Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 21 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102


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[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[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[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 Banner talk 00:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:

Magnolia677 (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow up on WP:DRN cited above -SusanLesch (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[reply]

Using a feud to push your own agenda is also not appreciated. The Banner talk 17:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I waited for comment until this reached #10. Except for User:Magnolia677, we seem to have agreement on Minneapolis talk. Magnolia can you agree with User:Cullen328, User:The Banner, and me, and close this out before it scrolls away? Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am unsure if there is consensus or that people just stopped responding to your non-committal. The Banner talk 13:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pardon me, User:The Banner. My non-committal to what? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To use discussion to come to a working consensus. The Banner talk 22:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In truth, except for one editor who sat out, the last three posts on Minneapolis talk came very close to consensus. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Again my preference is for no photo. Cuisine became contentious and I'd rather not open new arguments. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
Right User:MrOllie, I abide by the RfC's decision to not replace the photo with Owamni 100%. The present photo was added unilaterally by Magnolia on October 25. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the RFC has validated that and cemented it in place. It is time to accept that and move on. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the RfC did not ask or find that. However, as you say, it is time to move on. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe Magnolia677 will reconsider in light of a more recent discussion on Minneapolis talk? He seems to dislike unnecessary images and that might to apply to this restaurant photo. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do readers need disclaimers warning them that they're about to be linked to unreliable tweets? (Twitter Files)[edit]

See discussion at Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 7#Warning?. The discussion is about whether we should include a disclaimer when linking to the primary source tweets of the Twitter Files in the external links section, warning people that tweets are not reliable. Here's what the warning would look like. Endwise (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Taking that we expect editors to be competent, they can see the target of a link before clicking on it. And I would think it is not our place to necessarily say the links are not reliable at the point they are being clicks, particularly in the case of the Twitter Files, as they are a mix of truth (actual messages from past Twitter employees) and poor interpretation of what they mean.
If we start to do that for that, I can see us being dogpiled to do the same for opinion sources and the like. I think its better to just make sure the prose around the links to be clear what's going on. Masem (t) 03:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're talking about an external links section here, so there would be no prose around the links. Endwise (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Posting this to two noticeboards at once looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
?? I posted the two notifications at the same time. How could I be looking for a different outcome? WP:ELN is probably more strictly relevant, but ELN is quite low traffic, and since it is also an NPOV issue, I posted it to both noticeboards. It's quite normal to advertise for participation at RfCs and other such discussions at more than one location. Endwise (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're talking about many links all to unreliable sources many pushing conspiratorial political and medical claims. And the section head here is incorrect. They are links to biased commentary reading things into cherry-picked, internal conversations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added "unreliable tweets" to the header. Endwise (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reliability is the wrong issue… in this case, the tweets are being linked as primary sources simply so readers can see the text of the original tweets - the subject of the article - in their original form. Linking to the tweets themselves is the MOST reliable way to do so.
Let me give an extreme example of a similar situation: in our article about Adolph Hitler’s book “Mein Kamph”, we might include a link to a scanned copy of that book (so readers can see what Hitler said in his own words). Now, we can certainly debate whether doing so is appropriate (or not)… but, if we do include it, then we want to do so directly, and NOT via a secondary source discussing that book. We want to take the middle-man out of the equation. The most reliable link is to the original.
So… We can debate the reasons why we should/should not include links to the original tweets but, in this situation, reliability is not one of those reasons. The most reliable link to ANY text is a link to the original text itself. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are NOT the original text in context. They are snipped pieces of corporate conversations. That is, edited. And. conspiratorial commentary has been added which is demonstrably false. This is more like taking small pieces of Mein Kampf out of context to make Hitler look like a sweet guy who just wanted to improve life. Remember the bulletin boards in Germany showing happy Jewish families in the relocation “communities”? Sorry, you brought up Hitler I'll say it again, "take the text out of context and you are left with a con." O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree… The “Twitter files” refers to a selected group of tweets… those presented (and edited) by Elon Musk. In other words… the subject of the article isn’t the internal communications, but rather MUSK’s tweets about selected internal communications at Twitter. His exposé. So the original text is whatever MUSK tweeted. That is what we are linking to. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the section ahead of the table of links actually went to explain, using RSes to back this up, that the Twitter Files are a specific narrow slice of the company's communication that appear selected to push a certain message, putting that in prose above the table, then you don't need to have the additional warning - you're using RSes to explain the caution readers should take on reading further. Masem (t) 17:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, as I've read, Musk only sent the various journalists the slices of communications and let the journalists write the narrative around it (likely with Musk's prodding at the implications). Musk talked about the tweets but did not actually reveal directly any "Twitter Files" himself, just advertised the published articles about the tweets when they came out and answered questions related to them from others. Masem (t) 17:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The info box points to the files. Why do we need 18 links (and growing) to twitter conspiracy threads with misleading titles? This isn't neutral or RS. We are in the business of information based on reliable secondary sources, not misinformation directed by one man supposedly gleaned from communications we (and reliable sources) are not allowed to see. Otherwise, we are simply aiding claims the FBI paid off Twitter, Twitter conspired with the government to block Covid information, (he also suggested Dr. Fauuci be prosecuted), Russia didn't interfere with our elections, etc. Reliable sources have not done this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no requirement to have a link in the infobox, since there's actually no single website that published the original stories. That would leave a section with appropriate prose warning that the information should not be taken as fact.
But that said, we do not put warnings about links to other organizations or websites which may have unreliable information when there is an actual existing website (eg take Alliance Defending Freedom as an example). If you make a starting point here, you create the slippery slope to apply everywhere, where it is better to establish why information provided by an EL may be questionable as determined by other RSes in the surrounding prose, and trust our readers are not taking these links in absence of the prose. Masem (t) 18:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is already a link in the infobox to a compendium of these links. The "surrounding prose" included "Russiagate lies", "Twitter, the FBI Subsidiary" with no explanation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see nothing on our prose about that. Our surrounding prose in the lede next to the infobox is clear that the Twitter Files are very questionable about being legitimate. Masem (t) 19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was at the very bottom, past the reflist and nowhere near our prose. That's why I felt it needed a warning. It has been removed during discussion. Here's a version before the removal:[2] O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, so we're talking the actual titles of the published TF pieces. Which would be inappropriate to outright remove if the links were kept as those titles are part of the proper referencing for the links. But the prose that I was suggesting to be included prior to the table, to be clear that these are the original published stories but which are considered to be improper interpretation of the various events claimed to be described, would be the included prose to warn the reader w/o the need for a special warning box. Masem (t) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The compromise suggested (and rejected) was to change the warning box to an info box. It needs to stand out considering the length (which was continuing to increase). In any case, I don't think this increasing table belongs anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Prose ahead of the table would be sufficient as a warning/notice that the links in the table are the original published stories and should be taken as questionable. Masem (t) 20:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, everything about the both the titles and conclusions should be taken as wild conspiracy theories based on secret communications that reliable sources have not been allowed to see. I simply don't understand why an encyclopedia would link to such. Should we start linking to StormFront posts? Isn't the infobox link enough? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, if we have an article about a specific article or articles from a source we'd normalky call unreliable but otherwise accessible, it is silly to not link to the specific stories, as to help readers that are furthering research on it. Of course, I would make sure that the reader is well aware of the RS view of the works, and common sense that by linking them in the context of discussing them directly that we are not necessarily promoting or supporting the material.
If we were talking an organization like Stormfrint or Libs of TikTok, where the story is on their general practice and not any one specific article, then it doesn't make sense to link to any specific article they have published. Masem (t) 14:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only are the readers unaware, some of the editors adding these are unaware. One states these "prove" FBI collusion with Twitter (indeed paying Twitter) to hide information from the public. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If an article is explicitly about a publication (whether it is a book, website, newspaper article, et cetera) a link to the publication is warranted as an external link. The specific example you're trying to use as a reductio ad absurdum is linked in its article: Stormfront (website) links to the hellhole in question right in the infobox. The Unabomber Manifesto, famously written by a murderer as an exhortation to overthrow civilization, has a link to Industrial Society and Its Future, hosted on the Washington Post's website, in the external links section. Mein Kampf has no less than eight links to different versions and translations. So does The Communist Manifesto – plus a link to a Wikisource page of the entire thing. It is hard to overstate how firmly our policies stand on the side of allowing readers to access the materials that we write articles about: it's the way an encyclopedia works. The singular exception I'm aware of is the now-defunct 8chan, where if I recall correctly the external link was removed due to the fact that people regularly spammed it with child pornography which would show up on the main page if you went there, i.e. the link was literally against the law to click. That is not the situation here. jp×g 08:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish another example was used other than Mein Kampf. It is a supposed B-class article with more than one inline citation tag and at least 15 entries in the "External links". But thanks anyway, -- Otr500 (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How should the Preamble to the United States Constitution be neutrally presented?[edit]

I am trying to make Constitution of the United States § Preamble more neutral and concise. I am concerned that the current version has an unencyclopedic tone and omits some relevant information, as I've discussed at length at Talk:Constitution of the United States § Flowery, biased, and factually incorrect. I have proposed making the following change:

Current Proposal
Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States". This echoes the Declaration of Independence. "One people" dissolved their connection with another,[clarification needed] and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity".[1][disputed ] Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States", echoing the Declaration of Independence in its claim to speak for all Americans.[2][1][3] The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold: "to form a more perfect Union" and to "secure the blessings of liberty",[1] though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I.[4][5]

