Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

Former Ladies of the Supremes

I’ve seen this article with issues. I fixed the article to show like an encyclopedic article, but it seems like it doesn’t look like one, instead of looking like a fanbase wrote the full article. The article is not in chronological order; Before it had “Keeping The Musical Playing - Musical Highlights” and “Forty Years Later - Fantasy Becomes Reality”, I fixed those two sections. I recently put a POV template in the biography section because of all this, and removed “exit member, enter member” because it did not look like anything that belonged in the article. Yes, people should know the members who left and entered (replaced), but I had to merge all of them. Other sections are highlighting their performances, which is really not necessary for anything that is on Wikipedia. So, I wanted to put this on the noticeboard because this article has been poorly written since the past 10 years. I recently replied to an old comment from 15 years ago. Every mention of a member it is like "Former Supreme" and allat. Oldschoollover24 (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I sort of had cleaned up the article a little bit, but I will review it later and come back to add refs. Binksnternet had cleaned up the article, and I had cleaned it up multiple times before they did. I still need help for cleanup. Oldschoollover24 ( chat with me ) 23:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, the article was some material off the Jean Terrell article copied the “FLOS” article TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 11:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I added references, and as of now they have 8 references. I added 7, 4 mostly about Mary Wilson (singer) and the group, also 3 that highly/mostly does have something to do with the group. Someone added a reference from ghostarchive.org, I removed "Former Supreme" or Original, I am still working on it. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 13:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Now 13 refs. Removing template because the article seems to be fixed now. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 05:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed copyright violations, and had the original research tag because I did not know, but the website that looked the same info was deleted. It was directly copied from Wikipedia. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 03:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I dont think this page I wrote, Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, should have been deleted. It involves Michael Jackson

I think it was improperly deleted bc it upset some fans. What do you think;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safechuck_v._MJJ_Productions&oldid=1189083980 Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It was redirected because the case is ungoing and appeal court rulings that may or may not lead to trials do not warrant standalone articles. No articles were created for this case when the cases were dismissed, nor were articles created for the dismissed creditor claims. There are also no articles to Robson vs MJJ Production or MJ Estate vs HBO either. There are 1000s and 1000s of appeal court rulings which set precedents and they don't have separate articles. castorbailey (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But then why did you delete all the CONTENT about the ruling from the "Child Sexual Abuse Accusations against Michael Jackson" page when i put the content on there? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Just because a case "involved Michael Jackson" does not guarantee it a page of its own. See WP:NOTINHERITED. BD2412 T 01:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Though it should be covered, which it appears to be on that redirected page. Masem (t) 01:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. That is its best context. BD2412 T 01:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Are there standalone articles about appeal court rulings especially in ungoing cases? Never saw any. castorbailey (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine comes to mind, but such cases are a rarity, involving legal issues of national importance. BD2412 T 02:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's a federal case about an abortion drug and the article was created before the appeal court ruling. It's about the case as a whole not the ruling in particular. I don't see why a ruling by a state appeal court which the state supreme court did not even review would warrant a standalone article just because it involves Michael Jackson. castorbailey (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jimcastor: I am not making a case for inclusion of the disputed article on the basis of the abortion case existing. BD2412 T 17:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes you making a case on flimsier basis. You were asked to provide examples where state appeal court rulings in ungoing cases had their own article. So far you didn't. The one example you shows was after a trial and in a case with life and death repercussions. No page was created for any ruling in this matter and this one should not get preferential treatment either. castorbailey (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure who you are speaking to, but if you meant me, of course i provided references to 1) tons of coverage of this particular ruling; 2) significant legal /human resources industry publication coverage even though the ruling is only a few months, 3) a number of other Cal Ct t of Appeal individual pages. Not sure if you are forgetting. Also more to the point, you keep evading the main issue which is the content of the ruling keeps getting scrubbed from the C.S.A.A.A.M.J. page, by folks you have a history with according to talk pages.

