Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 108

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

An IP has been removing content referring to white supremacy at National Policy Institute and William Regnery II. The removals are not quite egregious enough for the vandalism noticeboard, but are also clearly contrary to NPOV. I can't keep on reverting so I ask for other experienced editors to take a look. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, to the average reader, is there really a great difference between white nationalism and white supremacy? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Just doing a quick google search suggests that either term may be appropriate in Wikivoice, perhaps more weight on "white supremacy" with about 10x more hits on that. However, this should be better demonstrated with additional sources in the last section. There are only 2 or 3 sources there which is, to me, nowhere near the weight needed to be able to say either term in wikivoice. There just needs to be better demonstration via a source survey the terms apply. Masem (t) 01:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think white supremacy is the best term to use. That is what appears in the article now. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Your listing for the aforementioned movie indicates it was played in 1974. I remember seeing this movie around 1960 - 1961. I was about 11 years old when I saw it and it left a permanent fear in me of the D-9 caterpillar! BTW in 1974, I was a reactor operator on a submarine in cold water.

Regarding my reaction to seeing a D-9 is a shiver and the hair on the back of my neck standing. It still happens even at 73. 2600:1700:7B1D:A000:E28:E945:90A8:89C5 (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If it were released in 1960, the director would have been about 13 years old. Woodroar (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You may be thinking of a different movie based on (or inspired by) the original story, which was published in 1944. Maybe an episode of "Twilight Zone", or something similar? Daveosaurus (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Theodore Sturgeon re-released the short story as part of an anthology in 1958. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The original Astounding stories cover art is also quite striking. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for a long time but have been struggling to keep up with the constant stretching and bloating of the org's novel-length history and brochure of various initiatives, afiliates, spin-offs, and other things often with only primary sources. If I was a cynic, I might notice that these additions keep pushing the Criticisms section down farther and farther. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• This article seems long, but I don't think the criticism is hard to find. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"Recognizing the changing circumstances of its membership, AARP began offering more work-related tools and resources and ramped up its advocacy against age discrimination in the workplace."

... because only AARP can "recognize" these things, right?

"Beginning in 2009, AARP backed the “Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act” (POWADA), which aims to restore fairness for workers"

...look up fairness in Wikipedia, and you'll see AARP's logo staring back at you

"In 2018, AARP Foundation lawyers represented two Ohio State employees who were forced out of their jobs because of their age"

.... being "forced out of their jobs," now that's a neutral description if I ever heard one

"AARP's research indicates that nearly half (57 million) of American workers have no access to a retirement savings plan through their employers.

.... The Apocalypse is coming for you, so you better get AARP, right? Well thank goodness for AARP posting its own WP:OR in its article, to warn us about it. But seriously, the entire article is like a gigantic brochure. It's quite shameless.  Spintendo  14:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

A new user, Gsgdd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is insisting on removing any mention from the intro of the Al Jazeera article (note: This is specifically about the Arabic language channel, not Al Jazeera English, which is somewhat confusing, we also have another article about the Al Jazeera Media Network) any mentions of questions regarding editorial independence from the state of Qatar [1], stating on my talkpage that to include it is to attack the news channel [2]. I fundamentally disagree, with this, as I think this something worth mentioning in the introduction, especially given that shutting down Al Jazeera was one of the ultimatum conditions given in the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

which is somewhat confusing It is. Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Would Al Jazeera (Arabic language channel) be a better title for this article? Would it be better to have Al Jazeera as a disambiguation page? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Made a move request, see Talk:Al_Jazeera#Requested_move_29_October_2023. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Eminently sensible move request, although I don't see why the base title shouldn't point to Al Jazeera Media Network. It would probably be worth bringing up a discussion on the lead on the article talkpage as well, there doesn't seem to be one. CMD (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose redirecting the base title to Al Jazeera Media Network. I've also made a section at the article talkpage as you requested, see Talk:Al_Jazeera#Editorial_independence_from_Qatar. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The requested move has just been closed and carried out (Talk:Al Jazeera Arabic#Requested move 29 October 2023). The close addresses the base page name; please see my other comment at #Where should Al Jazeera redirect to? subsection below. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Al Jazeera is a brand name that refers to both English and Arabic channels. Even in the wiki itself, the languages are Arabic and English. Google, Twitter, and YouTube directly link to this article when they display the disclaimer on English News content, that 'Al Jazeera is funded by the Qatari government.' Can we rename Al Jazeera to Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English to just Al Jazeera - this way Google and other webistes correctly use `Al Jazeera` for English content. Gsgdd (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• To avoid the appearance of bias, I believe we shouldn't mention controversies in the introduction. I checked many other leading news websites wiki's, as well as many state-sponsored news websites wikis, and none of them include controversies in the introduction. Gsgdd (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think the funding and the basis on which it operates should be in the lead (like the BBC, for instance). Arguments about what that might mean in practice probably not. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I definitely agree in this case for the English language coverage, which like the UK government, the Qatari government seems to exert little control over and is generally non partisan and the accusations of bias are weak. My point was about the Arabic langauge coverage, though this is something to be left until after the move request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Does anybody think it would be good to consolidate the coverage of the whole Al Jazeera conglomerate into fewer articles? Like, do we really need a separate articles for Aljazeera.com, AJ+, Al Jazeera Documentary Channel, Al Jazeera Balkans and Al Jazeera Mubasher or the aborted Al Jazeera Türk and Al Jazeera Urdu? It just feels like there is too much fragmentation in the coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Opened a merge proposal for two of these articles: Talk:Al_Jazeera_English#Aljazeera.com_merge_proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Merged Aljazeera.com into Al Jazeera English, and Al Jazeera Urdu and Al Jazeera Turk into Al Jazeera Media Network. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  And Al Jazeera America. Selfstudier (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  that seems like a huge undertaking - just to do it neatly - remove redundant or unnecessary information. Gsgdd (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Should "Al Jazeera" redirect to/ be the title of:

• The Al Jazeera English article.
• The Al Jazeera Media Network article.
• A disambiguation page.
• Something else.

I personally do not have a strong opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, Al Jazeera should redirect to Al Jazeera English because of the following reason.

- Most people searching for "Al Jazeera" on google.com are actually looking for information about Al Jazeera English. When you search for "Al Jazeera" on Google, the second link that appears is for Al Jazeera. This can be confusing, as those seeking information about Al Jazeera English often end up on the Al Jazeera Arabic Wiki. To better assist people in finding what they are looking for and simplify their search, it makes sense to redirect to Al Jazeera English.

- The english-language version is the primary topic on the English Wikipedia.

- It is a standard practice to link popular keywords directly to the most relevant products or information. For instance, when users search for "Google," they are usually interested in information about the Google search engine, given its widespread recognition, rather than its parent holding company. Therefore, it would be more intuitive to link "Al Jazeera" to its flagship product, Al Jazeera English, rather than Al Jazeera Media Network.

- Youtube, Twitter and other website's are incorrectly linking a disclaimer on Al Jazeera English contents to Al Jazeera To fix this, we need to redirect Al Jazeera to Al Jazeera English Gsgdd (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the claim that "Al Jazeera English" is the flagship brand of the Al Jazeera network is questionable. Al Jazeera Arabic is arguably of at least equal importance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you have a point there. Im really trying to fix this search engine mess. So either Al Jazeera to Al Jazeera English or a disambiguation page works with me. Let's see how others feel. Gsgdd (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure it linking to a product is standard practice, our "Google" article is about the company, not Google Search. Either way, this is a discussion better held at a relevant talkpage and/or RfD. CMD (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

bad example. sorry. Al Jazeera is unique in the sense it is a brand name used in many of its products. So which one will we link to with least amount of user confusion? Gsgdd (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It should direct to either Al Jazeera English or Al Jazeera Media Network - the pros for the former are that it is what most readers in the English-speaking world will be actually searching for, since that is the de facto "Al Jazeera" that pops up when you search in English, and it is indeed the flagship product these days, as evidenced by Al Jazeera English commanding the aljazeera.com domain, while Arabic is hived off to the .net domain. The network's pros are that the latter is the top-level umbrella of the organisation and so natural fit for the generic title, but at the same time, it's more the administrative unit than it is the flag waver for the brand: it's web domain is notably the ignominious "network.aljazeera.net". My gut feeling is that it would benefit readers far more to be directed towards the former, with hatnotes flagging to the network, Arabic version, etc., for those interested. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you pick one. We are trying to reach a consensus :) Gsgdd (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Disambig page. Bon courage (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Title of a disambiguation page, it's what everybody calls it, looks for etcetera, fastest way to target.Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Ideally to the Media Network page, which could fold in all of the unnecessary spin off articles. But that’s a lot of work so for now could go to disamb page. I don’t think it should go to AJE page any more than to AJA. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support moving this article to Al Jazeera Arabic, support moving Al Jazeera English to Al Jazeera Kingcio2 (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Obvsiously Al Jazeera should redirect to Al Jazeera Media Network. Al Jazeera is not its English subsidiary. JM2023 (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• I support redirecting the title to Al Jazeera Media Network – since that's the overarching Al Jazeera entity – and we can have a hatnote from there that points to Al Jazeera English. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• This seems easily resolved by changing the name of the article to Al Jazeera (Arabic language channel) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• The entire media network – that it was reliable sources usually refer to when they say "Al Jazeera" Mach61 (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• The close of related discussion at Talk:Al Jazeera Arabic#Requested move 29 October 2023 addresses the base page name: it will host a dab, so that incoming wikilinks and stats like pageviews and click-throughs (through WikiNav) in the next months. After we have enough data, another RM can be opened to determine what should happen to Al Jazeera and related pages. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be something done on the dab's talk page, where watchers of the page would be more likely to see it? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

A newly created page that, while about a notable subject, seems to have been written in such a way that it omits countless failed fact checks around the subject's claims (e.g. about the Bucha massacre) among other things. Instead over-relies on Russian state media, primary sources, mid-to-low tier sources for the subject area (although a handful of RS are used). I have done some for the page but overall it could just use some more attention. There is also a discussion on the talk page about how to cover the ideology of the subject. VintageVernacular (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Article is now put to an AfD, though not by me. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This blog is currently under fire in the media for having recently outed a crossdresser politician, who subsequently commited suicide. Its article looks like an attack page now, with recent negative information being given UNDUE prominence in the lead.

Compare the way the page looked a few days ago and how it looks like now that I'm writing this thread. A recently created account seems to be displaying OWNERSHIP behavior there as well. SparklyNights 21:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted it because it was doxxing someone who was likely a member of the LGBT community. Breitbart News is definitely a far-right news agency. Calling the outting of LGBT people "conservative" rather than homophobic or transphobic is outrageously euphemistic.

I'm gay so admit my bias... but posting personal information about LGBT individual who aren't involved in anti-LGBT people crosses the line. The former version of the article also posted personally identifying information about the individual involved in this and linked directly to the dox.

The website's editor-in-chief is a former staff member of Breitbart news: which is labeled "far-right" on Wikipedia. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. SparklyNights 22:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not about righting pasts wrongs. They're unfortunately dead for good because of what they did. In what sense is true information an "attack page"? StardustToStardust (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Best as I can tell, the 1819 has at most outed the one person. That incident has to be covered on the 1819 page, but one incident doesn't make it a outing or doxing site. Masem (t) 22:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

They've done this in the past to other LGBT people as well. This has been mentioned in many places.

