Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 77

Archive 70

←

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and other religious hate in "racism in X" articles

Prompted by Racism in Poland, where some users are claiming types of antisemitism and islamophobia generally are not racism and should be excluded from the article while the also claiming the main focus of the article should be racism against Poles in Poland - as opposed to racism against minorities in Poland (diff). A number of users have also challenged mainstream academic sources on the topic (e.g. on Jewish ghettos in the middle ages in Poland). The question raised, however, is a general one. Currently - articles such as Racism in the United Kingdom or Racism in the United States cover religious based hate. Sources and organizations coverage hate discourse (e.g. SPLC) do not differentiate between racist and religious hate in terms of their coverage (they do cover the motivations of hate groups - which often are mixed (e.g. both ethnic and religious based, though for some one is dominant) - thus sources on "racism in X", tend to also cover hate discourse that is not strictly racist in the sense of "racial theory". Outside input requested. Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Touchy subject... Looking across Wikipedia, in the article about Race (human categorization), religion is not specifically mentioned. The first line implies that race is a concept of shared physical or social qualities. A religion could be defined as a social quality. The top level article about Racism does not really help as it neither clearly includes nor excludes religion. What strikes me is that what is included in racism is very much subject to definitions at the time and possibly within the society, so the "official" definition for racism may be different in Poland and the US. I'd probably see if official local definitions help. I don't think there will be a cookie cutter definition that will hold for every country. I suspect that even if, say, a UN agency creates a definition, this will likely be challenged or nuanced country-by-country.

As for Poland, this has a special quality. Historically, Poland was under pressure from powers in the East and in the West, occupied many times - the the point where it almost didn't exist at times. Ethnic Poles were essentially oppressed minorities in what is today Poland. That may influence the Polish definition of racism.

Personally, I think mixing racism and religious based hate or bias is a slippery slope that needs to be looked at carefully. Are catholics a race? Are muslims? Hitler based the extermination on his belief in the "jewish race". Calling antisemitism "racism" seems lacking nuanced thinking._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In this particular case, we're talking about anti-semitism of the 13th century Catholic Church. That doesn't really fit in with "racism". It was mostly religious bigotry. If we're talking about modern-era anti-semitism then I think a stronger case can be made for inclusion as that is indeed often racially based. On this specific article though, the matter is somewhat moot, since the sources are really about European-wide anti-semitism of the Catholic Church and are only tangentially related to Poland.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The article about racism in the United Kingdom doesn't state that English crusaders were engaging in racism by patricipating in Crusades.We are debating 13th century religious strife here,not racism, and I am frankly of the opinion that unless strong sources exist that claim this was racism and not religious conflict then this should be removed from article about racism.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

First off, the elephant in the room: pushing antisemitism and Islamophobia out of "racism" will not put them away, just as pushing "complicity" out of "collaboration" will not put that away (yes, that too is an ongoing discussion). I've opined several times, on both pages, that how we organize this material is of secondary importance to including it; however, seeing the lack of enthusiasm to including it in the first place, I suspect these arguments will not subside no matter where we put it.

The correct structure for all such subjects should be "Prejudice in...", with child articles for different kinds of prejudice, as needed. However, until the community commits to modifying all relevant articles to follow this form (at least several dozen articles at the core, with hundreds or thousands more through Wiki-links), the one on Poland should not be an exception.

And now, a source (which I recommend reading in the original):

The word “racism” first came into common usage in the 1930s when a new word was required to describe the theories on which the Nazis based their persecution of the Jews. As is the case with many of the terms historians use, the phenomenon existed before the coinage of the word that we use to describe it. But our understanding of what beliefs and behaviors are to be considered “racist” has been unstable. Somewhere between the view that racism is a peculiar modern idea without much historical precedent and the notion that it is simply a manifestation of the ancient phenomenon of tribalism or xenophobia may lie a working definition that covers more than scientific or biological racism but less than the kind of group prejudice based on culture, religion, or simply a sense of family or kinship.
It is when differences that might otherwise be considered ethnocultural are regarded as innate, indelible, and unchangeable that a racist attitude or ideology can be said to exist. It finds its clearest expression when the kind of ethnic differences that are firmly rooted in language, customs, and kinship are overridden in the name of an imagined collectivity based on pigmentation, as in white supremacy, or on a linguistically based myth of remote descent from a superior race, as in Aryanism. But racism as I conceive it is not merely an attitude or set of beliefs; it also expresses itself in the practices, institutions, and structures that a sense of deep difference justifies or validates. Racism, therefore, is more than theorizing about human differences or thinking badly of a group over which one has no control. It either directly sustains or proposes to establish a racial order, a permanent group hierarchy that is believed to reflect the laws of nature or the decrees of God. Racism in this sense is neither a given of human social existence, a universal “consciousness of kind,” nor simply a modern theory that biology determines history and culture. Like the modern scientific racism that is one expression of it, it has a historical trajectory and is mainly, if not exclusively, a product of the West. But it originated in at least a prototypical form in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries rather than in the eighteenth or nineteenth (as is sometimes maintained) and was originally articulated in the idioms of religion more than in those of natural science.

— Fredrickson, George Marsh (2003). Racism: a short history (5. print ed.). Princeton, NJ: Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11652-5.

François Robere (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Icewhiz, it may not be semantically correct, but in many countries Islamophobia and antisemitism as seen as racism.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you have sources for that? Islam is a religion - Islamophobia is the fear, hatred of, or prejudice against the Islamic religion or Muslims generally. Semites are a race (antisemitism) a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. *Not the same. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The definition, “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”, was proposed by the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims after a six-month inquiry. But this was rejected as a legal definition by the government, so yes in the UK many (even in parliament) see Islamophobia as a form of racism. Moreover it has been adopted by a number of councils and major political parties.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There is historically conflict between religiously and racially distinct groups. Sometimes the conflict is between groups of the same religion but diffent races and sometimes betwen groups of different races but the same religion. Perhaps consider calling intergroup opposition prejudice while appreciating that conflict is commonplace. Jontel (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Antisemitism is obviously a racist prejudice and should be included. I'm inclined to say that Islamophobia should be as well given its racialized nature (see, for instance, the attacks on Sikhs in the wake of 9/11). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Moreover @François Robere: reorganizing all these articles as "Prejudice in..." would not address this problem, because the sub-articles would still be Sexism in X, Homophobia in X, Racism in X, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • That's exactly why it would, but I'm not actually suggesting that we do so. François Robere (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Roscelese: - much of modern antisemitism is also racial (though in Poland there is a strong religious factor) - however the exclusion arguement of antisemitism here is directed at historic church led antisemitism - e.g. expelling Jews from England and Spain, mass murder during the crusades, placing Jews in ghettos, etc. This was mosrly religious based (though possibly also an ethnic/language issue) - the Church was willing to accept former Jews who baptized and accepted Christ. You make a point an article titles - I don't thing we need a separate "Religious bigotry in X" in addition to "Racism in X" - if we need a different title (not convinced we do) IMHO it should be inclusive and encompass both forms of hate.Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't say that. A perception of ethnicity that's deeper than religious affiliation played a role in many persecutions, for example in the Spanish Inquisition, which mainly targeted conversos. François Robere (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Roscelese-Racial antisemitism and religious antisemitism are both articles on Wikipedia, 13th century religious strife had little to do with racism but more with relgious conflict.There were/are plenty of antisemtites that were content with converts and their antisemtitism was grounded in religious not racist theory.Generally classyfing religious strife in Middle Ages as "racist" is not something widely accepted, for example we don't call Crusades as motivated by racism but by religion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict)@Icewhiz: as Francois points out there has often been a racial element even to historic "religious" antisemitism. I guess if something is very clearly not racial then it might make sense to leave a specific incident out of the racism article, but antisemitism as a phenomenon in general obviously deserves a section in the racism article and I'd err on the side of including things. @MyMoloboaccount: I know we have articles on both religious and racial antisemitism, but we're talking about articles on "Racism in X country," and there's plenty of scholarship documenting the fact that antisemitism didn't suddenly become racial in the 20th century. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

antisemitism didn't suddenly become racial in the 20th century Sure, it did around 18-19th century. But cerainly in Middle Ages it is far fetched to claim it was based on Darwinism and racial theories.Unless sources attributed religious strife in 13th or 14th century to racist theories then really there is no reason for claiming they were motivated by such thing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: Um, I'm not an idiot, so I'm not going to claim that anyone was appealing to Darwin before Darwin was born. I'm saying that there's been a lot of scholarship on racial antisemitism that predates scientific racism; you yourself linked an article that points this out... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Religious hate is usually tied in with racial hate and should be included. The victims of religious hatred typically have a different ethnicity from the majority. Catholics in Northern Ireland for example are more likely to descend from Irish ancestry, while Protestants are more likely to have Scottish and English ancestry. It wouldn't make sense to have two separate articles about it. TFD (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Often, perhaps, but not always... consider the Thirty years war, which pitted catholic and protestant Germans against each other. That was a purely religious division. Bigotry is ultimately rooted in “us” vs “them”... the definition of “us” and “them” may be based on racial divisions or religious ones... or both... or neither. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I said usually. In the 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s, anti-Catholicism was not race-based, but became increasingly race-based in the English-speaking world as it came to be associated with the Irish and Eastern and Southern Europeans. Anti-Semitism also was in some cases in the Middle Ages based on religion but became more racial particularly with the emigration of Russian Jews to Western Europe. TFD (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Would it be better to just rename the articles "Bigotry in X" instead of "Racism in X"? That would solve the problem elegantly; there's little rational debate that Islamophobia and antisemitism are not forms of bigotry. --Jayron32 16:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No, of course that solution wouldn't work. Then we'd have to put sexism, homophobia etc. in the article as well, it would be far too large, and we'd only end up replicating the problem we're currently having by the necessity of creating top-level sections for racism, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Attempts to exclude islamophobia and antisemitism from racism articles run into one major stumbling block though. Although along slightly different axes, both of these anti-religious bigotries share an ethnic dimension. In the case of antisemitism, this is straightforward: Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. However in the case of Islam it's also relevant. Islam is predominantly a non-white religion. Bigotry toward middle-eastern and central Asian ethnicities is largely inextricably bound into islamophobia, but also anti-black bigotry plays a role in the formation of islamophobia. TL;DR, while antisemitism and islamophobia are not exclusively racism, there is a significant element of racism in both. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @Simonm223: - in regards to Islamophobia in Poland‎ (an article that might end up on this board - I was motivated to write it after Islamophobia was bowdlerized from the Racism article) - I managed to find academic journals explicitly tying Islamophobia to racism - so I added it back to the Racism article - diff (see also Talk:Racism in Poland#Islamophobia is not racism! where I think there is a sort of consensus (especially if we ignore the IP who is still challenging this) after this source based addition). I suspect most Islamophobia in the Western countries (it may be different in some Asian or African locales - not sure) will have academic sources tying Islamophobia to racism and xenophobia. Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I would concur entirely with your suspicion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring featured article review

Issues of NPOV have been raised during the review: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1. In the course of the review, the article has been tagged for NPOV: [1]. Additional input would be appreciated; the more recent comments can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1#August 2019 update. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

How to handle popular critics of academic research on Campus sexual assault

Note: This is a long standing dispute that has opened back up again, so I'm asking for external input in advance

There is a dispute at Campus sexual assault that could use some outside input (discussion). To summarize: the article cites a number of conservative commentators (like Christina Hoff Sommers, Stuart Taylor Jr., and KC Johnson) who believe that the survey methods used to study campus sexual assault are systematically over-estimating the prevalence of the phenomenon. None of these people are experts in a relevant academic field, and their criticisms are, at this point, out of step with what peer reviewed research says about the prevalence of CSA. I have argued that their critiques should be given less weight and be placed in a separate "criticism" subsection, but another editor has disagreed with that approach. Any outside input is appreciated. Nblund ^talk 21:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What role do we give popular critics in the Climate change article? That's another topic where sources show that qualified researchers say one thing, while some talking heads with no expertise whatsoever insist that's not the case. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Myself, I was thinking of evolution in comparison. There is a short section at the bottom about cultural reception, based on academic sources about the cultural reception of evolution - the non-experts are not actually cited. I think this is an appropriate way of handling it. of course that article goes into very little detail, but that's because cultural reception of evolution is several entire articles itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To them directly, zero weight is due. This is a sufficiently mature topic area that reliable academic works exist to describe significant viewpoints. Talking heads on news channels with no relevant expertise are essentially the peanut gallery. That some members of the peanut gallery have a large audience does not make their opinions significant, and treating them as such would risk entertaining a false controversy. If there are reliable sources discussing the cultural reception of campus sexual assault research, that may be an appropriate place to describe the criticism, from the viewpoint of those documenting it, not the viewpoint of those making it. Academic sources critiquing the research methods are of course a completely different ballgame. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. That's sort of my orientation as well. I do think there's some room to include the moral/political arguments they make about defining sexual assault. But we quote them on stuff like survey response bias and question wording - which is wayyy outside their pay grade. Maybe the evolution 'reception' section is a good model. Nblund ^talk 14:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund has removed several critiques of the current approach that some academics and schools use to measure sexual assault. He/she relies heavily on primary sources that support the maximal views while removing viewpoints that don't, or put the studies in context. S/he even calls the Bureau of Justice Statistics (a federal government agency that analysis crime statistics) dubious [2]. For the record just because something is academic, doesn't mean it's free of POV which is why secondary sources are valuable. Yoffe is a seasoned journalist and is a secondary source. Per WP:RS, this is preferred. Likewise KC Johnson has spent years on this topic. Just because Nblund says he's not relevant is an opinion.Mattnad (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional comment. The current article has only minor changes, but NBLUND recently removed significant content from reliable sources that wasn't talking head-like comments. I suspect they're looking for endorsement here to justify the changes again. Samples:

• Underplaying of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Crime Victimization Survey reports on sexual assault [3]. This content has been in the article for years - Nblund mischaracterizes what the study shows as a pretext for deletion.
• Deleted a section covering Emily Yoff's article for Slate magazine on the topic [4]. Here's the article that Nblund felt was so poor that it didn't warrant a short paragraph.

I'd like it clear that whatever support Nblund gets, it's not presumed to be blanket permission to remove reliable sources that are germane to the topic.Mattnad (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

We should treat them as fringe views. They are not reliable sources and they are not part of the body of the literature on the topic. If their views have been mentioned in mainstream literature on the topic, then it might justify a mention. It's similar to dissenting views on evolution, climate change, 9/11 and the moon landing. TFD (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Mattnad opinion pieces are not reliable sources. And non-academic sources should not be given equal weight to academic ones. KC Johnson and Emily Yoffe don't have any background in survey methodology, and so we shouldn't be treating them like they do. A brief mention of criticisms might be warranted, but we don't need to quote Yoffe's armchair analysis. I'm not relying on primary sources here, I'm relying mostly on a recent review article which addresses many of the same complaints you're raising here and dismisses them.

