Pyrrho the Skipper (talk | contribs) Anthony Summers |
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) →Talk:Pregnancy: new section Tag: New topic |
||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
[[Anthony Summers]] was brought to FTN for promotion of fringe, and when I reviewed it, I ended up converting the [[Anthony_Summers#Books|book section]] into a simple bibliography in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Summers&oldid=1118416397 this edit], which seemed more appropriate for the article, and less promotional. It was reverted, and there is now a discussion on the Talk Page that could use more eyes. [[User:Pyrrho the Skipper|Pyrrho the Skipper]] ([[User talk:Pyrrho the Skipper|talk]]) 18:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
[[Anthony Summers]] was brought to FTN for promotion of fringe, and when I reviewed it, I ended up converting the [[Anthony_Summers#Books|book section]] into a simple bibliography in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Summers&oldid=1118416397 this edit], which seemed more appropriate for the article, and less promotional. It was reverted, and there is now a discussion on the Talk Page that could use more eyes. [[User:Pyrrho the Skipper|Pyrrho the Skipper]] ([[User talk:Pyrrho the Skipper|talk]]) 18:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
== [[Talk:Pregnancy]] == |
|||
Based on the sequence of the !voting by new contributors, the POV balance among contributors to a discussion of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pregnancy#Transgender_in_lead the mention of Transgender pregnancy in the lead] is somewhat questionable. Unjaded viewpoints would be welcome. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:23, 27 October 2022
Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Some background here. During the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin, there was some very suspicious looking single-purpose account editing that was consistently adding negative information to the pages of candidates Sarah Godlewski and Alex Lasry. For example, this Milwaukee area IP and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geeky1127/Archive this whole sock puppet situation. This type of SPA editing did not occur on Mandela Barnes. Now the Barnes article is being stuffed full of content like this and this, that really belongs at 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin, and assiduously scrubbed of any content that can be interpreted to be remotely controversial or critical of Barnes. See this, this, and this. Election season is dumb. More uninvolved eyes on this article would be good. See Talk:Mandela Barnes#Personal life section for existing talk page discussion. Basically, a lot of arguments about WP:UNDUE are being made, and the question at hand is, is content like this DUE if content like this is not? Marquardtika (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Here's another example. I understand there's arguments to be made about what weight to give various controversies and criticisms with regards to details and length within the page. But when AP and NYT and other reliable sources are reporting on those controversies (however petty they may have originally been), Wikipedia should at least say that the controversies exist and link to the sources, rather than delete the content and the sources. BBQboffin (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- IMO, the endorsements are somewhat DUE but I agree that much of the content belongs on 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin and not the BLP. I'm going to look at the edit history and see if semi-protection is warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to make a note here that I believe the rules of this noticeboard: "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion has not been met." Neither myself, Andrevan, @Tchouppy, or @Glinden were notified of this conversation going on within this thread.Andrevan and myself were linked to in edits within this thread. The other two are linked in more recent conversations on the talk page. Some edits also seem to be calling out users within the edit summary, rather than focusing on the content. Wozal (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC).
People Magazine reliablity?
I hope this is the right place to ask this, but I see the consensus is that people magazine is considered reliable , however when it comes to things such as an actor's DOB or age, should that be used as a source? I'm asking because I've noticed in past articles from them, they had an actor's age listed because that was the age that a bunch of other sites had down. Laverne Cox, Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastian for instance. Here's a few examples.
https://people.com/tv/laverne-cox-orange-is-the-new-black-star-on-violent-past-visionary-present/ https://people.com/tv/emmys-2014-laverne-cox-makes-history/ https://people.com/movies/octavia-spencer-ma-trailer-creepy-horror/ https://people.com/awards/golden-globes-2012-jessica-chastain-on-her-success/
None of the ages listed for the actresses in these articles were the correct ones at the time they were published. Which gives the impression that the writers were web scraping them from sites like IMDB or Google and weren't doing any fact checking. Kcj5062 (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Lanfranco Cirillo, the architect of Putin’s Palace and homes for various oligarchs now has an article. The article was put into article space by an editor that isn’t observing neutrality as none of Cirillo’s various scandals and legal issues are mentioned. I would appreciate some eyes on the article. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
QNet NPOV
Qnet’s page has seen a years-long war between various editors that has left it in a paralyzed and far-from-neutral state. Reading the page as a whole, it skews incredibly negative and suffers from many of the issues mentioned in WP:NPOV (states opinions as facts, using judgmental language, lack of balance, among others). Many of these issues stem from edits made by a now-banned editor, Jitumoni1995, who published more than 50% of this article from 2016-2019. They made a total of 222 total edits to the page. Since that single purpose account (WP:SPA) engaged in WP:DISRUPTIVE, no effort appears to have been made on the page to properly review it for neutrality issues.
