Bon courage (talk | contribs) Restored revision 1181643600 by RudolfoMD (talk): Probably best not to close your own thread with a WP:LASTWORD |
Bon courage (talk | contribs) →Further reading: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 319: | Line 319: | ||
*:I did some research. <p>9 years ago, '''[[wmfblog:2014/06/16/change-terms-of-use-requirements-for-disclosure/|the Board of Directors acted to]] clarify and strengthen <u>the prohibition against concealing paid editing</u>'''.<p>Organizations, PERIOD, (including but by no means limited to "a governmental health agency or an NGO producing high-quality systematic reviews") are NOT exempt. It makes it crystal clear that a local guideline is NOT allowed to override this action. Proves I'm right that [[WP:MEDCOI]] cannot override the WMF with an effectively unqualified "Citing your own organization is generally acceptable" statement. If you (that is, anyone reading this) has been editing on organization time (with a narrow exception, i.e. for "[[side project time]]") since then (ca. 2014) and have violated the prohibition against concealing paid editing, well, I didn't determine exactly what you need to to to rectify. I suppose you would disclose now and ask what other rectification is needed. |
*:I did some research. <p>9 years ago, '''[[wmfblog:2014/06/16/change-terms-of-use-requirements-for-disclosure/|the Board of Directors acted to]] clarify and strengthen <u>the prohibition against concealing paid editing</u>'''.<p>Organizations, PERIOD, (including but by no means limited to "a governmental health agency or an NGO producing high-quality systematic reviews") are NOT exempt. It makes it crystal clear that a local guideline is NOT allowed to override this action. Proves I'm right that [[WP:MEDCOI]] cannot override the WMF with an effectively unqualified "Citing your own organization is generally acceptable" statement. If you (that is, anyone reading this) has been editing on organization time (with a narrow exception, i.e. for "[[side project time]]") since then (ca. 2014) and have violated the prohibition against concealing paid editing, well, I didn't determine exactly what you need to to to rectify. I suppose you would disclose now and ask what other rectification is needed. |
||
*:It seems you may need to review. But clearly this is going nowhere. BD, you're such a lawyer. [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 10:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC) |
*:It seems you may need to review. But clearly this is going nowhere. BD, you're such a lawyer. [[User:RudolfoMD|RudolfoMD]] ([[User talk:RudolfoMD|talk]]) 10:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::Concealed [[WP:PAID]] editing is prohibited and bad. That's not in dispute. But per [[WP:SELFCITE]] experts are not even prohibited from citing ''their own work'' for legitimate purposes, so it would seem very odd to have a prohibition on them citing the expertise from their wider organisation?! [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 10:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Israeli users on [[International School of Temple Arts]] (ISTA) == |
== Israeli users on [[International School of Temple Arts]] (ISTA) == |
Revision as of 10:18, 24 October 2023
Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Is anyone willing to improve this article? It is far from neutral. Plenty of criticism online; but none has made it into the article. Weird cult; which uses tactics similar to that of scientology. Has been mentioned here before:
See also WP:CRITS; its probably due to mention something in the lede. Polygnotus (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is undoubtedly correct to say that there is "plenty of criticism" of Landmark on the internet. Most of it is unsubstantiated gossip or rumour, and some is vindictive defamation. Very little of it passes muster as Reliable Source. The suggestion that it is a "Weird cult" is of course a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact. The assertion that "it uses tactics similar to Scientology" is factually inaccurate. Incidentally, there is also a great deal of enthusiastic endorsement of Landmark's programs on the internet (which is equally irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes). None of the three previous cases on the NPOV noticeboard that Polygnotus cited resulted in a conclusion that this article violated WP:NPOV in favour of Landmark (if anything, the reverse). DaveApter (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- You forgot to mention your COI. Polygnotus (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is undoubtedly correct to say that there is "plenty of criticism" of Landmark on the internet. Most of it is unsubstantiated gossip or rumour, and some is vindictive defamation. Very little of it passes muster as Reliable Source. The suggestion that it is a "Weird cult" is of course a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact. The assertion that "it uses tactics similar to Scientology" is factually inaccurate. Incidentally, there is also a great deal of enthusiastic endorsement of Landmark's programs on the internet (which is equally irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes). None of the three previous cases on the NPOV noticeboard that Polygnotus cited resulted in a conclusion that this article violated WP:NPOV in favour of Landmark (if anything, the reverse). DaveApter (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
It appears there are regular attempts to remove certain international assessment from the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians lead section so that it would present a particular POV. Recently, a United Nations asssessment report on the ground was removed and the related discussion has stalled, as it often happens. Earlier, a UNHCR assessment was also removed from the lead. This, I think, creates a WP:BALANCE issue where allegations of a war crime or crime against humanity from lesser-known legal experts are present (even though for such accusations a trial may be required in the first place), but assessments of the UN fact-finding mission on the ground and UNHCR are not. My alternative suggestion at talk was to move all opinions to the relevant section below, but looks like it didn't gain traction. Brandmeistertalk 07:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- My proposal for this, as I've been involved in the discussion, is to mention in the lead both the UN report and its criticism in RS, to put it in context. Agree that not having them is definitely a WP:BALANCE issue with the article. Having a section with all the reports, criticisms and assessments would also be an elegant solution too. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ocampo's opinion was also criticized. So I think it would be better to have all that in the article's body rather than lead. Brandmeistertalk 21:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- It seems like we're all on board to add all the information in the body rather than the lead then? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 21:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm for moving Ocampo to the article body - arguing on whether his opinion is more important than others in the lead is subjective. Brandmeistertalk 08:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ocampo isn't in the lede; the collective position of a number of experts, including his, is mentioned in