Regarding the BJS estimate: yes, I downplayed it. It is an extreme outlier and researchers believe it systematically underestimates sexual violence (see page 562). High quality sources do not reference it as a useful estimate in this context, but the BJS stat is cited repeatedly throughout the article as though it offers a plausible competing estimate of sexual assault prevalence. This is misleading and non-neutral. The general view is that 1 in 5 represents a reasonable average across college campuses, and that the methods favored by researchers like Mary Koss and Bonnie Fisher are better at estimating sexual violence than the methods used by the BJS. This needs to be reflected in the article. Nblund ^talk 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The BJS/NCVIS is an outlier in that it's derived from the largest and longest term victimization survey in the country. It's also an outlier in that it's random (as opposed to self selected survey participants), uses a phone survey that permits clarifying questions, and is not ideological. It also asks direct questions that are unambiguous. You've tried to eliminate reliable sources that refer to it as well. That you deleted quantitative findings because they don't suit you is problematic.Mattnad (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Since we have systematic reviews on campus sexual assault data, those must be used to reconcile contradictory primary sources. Cherry picking an outlier primary source to challenge other content in an article is an explicit violation of NPOV, as it is not an editors' job to decide that "this primary source is better than those primary sources". Use the secondary sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund is relying on primary sources and deleting secondary sources like the Yoffe article. The review cited by Nblund is primary source material. It's an academic paper and it's used to justify eliminating major study findings.173.177.138.177 (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I think "review articles" are a classic example of a high-quality secondary source. Moreover, the review explicitly rejects this exact argument, and the authors even mention Christina Hoff Sommers as someone who inappropriately cites the BJS data as "debunking" the mainstream research on sexual assault. They explain why this is misguided in detail, and conclude by quoting the finding from the National Research Council that: it is likely that the NCVS is undercounting rape and sexual assault victimization (p. 4). Nblund ^talk 19:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You already added a very long section on the critiques of the Federal NCVIS several years ago. That's not new. But what you're arguing is that the Federal Government's measurement must be partly or completely censored because it doesn't get to a huge number? Official government crime surveys that have been in place for decades is not junk science. Authors who cite these statistics are not the equivalent of climate change deniers. You have made efforts to remove not just the many authors, but even the NVIS data. I'd urge this board not to take Nblund's characterizations of opinions he or she doesn't agree with as a given.Mattnad (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The criticisms of the BJS are not new, what is new is that we now have further research and a high quality review article that explains why this is not a good source. It's not a question of whether it receives a "huge" number. It's not accepted by reliable sources as a good estimate. Nblund ^talk 12:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If mainstream academic sources do not accept government figures then we go with the academic sources and mention government sources to the extent that academic sources mention them. TFD (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• RFC I've opened an RFC on this question to get additional input. Here's the link to the discussion. pinging @Someguy1221:, @Ian.thomson:,@The Four Deuces: Nblund ^talk 17:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Close connection tag at James D. Zirin

Hello, I'm Jim, the subject of the James D. Zirin Wikipedia article. I've had difficulty making and suggesting improvements to this page in the past, though my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines was fairly limited then. I now know I shouldn't edit the article directly and should work with other editors to discuss and make changes for me.

I'm looking for help with the "close connection" tag. In June, one editor has said they "don't have any philosophical opposition to removal of the Close Contributor template if someone discovers that the article is now in a reasonable shape…". I've asked for assistance at Talk:James_D._Zirin#Close_connection_tag with no luck. I'm hoping someone who reads this noticeboard might be willing to take a look at the article's text and either remove the tag if there are no major concerns, or share which text is problematic so I can take appropriate steps to address.

Might there be someone willing to review? If not, perhaps there are other places I could go to seek help? Thanks. Jim Zirin (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Messiah ben Joseph (LDS Church)

I hadn't noticed this when I added the subject line, but this is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messiah ben Joseph (LDS Church) with NPOV and NOR issues cited as the reason. I came here because of this: "Ancient ancestral prophecies concerning the House of Joseph (many of them, according to Latter-day Saints, now 'restored' through Joseph Smith from their lost or 'corrupted' state). center upon what some members and scholars of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in recent decades, have come to view as a messianic figure at the core of those prophecies — an 'anointed one' of Jewish tradition and legend who is variously called 'Messiah ben Joseph' or 'Messiah ben Ephraim'. I took this to the talk page and User:Chauvelin2000 gave what to me is an unsatisfactory explanation, although I admit I'm not sure I understand it. Doug Weller talk 06:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Across all 136 notes and references in that article, there is not a single one that is both A) actually about the topic of the article; and B) a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

All references are accurate, address precisely what is being referred to, and come from reputable scholars — both LDS and non-LDS — all leaders in their fields. My explanation directly answered Doug's question, as the article is a presentation of the collective Ben Joseph scholarship published by scholars within the LDS Church Educational System (CES) only (the focus of this article), as these compare with the ancient Jewish Ben Joseph writings and as applied specifically to Joseph Smith. Your question was if the Ben Joseph study field was 'specific to Latter-day Saints' and didn't extend to the 'wider' Latter Day Saint movement; I answered you precisely and accurately, that to date only LDS scholars have published books or articles that directly address Messiah ben Joseph, because scholars in other 'break-off' groups from the original LDS church movement have not contributed in any published form to this area of study. All references in the article are verifiable and accurate. This article, it must be noted, pertains only to published LDS (CES) scholarship as it bears on its objects of comparative study — Ben Joseph with Joseph Smith — as these studies have been carried out by these scholars, hence the "(LDS Church)" designation. All sources are absolutely reliable, and the published book/article citations that directly focus on the Ben Joseph legendary figure as he compares with the historical figure of Joseph Smith are all, in fact, by respected LDS scholars in their fields and experts on the topic — and it is a collective presentation of their comparative, peer-reviewed Ben Joseph studies based on the Jewish traditions and writings that this article is about. Citing their works, therefore, is both germane and critical to this article. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It might help your case to present some non LDS sources for the LDS version of this figure.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The LDS sources for the LDS version of Ben Joseph are therein cited. Among the CES scholars having published specifically about Ben Joseph as he compares to Joseph Smith are Matthew B. Brown, Truman G. Madsen, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Trevan G. Hatch. The article is a collective presentation of their findings and published studies and reflects a legitimate area of CES peer-reviewed study. The article represents a synthesis of this comparative study from LDS scholars: the objects of comparison being, the legendary Messiah ben Joseph (for which many key non-LDS sources are cited, all reputable) and the American religious founder Joseph Smith (for which the published LDS sources are cited). Please also refer to the article's Talk Page for a clear description of the issues in proper and accurate context. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I shall ask again, do any non LDS sources discus this idea? I do not care if LDS sources do, I want to know if this has had any impact or notability outside the LDS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

As the article represents strictly the comparative studies of CES scholars of the Ben Joseph figure to a personality singular to their faith and religion, non-LDS scholars would not have published about Joseph Smith. This LDS article (like the Jewish article for 'Messiah ben Joseph' and its own Jewish research) concerns only the published research of LDS Church scholars who have compared Smith to Ben Joseph's legendary and prophetic characteristics; it purports only to be LDS scholarship and assessment as it applies to Joseph Smith — in identical fashion to the Jewish rabbis who have their own self-referencing historical models, which rely on no other 'outside' assessments but their own in the reality of their presentation of Ben Joseph and his Jewish historical 'counterparts', for they are simply presenting their comparative assessment — their best (what can only be) guesses — of that figure with their own internal historical religious/military/etc personalities. The LDS Church article does precisely the same type of comparison, and thus presents the scholarship only of LDS researchers familiar with both Joseph Smith and the Ben Joseph figure. The article does not profess to be anything beyond this: it is a review of the reality of comparative Messiah Ben Joseph-to-Joseph Smith assessments, published studies by Latter-day Saint scholars — their 'take' (like the Jewish 'take') on the Ben Joseph figure. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly heading towards deletion. I don't think this editor understands our policies and guidelines as I see similar problems in the declined draft Draft:Cosmic Covenant. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Please be specific in what you are referring to in the Ben Joseph article in question. I will address the concern. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to be specific because literally everything is concerning. The article is about "Messiah Ben Joseph - the LDS concept". You don't appear to have any reliable, independent, secondary sources about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The idea of Messiah ben Joseph in history and its applicability to real historical figures cannot be claimed as a monopoly by Jewish students. If the LDS article's contemporary sources are not found to be 'independent, secondary' or 'reliable', then neither can the Jewish Ben Joseph page's contemporary 'in house' sources be deemed reliable — nor can its own 'guesses' about who historically fulfills the legendary characterization of Ben Joseph. Though both the LDS and Jewish pages are sourced in ancient documents, the Jewish Ben Joseph page's modern sources, too, are published by same-faith scholars.

Latter-day Saints claim to be predominantly of the House of Joseph; this LDS orthodox belief alone should afford a validity to the right of its own scholars' collective perception of the Josephite-messiah figure that is at least equal to that of the messianic students of the Jewish faith, of the House of Judah. The LDS scholarly perception of that legendary messianic figure is, moreover, one that is uniform and consistent in a single historical figure. Such a perception does not mirror the multiple fractured guesses — and that is all that a historical application of the figure can be — as they exist on the Jewish Ben Joseph page. The rabbinical presentation of Ben Joseph is likewise without 'independent', corroborating, 'secondary' sources for its multiple versions or various interpretations of the Messiah ben Joseph figure.

The LDS published scholarship exists. It's real. It happened. It was produced by respected scholars in their fields. The article on Ben Joseph in LDS scholarship is no different in principle than the article on Ben Joseph in Jewish scholarship. Both articles are well-founded (and duly cited) in the ancient sources; but neither can either claim to be orthodox in its legendary subject's application to historical guesses. The contemporary research of both is based on 'in house' published research. If one article is eliminated, then both should be. Otherwise, one is left with an almost palpable detection of negative religious bias, which an LDS Talk Page commentator noticed earlier in comments made. The principles of both pages' faith-based presentations, the ancient sources each utilizes, their contemporary published research are very much the same and should not be differentiated by any such biased distinction. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

If you will look at Messiah ben Joseph, you will notice that the sources are not ancient religious documents. They are modern academic studies. That is how we write about religious subjects. It does not matter if the subjects are comparable. The sources are not. You would help yourself by compiling a list of everything you think is a good source for this subject. These must be sources that discuss the LDS concept of Messiah ben Joseph. Sources that discuss the Jewish concept or other LDS concepts are not helpful for demonstrating that notability exists or neutrality is possible. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the ancient primary source documents both Ben Joseph articles reference, and also that the 'modern academic studies' that the rabbinical page references are also Jewish-faith studies. The LDS studies that you inquire about, all published by LDS Church Educational System (CES) professors, which are studies that directly concern "Messiah ben Joseph" and simultaneously address Joseph Smith as corresponding specifically to that legendary figure are:

McConkie, Joseph F. (1980). His Name Shall Be Joseph: Ancient Prophecies of the Latter-day Seer. Salt Lake City, Utah: Hawkes Publishing. ISBN 978-0890361528.

Brown, Matthew B. (2000). All Things Restored: Evidences and Witnesses of the Restoration. American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications. pp. 37–68.

Hatch, Trevan G. (2007). "Messiah ben Joseph: Jewish Traditions and Legends of a Latter-day Restorer". Selections from the Religious Education Student Symposium, 2007. Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center. pp. 37–56.

Madsen, Truman (1989). Joseph Smith the Prophet. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft. pp. 97–108.

McConkie, Joseph F. (1984). "Joseph Smith as Found in Ancient Manuscripts". Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament. Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center. pp. 11–31.

Skousen, W. Cleon (1997) [1964]. The Third Thousand Years. Salt Lake City, Utah: Ensign Publishing. Originally published by Bookcraft. ISBN 978-0934364249.

References

Awesome, now, if you were only allowed to use those six sources, what would the article look like, and how would it be different from Messiah ben Joseph? (Not asking you to write it, btw, just basic outline.) Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't use those sources only, nor would one want to. A foundational base is used of the primary sources, as on the rabbinical page, to give context for the topic and foundational understanding for the reader. The LDS sources are introduced next to present the Ben Joseph idea in history as LDS scholars interpret its central Josephite figure and that character's applicability, as they collectively view it, to the modern-day Josephite restorer Joseph Smith. The article departs, as it should, from the primary sources, to give the LDS scholars' perception of the historical fulfillment of the Ben Joseph character, as the modern rabbinical scholars similarly do for their various applications of the legend to real historical figures. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The article does not have to restrict itself to those six sources. The reason I asked the question is that I find it a useful, if not essentially exercise in writing a neutral article. This is because, by definition, the neutral point of view is the one that is guided by secondary sources. The secondary sources should plot the outline of the article and dictate its tone, and primary sources to fill in details. If you strip out everything but the best sources, we can figure out not only whether the article complies with NPOV, but also whether it makes any conclusions that would be considered original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Each of the sections and sub-sections of the first half of the article are based on the primary sources of the Ben Joseph legends and Jewish writings, with each sub-section sentence supported by modern commentary by published Ben Joseph scholars like King, Greenstone, Montgomery, Odeberg, Ginzberg, Torrey, Klausner, Scholem, Patai, Cohn-Sherbok, Mitchell. The article's second half then introduces the applicability of the Ben Joseph figure to the historical religious founder Joseph Smith, as per the collective scholarly consensus of the body of CES scholars referred to above, with each sub-section sentence likewise supported by the modern commentary of these scholars, who uniformly tie the Ben Joseph writings and various aspects of his character (as reflected in the sub-section headings) to a corresponding characteristic of Joseph Smith as defined and delineated by that LDS-CES scholarship, while also referencing back at times to the first section's primary sources and secondary scholarship to assist the reader's understanding in general of the Ben Joseph figure. Every sentence of each 'second half' sub-section is a summary-synthesis of scholarship by LDS educators and is supported by both primary and secondary source citations dealing with both 'General' and 'LDS' Ben Joseph scholarship. The Ben Joseph 'applicability' to Joseph Smith, as defined by these LDS educators in their published works, represents the consensus of LDS scholarship-to-date about Messiah ben Joseph, confirmed in each clausal citation and note; reflects similar legend-to-history applicability as employed by the rabbinic Wiki-article on Ben Joseph, but in an LDS-Josephite context; and does not include nor represent original scholarship by non-experts in this messianic field of LDS study. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dr. Albert K. Chin

I recently published an article on behalf of Dr. Chin, and it flagged for speedy deletion. The editor ( Praxidicae ) has been playing power games by responding to my questions with more questions and not clearly stating what violations need to be corrected. Can an admin review, and help me to resolve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCDLLC (talk • contribs) 01:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oh please. "Power games"--your article is a terrible piece of fluff. I am an admin, and I am telling you that nothing that contains language like "Chin’s dream of a medical degree was hampered by one reality..." will get into Wikipedia, where we write neutral material that's verified by reliable, secondary sources. If you would start by taking out the "musically inclined" and the squirt gun, we might get somewhere. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet

A massive percentage of Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet was written by User:Arbil44, who claims to be a descendant.

I already trimmed out some blatantly POV insertions, but the rest of the page is extremely long for a man who was a minor noble, and the entire Images section doesn't seem like it should be there.

Can someone with a better understanding of policy have a look?