While this is a COI-declared account, I am following COI guidelines by refraining from making direct edits and utilizing the Talk page as my primary means of engagement. That said, I sincerely believe that the state of the page runs afoul of Wikipedia’s “non-negotiable” principles of WP:NPOV. I acknowledge that looking at the edit history, this page appears to have been bombarded by many people with anti- QNET biases and a small number of people with pro-QNET biases. I certainly do not seek for the page to become WP:PROMO whatsoever. I merely seek to have fresh eyes address the overall status of a page that was not appropriately assessed for neutrality in the wake of the disruptive editing.
I have posted to the Talk Page to request feedback on the situation and edits to the page (specifically to the Controversy section) that align with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines, but I have not received any concrete responses. I was hoping to garner more feedback on this noticeboard.
I’d like the entirety of the page, but more specifically, the controversy section to be reviewed, given the context through which a lot of the content was published. As for a few specific examples of where this lack of neutrality exists throughout the page:
Intro & History
The opening paragraphs set the tone that this is not an NPOV page. The second paragraph states opinion as fact when it says that QNET “has been charged as a ponzi scheme in countries like India”. The sources cited do not make mention of the term “ponzi scheme” and its use in the introduction of the article is pejorative and states seriously contested assertions as fact.
“Qnet changed its name repeatedly and launched at least 76 companies (as per the Bombay High court order of May 2016), often to sell lesser-known products manufactured by smaller companies using a multi-level marketing/direct sales model.[31](subscription required) Common people (IR in Qnet parlance) were taught to sell these products (often through workshops).[citation needed] Sellers earned commissions for each new seller / buyer brought into the fold.[citation needed].” (The information on this page is not found in the cited document, and the document is uploaded by an organization that multiple Wikipedia contributors agree is unreliable.)(See talk page request here.)
“It was sued by Egypt, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka for allegedly operating a product-based pyramid scheme. The company and its franchise Vihaan are under investigation in India.” (This is false, unsupported, and misleading. QuestNet was the entity in question. Egypt didn’t sue anyone, a private religious group issued a decree stating the activities were haram. QNet was able to obtain a decree from a different religious group called ‘Dar illfta’, that stated that QNet activities were in compliance with sharia law, and hence not haram. Source is here.)(See my edit request from June, here.)
Business model
The second paragraph of this section states opinion as fact. Nowhere in the citation associated with this paragraph do any government entities describe the business as a “pyramid scheme.” It’s merely the opinion of an author (writing in an opinion piece whose neutrality and reputability we have previously raised here).
Controversies
This section suffers from the most blatant violations of the NPOV policy on Wikipedia. This section was built by the above-mentioned Jitumoni1995 account and is full of edits which use judgmental language, state opinion as fact, and do nothing to further the balance of neutrality of the page. We indicate a few specific instances below, but as mentioned above, this whole section really warrants a full review that it never received after the disruptive editor built it from scratch. The edits made to this section after Jitumoni1995’s ban not only haven’t shown that a review has been done, but have only stacked on additional biased edits that have tilted this page out of a neutral balance.
“It has faced litigation in many countries and hundreds of IRs working for it and/or its many subsidiaries have been arrested.” (Written judgementally and doesn’t have a citation associated with it)
“India declared both Goldquest and Questnet to be Ponzi scheme companies.” (None of the associated sources ‘declare’ these entities to be Ponzi schemes)
“ The same year, Syria shut down QuestNet for violating its commercial registration, stating that the company had operated a pyramid scheme and withdrawn billions of Syrian pounds from the country, while paying few taxes.” (The way this is written doesn’t reflect the text in the associated citation).