Faced with threats of genocide and ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan
, but we don't focus on his position although we provide it WP:DUE coverage in the body. BilledMammal (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)- Yes, and that makes a lot more sense. The lead is supposed to be a synthesis of the body. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 10:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ocampo isn't in the lede; the collective position of a number of experts, including his, is mentioned in
- Yes, I'm for moving Ocampo to the article body - arguing on whether his opinion is more important than others in the lead is subjective. Brandmeistertalk 08:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- The person in the article literally admits that he was appointed by the government of Azerbaijan, that’s definitely not a acceptable source, it’s also an opinion piece. TagaworShah (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I missed that, yeah it's definitely not an acceptable source in this case. I don't think it counts as an
independent expert legal assessment
as he claims while literally being hired by one of the parties. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 10:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- I missed that, yeah it's definitely not an acceptable source in this case. I don't think it counts as an
- No, and explained why in BLPN. Please leave each discussed topic to its board. - Kevo327 (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- It seems like we're all on board to add all the information in the body rather than the lead then? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 21:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ocampo's opinion was also criticized. So I think it would be better to have all that in the article's body rather than lead. Brandmeistertalk 21:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the information Brandmeister is trying to add to the lead, is not discussed at all in the body, he is not trying to add just any information of the UN report, but a specific line from the report that he interprets as denying any ethnic cleansing having occurred in the region. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarizes major points in the article, not introduces new information especially quotes. Now this specific quote is being wrongly interpreted, all it’s saying is that they did not hear any reports of such things, but multiple reliable sources have reported on such reports of violence towards civilians (such as BBC News, CTV News, and Bellingcat) and have criticized this report for coming after virtually the entire Armenian population has fled and not having access to any rural areas (such as The Guardian, OC Media, and the Armenian government). This information belongs in the body where it can be given proper in-depth context, not the lead section, there is an entire subsection of the body related to war crime allegations which is why a sentence summarizing that appears in the lead as well as Azerbaijan’s denial of such claims. Maybe if the specific quote about ethnic cleansing is covered in more reliable sources it can be have due weight by us expanding on it in the body, but as of now, that quote is barely being reported or given any notice because it basically says nothing except they didn’t hear anything. This is a case of Wikipedia:UNDUE. TagaworShah (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- fully agreed JM2023 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Fully agree that, if it is mentioned in the lead, I expect it to be discussed in the body to a major extent. I based my support of "mention both the UN report and its criticism in the lead" on the assumption that it would be expanded on in the body, but yes that feels obvious. In any case, it feels like writing a paragraph in the body about this, and thus putting the quote in its in-depth context, should be the priority, and then we can see if it can (and should) be easily summarized in the lead. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 21:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agree, WP:UNDUE for lead, was wrongly interpreted in the first place, less coverage than even the USAID which also isn't in lead. And as it's currently stated in the body, there is no mention of the UN criticism for arriving when virtually no residents were left, this should be mentioned in the article. - Kevo327 (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I have created some citations for those sources and began incorporating them into the article. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
As the UN was the only international body that inspected the situation in place, I think that their assessment should definitely be reflected in the lead. It is a supranational body that is qualified to make assessments of this kind. Grandmaster 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a true UN mission however, it was a mission by the Azerbaijan office of the UN. The assessment by Moreno Ocampo remains the most significant, because he is one of the most qualified experts and is impartial. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Grandmaster's point above. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The intro has changed many times with both left and right wing bias. In addition I have added {POV} due to a large discussion ongoing about the bias of the article. See examples, 1 2 3 there are many more examples but there are some of the bigger ones. Ironically while requesting for protection, this there was another example of a reason for protection. In addition a major discussion is ongoing on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuxembourgLover (talk • contribs)
- Who are you? Bishonen | tålk 21:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC).
- I dont see how that is relevant? I just followed the rules and said if you put {pov} on a page you open a topic here. LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Barbary Pirates article - bias editor overseeing the article - M.Bitton.
