Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
    Shortcuts
    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:
    Start a new discussion

    Gabor and Ataturk

    This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It has never been resolved.

    Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 autobiography Zsa Zsa Gabor: My Story. This alleged liaison has been in the public discourse ever since. Some additional references:

    • "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
    • Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
    • Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
    • Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
    • Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
    • Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.

    A couple of editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. Removing this information violates WP:NOTCENSORED. I have restored it for the time being, but it's bound to get deleted again unless more editors enforce having the content retained. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[]

    It's been two days and still no feedback. As expected, my additions to Ataturk and Gabor's respective pages were reverted. This violates WP:NOTCENSORED, does it not? The reverting editors have argued against including the information because it is a claim not a fact. We're talking about a relationship from the early-to mid-'30s, long before tabloids and social media existed. Ataturk has been dead since 1938. So of course there aren't going to be receipts. Gabor's account is the only thing to go by, and many publications have long accepted it. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    It has now been 17 days and still none of you have joined the discussion. Please give input so this debate doesn't go dormant yet again. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    Well over a month now. Community participation is strongly needed. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Could you link the page in the title of this section? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    It's both Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Zsa Zsa Gabor. Schazjmd (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) & Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)

    There is a problem of neutrality in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis).

    See: Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024

    Since both Samasthas of AP (Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) and EK Sunnis (Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) have the same name, founder and the same history until the split in 1989, both should be presented equally, in their respective articles.

    For that I humbly request you to undo this edit. Moreover both Samasthas should be named exactly the same except two letters of "AP" and "EK". What should I do to do that because there is already a request to rename (Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024)? In addition, my request to rename and move them to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) has been removed. If you would like to know more or have any doubt, let me know. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[]

    I have informed Spworld2 about this discussion. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    Sources that say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was not founded in 1989
    The following sources say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama) (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration, which means Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was not founded in 1989 when the split happened.
    • The Hindu says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centenary. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
    • onmanorama.com says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
    • The New Indian Express says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
    • The website of MediaOne says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is about to celebrate the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
    • The Times of India says about the inauguration of 99th foundation day of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
    • Manorama News says about beginning of the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
    • PressReader says about Kanthapuram claiming to be the original one, and about justifying with the centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
    • Mathrubhumi says about the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
    • Madhyamam says about the promulgation of the centennial celebration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
    • malabarnews.com says about the promulgation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s centennial celebration. Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
    • ETV Bharat says about the declaration of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus ETV Bharat like several others have accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) to celebrate the centennial.
    • Kasargod Vartha says about the promulgation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Thus it, like others, has accepted the claim of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)'s right to celebrate the centennial.
    So articles on respective Samasthas should be treated equally in terms of the time of formation, the founder, and the rest of things until the split in 1989, everywhere including in the infobox. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    • Comment:

    This editor (@ Neutralhappy) gives importance to this page only, (Samastha (AP Faction)) writes the entire page as advertisement WP:PROMOTION, and people write their own for the editor (@ Neutralhappy) (WP:CONFLICT). seems like ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[]

    Sources that say about the split of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama in 1989
    Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama, founded in 1926 was, according to several sources (1—The New Indian Express, 2—The Hindu, 3—Scroll.in, 4—onmanorama.com, 5—News18, 6—Deccan Chronicle, 7—Dool News [Wikipedia page], 8— Southlive, 9—Samakalika Malayalam [Wikipedia page]), split in 1989 into two organisations exactly with the same name the organisation had before the split. Looking at the term split linguistically, it means all the new ones formed after the split have a shared history, thus a common time of formation. Thus both Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) are to be treated in Wikipedia equally in terms of their name, their time of formation, the founder and the rest of the matter pior to the split.
    Two Samasthas of EK and EK faction Sunnis claim theirs is the real Samastha. That means both do not agree the other one is real. There is a source which says the AP faction claims theirs is the real Samastha. Perod Abdurahman Saqafi, secretary of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), says in a Malayalam YouTube video that the Samastha in the registrar office is that of the AP faction. Note that according to the AP faction, Samastha was not split but reorganised in 1989. Neutralhappy (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    We can see the English Wikipedia page for Samakalika Malayalam Varika here. Neutralhappy (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    Spworld2 clearly appears to have WP:CONFLICT since Spworld2 is presenting the view of EK Sunnis in wikivoice. That too without considering neutrality and due weight. Both Samasthas claim the real Samastha. But Spworld2 is presenting the view of EK Samastha only in Wikivoice. Spworld2 also seems to have high level of hatred towards AP Sunnis. Spworld2 has added content in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) that is not present in the source Spworld2 cited for. Spworld2 appears to be ready get blocked or banned because of his WP:CONFLICT for an indefinite period. Even the source Spworld2 cited in the above comment/reply does not say Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was founded in 1989. Spworld2 also added the year 1989 as the year of formation in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) adding a source that does not say about the formation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) but the split of Samastha in 1989. I have no official membership of any organisation. I do not even have closeness to any local leaders of any organisation. I have no close connection to the topic I am editing. I am not editing any part of Wikipedia because I am asked to, or I am offered to be paid for. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    I am not a Sunni, but I know Sunni Islam. I don't support religions, But learning about religions,
    I am not interested in any organization. You write about an organization first without copying from other organizations. AP Samastha was formed in 1986 No matter how many people claim that sea water is sweet, sea water is actually salty
    Sponsored links, no matter how many links are not sourced AP Samastha ( Samastha (AP Faction) ) was founded in 1986 by Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar Spworld2 (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    In Wikipedia, we cannot add unsourced content. You have added unsourced content. You keep saying AP Samastha formed in 1989 without citing a source. The sources that you cited do not support your claim. You clearly have WP:CONFLICT. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    Only people associated with EK Samastha claim EK Samastha is the real one. The same thing is seen in Spworld2. I have seen Mujahids say "Chelari Samastha" and Jamate-Islami says "Samastha (Kanthapuram faction)". Thus it seems non-Sunni Muslims in Kerala have accepted the right of both Samasthas to claim the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1989. Because of this edit by Spworld2, we can understand Spworld2 really belongs to those associated with EK Samastha or those who are paid to edit. Spworld2 also has created a page for the promotion of 100th anniversary of EK Samastha. Moreover, Spworld2, nominated the article on AP Samastha for deletion because of Soworld2's WP:CONFLICT of interest. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[]