“Over 100 people from Togo became victim to a big scam called QNET” (Judgmental language that isn’t even supported with the associated citation)
There are also multiple instances of Jitumoni1995 using a very controversial source to cite a handful of their edits:
Example 1 (Use of discredited Source to Negatively Impact QNet)
Example 2 (Large Reversion of Sourced Content)
Example 3 (Unreliable Blogs as References)
With all of this context in mind, I ask that editors participate in conversations around this content and this editor, and make neutralizing edits to the page that are aligned with reliable sources and Wikipedia’s guidelines. QNetLars (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
NPOV/ COI issue
Hello,
I have posted previously about the 1xbet page’s NPOV/COI issue on its talk page and also the neutral point of view noticeboard. This resulted in some changes, but I believe the violation still stands.
The page comes across as being written with an exclusively negative bias. This is highlighted when making a comparison with other pages within the same industry, as it omits sections that are commonly found and features mostly only negative ones. I believe that the controversies should remain to a more reasonable extent but should be placed into one controversy section like the other pages in the same industry.
Since the page’s inception, there is evidence that points to the page creator having a conflict of interest in the form of a vendetta against the company. The first red flag is that the user appears to edit this page exclusively. In addition to this, the continued sentiment of these contributions appears to be negative and biased against the company. They have also left a comment on the talk page stating ‘1xbet bankrupt? My work is done here.’ which implies that the user had a planned agenda.
After a quick search online, I was able to find a few sources that reference information about the company - e.g. length of operation, countries/languages they service, etc. - that is not on the current version of the page. Surely this type of information should be included on the page too?
Some examples of sources I found:
https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/news/1263451/fc-barcelona-adds-1xbet-as-a-new-global-partner
https://focusgn.com/1xbet-becomes-official-betting-partner-of-13-football-tournaments
Please let me know what you think! Melancholyhelper (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- I assume your complaint is about neutrality of our article on 1xBet. Though you have posted at Talk:1xBet you did not provide any example of the kind of change you would support. Clearly the company has had various kinds of trouble. The article has sections called 'Criminal investigation' and 'Bankruptcy'. The legal troubles of 1xBet should be described neutrally. Your above links suggest that 1xBet has been able to sign up additional partners. What, if anything, does signing up additional partners have to do with 1xBet's legal troubles? EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi User:EdJohnston,
- I believe the reference links I provided show that 1xBet are partnered with some of the biggest sporting organisations in the world, such as Barcelona, PSG and LOSC Lille. However, the 1xBet Wikipedia page is not reflective of this, instead portraying the company as a criminal organisation. The point I am making with such examples is that highly reputable sports teams would not be partnering with 1xBet if they were a criminal organisation.
- In its current incarnation, the page's contents and its layout are both negatively biased; therefore, I do not think it complies with NPOV guidelines. For a neutral representation, I believe the page should be set out the same as others within the same industry. For example, Betfair and Paddy Power have sections regarding company history and information; this is then followed by criticisms and issues in just one section, not split out into 3-4 separate criticism sections as 1xBet’s page currently is. Please let me know your thoughts.Melancholyhelper (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think deletions are problematic as they mostly were removals of WP:ROUTINE. I'd think that company history should be focused on more important events than routine partnerships and marketing campaigns.
- At the same time, tone and phrasing of the article do strike me as biased.
- 1.
As of January 2022, 1xBet no longer appears to be located in Curaçao after filing for bankruptcy
in the lead doesn't appear to have a reference or obvious source in the article text. The statement sounds very odd as it'd be unusual for a Curacao-licensed gaming company to actually be located there not on paper in the first place. - 2.
world's most controversial betting firms
doesn't seem to be sourced. - 3. The Russian criminal case, as well as a lawsuit, are mentioned multiple times but aren't described, implicitly alluding to the alleged refusals to pay by the company. They're not: the case and lawsuit are for running gaming business overseas without Russian 'licensing' (which, to my understanding, is available to few firms close to the 'right' people and is very different from UK or Curacao licensing for example) and for bypassing Russian government Internet firewall (the same one as in Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia). PaulT2022 (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi User:PaulT2022, Thank you for your reply.