The Barbary Pirates article is being overseen by a high subjective and bias editor - M.Bitton. He shuts down any points of view that may differ from his own, ignores points from valid sources and will even decline the same sources he has previously approved in an article from being used if it does not suit his narrative and/or if he does not personally like another person editing. I have tried to address this in the talk comments section, but all I get back is a relentless attitude and hypocritical responses from him. He should not be an editor/overseer of any article. Sara1985Wiki (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Looks to me from a cursory glance that M.Bitton is doing a good job keeping unencyclopedic language like
Tunis, especially, was an international rogues’ gallery
out of the article [2]. I suggest you take their advice and work on persuading others. M.Bitton has very patiently asked you for sources to back up your claims. I will add that such sources are necessary but not sufficient conditions for inclusion, and that the onus to achieve consensus is on those seeking to include disputed content. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)- The reason why that source was declined was due to our previous discussion and his resentment from it. He even sited the reason as per me not continuing our previous discussion in the talk page, which he had eventually stopped replying to. So it was done on a personal & subjective basis, not because of the language in a source he has already approved for the article. Sara1985Wiki (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've just about had it with the personal attacks. Enough is enough.
it was done on a personal & subjective basis
that's something that you need to substantiate. There will be no discussion with you until you do. M.Bitton (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)- “Personal attacks” is another very emotive and unfounded thing for you to say. You’re simply being questioned on your actions and biases, as anyone should be who is an editor of a website as substantial as Wikipedia. Sara1985Wiki (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- The reason why that source was declined was due to our previous discussion and his resentment from it. He even sited the reason as per me not continuing our previous discussion in the talk page, which he had eventually stopped replying to. So it was done on a personal & subjective basis, not because of the language in a source he has already approved for the article. Sara1985Wiki (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Sara1985Wiki There are various dispute resolution paths you can take, if this is just one editor you're disagreeing with. You could start with taking one small content disagreement to WP:3O and getting a third opinion. You can also take your source disagreements to WP:RSN. There are other methods, such as RfC, that could be used down the road. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. I’ll look into it and I hope others on here and those who have had similar interactions with him do too. Sara1985Wiki (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can certainly understand the fatigue M. Bitton expresses above with the personal attacks and the unrelenting assumptions of bad faith from Sara1985Wiki. Sara, No personal attacks is policy here, and Assume good faith is an important behavioral guideline. You're supposed to comment on content, not on contributors, and to not make accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. This is all in the "No personal attacks" policy. Start complying with it now, or expect to be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 21:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: Two minutes after your comment, they doubled down on their aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but this is a new user, M.Bitton. They probably didn't notice my comment before they posted in response to yours. I'll await further developments. (Well, I won't await them right now, but tomorrow, as it's seriously bedtime in my timezone. I hope some other admin follows through on my warning if it becomes necessary.) Bishonen | tålk 22:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: Two minutes after your comment, they doubled down on their aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Paul R. Ehrlich
As the talk page has made clear for 18 years, the biography on Paul R. Ehrlich has been held hostage by extremists who have distorted the subject and have written the biography in a way that violates almost every known policy and guideline. I would like to suggest an intervention of some kind. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- that's the vaguest thing I've ever heard. Any specific details? Red Slash 20:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- I opened this discussion here to get more eyes on the article, an article you are currently holding hostage. I did not open this discussion to talk to you about the problem as the talk page shows you are entrenched and not open to changes, so I am awaiting input from uninvolved parties. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- I find it interesting to note that the only part of the guidelines for a report that you followed was stating the articles name. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is only one way to do things. I'm not involved in the two-decade long dispute on the talk page, nor would providing diffs or pointing people to specific issues help. What would help, is to invite uninvolved users to take a look at the talk page and article without preconceptions. I added the link to the Britannica article below because it highlights the problem in an immediate and simple way. So yes, I did not file this report using the normal and expected methods, nor do I plan to discuss it in any depth here. I just want more editors to see it for themselves. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Would you mind telling us what's actually going on, or do you prefer to accuse other editors of being extremists and holding the article hostage? Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, the first sentence alone is an NPOV nightmare, but still... Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Would love to hear how it's a POV nightmare. He is best known for his predictions, and specifically for the ones that were pessimistic and were incorrect. Red Slash 07:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Paul R. Ehrlich is best known as an American biologist and educator. The controversy over his book The Population Bomb (1968) is covered extensively in the literature. That is not what he is best known for at all. You are cherry picking sources to promote a particular POV. That's not how we do it. Again, see the article on Jim Cramer if you still don't know how this works. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Would love to hear how it's a POV nightmare. He is best known for his predictions, and specifically for the ones that were pessimistic and were incorrect. Red Slash 07:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, the first sentence alone is an NPOV nightmare, but still... Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- I find it interesting to note that the only part of the guidelines for a report that you followed was stating the articles name. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- I opened this discussion here to get more eyes on the article, an article you are currently holding hostage. I did not open this discussion to talk to you about the problem as the talk page shows you are entrenched and not open to changes, so I am awaiting input from uninvolved parties. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- I just read the opening few paragraphs... yeah, that looks bad. We shouldn't be starting off biographies or BLPs with statements about how wrong the person is about what ever. That's a big IMPARTIAL red flag. I'm not sure of the best way to fix the lead (I would need to study the article body more) but I can't believe this article passes an impartial test. Springee (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wait, why not? Our lead paragraph on Andrew Tate (BLP) correctly calls his commentary misogynistic. The Amazing Criswell is a biography about a real person and the first sentence calls his predictions not just "inaccurate" but "wildly inaccurate". We do this all the time. If the sources back it up (I'm quite confident that there are still animals in the sea, but we can find some citations to back that up), I think it's fine to call a spade a spade. Red Slash 08:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- The most appropriate analogy is Jim Cramer, who has a reputation for being wrong a lot. As you can see from that well written article, it is entirely NPOV compliant. I think you have a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of how we write articles. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wait, why not? Our lead paragraph on Andrew Tate (BLP) correctly calls his commentary misogynistic. The Amazing Criswell is a biography about a real person and the first sentence calls his predictions not just "inaccurate" but "wildly inaccurate". We do this all the time. If the sources back it up (I'm quite confident that there are still animals in the sea, but we can find some citations to back that up), I think it's fine to call a spade a spade. Red Slash 08:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Note: Here is the biographical entry from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Please compare it to our own to see the disparity. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Second Intifada casualty lists
A neutrality issue has raised its head at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, which was raised alongside two other discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. The potential NPOV issue now is that because this discussions were raised separately, and due to some uneven voting, List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada was deleted, while its NPOV counterpart List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada was relisted. It seems fairly obvious from an NPOV perspective that either both articles should go or both articles should stay, lest one POV remains without balance, but as mentioned, the split AfD has caused a bit of a headache. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Chiming in here as one of the parties who desired all three articles to remain. Good faith efforts were about to commence regarding addressing raised concerns on the Palestinian casualties page before it was deleted (in all honesty, any delay was connected to lingering concerns that legitimate NOTAMEMORIAL removals would be seen as transgressive and not in line with requested edits).
- Have attempted to have the Palestinian page restored, but the closing editor in question is unwilling. Would still like an earnest attempt to address issues before these pages are deleted. Mistamystery (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
This article seems to be praising this ransomware group a lot. I'll try rewriting some parts of it for neutrality tomorrow, but there's a lot of unnecessary praise in this article. Posting here to seek some help for this. Deauthorized. (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- The article leans way too much into trendmicro.com which is used maybe 8 or 9 times and that source is not something that counts towards notability. Graywalls (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Graywalls: Turns out the article is closely copying from one of its sources. I may need to move this discussion to another noticeboard. Deauthorized. (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Criticism of Scientific American sourced to Twitter
An editor at Talk:Scientific American has suggested that criticism by scientists who have called the magazine "woke" on Twitter and on their personal blogs is DUE for inclusion because they are subject-matter experts. I have argued that they may be subject-matter experts in their respective fields, but none of them are experts in politics or any of the related matters that fall under the heading of "woke".
My opinion is that when Richard Dawkins, for instance, objects to the magazine criticizing white supremacy, he is not speaking as an expert and as such his self-published opinion is not DUE. If solidly reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources discuss this criticism in depth, there would be no objection from me, but so far such sources have not been presented.
Among the sources discussed in that conversation are some arguably reliable secondary sources such as the Princeton University student newspaper The Daily Princetonian [3] and The Skeptic [4], but the coverage of critical remarks about Scientific American in those sources is glancing at best, and they are both clearly opinion pieces. For better or worse, the content dispute appears to hinge on whether self-published material by scientists establishes DUE weight for inclusion of their opinion that Scientific American has somehow disgraced itself by "going woke".
Experienced editors are encouraged to weigh in at the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: The editor in question has proceeded to edit war a large section of their preferred content into the article [5][6] despite numerous uninvolved, experienced editors having voiced their opposition to it. More eyes on the situation would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that generally speaking opinions and criticisms should only be included if they are by experts in the field, or if they have been covered independently in reliable secondary sources. I have no knowledge or opinion of whether Dawkins would be an expert on Science magazine or its topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Disputes regarding how the baby killing/decapitation allegations should be handled. Outside input would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Related to your entry: I'd like if more editors could watch the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article as well. The page currently has a NPOV tag, actually. VintageVernacular (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Ibram X. Kendi
More opinions are welcome at Ibram X. Kendi, where Arsenic99 is repeatedly inserting a lengthy quote from a primary source from 2003 into the lead of the article: In 2003, Kendi had written an article entitled "Living with the White Race" where he claimed that "Europeans are a different breed of human" who are "socialized to be aggressive" and "raised to be racist."[1] He promoted the claim that white skin color is a "recessive gene" and states "therefore [white people are] facing extinction." Kendi stated his controversial beliefs that "Whites have tried to level the playing field with the AIDS virus and cloning."[1]
References
- ^ a b Rogers, Ibram. "Living with the White Race". Retrieved March 25, 2022.