Penlite and Dhtwiki have rejected this proposal because one of the cited sources is biased, but I don't think that should be grounds for rejection, especially when it's not the only source for the information. Looking for an outsider well-versed in Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines to weigh in.      — Freoh 19:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't looked at the article but isn't this really a question about sourcing? And about interpretation rather than presentation? They don't seem that much different except for the part at the end of the second one. If that part is common in reliable sources I don't see a problem in including it. I guess that part is interpretation rather than merely conveying only what it says. Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you suggesting that I take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead? I posted here because Penlite was repeatedly citing WP:NPOV as his rationale, and WP:RS/N has already confirmed the reliability of the source.      — Freoh 20:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everybody says POV when they don't like something, but NPOV is ultimately a question of what's in the sources, isn't it? On balance. I was trying to figure out what the request is really about, if it is "just" a content dispute between several editors and it can't be sorted out, then maybe an RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. To be honest, I'm also trying to figure out what the request is really about. I was trying to understand Penlite's NPOV rationale, but he disengaged before we could reach a consensus. I'll post an RfC if people here think that this isn't a neutrality issue. Thanks!      — Freoh 21:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the article talk page, not here :) Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) The "biased" source must be Howard Zinn's book, although Freoh doesn't make that clear. That's not the only basis for objecting. In Freoh's version, such phrases as "in its claim to speak for all Americans" and "though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I" spend a lot of time pointing out how hypocritical the preamble seems to people today, which should be understood or deserves a separate article. Also, the proposed version, while admirably concise in some respects, leaves off the helpful demonstration of the need for "a more perfect Union" arising from the flawed "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree that this deserves a separate article, as POV forks are not neutral. I was thinking that the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation was clear enough in context, given that this is discussed at length in Constitution of the United States § Articles of Confederation. How would you prefer it to be worded?      — Freoh 20:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The end of the proposed change/version sounds like a POV created angle rather than straightforward coverage of the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean by a POV created angle? Are you saying that the contradiction between liberty and slavery is just an opinion? How would you prefer to word it?      — Freoh 23:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Freoh: Essentially, yes. Whether it's a justified opinion is irrelevant. No one gets to add one specific viewpoint about the failings of the Constitution to the lead. To give you an example that I hope makes the issue clear: imagine if a conservative user added "though this contradicts the legal restrictions on the right to bear arms" and then cited something like Kopel, Gallant, Eisen. Human Rights and Gun Confiscation. Obviously that would be inappropriate, right? I would oppose that change, and I oppose this one for the same reasons. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not trying to add it to the lead, and I don't understand the comparison. Your example is about legislation that arguably acts against constitutional principles. I'm talking about a contradiction (between liberty and slavery) solely within the U.S. Constitution, one which reliable sources describe directly as a contradiction. Isn't this within the scope of the article?      — Freoh 09:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe the answer is to think of it as two separate sections (I am intentionally not visiting the actual article), the first section would be the presentation of what it actually says (per sources/quotes) and a second section devoted to interpretation/implications etc (also per sources and respecting DUE), I am sure the slavery thing is not the only issue and if it is, then there ought to be sources saying that, apart from that, everything else is rosy. Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 – Allreet just overhauled this section, so the issues have changed.      — Freoh 18:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @Freoh: What issues remain for the Preamble sub-section? As I just posted on your Talk page, I'm still fine tuning the wording and may add another thought or two but nothing major. Others are of course welcome to pitch in, including changes to what I've written.
I wholeheartedly agree with @North8000 on the need for "straightforward coverage", which to me means focusing on mainstream secondary sources. To that I'll add that our "filter" should also be the needs of our audience. IOW, we're not helping anyone if we belabor details that are well-sourced but go beyond the scope of why people come here to learn.
On that last point: The sub-sections on the Constitution's Articles that follow are under-sourced. While I think the basic information outlined is good, in the interest of readers, that's not true of the forays in constitutional law and the attendant history. IMO such discussions belong elsewhere, either in another article or a separate section. Allreet (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've already made some changes to what you've written and replied to you on my talk page. I don't have any more complaints after that last conflict of interest is resolved. Your recent edit warring has reintroduced neutrality issues. Please stop.      — Freoh 01:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Freoh: I've added sources to supplement the existing Congressional Research Service sources you dispute. On further reflection, I disagree that the Service's published statements constitute a Conflict of Interest, though I have no problem providing more sources. In any case, as best as I can tell, WP:COI does not apply here.
Meanwhile, you've added the same footnote to the word "liberty" in two places in the Preamble subsection with citations linked to Critical Race Theory sources. This seems to be Citation Overkill so one of the two needs to be removed. Allreet (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The citations are not repeated, so I don't see how this is "needless repetition".      — Freoh 01:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Freoh: What is your rationale for applying the same footnote to the same word in multiple places? To quote David Byrne, "Say something once. Why say it again?"
And as I've requested before, please ping me when replying to my comments. It's a requirement of the noticeboard (see the guidelines at the top) and it's good form on regular talk pages as well. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking that it could be useful to put it in both places because the context is different (one in a quote, the other in wikivoice), but you can remove the second one if you'd like.      — Freoh 22:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first doesn't belong in the quote. You've soiled it. Affected people's reading experience by interrupting it with your political POV.
The second may just be a first in publication history. Publishing the same explanatory note twice for the same word in the same section.
Ridiculous. Allreet (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you explain how it's soiled? How is it a political POV that slavery was constitutionally protected?      — Freoh 12:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The quote, the most iconic passage of the Constitution, should stand on its own without interruption so that people can read it on their own, entertain their own thoughts, and reach their own conclusions. That's not possible with a note in the middle of the quote, one that introduces a political theory of a highly controversial nature. That's going to stop most readers in their tracks, even those who are amenable to those views, myself included. That should answer both your questions. Allreet (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does the current version make it impossible for people to read it on their own, entertain their own thoughts, and reach their own conclusions? Wikipedia guidelines encourage us to favor secondary sources over primary sources, and I still don't see evidence that anything I added is highly controversial.      — Freoh 19:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're in the middle of a dispute over neutrality, and your use of sources has been questioned. Then you apply a source on a controversial theory to one of the least contentious sections of the Constitution. Would you think it innocent if someone did the same to Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Or that this is "neutrally presenting" the Preamble? I think this is disingenuous. Allreet (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the question is more WP:DUE than WP:NPOV. Is this something that comes up immediately when one starts looking for information on the Preamble, or it is more of something that some observers/analysts note? If it is not a prevailing observation, it should not be in the first paragraph, but should be given DUE weight in the body of the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Answering the question put to me, the statements in the constitution are general and need context (including the norms of the time) to know their intended meaning, and also include even more general goals (e.g. liberty) . You can interpret ANY power given to the government over people as a conflict with the goal of liberty. Also you can interpret allowance of any forcing by one individual over another as a conflict with the goal of liberty. Criticizing it as self-conflicting based on such thought processes is a POV argument rather than straightforward coverage of the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether any part of the Preamble is widely criticized for a contradiction is the relevant thing here. The lede should reflect the prevailing summary/context of the Preamble. If when looking for information on the Preamble one immediately runs into observations of some contradiction in stated goals, then that would be relevant for the opening paragraph here. If not, it should be given WP:DUE weight in the body of the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey DIYeditor, thanks for your input, but I tried to mark this conversation as {{Moot}} above, and conversation has mostly moved to Talk:Constitution of the United States § RfC about whether to specify to whom the Constitution refers when it discusses the People, protections, and liberty.      — Freoh 11:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ a b c Adler, Mortimer & Gorman, William (1975). The American Testament: for the Institute for Philosophical Research and the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. New York: Praeger. pp. 26, 80, 136. ISBN 978-0-275-34060-5.
  2. ^ Collier, Christopher (1987). Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. James Lincoln Collier (reprint ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. p. 103. ISBN 0-345-34652-1. OCLC 16382999.
  3. ^ Zinn, Howard (2003). A People's History of the United States, 1492-Present (New ed.). New York. p. 632. ISBN 0-06-052842-7. OCLC 50622172.
  4. ^ Zuberi, Tukufu (July 2011). "Critical Race Theory of Society". Connecticut Law Review. 43 (5): 1575 – via HeinOnline.
  5. ^ Bell, Derrick (2008). And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice. New York: Basic Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-7867-2269-3. OCLC 784885619.

Request for input: use of a questionable footnote[edit]

Freoh: Early on, in the second of three discussions related to Neutrality on the Constitution's Talk page, your use of Critical Race Theory and far-left sources was called into question as potentially violating WP:NPOV as was your proposed edit. Now you've done exactly the same thing in terms of text and sources with a footnote you've added in the Preamble section.

I would appreciate input from some of the editors involved in the various discussions: Thebiguglyalien, Dhtwiki, Selfstudier, Penlite, and North8000. To save everyone time, the issues are:

  • In the article's Preamble section, a footnote was inserted in the middle of a direct quote of the Preamble questioning the word "liberty" because Article I of the Constitution originally protected slavery.
  • The note's references relate to Critical Race Theory.
  • The WP:NPOV issues as I see them are Neutrality, Bias, Due Weight, and Fringe Theories, though others may apply.