When you say "other rulings didnt get their own pages so this one shouldnt get preferential treatment ," that makes bo sense. 1) feel free to write other pages on rulings, 2) whether or not others did, this particular ruling got tons of media coverage and legal analysis, 3) what do you mean by "preferential"? You think it should be erased because the Jackson favorable lower court rulings, that got overruled, dont have pages?

but this is all besides the point. Why does the content keep getting scrubbed per the C.S.A.A.A.M.J. page Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There are definitley stand alone appellate ruling pages. I searched the California court of appeals pages to create the stand alone page.

I would be fine with inserting the ruling content on the redirected page but users seem eager to delete it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I included it on that page myself, don't know why it was deleted. What state appeal court ruling in ungoing case has its own page? Here the page was created to promote the appeal court ruling in particular, there was no page for the case before that, nor for the related Robson vs MJJ Production or MJ estate vs HBO castorbailey (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The ruling summary has been repeatedly deleted from the redirect page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Just doublechecked and all references to the ruling have been scrubbed from the page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Various folks have purged the reference to the ruling on the "accusations" page consistently Bhdshoes2 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Masem and @BD2412 any tips on best practices when other editors keep deleting coverage of the revival of the lawsuits in August from the "Child Sexual Abuse Accusations Against Michael Jackson" page? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, if others are objecting to the inclusion of content on a Wikipedia page, the proper response is to initiate a conversation on the talk page and generate a consensus for inclusion of the content. BD2412 T 01:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree! I wasnt saying it needs its own page bc it involves MJ. I meant to say i think it is being DELETED bc it involves MJ. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to coverage of this case in, e.g., law school textbooks or law review articles? There are literally tens of thousands of cases decided at the state appellate level every year, so our standards for inclusion of a case must be high. We don't even include all cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. BD2412 T 14:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If you search the decision, there are a vast number of mainstream media hits discussing the ruling (likely due to the MJ nexus) but it is still early days for treatment in law review articles I am guessing. But there has been some discussion of legal impact in expanding corporate liability in CA. below are some write-ups focusing on legal significance as opposed to the news angle:

* "Can an employer be complicit in sexual abuse of employees? | HRD America"

HRD America https://www.hcamag.com/us/specialization/employment-law/can-an-employer-be-complicit-in-sexual-abuse-of-employees/457706

News and info about human resources management for the American HR professional. Read the latest HR news, interviews, and analysis from the HRD team.

• https://www.mathenysears.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/09-14-2023-Safechuck-v.-MJJ-Productions-Inc_.pdf law firm's alert on ruling
• https://www.sierrasun.com/news/law-review-are-michael-jacksons-corporations-liable-for-his-sexual-abuse-of-young-boys/
• https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/michael-jacksons-companies-face-reinstated-sex-abuse-claims
• https://www.courthousenews.com/lawsuits-against-2-michael-jackson-companies-reinstated-by-ca-appeals-court/
• https://www.law360.com/articles/1704263/michael-jackson-s-cos-face-skeptical-panel-in-abuse-suits Bhdshoes2 (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

making sure you saw this in the blizzard of text Bhdshoes2 (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jimcastor why did you delete the first two sources above as "unreliable"? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Because they are not reliable sources. First is the site of a lawfirm second is an opinion piece by a lawyer castorbailey (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Ps and on the supreme coùrt point, correct that there are zillions of rulings a year and they dont all get Wikipedia pages. But someone has to write the page. The absence of a page doesnt mean it [necessarily] is "supposed" to not exist - it just means [possibly] no one wrote it yet.