Kendi's views were originally described as "conspiracy theory" and now as "controversial beliefs", with no secondary source to say so. The page is under contentious topics that myself and Arsenic99 have both been made aware of. Two reverts each (mine exempt from edit warring by BLP exception #7). — Bilorv (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Unless this has been discussed by reliable sources, I agree that it is undue to include. Arsenic99 seems to be somewhat of a SPA these days, so this might be worth escalating to ANI if they persist in being disruptive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be discussed by "reliable sources" for it to be true. What matters in an encyclopedia is what's true and relevant to the user's biography and foundational framework of beliefs. That isn't undue to include it. Bilorv has repeatedly removed it without edits. Just as you have removed it without edits. If something is true AND within context not providing undue weighting to something that is irrelevant to the topic or not as important then it doesn't make sense to remove it especially when it speaks the foundations of his philosophy and his work. By the way, Bilorv wrote a majority of the content of "How to be an anti-racist" on wikipedia, so not only are you removing content that is foundational to the biography of a living person underlying all of his work--written by the living person himself--but at the behest of someone who typically writes articles about this persons' work and books. In what encyclopedia, knowledgeable textbook, or major news publication does this make sense--where we don't get to know about who someone is and their foundational beliefs aside from their accolades, simple facts about publications he wrote, and his educational credentials and job status? It's a very mundane biography, there is no need to protect his page like this without any reasonable edits. You guys have removed my content over and over again without any actual good-faith edits and refusal to discuss it in a talk page. That is not the way editing and contributing works on wikipedia. I've never seen a person's biography be protected from their own words on wikipedia biographies before. Also, it was indeed originally described a "conspiracy theory" because by definition, it is a conspiracy theory. I even removed the word "conspiracy theory" and wrote "controversial belief" instead to accommodate Bilorv, and you still removed what I wrote (which is that you removed what Ibram Kendi wrote because it would inform the readers and educate them about Ibram Kendi's views without any undue weighting to his foundational core beliefs that color the rest of his works as an educator).
- — talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am aware that you changed "conspiracy theory" to the still-unsourced, value-laden "controversial". However, I am yet to see where else you have taken feedback into account. In particular I don't see evidence that you have read and considered the reasons that are currently given for exclusion of the content. You are welcome to make up your own rules for an encyclopedia and follow them on your own website. On Wikipedia the policies and guidelines are determined through community discussion and then enforced on each article. Three of those rules are that we summarise the content of reliable secondary sources (also true of traditional encyclopediae), consider order and prominence of content according to the principle of "undue weight", and use consensus to make decisions. We now have several volunteers opining against inclusion of the content. — Bilorv (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly I have read and considered the reasons people are providing and even replied at length to it with a transparent and honest attitude. I didn't make up any rules, the rules of an encyclopedia are primarily to inform the readers of very truthful, relevant, and contextual information as well as reliably sourced information. In this case, no one is disputing that the writings are indeed authored by the person in the biography. We have also considered the WP:BLP rules including "Self-published" sources. The primary reason against inclusion is: (1) not discussed enough by reliable sources and (2) a separate debate about whether the word "controversial" is too controversial. The existence of controversy appears to be controversial. I have accommodated your feedback and suggestions by editing out "conspiracy theory" in the spirit of consensus and yet you have incorporated zero feedback or improvements or even any suggestions to the article I've provided, thus far. I now may include reliable sources since we have established solidly that the main objections are: (1) WP:UNDUE (2) the word "controversial" or "conspiracy theory" or similar types of labeling.
- — talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am aware that you changed "conspiracy theory" to the still-unsourced, value-laden "controversial". However, I am yet to see where else you have taken feedback into account. In particular I don't see evidence that you have read and considered the reasons that are currently given for exclusion of the content. You are welcome to make up your own rules for an encyclopedia and follow them on your own website. On Wikipedia the policies and guidelines are determined through community discussion and then enforced on each article. Three of those rules are that we summarise the content of reliable secondary sources (also true of traditional encyclopediae), consider order and prominence of content according to the principle of "undue weight", and use consensus to make decisions. We now have several volunteers opining against inclusion of the content. — Bilorv (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Commented there. In general we should stay far away from labels like conspiracy theory and controversial beliefs. Springee (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- But do you not think that simply "undoing the revision" as a defensive measure rather than updating it or assisting in better wording wouldn't be a better call? What's the point of just removing it if it goes to their foundational beliefs, unless there is an underlying situation here where the words of Ibram Kendi are not relevant to his biography in some way, but I've seen quotes from original sources from the living person that explains his way of thinking in his own biography page.