    I note this wording "... the Samasta , had to face two splits in its history . The first split , that occurred in 1967 , did not do much harm to the Organization . But the split in 1989 divided the Samasta vertically into two , and placed it into a quandary . [...] For the 1989 split , A.P. Aboobacker Musaliar , an eloquent orator , organizer , shrewed leader , generally known as Kantapuram , gave the leadership . It is said that the split was purely on petty personal interest .3 The sudden growth of S.S.Y.S. , under the stewardship of Kantapuram frightened the parent body . Every attempt to bring the youth body under the control of the Samasta failed . Without the consent of the parent or- ganization , S.S.Y.S. held a mammoth Conference at Ernakulam in 1989 and this ultimately led to the ousting of those who cooperated with the controversial conference . In retaliation , those who were ousted formed a body with the same name and elected a President for their group which completed the split . Subsequently they founded theirown Ulama organisation and various sub organisations to streamline their activities. The aftermath of the split was that it triggered a series of violent clashes and civil and criminal litigation over the control of the religious proper- ties and institutions all over Malabar.33 For the new group the split was an ideological one . They stated that the split was nothing but the last device in their fight against the lenient attitude taken by the official wing of the Samasta towards the anti - Sunni organizations forgetting their responsibility of safeguarding the Sunnah.34 Whatever be the reasons for the split , the consequences of this ramifications and the damage it caused to the Muslim social fabric are deeper and wider than it seems outwardly." (Islam in Kerala: Groups and Movements in the 20th Century (pp. 141-142)). The choice here would be to either split the articles in three, with one article covering the history up to 1989 and in the two other recognize that both factions consider 1926 as the founding date. Or considering the AP Samastha as the splinter group (which this book seems to back) but acknowledge that the AP Samastha considers itself as the legit inheritor of the original Samastha. --Soman (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]

    Thanks for the valuable comment by Soman.

    As for the so-called split in 1967, this source says about the "resignation" and thus not a split according to this Malayalam Wikipedia article, while this source says clearly about walking out and the formation of a new organisation, which in turn means not a split in 1967 according to this The New Indian Express source. Note that the name of the author of the news article is not given; thus non-experts also could be the author having bias while also having less competency because of not conducting interviews of leaders of both Samasthas (who have the most authoritative knowledge about the incidents) or witnesses. M. Abdul Salam is not apparently a witness to the incidents. If M. Abdul Salam says the AP faction formed parallel ("their own") organisations, it is misleading because both the AP and EK factions apparently claim the legacy of the SYS formed before the Samastha's split of 1989, (claims by EK faction: 1; claims by AP faction: 1, 2), the organisation for the youth. Besides, SKSSF of the EK faction was founded, after the Samastha's split in 1989; while its AP faction counterpart, SSF, had been formed, well before the same split. SSF and SKSSF are for students. It is especially noteworthy since both these two types of organisations (for the youth and students) are apparently the most visible ones of both Samasthas, because some jubilees or anniversaries of these organisations—SYS (AP faction) [1], SYS (EK faction), SSF [1] and SKSSF [1]—are conducted. However, there could be any organisation, such as Samastha Kerala Sunni Vidhyabhyasa Board, formed by the AP faction directly as a result of the 1989 Samastha split. Hence what the author can only do legitimately is to present different opinions, which could be done by relying on witnesses. Furthermore, M. Abdul Salam's book seems to be too old (published in 1998), probably at a time when there was much more hatred and conflict between the AP and EK factions so that the EK faction would likely say the EK faction ousted the AP faction leaders from Samastha besides other things. In addition, it seems the author wrote the book based on EK faction's claims. In my opinion, the book is not reliable due to lack of neutrality, maybe because it is not (if it is so) presenting the views of witnesses from both sides.

    A source of The Hindu does not say Kerala Samasthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama is a Samastha. In addition, another source of The Hindu says about only two organisations known as Samastha:

    A group of Sunni leaders led by Aboobacker Musliar had broken away from the Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama following organisational disagreement in 1989 and given shape to a Samastha of their own. Since then, the State has had two Samasthas known after their leaders.

    That means only two organisations are known as "Samastha". Above all, Najeeb Moulavi, a prominent leader of Kerala Samasthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama, in this this Malayalam YouTube video at the 38:00 mark, says the president of Samastha left Samastha and Kerala Samsthana Jem-iyyathul Ulama was founded.

    As a side note, this The New Indian Express source says:

    He (Kanthapuram) said had they gone after the controversies over the Samastha in the last several years, the community would not have made any advancements in education.

    That means the AP faction is not as strong as the EK faction in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. The EK faction is so assertive in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 that they conducted the centenary declaration conference in Bengaluru, which is outside Kerala, while the EK Samastha's name includes "Kerala" and the full name as per the EK Samastha's website means "All Kerala Ulama Organisation"; after the promulgation conference by the AP faction in Kasaragod. This difference in the attitude of the AP faction and the EK faction would make writers on the subject more biased towards EK faction's claims, since the writers become more exposed to the claims of the EK faction. The EK faction now says AP faction leaders left the Samastha, rather than saying the Samastha ousted the AP faction leaders.

    As for the matter of the ousting, it is worth reading what this The New Indian Express report says:

    ... Thangal (Jifri Muthukoya Thangal) said those are the people who left the organisation and started parallel activities.

    According to the AP faction, both the claims that the AP faction leaders were ousted and that the AP faction leaders left Samastha are false (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha); instead, the AP faction says 11 people, (including later leaders of the Samastha led by Kanthapuram), walked out of a Samastha meeting, not Samastha, disagreeing to give consent to a demand seeking to give E. K. Aboobacker Musliyar the unchecked authority in advance to alter the minutes in whatever way. Later, according to the AP faction, (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha), the Samastha was reorganised, not split; and still, according to the AP faction, (as per a YouTube video of Perod Abdurrahman Saqafi, the current secretary of AP Samastha), the Samastha in the registrar office is that of the AP faction.

    Remedy

    In conclusion, I recommend both Samasthas be treated equally in terms of the name, the founder, and the rest of things until the split in 1989; everywhere, including in the infobox. This is to keep neutrality, and to relieve both Samasthas of likely embarrassment, in case it turns out that a particular Samastha has been in the government records as the successor of the Samastha founded in 1926, all this while. The best option is to avoid stating, the disputed matter until the split in 1989, without the attribution. Neutralhappy (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[]

    Now Spworld2 says AP Samastha was founded in 1986, rather than 1989

    See this edit by Spworld2. Spworld2 added 1986 without citing any source; the source seen against "1986" in the infobox does not support the claim that the AP Samastha was founded in 1986. So remove this unsourced year of formation—1986, which is also an original research. Neutralhappy (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Again Spworld2 changed thier position: now Spworld2 says AP Samastha was founded in 1989. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    World Professional Association for Transgender Health

    I am currently in a dispute with another editor who reverted my addition of critical information about the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). This information was reported by reliable and well-respected sources such as The Economist and The New York Times, both of which are listed as generally reliable at WP:RSP.