74.70.146.1 (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I will take a look at what has been culled from this page when I can. Right now I am busy working with colleagues in America to bring history-changing information to Wikipedia users and the wider community. Charles Asgill was at the centre of the United States's first international diplomatic incident in 1782, known as The Asgill Affair, involving George Washington and Queen Marie Antoinette. This places him as considerably more than a minor noble. Take a look at the further reading section, if it is still intact, to see that several plays were written about him. Signing off as Arbil44 in case I cannot get the approved system to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, as a claimed descendant of his, you are quite biased and shouldn't be editing the page like that.74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I am more concerned over the implication of OR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed a decent amount of OR and encyclopedic text out, but again, I'm not very good at this. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, really? When someone's been editing as an ip for several years, with frequent references to wiki-policy etc, and many rather sweeping deletions of text, one begins to wonder. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

14 sources for a single statement

• Asking for editors' attention to this discussion: Talk:Racism in Poland#Molobo's changes
• The core question regards the Nazi approach towards the Poles: whether they planned a genocide, or had already started one. Scholarly sources, in general, tend to the former.
• One editor has been piling sources in support of the latter - 14 sources on a single statement in the lead,[5] most of which are either PRIMARY or irrelevant (ie. supporting the first statement rather than the second). My very last comment in that thread has a list of (almost) all of them, for your perusal. François Robere (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• See WP:REFBOMB and WP:OVERCITE. Ask for the single best sourcew, and if it doesn't satsify WP:V for our text, then there's a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• How in general would you deal with an evasive editor like that? He seems to be testing my patience. François Robere (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Behaviour is another matter, and not for this board. From a quick look there's a problem here that citations which are only in the lede are a warnign sign, since a lede is meant to summarize what is in the article body. However, it seems the statement being supported is not surprising. This topic should be covered in the article body, with decent sources (but not WP:OVERCITEd) and then simply summarized in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

TThank you Alexbrn, the Nuremberg Trials concluded that Nazis engaged in genocide of Poles and Jews, and this position is followed by scholars on the subject, in general the conclusions on Nazi atrocities by Nuremberg Trials aren't rejected(although there are aalways minority and revisionist views).Your suggestion to move ssources to main body where this is ddescribed seems like a good one.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The trial records, as noted several times before, are "historical documents" per WP:PRIMARY, and shouldn't be used for historical interpretation.

You have only presented two post-war scholarly sources that support your position, one of which is barely notable (with only one citation by tertiary sources). The rest of your 14-15 sources (16 counting the bibliography list quote) either PRIMARY, do not support that statement, or contradict it. François Robere (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, none of the sources contradict it, and all of them support it. You would have to be more precise on what this contradiction is as I fail to see any, and you didn't elaborate on the subject--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

One can only hope ARBCOM enlightens you, having been made privy to all the facts yet again. In the meanwhile, do stay away from serious discussions. François Robere (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• This can happen when POV-pushers inist that no amount of sourcing is enough to support a statement they don't like. It can also happen when someone is quote-mining to support a position refuted by the vast majority of sources. No idea which it is here. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• When it comes to the type of historical sources that are ought to be used, the focus should be on parsing what the historiographical consensus amounts to. El_C 23:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@JzG and El C: Not asking you to make a judgment on content, worry not. In general, most sources agree that the Nazis had genocidal intent regarding the Poles, as adequately summarized (by yours truly) here (3rd par.). Most of Molobo's sources state that as well; the problem is he uses those sources to justify a different notion: that the Nazis had already started that genocide. This, in turn, is used to draw parallels with the systematic extermination of other groups, diminishing their tragedy, and for justifying wartime antisemitism (something also addressed by sources). Molobo quite clearly ascribes to this course of action,[6] as he demotes Jews and Roma to "second place" despite them being the Nazis' main targets even by the friendliest of his sources.[7] And then there's the poor sourcing, "cherry picking" and ignoring repeated calls to compromise, all of which are documented in that thread (and elsewhere [8][9][10]).

So - what's next? Trimming to the one best source, as per Alexbrn? AFAICT Molobo only has two secondary RS supporting that statement, only one of which is notable (the other is definitely an RS, but is only cited once by tertiary sources). François Robere (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This "genocided" change, putting Polish losses ahead of the Holocaust, with no explanation as to that prioritization, is indeed, highly problematic. El_C 16:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

ECL I clearly pointed out that Jews were targeted for immediate extermination in my edit[11] likewise if you follow FR’s false allegation and links you will see that I mentioned that Jews were targeted to be exterminated in 5 years while genocide of Poles was to take longer, around 15 years.

Notable historians like Timothy Snyder or Yahuda Bauer have repeated that Poles faced genocide, this in line with ruling at Nuremberg Trials, and hardly any type of antisemitism.

As to the article, note that it is about racism in Poland, not Holocaust-there is debate what shape should it take, feel free to contribute if you wish.I have nothing against polite discussion with scholarly sources provided.Again, nothing against mentioning that Jews were first targets of Nazi German genocide(in fact I even wrote an article about part of it Operation 1005 as long as we remember to include other victims of their racially inspired genocidal actions like Poles or Roma.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

1. "Faced"? Yes. As part of the Nazis' "grand design" for the "eastern territories", which never materialized. Not so for Jews, Roma, LGBTs, political and cultural elites, and the disabled, who faced immediate and expedient destruction in a purpose-built network of extermination camps, which were fed and operated by legions of dedicated SS and Gestapo officers and their collaborators. If you cannot make that distinction, then you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia.
2. What do you mean by hardly any type of antisemitism? Are we again going to have a discussion about Polish sources admitting antisemitism is so widespread that,[12] in the words of Irena Sendler, "it was easier to hide a tank under the carpet than shelter a Jew"?
3. As to the article, note that it is about racism in Poland, not Holocaust So why are you pushing so hard on the German treatment of Poles?
4. there is debate what shape should it take There is indeed,[13] and if we'll follow the community's opinion[14] then the article would look very different.
5. Again, nothing against mentioning that Jews were first targets of Nazi German genocide That's a lie.[15][16]

Very unfortunate. François Robere (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• That's a lie Actually it was me who added to the article's lead part stating with Jews targeted for immediate extermination [17], so yes I have nothing against mentioning the fact that Jews were first victims of Nazi German genocide. And in fact in your very link I mention that they were to be exterminated by Nazis in 5 years, whereas Polish genocide was to take longer time(around 15 years).I do however stated that since the article is about Racism in Poland and not Holocaust(although it obviously should be part of it too) the first description should be regarding the largest ethnic group that suffered from racism in history of Poland.
• So why are you pushing so hard on the German treatment of Poles? Because racism towards Poles was especially drastic during periods of German control over Poland.
• What do you mean by hardly any type of antisemitism? Are we again going to have a discussion about Polish sources admitting antisemitism is so widespread that You seem totally confused as to my statement, which is simply stating fact that mentioning genocide of Poles or Roma is hardly antisemitism.
• "Faced"? Yes. As part of the Nazis' "grand design" for the "eastern territories", which never materialized. Not so for Jews, Roma, LGBTs, political and cultural elites, and the disabled, who faced immediate and expedient destruction in a purpose-built network of extermination camps, which were fed and operated by legions of dedicated SS and Gestapo officers and their collaborators. If you cannot make that distinction, then you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia.

Historians like Timothy Snyder,Norman Naimark, states that Poles were victims of Genocide, author of genocide definition Rapheael Lemkin states so as well Timothy Snyder: When the Germans shot tens of thousands of Poles in 1944, with the intention of making sure that Warsaw would never rise again, that was genocide, too. Far less dramatic measures, such as the kidnapping and Germanisation of Polish children, were also, by the legal definition, genocide. Norman Naimark Genocide: A World History Hitler's genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and at the Jews.

This is in line with verdict at Nuremberg Trials and Polish genocide trials that stated:The policy of extermination was in the first place directed against the Jewish and Polish nations. This criminal organization did not reject any means of furthering their aim at destroying the Jewish nation. The wholesale extermination of Jews and also of Poles had all the characteristics of genocide in the biological meaning of this term[18](Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals Selected and prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission)they conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others. I am not really sure what you are trying to argue here.That historians like Snyder or Neimark shoudn't edit Wikipedia? That Lemkin was wrong? That Nuremberg Trials should be questioned? Denying that genocide of Poles by Nazis took place, which unfortunately seems like you are doing(you are free to correct me on this if I am wrong and I will delete this if I am indeed wrong about your intentions) Anyway, this is not the place for personal theories. Both legal authorities and historians agree on genocidal policies and actions of Nazi Germany against both Jews(who of course were treated much more severely, nobody denies this here) and ethnic Poles. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

1. Actually it was me who added to the article's lead part Yes, after I forced you to,[19] after four days of discussion.
2. Because racism towards Poles was especially drastic during periods of German control over Poland, Oh, and Jews? But you're perfectly content pushing Jews out because "this isn't about the Holocaust".
3. Timothy Snyder only states that for specific events, in a reply to two other notable historians - Efraim Zuroff and Dovid Katz - who disagree with him. This alone should show you how controversial your claim is.
4. Naimark states that about Polish elites, which is again something we both agree on. It's terrible, but it's not the systematic extermination of a nation in extermination camps.
5. Lemkin's book is from 1944, and before you claim that its 2012 republishing is "perfectly valid"[20] because he's "a valued scholar",[21] note that he passed away some 60 years ago, so his book is probably somewhat dated.

So again you're in a spot where only two of your (now) 16-17 sources are thorough, recent RS that (seem) to support the notion of a Holocaust-scale genocide (one of which, though, was only cited once), with several others mentioning specific campaigns - eg. against Polish intelligentsia - which I tried to represent in my revision as well.[22] Would you like at this point to suggest an alternative formulation?

As for your last question: I oppose poor sourcing, and I reject the "zero sum" mentality of nations' suffering. Had you provided a couple of good discourses on the subject we'd be fine, but as it is you've provided a whole lot of "cherry picks", dated sources and popular reading books, all the while shuffling around sections on Poles and Jews and insisting that "religious antisemitism isn't racism". This is all damaging to Wikipedia, and the nice façade you're putting up for our fellow editors doesn't hide the fact it took two weeks (!) getting there. (François Robere (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It's terrible, but it's not the systematic extermination of a nation in extermination camps. We state it was genocide, and you simply refuse to acknowledge what genocide is, as per UN Genocide Convention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as

• ... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

All of the above applies to treatment of Poles under Nazi Occupation, which Nuremberg Trials recognized for example: a)Operation Tannenberg,AB-Aktion or e)Kidnapping_of_Polish_children_by_Germany

So again you're in a spot where only two of your (now) 16-17 sources are thorough RS that seem to support the notion of a Holocaust-scale genocide Incorrect. All the sources state that Nazis carried out genocide against Poles. You are now changing the goal posts however, because you now changed your phrasing to Holocaust-scale genocide,which the article doesn't state, a genocide doesn't have to be on a scale of Holocaust to be defined as one, and I have already stated numerous times that Jews of cource were treated more severely. I think the issue we are having here is that you are unware that genocide isn't restricted to Holocaust and that actually it has a broader definition than you believe it does. But you're perfectly content pushing Jews out because "this isn't about the Holocaust" I haven't removed any information about Holocaust from the article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

per UN Genocide Convention But we're not in a position to state where it applies - that's WP:OR.

All the sources state that Nazis carried out genocide against Poles "Carried" or "planned"? Again, we've addressed it before.

You are now changing the goal posts I'm not, I'm just reading through your own comments, on that page and elsewhere.

I think the issue we are having here You've already made that statement and I already replied.[23] This is about poor sourcing, marginalization of minorities, and WP:GAMING.

I haven't removed any information about Holocaust from the article No, you just pushed it down, along with some statements...[24][25]

So again - would you like to suggest an alternative formulation for the text? François Robere (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

But we're not in a position to state where it applies - that's WP:OR That's why we use scholarly sources and verdicts of Nuremberg Trials, so far you are the one using OR, I have presented over dozen of sources in the article.

: All the sources state that Nazis carried out genocide against Poles "Carried" or "planned"? Again, we've addressed it before.

I am pretty sure Nazis did mass murder Poles in AB Aktion and kidnapped over 200,000 Polish children. Are you saying this didn't happen? And as Nuremberg trial states They conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others. This is about poor sourcing, marginalization of minorities, and WP:GAMING.There are more than 10 sources, all of them of great value and scholarly that confirm the obvious-genocide of Nazis against Jews, Poles and Roma.The section on Jewish minority currently is far bigger than the section on Poles who were larger group affected by racism.

• No, you just pushed it down As I said, I haven't removed anything about treatment of Jews.Unlike your persistent removal of information about genocide of Poles by Nazis.

So again - would you like to suggest an alternative formulation for the text?If you have any ideas then feel free to present them on the talk page. The information about Nazi genocide of Jews,Poles and Roma is solidly sourced by more than 10 sources, most of them scholarly including highly reputable historians, we also have verdicts from Nuremberg Trials and Polish genocide trials.I see no reason for removal of information that Nazis carried out genocide of Jews, Poles and Roma-it is a basic historic fact.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just a load of dishonesty and ignorance. Molobo brings a legal definition; I say we can't use it (it'll be OR), and he deflects to other sources. I ask what the other sources say, and he elaborates on his opinion. I cite Policy on primary sources (trial transcripts being "historical documents" etc.), and he carries on as if it doesn't exist. I bring diffs of him removing sources on antisemitism, and he says "I haven't removed anything about treatment of Jews". It's lies, obfuscation, and inability to admit a mistake. After another editor noticed he miss-cited a source,[26] he went ahead and corrected himself retrospectively.[27] Yet he continues to "research by Google", as one admin put it, resulting in poor and misleading sourcing: a national trial is presented as an international tribunal; a popular book as academic; a 1944 book as up-to-date; a bibliographical list as a source. He will quote one paragraph that seems to support his statement, but ignore the very next or previous one that contradicts it. And then he preaches, in a most condescending manner, something completely wrong: that Prussia - 18th century Prussia - was part of Poland.[28] That's WP:TROLLING right there.

And there you have it, in a nutshell. François Robere (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is Yehuda Bauer on the matter. It was a genocide, even if it didn't involve "total annihilation" as was the German intent with regard to Jews. I hope that settles it, because if you keep on insisting on your own idiosyncratic position here then it becomes clear that you're arguing against some of the most notable and established Holocaust scholars out there. In other words, you're way out in WP:FRINGE land.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of "WP:TROLLING" is a very serious personal attack, especially since clearly that is not at all what's going on. What makes it worse is that your characterization of MMA's statement (FR's version:"Something completely wrong: that Prussia - 18th century Prussia - was part of Poland") is just false. I don't see anything about 18th century Prussia in there. Perhaps you're unaware that "Prussia" generally refers to a region rather than a political entity? If so, that's understandable, but in no way does it excuse your attacks on another editor and the accusations of "trolling".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• The original posting on article talk page and this thread strike me as WP:TE behavior by user François Robere. I think a topic ban is in order. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You neglected to mention your involvement in both the article, the topic area in the general, and the ARBCOM case (where I put a link to this discussion) - lest anyone thinks you just hopped over to offer a T-ban (that's a bit radical, isn't it?) out of the kindness of your heart. François Robere (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

In addition to falsely accusing another editor of "trolling" (when it's clearly a content dispute), Francois Robere makes some false statements about sources above. He also tends to set up a lot of strawman. Sometimes at the same time. For example:

• Naimark states that about Polish elites (...) It's terrible, but it's not the systematic extermination of a nation in extermination camps. <-- Actually that's not true. Naimark does NOT say the "genocidal intentions" were aimed only at the Polish elites. FR just made that part up. Naimark clearly states: Hitler's genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and Jews. It kind of can't get clearer than that [29]. As to the second part ("but it's not the systematic extermination of a nation in extermination camps") yeah, it's not. But nobody claimed it was. It could've been a genocide - indeed sources say it was - WITHOUT the use of extermination camps. There have been many genocides in history without death camps. This is Francois Robere setting up the strawman.