Calling a Breitbart-spinoff "conservative" is sugarcoating. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You need to show those reliable sources (not blogs) for those other cases. And just because what they did is morally wrong, per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS we are still to write about them in an objective, neutral tone. Masem (t) 23:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up here. I created the 1819 News article back in October before the very sad Copeland story unfolded. Most sources, including 1819's contemporaries at AL.com, use the term conservative to describe the site. The first sentence of the Reporting section previously reflected this, but it was changed to make the claim that it is "best known for doxxing and outing public and private individuals for LGBTQIA activity," which is a fairly recentist description based solely on the Copeland story. There still are not any reliable sources that match the claims being added, including the assertion that 1819 is known for doxing, which I have not found any source for. It is a frustrating and preventable thing that happened with Copeland, but as others has said, we need to match the sources and not try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. See also my comments on the 1819 talk page. Kafoxe (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• There is no doubt going to be more that comes out about this in reliable sources and it would obviously be best to not editorialize. It is indeed a very sad thing and Copeland is still being mourned by real people affected by his death. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There's some spillover on Bubba Copeland as well lately (which I started watching after seeing this section). I've had to rewrite insertions that misrepresented what precisely was in the given sources. VintageVernacular (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

More opinions are welcome at Ibram X. Kendi, where Arsenic99 is repeatedly inserting a lengthy quote from a primary source from 2003 into the lead of the article: In 2003, Kendi had written an article entitled "Living with the White Race" where he claimed that "Europeans are a different breed of human" who are "socialized to be aggressive" and "raised to be racist."^[1] He promoted the claim that white skin color is a "recessive gene" and states "therefore [white people are] facing extinction." Kendi stated his controversial beliefs that "Whites have tried to level the playing field with the AIDS virus and cloning."^[1]

Kendi's views were originally described as "conspiracy theory" and now as "controversial beliefs", with no secondary source to say so. The page is under contentious topics that myself and Arsenic99 have both been made aware of. Two reverts each (mine exempt from edit warring by BLP exception #7). — Bilorv (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless this has been discussed by reliable sources, I agree that it is undue to include. Arsenic99 seems to be somewhat of a SPA these days, so this might be worth escalating to ANI if they persist in being disruptive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be discussed by "reliable sources" for it to be true. What matters in an encyclopedia is what's true and relevant to the user's biography and foundational framework of beliefs. That isn't undue to include it. Bilorv has repeatedly removed it without edits. Just as you have removed it without edits. If something is true AND within context not providing undue weighting to something that is irrelevant to the topic or not as important then it doesn't make sense to remove it especially when it speaks the foundations of his philosophy and his work. By the way, Bilorv wrote a majority of the content of "How to be an anti-racist" on wikipedia, so not only are you removing content that is foundational to the biography of a living person underlying all of his work--written by the living person himself--but at the behest of someone who typically writes articles about this persons' work and books. In what encyclopedia, knowledgeable textbook, or major news publication does this make sense--where we don't get to know about who someone is and their foundational beliefs aside from their accolades, simple facts about publications he wrote, and his educational credentials and job status? It's a very mundane biography, there is no need to protect his page like this without any reasonable edits. You guys have removed my content over and over again without any actual good-faith edits and refusal to discuss it in a talk page. That is not the way editing and contributing works on wikipedia. I've never seen a person's biography be protected from their own words on wikipedia biographies before. Also, it was indeed originally described a "conspiracy theory" because by definition, it is a conspiracy theory. I even removed the word "conspiracy theory" and wrote "controversial belief" instead to accommodate Bilorv, and you still removed what I wrote (which is that you removed what Ibram Kendi wrote because it would inform the readers and educate them about Ibram Kendi's views without any undue weighting to his foundational core beliefs that color the rest of his works as an educator).

— ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that you changed "conspiracy theory" to the still-unsourced, value-laden "controversial". However, I am yet to see where else you have taken feedback into account. In particular I don't see evidence that you have read and considered the reasons that are currently given for exclusion of the content. You are welcome to make up your own rules for an encyclopedia and follow them on your own website. On Wikipedia the policies and guidelines are determined through community discussion and then enforced on each article. Three of those rules are that we summarise the content of reliable secondary sources (also true of traditional encyclopediae), consider order and prominence of content according to the principle of "undue weight", and use consensus to make decisions. We now have several volunteers opining against inclusion of the content. — Bilorv (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Clearly I have read and considered the reasons people are providing and even replied at length to it with a transparent and honest attitude. I didn't make up any rules, the rules of an encyclopedia are primarily to inform the readers of very truthful, relevant, and contextual information as well as reliably sourced information. In this case, no one is disputing that the writings are indeed authored by the person in the biography. We have also considered the WP:BLP rules including "Self-published" sources. The primary reason against inclusion is: (1) not discussed enough by reliable sources and (2) a separate debate about whether the word "controversial" is too controversial. The existence of controversy appears to be controversial. I have accommodated your feedback and suggestions by editing out "conspiracy theory" in the spirit of consensus and yet you have incorporated zero feedback or improvements or even any suggestions to the article I've provided, thus far. I now may include reliable sources since we have established solidly that the main objections are: (1) WP:UNDUE (2) the word "controversial" or "conspiracy theory" or similar types of labeling.

— ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Commented there. In general we should stay far away from labels like conspiracy theory and controversial beliefs. Springee (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

But do you not think that simply "undoing the revision" as a defensive measure rather than updating it or assisting in better wording wouldn't be a better call? What's the point of just removing it if it goes to their foundational beliefs, unless there is an underlying situation here where the words of Ibram Kendi are not relevant to his biography in some way, but I've seen quotes from original sources from the living person that explains his way of thinking in his own biography page.

And note the original complains were about "reliable sources", and here is a reliable source citing the same writings and words that Ibram Kendi wrote. We could have surely edited it. "The column caused a stir, and Rogers was summoned to see the editor of the local newspaper, the Tallahassee Democrat, where he was an intern"--but you see that's why I wrote "controversial view", but I suppose "a stir" is not quite equivalent to "controversial" but from a meaning standpoint I think they mean almost the same thing.

— ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I've made a comment there. In summary, the article overall is naturally in WP:NOTRIGHT territory given various factors involved, and given the lack of secondary RS the quote can only be included if a "Beliefs" section is introduced to the article. JM2023 (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a "Political commentary" section that would suffice. Just report Kendi's views without labels. Sennalen (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the infobox at 2023 Israel–Hamas war does not attribute Palestinian casualties. However, reliable sources typically do so, saying "according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry" or similar.

This has been discussed on the talk page, where I presented an extensive list of sources:

These were primarily obtained by working down the list of reliable news sources at WP:RSP; the rest were obtained by working through the sources listed by another editor. I'm opening a discussion here to get the opinion of uninvolved editors on whether we need to attribute such casualties per WP:DUE; my belief is that we do need to do so, as given how typical attribution is it is inappropriate and UNDUE for us to put their figures in WikiVoice. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The question is not do we attribute it is how. BilledMammal is suggesting we attribute in text for Palestinian figures but not for Israeli figures, or he refuses to discuss them at the same time. Whereas sources attribute all the figures the same way. Example, ABC: More than 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, including children, and more than 4,500 people have been injured, Israeli officials said ... At least 3,400 people have been killed in Gaza and more than 12,000 have been injured, according to the Palestinian Health Authority.; WSJ: Israeli authorities said 1,200 had died during attacks by Hamas militants that began Saturday with intense rocket fire and an infiltration of fighters. More than 2,800 have been injured. The Palestinian Health Ministry said 1,100 people had died as a result of Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza with some 5,339 injured.; Washington Post: Palestinian authorities said Israeli strikes have killed at least 5,087 people in Gaza and wounded more than 15,200. In Israel, more than 1,400 people have been killed and more than 5,400 injured since Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7, according to Israeli authorities. At least 32 U.S. nationals were among those killed.. The idea we should have unequal attribution as though only one side's counts are being attributed in the media is what is a NPOV issue. But we do attribute, the infobox has an end note "per Hamas-run Ministry of Health". The text explicitly attributes as well. What is being objected to is unequal treatment when the sources dont do that. nableezy - 00:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Whether to attribute Israeli casualties is a separate question, and given the complexity of this question and that question will only cause this discussion to be derailed if we try to discuss them in the same section; please, open a section below this one, present your evidence, and we can discuss. For now, without getting too deeply into it as I don't want this discussion to be derailed, the statement Whereas sources attribute all the figures the same way is inaccurate; in the source list above there are a number of source that in the same sentence attribute Palestinian casualties but put Israeli casualties in their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've gone and opened a discussion for you; it is relevant to note that all of those sources attributed Palestinian casualties, even when they were not attributing Israeli in the same sentence. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Im discussing this here, sorry. nableezy - 00:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've merged the sections and put these as subsections; I hope you will find that structure sufficiently addresses your concerns about these being related while allowing us to consider the two questions in a structured and productive manner. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It does not, Im discussing how sources treat both sets of statistics and how we should. Again, I decline to accept your desired framing of this as two issues. The question here is how should either set of stats be attributed. People can decide they should be treated differently, but it is one discussion. nableezy - 01:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not a separate question, and the repeated attempt to pretend like these questions are not connected in any way is seemingly an effort to impose a double standard, and the demand that it be a separate discussion is seemingly made so that it doesnt look so blatant when that double standard is imposed. Some sources, apparently, do that, most do not. Of your own sources, Alarm is growing over the spiralling humanitarian crisis in Gaza as Israel struck back following the October 7 attacks, which Israeli officials say killed more than 1,400 people who were shot, stabbed or burnt to death by militants. And many of the sources that dont attribute in later stories when the Israeli casualties have not changes also have articles attributing those casualties to Israeli officials (obviously, what source has themselves verified the count?). Also, many of these same sources do not attribute it to the "Hamas-run" ministry in stories, eg Reuters will in some, but will just say The Palestinian health ministry said the Gaza death toll in two weeks of air strikes had topped 5,000. in another story. nableezy - 00:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE; needing to attribute some information doesn't mean we need to attribute other information - both pieces of information need to be evaluated separately, which is why I am discussing the other piece of information below. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Except sources largely do treat both sets of attribution the same, which is why I am discussing it here. You can quote me down there if you like lol, but this is one topic and Ill be discussing it as one topic. To repeat myself, the attempt to pretend like these questions are not connected in any way is seemingly an effort to impose a double standard, and the demand that it be a separate discussion is seemingly made so that it doesnt look so blatant when that double standard is imposed. I for one decline to play that game. nableezy - 01:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Except sources largely do treat both sets of attribution the same, which is why I am discussing it here.

Except they don't; I've presented copious evidence of that, so I'm quite confused why you keep insisting on that point. Almost without exceptions sources attribute the Palestinian casualty counts. Typically, they attribute it to the "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry" or similar; sometimes they omit mention of Hamas.