And there are Califronia appellate rulings on Wikipedia - that is where I got the framework for the infobox. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

PPS also I'm not saying that it HAS to have its own page necessarily. It ain't Roe v. Wade. But i do have concerns about the "one--two punch" against neutral information going on here. First I write the page on the ruling. An editor deletes it eith a redirect and says consensus needed on talk page. OK so I add it to the main accusation page. Same editor removes the ruling infobox. Ok... well maybe infoboxes don't belong on a page on a survey page about all allegations -- what do I know. Then a different editor or editors deletes out literally all references to the ruling from the page. So even if inadvertent, the upshot is no one can use the encyclopedia to read up on this ruling. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

We have California Supreme Court cases like Moore v. Regents of the University of California, Summers v. Tice, and Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California specifically because they are notable enough to have made it into law school textbooks. I see a number of lower appellate court cases that are unreferenced and probably should be deleted. BD2412 T 15:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes those are all landmark cali supreme court rulings, this was not even taken by the supreme court. I deleted the infobox because infoboxes are for article summaries not section summaries otherwise every page could be cluttered with infoboxes. All references to the ruling should not be deleted. I noticed that evidence of Bhdshoes2 engaging in off wiki canvassing to spread negative material on Jackson was submitted on this board Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing, WP:Canvassing, Offsite canvassing on a General sanctioned page and topic. Please take a look. Looks like the canvassing is taking place on a reddit sub of Jackson detractors and based on his edit history he plastering salacious material (whether notable or tabloid) in as many places on wiki as possible including here on this board, see: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Reflist-talk Michael Jackson. It looks like heavy WP:ADVOCACY at the very least. castorbailey (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not true. At all. Never did offsite canvassing. Never posted salacious material. If people are being nasty doxxers on social media to you, I'm very sorry that happened, but dont blame me. "Salacious" makes no sense. You know we are talking about an accused child abuser right? I personally dont like talking about the specific sexual allegations but sometimes it comes up in ... editing a page about a guy repeatedly so accused. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You did post salacious material in this board too filled the reference list with them when references are not supposed to include extensive text, you exaggerated Star Arvizo's claims in the references. If a salacious accusation made was justification to include them all over wiki, we could include the details of Joe Bartucci's or Daniel Kapon's claims too but we don't because wiki is not supposed to be a platform for every fishy abuse allegation ever made. The allegations in the notice was that you started or participated in a reddit thread where users were urged to come here and fill wiki with anti-Jackson material. So far you did not deny your involvement in that thread. castorbailey (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It is fascinating to me that you are offended to see graphic citations to the sexual content of Star Arvizo''s testimony, widely reported, and yet in same breath you dispute that Star accused Jackson of sexually abusive behavior. The only reason for the quotes and citations is because you kept disputing he claimed abuse. How can his testimony be too scandalous for a talk page, but not worth noting when we list the people who have, according to reputable sources, accused Jackson of abuse. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said you exaggerated what Star Arvizo actually said making it look like he claimed Jackson walked in naked and masturbated in front of him and his brother, that was not his claim and Star Arvizo saying "we were grossed out" would not make his claims sexual abuse under the law. Your reason to fill the reference list with that was what you have been doing elsewhere: to put anti-Jackson material in as many places on wiki as possible. The issue is not whether it is "scandalous" but it's not what references are for. As I stated Bartucci's and Kapon's allegations have even more salacious material, they were both reported by numerous outlet, that does not mean that you or anyone else should plaster their claims all over wiki. I see you still did not deny your involvement in that reddit thread, I take it as an admission you in fact were involved. castorbailey (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, you don't think exposing one's erect penis, while nude, to an 11 year old boy and his brother is sexually abusive? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully. both you and @Jimcastor: are treating this as a venue in which to discuss the topic... Not wikipedia. Both of you appear to be wayyyyy too involved to edit this topic area dispassionately, I suggest you move on to other topic areas before your editing privileges get imperiled. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Ps "if all references to the ruling should not be deleted," then why does it keep happening and what do we do about it? Edit wars are illegal so ... what do we do? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

All references to the ruling should not be deleted. You however wanted a standalone article for that ruling which has no precedent on wiki. The one example you cited is inapposite. castorbailey (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop with the strawman arguments that i demanded a standalone. Yes i think the standalone is defensible, but I said it would be fine to cover in the C.S.A.A.A.M.J page. I said 1200 times that in lieu of the standalone we could do a blurb on the page. And as you know from the talk page, I announced i would add it to abuse page. But editors (with whom I notice you have a relationship per talk pages) like Mr. Boar1 and TruthGuardians keep deleting the content from the "accusations of abuse" page. That ruling that the trial could proceed was in the New York Times in August 2023, Washington Post, Guardian, etc etc etc and bad faith editors keep scrubbing it because they are concerned about the "accuser count" apparently making Jackson look bad.

