18]. Now that you have acknowledge the NPOV argument, we can work to get it resolved, and so it has been brought here to neutral parties removed from the lengthy, months long discussions to look at the NPOV policy and look at the list and make a determination of where or not it violates NPOV. The editors engaged in the debate who believe it violates NPOV will continue to argue it violates NPOV, while the editors engaged in the debate who believe it doesn't violate NPOV (or have completely refused to acknowledge the argument for two months) will continue to argue it doesn't (or continue to not acknowledge it), and nothing will come of it but more arguing. You yourself finally acknowledge the NPOV argument by saying I am wrong about it, but you don't explaining why. No consensus or constructive discussion can be had that way.

WP:WEIGHT states - "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." I have and continue to acknowledge that some people out there consider Sgt. Pepper to be the worst album every, but I contend they are an extremely small minority because even most of the sources currently being used for Sgt. Pepper's entry do not consider it the worst album ever made. You say that is an "(incorrect) application of NPOV" [19]. Please explain what is incorrect about it.

WP:SUBJECTIVE states - "Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation." I maintain that means you look at the full range of reviews, surveys, books, etc. which are deemed reliable sources, and make a determination based on the ratio of positive and negative receptions. If 90 people consider it "good" and 10 people consider it "bad", the common interpretation is that it is positive; 50 "good" and 50 "bad", the common interpretation is mixed results; 10 "good" and 90 "bad", it's negative. You say I "don’t seem to understand it" [20]. Please explain it so I can understand it.

Apologies for the "wall of text". I yield the remainder of my time. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:6972:38FD:873:AD4 (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Says the person who deletes any sight of positive text about Sgt. Pepper's. You're being called out here, you're not following WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, and WP:SUBJECTIVE. You're doing anything you can to preserve Sgt. Pepper's in the list and delete any mention of it being a good album. It goes against WP:BIAS. Your hatred for an album should not misinform people. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 01:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The article’s scope is documenting music considered the worst. If you want positive reviews, you’re in the wrong place. Just like I’d remove tigers from a “list of dogs” article. Regardless, this is still forumshopping. Sergecross73 msg me 02:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but two notable sources don't make an album "considered the worst" against thousands of good reviews. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 02:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the actual content in the article doesn’t suggest otherwise. It very clearly defines and attributes the sentiment, with a very direct “Source X considers it the worst”. Sergecross73 msg me 02:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The scope of the article is to include music considered the worst, and the vast majority consider Pepper a good album. Two sources - TWO - say that the album is bad. So that's enough to include it? Perhaps in terms you understand: I talked with 100 people yesterday. 98 said you were a good person, and 2 said you were bad. So following your logic, you should be put in a list called List of people considered the worst. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 02:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The key word is “considered”. All you need is one source for it to be considered the worst. As many participants have tried to express to you in the still-ongoing discussion, this is not an article that is tracking something like “the absolute lowest aggregated scores at Metacritic. It’s just documenting times when the statement has been made. Making a stricter inclusion criteria has been suggested, But no one has bothered to put together anything that garnered a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, people, you can all see it. One source is enough to put it in a list called List of music considered the worst, regardless of all the other thousands of positive reviews. You be the judge and tell me if that follows a Neutral point of view. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 02:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, one source is commonly the starting point for inclusion criteria. Again, I am not against instating stronger inclusion criteria. I have not opposed this. But neither you nor any other editor has proposed any other inclusion criteria. You’ve merely whined about this particular entry. Neither you nor your IP friend have made any effort to build the list article itself, or workable inclusion criteria on a whole. You’ve just endlessly rehashed your feelings on this one particular album. Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Our criteria, that we've been repeating over and over? WP:WEIGHT. The minority of people doesn't surpass the majority. If 98 people said you were a good person, you shouldn't be "considered" a bad person, only because 2 people said so. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That is fundamentally not inclusion criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Riiiiight... good arguments you have there. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean, there’s nothing else to cover on it. It’s not. Your comment is about as insightful as the person who said we wouldn’t have to have any more discussion if we just “follow policy”, as if everything was so black and white, cut and clear. Randomly ending every comment with another link to NPOV or WEIGHT doesn’t magically resolve everything. Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, that settles it, then. See you on that list. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, I do not hate the album, or have any thoughts on it at all. I’ve merely maintained this list for years, and force discussions to take place any time editors try to remove entries that are reliably sourced. Ive been an active editor for over a decade and have no history of disputes regarding POV pushing, and certainly, if I was the sort of editors who decided Wikipedia was the medium to express my hate for an album, I’d have more than zero edits at the album article itself. The whole premise is absurd. I’ve argued endlessly with this group of editors (I believe most are the same person under a bunch of different IPs) but I’d say probably over half has been warnings over protocol, process, not attacking other editors, not casting aspersions, not writing in all caps, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

If you like I can give you a list of every IP I've posted under. I'm always in the same place with the same computer hooked up to the same wifi, but the IP keeps shuffling around. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:6972:38FD:873:AD4 (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this really just underlines a fundamental issue with that list, which is that it is innumerable as currently used, and thus fundamentally shouldn't exist. Given the inclusion criteria and the other entries (and especially their sources) actually on that list, it's basically a list of times that music got bad reviews. An actual list of music considered the worst [by a significant survey of people] would be much shorter, it wouldn't include entries simply because there were some bad reviews, and it wouldn't include entries simply because the editor interpreted a source as saying "worst ever" when it did not. It might actually still include Sgt. Peppers, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It has survived 6 AFDs, and similar video game and film lists have generally survived 5+ each as well. There’s a solid consensus against deletion. Just a ton of different viewpoints on how to write it. It’s a repeating cycle. People like this will argue about a given entry for weeks, but win or lose, they disappear after the discussion about their preferred entry. No one wants to write the article or get a consensus on inclusion criteria. They just want to complain about their entry and then move on to the next thing. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, and the consensus says: Keep it, but clean it up. Remove entries that don't belong. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

And I’m all for it. And so far we’ve spent 2 months arguing against the “Beatles Defense Team”, who have made zero suggestions for improvement outside of, surprise, removing the Beatles. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Against the "Beatles Attack Team", who have made zero suggestions for improvement outside of, surprise, preserving the Beatles in that list. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

...Is that supposed to be in reference to me? Because I’ve been maintaining the article since as early as 2014, which I’m pretty sure was years before the Beatles entry even existed. Sergecross73 msg me 03:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to fit the criteria for inclusion, but then its a pretty weak idea for a list.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I closed the RfC referred to above as "no consensus". Basically the arguments boil down to whether the criteria for inclusion is "any song/album that has been considered the worst, regardless of the balance of opinion about the song/album." or "any song/album that has been considered the worst and the balance of opinion about the song/album is significantly negative". This is not defined on the article, and there is no consensus on the talk page or in the talk page archives about which it is. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Claims that Afghanistan and India are allies of Tehrik i Taliban

Recently, some users have been adding Afghanistan and India to the infoboxes of the article. The sources themselves also appear to be speculative or opinionated. And furthermore there is already a section in the article about "foreign support". I tried opening up a discussion in the talk page but there has not yet been a response.Apollo4659 (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Speculation or being opinionated does not make then not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Well there are even sources that say that Pakistan supports the TTP, so shouldn't that be included too? Apollo4659 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Additionally it is WP:UNDUE, to be putting those countries in the infoboxes.Apollo4659 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Diffident issue, that might have some validity.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)