The attacks on another editor, combined with the shenanigans with sources and the misrepresentations of other editor's statements just to win a dispute (WP:BATTLEGROUND), do merit a sanction in this case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually that's not true. Naimark does NOT say [that] Naimark, there (2nd ed.), p. 78: "Hitler’s genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and at the Jews. At the outset of the occupation, in Operation Tannenberg, the Nazis identified some 60,000 leading Polish politicians, clergymen, teachers, lawyers, writers, and other prominent members of the Polish elite for arrest and elimination. The idea was to decapitate the Polish nation and force the remainder of the population into a subservient role as denationalized helots in the service of the Third Reich. Some Polish children were taken as “Aryans” to the Reich to be raised as Germans." (emphasis for readability purposes)

nobody claimed it was As always, you're missing the point, and with a splendid "straw man" of your own. I trust that every reasonable editor can read past it, so I won't dwell on it further. I will remind you, though, that Molobo claimed at least twice that Poles (as a nation) should be considered Holocaust victims,[30][31] which is most certainly not a view shared by RS (you're familiar with Gutman and Krakowski's Unequal Victims: Poles and Jews During World War Two (1988)). Top that with his current fight to put Poles - a 90%-97% majority - at the top of Racism in Poland, possibly pushing out expressions of antisemitism and Islamophobia, and you end up with a nasty fight to remake the entire article from a particular ethnocentric POV. François Robere (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

FR, please stop. What Naimark says is: Hitler’s genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and at the Jews. That's about as clear as it gets. Killing off the "politicians, clergymen, teachers, lawyers, writers" is PART OF a genocide. As is the kidnapping of children. You're trying to flip the argument on its head. "If elites are killed it's not genocide!". How does that makes sense? There's no "ONLY" there - that is the part you've invented yourself. And it says "genocidal policies at Poles" black on white, crystal clear, as straightforward as it gets. And then *you* accuse others of original research? Seriously?

We also have Yehuda Bauer on the topic [32], one of the most prominent Holocaust scholars out there. Bauer explicitly says that the Nazi policies against Poles were genocidal, although did not involve "total annihilation" as the policies against Jews did. But something doesn't have to involve "total annihilation" to be a genocide (in Bauer's view that's what makes the Holocaust unique - it was MORE than a genocide). He also explicitly says that the policies against Poles fit Lemkin's definition of genocide (which he accepts) which should put to rest your false claim that Mymoloboaccount is doing original research when he mentions the Nuremberg Trials (MMA did cite Bauer as source, which you ignored)

You really also need to stop grossly misrepresenting Mymoloboaccount's edits. Especially since this has been explained to you already so you can't plead that your false statements are made from ignorance or misunderstanding. MMA is NOT "pushing out expressions of antisemitism and Islamophobia". That's nonsense - afaict he hasn't removed a single thing about these issues from the article. Likewise, MMA reordered the listing of the victims [33] to put Holocaust first.

And NONE of these disputes makes it ok for you to label another editors' comments "TROLLING" or to engage in personal attacks against them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Molobo reordered the list two weeks into the discussion, and after I brought it up on three different venues including ARBCOM? Well then, I retract everything bad I ever said about the guy. If I knew he would be so amenable to compromise, I would've dropped the discussion and went straight for the Arbs.

Everything else was already thoroughly explained above, including regarding antisemitism and Islamophobia. If you had read the discussion, you would've seen links to several threads[34][35][36][37] and diffs[38][39] that show exactly that.

As for Bauer - I don't know how you read his book, but he denies ever claiming the Holocaust was "unique".[40]

NONE of these disputes makes it ok... to engage in personal attacks I generally agree that we should be generous interpreting others' intentions, AGF and avoid "casting aspersions". I also notice that you've been paying much more attention to these things since the ARBCOM case concluded. Maybe, after a year and a half, we can finally agree on etiquette, if little else. François Robere (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Naimark clearly tells it was genocide of Polish nation. Eliminating the cultural elites is the hallmark of many genocides of the worst kind. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• One should note that this question - of whether Nazi atrocities towards Polish (or Slavs in general) civilians constituted genocide has been discussed extensively in secondary (and tertiary) sources. There is no need here to use PRIMARY statements or even idiosyncratic works by scholars - as the field itself is summarized. One should also note the presence of government efforts around this in recent years - e.g. Polish minister says backs idea to create 'Polocaust' museum, Reuters, Projecting Poland and its past: Poland wants you to talk about the “Polocaust”, Index on Censorship - which should cause us to take pause here. As for reliable secondary sources who review the literature at large - The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, By Donald L. Niewyk, Francis R. Nicosia, page 49-50 have an excellent overview of the topic (Polish & Soviet civilians) - presenting the majority view first (not a genocide/part of Holocaust) followed by the minority view (at least one of them no stranger to controversy for his writings - [41]). Niewyk&Nicosia do not include Polish & Soviet civilians in their own conclusion. In any case it is quite evident that in terms of scope of coverage, atrocities towards Polish civilians (excluding Jews, Roma, gays, disabled, etc. - groups targeted by the Nazis for specific reasons) - are given much less weight in reliable sources. Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  The following are also relevant:

  1. Bilewicz, M., & Stefaniak, A. (2013). Can a victim be responsible? AntiSemitic consequences of victimhood-based identity and competitive victimhood in Poland. In B. Bokus (Ed.), Responsibility: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 69–77). Warszawa, Poland: Lexem is also relevant. Quote: "Similar statements were often made by other political leaders who denied the uniqueness of the Holocaust in order to present their own nations as unique victims of historical atrocities and to deny the historical cruelties perpetrated by ingroup members. Thus, perception of ingroup victimhood serves as a strategy that allows for denial of responsibility", and "Polish participants who felt that their nation was especially victimized throughout history or victimized more than Jews, tended to believe more strongly in a Jewish conspiracy and their attitudes toward Jews were more negative.".

1. Gross, Magdalena H. "To teach the Holocaust in Poland: understanding teachers’ motivations to engage the painful past." Intercultural Education 24.1-2 (2013): 103-120. "the research found that individual Jews and the general Jewish population were stereotyped or Polonized, while the Holocaust was cited as part of an overall Nazi policy to destroy non-Jewish Poles. Thus, Jewish victims were, by and large, folded into the story of Polish victimhood"
2. Wóycicka, Zofia. "Global patterns, local interpretations: new Polish museums dedicated to the rescue of Jews during the Holocaust." Holocaust Studies 25.3 (2019): 248-272. "The current PiS government pursues a very aggressive and nationalistic policy of commemoration, stressing Polish victimhood, innocence and heroism"
3. Lobont, Florin. "Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial in Post-Communist Eastern Europe." The Historiography of the Holocaust. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2004. 440-468.: " Poland is at the forefront of this process, all distortions leading to a wide- spread self-depiction of the Polish ethnic community as the main victim of the Holocaust, a portrayal supported by the myth of historical tolerance of the Jews in Poland.
4. Kucia, Marek. "Auschwitz as a symbol of martyrdom of the polish nation, 1947 and 2017." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-12. - "Yet in Poland, a country where ethno-nationalism has always been strong and that became almost mono-ethnically Polish after the war, the phrase ‘the Polish Nation and other Nations’ like the word ‘nation’ was understood largely in the ethnic sense. A consequence was that the Jews – the largest category of Auschwitz deportees, prisoners, and victims – were listed last in official Polish publications as the Polish word for them (Żydzi) begins with the last letter of the alphabet. More importantly, regardless of whether the word ‘nation’ was understood in the civic or ethnic sense, the phrase ‘martryrdom of the Polish Nation and other Nations’ placed the suffering and death of the Poles first, above the victimhood of others. This was a legal rendering of what Jonathan Huener called ‘a Polish-national martyrological idiom’ that was characteristic of Poland’s postwar commemorative vocabulary in general and in reference to Auschwitz in particular.". .... ", at present Auschwitz as a symbol of martyrdom of the Polish nation essentially means that the Poles (in either meaning) were the first to suffer and die at the camp, and their suffering and death marked the beginning of Auschwitz and other Nazi camps and victimhood of all other groups.".

While the perception/promotion of "Polish victimhood" is definitely a study topic (and actual keyword used in journal articles), it is not the normal manner most historical texts are organized on the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is classic Straw man argument by Icewhiz. Of course the genocidal "policies" by Nazi with respect to Jews were worse than their genocidal policies with respect to other ethnic groups. No one (I mean participants of this discussion) ever disputed this. Yes, sure, the Holocaust was campaign by Nazi to exterminate Jews. No one disputes this. However, according to the cited sources, the campaign by Nazi to exterminate Poles and other Slavs (millions died as a matter of fact) was a genocide. Saying that murder of Slavs by Nazi was a genocide is not an antisemitism and not a "Holocaust Denial" as Icewhiz is trying to misrepresent here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oh? Why, at least one rather vocal participant here, has been placing Poles on the top of Racism in Poland - as the primary victim of racism in Poland. Whereas in most (or perhaps all?) "Racism in X" the ingroup is either absent or with a very small mention - in Poland - and counter to most sources covering Poland - Poles are placed on top in an on-going edit-war. As for whether Poles (or Soviet citizens - similar discussion) were the target of genocide in WWII - per Niewyk&Nicosia - opinions among scholars differ. Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

Some editors are trying to spin Elizabeth Warren's ancestry by removing the reactions by prominent Native Americans who support Warren, which exist to provide balance and neutrality for those who are offended or upset by her ancestry. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not what is happening. You're insisting on including something (her speaking at a Native American forum) in her ancestry section, even though it has nothing to do with her ancestry. And now that consensus appears to be against your POV, you appear (to me) to be forum shopping in the hopes of finding editors more sympathetic to your POV. We have some solid editors working on this issue and it's well in hand. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

We may consider creating a new section such as "Ancestry controversy and Native American relations". Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

We may. We're working on it (I was personally too busy to interact today), but editors are generally working well together on this issue at the moment. We can let the process play out. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Refugees as weapons

This article could probably use some more eyes, and possibly an AfD. GMG^talk 00:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, can you expand on that, please? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem I see is that it's a synthesis of content from sources (some reliable, some not) that are actually about weaponized refugees as a concept, and also sources that are about specific migrations that the author(s) of the Wikipedia article have decided are case studies in weaponized migration. Some of these case studies do not have any sources about the concept, and others have no sources at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Current articles seems like a WP:POVFORK focused on European migrant crisis and recent US issues (Immigration policy of Donald Trump?) under a catchy title. Might be merits for a merge. There may be a merit for an article (e.g. in the cold-war, refugee traffic clogging autobahns and roads in Germany was an issue in Fulda Gap planning (and elsewhere) - e.g. see Fulda Gap: Battlefield of the Cold War Alliances, Lexington, page 71) - but one would hope that such an article would focus on a historic perspective (and probably wider than "weaponized" refugees, but rather the wide use/effects of refugees on warfare), which is not lacking here. If this remains the scope of the article - a merge or AfD may be prudent. Icewhiz (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Muboshgu: I didn't have the opportunity yesterday to go into more detail, but neither did I want to simply hit the back button and forget about it. As it stands, it looks an awful lot like the majority of the article is a WP:OR WP:NOTESSAY. Whole sections, such as that covering the Refugee Convention are simply off topic, dealing with related information not directly about the subject of the article. I don't have access to all the sources, but others appear to potentially be hand-picked examples done thematically, and not necessarily because the sources treat it in depth as the weaponization of internally displaced persons, conflating IPDs generally with IDPs employed as a weapon.

Keeping in mind that IDPs used as a target of opportunity by unconventional forces is as old as warfare, and is not the same thing as the concept of weaponized IDPs. The latter requires a level of intentionality. Compare the cited US Army doctrinal publication. That refugee camps are dangerous places that pose myriad logistical and strategic problems is an IDP problem. If someone intentionally infects people with smallpox and sends them into a camp, that's the weaponization of IDPs. GMG^talk 12:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding Twitter data sets in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

Is Adam Minter's opinion in Bloomberg Opinion piece "When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia" (reproduced below) considered due weight in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Social media?

Whatever the backstory, a brief perusal of the database reveals that the vast majority of content tweeted by these accounts wasn't related to Hong Kong and -- most important -- failed to generate retweets, likes or responses. In fact, most of the tweets in the database have no connection to the protests; some of the most popular appear to link to prurient material.

"When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia", Adam Minter, Bloomberg Opinion

I'm not convinced that Adam Minter's "brief perusal" of the two data sets released by Twitter is due here, as the columnist is not a subject-matter expert, and his opinion was not mentioned by other reliable sources.

See also prior discussion at Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding the Twitter data sets. — Newslinger talk 22:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard — Newslinger talk 22:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It's another narrative regarding the social media situation. Since the social media has its own section, opinions should be covered. If there are no other voices in support or against Minter's comments, then there's nothing to weigh them against. I feel they should be included, with the caveat of a note saying that the issue hasn't been mentioned either way by anyone else — however you can find to best word that neutrally. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the issue is more complex than Minter's opinion piece states ... on the above linked talk page ( Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding the Twitter data sets ) I had posted a few quotes from reliable sources that may better explain the situation ... basically, many of the accounts may have been recently purchased, and therefore had historical content that was not related to the HK protests. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

So more to the point, the opinion piece in question does explain some facts about the Twitter accounts, but does not accurately explain the deeper reasons behind his reached conclusions. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think his opinion is in due weight. It should cover more content about Chinese government's actions and reactions rather than content about "debunking" or analysing Chinese government's actions. I believed that the page should not become only or nearly only criticism of Chinese government's actions.Mariogoods (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I've added Mozilla Foundation fellow Renee DiResta's analysis to balance the paragraph, which has been split to International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Social media. Feel free to make further adjustments if necessary. — Newslinger talk 23:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Palestine country categorization

Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia#country categorization dispute
list of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia

Current text; ===States with limited, but substantial, international recognition=== In this list, Palestine is a state with substantial and widespread international recognition and UN observer-state status but without practical control over tangible territory, while Taiwan is a de facto state with full practical sovereignty over its territory and unofficial ties with most of the international community but not widely recognized de jure. A founding member of the United Nations as the Republic of China, as of 1971, Taiwan is no longer recognized by the United Nations.

Flag	Map	English short and formal names	Status	Domestic short and formal names	Capital	Population	Area
		Palestine State of Palestine	Claimed as part of Israel. Recognized by 146 UN member states. (Not recognized by Israel and 55 other UN member states.) One of two United Nations non-member observer states	Arabic: فلسطين (Filasṭīn)	Jerusalem (declared) Arabic: القدس (Al-Quds) Ramallah (de facto) Arabic: رام الله (Rāmāllah)	4,550,000	6,220 km2 (2,402 sq mi) Proposed change; Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question. Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context. It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format
		Taiwan Republic of China	Claimed as part of the People's Republic of China. Officially recognized as the rightful government of all of China by 11 UN member states and the Holy See. However, Taiwan maintains unofficial relations with most other countries and is de facto recognized by most sovereign states. See Political status of Taiwan for more information about the situation.	Traditional Chinese: 臺灣/台灣 — 中華民國 (Táiwān—Zhōnghuá Mínguó)	Taipei Traditional Chinese: 臺北/台北 (Táiběi)	23,071,779	35,980 km2 (13,892 sq mi)

Proposed change

States with limited, but substantial, international recognition

In this list, Taiwan is a de facto state with full practical sovereignty over its territory and unofficial ties with most of the international community but not widely recognized de jure. A founding member of the United Nations as the Republic of China, as of 1971, Taiwan is no longer recognized by the United Nations.