    Specifically, The Economist details how WPATH leaders interfered with the production of systematic reviews they had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University. Additionally, both The Economist and The New York Times report that WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/health/transgender-surgery-biden.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/health/transgender-minors-surgeries.html, https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/06/27/research-into-trans-medicine-has-been-manipulated). The editor who reverted my edits argues that the information from The Economist and The New York Times is WP:UNDUE and falls under WP:NOTNEWS , despite the fact that these issues have been widely discussed in other mainstream media, as demonstrated in our talk page discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health#Reversion_of_objective_edit).

    The current article about WPATH reads more like a corporate page at the moment, rather than a neutral Wikipedia article, as it contains none of the relevant critical information about the organization, even though controversies involving WPATH have been reported by highly reliable sources. I am seeking consensus on the notability of the reporting by these cited news outlets, with the aim of determining whether this information should be included in the article. I would greatly appreciate it if other Wikipedia editors could review this issue and share their opinions. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]

    Which source says that "WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    Firefangledfeathers
    The New York Times:
    Health officials in the Biden administration pressed an international group of medical experts to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries from guidelines for care of transgender minors, according to newly unsealed court documents. Age minimums, officials feared, could fuel growing political opposition to such treatments. Email excerpts from members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health recount how staff for Adm. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services and herself a transgender woman, urged them to drop the proposed limits from the group’s guidelines and apparently succeeded. [6]
    The Economist:
    Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care. [7] Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    The NYT is saying "apparently succeeded", and Economist pieces should be presented with attribution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    The NYT piece is already included on the SOC8 article, as it dealt with the SOC recommendations specifically, which is why it belongs there, not on the WPATH article, as I already explained on the article talk page. - An earlier draft would have required several years of transgender identity before an adolescent could begin treatment. After criticism from transgender advocates, this provision was removed in the final release. Despite the criticism, transgender youths wishing to be treated are still required to undergo a "comprehensive diagnostic assessment".[18] from the SOC8 page. Raladic (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    No reason an NYT article can't be cited in multiple wikipedia articles. I expect thousands already are. Hi! (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    Unless I'm misunderstanding, those are two different articles - the cited on on the SOC8 section is from 2022: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/magazine/gender-therapy.html
    The one mentioned above is from 2024: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/health/transgender-minors-surgeries.html Void if removed (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    WP:CRITICISM states you probably shouldn't do a whole section straight up called criticism.
    It could probably be part of a section called Research activities? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    also, seems like there is a discussion already about it on the Talk Page and that the objected material is included in Standards_of_Care_for_the_Health_of_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse_People#Version_8. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    Thanks for the suggestion Bluethricecreamman, I certainly don't mind such a title (Research activities). Certainly the criticism header was a bit on the nose, even if it's substantively apt. Although that was not cited as the sole reason for reversion.
    This information isn't included in another article. In fact, it concerns WPATH directly as well as its activities. It is not about SOC, but rather how WPATH's activities were influenced by external parties, and how WPATH has interfered with Hopkins University reviews. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    @Sean Waltz O'Connell- you did not properly notify me of this discussion as is highlighted in bold as a mandatory step at the top of this noticeboard. Please remember to do so next time, I just found this discussion by chance.
    As for the content in question, I don't think there's much more to expand on as the other users here have already explained in addition to my explanation on the article talk page itself. As it stands, no other reliable media has picked up the allegation of the reverted content other than the Economist who levied it, which makes it first-hand news, so lasting notability has not been proven for an allegation, so it falls under WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't appear WP:DUE, especially not in WP:CRITS form. The New York times piece about an early draft potentially changing age requirements is included on the SOC8 article, as I have already explained, as it was about the SOC specifically, not WPATH. Raladic (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    Raladic I notified you about the NPOV page in our talk before I posted here, however you are correct and I'll take care to tag appropriately in future - Thanks for the reminder.
    The information from the NYT and The Economist are specifically about WPATH making recommendations under pressure from an official, and that concerns WPATH, not the SOC.
    That information is not reflected in any article. The SOC article that you refer to cites another NYT article from 2022, and does not reflect the recent controversy reported by the NYT and the Economist that only came to light a month ago. As for the information about WPATH meddling with the John Hopkins reviews, reported by the Economist, it's been widely covered & discussed in the mainstream media. The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Guardian published op-eds discussing the controversy. While the op-eds cannot be used for statements of facts, they can be used for statements of opinions, and the fact that major news outlets have dedicated so much space to the discussion of the story reported by the Economist clearly illustrates that it garnered nationwide attention.
    For example, an op-ed in The Washington Post directly cites the Economist article:
    "Last week, The Economist reported that other documents unsealed in the Alabama case suggest something has gone wrong at WPATH itself, which reportedly commissioned evidence reviews from Johns Hopkins University, then tried to meddle with the result. Internal communications suggest that research should be 'thoroughly scrutinized to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense.' Now, assuming this is true, I’m sure WPATH sincerely believed it was doing its best for gender-dysphoric kids. But such meddling makes it harder to find out whether the group is right about that." [8]
    Similarly, an op-ed from The New York Times notes:
    "The World Professional Association for Transgender Health... blocked publication of a Johns Hopkins systematic review it had commissioned that also found scant evidence in favor of the gender-affirming approach. Recently released emails show that WPATH leaders told researchers that their work should 'not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense.'"
    [9]
    Another op-ed in The Guardian states:
    "Evidence has since emerged suggesting that WPATH actually tried to suppress the systematic reviews that it commissioned from Johns Hopkins University because the results undermined its preferred approach... WPATH was pressured by the Biden administration to remove minimum ages for treatment from its 2022 standards of care." [10]
    Furthermore, The New York Sun also covered the story in its report:
    "WPATH wielded a heavy hand after it in 2018 commissioned from evidence-based medicine experts at Johns Hopkins University a series of systematic literature reviews... After some of the Hopkins teams’ findings raised concerns among WPATH leadership that they might 'negatively affect the provision of transgender health care,' WPATH compromised the independence of the Hopkins researchers."
    [11]
    The above pieces show that the information shared by the Economist led to a substantial debate in the media, which firmly illustrates the notability of the topic and importance of its reflection in the article about the WPATH. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    I don't think any of that supports a statement of fact in wiki-voice. It seems you're main point is that some mention is due in the WPATH article. Would you be amenable to an attributed version? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    Yes I believe an attributed version would be fine. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    Firefangledfeathers What thoughts do you have on the best way to phrase an attributed version to the article, omitting the criticism header and so on? Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    1) The new NYT article is still about the same thing, they very article you linked says The draft guidelines, released in late 2021, recommended lowering the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies. - the guidelines it is talking about is the SOC8, so this is the very same topic that is in fact already covered at the SOC8 article. I do not know how to make this any more clear, so please listen.
    2)The Hopkins story that is WP:ALLEGED by the Economist was not picked up by any other media. Op-eds are not "substantial debate in the media", they are opinion from individuals, some newspapers just allow those with little (or no) editorial oversight. It gets even more problematic when one of them is cited to a tracked anti-trans hate group (SEGM) as I had already explained. So at best, an attributed sentence of "An article in the Economist alleged influence on a study." or something along those lines. But again, it even that looks questionable to be WP:DUE at this moment in time to even say this under our WP:NOTNEWS policy. So I'd say we should wait to see if any other reliable media actually picks up, as Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE, so we are not rushed to add one news piece. Our inclusion criteria on Wikipedia are based on policy, especially scrutinized so in WP:CTOP areas. Raladic (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    The latest NYT article reports that SOC was developed under political pressure. That information was not available in 2022, and is not reflected in another article. That surely rebuts the assertion made in your previous message. I have listened very carefully to what you have said, with due regard, but this is not about the SOC, the controversy is about how that SOC was developed by WPATH. It is a different story that made its way to the media only now. The two stories are dissimilar in time line, and in specific scope. The Guardian does not cite SEGM, as I already mentioned in our talk page discussion. It makes no mention of that organization, and only links to a repost of the Economist article at SEGM website, probably because the original Economist article is paywalled.This is the SEGM link [https://segm.org/The-Economist-WPATH-Research-Trans-Medicine-Manipulated] As one can plainly see, it contains nothing but the full repost of the Economist article.