Discussions between the two of us, which are going around and around, can be found above and also on the Constitution's Talk page. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it's all interesting stuff but maybe it's time to take it back to the talk page? Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Actually, two discussions are going on, here and on the Talk page. Yes, it needs to be consolidated and the latter would be the place to do that. However, everyone else seems to have lost interest and something else may need to be done to garner consensus. Allreet (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for inputs @ Talk:Islamic feminism[edit]

Request for inputs @ Talk:Islamic feminism#Strange content deletion summary

Bookku (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking for guidance on unresolved litigation[edit]

In the Gannett article, there's a section called Gannett#Sued for enabling sexual abuse of paperboys in New York and Arizona. An IP editor on the talk page thinks this section needs more vetting. There is no outright dispute at this time. I expect that at some point, editors at WP would have worked through how to handle content about ongoing litigation but I can't find it, so I'm just asking for a pointer to it, if it exists. Thanks. Novellasyes (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undue additions at Enoch, Utah[edit]

User:Valereee reverted edits to re-insert text which, by its depth of detail and quantity of text, added undue weight.

The text prior to User:Valereee's reverts read: "On January 4, 2023, eight people were found dead from gunshot wounds inside a home after a welfare check by police."

My text removals:

Edits by User:Valereee:

The unresolved content dispute is at Talk:Enoch, Utah#reversions. Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, that was a major step from just discussing at talk. Not sure why we needed to come to a discussion board, but okay. I don't really care if we include that content there, we can just create Enoch Police Department. Valereee (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd welcome more input in a dispute over whether to include the results of a preliminary police toxicology report in the lead of Death of Keenan Anderson. The discussion so far is at §Toxicology report in lede? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was considering adding a comment, but then had the thought that since there's a healthy discussion in progress on the article's Talk page, starting a discussion here is likely to make the conversation difficult to follow. I understand you're seeking wider input, but just the appearance of this on the Noticeboard page may suffice in attracting editors to the Talk:Death of Keenan Anderson page. Anyway, that's where I'm headed. Hope that helps. Allreet (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Allreet. Yes, I think it make sense to keep discussion at the article talk page, so this notice is really a "Come on in! We can't decide if the water's warm or not!" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hunter Biden laptop controversy Part 2[edit]

I see there was a previous discussion in August of '22 , and some things have changed since then. I wasn't sure if I needed to come here or RSN first, originally I had intended to go to RSN, but then an RfC was started and I wanted to let that pan out first and see if a consensus could be reached to quell my concerns. Despite weeks and weeks of debate I still seem to have concern for possible issues related to both VERIFIABILITY (which may be a more RSN related concern) and POV. Even after weeks of debate and 2 RfC's in the last few months, I still have concerns. I currently am trying to abide by the most recent RfC close by an admin, by not starting any new topics on the matter. However, the discussion on this topic seems to be ongoing and admins don't seem to take issue with letting debate continue in attempt to find consensus.

I originally became involved when I noticed (certain) sources do not seem to reflect the context used in the wiki-article accurately (IMO). Other editors seemed to take issue with it as well, but that's beside the point. The citations use words like "believed" or "purportedly", which the lead does not seem to reflect, and instead puts into Wikivoice what I feel may be an implied "certainty" that may not be of a neutral point of view (IMO). I asked about including some attributions to help alleviate the issue but some of the editors said it was unnecessary.

Essentially, I could really use some guidance/opinions from uninvolved and unbiased editors to help me re-examine my own personal perspective. If you are currently, or were formally involved in the discussion on that article, please realize that I am only interested in hearing from other editors that were not and are not involved, so I may not respond to you. I am looking for more unbiased opinions here.

So, to reiterate, this is NOT an invitation to participate at the article in question, or a SOAPBOX to sway anyone's opinions either way, I am just looking for feedback for my own personal sanity. It should also go without saying, I am trying to avoid crossing any lines as far as WP:CAN, so again, please do not get involved because of anything I say or the way I say it. I believe editors there are acting in good faith even though I may disagree with their interpretations. I will do my best to accurately represent citations, context and quotes as neutrally as I can, to reflect their current state in the lead of the wiki-article, as of today.

So my main concern has to do with using Wikivoice to say what the lead sentence currently says here...(bold emphasis mine)

In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop[8]. The New York Post published the first story, based on information provided by Rudy Giuliani. Forensic analysis later authenticated some of the data on the laptop, including one of two key emails used by the Post in their initial reporting[9]...."

(CBS citation) We recently added the "involving data" portion to the lead, which I did feel was an improvement, but even the headline from the citation being used for this says... "Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data turned over by repair shop to FBI showed no tampering, analysis says"[10] (bold emphasis mine)...

(WaPo citation) "Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, are authentic communications that can be verified through cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies, say two security experts who examined the data at the request of The Washington Post."[11] (bold emphasis mine)

I would like to just focus on these 2 cites for now to keep the feedback focused. Is it possible or probable we are not being CAREFUL enough with the lead, or do you think this is safe to put into Wikivoice? Why or why not? Cheers... DN (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe if you look at the talk page of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy you can find most of your answers. This topic about the specific lines you are questioning has been discussed at great length. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grahaml35 Thanks, but I am already an involved editor on that page, and if you read my post here, you can see that I'm looking for some uninvolved and less biased opinions as to whether this characterization of cited sources qualifies as a WP:POV issue. Care to comment on that? Thanks. DN (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Academic bias and Rock balancing[edit]

Should the views of rock balancing artists have the same weight as the views of scientists and conservationists? Geogene (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note here that the actual question, based on the actual sources in the article is "Are WIRED, Vice, and the Denver Post roughly equivalent sources to Smithsonian Magazine, the AP, and the Guardian?" Whose views each source is describing is irrelevant from an NPOV view: almost by definition, if a reliable source reports on the views of rock balancing artists they do in fact have the same weight as if a reliable source reports on the views of conservationists that have a problem with rock balancing. Loki (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Views on what? Rock balancing as a form of art? The environmental consequences of rock balancing? Regarding the former, I'd have to suggest that the artists themselves are hardly the best source for its artistic merit, and secondary sourcing (from the wider world of art criticism) would be preferable. As for the latter, I'd think that the Smithsonian probably knows what they are talking about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no commentary on rock balancing in the wider world of art criticism that could be used as sourcing. Geogene (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks to me like the artists are described by secondary sources and it is a reasonable thng to do in an article like that. Peronally I think people should take more care when in community space not to destroy part of that space, but we should just follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Would be rock balancing artists should just leave Makka Pakka to be the extablished expert. NadVolum (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These various groups aren't, I think, being given any weight at all on each others' territory: artists that say balancing rocks is relaxing and looks nice, conservationists are concerned that it causes environmental damage in protected areas, national parks say it's messing up their trail markers. The artists aren't presented or quoted as disagreeing with any of that (one of them even says that he knocks the stacks over before leaving), and the conservationists aren't offering any negative artistic critique.
The article could be rewritten with less direct quotation, but if we're writing about an artistic practice that damages the environment, we need to give some context and detail about what that practice actually involves, and why people are doing it. --Belbury (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per all of the above, these are not opposing viewpoints, these are orthogonal viewpoints. There's room in the article for both. --Jayron32 14:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This, as long as we're not talking about, as Andy framed it, "environmental consequences". We shouldn't be saying "a geologist interviewed by Smithsonian Magazine says it's bad, but this artist says there's no harm." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going on the above it suggests there are not years of sources that editors can infer what is the popular view, and as such, both should be presented with equality weight in regards to validity, and definitely not claim who is right or wrong Masem (t) 21:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weasel words, lack of NPOV, etc. on article: Gab (social network)[edit]

The use of "Widely described as" in the second sentence is weasel words. Some other editors seem to disagree adamantly. Attempted to make changes citing sources to either replace weasel words or provide more factual context for the reader. My edits, intended to maintain NPOV, were quickly reverted by other editors for what appears to be nitpicky reasons and potentially some argumentum ad populum concerning the disputed NPOV/WW.

I'm concerned that their preconceptions about the social network (for example "Gab = bad" or "Alt tech = bad") is clouding their editorial judgment. It appears that most of the article — most alarmingly right in the first paragraph / lead section — presents heavy negative bias and criticism. In fact, I would say in the current state of the article, the controversy surrounding Gab is more emphasized than what Gab actually even is. I am concerned with "how facts are selected, presented, or organized" (Quote from: NPOV (Neutral point of view) ).

Please help resolve this issue.

See: Talk:Gab (social network) - Where I explained my reasoning in depth.

See: Gab (social network) - The article in question.

Relevant Diffs:

User Page Notice(s):

I have posted "NPOVN-notice" notices on the related user talk pages, particularly to the editors who seem to have an issue with my edits. (i.e.: User talk:Shorn again | User talk:HandThatFeeds | User talk:Writ Keeper | User:Slatersteven)