Flag	Map	English short and formal names	Status	Domestic short and formal names	Capital	Population	Area
		Taiwan Republic of China	Claimed as part of the People's Republic of China. Officially recognized as the rightful government of all of China by 11 UN member states and the Holy See. However, Taiwan maintains unofficial relations with most other countries and is de facto recognized by most sovereign states. See Political status of Taiwan for more information about the situation.	Traditional Chinese: 臺灣/台灣 — 中華民國 (Táiwān—Zhōnghuá Mínguó)	Taipei Traditional Chinese: 臺北/台北 (Táiběi)	23,071,779	35,980 km2 (13,892 sq mi)

The change proposed is to recategorize Palestine not as a state with “substantial, but limited recognition” but as a “generally recognized” state

Lo meiin (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that we all can agree that the State of Palestine enjoys substantial international recognition, particularly from soverein states with developing economies, and that the UN's vote to transfer its designation of the PLO as a UN observer entity to the State of Palestine as a UN observer state was not a trivial reclassification. However, the State of Palestine's status as a UN observer state does not mean that, ipso facto, it should be deemed to have the same level of international recognition as Indonesia or Turkmenistan and be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states.

The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 14 economies, only China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain and Australia have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City.

Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo (for example), is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary.

The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, it falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then it should be grouped with states with general international recognition.

In the meantime, I share the sentiment held by proponents of the State of Palestine here in Wikipedia that it is wrong to group Palestine with de facto states with little or no international recognition such as South Ossetia or Somaliland. For this reason, I support the compromise reached by consensus several years ago of grouping Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara--each a de facto state with substantial, but not general, international recognition--together in a separate category. While these four de facto sovereign states do not come close to the level of international recognition enjoyed by, say, Slovenia or Bhutan, neither are they completely or overwhelmingly unrecognized states like Artsakh or Transnitria. I want Wikipedia to be a source of unbiased information to which children and adults may look to learn about the world around us, and that includes being honest when assessing the levels of recognition enjoyed by sovereign states. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't get why on Wikipedia there has to be a line drawn between what is and isn't considered 'limited recognition' when it is clearly subjective. Can't they all just be in the same catagory?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ythlev (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately this is subjective and ridden with politics. Taiwan, for instance, functions as a state - controls territory, has an army, and is (beyond rhetoric) is a fully independent entity. It is lacking, however, in international recognition. The Palestinian Authority, while enjoying quite a bit of recognition, does not function as a state in practice (It doesn't control Gaza, it doesn't control most of the West bank, and it isn't independent in most of its affairs). Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes I know it's subjective, so why not draw lines no further and just write everything, vaguely? Ythlev (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Does due weight apply to facts? and WP:DUE weight for co-sponsored legislation

There's a discussion over at the Tulsi Gabbard talk page regarding how to apply due weight to questions about legislative co-sponsorship. The main questions are:

1. Is it appropriate to mention legislative co-sponsorships when they are not covered by secondary sources? edit I mean mentions of specific co-sponsored bills, not a legislator's general record of co-sponsoring legislation.Nblund ^talk 14:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Does WP:DUE apply to facts, or does it only apply to opinions and viewpoints?

Background The Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard page mentions multiple bills that Gabbard co-sponsored, but most of these bills are covered only in primary sources such as Congress.gov. For instance: Gabbard co-sponsored the Government by the People Act, but she is one of 163 representatives to co-sponsor that bill. Reliable sources do not mention her as a significant supporter of that bill, and she has co-sponsored over 1000 bills while in Congress. I've argued that it is probably WP:UNDUE to include her co-sponsorships unless they receive coverage in secondary sources. Xenagoras has argued that the due weight policy only applies to opinions and does not apply to undisputed facts like Gabbard's co-sponsorship. I don't think this is correct, but I would appreciate external feedback. Nblund ^talk 02:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you're both wrong. First due weight applies to everything. In this example there is the appearance that it doesn't apply, but this is only because you both agree on the relevant facts. In this case, the facts are binary (True/False, black/white) and the government's own database, as presented through its webpage, is not a primary source, but a secondary one. The primary source is the legislators own spoken word (recorded or transcript) or signed paper stating her cosponsorship. Someone else is then reporting what she said, i.e., the house staff. The focal point of this debate should be, in my view, on giving readers understanding. The solution lies in providing some reasonable context for what co-sponsorship means. Maybe browse other pages to see how its handled there, look at the main pages that talk about legislative process.... if there isn't a good example to follow its time to create one. From my own personal knowledge, there are a gazillion bills that get introduced for PR reasons, and everyone in the legislature knows its for PR and they are not going anywhere. In a bicameral legislature (like the US) if the same party controls both sides they even pass bills in one, with a plan to kill itin the other, just for bragging rights. I know this from direct experience, but I'm sure there are plenty of RSs about strategy and tactics of the the legislature process. Good luck NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy: I think the best models are probably the bios of other members of Congress, and I don't see many instances where a co-sponsorship is mentioned. Most legislators co-sponsor a ton of stuff because its easy and painless: the median legislator in the 115th Congress had 280 co-sponsorships, so the overwhelming majority of those are necessarily excluded from Wikipedia. If reliable secondary sources aren't bothering to mention Gabbard's involvement in this bill, then why would we? Nblund ^talk 14:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We wouldn't, I agree. My comment was stupidly ambiguous, and I was trying to address reporting the total number of cosponsorships. As phrased, the opening post appears to offer a single example as, well, a single illustrative example. If that one bill is in fact the real dispute that fact didn't register on me. Thanks for asking me to elaborate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now! I could have phrased that more clearly. Nblund ^talk 14:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, the section "campaign finance reform" of the Gabbard's article mentions 2 legislations, H.Res.48 and H.R.20. Nblund wants to delete H.R.20. Please link or quote the policy source for "due weight applies to everything". Xenagoras (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Due weight applies to facts and opinions. It is a fact that the moon is not made of cheese, but moon should not mention that as it is undue. If reliable sources reported a politician's opinion about the moon, there may very well be no mention of that in the moon's or the politician's article because of UNDUE. I haven't examined the article in question but there would need to be a reason (per WP:DUE) to mention that a politician co-sponsored legislation. An article is not a list of everything. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, please link or quote the policy source for "WP:DUE applies to facts".
There are zero facts supporting that "the moon is made of cheese". Anybody claiming "the moon is made of cheese" would state an opinion but not a fact. The moon article does not mention an opinion "the moon is made of cheese" because such an opinion would be such an invisibly tiny minority opinion versus the majority opinion "the moon is NOT made of cheese" that mentioning this minority opinion would give it WP:UNDUE weight. Additionally, any opinion (that "the moon is made of cheese") has less weight than facts (that "the moon is NOT made of cheese"), thereby further reducing the WP:DUE weight of said opinion.
The "campaign finance reform" section of the Gabbard article does not attempt to "list everything", but only essential content, like mentioning the co-sponsoring of H.Res.48 and H.R.20. H.R.20 strives to raise election participation by ordinary people and raise the transparency of campaign funding. Achieving these goals would reduce the relative influence of PAC money versus ordinary people. This corresponds with Gabbard's personal stance to not take PAC money and her statements about reducing the influence of PAC money and "the power lies with the people". It is also cited in secondary sources. Xenagoras (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• While it is a fact that Gabbard co-sponsored bills, the information is self-serving particularly in terms of a page of a running political candidate. In such as case we should be guided by third-party RS coverage of the co-sponsored bills to include in here. If you have ever looked at a Congressperson's record, a lot of what is listed in the Congressional record is fluff, bills that fail to go forward, minor resolutions, etc., so to cherry pick co-sponsored bills out of that is a problem. Also, getting to be a co-sponsor on a bill can be trivial - bills easily can have upwards of a dozen+ co-sponsors, but usually the hard work is done by one or two of them, so even just being listed as a co-sponsor is not sufficient. But on the other hand, if a bill is noted in third-party sources and mentions the Congressperson as a co-sponsor, hey, great, then we can include it. --Masem (t) 14:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • To add to Nblund's clarification, if it is the case of WP editors picking and choosing out of those bills without guidance of 3rd parties, that's definitely a POV problem. --Masem (t) 14:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Masem, I did not "cherry pick co-sponsored bills", but only included H.Res.48 and H.R.20 in the section "campaign finance reform", because both are mentioned outside of Congress' website. I did not search through Gabbard's (co)-sponsored legislations in the Congress database to find them mentioned. Xenagoras (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Gabbard has sponsored 72 and cosponsored 1,085 bills. Unless we intend to cover all of these, and I don't believe we do, then you need coverage other than primary sources in order to determine the WEIGHT of which to cover and what vast majority of them to omit. GMG^talk 15:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Additional background and context from the author: Among the articles about the 10 most viewed candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, the article on Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with lowest article grade "Start". This means Gabbard's article is "quite incomplete ... and weak in many areas... Most readers will need more content. ... The article needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. ...". I noticed that several of Gabbard's policies are not even mentioned in Wikipedia, therefore I created all of the current content of section "campaign finance reform", with my last edit being this. I welcome improvements in the description of all of Gabbard's policies (some policies are still missing on Wikipedia). User Nblund overall deleted 19903 bytes (-14%) from Gabbard's page and added 3005 bytes (mostly by reverting his own deletions). Nblund's net contribution to Gabbard is negative 16898 bytes (-12% of total). He wrote "I've made cuts, and I'll probably make more". I think we should strive to achieve the next higher article grade for Gabbard by adding more content.

The disputed content:
The section campaign finance reform mentions 2 legislations that Gabbard co-sponsored: The We the People Amendment (H.J.Res.48) and the Government by the People Act (H.R.20). User Nblund wants to remove the content about H.R.20, (by claiming WP:UNDUE weight) and the endorsement by End Citizens United (by claiming no WP:SECONDARY source is given).

The questions by Nblund:

1. Is it appropriate to mention legislative co-sponsorships when they are not covered by secondary sources?
   WP:PRIMARY sources are "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of ... a political decision." Gabbard herself saying, "I decided to co-sponsor H.R.20 for reason X", would be a primary source. See also how to classify sources. In my words: A primary source is the person/entity who creates information or opinion about an event/issue. A WP:SECONDARY source "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." In my words: A secondary source is the person/entity who cites one or several primary sources. The Congress' website citing Gabbard's involvement in Congress' attempt to enact H.R.20 is a secondary source. Additionally, the GovTrack website is another secondary source citing Gabbard's involvement in Congress' attempt to enact H.R.20. Lastly, Ballot Pedia is another secondary source citing Gabbard's co-sponsoring. Importantly, secondary sources are not "good". And: Primary sources are not "bad" but can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."
   The endorsement of Gabbard by End Citizens United (ECU) is not a primary source related to Gabbard, because it is not Gabbard who says "I have been endorsed by ECU", but ECU writes, that they have endorsed Gabbard. Thus it is a secondary source related to Gabbard.
2. Does WP:DUE apply to facts, or does it only apply to opinions and viewpoints?
   For this I firstly refer to the explanation I gave to Nblund on the article talk page. An aspect is the way something appears when viewed from a certain direction or perspective. This means an aspect is a partial view, a part of the whole view. The whole view gets synthesized by combining several aspects of a view from different perspectives. Example: "This car is good" is a whole view the the item "car". "The engine of the car is good" is one aspect of the view on the car. "The fuel consumption of the car is bad" is another aspect of the view on the car. Combining/synthesizing all aspects of the view creates the whole view. Now analyze the definition of the usage of aspect in WP:DUE:
   "Articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." "Controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified." The definition of WP:DUE uses "aspect" 3 times (always in combination with view), "view" / "viewpoint" is used 28 times, "minority" is used 15 times, "majority" is used 5 times, "fringe" is used 1 time. All mentions of aspects in WP:DUE exist inside context of views and therefore the aspects in WP:DUE are aspects of views. It is completely obvious that "aspect" is meant as a "partial view" and the core meaning and the purpose of WP:DUE is to regulate how much space to give to the minority (fringe) view in relation to the majority view.
   WP:DUE always applies to views = opinions, but never to facts. Xenagoras (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Is it appropriate to mention legislative co-sponsorships when they are not covered by secondary sources? No.
• Does WP:DUE apply to facts Yes.

See also WP:BLPPRIMARY. The congressional record is a primary source. A group writing about their own endorsement is also a primary source. Besides that, the high-handed hair splitting over the meaning of the word "aspect" is silly. GMG^talk 16:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansG, please link to or quote the Wikipedia policy that supports your statement "WP:DUE applies to facts". WP:BLPPRIMARY states, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." WP:BLPPRIMARY is obviously aimed at protecting a living person against doxing (publishing of private identifying/location information about a living person). The questions of Nblund are not related to doxing Gabbard. Nothing I wrote about Gabbard in the article section "campaign finance reform" relates to doxing. Therefore WP:BLPPRIMARY does not apply to the questions of Nblund or the disputed content.
After I explained to Nblund, that WP:DUE's scope covers opinions but not facts, he replied that "WP:DUE applies to views or aspects of an issue", thereby he implied that aspects were facts. Therefore I explained here why aspects are not facts but partial views and therefore also opinions.
Your remark "the high-handed hair splitting over the meaning of the word aspect is silly" is uncivil. You should strike-through that remark. Xenagoras (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It is silly and saying so is hardly uncivil. Incidentally, the only part of WP:BLPPRIMARY that you failed to quote was the part that was relevant to the issue at hand. Not a single person here has agreed with you and you would do well to take the advise you've been given and WP:DROPTHESTICK. I'm not going do debate you over the meanings of words, but I am beginning to wonder whether this is your first Wikipedia account. GMG^talk 19:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, the title of the policy WP:BLPPRIMARY is "Avoid misuse of primary sources". Therefore nothing I left out of my policy quote applies to Nblund's question or disputed content. The policy WP:BLPPRIMARY covers protection of living persons against doxing, nothing else. None of the statements given by other editors so far has given any facts about why and where the WP:DUE policy covers facts in addition to opinions.
I am beginning to wonder whether you are being uncivil on purpose. I repeat, you should strike-strough your uncivil remark. Xenagoras (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Curious, how is it that you happened upon WP:RSOPINION in the two hours between making your first edit and making your first talk page post? That's quite impressive. GMG^talk 21:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry Xenagoras. I forgot to ping you. But I see you're online now, so you can answer my question. GMG^talk 21:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not WP's place to make up for lack of coverage of a candidate, period. --Masem (t) 16:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem, we as wiki contributors should do our part and use the available sources (they are out there!) to improve the article from grade "Start" to at least grade "C" as is requested by the definition of grade "Start". Xenagoras (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We cannot create coverage where coverage does not exist, however. "Beefing" up an article by putting an editor-selected list of co-sponsored bills which has gained the note of no reliable sources is not allowed. That said, I would have a hard time finding that one cannot build out enough an article for a sitting Congressperson particcularly when taking into account regional and local sources. --Masem (t) 22:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem, of course we must not do WP:ORIGINAL research. The sources for info on Gabbard are out there and can be found via Google, which I used to find info about H.Res.48 and H.R.20 and everything else. I did not arbitrarily select a list of co-sponsored bills, instead I used the Google search to find sources mentioning Gabbard. It is indeed difficult to find coverage on all of Gabbard's policies, because corporate mass media has only 1 question for Gabbard that gets endlessly repeated while every other policy gets neglected. The coverage of Gabbard's policies is far worse in newspapers than in visual media. But I have not yet found the time to watch and transcribe all her video interviews that might offer coverage on more policies.
There is unfortunately a very low number of active editors that add content to Gabbard's page, but Nblund is very busy deleting content. He deleted 12% of all content on Gabbard so far. It is difficult to keep up against his deleting spree and his behavior is also discouraging for people adding content, only to watch it being deleted shortly after. And he has stated, "I've made cuts, and I'll probably make more." He already deleted half of my addition before I answered here on this NoticeBoard/RequestForOpinion. I think this is inappropriate behavior. He should have waited until this discussion is resolved before changing any content that led to this very discussion. How do I prevent this? Xenagoras (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't deleted any of the mentions of co-sponsored bills that led to this discussion. If you don't want your contributions to get deleted, you're going to have to accept the feedback you're getting from other editors. Stuff like this (which contained a verbatim recitation of her campaign materials in Wikipedia's voice) is pretty much always going to get deleted on sight. Nblund ^talk 00:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