- I agree with your point that there appears to be a biased tone to the article. To help resolve this issue, what do you think about collapsing the four 'controversial' sections into one ‘Controversies’ section with sub-headings?
- I also agree with your point that the company history needs to be built out to focus on important events. Do you believe adding sources such as the following would be appropriate?:
- https://redwinners.com/1xbet-history/
- https://1x2bookmaker.com/1xbet-brands-history/
- https://www.onlinebettingacademy.com/blog/2020/08/1xbet-in-expansion
- https://www.casino-review.co/1xbet-eyes-latam-expansion-after-mexico-success-story/
- https://sbcamericas.com/2020/03/30/1xbet-confirms-mexican-expansion-following-license-approval/
- Thanks for your input Melancholyhelper (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think the biggest challenge is apparent lack of independent coverage of 1xBet that would meet Wikipedia sourcing requirements. For example, the first two links look like affiliate websites, the rest seem to be based on a press-release and a company spokesperson and, what's worse, it's mostly WP:CRYSTAL predictions (how the company will develop in future) and not even claims of facts. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- A rewrite with an eye towards Summarization is probably the answer to this. We don’t want to leave out any of the negatives, but we don’t need to spend as much article space describing each in detail. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The Heat article
I was invited to participate in a RfC about the Heat article (because I enlisted myself to help in RfCs.) I only have a general interest in the subject, but I always take seriously the RfCs in which I help : I follow carefully the talk page and participate in the discussions. I believe this article requires the attention of more people. Here is the first paragraph of the lead:
In thermodynamics, heat is defined as the form of energy crossing the boundary of a thermodynamic system by virtue of a temperature difference across the boundary. A thermodynamic system does not contain heat. Nevertheless, the term is also often used to refer to the thermal energy contained in a system as a component of its internal energy, and that is reflected in the temperature of the system. For both uses of the term, heat is a form of energy.
There is an undue weight on a terminological issue. It's true to a large degree that, in thermodynamics, the definition of heat is energy in transfer, but it's a technical point that is not so important for the lead. It's just that when the description of a thermodynamic process involves both the internal energy of the system and the thermal energy in and out of the system, we do not want to use the same term for the internal energy of the system and the energy, the heat, that is transferred in and out of the system. But this convenient terminological convention does not deserve so much emphasis in the lead. At the least one editor over there sees it as a fundamental aspect of thermodynamics, but it's only a convenient convention, which only makes sense in a technical context. There is even another complete paragraph on this in the lead. When Feynman wants to explain heat, he would say that it is the jiggling of the atoms within the system. Even when heat transfer in or out of a system is explained, even though the internal energy of the system is not called heat, it's very common to consider that the heat goes out of the system into a heat reservoir or out of a heat reservoir into the system. I am not saying this to contradict the definition. The technical definition of heat as energy in transfer is fine, because we already have the term internal energy for the energy stored in the system. But insisting on that definition in the lead seems undue weight to me. I think I made a mistake in arguing with some editors over there, because I might have reinforced their need to protect this definition. One of them clearly see himself as the protector of what he considers the universally rigorous definition
. So, I decided to stop following the Heat article, because the discussion is not working at all over there, but that I should at the least mention the issue here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Taiwan as a Province of the People's Republic of China
I recently nominated Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China for deletion [1] as a WP:POVFORK of Taiwan, China and Political status of Taiwan and One-China policy and tagged the lead sentence with Citation Needed label [2]. The lead statement is a claim of objective truth, stating (in WP:WIKIVOICE) that Taiwan is a Province of the People's Republic of China, citing a WP:PRIMARY source (the constitution of the People's Republic of China). I would appreciate more participation from editors in the deletion discussion about alternative page names [3], and in the talk page discussions to determine how the claim should be covered in the lead sentence [4]. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Republics of Russia
More eyes needed at Republics of Russia. Editor has been repeatedly adding Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine into the infobox. The new editor has explicitly claimed that the only viewpoint to be represented in the article is that of "Russian law". Cambial — foliar❧ 20:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I absolutely did not say that that's the only viewpoint to be represented. My edits include notes that they are disputed, just as Crimea has on that page for years. eduardog3000 (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
This one's been problematic for almost a decade, but remains promotional, with way too much reliance on SPS. I have tried to tag it for the NPOV problems, and twice been reverted. Orange Mike | Talk 13:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- The editor who reverted you said you should create a discussion thread on the talk page first, since the current discussions are stale. it doesn't seem that anyone is protecting the current version, just that no one has bothered to improve it.