I have also received an edit war accusation in the form of a notice from User:Slatersteven because of my attempts to correct the lack of NPOV in this article. The notice is currently visible on my user page: User talk:Commandur. Commandur (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NO you received it for making 4 edits (3 reverts and an initial edit). In other words wp:editwaring. Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think your argument is weak. Please substantiate how my edits are "edit warring". Please review the diffs before further comment. Commandur (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No its not, policy says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." you made three reverts did you not? Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that my good faith contributions in the Talk page as well as here provide ample evidence I am not participating in edit warring. Certainly not to some detrimental degree at any rate. Even so, I am not even remotely close to the typical three-edits-a-day guideline which you cited. Each edit was at least a day apart, January 15, January 19, January 25, and January 26, with attempts at discussing the issue on the Talk page twice in between.
Instead of trying to attack me with accusations of edit warring, why not properly debate my arguments about how the article can be improved?
According to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not a democracy that relies on majority vote, and the best argument should win any dispute. While it is much easier to cater to the majority opinion in many cases (or even to what is merely *perceived* as the majority opinion), sometimes dissent is crucial for progress. Our mutual goal should be improving the article. Not nitpicking good-faith edits. Do you have a solid argument that the article is already written entirely in NPOV? Because I am not the only one who thinks that it is not.
Clearly the lack of numerical representation of my opinion in this section is more due to how I did not specifically invite people here who agree with me, so much as the fact I called the editors who disagree with me here to discuss it.
A news company may decide that bias is acceptable on their news article, but editorial bias still has no place being in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia's purpose is to provide information. It is the reader's responsibility to decide what to do with that information. Not the editor's. Commandur (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the posts below, academic sources say it is, it is primarily notable because of it. As to what edit war says "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.", so (and I appoligise) you did not breach 3RR, but you did repeatedly revert to your version, which is still can be seen as edit warring. Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are citations for the characterization of the site right in the lede. How would you like its userbase to be described? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tone of the lede is all wonky. While identify that Gab is a home for many of a far right and extremist user, it puts those first before saying what Gab was originally designed for then became, in contrast with networks like Truth Social or Parker which were designed to favor the right views. The lede us overly critical in wikivoice, though these positions should not be whitewashed out if the lede Masem (t) 21:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever other stuff says, doesn’t it make sense to start with the present? Doug Weller talk 21:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, a neutral tone starts with the most objective aspects (which would include the creation and original history of the service), and then moves into the subjective ones. Starting with subjective elements - even if there's strong support from the media for that - immediately frames the article as a strong negative critique of the service. We should never be writing that way. We can include the negative critique of the service, but the ordering when it is introduced is very key to keep our tone neutral, impartial and disinterested. Masem (t) 00:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's contrast this with the lede to United States:
The United States of America (U.S.A. or USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US) or America, is a country primarily located in North America. It consists of 50 states, a federal district, five major unincorporated territories, nine Minor Outlying Islands, and 326 Indian reservations. The United States is also in free association with three Pacific Island sovereign states: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. It is the world's third-largest country by both land and total area. It shares land borders with Canada to its north and with Mexico to its south. It has maritime borders with the Bahamas, Cuba, Russia, and other nations. With a population of over 333 million, it is the most populous country in the Americas and the third most populous in the world. The national capital is Washington, D.C. and the most populous city and financial center is New York City.
All present tense and current state, nothing about the origin. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral starts and finishes with neutrally summarising reliable sources. Because what is objective or subjective is in itself a subjective judgement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simply providing citations does not excuse biased writing. Many readers are not going to take the time to check the cited sources to see who is saying it. Saying weasel words like "widely described" makes them think it is a unanimous agreement by some undefined, ambiguous group of "other people". Please state in-line who is making such a critical statement if you want to keep the statement in the article. Doing due diligence on this aspect is paramount due to the controversial nature of the article. Commandur (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any characterization we could make of the sources that describe Gab's userbase in these ways that would be based on reliable sources? If not, we can't really say anything other than these characterizations exist and are widespread. We could tone down the language to "described in the media" rather than "widely described" and "haven" could be rephrased or put in quotes perhaps (not sure of MOS etc. on using quotes for attribution if that is the case here). —DIYeditor (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems like a good way to go about it. Really, that is the type of change I have been trying to suggest, but it has mostly been falling on deaf ears. Commandur (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really sure why I'm here. The one edit I reverted is not super consequential in terms of POV, and has nothing to do with weasel words; it's more an issue of sourcing, as I don't see any support for Commandur's addition in the source they cited. Can't speak to any of the other reversions, as I don't know about them. Writ Keeper  21:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For that edit, I was referring to this statement from the source:
"Gab launched in 2016 and bills itself as a 'social network for creators who believe in free speech, individual liberty, and the free flow of information online.' But the site has run into controversy over the years for allowing extremist content with very little oversight."
I was trying to paraphrase as I think it's bad form to take it verbatim. I think that "very little oversight" and "lax moderation" are basically the same thing, don't you? Perhaps there is a better way to phrase it, though.
As for why you are here, because your removal's supporting statement, "rm; unsupported by source. "due to lax moderation" implies that that they're trying to moderate the content, but no such statement exists in the source" is incorrect, and I have just had my other edits removed by other editors, so it made sense an unmerited removal of my content seemed suspicious. As it seems I was wrong about that, sorry for disturbing you. However, now that we are here, do you understand why the source supports my "lax moderation" statement? How do you think it should be phrased? Commandur (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Lax moderation' implies that they are just bad at moderation, but the point the source is making is that they are purposefully allowing the content. MrOllie (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not here to make judgement calls about what an article intends, but rather to state facts as gleaned from various reputable sources. As far as I am concerned we do not reference sources so that we can regurgitate their original intended purpose, but so that we can glean actual facts to help us improve the article in question.
Regardless, I do not see any clear evidence that the source is accusing them of "purposefully allowing" such content. What I see is this statement: "allowing extremist content with very little oversight."
The article clearly states that moderation is very light, in other words, it is lax moderation just as I stated in my edit. It seems you are very focused on the part "allowing extremist content" without paying any heed to the last part: "very little oversight". Please explain to me how you think I have misunderstood the article's statements. Commandur (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I am focused on the idea that 'allowing extremist content' means that they are allowing extremist content on their platform. MrOllie (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That just adds more evidence that it is "lax moderation". Just because you personally feel like there is no moderation whatsoever, does not make it a fact. Likewise, that they are "purposefully allowing the content" is more of a loaded statement than what is in the original source. "Allowing the content" has a completely different tone than "purposefully allowing the content", where the second infers intentional malice on the part of the platform. Commandur (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Equating "allowing the content" with "lax moderation" is a way bigger stretch than equating "allowing the content" to "purposefully allowing the content", but regardless, the revision I reverted to didn't make either assertion. Yours did make an assertion, so the onus is on you to support, and that source does not do so. Writ Keeper  00:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My statement asserted the fact that is mentioned in the article. If you did not agree with the phrasing or did not appreciate the wording, you could feel free to improve it instead of completely deleting it. So why did you delete it instead of improving it, then? Commandur (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article was improved by the removal of your text. That is really the beginning and the end of the matter. Zaathras (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't just make a claim. Substantiate your claim. Commandur (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@User:Slatersteven - pay attention to User:Writ Keeper's comment, "The one edit I reverted is not super consequential in terms of POV".