Typically, sources don't attribute the Israeli casualty count; below, we see that in 20 randomly selected - not cherry picked - articles 15 don't attribute while just 5 do. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you presented anecdotal evidence. And I get different google news results than you do: UN: According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict.; ABC: At least 1,400 people have died and 3,400 others have been injured in Israel after the militant group Hamas launched an unprecedented incursion from air, land and sea on Oct. 7, Israeli authorities said. NBC: More than 3,700 people have been killed and more than 13,000 have been injured in Gaza. In Israel, 1,400 people have been killed and 3,500 have been wounded. (doesnt attribute either); AFP: "Over 1,400 were killed (and) over 120 Israelis were abducted by Hamas terrorists" since the October 7 attack, Tal Heinrich, spokeswoman for the prime minister's office, told journalists. nableezy - 01:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you presented anecdotal evidence I presented a systematic review of a random sampling of news sources.

And I get different google news results than you do That would be because you used a different search; mine was limited to the past day while yours was not. BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian casualties should be attributed to whoever claims them if its a Palestinian source. We now know how inaccurate they can be when they claimed over 500 casualties at the hospital explosion (while also apparently falsely claiming it was Israel's intentional fault). And also, Gazan institutions are controlled by a terrorist organization. Should not be in Wikivoice. BilledMammal's systematic review is adequate evidence. JM2023 (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The game playing with the searches is getting tiresome, the claim below is CNBC does not attribute to Israeli officials when another story will say As of 5:30 a.m. ET on Wednesday, more than 1,400 people in Israel have been killed, with 3,500 injured, according to the government’s press office. But below a user will claim CNBC does not attribute the count to Israel. Shrug I guess. Same for CNN, Hamas’ attack has left more than 1,400 people dead in Israel, mostly civilian, with at least 199 believed to be held hostage inside Gaza, according to Israeli authorities. Pretty sure can find the same for each of the sources. nableezy - 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this entire discussion on systematically attributing the sources of the death -- that is saying that the health ministry is Hamas-run data or not -- is gonna be a pain to maintain over the long run, and it's gonna significantly derail the readability of the page. What I would do is to have a single sentence at the Casualties section that states something like:

"There has been suspicion on the exact measures reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, because it is run by Hamas [REF]. Though various news source report that this Ministry is reliable (Washington Post ref).

And a similar statement about data reported from the Israeli side can be useful too. Hovsepig (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

And yet both Hamas and the Washington Post proved to be hopelessly wrong in for example the Battle of Jenin (2002), the WP repeating the claim of 500 dead, the actual death toll was 52 predominantly combatants. Pretty much exactly what the IDF had reported. WCM_email 07:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That suggestion has some merit. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Opening this section in response to requests from editors to discuss this topic, but who weren't willing to open a discussion. The status quo was that we did not attribute Israeli casualties, until this edit earlier today; to determine whether this status quo or this adddition was appropriate I searched "1400 killed israel" in Google News for the past day. The first twenty results, skipping results that were from an agency that had already been reviewed or were from agencies considered generally unreliable at WP:RSP:

Of these sources, five attribute the total casualty count to Israeli officials, and 15 put it in their own voice. Based on this, I believe putting it in WikiVoice is appropriate, although as one that put the total count in their voice attributed the military count it may be worth attributing that figure. BilledMammal (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Im discussing this up above, your wanted framing is not going to be rammed down my throat here. nableezy - 00:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The game playing with the searches is getting tiresome, the claim below is CNBC does not attribute to Israeli officials when another story will say As of 5:30 a.m. ET on Wednesday, more than 1,400 people in Israel have been killed, with 3,500 injured, according to the government’s press office. But below a user will claim CNBC does not attribute the count to Israel.

I don't claim that CNBC never attributes the count; I'm saying that in a randomly selected - not cherrypicked - story CNBC doesn't. If we were only looking at one randomly selected source that could be chance, but we are looking at 20, where 75% don't attribute, which is strong evidence that sources generally don't attribute and thus we shouldn't either. BilledMammal (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you two stop for now and let others comment. The more this goes back and forth the fewer people will be willing to get involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Good idea, I won't comment further, and I'll trim back my most recent comment. BilledMammal (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• It is true that many sources attribute Gaza casualties, but they don't always use the word "Hamas", and some simply say "officials"[3][4][5] etc. Second, Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health figures appear to be confirmed by the West Bank Ministry of Health (which is not controlled by Hamas):[6] As of Monday, more than 5,000 people have been killed in Gaza, and more than 15,000 have been injured since October 7, the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Health in the occupied West Bank reported. So attributing them to Hamas alone seems inappropriate. Third, both Israeli and Palestinian casualties should be attributed in the infobox, probably as a footnote, and I believe this is already the case.VR _talk 03:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

If RS put it in their own voice 3 times out of 4 then it should be in Wikivoice. JM2023 (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oof. I wouldn't attribute either in text, but keep it as it is at the moment: just the number with an end note giving the source. One reason why Gaza health officials are quoted several times a day is that the Palestinian death count is rising hourly, with continuous updates coming in from said officials, while the Israeli death count has remained stable at around 1,400 since October 8. --Andreas JN466 14:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

WAPO OC 24: "Why news outlets and the U.N. rely on Gaza’s Health Ministry for death tolls" "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements." Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Mmm, the Palestinian authorities have claimed massacres in the past, which upon investigation proved to be false. Example in 2002, during the Battle of Jenin (2002) the Palestinian authorities claimed over 400-500 civilians killed in a massacre (according to the wikipedia article), at the time CNN reported 900+ which was a number claimed by the Palestinian authorities who had claimed the Israelis had bulldozed 900 homes burying people alive. The Washington Post at the time repeated the Palestinian claims verbatim [7]. An Amnesty International report backed up the massacre allegation, a representative stating there were hundreds buried under the rubble. Independent investigators were later sent in to corroborate these reports, concluding 52 casualties, almost exactly the same number the IDF had reported; the majority armed militants. UNRWA did a census count and found all but 1 of the residents accounted for. You'll still see claims of a cover up of a massacre in Jenin. Hamas has a track record of exaggerating civilian casualties, claiming combatants to be civilians, the Washington Post continues to repeat figures directly from Palestinian authorities despite their past record and on that basis I'd suggest their figures should be attributed not given as authoritative in Wikipedia's voice. WCM_email 14:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

We could have a whole article about pro-Palestinian bias if we don't already. There must be significant coverage of that bias somewhere. JM2023 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me know when you locate it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

For now, I have attributed all casualty counts in the infobox in line; over attribution is better than under attribution, particularly if it latter turns out these figures are false. I think the only way to resolve this will be an RfC, asking which, if any, of the figures need to be attributed in line. BilledMammal (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to attribute everything than nothing. JM2023 (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy because literally no one here argued for "attribute nothing". The question was between attributing in-line or in-footnote.VR _talk 04:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for that change here, and Im reverting it. nableezy - 04:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

My feeling on infoboxes is that they are extraneous cruft, and anything in them that invites objection should just be summarily deleted to avoid wasting editor time. That said, Hamas statements on any matter are inherently untrustworthy so should be attributed in-text always. Being even-handed and doing the same for IDF statements in this case is worth it to avoid perpetual squabbling. Sennalen (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Lots going on really, being a contentious topic. Unsourced namecalling of bigotry/transphobia, removal of party positions, etc. It's difficult to summarise but it'd be great if editors can weigh in on the talk page! —Panamitsu (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This is potentially moot due to a deletion discussion which is looking like it is at the moment leaning towards potentially resulting in deletion. Best to wait until the deletion discussion has concluded before expanding. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

+1. That said, similar issues probably could arise on Jill Ovens. Fermiboson (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Does this not suggest potential off-site canvassing? By the way (re: other comments above) the page for Jill Ovens herself is the subject of an AfD now as well, though it appeared less likely to succeed, from a skim. VintageVernacular (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it is a strong possibility as she posted a complaint about her coverage on Wikipedia on her party website and then others came along to do what the post was complaining about. Here is an archived link to the post on the party website. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not here to say their complaints are unfounded, but it (organized canvassing) is something to perhaps be aware of as a possibility. VintageVernacular (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I have previously placed a note at the talk page. No massive sock/meat farm seems to have shown up yet, and if it does, we regularly deal with and disregard them. Fermiboson (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It certainly does suggest canvassing. I first came to the subject here when someone complained about the article. I assume that this person came across the article in the blogpost, but the user's sentiment about unsourced transphobia is one I agree with. It was an oversight on my end to not mention a POV in the opposite direction (making the party look good) in the posting of this discussion. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Page has been redirected, spillover (if any) will probably go to the Jill Ovens page. Which survived AfD seemingly. VintageVernacular (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

An RfC has been made at Talk:Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike regarding whether the first mention of the Gaza Health Ministry should disclose that the same is a subagency of Hamas. You are invited to participate. | Orgullomoore (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2023_Masalit_genocide#Requested_move_12_November_2023 (t · c) buidhe 14:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Western Sahara has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. CMD (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do take a look at this [8].The editor continously reverts the lede modification without proper explaination when its mentioned what policies are being violated time and time again. editor acuses me for taking unilateral step when consensus was clearly in my favour in the talk page [9]. editor ignores policy violations and keeps on justifying pov push.i might be wrong about policies being violated so posting it here.i dont want to get into edit war, which will ultimately be disadvantageous to me only. any inputs regarding it would be helpful as well as educational for me. Cosmotech92 (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Your entire argument relied on those who are "citing the work of max muller" are bad, and we should rely on what a "vedic scholar is saying".[10]

This is same as saying "we should not rely on work of Charles Darwin when we have religious Christian scholars to tell how human evolved". That does not work per WP:NPOV and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

no you are making it up. let others decide whats the issue and policy violations are about.if anyone is interested , they will look into it.there is no point arguing with you anymore.they will look in the talk page and the edit i did as well as the message i left when i made the edit.you ignored everything and again and again repeating the max muller thing.as i said, if anyone is interested i have provided the links.they can also look it up.if no ones interested then so be it. but no point discussing with you anymore Cosmotech92 (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

but by the way charles darwin comparison is extremely stupid.The scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. It is a well-established and widely accepted scientific theory that has withstood extensive scrutiny and testing over many decades. The theory is supported by a vast amount of empirical evidence from various fields, including paleontology, genetics, embryology, and comparative anatomy.there is no mainstream scholarship challenging it.for you maybe max muller is at god level and all other scholars are at ape level but comparison is extremely stupid.also nobody denied the workk of max muller.it was always about the first sentence of the lede where you concluded something which was directly against MOS:FIRST as well as removing the scholarship which challenged the idea from the lede.not only that you used a so called wp:rs which in its title is showing its bias, to absolutely make a conclusion that such pov pushing first line should be included in the article.also, instead of addressing the policy violations i am continously mentioning you are again and again diverting the topic to max muller as well as you ignored the consensus and accused me of unilateraly changing the lede.its for everyone to see. Cosmotech92 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Cosmotech92. There are various references that state the Purusha Sukta is a hymn in the Rigveda, without any reference it being an interpolation. [11][12][13] The view that it is interpolation is divided. Defining it as an "interpolated hymn" is WP:POV pushing. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Reditgerxyz, do participate in the talk page discussion too , if interested [14] Cosmotech92 (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Just because a source is not mentioning the concerning aspect it doesn't mean you get to use it for rejection. You should better provide reliable sources that reject in in clear words. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:B87B:B330:FE97:C4C6 (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

2 editors have questioned the neutrality of the article. The article involves the claim that an Aboriginal man named Cooman was one of the two people who confronted James Cook at Botany Bay in 1770. This claim is seriously disputed within the local Aboriginal community and by 2 experts in the field. I argue that the article is not written from a neutral POV because it presents one side of an exceptional and seriously contested assertion as fact. The issue has been thorougly discussed but it looks like no compromise is likely on the key issue of NPOV.