    I believe we can report the NYT and the Economist stories with attribution to those news outlets, because those are very reputable and trusted sources known for fact checking and accuracy. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    Again, the NYT story is ABOUT the standards of care, so they belong on the standards of care article, you are free to expand that paragraph there at the SOC article if there is new relevant content, but it already seems sufficiently WP:SUMMARIZEd with what is there, even if that other source is from two years ago. It's inherently about the same core issue. A by-setence of "some of the draft guidelines may have been influenced by political pressure" or something along the lines maybe (which again, would still be fairly small given that they didn't appear to have made it out of the draft after the criticism that is already in the article into the final version of the SOC8).
    As for the Economist - Guardian quote stop your WP:OR on "because they are paywalled" - the Guardian links to SEGM in the citation of it - Evidence has since emerged suggesting that WPATH actually tried to suppress the systematic reviews that it commissioned from Johns Hopkins, that means, they cited SEGM, full-stop, anything else is irrelevant and is you own original thought. Note that Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV is strict, especially around criticism that doesn't seem to be widely repeated such as is the care here, other than with the Guardian linking it to an anti-trans hate group, then it makes the inclusion really hard to argue on being DUE at the moment. Please note Wikipedia is not here as a platform to right great wrongs. The fact that the Economist article itself used slur language, in the last paragraph they refer to a trans woman using a slurred term (see Trans_woman#Terminology for more context), is a whole separate question that we haven't even addressed on the motivation of the original article itself. Raladic (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    At this point you are simply repeating your argument that the information from the latest NYT article is covered in another Wikipedia article, when it is clearly not. I do not see any mention of the pressure from the official in the article that you refer to. Also, as a a long time editor you must be well aware that WP:OR does not apply to the talk page discussion, but you keep bringing it up for some reason. Anyone can check the SEGM link and see what it is. It does not contain any information produced by SEGM itself, it is a simple repost. And lastly, there is a consensus to consider the Economist to be a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. It is a well respected source known for fact checking and accuracy. This is not a place to challenge that. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    The NYT did not say "WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official", they said WPATH removed minimum age requirements which is something Rachel Levine (who, for the record, has absolutely no power over WPATH) made a recommendation in support of. They say James Cantor (who is as WP:FRINGE as it gets in the field of trans healthcare and not WP:DUE in the slightest) levied the charges of politics driving their decisions, and the president of WPATH denied them.
    Moreover, the article actually says the American Academy of Pediatrics warned WPATH it would not endorse the SOC with age minimums because "the [AAP]’s policies did not recommend restrictions based on age for surgeries" (because there is no other field of medicine which sets age limits on surgeries deemed medically necessary). So this is not "Levine forced WPATH to remove age minimums", it's "highly reputable medical organizations and health directors argued such minimums were unscientific and WPATH discussed it internally and agreed".
    The Economist is an opinion piece, only covered by other opinion pieces and unreliable sources, neither of which lend any evidence the allegations are due. The fact that they gave SEGM permission to repost it in full is concerning in itself. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    The NYT report says:
    "Health officials in the Biden administration pressed an international group of medical experts to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries from guidelines for care of transgender minors"
    The Economist:
    "Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care"
    We must report the information strictly in accordance with what the sources say. And they discuss pressure from an official. Whether Levine has power over WPATH is not up to us to decide. And the Economist is not an
    opinion piece. It is not identified as such by the Economist, and for example an op-ed in the Washington Post says "Last week, The Economist reported", so that firmly indicates in writing that it is an actual report by the Economist. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    WP:RSP: The Economist publishes exclusively articles in editorial voice with no byline, with a few featured commentary pieces by pseudonymous bylines That link is to WP:RSOPINION. WRT the WAPO, "op-ed A cited op-ed B therefore op-ed B is not an op-ed" is not a policy based argument.
    That leaves us with the NYT. A source saying "A recommended B do C; B later did C" is not one saying "B did C because of A". Especially because, as I noted, the AAP explicitly warned WPATH about age minimums, the NYT notes it was internally discussed, the president denied it, and the person who says that was a political decision and not a scientific one is WP:FRINGE.
    WPATH has an FAQ on the SOC8[12]:
    • Minimum ages for providing gender-affirming medical care were removed from the SOC-8 and replaced by strengthened criteria to help codify the framework that enables every TGD adolescent the opportunity to get their appropriate medical needs met at the appropriate time; these changes to the SOC-8 reflect the fact that one-size-fits-all health care models, especially transgender care, are not accurate or appropriate for every individual person.
    • Prior to its September 2022 release, WPATH announced a public open comment period to the draft SOC-8 in December 2021 through January 2022. This comment period allowed input and feedback from professionals in the field from around the world who were concerned that the listing of ages would lead to further limitations to care by creating or reinforcing arbitrary boundaries to care and/or by ignoring possible contributing health factors including mental health, family support, or other individual health needs. After comments were reviewed and discussed by chapter authors and co-chairs, it was determined that the specific ages would be removed to ensure greater access to care for more people
    WPATH had an open consultation. Levine was one of many who responded. Others responded. WPATH made a choice they agreed with. A WP:FRINGE activist didn't like that and screamed "politics!". WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. We can write somewhere "the SOC 8 dropped age requirements for surgery after a public consultation" - we don't have to put in "James Cantor complained about it" (WP:UNDUE per WP:FRINGE), "Levine encouraged them to do it" (per WP:NOTNEWS, and the fact that the more important thing is "the AAP warned them they'd withdraw support without it"), or "Levine made them do it" (because that's only said in an op-ed), Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    According to WP:RSP, The Economist publishes articles exclusively in editorial voice, yet is a reliable source nonetheless. As such, The Economist cannot be discounted because of the manner of presentation of its material, as it would mean that we should not use any Economist article, and that would be against the established consensus. If you believe that the Economist articles are not acceptable for use in Wikipedia, you should challenge that at WP:RSP. But I checked the last RFC, and the closing statement clearly discourages any attempts to discount the Economist from use in this topic area, and there is a mention of WP:DUE there as well. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 393#RfC: The Economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#RfC:_The_Economist
    As for the NYT, I have already quoted what it writes, please take the time to check. Otherwise, In short, it says that an official pressed WPATH to drop the age limit. The rest is your personal interpretation that we cannot use in the article. We must stick to what the sources write, and 2 highly reliable sources support this information. That makes it WP:DUE. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    I will say it again - please listen. You have now been told by multiple experienced editors the specific policy based reasons for why something is DUE or UNDUE on a specific article and yet, you keep going off on unrelated tangents. The policies we cited are irrespective of reliability. The Economist story is undue on the WPATH article per WP:NOTNEWS.
    And again, the age limit story from the NYT is ABOUT the SOC8, so it is undue on the WPATH article, so it belongs at the SOC article instead, where it already is and as I already said above - so they belong on the standards of care article, you are free to expand that paragraph there at the SOC article if there is new relevant content - so please stop beating on with the same argument. Raladic (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    Publishing under editorial voice doesn't imply an opinion piece, which is why The Economist was found to be generally reliable. And even if it was an opinion piece, it could still be cited with an appropriate qualifier, such as 'The Economist reported that...' Hi! (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    No, because it would be commentary, not "reporting". Remsense ‥ 论 02:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    In that case, we could say 'The Economist said', but I don't think that it really matters when it's a statement of fact, not a statement of personal values. FWIW, perennial reliable source The Washington Post said "The Economist reported that..." in reference to the same article. Hi! (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    Not to mention the thousands of times it's been cited with no qualifier at all:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22economist.com%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1
    I find it very hard to believe these thousands of articles are all in violation of the findings or spirit of the perennial sources list. Hi! (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    To clarify, is your position that because all Economist pieces don't have real name byline, wikipedia should never use the phrase 'The Economist reported'? Because if so, there's a lot of work to be done - this phrasing is standard on wikipedia:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22the+economist+reported%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Hi! (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    No, merely that reporting and editorial analysis are two different things, which can sometimes be contained in the same piece but should be distinguished. There's plenty of potentially misleading writing on Wikipedia, you don't need to tell me that. Remsense ‥ 论 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[]
    The article in The Economist primarily presents factual reporting, especially regarding the suppression of Johns Hopkins University reviews and the pressure exerted by a high-ranking health official on WPATH to remove minimum age requirements for treatment. These details are information, not commentary. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    This just seems like POV pushing, particularly from the followup responses. One of the sources given is a blatant op-ed and the other is discussing a decision made that involved multiple groups and people and was done after another major scientific organization (the AAP) said they should do it. SilverserenC 15:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[]