If it is inconsequential to the POV, then you may no longer logically use that specific edit to substantiate that I was "edit warring". Commandur (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not how edit-warring works. Writ Keeper  00:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering someone needs some sort of motivation to participate in edit-warring, I do think it works like that, at least to some degree.
I mean, I could also argue that User talk:HandThatFeeds who removed two of my edits in a row with dubious reasons may be participating in edit warring, but perhaps that would be petty. Commandur (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, not at all how it works. People get blocked for edit warring over inconsequential stuff all the time - I can think of a case where someone got blocked over whether a dash should be an en-dash or an em-dash. MrOllie (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit warring over inconsequential stuff is actually worse, its just disruptive without arguably fulfilling a higher purpose. The most consequential area (BLP) actually has carveouts from the normal edit warring criteria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please ask yourselves: Why are people so vehemently fighting against mentioning the source of the statement within the text of the article? What is their motivation? The reason "because it is unnecessary to do so" does not seem to warrant this magnitude of a response. Hence my mention of "censoring NPOV edits" on the article's Talk page. Commandur (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, accusing other users of "censoring" without evidence is just a personal attack. Quite frankly, this sounds like you're here to fight on behalf of Gab. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not here to fight for Gab, in fact I didn't even know about Gab until about a week and a half ago. I am here to fight for Wikipedia to remain a NPOV encyclopedia as described on the talk page. You did not address my concern that it is unusual for people to fight so strongly against including the source in the text of the article, nor did you provide any good reasons for prohibiting it. Commandur (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What? Sourcing is included in the text of the article, so this argument makes no sense. The sources you proposed were to soften the view on Gab as only coming from "critics," while there's many other sources, including academia, that draw the conclusion it is far-right.
You then posted a wall of text to the talk page. Suffice to say, I'm not going to point-by-point deal with that when we've already dealt with WP:WEASEL already: this is sufficiently sources in the article already and satisfies that guideline. Further, accusing me of "blatant bias" is a personal attack, another reason I have no interest in engaging that wall of text on the talk page.
The fact I failed to satisfy you does not mean I "did not address [your] concern". I addressed it, you disagreed. So far, you do not have consensus for the changes you want. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To further respond to this:
In fact, I would say in the current state of the article, the controversy surrounding Gab is more emphasized than what Gab actually even is.
This is because Gab's controversial nature is why they're Notable. The vast majority of reliable sources refer to them as right-wing or far-right. That is not in question. Therefore it is not weasel-wording to open the article with the current phrasing.
As a further point of order, WP:WEASEL is a best-practices guide, not a hard-and-fast rule. Even that guide states:
They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.
This is a situation where it is notable that reliable sources agree on the site's status and motivations. Attempting to label this as only being reported by "critics" is not compatible with NPOV, any more than attempting to describe Flat Earth as only being considered wrong by "critics." Using that term implies that the only people who see Gab as far-right are those ideologically motivated to do so, rather than the vast majority of reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference between something like Flat Earth and "Gab is far right" is the volumes of academic analysis that has proven the earth to be round and thus discrediting the whole Flat Earth movement, while we're taking the critics of Gab to be the "word of God" in describing them as far right in Wikivoice and how it is discussed in the lede. Maybe in a good number of years, we will have deep academic analysis of "far right social media influences on the 2020s" where Gab will be firmly set by objective analysis as being at the far right, but we're not there yet. Piling on the public opinion taken from mass media only, and well within the first few years, we absolutely should be wary of taking public opinion as wikifact at this stage. That nearly all the public opinion swings in that direction is why we can safely describe them as "widely considered to be far-right..." but we're still too early and close to events to be taking that media opinion as fact. Masem (t) 18:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't think "taken from mass media only" describes the actual sources used on the Gab article, though. There are some scholarly analysis articles in there as well, including this one, supporting the statement Researchers and journalists have characterized these assertions [of dedication to free speech] as an obfuscation of its extremist ecosystem in the lead; the source says specifically: We find that, while Gab claims to be all about free speech, this seems to be merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide. It's not the only such source cited in the article. I don't think that's the most reliable scholarly source we've ever cited on Wikipedia by any means, but to characterize this article as "public opinion taken from mass media only" is to misrepresent it. Writ Keeper  18:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current lede of Gab at least uses phrases like "known for its far-right userbase" and "Widely described as a haven for...", which to me frames the public opinion stance outside of wikivoice. (And also correctly, doesn't describe Gab itself as far-right, just that its lax moderation leads to a haven for far-right views). That said, those are still subjective statements and should follow after the most objective statements. For example, just flipping sentence order in the lead:
Gab is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. Founded in 2016 and launched publicly in May 2017, Gab claims to promote free speech, individual liberty, the "free flow of information online", and Christian values, but is known for its far-right userbase. Widely described as a haven for neo-Nazis, racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, antisemites, the alt-right, supporters of Donald Trump, conservatives, right-libertarians, and believers in conspiracy theories such as QAnon, Gab has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media platforms and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms.
creates a far more neutral approach in the lede while still hitting these key points which should all be there. (There's a few other smaller problems with the tone of the lede, but I'm focusing on the major one) Masem (t) 18:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since people have asked above for academic sources describing Gab as far-right: [1][2][3][4][5] Gab is basically one of the textbook examples of far-right social media used in academia today and is extensively studied as such; there's no way that a neutral article could avoid describing it as such in the article voice, since that is essentially its primary source of notability. --Aquillion (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So, the main issue as far as I can see it is a misreading of WP:NPOV. What it says is "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (bold mine) If a preponderance of reliable sources emphasize the far-right extremist nature of Gab's customer base, then Wikipedia should reflect that viewpoint in proportion to how that viewpoint is reported in reliable sources. --Jayron32 17:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do, however, think Masem's point just above mine is relevant as well, some rephrasing could help with some of the objections noted; while still not downplaying the key part of Gab's story. --Jayron32 17:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Commandur: I removed the RFC tag you added to this discussion. An RfC here is not out of the question, but placing it where you did meant that the RfC's opening statement was neither neutral nor brief (see WP:RFCNEUTRAL. You could add a new signed comment just below the tag, or create a new subsection below for the RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Jasser, Greta; McSwiney, Jordan; Pertwee, Ed; Zannettou, Savvas (28 June 2021). "'Welcome to #GabFam': Far-right virtual community on Gab". New Media & Society: 146144482110245. doi:10.1177/14614448211024546. ISSN 1461-4448.
  2. ^ Peucker, Mario; Fisher, Thomas J (15 July 2022). "Mainstream media use for far-right mobilisation on the alt-tech online platform Gab". Media, Culture & Society: 016344372211119. doi:10.1177/01634437221111943. ISSN 0163-4437.
  3. ^ Brody, Evan; Greenhalgh, Spencer P.; Sajjad, Mehroz (November 19, 2022). "Gayservatives on Gab: LGBTQ+ Communities and Far Right Social Media". Social Media + Society. 8 (4): 205630512211370. doi:10.1177/20563051221137088. ISSN 2056-3051.
  4. ^ Samuels, Sarah; Shajkovci, Ardian (26 February 2022). "Far-Right Violent Extremist Women: Threats and Security Considerations". Women & Criminal Justice. 0 (0): 1–20. doi:10.1080/08974454.2022.2040696. ISSN 0897-4454.
  5. ^ Kleinberg, Bennett; van der Vegt, Isabelle; Gill, Paul (1 May 2021). "The temporal evolution of a far-right forum". Journal of Computational Social Science. 4 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1007/s42001-020-00064-x. ISSN 2432-2725.