• The Talk page discussions can be found here: Talk:Cooman#Neutral Point of View; Talk:Cooman#Neutrality dispute
• The statements being contested are:
• 1) The short description which currently states: "First Aboriginal man to meet James Cook". The previous version was "Gweagal man". The diff is here.
• 2) The first sentence of the lead which states: "Cooman was a Gweagal man identified by some of his descendants as the warrior who was shot and wounded by James Cook's landing party at KamayBotany Bay) in 1770. As he was previously unnamed in written historical documents, his identity has been disputed." This was changed from: ""Cooman was a Gweagal man whose descendants state was shot and wounded by James Cook's landing party at Kamay (Botany Bay) in 1770. This identification is contested within the local Aboriginal community."
• 3) The statement in the lead that: "Little is known of Cooman's life apart from his involvement in this incident. This was changed from: "Little is known of Cooman's life apart from his purported involvement in this incident."
• 4) The statement that: "The older warrior, identified as Cooman, and another Gweagal man came down to the beach to fend off what they thought to be spirits of the dead." This was changed from: "Two Gweagal men came down to the beach to fend off what they thought to be spirits of the dead."
• All the changes were made in the diff I linked above. I believe all these changes violate neutrality policy because they state as fact, or assume, a matter which is the subject of serious dispute within reliable sources, namely that Cooman was one of the Gweagal men who confronted Cook. WP:VOICE. The problem with statement 2) is that the reason the claim is disputed isn't because "he was previously unnamed in written historical document," it's because it conflicts with other oral histories in the local Aboriginal community. This should be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead in the interest of a neutral POV.

There are other issues with the wording of the article, but these can probably be fixed through discussion. As for the wider question of NPOV I think that the two editors who are mainly involved have a different understanding of relevant policy and that an expert opinion on the matter would be helpful. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

But which one do you think is correct? 2402:A00:401:7C3E:B87B:B330:FE97:C4C6 (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion about possibly merging this notice board on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Editors are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kurds#RFC: Iranian ethnic group. Levivich (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The page Use of human shields by Hamas has been created as a clearly selective, one-sided spin-off of exactly one POV/half of the material from Human shield#Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Didn't you create/significantly expand an article called "Nakba denial" which took one side of the Israel-Palestine narrative even further and was challenged here as a POV fork? That article was kept. Not meant as any kind of personal attack -- just pointing out that you are aware that articles are accepted by the community also when they only cover one side of the Israel-Palestine conflict, even when that article consists of nothing but criticism of criticism of narratives. JM (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That was a novel page created on a novel subject. The page under discussion here is a wholesale duplication of one-side of the more holistic pre-existing information on the parent page on human shields in the whole Israeli–Palestinian conflict - the editor has actively chosen to duplicate one POV while ignoring the other half of the content, and skipping the more obvious child: Use of human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That description doesn't sound any different from an accurate description of the Nakba denial article. If anything, the Hamas human shields article is theoretically better, because it covers something specific and physical and limits itself to one subject without having to deny the theoretical use of human shields by other parties since its goal is not to cover that topic; I think that's better than a criticism of a criticism of a narrative of one side, that must necessarily deny the veracity of the other side because it is a defense of a conflicting narrative. Like we can cover war crimes of individual countries in individual wars using individual articles, but guidelines discourage articles about criticism because it only covers criticism, not the actual thing being criticized (I am aware that it also states to split articles into main topic and criticism if they get too long). JM (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to explain the actual topic to you here in good faith, but if you are only interested in misleading rhetorical analogy and whataboutism, let's just leave it there ok? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not a substantial argument so a refutation from me is unwarranted (Hitchens' razor). Fine with me if you plan to stop responding. I've said my piece and recieved no substantial challenge to it. JM (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You haven't actually engaged with the subject at all, so there's no 'argument' here at all; this isn't some sort of college debating society, but an encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Being on a noticeboard for that encyclopedia, we make arguments in favour or against one choice or another in order to find a consensus. There are arguments to be made as to the content of the encyclopedia, they occur constantly and everywhere. When discussions have disagreements, the opposing sides make arguments to find consensus. This is occuring now. I have engaged the subject, you provide no details showing I didn't so I invoke Hitchens' razor again. This is a pointless diversion beginning from when you alleged without substance that I was behaving in a way you disapproved of, no sense in discussing further if you're going to derail discussion like that. JM (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Back to the substance, this is a WP:SPINOFF and not a WP:POVFORK. Those are the policies that represent my views expressed in my first reply. JM (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an article-existence question and I think that the current AFD for the article is the most on-target and best venue for the discussion. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The March for Israel page is in a woefully POV state - to the extent that it's practically WP:PROMO for the POV it presents. The deletion of WP:RS sources reflecting criticism of the event, e.g. here (with an ridiculous, unsupported summary), and removal of any criticism from the lead, is frankly ridiculous POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition to numerous IP users, there are four registered users who have edited that page without being qualified. Burrobert (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how it's "promoting" a POV rather than reporting about the POV of the rally. Also the "hate rally" epithet is a violation of WP:HEADLINES. Longhornsg (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

A page move proposal at Talk:Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Requested_move_9_November_2023 could use more participation. There is a question of balancing evidentiary standards against WP:NDESC. Sennalen (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Good tactics - keep opening a new RM all over and over again unless you finally get your way because at some point nobody cares anymore. This is what is happening now with a lot of RUSUKR articles. Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The present title is obviously an unstable equilibrium. Sennalen (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Special:History/Thaksin Shinawatra

Everything I wrote had sources from the Thailand 8th National Economic and Social Development plan ,1997 constitution and news. But the original story was fiction without sources to praise corruption politician who is in jail the best prime minister.

Copyright issues

It was not his policies? The plan was written in 1995 and he won the election in 2001. it was copied word by word.

Thaksin Shinawatra was the first prime minister of Thailand to complete a full term in office,and later founded guilty of corruption.[60] Recently,there are 8-year jail term for him.[61] According to a statement by the Supreme Court,he will serve a total of eight years in prison. He is in jail today.[62]

His eye-catching policies was the result of 1997 constitution of Thailand,thus make him long term enemy of predecessors whose policies was also benefit from the people constitution.[63] The Eighth Economic and Social Development Plan affected the economy, public health, education, energy, social order, drug suppression and international relations . Thailand supposed to be Developing Country by the year 2020 , if there was not a political Turmoil that outed him from Thailand.[64]Even though he gained one re-election victory ,Thai army used his corruption case as an excused to get him out of the country .[65]

The 8th plan which considered social reform also bring about the most effective policies that reducing rural poverty while he claimed it was his policies.[66] The universal healthcare was required by

Section 52 A person shall enjoy an equal right to receive standard public health service, and the indigent shall have the right to receive free medical treatment from public health centres of the State, as provided by law.

The public health service by the State shall be provided thoroughly and efficiently and, for this purpose, participation by local government organisations and the private sector shall also be promoted insofar as it is possible.

Section 82 The State shall thoroughly provide and promote standard and efficient public health service. 1997 constitution of Thailand. [67] The results of Country reform by the 8th plan and the people constitution allowing him to fooled the hitherto-neglected support of the rural poor, especially in the populous northeast who did not know that he claimed the plan that was draw up by the people, for the people as it was his own idea.

Educational policies edit According to World Bank Thailand has recentralized rather than decentralized during his administration.[70]

One of Thaksin's educational reforms was school decentralisation, as mandated by the 1997 Constitution.[71][citation needed]It was to delegate school management from the over-centralized and bureaucratised Ministry of Education to Tambon Administrative Organizations (TAOs), but met with massive widespread opposition from Thailand's 700,000 teachers, who would be deprived of their status as civil servants. Teachers also feared that TAOs lacked the ability to manage schools. In the face of massive teacher protests and several threats of school closure, Thaksin compromised and gave teachers whose schools were transferred to TAO management two years to transfer to other schools.[72][citation needed]

Reference should be checked.The prisoner had no shame to claim Thai people plan and people constitution as his policies.

https://www.nesdc.go.th/nesdb_en/download/article/article_20151016145402.pdf

https://dl.parliament.go.th/bitstream/handle/20.500.13072/367183/2539_%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%81%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%87%E0%B9%81%E0%B8%9C%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%92%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B2%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%A8%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A9%E0%B8%90%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%89%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%B5%E0%B9%888_%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B3%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%99.pdf?sequence=1

แผนพัฒนาฯ ฉบับที่ 8 เป็นแผนปฏิรูปความคิดและคุณค่าใหม่ของสังคมไทย ที่เน้นให้ “คนเป็น ศูนย์กลางของการพัฒนา” และใช้เศรษฐกิจเป็นเพียงเครื่องมือช่วยพัฒนาให้คนมีความสุขและมีคุณภาพ ชีวิตที่ดีขึ้น พร้อมทั้งปรับเปลี่ยนวิธีการพัฒนามาเป็นการพัฒนาแบบองค์รวม มีกระบวนการที่จะเชื่อมโยง มิติต่างๆ ของการพัฒนา ตลอดจนเปิดโอกาสให้ทุกฝ่ายจัดทำแผน

https://www.ryt9.com/s/nesd/200187

The 1997 constitution was the first constitution to be drafted by a popularly elected Constitutional Drafting Assembly, hence was popularly called the "People's Constitution". The 1997 constitution created a bicameral legislature. For the first time in Thai history, both houses were directly elected.

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/1997/1.html

Copyright issue, Political Policies out of the air , It supposed to be only uneducated poor old people in remote area who can not read who believe it was his policies.The others groups who believe the corrupted person could come up with the policies.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/21/thaksin-thailand-corruption 23:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC) 2403:6200:89A7:D762:9A7:68E6:7AD6:D3A (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

This should be addressed on the talk page (Talk:Thaksin Shinawatra). --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Try to summarize in one sentence what situation on Wikipedia you would like to be resolved. Sennalen (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to improve this article? It is far from neutral. Plenty of criticism online; but none has made it into the article. Weird cult; which uses tactics similar to that of scientology. Has been mentioned here before:

1 2 3

See also WP:CRITS; its probably due to mention something in the lede. Polygnotus (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly correct to say that there is "plenty of criticism" of Landmark on the internet. Most of it is unsubstantiated gossip or rumour, and some is vindictive defamation. Very little of it passes muster as Reliable Source. The suggestion that it is a "Weird cult" is of course a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact. The assertion that "it uses tactics similar to Scientology" is factually inaccurate. Incidentally, there is also a great deal of enthusiastic endorsement of Landmark's programs on the internet (which is equally irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes). None of the three previous cases on the NPOV noticeboard that Polygnotus cited resulted in a conclusion that this article violated WP:NPOV in favour of Landmark (if anything, the reverse). DaveApter (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You forgot to mention your COI. Polygnotus (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty extensive. JM2023 (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah reading the talkpage archives is a trip. Polygnotus (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure I want to wade in, but I have to say that the opening paragraph of this section seems very POV itself. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course, but I didn't write the article (and this isn't an article). Polygnotus (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This does seem to require more attention and IMO the editor responsible for creating it really needs more guidance before continuing their efforts. DN (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The recent large volume of edits by two recent editors and the quick reverting of any contributions by others appear to violate WP:OWN Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The editwarring to keep a preferred version seems to violate WP:OWN and WP:EDITWAR Polygnotus (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The article Yad L'Achim seems quite slanted toward the group’s perspective in some areas.