Why did you delete the standalone ruling page rather than move the content to the "abuse accusations" page? Why dont you revert the bad faith deletions about the upcoming trial in Feb 2024? Don't you want a good wikipedia page that provides readers with an allegation overview? Why dont you want anyone to know? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It's hardly a strawman when you did want a standalone article and this very notice is titled "I dont think this page I wrote, Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, should have been deleted". As you were informed repeatedly I redirected the article to the allegation page for the above-mentioned reasons and I added the information about the ruling to that page myself. If anyone deleted it since then, that's on them not me. castorbailey (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

• Peter Schiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nick McKenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Peter_Schiff
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1144#MaskedSinger

Current discussion about undue weight found here on the talk page. All relevant parties in that discussion have been notified about this discussion.

I would appreciate more eyes on the article as well as input on the talk page regarding proposed changes. To summarize, the dispute over the investigation and the results of the investigation have been ongoing for several years, so the article has not been stable for a while. This appears to have come to a head in the last month with the end of the civil action in November 2023. The investigation section has grown larger and smaller depending on the various edit wars, with it now composed of about three paragraphs. Proposals on the talk page suggest bringing it down to one paragraph, since the allegations from 2020 have now fallen to the wayside, and Schiff was previously found not guilty of any illegal activity, and in more recent, subsequent civil action against his accusers, Schiff reached a cash settlement which includes the removal of the allegations in broadcast form (and possibly otherwise). It seems odd, therefore, to continue stating these allegations upfront as if they were true, and to continue presenting them in the current format. I believe this section should be minimized and brought up to date, while of course presenting a brief historical overview of the dispute, but in a much more condensed and less accusatory format. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This also concerns Nick McKenzie and has been brought to the attention of both WP:BLP/N and WP:AN/I. All of the accounts engaged in the reverts to introduce non-WP:NPOV edits are not extended confirmed and a lot appear to be WP:SPA. TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I will broaden the scope. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

RfCs

I've started an RfC on this subject at Talk:Peter Schiff#RfC: Peter Schiff - Operation Atlantis investigation and subsequent lawsuit against Australian media. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 11:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've started another RfC regarding this subject at Talk:Nick McKenzie#RfC: Lawsuit between Peter Schiff and Australian media. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 01:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC on removal of image collages from Year articles

There is an ongoing RfC that may be of interest to editors here regarding the removal of image collages from individual year articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years § RfC: Removal of image collages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine

I would like to bring to light some concerns regarding the content and sourcing on the Wikipedia page for the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM). There are several key issues that compromise the page's neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing.

1) Over-Reliance on SPLC as a reliable Source for a controversial topic:

A. Most concerning is the heavy and disproportionate reliance on a single source - the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). As I previously discussed on the Talk page, the SPLC is known to express strong opinions on certain organizations and is defined as "opinionated" and "non-reliable" for the non-extremist organization (and SEMG is not defined as such an organization). Also, using them excessively to characterize another organization directly contradicts Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Reliable sources should provide balance and context, not overwhelmingly advance one perspective.

Furthermore, the SPLC report is used duplicatively within the article, risking the appearance of attempting to unduly amplify criticism rather than fairly represent available evidence. This also violates the prohibition on excessive citation density from a narrow range of sources.

B. There was a discussion on the SEGM's talk page where I informed other editors that the SPLC is an opinion source and cannot be applied voluntarily to SEGM's as it is not defined as an "extremist or hate organization". However, the source has been excessively used on the page mostly by the same editor (talk) who had been previously banned from editing any gender-related topics on Wikipedia as TheTranarchist for abusing Wikipedia policy before. I'm surprised to see that the same editor is back and allowed to edit freely on the same highly controversial topic.