    As per advice, I have asked for clarity on The Economist on WP:RSN Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[]

    Per community consensus at WP:RSN, The Economist article is a reliable source, and not an opinion piece. The news reporting by the Economist is RS, and opinions need to be attributed. So The Economist cannot be rejected as WP:RSOPINION. The story about Levine's influence has been reported by a number of reliable sources, not just one. In addition to The Economist and The New York Times, it was also reported by The Hill and The Telegraph.

    Along with op-eds from the mainstream media quoted above, this shows significant coverage, which invalidates WP:NOTNEWS applicability. Moreover, the US administration also reacted to the NYT report denying its involvement, so at the moment it appears to be Levine's personal initiative. In addition, the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services initiated an investigation and requested documents and information about health officials' interactions with WPATH based on the NYT reports. [13] So this is a growing and active controversy involving the WPATH that has received reaction from top political sources - including US administration and US congress inquiries and deliberations. As such, the enduring notability can not be a matter of contention. I believe all of the above warrants inclusion of this information in the article about the WPATH. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    The responding OP-EDS to the initial story of the Economist are not "significant coverage" as has been stated to you multiple times at this point, so you are well past WP:IDHT. This means all the real lasting coverage that exists is the Economist, which is why WP:NOTNEWS does apply. Full stop.
    And, again on the NYT age on the standard of care story belongs on the article it is about - the SOC8 where it already is covered from a 2022 article (so this 2024 article is just a re-reporting of the same) and as was also pointed out to you (repeatedly), you are welcome to add points there if they are relevant and have consensus for doing so and add new information there. Raladic (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    This story about WPATH’s ethical issues has been covered by multiple reliable sources. It can’t be something that we ignore or refuse to acknowledge. However, I don’t see it being reported in any particular article--JonJ937 (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    I want to chime in response to some of the arguments made in the thread: I don’t think this should be subject to WP:MEDRS because it is not about the medical information itself, it is about the guidelines development process.  Also WPATH allows members in non-healthcare professions such as law, sociology, and anthropology. The WPATH Guideline Steering Committee oversaw the development of SOC 8 which reported that the main differences in the methodology of the SOC-8 when compared with other versions of the SOC include the “involvement of an independent body from a reputable university to help develop the methodology and undertake independent systematic literature reviews where possible.”  This is the very topic of the Economist Article. I disagree that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS; as long as SOC-8 is the most recent SOC, and SOCs are central to WPATH, then information from a reliable source about WPATH interference in the systematic reviews for SOC-8 is important to include for a neutral article.  RfC: The Economist says “there is a consensus that The Economist is reliable for trans topics” so please listen. The information about Levine was reported by a number of sources listed as reliable at WP: RSP; these sources would likely not be writing about if it was SOP to make decisions after Delphi Consensus.  Plus the US administration reacted to it, and it is the subject of an investigation by a congressional committee, so we can’t dismiss it as WP:UNDUE. Overall, I think it's biased to not include both of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evathedutch (talk • contribs) 11:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    I read through the arguments, and after stripping out the various personal interpretations, I agree that it's WP:DUE and I disagree that it has WP:NOTNEWS issues. Both topics (interference in Hopkins and interference by Levine) are germane to WPATH's mission and the main sources cited are very reliable. I don't have a strong opinion about where it's included, but it's most related to SOC-8, so it could fit well on the WPATH article near the discussion of SOC. Colaheed777 (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Parental investment