Particularly, we have “Yad L'Achim's stated aim is to rescue Jewish women and children in abusive relationships with Arab men. They respond to requests from the women themselves, or concerned family members…Since its inception, it has rescued thousands of women and children from situations of abuse. The organization also provides shelter for the women and children after rescue.”

This reads like something the group could have written themselves. Since this particular group opposes _all_ relations between Jews and Arabs, the question of “abuse” (real or not) is really a red herring here, and it’s not their main motive (since they haven’t put any effort into “rescuing” any women with abusive _Jewish_ husbands).

Indeed, it seems like a less charitable interpretation of what this group is actually doing might use the word _kidnapping_, rather than rescuing.

It reminds me of Hindutva groups’ panic about so-called “love jihad”, the German 120db movement, or even the American alt-right’s “burn the coal, pay the toll” obsession. Groups like these say they care about women but are really just pushing an ethno-nationalist agenda. That doesn’t mean Wikipedia needs to promote these groups’ agendas too, just because it has articles about them.2600:1014:B031:55F7:2457:7754:1DDF:DD5C (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The Statement about the Yad L'Achim is sourced to the organizations website. Given it is what the organizations says about itself, that seems appropriate. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that the Jerusalem Post article does mention those goals of the organization, so that part seems fine. But any differing views/info published by reliable sources could/should also be included. 23impartial (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

An RfC has been made here regarding whether Carpenter opening Taylor Swift's Eras Tour should be mentioned in the lead of Carpenter's biography article or not. You are invited to participate. ℛonherry☘ 17:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I ask everyone to join the active process of improving the article based on my findings. The details are on the Talk page. Colaheed777 (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Behold: Women in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Never have I ever seen such a one-sided POV disaster, without even a shred of effort made to balance the obvious two sides in a conflict. Come one, come all to eat your fill of POV. Balance? Ha! This page scoffs in the face of balance! Have no fear, the IDF is here! Just off the charts ... Iskandar323 (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Also take a look at IDF Code of Ethics, created by the same editor. We learn that the Israeli military's code of ethics requires that The soldier will not use his weapons and power to harm non-combatants and prisoners, and will do everything in his power to prevent harm to their lives, bodies, honor, and property. NightHeron (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can make out rape of Palestinian women by the Israeli forces is quite rare, much rarer than has occurred in other conflicts. Israel does seem to go in for torture quite a bit though. Mainly they seem interested in just removing Palestinians and settling the vacant land - I wonder if they really are intending doing that in Gaza? So basically you won't 'balance' the sex crimes committed by those Hamas terrorists. NadVolum (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, I answered some of the claims on the talk page of the article. In any case, an article about women in wars (a very important thing in my opinion) mainly deals with two things - 1. The harm to women during the war. 2. Women's participation in the war.

Regarding 1, there is also a reference to the women of Gaza. Of course it is possible to expand and I would be happy if you could help with this.

Regarding 2, as there is a chapter on "In the IDF", there should be a chapter on " In Hamas". I was think to create a title for the chapter and write that the information there is missing. Here too, I would appreciate your help.

If I may add on a personal note. I think instead of complaining, it's always good to expand articles and improve them. Remember that we are all here for the same purpose - to make knowledge accessible to the world. Eladkarmel (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The notion that only women "In the IDF" and "In Hamas" are affected by this conflict is a bizarrely narrow perspective in its own right. The largest group of women affected is ordinary Gazans. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right. But I tried as much as possible to write about women who "make a difference" in the war. Women who influence, not just who are influenced. Anyway, add more content, it's important.Eladkarmel (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Are you serious? Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Do you really think that it is possible to compare the "neighbor procedure" previously carried out by the IDF and rejected by the Israeli court to the daily use of Hamas in children's rooms, women, mosques, schools and UN buildings as a human shield?

This article, as it stands now, is a massive breach of NPOV as it puts undue weight on allegations against Israel, while Hamas are really the ones who use human shields as their core strategy affecting millions of people, and this is agreed by leading organizations and countries.

I think you are making a serious mistake here that hurts Wikipedia and hurts the trust between Wikipedia editors. Eladkarmel (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eladkarmel: Unless it has escaped your attention, Israel claims everything it targets is a human shield as a matter of PR, propaganda and disinformation. That does not make this statement true, not least with respect to the most reliable sources on the subject, per WP:NPOV, and yes, NPOV involves covering both sides of the equation where two sides obviously exist in reasonable volumes. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As I already wrote to you, I truly believe that we all want the same thing: Global knowledge on an open source platform. otherwise we wouldn't be "wasting our time" editing Wikipedia... This way of complaining about POV, merging articles, deleting articles, in my opinion wastes all of our time. Because I believe that all people are good and can reach understanding.Eladkarmel (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are many propagandists here that disagree. with that goal. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:D016:C6A8:C3CA:36C8 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The article has similar issues such as those in the Guarimba article, some of which are explained at Talk:Venezuelan opposition#POV: sources. While there have been some improvements, the article is still full with characterization and loaded language. based on opinions of scholars, which mostly displays the Venezuelan opposition in a negative light, while neglecting to mention actions by the Venezuelan government, specifically in the Media and Demographics section. Some examples include the following:

• Members of the opposition, Dominguez says, mainly comprises members of the old aristocracy, business groups and university students. Opposition groups typically support right-wing politics
• Further protests against Nicolás Maduro mainly comprised middle class and wealthy students who demonstrated in affluent communities.
• As a result of this relationship, the private media maintained support for the elite that were opposed to Chávez.
• the latter says that international media formed close relationships with Venezuela's elite and projected the opposition as "civil" while painting Chávez supporters as "thugs."

This can be similarly said for the insistance of describing events as a removal for power, such as In 2004, another attempt by the opposition to remove Chávez was through a recall referendum, or created a protest tactic known as the guarimba as a way to remove Chávez after seeing the failed 2002 coup, instead of just saying that a referendum was organized or that a protest tactic was started. I tried addressing the issues with this version [15], but most of the changes were reverted. Regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The Guarimba article, created this week, does not accurately reflect or balance the related points of view.

I explain some of the reasons at Talk:Guarimba#Tags, but I wanted to focus more on sourcing on this noticeboard:

• The meaning of the term as a "street barricade" has been changed during the creation of the article to that of a general protest method, comparible to a "urban guerrilla warfare tactic". Protests against Nicolás Maduro#Barricades, whose part of its content is already included in the article, already had described guarimbas as street barricades, but a good part of this concept is based on sources from 2004 ([16][17]), which are currently outdated and should be replaced with newer ones per WP:RSAGE
• I have pointed out that the Naiz source is an opinion article because it is in an analysis section (besides its biased wording), but the article's author has disputed this.
• The point of view that the term has been used to stigmatize or criminalize protests is missing.

I have tried addressing some of these at [18], but they have been reverted. Best regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment A discussion for an article with similar issues, Venezuelan opposition, was started below. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This may not be the appropriate board for this, but it's probably as good as any. This article needs more help than I can give it, ideally from someone Peruvian. For three months it said that MRTA carried out this massacre, I changed it back to Shining Path, but perhaps I'm wrong. Really it needs someone who speaks Spanish (I don't) and knows the subject matter (I kind of do) to go through all the references and see which claims can actually be verified by the sources. Prezbo (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the Donald Trump talk page at which editors seem to want more participation. The thread concerns a proposal to include article content related to recent media and expert discussion of Trump's rhetoric and plans for his forthcoming reinstatement as POTUS. It would be especially helpful if some editors would volunteer to read the various sources cited and linked in that thread. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

In agreement, more input from more editors is required. I fear the discussion there, is deterioating. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

These articles are constantly being raided by the same editor "Skitash" with a panarabist political opinion who tries to paint everything about the country as arab or islamic as possible (removing anything saying the population is of berber ancestry, deleting elements that mention the multicultural aspect of the country, trying to portray tunisian arabic as much as possible just as a dialect and nothing more to it etc...)

I don't exactly know how to deal with these kind of edit wars, the editor seems to have started his work since 2 years ago and targets tunisian pages with the same pattern of article modification.

Could you help ?

Thank you Asmodim (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

He starded doing that this year and not 2 years ago* Asmodim (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Baselessly labelling me as a Pan-Arabist or Islamist is nothing more than a personal attack. I am unsure what "raiding" you're referring to, but I'm guessing that, in your perspective, raiding means reverting your unsourced edits[19] and your unexplained content removals[20]. I find it bizarre that you blatantly delete sourced content[21] just because you don't like it while accusing other editors of POV-pushing. Clearly, you have not discussed any issue with me. All you have done was open a discussion[22] personally attacking any editors that have made constructive edits to the article in the past few years. According to your argument, it appears that you object to a sentence involving "purely Arab settlement," being in the body of the article, even though it is supported by credible sources. This clearly sounds like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Please set your baseless accusations aside and provide me with any revisions that, in your view, point to any "raiding" carried out by either myself or other editors. Skitash (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Asmodim also filed a request at DRN, making the same statement about User:Skitash, a few minutes after filing this report here. This was forum shopping. I closed the DRN request because this case was also pending here. User:Asmodim has now been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. When they come off block, they should try editing collaboratively rather than forum shopping and edit-warring at the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Can I get some eyes on the article Azores please? Latest edit. I am the only one reverting this IP and would like another set of eyes so I don't feel like I'm edit warring. Talk page discussion at Talk:Azores#EarthCheck Sustainable Destination. Choosing NPOVN since the PAG in question here is probably WP:UNDUE. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I am reviewing Besitos,[23] and I want to get an outside opinion on a specific section. The text below describes events from an episode of Selena: The Series. Is including a lengthy description from this biographical drama, giving undue weight to what would ordinarily not be a reliable source?

When Selena failed to show up for a recording session, A. B. became upset and confronted her about it. Selena explained that she had been working tirelessly to develop the band's aesthetic for the album, hoping that it would attract attention from prospective buyers. This led to a disagreement between the two regarding their respective priorities. Selena made amends by reassuring A. B. that she would quickly record "Besitos" to make time to visit a fabric store before it closed. She achieved this by rapidly singing the song from its original downtempo version. A. B. appreciated this new approach and instructed keyboardist Vela (Hunter Reese Peña) to develop a faster tempo inspired by Selena's interpretation of the song.

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It does feel undue. It's about the episode not the song, as the episode is a dramatised version of what happened not a documentary about it's creation, and it could although it is introcuded as being about the episode it could easily be mistaken as statements not fact by someone skimming the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. Apparently Falafel is a controversial subject. I recently stumbled into this by removing what seemed to me like an UNDUE political statement that was COATRACK for the article topic. But this was challenged here with a claim that it was granfathered consensus in the page.