Project Veritas[edit]

Project Veritas released a new covid-related video recently and as usual it's full of lies and misdirection, so expect an uptick in traffic on the article. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:44BA:33D4:C395:AEEB (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless there are sources paying attention to their claims about covid, we can not actually cover the topic. Dimadick (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to flag this article for a few eyeballs. We had a bunch of discussions and an RFC on this a few months ago. At issue is whether trickle-down economics is a term of political art, or an economic one, or both, or neither, and whether the article as written is balanced. Andre🚐 00:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Balance is not really the problem. A mess of incoherence is. I moved content to a more appropriate heading that already exists on the article. A revert of an edit that only moves content to start organizing the article is not helpful. Are you objecting to even moving the existing content to be near like content? This is a little twilight zone for me right now. I didn't expect to get SLAPPed. At least, not right away. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's impossible to comment without a description of what changes you made and what improvement you were trying to make with them. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there's a ton of repeated arguments on the talk page, going back years. A lot of what I'd like to do has already been discussed a great length, but it seems a small minority keep reverting everything.
Bare with me while I learn this platform, my edit is here. I did remove an emphasis on "US Republicans", sorry for forgetting that. IMO, it's a little outside what I'd call NPOV and doesn't seem to add to the information quality of the article. It's small, so I don't really want to argue over that.
The larger change I made was moving some content from the lead in to a heading called Usage that already exists. I don't see how that particular content is any different than the other content in the usage heading. I think any typical reader would find the article overall confusing, rather than clarifying. I think reorganizing the existing content is the clear place to start. At the moment, it's kind of just splattered in there. Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is rather a lot of waffle with little meat. The mathematics clearly indicates that in a straightforward economy the money will go up and an oligarchy will form without needing any encouragement from the government never mind any trickle down encouragement. Taxes are needed to offset the strong drift. That's the state of the US at the moment where more than 12% of people would still owe money if they went on the street and sold their clothes and 30% of the wealth is owned by some varnishing percent of the population. NadVolum (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quoting from WP:not a dictionary: "In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped, seen or renamed. In such cases, coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such. The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the "lens" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia." In this case it's a pejorative term for the concept that a rising economy (on average) lifts all. So, IMO, the article should only be about the term and rely on the coverage of the economic concept elsewhere. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're making the assumption here that trickle down economics makes the country richer. I guess on the basis that the US is rich on average and taking care of its citizens is counted as socialism and next door to communism. However there are other countries in the world to compare with, ones with nowhere near so much in the way of natural resources per person, and yet for instance comparing the US to Denmark for instance they are close on GDP per person and yet Denmark has one of the lowest levels of income disparity and a very high level of happiness and the US one of the highest in disparity and is rent by viscious struggles where all reason has gone out the window. Trickle down is not the same as making the country richer. NadVolum (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure he is making that assumption. If I'm reading his comment correctly, he is saying that this is a term being used about a set of policies that are discussed elsewhere on Wiki. I would agree with that assessment.
  • To the extent there is a NPOV problem on this page, I would suggest that it is arising because this article is currently structured as if "Trickle-Down" was an economic theory with data and models to be discussed rather than as shorthand largely used by politicians and the media. As noted by multiple editors on the talk page, this article should be closer to Tax and spend, Social justice warrior, Anchor baby, or Gay agenda. These are colloquial terms used in reference to other peoples' views or positions. They are not synonymous with those positions and are often contradictory in application.
As such, the article should be structured a la those pages, discussing primarily the usage of the term historically and linking to pages as appropriate to discuss the merits/demerits of any specific policy being referenced. There has been overwhelming consensus on the talk page going back for a year at least on this. Progress has largely been stifled by one or two editors who have dug in their feet, but who have generally not been willing to discuss it on the talk page. It is a long read, but a perusal can find pretty quickly a WP:OWN mentality and the rebuttal "I don't agree so you don't have consensus, no explanation needed." This page will remain the target of every random IP looking to grind an ax until it is reshaped away from being a WP:FORUM and into an encyclopedic article. Squatch347 (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest that the notion that "a rising economy (on average) lifts all" is a false assumption designed to make the (journalistic short-hand phrase) trickle-down "theory" more palatable to the unschooled masses. Since it is not at all proven that there is an improved well-being for "all" when a few benefit, this should not be part of the discussion. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If trickle down is to be regarded as 'pejorative' and avoided, then what non-perjorative term should be used for the concept that giving the rich more in proportion or making most people poorer will grow the economy or that it will be good for most people? NadVolum (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we please keep this discussion to the article and stop with the amateur economist analysis as to whether TDE is 'right' or 'wrong'? For my part i agree with User:Squatch347 'trickle-down' is not a scientific term or one used in a meaningful sense in economics. Rather it is a colloquialism used by the media et al. Bonewah (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you consider the results of yard sale type models amateur economics? They corroborate the observations in The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. NadVolum (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't call TDE an economic theory as such and in the hands of politicos, even less so. I think it might be better referred to as (a) trickle down theory, a phrasing that extends beyond economics. I seem to recall a time when it was thought of as a good thing (in theory, the idea of it) rather than implying a criticism. Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trickle-down economics is used in general as a pejorative term for Supply-side economics or "Reaganomics" (another pejorative term), especially the type of economic theory espoused by the U.S. Republican party in the 1980s. --Jayron32 15:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remember now, the Washington consensus. Edit: Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, but "Trickle down economics" as a pejorative term for anti-interventionist, laissez-faire, and subsidies for the investment classes has existed since the 1930s; I think Will Rogers is generally credited with popularizing it as a criticism of Herbert Hoover's response to the Great Depression. It laid dormant until the Great Malaise years of the 1970s led to a return in the U.S. of supply-side type policies under Reagan in the 1980s. The Washington Consensus wasn't a thing until 1989, and it came to represent the sort of broad acceptance of supply-side economic policies by both parties, especially as the rise of the New Democrats led to the economic theory being basically the only game in town from that point forward. Clinton and Obama generally continued the same kind of economic thinking that was the Washington Consensus. --Jayron32 17:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That at least talked about education and healthcare for all which trickle down is definitely not about. Obamacare where are you. NadVolum (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NadVolum, can you please stay on topic. We are not discussing trickle down economics. We are discussing whether the wikipedia article on it should be reorganized to show more clearly that it is a term, not a specific policy, usually used by critics of a specific policy, and has been used to describe quite a few different things. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And as a term would it be okay to apply in describing a characteristic of some these specific policies that come out at the rate of one or more per country per year? Or do you think it should be deprecated a pejorative? NadVolum (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I don't think it's pejorative, as in, meaning to offend, but it is a shorthand term among critics. Its one-sided use is everywhere and easy to find. Non-critical use doesn't seem to exist. But, maybe it is intended to offend. One cannot escape the image of urine falling another's head as it "trickles down", an image that is oft expressed in comics.
If new usages become common, well then they should be added to the article. For example, hypothetical President Wright successfully implements a new tax and economic policy in his first term. Senator Yeft quickly critisized it as "trickle down". Some years later after implementation, analysis of the policies show it had X effects.
The successful implementation of Wright's policies would get their own page. Yeft's "trickle down" comment could be added to the trickle down usage section. Analysis of the policies and their X effects go the page on Wright's policies. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a pejorative term that is applied /used against a range of schools of thought and policies and so there is no distinct alternate term or even a distinct topic. Like Homosexual agenda . So the article should be about the term. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But it is not "a pejorative term for the concept that a rising economy (on average) lifts all." its much more specific than that. Interesting comparison, it says a lot about you but almost nothing about trickle-down economics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what you mean. Maybe it's best not to clarify if it was a personal attack.North8000 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I can tell you don't know what trickle down economics means. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is no better term then the idea should be covered under the term. And I agree it is not about the economy rising on average being good for all. NadVolum (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point is that it is just a pejorative metaphor that is applied to wide range of economic policies and theories, it's not a distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because they share a common characteristic which is the topic. As Back|Horse Eye's says it is more specific than what you say. Yes when some new disruptive thing comes along the income disparity will almost certainly increase but people in general will probably be better overall eventually. However that most certainly does not imply that if one just increases disparity that everyone will be better off eventually! NadVolum (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've not seen any common characteristic between the wide range of concepts, economic theories and policies that the term is commonly applied to. Other than the intended effect of helping the lower class. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you disagree ith the very first sentence in the article 'Trickle-down economics is a term used in critical references to economic policies that favor the upper income brackets, corporations, and individuals with substantial wealth or capital'? NadVolum (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with that first sentence possibly poisoning the well. With that starting a reader's mindset, they might reasonably read every example in the usage section as "policies that favor the upper income brackets ..." The article shouldn't be making those judgements, since they are put on many different things. This one article cannot be a place to address all of them. Those things have their own pages already. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And your citations to counter what the article says are? NadVolum (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand your reply. It doesn't seem relevant to what I said. I'm not trying to counter what the article says, nor it's current sources. Nor am I supporting it. I am saying that the current message is that "trickle down" is merely a common term, but not a specific thing, which has been used to refer to a lot of different things. What those things share in common is criticism that they are "policies that favor the upper income brackets". Whether those things are reasonable described that way belongs on those things' specific pages. For example, whether supply side economics (a real thing with a wiki page) is reasonably described as a policy that favors upper income brackets belongs on the supply side economics wiki page. It does not belong on the trickle down page just because some critics have called it that. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. It belongs where it is and where it is used. There is no policy or guideline that says to banish it to another page. Quite the opposite. Andre🚐 19:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. You provide nothing to back you up. You fail to demonstrate a NPOV. You have relentlessly obstructed any changes on this article for years. You have insisted, falsely, that any newcomer into the discussion must work things out with you before making edits already heavily discussed and largely agreed by the parties involved. You demonstrate an attempt to own the article and it's contents. You revert edits instead of improve them. You insinuate on a user's talk page that his engagement in the discussion and article is due to a conflict of interest, without recognizing the irony that your own year's long effort on this specific page to defend a small minority opinion would make that case much better. You filibuster the talk page, failing to answer direct questions, in an apparent effort to simply outlast everyone else. I can go on, but it's clear to me you are simply obstructing, for whatever reason. You just feel like you must have some message known on this particular article. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This message is extremely inappropriate and lacks good faith, and bordering on incivility. I am not obstructign anything, we are discussing the question at hand. Relentlessly obstructed changes to the article for years? What are you talking about? I never edited the talk page or the article before October 2022 [12] [13] Andre🚐 19:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"You fail to demonstrate a NPOV." is either horribly mangled by spell check or you genuinely don't understand how [[WP:NPOV] works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is the latter. I'm new to the platform. I know what NPOV means, since it's not a wikipedia only concept. Now I see it is a shortlink syntax. WP:NPOV Thanks. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If there is no better term ..." That's exactly the point. There are better terms in every usage instance we can find. Someone says "Oh, this is trickle down economics", which is in reference to a specific economic or political policy that does have a specific wiki page. This usage is so pervasive that many people believe trickle down is some specific thing. It is not. The current version does say this, which is good, but it's so messy that it is confusing and could fail to make this point to an uninformed reader. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we should just for instance treat Mammal as a term because each specific type of mammal has its own name? NadVolum (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with NadVolum. The article is about all the meanings and usages of "trickle-down economics." In politics, in economics, econometrics, socioeconomics, media, anthropology, whatever. Andre🚐 18:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference is that mammal is a distinct topic, "trickle down" is pejorative characterization applied to a wide range of concepts, economic theories and policies. That's why the article should cover it as a term . Homosexual agenda is an excellent example of how to do this. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you disagree with the first sentence of the article? NadVolum (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes North8000 (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I do as well. Can we not find better definitions sourced to somewhere else other than the Detroit News? Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you can't. Even Investopedia, generally a great encyclopedic source, loosely hobbles together roughly what is on Wikipedia. There is no pointer to anything, because there is nothing to point at. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a pretty terrible metaphor. Suggesting it at all leaves me questioning your commitment to bettering the article. The only people who would make a list called "Trickle down economics" are critics of the items in the list. Last I checked, there's no critics of any specific mammals, though I certainly don't trust the pangolin. I mean, really, what kind of respectable mammal has scales???