    Certain passages of parental investment should probably be looked at, particularly as it pertains to humans. I'm somewhat skeptical reading language like Women on the other hand are tuned into resources provided by potential mates, as their reproductive success is increased by ensuring their offspring will survive, and one way they do so is by getting resources for them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    My general concern is that there are plenty of statements in this article that state in wikivoice that women act a certain way because evolution. I think it's important to be careful about generalizing groups of people like that and there's probably some WP:DUE issues there. I'm not an expert on human sexuality or anything so I was hoping some more eyes on this would be useful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I'm inclined to share your concern. The content as it stands seems overdependent on biological points of view and seems inattentive to academic scholarship from other fields (such as history, cultural anthropology, and gender studies), about how socialization and culture shape expectations of and behavior around parenting. Like, the article is basically saying stuff like 'women are biologically predisposed to X', and I'm not accustomed to thinking of sweeping claims of biological predisposition in human behavior as something that has a strong consensus in academia. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What I think is needed is for the article to take a more zoomed out perspective, cite some textbooks about human sexuality that can tackle the topic from a really broad-scope so as to account for and attend to perspectives from multiple disciplines. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    This is the first time I've ever posted a thread on this noticeboard so forgive me if I'm doing this all wrong, but is something supposed to happen? Are there specific wikiprojects I should contact to address this issue that I've identified? I'm not confident in correcting it myself but I also don't want this thread to be archived without anything happening. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Sabina Shoal

    More eyes would be appreciated at Sabina Shoal with regards to WP:IMPARTIAL and source choice, since the article has received a large number of edits since a clash between Chinese and Philippine vessels took place a week ago. CMD (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Incorrect colour scheme for List of armed conflicts involving ___ against ___

    I am opening an issue to resolve the problem that occured at List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia and List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany that is affected by the actions of @Setergh. The user has for some reason, (assuming WP:AGF WP:CLUELESS, has used reverted colour scheme to mark positive result as red, and negative as green.

      Russian, Soviet, Muscovite,
    Ruthenian, or Kievan Rus' victory
      Polish or Polish–Lithuanian victory
      Another result*

    The more typical symbology is based human perception of the result of the conflict or any other event.

       Victory
       Defeat

    Examples of standard colour scheme:

    I have started a discussion at the Talk:List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia#Colour scheme is not correct to raise a problem to the other participants, however, the user explains, that similar colour scheme is used elsewhere. The referenced article, namely List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany, have been created by the same user.

    I have indicated further information, why it is nessary to used non-biased abd standardized colours schemes, by mentioning that used colours "frequently utilised by Wikipedia to mark positive vs negative, right vs wrong" [1]

       Positive
       Negative
       Neutral

    Check for instance


    I assume, since the user edit wikipedia only since 14 July 2024, he/she/they might not know the typical symbology used in such lists. Such behaviour might be also considered as breaking the WP:NPOV, because it might be a manipulation of interpretation from positive / negative outcome to the opposite. Nbarchaeo (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    How is this a neutrality issue? Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Hello?
    You've completed twisted the meaning of my words.
    I do think changing the colour scheme is a good idea, and I never said I was against it, I just asked what to change it to.
    And what do you mean Red means positive in this case? Red just means Polish victory in this case.
    I know how the system works, though yes I did copy the colouring in another article from here.
    I myself mentioned I made the other two pages and I did not use it as an argument for the colours not to be changed, I've literally stated that they should be changed, agreeing with you.
    Your point is just strange though, you say you want the colours changed because Green means Victory and Red means Defeat, and then when I asked you what to change it to, you said you wanted it changed to the exact same thing??
    I'm heavily confused. Setergh (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    This issue seems only to involve clarity and consistency. Like Slatersteven, I don’t see how neutrality is involved. It doesn’t seem appropriate for this noticeboard. Perhaps the MOS is a more appropriate venue? — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    One more thing, "The user has for some reason, (assuming WP:AGF WP:CLUELESS, has used reverted colour scheme to mark positive result as red, and negative as green.)
    Is this just WP:BIAS? I don't get why you're instantly trying to report me for some kind of non-neutral point of view. I have agreed to coming to a compromise with you, and you think I'm for some reason breaking Wikipedia guidelines?
    You've already gone to my personal talk page to mention this and to the site for WP:NPOV. Instead of trying to co-operate with me, you're deciding to just try and report me or something? Setergh (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The reason of placing this issue into Noticeboard is to get the second opinion only Nbarchaeo (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I agree with @Slatersteven that it mainly concern WP:MOS. The lists of that type, however, have informative character, and they can be affected by personal opinion / point of view of the creator. Colour coding is basic way of informing. Taking the following, such lists have to follow the same colour style. My concern was raised, because the information provided in the list might be a subject of conflicting views of sides that are involved, which is visible in the Talk:List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia. The contributors mentioned Fake wars - for instance.
    Taking the informal tone of responce of the user [14] I am more convinced towards WP:CLUELESS Nbarchaeo (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I was on my phone, not really having time to reply.
    I told you that I'm glad to try and cooperate with you on changing the colour of both the List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia page along with my List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany.
    Instead of accepting this, you've decided to try and now set up random arguments against me that I'm breaking some kind of guidelines, or that I'm clueless.
    I am not clueless, and I have explained why my page shared such colours.
    Please, try and discuss what colours we should change them to instead of explaining the same thing over and over again. Setergh (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I suggest standard colours
       Victory
       Defeat
       Other outcome
    Nbarchaeo (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The problem here is that would only work for one country.
    These pages are between two countries, meaning you need different colours to symbolise their victories.
    You cannot go by the typical Green, Red, Blue in this case. Setergh (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The list is written from a perspective of one side against the other side. The above-mentioned scheme is valid Nbarchaeo (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I suppose that may be a misunderstanding due to the actual name of the article, although the main point of it is for Russo–Polish Wars.
    Therefore, it is not written from the perspective of one side, but both sides. One against the other, and the other against the one. Setergh (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I suggest the solution to this is to simply avoid red and green, and use other colors instead. For example, we could use Orange for Polish victories, and Cobalt blue for Russian victories. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I had a similar idea as well.
    I think this would work pretty well, I suppose it'd be good to mention this on the talk page of the actual page though. Setergh (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    There are three lists of similar character, that have symbology, which I am suggesting
    The opposite:
    Non standard
    No colour
    I am suggesting to make them more standardized Nbarchaeo (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Maybe we can decide to abolish "conflicts involving ___ against ___" articles? Usually the are of rather poor quality and by their nature a lot of the content in them would be duplicated. Alaexis¿question? 11:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Seems a valid suggestion, as you say it's hard to see how this material is not also in "list of wars involving X" or "list of battles involving X" (in fact twice, as both combatants will be listed). Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I don't particularly see a reason in abolishing them, although I do agree they tend to be rather poor quality.
    I do think that it's quite useful to know the conflicts between two powers who have had many, and (usually) doesn't hurt anyone in any sort of way.
    Personally, it's probably just better to improve the quality of them rather than straight up remove them. Setergh (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Although I may be biased considering I've made List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany which I've put a lot of effort into. Setergh (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    This article indeed looks great. Mine was a (probably unnecessarily) provocative suggestion born from the despair I felt looking at long lists in which every skirmish between entities however distantly related to the modern nations is listed as part of a centuries-long conflict. Those articles had just enough sources to make it impossible to delete them but enough issues to make it a nightmare to try to sort them out. Again, sorry for the rant, this definitely doesn't apply to your article. Alaexis¿question? 20:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    That's alright, and thank you! I do agree though, the common articles that involve something such as a country against another due tend to be pretty low quality, so I understand your frustration. I try my hardest to possibly improve these kinds of articles although sometimes it's just a bit difficult, time-consuming or I just cannot think of a way to. Setergh (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Considering the number of people who are colour blind, especially red-green colourblind, I'd have thought it would be much better to use a pallette from Commons:Commons:Creating accessible illustrations. They would also avoid the baggage of red and green as representing danger or good. Compatibility comes way after usability. NadVolum (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Thank you for suggesting Commons:Commons:Creating accessible illustrations Nbarchaeo (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Good suggestion, thank you. I'll definitely try and use this to replace some of the colours I've used before. Setergh (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    1. ^ Gil S, Le Bigot L (6 August 2014). "Seeing Life through Positive-Tinted Glasses: Color–Meaning Associations". PLOS ONE. 9 (8): e104291. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9j4291G. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104291. ISSN 1932-6203.