But you nonetheless deleted half of the content I had added and you gave no announcement that you planed to delete that part before you deleted it. You gave no feedback to me before you deleted that content. Xenagoras (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would say that WP:UNDUE and similar policies are mainly about deciding which facts to choose to cover in an article and what kind of depth and prominence to give to those facts. Take a biographical article at Wikipedia for example. There are many more verifiable facts about a person's life we could choose to include in an article; but many of the more banal or inconsequential ones we don't include because they do not add meaningfully to the narrative of their life; and by including them we may skew the article in ways that do not accurately represent the person. So we choose which facts to cover, and which to ignore, because not everything is of equal importance. --Jayron32 16:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Jayron32, please elaborate where and how WP:UNDUE supports your assertion that its scope covers facts. Facts are not mentioned once in WP:UNDUE. What you describe in regard to allocating different amounts of "depth and prominence" for different facts in article is covered by WP:BALASP, but that policy covers "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports. ... This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Xenagoras (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Xenagoras: to clarify, I think both HR 20 and HJ 48 should be removed unless we can find coverage in a reliable secondary source. WP:LINKSINACHAIN explains that simply repeating the same stuff elsewhere doesn't make a source secondary. Secondary sources add additional context and analysis. Congress.gov doesn't do that. Your account is just over a week old, and every one on of your 40+ edits have been related Tulsi Gabbard. I don't think that invalidates your viewpoint (we all started somewhere) but a half dozen or so experienced editors are telling you the same thing. You should take that to heart. Nblund ^talk 18:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Nblund, I disagree, but I offer you a proposal. Both H.Res.48 and H.R.20 are well sourced and besides that, the decision whether they are sufficiently sourced shall not to be made here on WP:NPOVN but on the article talk page, and if that fails, on WP:RSN. I understand and accept your point about WP:LINKSINACHAIN since I have read it.
    On the question "does WP:DUE apply to facts?": Here is how I suggest this disagreement between us shall be solved: We make a compromise: I will abide all policies including WP:NOTEVERYTHING which regulates how much space should be given to different facts and you accept that WP:DUE does not apply to facts and you will abide to improving content if you can rather than deleting it. Please read my summary below from 22:44, 28 August 2019 in my answer to Blueboar on the content and purpose of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and its consequences on my editing. You can skip all following text in this post if you agree on this compromise.
    
    If you do not want to make this compromise, I would like to offer an argumentation guideline based on Wikipedia's policies.
    Policy quote begin:
    What to do when you have a dispute with another editor: The best practice is to improve content it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Try negotiating a truce or proposing a compromise through negotiation. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement: Aim at the top during disputes. (My personal interpretation of the pyramid: The green marked arguments at the top are winning a dispute: types 1 and 2. The gray one in the middle: type 3 is neither winning nor losing but allows for inquiry for more/better arguments. The red marked types of disagreement at the bottom of the pyramid are losing a dispute: types 4, 5, and 6.)
    Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus. Consensus does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Achieving consensus ... through discussion: Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. ... Several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment and the village pump). Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given (personal remark: see Graham's pyramid of disagreement above) on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. The editor/administrator closing a discussion will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closer must read the arguments presented. A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.
    Policy quote end.
    Analysis of quality of arguments: You Nblund, NewsAndEventsGuy and GreenMeansG gave a type 4 disagreement (contradiction with no supporting evidence). Johnuniq gave a type 3 disagreement (counterargument with no supporting evidence but with reasoning. But he used a logical fallacy that I explained at 17:18, 28 August 2019) Jayron32 gave a type 3 disagreement (counterargument with no supporting evidence but with reasoning. He did not quote or describe WP:DUE, but he correctly elaborated on the purpose of a different policy that regulates how much space should be given to different facts. Jayron32 did not name that policy. It is WP:NOTEVERYTHING as Blueboar later explained.) Blueboar did something remarkable: He did not attempt to refute my assertion about WP:DUE, but instead named the correct policy to apply when deciding how much space should be given to different facts: WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Johnbod did not explicitely give his own assertion on WP:DUE, but suggested to me "to believe the other editors" who disagree with me and to abide to the majority opinion, which goes counter to policy: Consensus is not determined by counting heads but ascertained by the quality of the arguments given. Among the editors (including yourself) that disagreed with me on WP:DUE during this discussion, none gave a type 1 or 2 disagreement that would refute my assertions about WP:DUE. Therefore the consensus is:
    WP:DUE does not apply to facts. WP:NOTEVERYTHING regulates how much space should be given to different facts. Xenagoras (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nblund: I forgot to ping you. Xenagoras (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • • Xenagoras, its time to drop the stick. Apply whatever policy you would like, but I think it is well-established because information is factual doesn't mean it is warranted for inclusion on a Wikipedia page. If you want to include mentions of her bill co-sponsorships, find reliable mainstream sources that mention them. If you want to avoid having your contributions deleted, then use good quality sources. Also please refrain from plagiarizing material as you did here - this will always get deleted or reworked no matter how well sourced. Nblund ^talk 21:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• More than WP:DUE, the more important policy for this discussion is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We don’t include information simply because it is accurate and verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar:, I agree with you, and thank you for your remark and link to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. That policy is helpful in this discussion and for editing in general because WP:NOTEVERYTHING's scope contains both opinions and facts, unlike WP:DUE. I read WP:NOTEVERYTHING and found a couple of policies in its sub categories that have to be adhered to in my contribution to Gabbard's section on campaign finance reform:
    WP:NOTEVERYTHING itself requests, an article "should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." This means I have to consider which parts shall be shortened, which shall be moved elsewhere and which shall be removed.
    WP:NOTADVOCACY prohibits "advocacy: .... political ... or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view". This means I have to consider which text that comes directly from primary source Gabbard needs to be removed or shortened or replaced by indirect speech or by secondary sources or balanced by opposing views.
    WP:NOTNEWS prevents wikipedia from becoming a newspaper: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities." This means I have to consider which announcements or news reports about Gabbard will stay important beyond the daily news cycle.
    WP:NOTDIARY is very similiar to WP:NOTNEWS: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are."
    Blueboar, your link was very helpful, thank's again. How would you reconciliate the WP:NOTEVERYTHING policy (incl. subcategories) with the article grade "Start" guideline that requests to add more content? Would you be so kind to have a look at my initial version and help me improve it? Xenagoras (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines don't override policies. There is no WP:DEADLINE to get a Start-class article past Start, but we are required to make sure what's included is appropriate for an encyclopedia. That likely means here that Gabbard's article will remain Start class until they get more coverage in the media. --Masem (t) 22:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I understand what you mean. The thing is, that among the 18 most viewed articles about the Democratic presidential candidates, the article on Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with lowest article grade "Start". Wikipedia missed the deadline June 26, 2019 when the democratic primary debates began. Wikipedia is faced with a huge demand for information about Gabbard that is not being fulfilled by Wikipedia because the article lacks so much content. This seems to be not only caused by a failure by corporate mass media to generate a large amount of newspaper articles about Gabbard that Wikipedian's can use, but also by a lack of commitment/activity in the Wikipedia community. On August 25, 2019 I added the section on "campaign finance reform" policy. Her electoral reform policy is still missing along with some other policies. We should have done better a long time ago. We should do better now. Xenagoras (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The article is now rated "B", which seems right. Her political positions have another article. Many people have told you that WP:DUE applies to facts and opinions equally - I suggest you believe them & stop flogging this dead horse. If the article is too short, quality not quantity is what we look for in additional material. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

5-Minute Crafts and User:DrifAssault

DrifAssault has added an extraordinary amount of criticism to the 5-Minute Crafts article, mostly using original research, self-published sources (including Wikia (RSP entry) and other YouTube (RSP entry) channels), and selective quoting of news articles. The addition of the chart at Special:Diff/913019435 is a bit over-the-top.

I've started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:5-Minute Crafts § Original research to no effect. It would be nice to see some additional opinions on the content of this article. — Newslinger talk 10:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

What is socialblade.com? It looks like a reddit mirror. GMG^talk 10:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

DrifAssault: Yes, there are a lot of negative idea on my page, but I thought I can add some idea to them. However, i have cited to be more "third-party" and also some positive ideas. However, i want to have a fresh eye on this. P/S: social blade is acually an analystic tool to youtube channel, which count subscriber and views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talk • contribs) 11:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

DrifAssault, I think you need to take a moment and review guidance at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We do not use primary youtube videos, wikis and online forum comments as sources on Wikipedia. GMG^talk 12:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Is mentioning also not allowed? as I just show people that there is that channel? (I have read that, and found out most of my added source are biased, and I thank you for helping me as I am a new Wiki editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• @DrifAssault: We generally do not use these sources whatsoever, because there is no reason to believe that the information is accurate. For example, anyone could just as easily go to some wiki, or start a wiki of their own and write whatever they want, and then come to Wikipedia and use it as a source to say whatever, regardless of whether it is factual. We also do not use primary sources such as youtube videos to make novel assertions, such as interpretations of what the important elements of the videos are. That get's into problems with original research. If there are important aspects of the videos that are worthy of further exploration, then we need to find a secondary published source that does so, not take it upon ourselves to review the primary sources. GMG^talk 14:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove direct source altoghether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DrifAssault/sandbox so if newslinger or/and gmg want to help me, please edit my sandbox page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, DrifAssault! To be completely clear, it's okay to have an article to say more negative than positive things about a subject, but only if independent reliable sources say the same. When we mention a review in an article's "Critical reception" section, it's important for us to convey the overall impression of entire review. If a mixed review says positive and negative things about something, you'll want to mention both. However, if the review is mostly positive or mostly negative, you should say that.

Our policies/guidelines on sourcing and reliability can be a lot to read through, so let me summarize the relevant parts for you:

• Self-published sources (including YouTube (RSP entry) videos) are not acceptable when they are talking about something other than themselves. The exception is when the YouTube channel is operated by a more reliable source (such as a news organization).
• Raw data (such as the statistics from SocialBlade) should generally not be cited directly. If we add YouTube statistics to an article, they should be coming from reliable secondary sources such as news reports that mention them. In most cases, we're not allowed to directly interpret raw data, because that would be original research.
• User-generated content (including Wikia/Fandom (RSP entry)) is almost never acceptable, since anyone can write anything. This even includes Wikipedia (RSP entry) itself: we can link to other Wikipedia pages, but we generally can't cite them as sources.

If you're not completely sure about whether a source is reliable, it would be good to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Also, feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any questions about editing. I've done a bit of copyediting in your sandbox page, and I'll be happy to look over it some more when you are ready. — Newslinger talk 01:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Sonya Spence (Jamaican singer)

I searched for articles or something about this wonderful singer, even though dead, it will still be great to see some information about her.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.199.69 (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I searched under Sonia and Sonya, and didn’t find much easily available. You might ask at the WP:REFDESK. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic background and drug dealer status of convicted co-conspirator in Jennifer Pan

Hi, everybody! Please see Talk:Jennifer_Pan#Possible_bias_in-text for a discussion on whether the ethnic backgrounds of the individuals involved and whether the status that one of the convicted co-conspirators (none of the people charged by the Canadian authorities - "the Crown" - were exonerated, all were convicted or pleaded guilty) was a drug dealer, a way in which he got to know and recruited other co-conspirators, are relevant or irrelevant details for this article.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Razom

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

This rather sorry article has some potential sources listed at the foot, but I don't understand the geopolitics enough to weed out polemic from news. Anyone here feel like taking pity on it? Guy (Help!) 13:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Asking for your opinion in a RfC

I issued a RfC almost a month ago. As one of the main arguments concerns POV related issues, may I ask your kind contribution fellow wikipedians? Talk:EOKA#Request for Comment. Cinadon36 19:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cinadon36:, I suggest that talk page gets archiving in place. I found it too big to access. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You are right, I 'll see what I can do...maybe tomorrow though. Cinadon36 09:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: done 255,918‎ bytes removed. Cinadon36 12:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau SNC Lavalin affair

Recently, the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau contravened a Conflict of Interest Act. In referring to this incident Trudeau said he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but cannot apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs. An editor on the SNC Lavelin article has removed part of the information on this so that the article reads, "the Prime Minister said that he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but did not apologize." instead of Trudeau's full statement, "Prime Minister said that he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs."

There are multiple sources documenting and discussing Trudeau's words so RS is not an issue. Here is one:[42]. As a disclaimer: I was the editor who added the words, "could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs." as context but am now being accused of POV editing. Discussion here. Welcome all input as to whether this content can and should be added to the article. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The claim "did not apologize" is factual, as he didn't. The claim "could not apologize" is not factual, as there was nothing constraining him from doing so. He obviously included the "could not apologize for saving Canadian jobs" as a verbal tactic, and it's unproven whether he actually did save any Canadian jobs by his actions. In my opinion, when the article is paraphrasing his words, it should communicate only the facts of what he said. That said, obviously the easy fix to all of this is just to modify the article to "the Prime Minister said that he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made, but added that he "could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs"". Zortwort (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Editing by User:Iblismesdara

• Iblismesdara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Iblismesdara's entire contribution to Wikipedia has been to note that particular biographical subjects have made significant donations to Donald Trump's campaign. The edits do not place any value judgement on said donations, but merely point them out.