- You should go ahead and re-write the article and come back if you find any resistance. TFD (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. The page is promotional as is the case with many of our Austrian School-related articles. I wouldn't be surprised if you get pushback from true believers, but we can address that if/when it happens. In the meantime I've added it to my watchlist. Generalrelative (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Dispute about a sentence from Republican Party (United States)
The last sentence of Republican Party (United States)#Voting rights currently states:
Opponents argue that the efforts amount to voter suppression,[1] are intended to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people who vote,[2] and would disproportionately affect minority voters.[3]
Sources
|
---|
|
However, none of the three sources used here describe these impacts to be the argument of opponents, they all state them as simple facts. See talk page for further discussion.
Is this sentence a verifiability/NPOV violation as it stands? ––FormalDude (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- It should be patently obvious that these need to be put in the form of claims (that is, as currently given) even if the sources assert them as facts, otherwise we are readily accepting one side of the argument as the truth and treating the other side as opinion. That's an outright NPOV violation. Masem (t) 02:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- It would be an NPOV violation if we have counterbalancing sources that claim that's not the case. Do those sources exist? If not, the NPOV violation would be putting our thumb on the scale rather than accepting the claims of the sources. Loki (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly what Loki said. The sources used for the supporters positions specifically attribute those statements to the supporters. We must have the same verification standards for the opponents statements or it is false balance. For us to make the claim in this sentence, we needs sources that specifically attribute it to the opponents position. We follow what reliable sources report, and staying true to the sources is certainly not readily accepting one side over the other. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is absolutely wrong. WP:YESPOV says we should not always take what sources say as the word of god, but instead should frame statements of opinion or claims with attribution, even if the sources do not dress up the statements as opinions or claims.
- The stance that we must report how RS report it, or that there are no other counter sources out there that can be used to present denial to these claims, particularly, when we are talking, within the framework of US politics, a stance related to the GOP which is absolutely not a fringe position, is not compatible with writing a neutral encyclopedia. And you already have text in that same paragraph that explains the GOP stance, expressed as claims, so to present the opposition position as fact is blatantly not neutral. You are following what the given RSes report, just with the required aspects of attribution to avoid picking a side in the controversy related to the GOP's voting rights policy. This is something that is very very easy to take the "right" side (that is, the anti-GOP position) and seemingly backed by reliable media, but we simply cannot have the essence of taking a side in a debate that has two major sides to it and yet to proven out in practice. Masem (t) 03:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- To add another point, nearly all the sources here (as well as that talk page) all talk in terms of "could" or "would", which are strong claims of what could happen in the future, not what will happen. It would be yet another to drop the "Opponents argue" as that would leave a future-facing statement as "fact" in Wikivoice, when no one has no idea of what will actually happen. So these have to be taken as claims of what will be happening in the future and thus presented with some type of attribution, even if it just "Opponents argue..." (ETA) If we were talking known documented (quantified) effects of GOP voting policies that since have been shown to curtail voting rights, backed by RSes even though we'd may have GOP supports claiming they did otherwise, that would be something we'd write as fact for the past tense and leave the GOP stance as assertions. Masem (t) 03:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- The sources are not speculating about something that will occur in the future. The voter suppression tactics have been occurring for a long time, and it's well known that they have tended to particularly affect minorities. So the sources are just making the obvious deduction that the future effects of those tactics will be similar to the effects in the past. That's not speculation. NightHeron (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC) An analogy: Would we insert "Opponents