My initial comment on the talk page had this challenge: But what we need here first is admitting that this challenge hasn't been met: no one has called any economic theory they advocate for "trickle down". It is not a name that anyone self-describes.
Without conceding that point, the handful of editors that are insisting that the trickle down article be this ever growing list of criticisms of various policies strongly give the impression of pushing a POV. Put those criticisms on the things they are actually about. You seem so vested in the POV you can't even agree to reorganize what's there to make less confusing the message it already says: trickle down is a broadly used term, not a specific thing. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every single example on the first page I got from Google when I put in 'defnition trickle down economics' said practically the same thing so I think the weight is against you. Go and try if you can though. NadVolum (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me see if I can track down something scholarly, a book or journal article, something like that. It doesn't surprise me that there will be many sources saying TDE for rich folk or similar. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither I nor anyone I've seen here has a problem with the description. How the term is used seems pretty consistent, and no one is arguing that it's not. I don't think you are following what exactly is being suggested for this page. Like I've already said, the current message is more or less already where it should be. It's just confusing; it's not very clear to an uninitiated reader. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who exactly are you talking about? I assume those personal attacks aren't directed at me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to self-describing - that is not how Wikipedia works. Conservapedia calls itself the trustworthy encyclopaedia. It is not how Wikipedia describes it. NadVolum (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Squatch347. This article is about a pejorative term. Trickle-down economics is to Supply-side economics as Loony left is to Left-wing politics. After reading this thread, I would also like to ask that NadVolum consider throwing the ball to someone else, as it seems they're trying to turn this into an argument about their personal opinions on the subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've thrown the ball to them to provide citations supporting their point of view rather than what it currently says in the article. That after all is the firm basis of Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support the points made by NadVolum and I will note we had a prior RFC on this a few months ago and didn't reach a conclusion that trickle-down was purely pejorative or that it should be a term alone. That is a view not shared by all editors. Andre🚐 20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's see if we can refocus this a bit since it does seem to have become a debate. The question is, yes or no, is the primary point of this page to discuss a term's usage? I feel like reading through this thread that we actually do have pretty good consensus on that point. Squatch347 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. The primary point is to discuss the term's usage. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, its a wikipedia article so we cover usage, history, responses etc proportional to the coverage they receive in WP:RS per WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I concur with Horse Eye. Andre🚐 20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, that's odd, because we don't do that with any of the other pages I mentioned above. Instead, we simply confine ourselves to the term's usage and evolving meaning over time and link to other pages discussing the relative merits or (more often) demerits of the underlying policies or actions being referenced when people are using the term. This usage makes a bit more sense because the editors most likely to understand the kind of primary sources used for that discussion are on the main pages, not sub-pages referencing colloquial criticisms. Squatch347 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are required to abide by WP:NPOV in all articles. If we don't do it elsewhere you need to address that elsewhere. I think you will also find if you check Tax and spend, Social justice warrior, Anchor baby, and Gay agenda that you've told a little bit of a fib there... Might want to strike it out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read the article. I think most of the article stays the course of covering it as a term including the history and usage of the term. IMO there are only a few problems areas and they could be fixed by relatively minor wording changes. Adding a few sentences clarifying what the term seeks to do and I think you'd have a pretty good article.North8000 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly, I went through the article again to make a proposal and I am coming around to your view. I think a honestly a bit more clarification and the lumping of a few comments that read as policy analysis rather than term usage would probably do a lot to make this page better.
Do you have a specific proposal?
I'd make two broad changes
1) Re-organize lede to move some of the content to Economics or Politics sections, it is a good 20% of the article as is. Para 2 should go to the politics section since the examples of use are political in nature. Para 3 should be the intro to the history section. Para 1 needs to be expanded to follow the article and note that this term is used by a wide range of critics in reference to a wide set of policies.
2) Combine the three lines that read as a list under economics into one paragraph saying "Some economists have begun using the term to broadly refer to lowering progressive tax distributions when publishing in less formal literature."
Here is a proposed example of the changes.
Squatch347 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as we WP:PRESERVE what exists I am not opposed to a reorganization. I will note that the edits I reverted earlier did not simply reorganize the existing content but removed some. But if it is sourced and if it is relevant and NPOV, we shouldn't be removing the more economic or scientific content from the article to make it "just about the term," because that removes the substance and the basis. In other words, if it's a NPOV statement to say, as others have said, that there is no evidence for trickle-down economics (by which we mean, Reaganomics/supply side economics primarily), working, we need to not strip that fact out of the article or we are misinforming our readers on a content-relativist idea that "trickle-down doesn't mean anything so it might actually work or be accurate because it cannot be defined." If you catch my drift. That is the NPOV question in my view. If it's true that trickle-down is pejorative and only used negatively, we can still cover what it is used to criticize and clarify that said idea doesn't work empirically. If the answer is to merge the page with voodoo economics, Reaganomics and supply side economics into one monster page, well, you can propose that and I might agree with you. Andre🚐 21:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And as long as the content is referencing how the term is used, I definitely agree that it should stay. What I am offering in my proposal is to refocus the text on the term's usage and point readers to the host policies/schools of thought for the debate on their effectiveness. We shouldn't be including back and forth debates on whether supply side economics results in localized disemployment on a page that is talking about a label. Likewise, I don't think it adds any value for us to have a long discussion on Conservative vs Liberal ideology and their affects on society in the "lib-tard" page. We recognize that it is a term used to label an ideology and point back to that ideology for a more indepth article. Squatch347 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I oppose this proposal because you removed a number of statements: Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum. In each of the aforementioned tax reforms, taxes were cut across all income brackets, but the biggest reductions were given to the highest income earners as well as the Washington Post review and the section under Stiglitz that describes the review study. Are you positing some NPOV or balance reason to remove these statements or what is the reason? Andre🚐 21:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it improperly suggests that there is an economic theory that is called "trickle-down" rather than it being a term applied by critics to a broad set of very different policies. It also doesn't agree with the body of our article which has references to the term being used against broad tax cuts, progressive tax cuts, tax rebates, and even externality imbalances (nothing to do with tax cuts). I also don't think "The Balance" is a good enough source to justify that kind of broad definition. Squatch347 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the crux of the dispute IMHO and what we had the past RFC on which was never formally closed, but I would approximate a no consensus, and am open to a new RFC. Andre🚐 21:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, and that is a little confusing tbh. There is essentially no one who doesn't recognize that this is a term used by opponents of various policies. That position is unanimous, even it would seem by you. We also recognize, minus you I think, that there is no one who advocates for an economic development theory called trickle-down. The question is, do we include criticisms of the policies labelled by critics here or on their actual pages. That also seems to be largely agreed on as well. Squatch347 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it might go a long way if you could answer these two questions: 1) Are there improvements to the article that you would make? If yes, can you make a suggestionon the talk page now and we can discuss that? Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, what are you talking about? I didn't make any proposal to change the article. I do not believe the so-called improvements being proposed are actually improvements. Andre🚐 23:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know you didn't make any proposal, but you oppose them all. So you make one now. It's quite one-sided for you to oppose so quickly just about everything, but not suggest anything else. Do you think there are improvements that could be made? If yes, suggest one. I jumped in here because I'd actually like to improve the article. Two days and about 5000 words in, that hasn't happened yet. Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is WP:NODEADLINE, which you alluded to earlier. I don't currently have a proposal to make, but you seem to like to say that I'm not answering questions. As far as I know there isn't a question that I haven't answered. I responded below to the details that I oppose about your proposal. I am not in any authority position, I am just one contributor, and others have opined above. That's how it works, we all discuss proposals, and not all of them will become reality. However so far, your proposals don't appear to be grounded in a firm understanding of policy. Since you are new here, perhaps you should take a step back and let the discussion play out for a while before we either start a new RFC or discuss another compromise solution to address the article content if one is agreed to. I would say, we aren't close to it yet. Andre🚐 23:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just think it's really easy to be the guy who says no, instead of the guy trying to make an edit that will not get reverted. You've said a lot about what you don't want. You haven't said much about what you do want.
I read wp:nodeadline like a double edged sword. The ethic is that there will never be a practically perfect article, though we should edit as though we can theoretically get there. The key point being that we should edit, not get caught in some never-ending talk page loop. Most of what I'm saying has already been said a lot on that talk page. I see that as edit time. I think it's reasonable for me to make edits. By the wp:3rr rule, three per day. If you feel you must revert them, fine. But after some time if it's always you reverting them, maybe that means something about consensus. Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, no, that is not how it works. 3RR is not an allowance, and WP:EDITWAR is not encouraged. And consensus is not continuing to make the same edits against the status quo when other editors are reverting and telling you to discuss. The status quo has stood in the article for a long time, and I was not the one who wrote it. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you don't get to stand astride the work of thousands of contributors and decide it's no good and that you're the only one who can WP:RGW. Andre🚐 01:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made some notes about changes I would make, which I would characterize as what you say here. See my user page. I've got to go for now, but I'm going to put those in the talk page probably. Heavy Chaos (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with your proposal to add the WP:WEASEL "are said to" for so-called neutrality. I do not think it is a non-neutral statement to describe, per WP:YESPOV, the expert position that tax cuts do not trickle down. Furthermore your idea that we need to attribute an expert is not based on Wikipedia policy: proper academic consensus expert opinion should be stated as a fact in Wikivoice if it is largely unrebutted. And isn't that the argument that y'all have been making, that nobody seriously accepts trickle-down theory? What do you mean by The way it highlights that these tax cut policies are almost always Republican is not NPOV? Are there any other tax cut policies that are supply side and trickle-down from Democrats? Because I do not see any. Negative coverage is not automatically not neutral. WP:FALSEBALANCE Andre🚐 23:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just pointing to them here at the moment. We should put this stuff in the talk page. Thank you for the feedback. Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I definitely also oppose removing the bit Andre opposed above saying supply side economics is not automatically trickle down. The latest incarnations of supply side economics have tended that way but it is most definitely not part of what it was supposed to be about originally. Personally I view these various schools of economics as tools of various think tanks whose purpose is to push what their donors want rather than anything related to a well researched basis for economics. NadVolum (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would help me if you were more specific as to how this pertains to NPOV. Which categories would you say this pertains to and why (some specific examples and arguments)? To clarify I added some points from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view...