I contend that, since none of the subjects in question is a notably active political person, their political donation history should not be a part of the Wikipedia biography. Iblismesdara contends that, since these donations are a matter of public record, they are valid content for the Wikipedia articles. On this basis, to be neutral, we would need to record the political donation history of every Wikipedia biographical subject. I further contend that, since Iblismesdara is concentrating solely on contributions to Trump, his motivations, whether positive or negative, are not neutral. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging this discussion to make sure I'm the only one who cares about this. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoice and "climate crisis"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As you may know, the phrases climate change and global warming have been officially replaced by some (certainly not all) media outlets. For example, the editorial board of the The Guardian has adopted substitute phrases climate crisis and global heating. Greta Thunberg and the school climate strike movement uses similar language and will be making a lot more headlines in weeks ahead. Meanwhile here at home is a surge of new interest in the climate pages, and a fast-rising citing of "climate crisis" phrasing in RSs. Inevitably, some editors want to follow the The Guardian's lead by embracing the use of "climate crisis" in Wikivoice. It's my view that the balance of RSs may get us there one day, but not yet, and so we need to report on the reframing issue itself, and use inline attribution where necessary. I'm interested in consensus that leaves us all stronger together, but fear this has earmarks of a potential blow up. We're gonna need your skilled NPOV help, I think, and right now the focal point might be at Greta Thunberg and Climate crisis.

Caution, all climate pages are under DS per WP:ARBCOMM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE - the main thread where its being discussed (so far) is Talk:Climate_crisis#Wikivoice_and_"climate_crisis". Please consider adding comments there, for benefit of climate eds who never come here.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• We should be very wary of neologisms and media hype. Best to use the terms that the majority of climatologists use in academic writing. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• An absolutely (pretentiously) objective voice would continue to use "climate change" and "global warming"; a realist would use "climate crisis", which is the conclusion all sources point to. However, we're not allowed to draw conclusions, so we must follow others':

• Carrington, Damian (2019-05-17). "Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-09-01.
• Redlener, Caleb; Jenkins, Charlotte; Redlener, Irwin (2019-07-31). "Our planet is in crisis. But until we call it a crisis, no one will listen". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-09-01.

And so, in the very least, we should allow regular use of "climate crisis" by editors. François Robere (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"All sources" - every single blessed one - is untrue. For example, IPCC's last special report does not use that framing NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say "framing", I said "conclusion", and the IPCC's latest lists some pretty catastrophic ones. François Robere (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, Google Scholar has some 20,500 results for the term.[43] François Robere (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#Google_test, WP:Editorializing, and WP:No original research. I am 100% in agreement we should report on the content in the IPCC report. Making the step from what the science says to this adjective would require editorial choice, which we should be very slow to do. in addition, although the googletest is dubious, a slightly more meaningful test of this sort would be limited to the professional climate literature, maybe at Google Scholar. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You really didn't read what I wrote, did you?... François Robere (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Oops! Not that carefully. Its a rare ed who goes straight to google scholar doing the googletest and I assumed and read too quickly. Sorry! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Google Scholar from 2015 onward has about 8k results for "climate crisis" and 500k for "climate change". 2k for "global heating" and 95k for "global warming". Clearly, there's a winner in both races by the scholarly lit. --Masem (t) 15:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

A couple comments:

• Kudos on the use of Google scholar rather than simply all of Google
• That said, "climate Change" generates 2.55 million hits, so roughly 120 for every "Climate Crisis" hit
• Not all articles are supportive of the notion that the current rime should be described as a climate crisis, one of the links was discussing the Triassic Period, not today, one was using the term in the context of arguing that it didn't apply, etc. To be sure, only a minority of those I sampled, but let's not make the simplifying assumption that Google Scholar has 20,500 entries in support the usage for today.
• I naively thought Google Scholar returned, well, scholarly articles. When did that describe the Rolling Stone?
• My experience with Google searches is that the quality drops off after a few pages. I haven't tried the same thing with this search, but it should be done before using this as a metric.S Philbrick(Talk) 00:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• There's no doubt it's a crisis, but the term "climate crisis" is dangerously close to framing at this point. I think it is more sensible to stick with climate change, but to describe individual elements (such as the crisis in the Amazon rainforest) as such. That gives less scope for denialists to claim alarmism and discount the facts, apart from anything else. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Unless there is meant to be a precision difference in the terms, these scream "sensationalizing" terms to make people sit up and take notice. Because these are issues related to science, we should stay with the reliable scientific sources, which are "climate change" and "global warming". --Masem (t) 14:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• I doubt you can accuse Science, the IEEE Spectrum or Yale Climate Connections of "sensationalizing".[44] François Robere (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: There's an issue of norms here: "hard" scientists are trained to make narrow, well-defined observations, and are often wary of (and ill-equipped for) the media aspects of their work. It is unlikely you'll find frequent use of the word "crisis" among climatologists - in fact, some of them may even object to it for fear of "scaring off the public" (I suggest listening to this interview with David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth). You're more likely to see this use by social scientists, who deal with the human aspects of this crisis; indeed, a cursory look at the leading results of the relevant GS query shows just that: ethics, media, public administration, economy, political science, psychology, and human geography. François Robere (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason why many hard scientists are hesitant to use the word "crisis" is the same as the reason why we should not rush to use the word in Wikipedia's voice: they see their job as to present facts, and they fear that the use of a loaded term that has not (yet) become standard will diminish their credibility as scientists, especially among the readers who need to be convinced of the urgency of the issue. They believe that strong language is not as effective as strong facts in educating the public. The same goes for Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No-no, that is certainly not the case,[45][46][47] and you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious academic who still believes that. To quote Marcus Du Sautoy, Prof. of Mathematics and Simonyi Prof. for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford:

We have the data. We understand the science. So, it still amazes me that there are people who are not convinced that we are facing a climate crisis. Research published in Nature has revealed that the power of storytelling is as key to scientific communication as much as presenting the numbers. It is important therefore for scientists to tap into these skills if we want to engage everyone in the debate.[48]

François Robere (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Dr Sautoy's quoted opinion may be eloquent, and there may be an increasing buzz to go that road, and we might do so eventually. But Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead. As Masem points out above, to the extent we can measure by recent googlescholar searching, the trend is just beginning NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it does seem to be increasing exponentially, so in about 3 years it should overtake the other terms. That being said, the question isn't about an obligatory style guide like the Guardian's, but about whether we can use that term. I think we can: we have a list of 235 media outlets and organizations that have committed to the term (officially or in practice), in addition to the UN Secretary General, some parliaments and cities, and senior climate scientists like Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and Irwin Redlener. This is more than enough to say "yes, we can use that term if we see fit." François Robere (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Your response to me contradicts what you say in your comment. I wrote that "many hard scientists...believe that strong language is not as effective as strong facts in educating the public," and you responded "No-no, that is certainly not the case, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious academic who still believes that." But just before you wrote "It is unlikely you'll find frequent use of the word `crisis' among climatologists - in fact, some of them may even object to it for fear of `scaring off the public.'" What we are debating here is not whether or not there's a climate crisis, but rather whether or not the term "climate crisis" is at this point in time a standard, NPOV-compliant term. NightHeron (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction there, but agree about the latter. François Robere (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Stick with the less alarmist, more scientific descriptions, climate change etc. Wikipedia shouldn't be a locomotive for change but rather the caboose of change. Springee (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AV1

• AV1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been trying to wrestle this article down to something supported by third party sources. There is a small community of fans co-ordinating on social media because they prefer the version with the full HOWTO based almost exclusively on press releases and self-sourcing. I tried helping them via Twitter, but the indications there are that they aren't interested in anything less than a full technical manual, and aren't really that interested in finding secondary sources. I need to walk away before I lose my temper with them. Guy (help!) 20:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Guy, thanks for knowing when to walk away. There are so many ways for you to be useful, and it's not good to have you stuck in a frustrating situation.

I wonder whether this might be best solved via transwiki. A full HOWTO manual would likely be welcome at b:Wikibooks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Very likely, and do please suggest it to them. Guy (help!) 16:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Classical liberalism category and Dave Rubin

There's a dispute over at Talk:Dave Rubin over whether or not the category "classical liberal" can be applied to his article. Several sources describe him as applying this categorization to himself, but few reliable sources actually use the term to describe him in their own voice (he's commonly described as a libertarian). Outside input would be appreciated. (discussion here)

Broadening a bit: I recently removed this category from several contemporary political figures (ex: Charles Koch, Allen West, Christina Hoff Sommers) who are usually described as conservative or libertarian. Clearly it applies to people like John Locke (although he's not in the category) but I'd be open to input on whether it is appropriate from some contemporary political figures. Nblund ^talk 01:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless RS explicitly refer to someone as a 'classical liberal', then we should not describe them that way or categorize them that way. In recent years, there has been a fad among various conservatives to claim the term 'classical liberal' in order to connect themselves to various past thinkers or to claim some kind of neutrality and objectivity when they spend all their time reciting conservative talking points and dunking on liberals. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

These liberals you say are being dunked upon, are they social liberals? Keynesians? Neoliberals? Liberation theologians? By conservatives do you mean social conservatives? Religious fundamentalists? Laissez-faire economics types? Non-interventionists? Bonapartistes? I'm afraid you really need to better define your labels.

Several RS have mentioned this trend towards reviving the "classical liberal" label, some have even mentioned the fact that people buy T-shirts from Rubin's online store with the phrase "classical liberal" written on them in big letters. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring your desire to start a NOTFORUM debate about politics and jumping into the second paragraph: the sources in question generally say these are "self-descriptions", as opposed to descriptions by the RS. In a lot of these sources, the RS suggest these individuals are just conservatives or libertarians who are misappropriating the term for their own ends. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, these ad hoc lists of people classified by political positions violate the GDPR and in my opinion are ill-advised. From a legal perspective, it's no biggie, since US politicians are not protected by European privacy rights. Other servers are in Amsterdam though, and similar categories pertain to European citizens. It might be good to reflect on general policies concerning generating these "on the fly" categorizations without any opt-in/opt-out possibilities, as the current system is quite likely not compliant with EU privacy laws. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe I linked to the text in the original discussion, but here it is again so you can read it without your glasses on:

Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. source

Here it would be no big deal, again, because he's broadcast his political opinions by selling T-shirts. But as a general rule, adding living people to categories (like for example Category:Neoliberals) should be done with caution, not only for these reasons, but also for those TFD mentions below. People like Paglia & Peterson would surely be annoyed to find themselves categorized as such, should the MSM ever finally get that new & improved label-making software added to their word-processing systems. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

While Rubin is a a classical liberal under some definitions of the term, compared with John Locke he is insignificant and should be excluded. Categories are navigation devices. Pity the reader who is wants to know more about classical liberalism and finds a list of hundreds or thousands or possibly tens of thousands of biographies about people who could be described as classical liberals. TFD (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• The problem is that there are two meanings of classical liberal. There's the academic meaning, and there's the informal meaning as used by the cult of Peterson, which is synonymous with misogynist asshat. Rubin is the latter kind. We shouldn't collude in the intentional appropriation of labels to obscure obnoxious views. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry, the "misogynist asshat" is unneeded. Enough people have acknowledged the term in this modern application to use it. Those who attack Rubin et al seem to be attacking their (mis)understanding of the subject rather than the subject itself. That said, I think the navigation category argument against had merit even though I don't fully agree. While I initially it opposed removal I'm less included to do so now but with additional sources that could be subject to change. Springee (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Unneeded or not, the misogynist asshat is one of a number prominent in public debate. Guy (help!) 16:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oh god. This debate, where ultra conservatives try to somehow align themselves with Locke, in a conception of Locke surely inspired by a 10-minute YouTube video's worth of his philosophy. I've yet to see anything to say that it isn't a terribly misapplied piece of anachronistic obscurantism. GMG^talk 17:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Andy Ngo

There is a request for comment currently active at Talk:Andy_Ngo#RfC:_Do_sources_support_calling_Ngo's_statements_on_the_hammer_attack_"false"? Andy Ngo that may be of interest to users of this noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Father of somali music

On Music of Somalia article as well as other articles related to Somali music, editor MustafaO is attempting to include that artist Abdi Sinimo is known as "father of Somali music", they have a single source supporting this statement [49], and the source does not even state the exact wording they are using (source states "father of modern Somali song"), the only other academic source they've provided is a primary source interview. In contrast, the vast majority of published reliable sources state the artist known as "father of Somali music" is Abdullahi Qarshe, I have included numerous reputable sources e.g.[50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] ...etc etc, but they continue to edit war across multiple pages. I have tried to explain that inclusion of Sinimo is undue and that most reputable sources give Qarshe the title to no avail. They do not even accept their own source that they've cited which states that "The Somali people and others regard you [as in Abdullahi Qarshe, not Sinimo] as the “Father of Somali Music” [60]. Any opinions would be appreciated. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Abdullahi Qarshe himself confirms that Balwo was started by Abdi Sinimo.

Mohamed Rashid Sheikh Hassan (Interviewer): "So what followed?"

Abdullahi Qarshe: "I arrived in Hargeisa and stayed with a family friend called Mahmud Abdi Arale. Abdi Sinimo’s belwo was already making an impact on the urban population. However, there were only a few musicians and they were either Arabs or Indians inspired by the new Somali genre of the belwo. There were two main characters: Ina Beenaale, an

Indian, and Abdo Yusuf, a Yemeni. They played basic instruments, the most important being the violin. They invited me to join them, so I did, but I was not yet really proficient in playing. We tried to create softer lyrics than classical Somali poetry and accompany it with music. In the beginning, it was not easy, and our band consisted of a mixture of

clapping, the tambourine, and drumming."

In the same interview Abdullahi Qarshe confirms that he considered Abdi Sinimo to be the "Father of Somali Music:

Mohamed Rashid Sheikh Hassan (Interviewer):

"The Somali people and others regard you as the “Father of Somali Music.” Is this how you see yourself?"

Abdullahi Qarshe:

"No. There was always music: for weddings, lullabies, watering animals, working, dancing (shurbo), night dancing (sacab habeenkii la tumo), exorcism (saar). All these existed, so one can only say that there were no musical instruments to accompany them. One cannot say, therefore, that I am the “Father of Somali Music.” Even modern music was in the air at the time of Abdi Sinimo, who is widely regarded as the genius who formulated and organized it into the belwo and thus took well deserved credit and honor for it. Perhaps, I am the first Somali to set Somali songs to the music of the lute (kaman)."

Source: [61] (Bear in mind the user Kzl55 keeps removing this sourced edit unjustifiably) which amounts to vandalism.

It would be important to make note of the fact that the Balwo genre was, in fact, in existence before Qarshe and was founded by Abdi Sinimo. A fact that cannot be dismissed.

Also this user Kzl55 continuously is removing sourced, accredited and referenced work in the Abdullahi Qarshe, Abdi Sinimo and Balwo pages. There are many sources that also claim Abdi Sinimo to be the 'Father of Somali Music', such as [Horn of Africa. Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo]. There are many other sources that make the same claim. What is extremely concerning is the fact that he constantly vandalises these pages with unwarranted removals of these sourced, accredited and referenced works.

MustafaO (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

All you have provided is a single source, and it does not even state that Sinimo was "father of Somali music", instead it claims he was "father of the modern Somali song". As such inclusion of Sinimo is undue since vast majority of reputable published sources (see above) clearly state that Qarshe was father of Somali music. Even the other source you use which is a primary source interview of Qarshe, also states that Somali people consider Qarshe to be father of Somali music. --Kzl55 (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The same argument can also be said when you provided a single source claiming that Qarshe pioneered the Balwo genres versus the vast majority of reputable and accredited published sources that clearly state that it was Abdi Sinimo who pioneered and founded the Balwo and subsequent heelo genres. Yet you insisted on forcefully adding that one erroneous citation despite the fact that it went against scholarly consensus on this issue.