of anti-vaxxers argue that" in front of "more widespread vaccination would reduce the death rate from covid" on the grounds that this is speculation about the future rather than a fact about the past? NightHeron (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- With the COVID part, there is certainly (within my best guess) sources from academic experts that have the agreement of the medical community that vaccinations reduce its spread, and thus from the bounds of MEDRS, that is something we can report as medical/scientific fact. In the counter-counter-example, if a new virus no one has yet had a chance to study made a similar pandemic concern, we could not state as fact that vaccines would stop its spread, though can definitely include how medical experts anticipate a vaccine would help. Masem (t) 12:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly my point. Voter suppression efforts are not like a new virus. They're like a virus (covid or flu) that has been around for enough time so that the efficacy of vaccines is a fact, not a speculation. If voter suppression were new and their effects were uncertain, your argument above would have weight. NightHeron (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Then the sentence should be citing reports and journal articles from the poly-sci world that explain something like "The GOP's stance on voting rights have been shown to led to voter suppression, etc...", with inclusion of documented cases (and having worked on one the gerrymandering articles, this seems like it should rather easy to do) The sources being used are forward-looking and are not sufficient to discuss what has happened in the past. Masem (t) 12:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly my point. Voter suppression efforts are not like a new virus. They're like a virus (covid or flu) that has been around for enough time so that the efficacy of vaccines is a fact, not a speculation. If voter suppression were new and their effects were uncertain, your argument above would have weight. NightHeron (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- With the COVID part, there is certainly (within my best guess) sources from academic experts that have the agreement of the medical community that vaccinations reduce its spread, and thus from the bounds of MEDRS, that is something we can report as medical/scientific fact. In the counter-counter-example, if a new virus no one has yet had a chance to study made a similar pandemic concern, we could not state as fact that vaccines would stop its spread, though can definitely include how medical experts anticipate a vaccine would help. Masem (t) 12:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- The sources are not speculating about something that will occur in the future. The voter suppression tactics have been occurring for a long time, and it's well known that they have tended to particularly affect minorities. So the sources are just making the obvious deduction that the future effects of those tactics will be similar to the effects in the past. That's not speculation. NightHeron (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC) An analogy: Would we insert "Opponents of anti-vaxxers argue that" in front of "more widespread vaccination would reduce the death rate from covid" on the grounds that this is speculation about the future rather than a fact about the past? NightHeron (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- To add another point, nearly all the sources here (as well as that talk page) all talk in terms of "could" or "would", which are strong claims of what could happen in the future, not what will happen. It would be yet another to drop the "Opponents argue" as that would leave a future-facing statement as "fact" in Wikivoice, when no one has no idea of what will actually happen. So these have to be taken as claims of what will be happening in the future and thus presented with some type of attribution, even if it just "Opponents argue..." (ETA) If we were talking known documented (quantified) effects of GOP voting policies that since have been shown to curtail voting rights, backed by RSes even though we'd may have GOP supports claiming they did otherwise, that would be something we'd write as fact for the past tense and leave the GOP stance as assertions. Masem (t) 03:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect that there are stronger sources on the subject, such that citing them will make the resolution of this dispute self evident. But at any rate, the question for NPOV is whether there are sources to the contrary -- like MAGAs with guns at voter locations are just there to hunt pheasants or whatnot. SPECIFICO talk 12:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- There are actually contrary sources - in the article present, this line follows a statement attributed to supporters of the GOP voting stance of what the intent of these policies are to do (eg reduce fraud, etc.), and then this line comes to counter that. That's