Could we have some more eyes on this page to get opinions on this? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, an editor is removing well sourced material that has been there for over a decade that directly discusses the topic of the article without discussion. More eyes would be lovely. nableezy - 20:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand this "been in an article for a decade" argument. What wikipedia policy does it draw upon? eyal (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:EDITCON, but also this relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area and only extended-confirmed editors may participate. nableezy - 23:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess at this point WP:5P3 has become just a branding slogan eyal (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an essay, but WP:UNCHALLENGED is on topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Article: Revolution of Dignity Talk section: Talk:Revolution of Dignity#POV_claims

Diffs: "Russia had put pressure on Ukraine to reject it." -> "Russia pressured Ukraine to reject it, while providing a $15 billion loan and a 1/3rd reduction in gas prices."

My edit was removed for POV. After I started a new section in talk, one person (@Rsk6400) who did so retracted their claim immediately (the other person (@Czello) did not respond to the new section. I pinged them). This means, the purpose of this dispute had been solved immediately, but, that editor did not grant consensus and instead, told me to summarize 3 books that another editor posted on the topic (which is where the problem lies - explained later on). The edit I tried to make provides a factual account of the sources currently in the wiki article. Sources who cover this topic always state two things simultaneously:

1. That the EU deal was refused by Ukrainian leaders (primarily Yanukovych), because Russia pressured them to do so via multiple methods. This is represented in the lead.

2. Russia offered them, from the leaders' perspective, a better deal than the EU. Which was a 15 billion loan and a 1/3rd reduction in gas prices. This is not represented in the lead.

The reason sources cover both factors, is because both factors are the multi pronged approach that led up to the refusal of the EU deal. Listing only one of those factors, does not provide a proper account and hence, misleads people. Which is why the sources we have referenced in the wiki article do so simultaneously. 4 editors in the dispute do not provide consensus for this edit because they've made it conditional on me summarizing 3 books that @Manyareasexpert has referenced. So this edit is not disputed, all editors agree to its accuracy, but, my problem is that this conditionality is irrelevant to my edit, and completely unreasonable to force me to do that for them so that they would then allow me to insert a factual, undisputed, mainstream, account of history. If they would like to summarize these books, I welcome it. There is no resistance or pushback from me. But, I am not interested in this task. What I ask is that anyone who is willing, to go over to the talk page, and voice your support by saying that consensus should be granted, or even if not, that it should not be conditional on the summary of 3 books which have nothing to do with my edit. Thank you. RBut (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering your question yesterday. A few things though:

1) I never edited the article itself;

2) I do not object to including the 15 billion and gas thing in the body if it's clear it was part of the pressure moscow was exerting on Ukraine;

3) where did you get 'him' for me?—blindlynx 20:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It's already in the the body, several times. It's mentioned in the source used for the lead too (27th reference). The lead mentions one part of why Ukraine refused EU's deal, one of which was pressure from Russia, the other part is not mentioned, which is the deal that Russia offered. The 27th reference within the same paragraph, talks about the deal. So that source is referenced for the first part (the pressure), then that source should be referenced for the second part which it mentions in the same paragraph (the deal). That's what my edit adds in. It adds in the second part, or the deal, which is mentioned in the same paragraph of that source. The lead has to mention both of these. This deal is also mentioned in the body several times, hence it follows MOS:LEAD standards. So this is in line with the wiki article, and with the sources that are referenced in the article (including sources referenced by @Manyareasexpert which are not in the wiki article). RBut (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The protests and revolution started because Yanukovych abruptly refused the EU deal not because of the gas deal—blindlynx 21:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

He refused the EU deal because of pressure and a better deal from their perspective, that Russia offered. This is why you should have been involved in this discussion from the start if it is of interest to you since this is way off topic again and not where we are at. You are making me repeat everything that we have already discussed.

The 27th reference in the wiki article is used for the first part of this (the pressure), and within that same paragraph, it states the second part (the deal): "...a $15 billion loan offered by Russia unconditionally". So there's two parts to this, only one part is mentioned in the lead (the pressure). This is what I am trying to add (the deal). But consensus is not given to me by any of the 4 editors (you included) because I refuse to summarize 3 books that another editor (@Manyareasexpert) has referenced. How does that seem like a reasonable request to you? It is unrelated to this dispute. I am in complete disbelief that editors are allowed to hold an edit hostage with something like that, how can I not view this as bad faith? And I have posted this here because I am looking for support, for people to say that consensus should have been granted long ago, that it should not be conditional on that unrelated task. RBut (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Look that lead is already bloody long and it needs to be paired down if anything, i don't think that the gas deal is directly relevant enough to the revolution as a whole to be included in the lead. You are welcome to try and convince others—blindlynx 17:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Right now the lead says that the EU deal was refused because of pressure, but that is only one part. The 13 extra words in the lead (loan + gas deal) are required to portray the second part the EU deal was refused. This is what all the sources covering this say, including reference 27 in the lead which is referenced for the first part (it even says this in the same paragraph. So there are two parts to this. We cannot only provide one part). RBut (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

A POV fork of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was created. Other wars don't have "children in... x" articles. Polygnotus (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

At AfD, nominated by yourself? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Indeed. Is that a problem? I figured it should be mentioned here because it is a POV fork. Polygnotus (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

According to you. If it is at AfD it doesn't need to be here as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy." Polygnotus (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If the problem is NPOV why nominate it for AfD? Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Because I do not think the POV problems can be fixed by rewriting/improving the article. I think the topic of the article makes it inherently POV. Whatever content is salvageable should be merged, and the article should be deleted. Polygnotus (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Then make that argument at AfD. Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I did, didn't I? Polygnotus (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No, just close this, waste of time. Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Then move on. Polygnotus (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to add historical dates such as early 13th century or 1220's in this sentence but I'm being prevented by another user. Does he even have any right to do this? "The two earliest descriptions come from the Persian chronicler Juzjani and the Song diplomat Zhao Hong" it comes a section of a wikipedia paparagraph-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Character_and_achievements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengoku-lord (talk • contribs) 12:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain how this presents an NPOV issue? I am not clear on that. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sengoku-lord, the best approach would be for you to start a thread on the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes. Please be aware that the article is currently undergoing a review for good article status. Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Niyi Osundare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is our article on Niyi Osundare sufficiently neutral? I thought not and made some cuts, but a new editor disagrees. Am I the one in the wrong here? More eyes and hands would be very appreciated. MrOllie (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

no, it is not sufficiently neutral. i would go so far to say that more ought to be done. at the very least, several claims should be backed up by citations RetroCosmos (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on the talk page about revamping the header that may be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion at this link concerning the addition of article text relating to a statement of Noam Chomsky's many decades ago concerning Israel. The discussion concerns whether this is significant biographical content that has somehow been overlooked and should have been added to the article years ago, or whether -- in the alternative -- this is quasi-COATRACK insinuation of UNDUE material that supports narratives about current events. SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Its more a question on if his views on Israel should be included and not the incredibly dishonest presentation of them now where he is only critical of US policy in the Middle East, vs the above use who is claiming that because the article did not have this material previously that means that it is not DUE. I leave it to somebody else to figure out how that makes sense, as I have tried and cannot make it make any sense at all. nableezy - 03:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

This article seems to have been monopolized by an individual or small group of individuals whose perception is warped...and no one's doing anything about it.

There are a couple of major issues. First is the timeframe used to define "Classical Hollywood". Some Joe Schmo has put 1969 as the cutoff, but the reference that immediately follows this dubious claim - Oxford Dictionary website - says 1960! Which means the editor who put '69 is lying (misrepresenting, fabricating, whatever).

For perspective, Raquel Welch said that she thought of classic Hollywood as finishing off in the '50s, while TCM's Alicia Malone considers a classic film to be anything before 1980. There is no clear definition.

Even if you approximate, 1969 is such a random year. Smack dab in the middle of counterculture, it's completely inappropriate to use as a cutoff. 1959 or 1979 would make sense.

The second major issue is the compilation of actors and actresses that are ostensibly "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema". Some of the names on there are laughable. Tippi Hedren? She starred in exactly two films. And while she was born in 1930, her first credit isn't until 1963. By that standard, Ron Howard should be on the list, since his debut well precedes Hedren's. By that standard, there are hundreds of names you could add to the list. The inclusion of Clint Eastwood is also absurd, as he didn't star in a Hollywood movie until 1968 when he was 38. Fabian Forte and Tuesday Weld, both of whom are 13 years younger than Eastwood, were household names a decade before he was, yet they aren't even on this bogus list. The list even has Zsa Zsa Gabor (!) as a "major figure from classical Hollywood cinema". Unbelievable.

It looks like someone has thought up all the famous or semi-famous performers born within a certain time, and that's the measurement they've used to determine eligibility....regardless of whether the performers were part of "Classical Hollywood" or not. It's ageism and pigeonholing, and it has nothing to do with "Classical Hollywood". Parts of this page have been written by editors who don't even understand what classic Hollywood is.

This isn't going to get resolved without administrative intervention. The talk page is no use. There have been attempts to start a discussion over the years, but nobody ever replies.

If you're going to pick a cutoff, the cutoff should be backed by a consensus. As for the index of actors and actresses deemed "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema", the only names that should be retained are those on AFI's 100 Screen Legends, since it's the only criteria that has been established.

To prevent future abuse, it might be a good idea to remove the "major figures" list altogether. I'm looking through the edit history and no such section even existed until a decade-plus after the article was forked. Namwidow (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I reverted a bunch of edits by BoomGoesTheTrinitrotoluene (talk · contribs) which removed maps made and added by SurinameCentral (talk · contribs), who seems to be on a mission to introduce what they assert are neutral maps concerning Suriname. BGTT asserts that these are not in fact neutral concerning territorial claims, and while I did not agree that they should have been mass-reverted without discussion, I do think they need to be examined by a larger audience, given the recent flurry of territorial claims and counterclaims in the area, especially between Venezuela and Guyana. Examples include [24], [25] and [26], not to mention SurinameCentral's userpage. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

See this discussion where I've negotiated a compromise out of SurinameCentral whereby the maps proposed in that discussion will have a solid line for actual control and a dotted line for claims. I told them to be bold specifically about the compromise maps shown there before finding this noticeboard entry through your notice on their talk page.