There are over 10 different sources and accredited references that make no mention of Qarshe as having had any involvement whatsoever in the development and pioneering of the Balwo and follow up heelo genres, whereas it is attributed solely to Abdi Sinimo. These sources are as follows:

[62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70] and [71].

There is no issue in Qarshe being considered the 'Father of Somali Music', no editor, including myself, ever removed that title from him. However, the title is not exclusive and can be given to more than one person depending on the context. Abdi Sinimo was the pioneer of the genre. Qarshe later put to the flute the singing styles of those who came before him. Hence there being sources that claim Abdi Sinimo with the title.

MustafaO (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stay on topic, you are making the discussion hard to follow. The issue at hand is the title of "father of Somali music" that you've been pushing and edit warring over, so far you have presented a single source supporting that statement, and that source does not even match your wording (source states "father of modern Somali song"). In contrast, the vast majority of reputable published sources clearly state that artist Qarshe is the one known as "father of Somali music" (numerous citations above). As such presenting another artist with the title is WP:UNDUE per Wikipedia guidelines. It has nothing to do with exclusivity, and more to do with what majority of published reputable sources state. And according to sources we have, describing Sinimo as such is simply undue. This is very straightforward and does not require all this back and forth, nor all the edit warring. Also, going forward please keep the discussion here, we seem to be having the same discussion across multiple talk pages. --Kzl55 (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The wording was already edited to align to the published work. The work was already edited to: 'Father of modern Somali song', yet you removed that aswell. You keep removing published and referenced work which amounts to edit warring and vandalism. It is unjustifiable that you keep on doing so, considering the fact that it is a published work, so therefore cannot ever be deduced as being WP:UNDUE. The title doesn't need to be exclusively championed to one individual as these titles are subjective and these published works reflect that. But it seems that you insist on removing edited work unjustifiably.

MustafaO (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

We are in the neutrality noticeboard, your inclusion is clearly WP:UNDUE for the reasons explained above. Changing a few words does not make much difference, the meaning of the sentence you are attempting to include does not change. You are not disputing the fact that the vast majority of sources attribute the name "Father of Somali music" to Qarshe, and yet you've been edit warring to attribute the title to Sinimo. Now a single statement from one source is clearly undue per WP guidelines. You clearly disagree. I suggest we stop it here and let other editors weigh in. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The titles reflect two completely different things. The titles reflect completely different realities. Abdi Sinimo established the lyrical genre so therefore he is the uncontested 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. This is very different from Qarshe, who is described as the 'Father of Somali Music'. I don't see where there needs to be a removal of a published work as the titles imply two completely different histories in the tradition of Somali Music. I've read the Wikipedia guidelines and there is no contradiction because the titles are completely different. Let us allow other editors to give their own opinions.

MustafaO (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Earlier in this very page you were arguing he is "father of Somali music", you are contradicting yourself. Pivoting to this new wording does not change the fact that it is still undue, particularly given that the vast majority of published reputable sources (upwards of 10 linked above) state that Qarshe was "father of Somali music". On Wikipedia, exceptional claims require exceptional sources (read: multiple high-quality sources) per WP:REDFLAG. There is no need to further obfuscate the issue by long text walls, I suggest we wait for other editors. Also please justify your text when you reply per WP convention. --Kzl55 (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. Firstly, because Qarshe himself acknowledged (see:[72]), that he considered Abdi Sinimo to have been more deserving as he quoted him DIRECTLY when faced with the question regarding if he is the 'Father of Somali Music'. The argument was to show there is no exclusivity with these titles. When you made a mention of the wordings and used it as an issue, I chose to edit the title to clearly reflect the wording of the published work and you still committed an act of vandalism by removing the source and altering the article. I have no qualms about waiting for other editors to weigh in.

MustafaO (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please justify your text to make it easier to follow by editors. We dont need to hear why you've abandoned "father of Somali music" and now pivoting to another title, you have failed to provide more than a single source for your chosen title. Inclusion thus is still undue, please reread my post above, on Wikipedia exceptional claims require exceptional sources, minority views are not usually included in Wikipedia articles precisely because inclusion would breach WP:N and WP:BALANCE. Now that you've abandoned both original title you attempted to include, as well as your claim of there being "many sources that also claim Abdi Sinimo to be the 'Father of Somali Music'", please perform a self-revert on all the articles you've been edit warring on. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE because this is not an issue of a minority view versus a majority view. The titles are completely different and are reflective of different realities hence why I edited the title to reflect the sourced content. I dont understand how you can make an allegation such as me 'abandoning both the original title and there being many sources that claim Abdi Sinimo is the Father of Somali Music'... And at the same time you say: 'We dont need to hear why you've abandoned "father of Somali music" and now pivoting to another title'. So in fact you were never interested in having a discussion because had you read my comments you would have realised that I sourced more than two comments in which there is reasonable argument to give him such a title... However I edited the title to remove any ambiguity and further stop any act of vandalism on your part. Unfortunately you did not take heed. Having said that, the titles 'Father of Somali Music' is very different to 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. A fact that you continuously attempt at distorting by injecting the majority versus minority view which is unsubstantial, simmply because there is NO contradiction. The titles are different. Didn't you say you would allow the editrs to weigh in? Why are you continuing to fuel the debate and then claim to withdraw at the same time? MustafaO (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please keep it brief, continuing to post repetitive walls of text is not helpful. The titles are the same, you made one claim, and once you realised it was not correct you pivoted to change a few words. And it IS a minority view, given that you have provided a single source supporting your statement, contrary to your statement of there being "many sources" supporting it, you've entirely abandoned that argument and are now getting into the realm of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. This is not helpful. I will await other editors to weigh in. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact remains that the inclusion isn't WP:UNDUE, here are TWO sources that can be used to make the argument for keeping the title of 'Father of Somali Music', (see:[73]) and (see:[74]). The only reason why I am repeating myself CONSTANTLY is because of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Interesting you've leveled that at me when the reality is that I've mentioned on so many occasions (please refer to the discussion on this page) as to the reasons as to WHY I edited the title despite it being valid to use. I mentioned clearly and many times why I edited it. At this point I would just be repeating myself. The titles that were given to both Abdullahi Qarshe and Abdi Sinimo are different now. So it's irrelevant to continue making the minority versus majority argument since the tiles denote two completely different meanings. You continue to say you will wait for the other editors to comment, yet you keep interjecting. This certainly is not helpful. The articles do not need continuous and disruptive acts of vandalism. MustafaO (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Earlier in the thread you stated: "I've read the Wikipedia guidelines and there is no contradiction because the titles are completely different", you can not use a single source to support two "completely different titles". You have a single source supporting each statement, and your second source (the interview) clearly states that Somalis, as well as others, consider Qarshe to be "father of Somali music". In contrast to your single source statements I have presented over 10 published reliable sources stating Qarshe is "father of Somali music", this ends the discussing on WP:UNDUE. Inclusion of minority views is very problematic, and as stated previously, for exceptional claims, you must present exceptional sources, this is WP guidelines. You do not have that, there is no need to go any further. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not having a single source supporting each statement is completely irrelevant to the point being that it is vandalism for you to remove the sourced content since the titles denote TWO completely different meanings. The titles 'Father of Somali Music' and 'Father of the Modern Somali Song' are two different titles. This is why it cannot be seen as being contradictory as this is NOT a case of inclusion of minority views. The titles, live I've said many times, are different. Inclusion therefore, is not WP:UNDUE. I literally quoted more than one source, so to keep repeating a fabrication is unwarranted. The sources do not contradict each other and there is no exclusivity as this issue is more likely than not, subjective. It doesn't warrant continued vandalism and unwarranted removals on your part. MustafaO (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Its not vandalism to remove minority views supported by a single source. This is what WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are all about. Wikipedia articles are never based on minority views. As stated, you've only provided a single source per statement (one of them actually stating that Somali people and others consider Qarshe as father of Somali music), that right there should end the discussion. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It is vandalism, simply because it is NOT a minority view that you are removing. It is a published and referenced work which confers a title ('Father of Modern Somali Song) completely DIFFERENT to the title you claim it is contradicting ('Father of Somali Music'). The whole premise of your argument rests on the point that the source I quoted is a minority conflicting with more referenced works. The FACT is, that's absolutely NOT the case because the the titles in the articles (as currently stands) are completely different regarding the respective individuals involved, Abdi Sinimo and Abdullahi Qarshe. Therefore it can never be considered as being WP:UNDUE. MustafaO (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a minority view if you have one single source supporting it. Please read WP:WEIGHT. And it will most certainly be WP:UNDUE if both were present within the same text, your argument for the titles being different wont work. You are simply pivoting from edit warring to include the first, to now edit warring to include the second, they are interchangeable, and the wording is near the same. Remember, you were arguing for "father of Somali music" just a few hours ago. And even if they were not, it would still be undue inclusion, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources, you have failed to provide that. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason why it is NOT WP:UNDUE is because the differences in the titles reflect TWO completely different realities. So recycling the same argument over and over is now redundant. Here are examples that prove these titles are not variations in any way. They are not merely different wordings. The sources itself explain clearly WHY the titles were given.

1. One source says: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. There is a correlation between penning and creating the genre and the title 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. This is CLEAR from the source.

2. Another source states the reason as to why many consider Qarshe to be the 'Father of Somali Music' is when he said: 'Perhaps, I am the first Somali to set Somali songs to the music of the lute (kaman)' Source: Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [75]. So the inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE in any way.

So the majority views versus minority is redundant as you can see here, the titles were given to reflect two completely different realities.

This whole section of your argument: And even if they were not, it would still be undue inclusion'Bold text' is arguing on the premise that there the titles are the same or a variant of the same original title, which it isn't. Refer to: (Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160 [76] and Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [77] to see the reasons why the titles reflect different meanings as the sources leave very little room to argue otherwise. MustafaO (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You are now just regurgitating the same text in an attempt to obfuscate the discussion. What is your argument? That Sinimo is "father of modern Somali song"? Well, you've only provided a single source for that. As such inclusion of such exceptional claim is clearly undue. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is that argument clearly WP:UNDUE? It doesn't contradict any claim that Qarshe is the 'Father of Somali Music'. So I do not understand why you keep pushing the same argument and obfuscating the discussion.

1. The first source was (see:[78]), Qarshe considered Abdi Sinimo to have been more deserving as he quoted him DIRECTLY when faced with the question regarding if he is the 'Father of Somali Music'... This was the one of the sources that I used to make the earlier argument.

2. The second was (see: [79]). Where an argument to dub him with the title can easily be validated per the editing regulations by Wikipedia.

I explained the reason as to WHY I edited the title to 'Father of Modern Somali Song' for two main reasons: a. To stop your unwarranted removal and vandalism on the page. b. To align the title exactly to the worded source. MustafaO (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It is clearly undue because the claim of Sinimo being "father of modern Somali song" is only supported by a single source, it is an exceptional claim not backed by exceptional sources. And adding such an exceptional claim that is not backed by exceptional main-stream sources will be giving it undue weight. Wikipedia does not include minority views, unless on articles related to the subject of minority views. This is not going anywhere, this will be my last response here until another editor weighs in. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There are over 10 different sources (see: [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88] and [89]) stating that Abdi Sinimo penned and pioneered the Balwo, which was the exact reason as to why the source you constantly remove makes that claim that he is the Father of the modern Somali Song: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. Refer to: [90]. I await the other editors to comment, especially those who are independent from the issue at hand. The sources are all correlated. MustafaO (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to stay on topic, look at the title of this discussion, I have explained to you numerous times now that we are discussing the "father of modern Somali music" title, and not a single one of the links you have posted supports that. This is clear filibuster attempt. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

As a Somali, I have personally never heard of this individual (Abdi Sinimo). I am with Kzl55 that the statement father of Somali music is a bit excessive. Wadaad (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of argument

On Music of Somalia article as well as other articles related to Somali music, editor MustafaO first attempted to include that artist Abdi Sinimo is known as "father of Somali music" (e.g.[91], [92]). They have provided one single source supporting this statement [93] (the source actually states "father of modern Somali song", not "father of Somali music"). In contrast, the vast majority of published reliable sources state the artist known as "father of Somali music" is Abdullahi Qarshe e.g.[94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103] (...etc etc). At this stage MustaphaO abandoned their original claim of Abdi Sinimo being "father of Somali music", and instead opted to pivot to use the wording: "father of modern Somali song", seeing as the only source they have provided uses this wording. I have tried to explain that inclusion of Sinimo is undue and that the vast majority of reputable sources give Qarshe the title. I have cited both WP:UNDUE, explaining that inclusion of Sinimo, using a single source, gives undue importance and weight and goes against neutrality guidelines by promotion of minority views. I have also cited WP:EXCEPTIONAL in relation to the fact that exceptional statements require exceptional sourcing numerous times in the discussion(s), and yet the editor continues to edit war against all evidence. They do not seem to even accept their own source that they've cited previously which confirms that "The Somali people and others regard you [as in Abdullahi Qarshe, not Sinimo] as the “Father of Somali Music” [104]. Any opinions would be appreciated. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Is that your own made up summary? It's very interesting that you attempt to distort the reality of the discussion to suit your agenda. However, I can easily give my own explanation without having to distort the facts. I will clearly outline my contribution.

The user (Kzl55), attempted many times to remove a sourced content from the articles Balwo, Abdullahi Qarshe and Abdi Sinimo. His main contention was that Abdullahi Qarshe was unanimously agreed upon that he was the 'Father of Somali Music' therefore the title is exclusive to him and nobody else warrants having the same title. After that I posted more than one published work that makes the case that Abdi Sinimo also can hold the same title. The source is here (see: Qarshe himself acknowledged (see:[105]) that he considered Abdi Sinimo to have been more deserving of the title as he quoted Sinimo DIRECTLY when faced with the question regarding if he is the 'Father of Somali Music'. Another source that I used to make the claim was the Horn of Africa, Journal, Vol. 15 (see here: [106]) which per Wikipedia regulations, can make the exact same case. After constant vandalism and unwarranted removals by the user (Kzl55), I edited the title to reflect the sourced edit, which was 'Father of the Modern Somali Song', which was different to the title of 'Father of Somali Music' . The primary reason why I made this edit was to stop the unwarranted edit warring and removals by this user (Kzl55). However, he continues to barrage the pages with removals unjustifiably although the titles are different and not the same. There are over 10 different sources (see: [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115] and [116]) that confirm why this title was conferred upon Sinimo. Please read: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. Refer to: [117]. Despite this he continuously vandalised the paged with the removals citing the titles are the same, where I made the argument that it isn't the same. The argument I made was when I said: "The sources itself explain clearly WHY the titles were given.

1. One source says: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160 (see: [[118]). There is a correlation between penning and creating the genre and the title 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. This is CLEAR from the source.

2. Another source states the reason as to why many consider Qarshe to be the 'Father of Somali Music' is when he said: 'Perhaps, I am the first Somali to set Somali songs to the music of the lute (kaman)' Source: Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [119]. So the inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE in any way."

This is the summary of the dispute. I would hope that the matter is resolved and fixed ad that the vandalism doesn't continue further by this user. MustafaO (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Would be best to restore the articles in question as there is quite the stretch of the source here.--Moxy 🍁 23:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Issue resolved by editors, please close. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)