- And note the original complains were about "reliable sources", and here is a reliable source citing the same writings and words that Ibram Kendi wrote. We could have surely edited it. "The column caused a stir, and Rogers was summoned to see the editor of the local newspaper, the Tallahassee Democrat, where he was an intern"--but you see that's why I wrote "controversial view", but I suppose "a stir" is not quite equivalent to "controversial" but from a meaning standpoint I think they mean almost the same thing.
- — talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've made a comment there. In summary, the article overall is naturally in WP:NOTRIGHT territory given various factors involved, and given the lack of secondary RS the quote can only be included if a "Beliefs" section is introduced to the article. JM2023 (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
"Irish" indentured servants
I question the rationale for an article solely dedicated to Irish indentured servants and not the various other European ethnic groups who greatly outnumbered them as unfree laborers in the Americas.
More troubling, however, is that this article contains a section that tries comparing "Irish servants" to "black slaves", where Wikipedians have engaged in a whole bunch of fancy editing footwork to make it seem like the distinction between the two was mostly semantic. In the citations we find a crazed mix of legitimate experts (who, overwhelmingly, reject this comparison); scholars who are not historians (Kathryn Stelmach Artuso, who is an English professor, and Michael J. Monahan, who is a philosopher); and non-academic lunatics like Michael A. Hoffman "II", the pseudo-historian who writes about "white slavery" and denies the Holocaust.
I suppose to an amateur Wikipedia editor one scholar who writes about "Ireland" and "slavery" is much like another, but historians who specialize in other areas of history can be just as ignorant of this subject as anyone else, let alone scholars who are not trained in historiography and seem to have a political axe to grind. As someone who's contributed to the Irish slaves myth article I find this section has no encyclopedic value: it spends multiple paragraphs amplifying fringe voices before discrediting them with content that already appears in the ISM article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Surprise, surprise -no one wants to engage with this subject. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- You're going to get more response if you address one or two specific things. You bring up issues with the article as a whole and then also mention writing, sources, historians, value to the reader, etc. in this one post, which is too much for our volunteer brains to process coming into something fresh. You could also try the fringe noticeboard if you believe fringe pov is being pushed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- This might not even be the right place to sort out this issue -the article in question is covering things that are already covered in the Irish slaves myth article and I question the rationale behind a separate article titled "Irish indentured servants" as if this was a uniquely Irish experience. Some excerpts from reliable sources:
- "This case demonstrates that servants had legal redress and that the sufferings of servants were not limited to the Irish; English, Scottish, Welsh, German and French servants also experienced hardship in Barbados."(Liam Hogan, Laura McAtackney and Matthew C. Reilly writing in History Ireland[7])
- "During the English Civil War (1642–51) and the following decade, when Barbados’s sugar economy was flourishing, many thousands prisoners of war were shipped to the island and sold as servants. These included Cromwell’s political enemies as well as thousands captured in military campaigns in Ireland and Scotland in 1649–50. Roughly 10,000 Scottish, English, Irish, and even German prisoners from the 1651 Battle of Worcester, the final battle of the English Civil War, were also transported to the Americas as servants."(Jerome Handler, Matthew Reilly[8])
- So not even forced transports of servants to the Caribbean were unique to the Irish, as implied in the article. This is exactly the type of careless, disproportionate coverage that influences the way people think about history, and how they weaponize and use history to score political points. Indentured servitude was not a major theme in Irish history nor did Irish servants have a large presence in the Caribbean. This subject only became significant because it was being manipulated by white supremacists and proponents of "white slavery", which is all covered in the ISM article (see above).