The maps that were removed in the diffs you linked were indeed biased, not even bothering to show any territorial dispute at all despite SurinameCentral's insistence on "neutrality" by using dotted-line maps for both claims regardless of control when the map was of Guyana (which they have now compromised on, as I said). JM (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Additionally I think BoomGoesTheTrinitrotoluene's reversions follow WP:BRD so I see no problem with that. JM (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

JM, the dotted maps I see in that discussion have dots so thick they appear almost a solid line. This has been a persistent problem with these maps, the last figleaf I remember was putting small dots within a very dark red background so they were hardly visible too. It is not bold to continue a monthslong campaign, it is disrsuptive. CMD (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say the "monthslong campaign" was bold, I didn't even know about it until after I managed to convince them to compromise and told them to be bold and change the maps to the compromise versions if they wanted to. I feel that it's implicit that other editors could come into the discussion and contest the compromise, and that the boldness would be part of WP:BRD which would apply to all the changes and so other editors could revert them. I figured the compromise maps were harmless and just provided more information than the originals. I figured the best way to resolve the dispute was what I negotiated; it shows the contested claims while also making it clear who controls the land. No other editors were opposing that compromise at the time. I wasn't paying attention to the size of the dotted line of all things. I wasn't aware of any tricks being pulled by anyone and I didn't see this newly-created discussion until after the compromise. Obviously POV-pushing is bad. Feel free to revert, or to go back to the discussion and argue with SurinameCentral, if you want. JM (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the process arose from good faith. For the record, the changes made in the large batch made following the discussion included changes like this one which clearly did not follow your view of showing contested claims while making control clear. CMD (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

When I told them in that discussion Change as many as you want (WP:BOLD) I feel that the context implied I was referring ONLY to the changing the original maps in dispute presented on that talk page to the revised maps I was presented with. You're right, SurinameCentral definitely didn't have my permission to go and make a change which not only involves a totally different map, but directly goes against the compromise in that it fails to show controlled claim vs uncontrolled claim. But I don't think their actions there have anything to do with my discussion with them, I think it's just part of their general WP:SPA mission to change maps involving Suriname. Still, it's a problem when they know that I and others consider those maps non-neutral yet continue to change them anyway. (Also, that map doesn't even show all disputes anyway, since it doesn't show Venezuela's claim to Essequibo or Guatemala's claim to Belize; it comes off as a specifically pro-Suriname map.) JM (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

SurinameCentral's Twitter account provides some insight into his agenda and where he would take Wikipedia, without the intervention of editors. SOUTHCOM (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, there's a lot there. This would make SurinameCentral a disruptive bad faith SPA POV-pusher with a COI violating WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, wouldn't it? Definitely not someone beneficial to the encyclopedia. I wonder if this needs to be taken somewhere else. JM (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

What a drama being created by southcom, everything must be done not to allow the Surinamese version, because then everything must be neutral, but touch 1 Guyanese biased map and everything is digged from everywhere to justify bias. SurinameCentral (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I have the neutral versions of those maps ready, i will upload them and replace them. SurinameCentral (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

question, why is the title South American river maps when the Surinamese river maps are being discussed? SurinameCentral (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I would assume it’s because Suriname is in South America Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I updated the entire series yesterday, replaced them but all. Edits were reverted by @Chipmunkdavis for unknown reasons. SurinameCentral (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

At United States support for Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war an editor is claiming that criticism of the US support for Israel is not a part of the subject of US support for Israel and is removing that criticism from the lead on that basis. I think that is a straightforward NPOV violation, but I'd rather avoid continuing an edit-war over this, so if anybody else can opine that would be helpful. nableezy - 02:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I would call the portion he reverted plagiarism and a borderline copyvio considering how close the paraphrasing is.

The disputed addition to the article:

The United States has come under fire from international leaders, human rights organisations, and UN officials for vetoing the resolution and for not putting an end to the fighting that has killed over 17,400 Palestinians and roughly 1,200 Israelis since October 7.

Al Jazeera:

World leaders, international rights groups and United Nations officials have criticised the United States for vetoing a UN resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and failing to halt the war that has killed more than 17,400 Palestinians and about 1,100 people in Israel since October 7.

JM (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont think that is a superficial modification, but that really doesnt have anything to do with the NPOV aspect of this. nableezy - 02:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

SamX suggested a rewrite of The United States has received widespread international criticism for its veto of the ceasefire resolution. which I am fine with. Should the lead of the article include such criticism? nableezy - 03:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I prefer SamX's version for copyright reasons. I am not goiong to comment on the NPOV aspect. — Diannaa (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

1. The article in question is Jackson Hinkle.
2. Specific change being proposed (and subsequently reverted). The source describes Hinkle as a #MAGACommunist, therefore I believe that the article can say that "Hinkle has been described as a #MAGACommunist."
3. The problem is that this change is necessary for NPOV. Hinkle is directly described by In These Times as a #MAGACommunist, not simply a self-description. Opposition says this is a self-description, which violates OR (still waiting on their response to this). We have multiple examples of when "MAGA Communist" is a self description (signaled by quotes, or by directly mentioning Hinkle to be a "self proclaimed communist"), but this source does not do this. Opposition also argues it violates UNDUE, but the multiple other descriptions (of Hinkle being right wing, far-right, etc) are not being removed (still waiting on their response to this). There are also other sources that describe him as far-left, post-left, and even as a communist. Admittedly, at least 1 of these sources is probably unreliable, but nevertheless, there is significant coverage of Hinkle being described as something not on the right-wing.
4. This problem has been thoroughly discussed on the talk page, with opposition attempting to bring new reasons why this change should not be made after I explain the error with their existing reasons. Most of the discussion can be viewed here. Once the discussion started getting long, I tried to bold the most important points I was making.

Alleycat1995 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that the only explanation on Wikipedia as to what being a 'MAGACommunist' actually implies is in the Hinkle biography, I fail to see how telling readers that he's been 'described as' one in the lede is helpful. People know what 'far right' means (at least, I hope so). The average reader is highly unlikely to be familiar with obscure self-applied hashtag labels that appear from the sources cited to be used for effect rather than as an indicator of any specific ideology. Undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

What AndyTheGrump wrote is what CommunityNotesContributor and DFlhb already told the OP on the talk page multiple times. "MAGA Communist" is one of Hinkle's self-descriptions, so it is redundant to add that label as one that he has been described as, and the source for that claim is in fact about the far right and shows that leftists see Hinkle as far right (if there was any doubt). Also the "far-left" source is actually referring to his show, and I would argue none of these sources can be considered generally reliable to weight in on Hinkle's position on the political spectrum. Compare to the sources that described him as either conservative, right-wing, or far-right: Agence-France Presse, Bellingcat, The Guardian, and The Times are all considered generally reliable, so the claim that Hinkle is not right-wing looks undue, if not outright WP:FRINGE. Please, Alleycat1995, do not reply to this message since we already discussed this at length on the talk page. Let's see what other users say.
Davide King (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. What another user has said was WP:OR, arguing it was a self-description. "Please do not reply to this message" No, I will correct error. We've already discussed how his show is inseperable from him, hence why it's his show. (Why did you not include this part of the conversation in your post?) Additionally, I am not suggesting to remove the other labels, so your point about other sources is null. Alleycat1995 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the In These Times article, they call "#MAGACommunism" a hashtag movement, so a neologism invented on Twitter. Hinkle is described as a #MAGACommunist, hashtag included, in an aside which also calls him a "far-right actor" taking advantage of the pro-Palestinian movement. Using the term in Wikivoice makes the article more confusing and, yes, gives undue weight to what is basically a political trolling campaign. This kind of thing is why MOS:NEO exists, so the term should be used in quotes if at all. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If MAGACommunist is ever used in an article, it will need to be made very clear that it's a far right position. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Especially the "Further Allegations" section at the end. Someone researching Michael Jackson who wanted to learn exactly how many individuals have accused him according to the mainstream press would never, ever know.

That is the complete opposite of what an encyclopedia is all about.

At the end of the day, it has been widely reported that 8 males who met him as a child have accused him of sexual abuse. Not necessarily all these males accused him of sexual ASSAULT, but all 8 absolutely accused him in sworn testimony, court filings, or high profile interviews of childhood sexual abuse.

Every effort to list these accusers, no matter how well-supported by multiple news articles, gets reverted by others.

The article overwhelmingly discusses the accusations of one boy, Jordie Chandler, in 1993, in utterly exhaustive detail, in what I can only interpret as an effort to discredit that first accuser and tire the reader before learning more.

Should the reader make it through the blizzard of text to the end, they will see "Further allegations" with the tiniest blurbs on Arvizo trial, and the subjects of Leaving Neverland.

Editors immediately pare down any effort to describe these accusations more fulsomely. It was 8 boys from what mainstream sources in Google News tells me.

The article is called "Child Sexual Abuse Accusations against MJ" not "Child Sexual Abuse Accusations against MJ (But Only The Real "Big Deals")."

I want to stress that I'm not saying that what the accusers said about abuse is true. But it IS true that the 8 accused him. That happened.

Every other high-profile American recipient of multiple sexual misconduct allegations (Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Russell Simmons etc etc) seems to have a chart or list of accusers but not Jackson.

And Jackson is DEAD unlike those folks so defamation is an utter non-issue.

Would welcome neutral opinions as i know others disagree.

Big discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

From what it looks like, we don't have firm (through investigative or court decisions) that some of the claims of those accusers are true. Thus, from both a standpoint of neutrality and for the privacy of the individuals that have made claims yet verified, its best not to name them. The example cases you give are those where the accusations have been resolved, so the names seem reasonable there. Masem (t) 01:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait, Jackson was acquitted in the one trial he underwent so none of the 8 accusers' stories have ever been verified. All 8 were minors at times they alleged abuse so none of them should be discussed in public by that metric, right?

We have no reason to assume any of the allegations are true. We just know they were made. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

of the 8:

- 4 gave public interviews (safechuck, Jacobshagen, George, Robson)

- 4 never wanted to be public presumably (Chandler, Arvizo bros, Francia).

Should the names of all who haven't gone public be removed and changed to "first accuser," etc. The names are widely published. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Just being widely published is not the metric we use, particularly when it comes to living persons in this case. If they have taken steps to try to stay out of the public light, we absolutely respect that. Masem (t) 01:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The article has been stable and reached GA status as it has zero neutrality issues. There is no complete list of accusers that are listed on any of these pages that you mention above. Wikipedia is not a social movement and does not require that every single allegation is listed about a high profile person or celebrity.

Furthermore, this particular article is about extraordinarily notable accusations against Jackson that has been widely reported. The listed accusers in this page were either a plaintiff in a civil trial/suit or “By the People” in a criminal trial. This is not about everyone who has made questionable accusations against Jackson. If there was no thorough investigation of sorts to address these accusations where the accuser was the subject of a civil or criminal trial against Jackson, they are not listed here. If I made an accusation against Jackson and some sources reported on it, it would not make this article. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but then why are Chandler and Arvizo named in the article? They certainly try desperately to stay out of the public eye. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok then why cant we simple say in tbe lead that the article ONLY covers people who brought civil or criminal claims against Jackson? Why does the article have to mislead readers into thinking they are looking at the breadth of accusers? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The title of the article does not implore to me that it is fully extensive, but only those that have significant media coverage and resolution. Masem (t) 02:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Chandler’s allegations were huge. It was the first time that Jackson was accused of abuse. Notability of these allegations were huge. Chandler’s received multimillion dollar settlement with a civil case preceding a criminal case. Chandler first went to a lawyer, but eventually law enforcement got involved and started to investigate Jackson to a notable degree. Arvizos went to law enforcement after first seeking civil lawyer. A criminal case went to trial and created a notable media frenzy. A thorough investigation took place. None of the other proposed additions have this level scrutiny, notability, or impact to Jackson’s career and life. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

But of course there are going to be varying levels of media attention for varying accusers. Star and Francia were witnesses during the overall 2005 trial so of course they would not get as much attention (still widely reported) George and Jacobshagen's accusations got media attention during the Leaving Neverland era, but obviously their claims don't reach the graphic shocking levels of those in Leaving Neverland as they don't involve sexual assault. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Why would an accusation need "resolution" before it may be listed? Resolutions can take years. Shouldn't "widely reported" be sufficient?