Helpful links:

• Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine
• Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Affiliations
• Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Reception

2) Questionable Use of Science-Based Medicine:

The page also cites Science-Based Medicine, which describes SEGM as a 'transphobic organization'. Given that Science-Based Medicine resembles a blog and Wikipedia’s guidelines on blogs as sources (WP:Blogs as sources) caution against using such sources for factual statements, this raises questions about the reliability of the information presented. Blogs, while sometimes suitable for opinions, should not be the basis for factual claims on Wikipedia.

Helpful links:

• Science-Based Medicine
• Wikipedia:Blogs as sources

3) Misrepresentation of Yale School of Medicine Report:

Lastly, there's a significant issue with how the Yale School of Medicine report is presented. The report, critiquing SEGM, is portrayed as an official stance of the Yale School of Medicine. However, a disclaimer clearly states that it represents individual faculty opinions, not the institution's. This misrepresentation contributes to an unbalanced portrayal of SEGM, misleading readers about the weight and authority of the critique.

The statement on the SEGM's page:

In April, researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report in response to the attacks on transgender healthcare in Arizona and Texas which described the core of SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists acting outside of mainstream scientific consensus and organizations, and help lawmakers criminalize transgender care.

Disclaimer (first page):

This report reflects the academic work of individual Yale faculty and does not represent the views of Yale University, Yale Law School, or Yale School of Medicine.

I believe that presenting this report as representing Yale School of Medicine's official view misleads readers and skews the article's balance.

Helpful links:

• Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Reception
• [1]

(First page, under the authors' list)

These issues collectively suggest that the SEGM's Wikipedia page may not be meeting the site's standards for neutrality and reliable, unbiased information. I bring this to the attention of reviewers and editors for further examination and potential corrective action. Colaheed777 (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Science-Based Medicine: It is a RS. See WP:SBM. Of course, alt-med fans always try to remove it, saying that it is just a blog. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I count eight out of 58 <ref>s in the article are to SPLC, or one of 27 unique references, so how is that "heavy and disproportionate reliance on a single source"? The preponderance of sources available define the SEGM as "outside the medical mainstream" or as "anti-trans activists". That view generally agrees with what SPLC has to say about them, so they don't stand alone in that assessment; it is the majority view. Mathglot (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah SEGM looks like a political/culture-war org dressed up in science-y clothing. Very on trend for the discourse of today, Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that SBM and the SPLC are appropriate here. Moreover, the article text does not portray the Yale researchers' report "as representing Yale School of Medicine's official view". That's simply how one describes work done by people who work at Yale. XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that these sources are reliable. The SEGM promotes non-mainstream views and our article correctly reflects that. DFlhb (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If the references to the SPLC are just the number mentioned, then the article can hardly skew towards SPLC, especially when they are one of the main organizations we would expect to report on SEGM. Characterizations here of the SPLC as a source, as stated by the author of this notice, are also not accurate to Wikipedia's guidelines that I am seeing (WP:SPLC). Looking through the most recent archived discussions, there is a general consensus that the SPLC is an important and reliable source, but attribution is sometimes recommended (context matters). I'm not seeing any problematic use of SPLC as a source in the current article on SEGM. Hist9600 (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"The report, critiquing SEGM, is portrayed as an official stance of the Yale School of Medicine." would ironically appear to be a misrepresentation... Surely that is not what you intended and have simply made an error or mistake in representing it that way? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States

For the past few days User:Homerethegreat has decided that there is a serious neutrality issue at 2023 Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States but won't say what it is.

Two editors on the talk page cite Template:POV: "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given" ubut Homerethegreat says it's "clear", that he "sees" it, and that it's "overreaching." Also: "there is a neutrality issue as I've said", that it's been clearly stated, that it's been explained with examples.

Nothing is stopping him or anyone else from adding more pro-Israel protests to the list as long as there is WP:RS. There are plenty out there, but even he admits that "there are more examples" of pro-Palestinian protests. He says "this needs to be dealt with" but he doesn't say how anyone is supposed to deal with it or what kind of deal with satisfy this consideration. The template was removed once but reinstated by User:Agmonsnir who has not participated in the talk discussion or provided any reasons except that he disputes it too.