  • Stating opinions as facts.
  • States seriously contested assertions as facts.
  • Judgmental language.
  • Fails to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.

DN (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that subtle-looking changes in about 6 sentences would fix the problems. I'd be happy to blaze though and make them and then someone could revert them if they don't agree. Or I'd be happy to just leave, having said what I had to say. I'm not really worried about the outcome of this particular article, but I do have an interest in the structural terminology challenges this is an example of which are pretty unrecognized and widespread which leads to unnecessary eternal issues at some articles. North8000 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you have a sense of what is controversial and disputed. Subtle changes in a handful of places are certainly not going to raise an objection if they are an improvement. If you think they're likely to be controversial you can certainly spell out a little more what you'd like to change - maybe someone are uncontroversial and some would merit some discussion or other opinions. Andre🚐 04:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that minor changes are likely sufficient. I've boldly started with one sentence, which was completely misattributed.
Apart from that, the article needs major expansion rather than removals. It's bizarre that an article on "trickle-down economics" doesn't discuss tax progressivity at all. Even though the lead should stay focused on the term, I'd favor significantly expanding the article by adding subheadings under "Economics" that cover economic studies on each of the policies that have been labelled trickle down (as long as it's properly sourced); basically expanding on the WaPo paragraph I just changed. And when I say "policies", I don't mean laws like TCJA2017, but general policies like "lowering capital gains", keeping the carried interest loophole, etc. It may not even be particularly out of place to mention BEPS in this article (again, as long as sourcing is found). Despite being a political term, it still refers to a range of specific practices; it's not that nebulous, unlike other pejoratives. DFlhb (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that I think of it, what I propose would be better covered in the Supply-side economics article, which should cover the effects that lower income or corporate taxes would have on employment, consumption, income inequality, wealth inequality, and poverty, sourced to studies by economists. I agree that this article should stay focused on the term, so it doesn't become redundant. DFlhb (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks DFlhb! I looked through your edits and they seem pretty good, thanks for taking the time. Squatch347 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My tweaks would be to more treat it as a term, not to deal with "balance" etc. I'll put a note at the talk page and give it a try. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made the intended tweaks but I was wrong....they are not enough to fix the issues. IMO it needs significant paring to cover it more as a mere term. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I suggest you get some citations which express whatever it is you're thinking of first. In fact we're supposed to try and look neutrally for good sources but at last a few supporting what you say would be a very good start. Your own thoughts count as WP:OR. NadVolum (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are talking about my "what's still needed" comment, I'm not planning any more changes. I only mentioned it to note that my previous projection turned out to be incorrect. IMO there are some issues with the rest of your post but don't see the need to dive into that here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and restored the status quo. There were too many removals of sourced material. PLEASE can we DISCUSS the removals? Andre🚐 15:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to post each of the suggested edits one at a time so we can discuss them in detail. This seems unnecessary since there does seem to be broad consensus on the direction of the page and that reordering does need to be done. Better, would be an approach to edit based on the changes to suggest improvement. But, having been down this road before I'll note that discussion is not an excuse to WP:OWN a page. Digging your feet in and reverting all changes is not constructive editing. Squatch347 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You keep repeating that you have broad consensus but then you seem to substitute whatever argument you're making for consensus, that sort of behavior is generally viewed as disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, that is an interesting take. Do you not see a consensus here that the article is primarily aimed at the use of the term? I don't think any editor has so far objected to that goal. Squatch347 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that there has been an objection raised to ignoring WP:NPOV on WP:IAR grounds but if you would like to continue to argue for IAR be my guest. If by that statement you don't mean that we should ignore NPOV and that statement is meaningless (basically a statement of what a wikipedia article is) then what's the point? Thats the problem with the statement meaning whatever you want it to mean, its either absurd or meaningless because we all agree (and nothing would change as a result). Note the NPOV discussion above that you abandoned, are you sure you meant to say "I don't think any editor has so far objected to that goal" when you're involved in the discussion[14]? Is this a memory issue or have you told a fib? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is clearly not a consensus that this should be "simply a term." Andre🚐 17:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term "Trickle down" is inherently at least two assertions:

  1. That a policy/person/law/direction advocated is about favoring the top
  2. That the proponent's main or sole justification is that something given to the top passes to the bottom

In sticking to coverage of the term, the article/editors must recognize that the term is inherently an allegation of existence of the above two items. Material which treats "trickle down" as an extent entity rather than a term is inherently asserting that both of the above items are fact. The article has a lot of that in it. North8000 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is correct if I'm reading it correctly. Do you have an example of material in the article that currently does that? Squatch347 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have an ironclad source for what we "must recognize" correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources don't cover "how to build a Wikipedia article". Implying that a talk page comment about development of the article is invalid if it is not ironclad sourced is, to put it mildly, not correct and not constructive. The same for implying that I was violating a norm or requirement by my post. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those assertions are not about building a Wikipedia article, they're assertions about "trickle down" and you absolutely do need to provide a reliable source. This is the NPOV noticeboard, did you forget where you were? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are mistaken....WP:Ver does not apply to text here or in talk pages. Being mistaken is not big deal, but then you built an insulting post founded on your mistake.North8000 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not saying it does, I'm asking where you leaned that "The term "Trickle down" is inherently at least two assertions..." or if you just made it up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK look you are both right... no you don't need a source for assertions on talk per se, but you do need to provide one if asked. I agree with both of you in general about what trickle-down IS, but I don't agree that we need to "stick to coverage of the term." We should cover the term and the studies and the academic contention on the CONCEPT of trickle-down which, while it can have multiple meanings, chiefly refers to tax cuts for the wealthy helping the economy/all boats, and that's what economic studies have generally looked at. Andre🚐 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree on the point that "trickle down is only a term." I'll start a new RFC on the article talk. Andre🚐 17:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was talking about how to cover it. Structurally, it is an alternate spun/POV way to describe real world stuff and an assertion of #1 and #2 regarding it. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Politicians often brag about the second point - that "massive" deregulation and tax cuts will benefit the little guy. Trump comes to mind. They're not policymakers, so I would still count this as "term" rather than "economic theory", but we should include something about this in the article. DFlhb (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed! Andre🚐 17:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree with this. There are a couple of sources in there that would cover this, but any sources labelling those as trickle-down (which I imagine are legion, especially in the UK context) should be referenced as the term broadens from must tax cuts to larger policy debates. Squatch347 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think it's accurate to say that the article is primarily about a term, or that "trickle-down economics" is exclusively used pejoratively. Trickle-down economics is used extensively in academic sources to refer to a real academic theory, by sources that treat it as the proper name of a real economic theory. My reading is that it has been subject to a euphemism treadmill where people who support trickle-down economics are trying to use other terms now because they believe it has acquired a negative reputation, but that's not the same as it being purely pejorative and it's not a good reason to try and rewrite the article to cover it solely as a term, especially when that doesn't really reflect the sources. I suggest that people who are arguing that it is analogous to eg. "tax and spend" or "loony left" at least glance at Google Scholar; the sourcing is extensive and doesn't treat it as just a pejorative to be discussed but as the proper name of a genuine economic theory. The argument that we could exclude those sources - which discuss trickle-down economics and actual results related to it at length - simply because some editors personally feel the term is pejorative is not appropriate and would result in a non-neutral article due to the exclusion of a prominent and well-sourced perspective on the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure this is an accurate reading of the term's use. And in fact there was a large, prolonged discussion on exactly that on the talk page awhile back. Looking at your list there doesn't seem to be a single use of the term not in a pejorative manner nor a single author on the first three pages at least saying "I believe benefits will trickle-down."
What is interesting is how it has become a more broadly used term than it was historically being used to label traditionally demand-side policies as Trickle Down as well. Those would definitely be worth a review and add, but (getting back to my main point). Does that mean we need to include empirical studies on every single policy that someone somewhere calls "trickle-down?" Squatch347 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+2 I was going to ask what Aquillion specifically what "the subject" means in their last sentence. Everything that anybody has called "trickle down"? Only when the proponent of the policy has said "give the money to the rich people and it will get to the poor people" (which is never)? I thought of an even better example Welfare Queen because while there could theoretically be a few who meet the definition (getting rich from abuse of the system) the common use is applying or claiming that term much more widely. And the coverage of the article is about the term, it does not cover or study people who are receiving payments just because they are the topic of the term. Covering the ostensible "topic" of the term in the article would be tantamount to Wikipedia saying that they are welfare queens and Wikipedia participating in the renaming of them as such..North8000 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Aquillion and yes, we should include empirical studies that use trickle-down. Andre🚐 21:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs some attention[edit]

Needs some attention @ Talk:History of slavery in the Muslim world#"Any non-Muslim could be enslaved"

Bookku (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They aren't the same thing. As it stands now that looks like a NPOV violation. Doug Weller talk 08:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would've thought the same as you, but quick search shows:
Cornell Law School:
Undocumented immigrants are individuals who have either illegally entered the United States without inspection, or legally entered the United States with valid nonimmigrant visas but those visas have expired.
Washington State:
Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, are foreign-born people who do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation, because they entered the U.S. without inspection, stayed longer than their temporary visa permitted, or otherwise violated the terms under which they were admitted.
Is an undocumented immigrant the same as an illegal alien?
Theoretically yes, but "illegal alien" is not a technical term. It's popularly used jargon, nowhere found in the U.S. immigration laws. Because of its insulting connotations, however, we at Nolo prefer to use more neutral terms like "undocumented immigrant" or "unauthorized immigrant."
Now I suppose one could use the term "undocumented immigrant" for people who immigrated to a country before there were immigration laws, but I don't think that's how it's used - that would just be an "immigrant" wouldn't it? —DIYeditor (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is not just about the USA, so U.S. immigration laws are not in general for this discussion of any importance. --Bduke (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to provide evidence for other contexts. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While of course non-policy-based arguments can be made either way, academic research does not support[15] this being an NPOV violation. DFlhb (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can any one give examples of a difference? Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can lie on my declaration form or in my interview, which would make me documented but illegal. Not that I believe this is a strong argument, or that it happens much more regularly than these. In discourse, these terms are synonyms, with the only notable distinction being "immigration" vs "immigrant". DFlhb (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I meant RS making a distinction. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the United States if they are workers they are called either undocumented workers[16] [17] or noncitizen workers[18] Doug Weller talk 11:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should add that this came to my attention here [19] which might be a BLP issue. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that this is a potential BLP issue; I think your diff is much better than the previous version. If sources use "undocumented", then should use the same term in a BLP, not come up with our own. DFlhb (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So the issue is undocumented worker rather than undocumented immigrant? Or are both potentially inaccurate redirects? —DIYeditor (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both I'd say. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd just add that redirects do not necessarily need to be neutral, so long as they assist readers in getting to appropriate intended articles. If two terms are widely (yet not exclusively) treated as functionally equivalent, than redirects are appropriate (extreme pedantry is not a virtue), although ther may be more appropriate subsections to target a redirect. Review reasons to keep and reasons to delete redirects. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If BLP is involved, using "illegal" when the individual hasn't been accused or convicted of being in the country illegally would be a violation, but "undocumented" would be fine. Thus probably better to treat the concepts differently but obviously connected. Masem (t) 00:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Admittedly a US perspective, but there is no question in my mind that "illegal alien" is pejorative, especially in Texas and Arizona. See the political discourse around "dreamers". Question: is this term ever applied to Syrian refugees in Europe? Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]