The piece i keep getting stuck on is the idea that someone wants to look up the agreed facts about the Jackson accusations in the encyclopedia and ... cannot. Imagine I'm an academic researching high-profile accusations. I come to the page for a basic timeline and I cannot get it. Not because the media didnt widely cover those other accusers (because they did) but because they aren't as famous as "the four biggies." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to give people free publicity because they make accusations. Imagine if everyone who wanted to see their name in Wikipedia was informed that all they had to do was make a sufficiently salacious accusation against a sufficiently notable figure, and get the press to report that the accusation was made. In that light, it becomes rather obvious that there must be some reasonable internal limitations to prevent Wikipedia from becoming Accusationpedia. A reasonable start would be to require some degree of proof to provide credibility beyond the mere fact of the accusation being made. BD2412 T 03:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

What proof do you have in mind? All 8 accusers are liars or fabulists according to many of the frequent flier editors on the page. Does that mean they should all be deleted? Star Arvizo swore in open court under oath that Jackson exposed himself and urged masturbation during the criminal trial. Jason Francia was his maid's son swore as well under oath that he was assaulted in open court in the criminal trial. Jackson paid him $2million. Both George and Jacobshagen produced photographs of themselves with Jackson when they made their claims. Again I'm not saying these omitted 4 accusers are telling the truth- how would I know? But their allegations aren't devoid of weight. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I see Jason Francia was included in the page. Sworn testimony is hardly proof of anything one way or the other, both Robson and Safechuck gave sworn testimonies that Jackson never did anything sexual and testimonies cannot be used as sources on wiki anyway. Jacobshagen did not produce photographs to corroborate his claims the only photographs/videos he had were made on a single day in March 1998 when he and Jackson were in the company of numerous people. This was the only time he had any contact with Jackson but the allegations in the Mirror is that he was alone with Jackson , spent nights with him, shared beds with him more than once, was in a bathroom with him where Jackson went naked. None of that is supported with any photo/video/witness or his own interviews prior to the Mirror article. Terry George did not show any photograph with Jackson when he was a child. He does not have proof of the alleged call, nor that he was friends with Jackson at any point. He has one recorded interview with Jackson in 1979 with Randy Jackson also in the room, that includes nothing sexual at all, and has two photos with Jackson when both were adults similar to innumerable other photos Jackson took with random fans. Jacobshagen's and Terry George's allegations are certainly "devoid of weight". castorbailey (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

By your logic then, all 8 should be deleted from Wikipedia due to lack of proof. But the issue is not whether it is TRUE that the 8 accusers were abused. The issue is whether it is TRUE that 8 accusers accused him publicly. And these 8 indisputably did. The "not devoid of weight" comment has nothing to do with "proving" MJ did it. it means support for the truth that tbe allegations were made, in public, and are less flimsy than, say, a random anon post on Twitter. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Your brought up supposed photos by Jacobshagen and Terry George as sufficient evidence to include them when no such evidence exist. There is proof that Chandler, Arvizo, Robson , Safechuck were with Jackson numerous times proof that all of them spent nights in various places where Jackson slept. They all filed lawsuits or Jackson was charged over their allegations, the cases had lengthy litigation and were widely reported by hundreds of reliable sources. Unlike Jacobshagen who was reported in a tabloid, was never with Jackson beyond one day (but not night), did not allege anything sexual and Terry George who does not have any evidence he had any contact with Jackson beyond that one innocent interview in 1979. Their claims barely go above a flimsy anon post on Twitter. Definitely "devoid of weight" when what you claim something, as Jacobshagen does, that is not even possible. As noted by other editors wiki does not include any and all allegations ever made nor does any other encyclopedia. castorbailey (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I was responding to the poster above not claiming the accusations were "true." At the end of the day the below is what we can "know" from Google News:

1. Chandler
2. Francia^[1]
3. G. Arvizo
4. S. Arvizo^[2]
5. T. George^[3]
6. Safechuck
7. Robson
8. Jacobhagen^[4]

==links to news reports on the 8 accusers== Bhdshoes2 (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Not anything sexual??? Come on now. Jackson is dead. He cannot be defamed. The story of these 8 accusers were widely published in mainstream media.

Hiding Star, Jason, British phone guy, and German guy from the public does detriment to Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality which is the cornerstone of the whole enterprise in adding to human knowledge. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Sunday Mirror is not mainstream media, not reliable source and has no place om wiki. Just because Jackson cannot be defamed does not mean that in his case we should use wiki to promote highly questionable allegations which were not even reported in any RS as sexual abuse. The German's guy story in particular is not possible, he was not with Jackson during any night, not in any bathroom with him with Jackson taking a bath either. Jacobshagen himself is quoted in the Mirror denying any explicit sexual act. Sexual abuse always involves explicit sexual acts. castorbailey (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're overstating the Wikipedia aversion to tabloids. It all depends on context. But you keep harping on the German guy. What about Star, Jason, and Terry George? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Tabloids are never supposed to be used as sources on wiki as they are by no means reliable sources. If they are used elsewhere that does not justify the use here especially when the story in question is impossible as Jacobshagen never spent any night with Jackson, never was alone with him, never met him in 1995, his so called letters from Jacksons are forgeries etc. It has no place on wiki more than allegation that the moonlanding was faked on the Moon landing article. George did not accuse him of sexual abuse and I already explained why those accusations are "devoid of weight" too. When there is not even evidence that Jackson ever talked to George at all and George kept changing the story sold to tabloid it's obvious why his claims are "devoid of weight" and are in the Jacobshagen category. Star did not accuse him of sexual abuse [not only assault but abuse is against the law too] and Jason was included. castorbailey (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

We cannot ignore the footnotes below. Both German guy and Terry George's allegations were reported in NON-tabloid sources even if they gave initial "exclusives" to the British tabloids. See below. Both did on-camera interviews. The issue is not whether they are telling the truth. The issue is whether reliable media sources support the fact they indeed accused Jacksons. If you want to undermine their claims with reliable sources, do in their entry on the page. Folks can't fairly demand that the page falsely indicate to readers that they never happened when it is indisputable that they did happen. Feel free to add facts that undermine the claim, but dont "memory-hole" the claim. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The other source for Jacobshagen contradicts the specifics in the tabloids source and does not include allegations of sexual abuse. In any case that would not be enough to cross the threshold to possibility much less notability, as Jacobshagen did not spend any time with Jackson at all beyond one day in the company of many others. As other editors told you already just because something happened does not warrant inclusion. Joe Bartucci's allegations were reported by far more reliable sources than Terry George's or Jacobshagen's (NBC, BBC, Rolling Stone, Independent, Fox ), he also filed a lawsuit, they still should not be included because they are not possible. There is no RS reporting that Terry George alleged sexual abuse and there is no evidence he had any kind of phone conversation with Jackson at all, much less the one alleged. castorbailey (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Also who the heck announces to the world that they were the victim of child sexual abuse for "free publicity"? At least two of the accusers say they were mocked by other children as being likely victims for their association in public with Jackson (Gavin and the German guy) Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Robson himself wrote, "My story of abuse will make me relevant and relatable". You could also ask who announces to the world they were abused/raped by Jackson when in truth they never met him. Those cases (Flowers [27], Kapon [28], Bartucci [29], boy in Canada [ [30], Reynoza [31]) demonstrate that there are people who get satisfaction out of falsely accusing a famous person. This boy [32] went on camera and, like Terry George, Jacobshagen, Robson and Safechuck accused Jackson of the most heinous acts when, in truth, he had no contact with him at all. If we included everyone who accused Jackson, we should include him, too. 2BOARNOTOOB (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont know anything about tbese folks ans I can't go down the YouTube rabbithole. To me it is the "Google news" test. If the allegations are published in Rolling Stone, ABC News, Vanity Fair, NYT, CNN etc then they are widely published allegations.

Sanitizing Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

As User:Popcornfud explained, reaching GA status may be insignificant, esoecially if reached, like this page was, in 2008 and the page has been drastically rewritten since. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s actually not been substantially re-written. It’s been stable. Nonetheless, there’s a process to contest its status within reason, and that reason just does not exist. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps its just a difference of opinion on what "substantially re-written" means but IMO this certainly qualifies [33] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. GA (or even FA) status should not be taken to mean an article can't have problems, even serious problems, or that it cannot be substantially improved. Popcornfud (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

My concern is - imagine a hypothetical researcher on, say, false allegations, comes to Wikipedia to research how many times Jackson was accused by an individual who met him of sexual abuse. They would read the page thinking it was 4 - Chandler, Gavin, Safechuck, robson. But Google News tells me that clearly is not true. From what i see on Google News, it is clearly 8. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There are absolutely no circumstances where the GA/FA status of an article can be used to justify exclusion of content. The appropriateness of content is determined only by what external sources have to say on a subject. This is core Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean there is absolutley no question that a huge pile of media sources confirm the 8 males either swore in court or did a high-profile interview accusing Jackson. I'm not saying it proves Jackson did it. But it proves the 8 accused him and should be on the list of accusers. Especially where the man is dead and cannot be defamed. What's more, any child celebrity that has DENIED being assaulted by Jackson has their denials trumpeted all over Wikipedia. Only the accusers get repeatedly erased. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I do think is arbitary selection. You were informed repeatly that there was a female accuser and four male accusers who never met him too. The majority of children who denied abuse are not listed on wikipedia and ceraintly have no sections or subsections especially not if they sold their stories to tabloids and alleged the impossible . Since the prosecution, Robson and Safechuck personally,and Leaving Neverland strongly suggested those child celebrities were molested inculding evidence here that they were not in is simply WP:BALANCE Mr Boar1 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I can only go by reliable sources in Google News. All of the 8 males I named about accused him of sexual touching, exposure of genital, or sexual overtures when they were children. All of the 8 either accused him in open court or in televised / high profile interviews. The question is why folks keep deleting the well sourced 8 who are not already on the page. The sources are below in footnotes. It is not your place to say they "alleged the impossible" unless you have a source and if you do, then add it. But dont pretend the accusations were never made in highly publicized media reports. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• I do not know the details well enough to opine on which accusations should and should not be mentioned in the article… However… I would say that enough time has passed that we should be looking for more than media sources to support our coverage of the topic. Have no historians written about it? Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  I can see a number of academic articles when I search "Safechuck and Robson" on Google Scholar but I don't have access to the contents. I get same thing when I search Google Books. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  “The Fans of Michael Jackson v. Wade Robson and James Safechuck: Forensic Fandom and the Staging of a Media Tribunal

  By PD Keidl - ''American Behavioral Scientist'' 2022 - journals.sagepub.com (arguing that Michael Jackson fans "use nonfiction media to stage a public trial and prove Jackson’s innocence and Robson and Safechuck’s guilt.")

  An essay analysing "fan reactions to the sexual abuse allegations brought forward against Michael Jackson in [[Leaving Neverland]]" Bhdshoes2 (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  This seems more like a media academic analysis than a historian's writing. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

This conversation is dead. Nothing here amounts to the suggested additions being added as the previous admins and editors alike have said above. No thorough investigations, no real notable allegations of abuse (talking on the phone, regardless of content of conversation is not abuse even if true or notable). No consensus is going to be reached. The article should remain in its stable form. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

yet again this text misleads. [[Terry George (entrepreneur)]] did not allege "talking on the phone." He alleged Jackson was performing a sexual act on the phone when George was 13 ("can you believe I'm doing it right now") and urged the same. On ABC News no less. Francia did not allege "tickling." He alleged tickling led to touching of his private parts. In court. Star Arvizo alleged Jackson exposed him and urged him to masturbate. In court. The page is scrubbed of these allegations. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)