    Dustborn

    Could someone here please respond to this allegation and determine whether or not to include it? Trade (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    As noted in this edit to the talk page, it does not look like the proposed sources for making that claim are reliable. Wikipedia cannot cover the allegation unless there is a reliable source to back it up. Daisy Blue (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Yom Kippur War

    Some users claiming that Israeli military victory in 1973 war, established by military historians and history texts, is not clear. See Yom Kippur War#cite note-448, Yom Kippur War#Military situation. The sources are extensive and not equivocal. I could use uninvolved eyes. Andre🚐 18:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    There is a controversy regarding the result, looking through the page archives it was a simplified remnant of a more complex result. “Israeli military victory”, which is debated is a much more accurate descriptor “Israeli victory”, which is incorrect. The best solution I see here is to have a “see aftermath” section, kind of like the winter war which also has a controversial result The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    New RM at Gaza genocide

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#New_name_for_RM IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

    Clear consensus on this. No need to waste more editor time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    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.

    There is a policy violation in that it still remains unclear as to what caused Trumps wound so the article wording has to be shot at and NOT shot. To say shot is inaccurate, at this point in time. A neutral point of view, and accurate one, is shot at. There are NO reliable sources confirming what precisely caused the ear injury. The reference provided several times in the talk section from the FBI Director is not even clear, and it doesn't help that he is a Trump appointee. A consensus doesn't change the fact that we still do not know, and may never know, what caused the injury.

    This has been discussed ad nauseum and more recently under Was he shot or was he shot at in the talk section of the article. It's a protected article so I'm not sure who the editor is. Oghma6 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Suggest you try the WP:FTN noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Not sure why you would suggest that forum. It's possible he was shot so to say so is not a fringe theory just more probably politically motivated. Trump used it in an exaggerated manner in the recent debate. It is simply not known what actually struck him, so to say shot is not neutral, accurate or unbiased. To say he was shot is inaccurate, until definitive proof is provided, and against Wikipedia policy. Oghma6 (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    You misunderstand. I suspect the good folks at FTN would tell you that your contention that Trump wasn't shot (but merely "shot at”) is fringe. Yes, there was some initial uncertainty as to whether he was shot or hit by shrapnel… but that has long since been clarified. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    My contention isn't that Trump wasn't shot, simply that we don't know either way. To say he was is not a neutral or accurate statement, despite what anybody says. As long as it's not known how he was injured then the most accurate statement is that he was shot at and injured. It's not a matter of consensus or opinion. Saying shot is a matter of opinion and is being used as propaganda. Despite what so many keep saying it has NOT been clarified. Oghma6 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    There is an NYTimes article and NBC article attached to the claim The upper part of Trump's right ear was grazed by the first bullet fired by Crooks. Both are highly reliable.
    It also seems folks have attempted to engage you at Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Was_he_shot_or_was_he_shot_at? and there has been plenty of discussion so far in archives. [15] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Attempted? One of them even admits that we may never know what injured him. That's the whole point. Currently we don't know for sure and even the FBI Director didn't clarify it so at this point in time WE DON'T KNOW! Since we don't know then to say shot is inaccurate, and it's not neutral. Period. Oghma6 (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Yes, we DO know. Overwhelming consensus of reliable sources have clarified this. Drop the stick. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    No. We DON'T know what injured Trumps ear. Consensus is meaningless and this has become an example of say it often enough and it becomes "truth", while not proven true. Can you provide a single reliable, authoritative resource as to the exact cause of the injury? The answer so far is NO! To date there is only one resource provided and their statement did NOT clarify the exact cause of the wound. That resource is also not reliable, which means it can't be said that Trump was shot. 2604:3D09:A079:E700:CC7F:3841:6C86:A1A9 (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The NBC source quotes the FBI saying two weeks after the shooting that Trump was hit by a bullet or a fragment of a bullet. Up to that point, information had been unclear.
    Unless this version is seriously questioned in reliable sources, we have to accept it as definitive for tehe information in the article.
    I appreciate that some editors may find the injuries inconsistent with a direct hit. But any qualification of the official statement would be editor OR.
    The reason this request does not belong at NPOVN is that no sources have been provided for alternative opinions. If such opinions have no existence in RS, thene there is no POV issue. The article is presenting the only POV in RS. TFD (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    That is from the only source of authority so far and is the FBI Director and he doesn't make it clear, and could be seen as unreliable. "hit by a bullet or a fragment of a bullet". Being shot means hit by a bullet, not fragments. As with all the discussion that has gone on before it comes down to not knowing for sure whether a bullet hit him or fragments of a bullet or something else. Therefore to be accurate it should say shot at and not shot. Period. It's not rocket science here. It is posted here as part of the dispute resolution process. Oghma6 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The problem is that how we define "shot" in this context ultimately has to come down to how the sources do. Likewise, whether we trust the FBI Director, and how we treat things they say, should depend on how the sources treat them - certainly not everything they say is treated as unvarnished truth; if sources constantly attribute what they say, then we'd have to attribute it too; and if there are serious sources expressing doubt, then we'd have to include that doubt. But in order to make that argument, you'd need to either find the sources expressing doubt, or at least do a survey of the available sources to demonstrate that a significant number of them are treating it as just the FBI Director's opinion and not a fact. The New York Times, though, says But a detailed analysis of bullet trajectories, footage, photos and audio by The New York Times strongly suggests Mr. Trump was grazed by the first of eight bullets fired by the gunman, Thomas Crooks. That said, "strongly suggests" is still weaker wording than our article is using, so you could possibly push the argument that we should reflect the sources more closely by limiting it to something along those lines... but I wouldn't be surprised if more recent sources are more decisive in their wording. -Aquillion (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Thank you very much. Going by the FBI Director it's still not clear. The NY Times study, however, seems a bit clearer and more reliable. That being said is grazed the same as shot, or should it still be shot at and grazed? Wikipedia defines gunshot wound as penetrating. It still really begs the question as to why the FBI Director, a Trump appointee, would be so vague and why they don't release the records about the wound. Oghma6 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 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.