the "sources to the contrary". Masem (t) 12:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not being American I don't have a huge amount of familarity with this issue. But as far as I can see the "sources to the contrary" you refer to don't pseak in their own voice, they simply quote what Republicans have claimed i.e. no WP:RS actaully make those claims. The sources at the end of the paragraph make the claims in their own voice. As they are WP:RS, I would say that means the text should read "Republicans assert X but Y is the case". That would be the NPOV requirement. To change that you would need to produce WP:RS supporting X and, subject to WP:DUE being satisfied, that would be the way to make it read "Some say X, others Y". Do you have WP:RS that claim in their own voice that X is the case? DeCausa (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- The claim of widespread voter fraud has been shown in RS to be a lie. A thief can say "my intent in robbing the cash register was to give money to charity", but implausible statements about intent don't count for much.NightHeron (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- WP is neutral and amoral, so we don't care that the "protecting voter fraud" reasoning has been proven wrong, just that that is one of the reasons thats RSes point out that supporters of the GOP policy say. What then of course makes sense is to back the following thought, showing that the fraud claim is a lie, with factual studies and analysis from RSes based on what has happened that demonstrates that. Masem (t) 13:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Have they been shown to be a lie? I know they have said the cases of someone being convicted of fraudulently voting under someone else's name have amounted to something like 31 proven cases but that isn't the same thing as proving no legitimate issue is at play. We need to be impartial in our wording, something that is an issue in this section. The article on Voter identification laws suggests that IDs are the norm in most countries and the US may be more laxed vs others. The various voter laws are also concerned with ballot harvesting which has seen recent prosecutions. The problem with the while section it's of reads like something written by people who oppose these actions vs those who are removed from the content. I understand CATO isn't an unbiased source but they do raise legitimate issues regarding ballot harvesting [5]. Treating this topic like a pure negative by the GOP is far from IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- But Masem, those denials are ridiculous equivocations and the sort of thing that lead editors rightly to cite WP:MANDY etc. SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is not a MANDY case. No allegations have been made. The article is presenting the platform of the GOP, thus section about its voting stance. Stating what supporters of the GOP claim these policies do is absolutely expected, as well as any past studies that provide countering evidence to this. Masem (t) 13:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- I provided five academic sources that provide such evidence here. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- In the real world as it's currently constituted, allegations, concerns, or suspiciouns of voter fraud are resolved by a robust system of apolitical civil service, public observation, and judicial review. Virtually all the recent Republican claims of voter fraud -- and certainly the claims that it is rampant and corrupting the outcomes of elections -- have failed to substantiate the Republican narratives or provide any rational basis for the "reforms" they are pursuing. Masem, what I tried to suggest is consistent with your approach. Currently RS do indicate that the Republican denials and framing of their suppression agenda are MANDY or "MANDY-adjacent", which is an essay that may be coming attractions for 2023. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you frame it that through RSes, the statement "The GOP claims their approach to voting regulation is to prevent voter fraud" is absolutely backed by numerous sources (writing on criticism of the GOP). But by the same manner, the statement "The GOP approach to voting regulations is to prevent voter fraud", is as said not backed at all by RSes (only by the GOP's own literature) and thus cannot be included.
- Now the fact that tons of RSes have pointed out that the GOP's claim of voter fraud are dubious, that puts it past MANDY. We do not need to drudge through the GOP statements when we have lots of RSes that show this, as well as the explanations of why the voting fraud claim is dubious and that the GOP's intents would have effects on voting rights. Most of what I know exists now are projections and predictions if those effects, which per CRYSTAL should be kept put of wikivoice (use attribution), but we should also be citing any academic analysis that has shown these effects from the past and include that.