- I apologize for another lengthy comment but I'm still learning how to condense this stuff for the TLDR crowd. This issue can't really be discussed in 1-2 lines. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- You waited less than an hour for a response before deciding that surprise, surprise no one wants to engage. If you think this is a wrongful fork of Indentured servitude or Indentured servitude in British America or any other such articles, maybe you want to propose it for deletion or merger? Not clear what you are asking for. Are other editors opposing the changes you want to make? Could take it to dispute resolution. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for the help! Yes, I'd like to propose it for deletion. We have several articles on indentured servitude in the Americas and I can't think of any justification to start breaking the subject up into multiple articles based on ethnic group -especially when only one ethnic group has its own article, for unknown reasons. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah this is probably better served by taking up on the specific article’s talk page Yr Enw (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Unless you're arguing WP:POVFORK it seems an odd reason to object to the topic - there's obviously scholarship on it. I'm not sure what the relevance of the *current* lack of articles on other ethnic groups is. We're supposed to be following WP:SUMMARYSTYLE so an article like that should hang off a broader article and its sibling articles should be created at some point. One of them has to be the first. DeCausa (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for the help! Yes, I'd like to propose it for deletion. We have several articles on indentured servitude in the Americas and I can't think of any justification to start breaking the subject up into multiple articles based on ethnic group -especially when only one ethnic group has its own article, for unknown reasons. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- You're going to get more response if you address one or two specific things. You bring up issues with the article as a whole and then also mention writing, sources, historians, value to the reader, etc. in this one post, which is too much for our volunteer brains to process coming into something fresh. You could also try the fringe noticeboard if you believe fringe pov is being pushed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- You will find that on wikipedia being calmly and professionally skeptical will get you further than outrage. You do appear to be right after all, so you can afford to be subtle and deliberate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just wanted to second Horse Eye's Back on this, and though I have not looked at the page in a long time, it strikes me that a case can be made for it despite the baselessness of the idea. That is, though factually incorrect in almost every way, it has become such a trope in American history and race relations circles that it's possible it merits inclusion that way--but that is really just me spit-balling. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I fully agree the whole business about equivalencing the Irish indentured with slaves is just plain wrong. However denial above with attempts to delete any reference to the myth also strike me as over the top. I also got a particularly bad feeling about the extent of downplaying in Irish slaves myth by saying that Irish people engaged in the slave trade as if this justified the treatment. People would be rightly annoyed if we tried downplaying slavery by pointing out that much of the enslavement was done by other Africans. NadVolum (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Didn’t this argument come up last year? Doug Weller talk 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- There is probably also a problem at Irish slaves myth as NodVolum points out with the inclusion of a section dedicated to Irish participation in the slave trade. Even the article's title strikes me as POV given that slavery is not limited to chattel slavery and also usually includes indentured servitude. The title should be changed to Irish slave myths or something. Issues in both articles should be eliminated and there may be a case for merging Irish slaves myth with Irish indentured servants. JM2023 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Where do you see indentured servitude defined as slavery? Slavery literally means "chattel slavery". —DIYeditor (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Slavery#Terminology, particularly Slavery#Chattel slavery and Slavery#Bonded labour. There is also Template:Slavery, which also includes conscription as slavery. And also the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. And the fact that the Colinial Indian indenture system was described by contemporaries as a new form of slavery. To put it plainly: the assertion that slavery is synonymous with chattel slavery is totally wrong. That's why the term chattel slavery exists -- to differentiate it from other types of slavery. JM2023 (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- First sentence of slavery "Slavery is the ownership of a person as property, especially in regards to their labor." Ownership of a person as property. A lot of fanciful activists like to apply the term to things other than what it means, like indentured servitude (which may well have been voluntary), even "wage slavery" and such, so the slavery article is going to have to cover such uses which are other than what the word properly means. Merriam-Webster "1a: the practice or institution of holding people as chattel involuntarily and under threat of violence" that's what the word properly means. "Usually includes" indentured servitude, prisoner labor, conscription, taxes, low wages, whatever, is a stretch. Certain people seem to have seized on the word as one they like to use so we need to address that just as if the sources or people in the wild call the moon a star we need to address that too. Many people say meat and abortion are murder. Should the murder article address that? I imagine it does. That doesn't mean "murder" usually includes eating meat and abortion. People like to play games with words so we cover that.
- "Indenture, also known as bonded labour or debt bondage, is a form of unfree labour" note it doesn't say "is a form of slavery". Next section Dependency "The word 'slavery' has also been used to refer to a legal state of dependency to somebody else." Not even sure what that means, but it's crammed in the slavery article because someone has said it's a kind of slavery. That doesn't amount to "usually includes".
- The majority of people I hear use the term "chattel slavery" instead of simply "slavery" are usually talking about "wage slavery" in the next breath. Not my field of expertise but it seems like shoddy use of the language. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Let's not be one-sided with this. That same article also states the following in the lede:
It also says:In chattel slavery, the slave is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner. In economics, the term de facto slavery describes the conditions of unfree labour and forced labour that most slaves endure.
And also:Although slavery is usually involuntary and involves coercion, there are also cases where people voluntarily enter into slavery to pay a debt or earn money due to poverty.
Once again this is why the term "chattel slavery" exists, although it seems that this encyclopedia may contradict itself in multiple areas as to what slavery is; but as far as I can tell, there is such a thing as "de facto slavery" in economics and clearly the term is so widely used that it can be put in the lede as being within the standard applications of the term. JM2023 (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)in non-industrialised countries, enslavement by debt bondage is a common form of enslaving a person, such as captive domestic servants, people in forced marriages, and child soldiers.