    A separate controversy section at Nijisanji

    Hello, folks. A recent edit at Nijisanji placed a portion of material from the history section into a new controversy section. I undid this, as I thought the change made the article less neutral, citing WP:STRUCTURE. The controversy section was reintroduced in this edit, with part of the rationale posted on my talk page. Here is an excerpt of that:

    Since the text describing Selen Tatsuki incident is longer than all the rest of 2023 and 2024 combined, breaking it out very much doesn't afford undue weight. [...] Nijisanji's actions did attract criticism and controversy [...] Also, hiding such a major and talked-about thing in an unformatted wall of text as if it was just another graduation of no note is not neutral, and could very well be used to whitewash and hide its importance.

    I have excised some of the message, but you can view the entire text in the link above.

    I am not well versed on Wikipedia's NPOV policies or how they should be applied in this instance, so I thought I'd ask for some input and a second opinion here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    There's some discretion in how to organize the information in an article, but in my opinion creating a criticism section in this fashion is inappropriate and makes the undue emphasis problem even worse. This needs to be cleaned up so the whole situation is explained in one or two concise paragraphs in the history section. Highlighting controversies because they're controversies definitely violates neutral point of view. Pinging Mathrick, the user being quoted here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Thanks for the input, a couple questions here:
    • At which point, and by what criteria, does it become not "undue emphasis"? Plenty of articles have a controversy section, rightly so in my opinion; what separates them from those that shouldn't have it? If the company going into damage control mode and spending a good chunk of their communications on assuring everyone they're not villains isn't sufficient evidence of genuine controversy, then what is?
    • Or are you saying that a controversy section always violates NPOV, in any article? In which case, I respectfully disagree, as does a lot of existing Wikipedia practice.
    • You said it makes the "undue emphasis problem even worse" -- does that mean the article before my edit had an undue emphasis on Selen Tatsuki's termination already? If so, I must strongly disagree with that opinion.
    • Would moving the Selen Tatsuki termination content back to the history section, but giving it a separate sub-section heading be an acceptable solution to you? I'd be fine with that. But if the idea is that it must not be highlighted in any way and be delegated to nothing more than a paragraph that doesn't stand out from its surroundings in any way, then again I strongly disagree. It's in the company's interest to make it be just a business event like any other, but it's very clear from both the community reaction and the content of what apparently transpired (such as the allegations that she was fired whilst recovering from a suicide attempt) that it wasn't. Treating it as business as usual is nothing more than taking the company's stance and helping them whitewash the whole thing, which certainly isn't neutral.
    mathrick (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    WP:CSECTION provides some good reasoning to avoid using a giant "Criticism" section for articles too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Pariah state

    There's a dispute at pariah state that needs the community to weigh in. Editors are going back and forth on whether to include a list of countries that are pariah states, and there's a map at the top of the article which is sourced to the article's list. Many of the sources used in the article are unreliable or opinion sources. Pinging the recent participants: Skitash, Vpab15, Spymaster Cosades, Zinderboff, as well as WikiMacaroons who brought this to my attention. Personally I'd be willing to rewrite this entirely similarly to how I did with Military dictatorship (which was originally dominated by a list like this), but right now there's some conflict that needs to be resolved. Also see Talk:Pariah state, where several discussions about the list have occurred. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    It is astonishing when editors insist on including items on qualitative lists like these when there aren't RS using the term in question in black and white. Remsense ‥ 论 01:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    As I mentioned to Thebiguglyalien, the idea of a list of Pariah states on its own doesn't seem objectionable. However, a map at the top of the article implies the term is clearly defined and that an objective list of countries that fit into the category can be made, an idea which the article itself debunks. In reality, the term is vague and undefined. As an example, on this article, measuring diversity in a country is seen through the lens of a particular study. An inconclusive deletion discussion in 2012 pointed out that the article does not suggest diversity is something that can be definitively measured. I think the article could do well to list some pariah states based on some of the individual definitions that it illustrates, but not present it misleadingly as something that can be defined so easily. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 01:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Let's assume there are clear criteria: even so, a characterization based on those criteria that is not itself reflected in sources is still clearly improper synthesis, and therefore original research. Remsense ‥ 论 01:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Great point, I haven’t checked to see if the sources have specifically named pariah states based on their criteria. Would it be appropriate to have headings for countries that have been widely considered by UN nations/prominent political analysts to be pariah states, e.g, South Africa during Apartheid? WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 19:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    i mean having a section of states that have been argued to be pariah states is useful and i think the article has it, as long as we do wiki voice.
    going back to original point,idk if doing an authoritative map is useful at all Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    I usually do not think global maps are useful in cases like these; the presentation provides no advantages other than a reminder of where certain countries are, while having massive disadvantages like certain states being too small or ambiguous to easily identify without a lot of fiddling. To put a finer point on it, much of the time world maps seem to insinuate there's some value added, that they're implying some larger point about geopolitics vs. what data is being presented ("isn't it funny that all the X countries are Y" etc.), but this is almost always uncited and not staed, and almost never has real encyclopedic merit imo. Remsense ‥ 论 21:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Harresment

    Will we have to PP this page too? Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Discussing whether Len Blavatnik is an oligarch or not

    See Talk:Len Blavatnik#NPOV_problems_in_the_Intro_and_Sanctions_sections but been having discussion with @C at Access. We are trying to discuss how due it is to discuss if Len is oligarch... possibly could belong on WP:BLPN. In general, trying to figure out if there is WP:SYNTH when discussing this, and whether sanctions against him by zelensky would be related to ruso-ukraine war.

    Of note, C has openly disclosed a COI as required.

    Would like another opinion on this, especially as many media sources have indicated Blavatnik has personally gone to great lengths to avoid accusations of being connected to /being a russian oligarch. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Talk:Zionism

    There are several robust discussions on this page about the balance and appropriate range of sources to use, and I think they could use wider input. Andre🚐 17:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Knock it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    I think the existing input is just fine, it's just you are not happy with the direction is all. And it's not an NPOV issue. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    This board isn't a good place for an involved editor with an ad hominem. For those of us not familiar with the issue, do you have any substantive information to share? SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    Do you? Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
    You could just do what the OP asked and go look at the page, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Sharjah Archaeology Museum

    The Sharjah Archaeology Museum has interesting stuff in its collection, but the Wikipedia article is not great. I removed some promo, but not all. Polygnotus (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1248149546"