- It is really really easy to try to handwave away the GOP's stance here given how dismissive the media covers it, (and personally agree that the GOP do pose significant dangers to voting rights) but we still need to write from a neutral angle and not let those prejudices slip in. We absolutely should frame the GOP arguments as claims, and we should include counterpoint against those claims, though be careful to distinguish from proven counterarguments and ones that are speculative. Masem (t) 16:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is not a MANDY case. No allegations have been made. The article is presenting the platform of the GOP, thus section about its voting stance. Stating what supporters of the GOP claim these policies do is absolutely expected, as well as any past studies that provide countering evidence to this. Masem (t) 13:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- There are actually contrary sources - in the article present, this line follows a statement attributed to supporters of the GOP voting stance of what the intent of these policies are to do (eg reduce fraud, etc.), and then this line comes to counter that. That's the "sources to the contrary". Masem (t) 12:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- My concern is the implication that this is unique to the Republican Party when in fact it is common to both. Where the Democratic Party is strong for example, they suppress votes of minorities, young people and the poor, but oppose this type of suppression where the Republicans are competitive. See for example "The Blue States That Make It Hardest to Vote" in The Atlantic. But I agree that the claim that it is not suppression, but an attempt to stop voter fraud, has no support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Reading through this, I think there are legitimate concerns at both ends here. Arguments about the use of voter security as an excuse to carry out voter suppression are well documented in RS and this is pretty clearly the most common rebuttal to the Republican Party's proposed policies. I think few would argue that it's not what opponents say, regardless of whether they agree with it. But at the same time, there are legitimate WP:NPOV and possibly WP:HOWEVER concerns in challenging policy positions on an article if done in a way that presents the challenge as preferable or more authoritative. The use of sources like Mother Jones and The Nation exacerbate these concerns considerably, as these are sources that are clearly intended to portray the policy in a negative light. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
We're talking about three separate claims as though they're all the same.the efforts amount to voter suppression
and are intended to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people who vote
probably shouldn't be framed as simply "Republicans are engaged in voter suppression, intending to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people to vote" but it's also not just "opponents" who say this. There are many instances of Republicans saying as much (without calling it "voter supression"). The "voter suppression" characterization should remain attributed to either specific or generalized parties (e.g. "characterized as voter suppression by a range of journalists and academics"), but there are plenty of sources to cite establishing that (a) Republicans believe that certain kinds of voting restrictions benefit them, and that (b) they have undertaken to implement some of those restrictions. would disproportionately affect minority voters
doesn't have to be attributed because there's research to back this up -- just cite that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
User:Nowhere2Go, a single-purpose account, keeps removing sourced and cited content from the lede of the SBC article, arguing that the SBC doesn't do that anymore (so ugly stuff that happened within my lifetime as a Southern Baptist should be buried in the past history); and something about "heresy" I didn't understand; and besides, accusations did not all lead to convictions, so they don't count. Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- It seems due to include in the lead when considering the organisation holistically in its historical context, but if the SBC has repudiated white supremacy and its past treatment of black people, then that should probably be mentioned in the lead too. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Some of that history is necessary for the lede , but the lede goes so far into depth on it that it reads as if it is purposely preparing the reader to read the article as "they were bad before, now they claim they don't do that". Particularly in the order it gives. A sentence or two summarizing the negative facets of its origin is fair, and need to include modern revisionism (eg the 1995 resolution to separate itself from its past racism roots). Remember that wikivoice cannot judge or take stands on moral issues like racism, but we should be clear that because it was connected to racism it was perceived negatively, for example. Masem (t) 00:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Or, as an another point, anytime someone is loading up the lede with sources not reused in the body is a problem; the lede should reuse sources already incorporated in the body. Otherwise, it looks like you are striving to be as critical as possible of SBC. The past actions of the SBC should not be whitewashed, but the lede panders so much to coerce the reader to see the view "they are bad". Masem (t) 00:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Some of that history is necessary for the lede , but the lede goes so far into depth on it that it reads as if it is purposely preparing the reader to read the article as "they were bad before, now they claim they don't do that". Particularly in the order it gives. A sentence or two summarizing the negative facets of its origin is fair, and need to include modern revisionism (eg the 1995 resolution to separate itself from its past racism roots). Remember that wikivoice cannot judge or take stands on moral issues like racism, but we should be clear that because it was connected to racism it was perceived negatively, for example. Masem (t) 00:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia fasism definition is biased to favor Left dogma.
Waki Wiki says "Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology. Using Right or Left has nothing to do with fascism. The use of government power by either side to politically attack the other is fascism. Wikipedia is practicing fascism. You have disgraced yourselves. 174.73.179.101 (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- The overwhelming majority of high quality reliable academic sources discussing fascism describe it as a right wing or far right ideology. Accordingly, Wikipedia does as well. Can you bring forward reliable sources that disagree? Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Anthony Summers
Anthony Summers was brought to FTN for promotion of fringe, and when I reviewed it, I ended up converting the book section into a simple bibliography in this edit, which seemed more appropriate for the article, and less promotional. It was reverted, and there is now a discussion on the Talk Page that could use more eyes. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Based on the sequence of the !voting by new contributors, the POV balance among contributors to a discussion of the mention of Transgender pregnancy in the lead is somewhat questionable. Unjaded viewpoints would be welcome. Newimpartial (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)