Homerethegreat is also currently the subject of an ANI complaint about for "biased editing on a contentious topic".

Right now, he appears to be WP:NOTHERE to build WP:consensus and is holding the page hostage without providing conditions for when and how the POV template may be removed. Dispute resolution requested. 13:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Kire1975 (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, first merry Christmas and I hope you're having a good holiday. I don't really understand why this needs to be addressed here in the noticeboard but ok, I'll try to explain what I explained on the page. I put 3 examples of paragraphs and explained below the problem. And I replied in the page just asking you to please read what I wrote. Under every paragraph I wrote the specific problem. I know nothing stops me from adding more content but at the moment the article is not neutral since it presents only 1 POV and I personally edited there and realized the problem was present in other places in the article. Until the issues aren't fixed the article is not neutral. I really don't understand why it's a problem that I pointed out the issues... Joyeux Noël :). Homerethegreat (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed two out of the three concerns, but the third one is unclear. Left a note on the talk page. Kire1975 (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Most of Homerethegreat's issues with the article can be fixed with hard work. The article is not biased; it is incomplete. His other edits have not been reversed. The other editors are not trying to enforce an agenda. There are multiple POVs already in the article. If he would like to add more, he can. CarmenEsparzaAmoux and I have done a good chunk of work on the page over several weeks. The template isn't necessary-- time working on the page is. As, Kire1975 said, most recent protests have been Pro-Palestine, which is why they have received more edits lately. See: https://www.axios.com/2023/12/09/palestinian-protests-us-israel-gaza-war. Catboy69 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course, I know the statistic but that's not the issue I raised. It's normal that articles that are built may be centered on a certain point of view. In time this I hope will be addressed addressed, but until then it's important that readers are aware of the issue until the issues are resolved. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

In process of being built* (clarified) Homerethegreat (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

How is this article centered on a certain point of view?

What is "this" that you want to be "addressed addressed"?

What "issue" is it that is so important for "readers" to be aware of? Kire1975 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy that you took the time to read the problems I raised and address what I wrote, although I still do not understand why this had to be taken here for you to respond to the issues I raised. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Before these new edits, "pro-Israel" appears in reference to protests on the list 9 times. There are 37 sections or sub-sectios on the page. You listed only three that had problems. You could have easily googled the missing material and added it yourself, but now, after two of those three sections have been fixed to your satisfaction, you are still insisting that the NPOV template stay without telling us what will satisfy you. You have taken the page WP:HOSTAGE. Kire1975 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Just for the protocol, I did explain in the Talk page:

An article on an ongoing event that has conflicting narratives about it has serious concern on neutrality by default. Every sentence is picked by excellent editors who have different perspectives about what should and what should not be in the article, based on their relative point of view of events. It takes time until such an article can be more neutral, with relevant historical perspective and enough editing. Agmonsnir (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• The problem here is that, with the article broken down by region, it's hard to say whether there are notable protests in favor of XYZ in a particular area or not of weight equal to the currently-listed ones; this is best resolved by trying to find and add them. Simply assuming there must be equal counter-protests in every region and tagging the article until they're found and added is WP:FALSEBALANCE, in that the implicit demand here is that the article present equal number of protests in every section regardless of the weight of sourcing. If someone had already found valid things to add to the page and there was an unresolved conflict over adding them, tagging might make sense, but absent that, time spent trying to add the tag to the page would be better-spent looking for sources, since those are necessary to justify the tag in a context like this anyway. And when / if they're found, they can just... be added, unless someone disputes them. (And if there eventually is such a dispute it would probably be best to use section-level tags instead of article-wide ones, unless it actually does end up spreading to encompass the entire article.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  In that same vein, it may help to rework that article as a whole to be a summary of the general protests across the US, rather than this detailed distillation by region; individual protests which drew more attention (such as those at various colleges) can be described in more detail but a good 25-40% of that article is just "a protest also happened here" which really isn't encyclopedic. Written in this way, the article will likely reflect that most of said protests are anti-Hamas/pro-Israel while there are a smattering of pro-Palestine/anti-Israel protests, which to me would be a far better summary approach for that page and avoids the issue of what's happening here by Homerethegreat in terms of trying to fight for equal weight. Masem (t) 00:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, another advantage to rewriting it like that is that, hopefully, editors could then look for broader secondary, survey-style, or at least nationwide-coverage sources discussing the overall direction and tone of protests and summarize them using that as opposed to having a bunch of "there was a protest at XYZ" as it is currently. Nose-counting ourselves to establish stuff like that isn't great and tends to lead to bloated unreadable articles even aside from any neutrality concerns as people rush to insert as much as possible. --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, should I add the explanation I wrote on the page here? I'm sorry I did not respond in the past few days. I just felt a rapid succession of what felt like attacks to me and I got distressed and had to take a break, I'm sorry. Thank you for taking a look and for the professional insight on the article. I do agree with Masem and with you on an the more encyclopedic approach, but for now I do not wish to approach the article. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Homerethegreat has WP:SEALIONED the following pages for a pro-Israeli POV disguised concern that the page is somehow violating NPOV:

• Nakba Denial
• Bethlehem
• Israel
• 1948 Arab–Israeli War
• Indigenous peoples
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Kire1975 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The page that is the subject of this thread is certainly not the first or only example of an instance where the user in question has made the claim of POV issues with inadequate follow-up or explanation on talk with recourse to sources and policy (as opposed to opinion), and this behaviour is certainly arguably becoming a community time sink. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of Hamas denial in lead of article

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.

---

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_7_October_attack_on_Israel#RfC_on_Hamas_denial_in_lead_section. This presents a possible NPOV issue, one way or the other. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no NPOV issue. @Figureofnine is trying to force the deletion of the fact that Hamas denied the accusations, as reported in The Washington Post. Regardless of who is right or wrong in this article, maintaining proportion and neutrality in the lead section is important. The lead section should include both the belief of aggression from Israel and the belief of denial from Hamas. Figurenine quickly initiated an RCF to block the discussion, and many users who agree with his point may not be truly neutral if we examine their contributions. Therefore, the RFC should be conducted on a larger scale instead of framing it as an NPOV issue here.

Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Where is the NPOV issue? Please feel free to quote the specific part of the policy that should apply here. M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I replied to the RFC already but what the case boils down to is a wide accusation that Hamas has done vile crimes, but Hamas has denied those claims (as reported in reliable media). Without any international court ruling Hamas to be guilty of those crimes, including the accusation without the denial is a NPOV issue, because it makes Hamas implicitly look to be at fault in Wikivoice. I did offer a suggestion that if Hamas' denial cannot be trusted, as discussed in reliable sources, then the denial inclusion can also include how there is doubt in their word. Masem (t) 15:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Put simply, it's what the OP is after (the removal of the denial) that would cause a NPOV issue. M.Bitton (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

What is your basis for looking for "any international court ruling"? I would not consider that a very neutral or realistic way of deciding on wording for the lead section. fiveby(zero) 17:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's standard in Wikipedia to include an accused person's denial of a crime when they have not been convicted. Omitting their denial is implicitly saying they are guilty. In fact the source used to report the accusations is also used as the source that they reject them. The article should use the same neutral tone as the reliable sources it uses.

Before anyone argues that BLPCRIME does not apply, please note I have not cited it since it applies to individuals, not groups.

The Washington Post and the overwhelming majority of rs available have no sympathy for Hamas and therefore there is no reason to correct their reporting in order to put Hamas in a less favorable light. TFD (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2023 (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.

More eyes please

Melbourne shuffle has some newer editors changing who the founder is, sourcing it to an interview, and edit warring attempts to revert it. See article history and article talk page. Is content dispute-ish so don't really want to use my tools. Would prefer neutral editors to come in and opine on the topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Maharani Wisma Susana Siregar

Brought this up on the talk page but I thought this would be a good place to get some more eyes on it. I was copyediting and came across Maharani Wisma Susana Siregar, whose description as a "freedom fighter" combined with the very limited English info about her activism and the flag thing makes me nervous. I'd love it if someone with more familiarity with Indonesia-related topics could take a look and get some Wiki Magic going. (And sorry if this is the wrong place for this, I'm still rather new). thrashunreality (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional input please

There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Peranakans#Proposed trim hat could use some additional input. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:7400:5FC8:F857:BCD9 (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948#RfC on what result is to be entered against the result parameter of the infobox

The RfC question is:

Noting the guidance at MOS:MIL, the template documentation and the Aftermath section of the article (version as at opening the RfC), should the result be: a) Indian victory; b) inconclusive; or, c) See Aftermath section.

There are sources cited to support an Indian victory and an inconclusive/stalemate result. Further participation at the RfC would be appreciated. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Help with removing vandalism

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.

---

Please read the “Help with removing vandalism” section of this talk page.

Talk:Human rights in Vietnam

Thank you! Nepanoin (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2024 (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.

Effects of microplastics on human health

This section's neutrality is now being disputed. Are the sources cited in the article not neutral? Jarble (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

At first glance they appear to be neutral, but there may be a few specific sources whoever added the template was referring to. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe they started a discussion on the talk page. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've had a hack at the article, redistributing some 'human health' content (which seemed to be weirdly split between two sections), trimming some primary research and introducing PMID:34185251 as a decent MEDRS giving us a good overview of pretty much the current state of play. Bon courage (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Nick work. Professor Penguino (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Racial identifiers at List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States

Beginning with List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2020, the articles in the law enforcement killings series denote the race of the people involved. My understanding is that the use of racial identifiers is generally discouraged (as described by the WP:R&E essay). Thought I'd post this here to get more eyes on it and see if it's an undue weight issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

For a start, it should be noted that 'Hispanic/Latino' is linguistic/cultural descriptor, and not a 'racial' one. Beyond that, while there are legitimate reasons why one might be interested in such data at a statistical level, it looks problematic in a list like this. And in some cases at least, it appears to be entirely unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The column was added by an inexperienced editor, now gone, here.[2] I suggest we delete it. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Its not a bad idea (there certainly is enough coverage of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States in the context of race), but it doesn't seem practical (at best its an OR headache). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There is probably an article that can be written regarding such killings where race was considered a factor, but in this list, I would agree the racial indications are leaning POV-ish, as there are such killings where race was not a factor at all. Masem (t) 14:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Human rights in the State of Palestine

See this discussion: is this article's style of writing not neutral? Jarble (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

RfCs on OW-JP-AH and WCE-WRD/WCD

According to the current regulation, I notify the following two RfCs:

• RfC on the deprecation of OW-JP-AH — n.b. discussions: 2024, 2021, and the previous ones linked in the perennial sources' list entry.
• RfC to assess the reliability of WCE-WRD/WCD — n.b. before taking part in the RfC, please read the discussions: 2024, 2022-2023, 2018.

Æo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

POV tag in Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel

Some independent voices would be useful to clarify whether or not the {{POV}} tag is appropriate for the article Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.

The article clearly has an overall quality problem, but there doesn't seem to be any editing dispute over POV. As far as I can tell, there have been no attempts by editors to block POVs that are contrary to the main POV presented in the article. In fact, the argument for the POV tag appears to be an argument favouring the {{fringe}} tag, rather than the generic {{POV}} tag. However, there are no known sources presenting the alternative POV, no matter whether it is just "alternative" or rather "mainstream", so arguing for WP:FRINGE would currently depend on unknown sources. Should the article keep the POV tag while waiting for experts to present their alternative or mainstream POVs in WP:RSes? or while waiting for someone to do a major rewrite of the article?

I suggest discussion at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel#Lack of Neutrality/Bias by someone not previously involved in the article. Boud (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)