- By your loose definition of "slavery", voluntary military service, at least as exists in the US, especially for enlisted personnel, is slavery. It's "indentured servitude". That's absurd. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well it's not my definition. I gave you the sources. So I am not the person to debate with about whether or not voluntary military service is slavery or not. That is all. JM2023 (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think this article serves a purpose and having just read it, it goes to pains to both differentiate and make it clear that no historians directly compare indentured servitude to chattel slavery. This article tells an important part of the story of Irish emigration to the America's. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well it's not my definition. I gave you the sources. So I am not the person to debate with about whether or not voluntary military service is slavery or not. That is all. JM2023 (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- By your loose definition of "slavery", voluntary military service, at least as exists in the US, especially for enlisted personnel, is slavery. It's "indentured servitude". That's absurd. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Let's not be one-sided with this. That same article also states the following in the lede:
- Slavery#Terminology, particularly Slavery#Chattel slavery and Slavery#Bonded labour. There is also Template:Slavery, which also includes conscription as slavery. And also the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. And the fact that the Colinial Indian indenture system was described by contemporaries as a new form of slavery. To put it plainly: the assertion that slavery is synonymous with chattel slavery is totally wrong. That's why the term chattel slavery exists -- to differentiate it from other types of slavery. JM2023 (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Where do you see indentured servitude defined as slavery? Slavery literally means "chattel slavery". —DIYeditor (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 10:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre
Since August, two new users have been duking it out of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre article. I am honestly not familiar enough with the topic to know whether either/both of them are POV pushing. It would be good if more experienced users familiar with the topic area would be able to step in and assess the current state of the article, and whether the changes made are improvements or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- This article is enormous and difficult to follow. I am familiar with the events and I am left confused reading it. For example why does there need to be a whole section about the tanks and guns used in the crackdown? There is so much included in the article, it compromises the purpose of having an article in the first place. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Settle long debate on Kylie Minogue
An RfC is currently happening on Talk:Kylie_Minogue#RfC any third party editors would be appreciated in settling the debate. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Uninvolved input would be welcome
Fresh eyes would be helpful at Talk:Zionism, race and genetics#Requested move 13 October 2023. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Content removal regarding white supremacy
An IP has been removing content referring to white supremacy at National Policy Institute and William Regnery II. The removals are not quite egregious enough for the vandalism noticeboard, but are also clearly contrary to NPOV. I can't keep on reverting so I ask for other experienced editors to take a look. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, to the average reader, is there really a great difference between white nationalism and white supremacy? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just doing a quick google search suggests that either term may be appropriate in Wikivoice, perhaps more weight on "white supremacy" with about 10x more hits on that. However, this should be better demonstrated with additional sources in the last section. There are only 2 or 3 sources there which is, to me, nowhere near the weight needed to be able to say either term in wikivoice. There just needs to be better demonstration via a source survey the terms apply. Masem (t) 01:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
(Not strictly an NPOV issue but needs intervention.) A quite old RfC with no consensus on if the FdI article infobox should include "neo-fascism". Needs either more input or un-involved editor to try to close. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2023 (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.
Completely one-sided discussion of the subject. I've tagged the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see any SIZE issues that would prevent this from being covered in Nakba, and in the interests of preventing more fronts and exposure for POV edits, it should really be merged there and POV concerns addressed as part of the whole topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Topic is notable on its own based on the reliable sources. Editing can fix any issues with neutrality. If merge is requested by editors, a merge discussion can be started. Lightburst (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: Please can you support this POV claim on the talk page. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: : The terms 'Nakba' and 'Israeli Independence' represent two competing narratives of the same historical events surrounding the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. Each term encapsulates deeply held beliefs and interpretations that are important to different communities. 'Nakba'—Arabic for 'catastrophe'—is the lens through which many Palestinians view the mass displacement and loss that accompanied the 1948 war. Conversely, 'Israeli Independence' symbolizes a monumental achievement for the Jewish people, marking the establishment of a sovereign state after centuries of persecution.
- Labeling the Israeli perspective as "Nakba Denial" unequivocally violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. This term is not merely descriptive; it's prescriptive, dictating how the narrative should be interpreted rather than offering a balanced viewpoint. By embedding an accusation within the label itself, the discourse is preemptively skewed, stifling any potential for nuanced discussion.
- Let's be clear: The term 'Nakba Denial' not only accuses one side of refusing to recognize a historical event or human suffering but also inherently delegitimizes any competing narratives. Once such a term is introduced into an encyclopedic context, it doesn't merely tilt the balance; it obliterates it. Readers are not presented with a spectrum of perspectives to form their own conclusions; instead, they are led down a pre-defined path that reaffirms existing biases. Marokwitz (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Clarification: For the above reason, I support the suggestion to merge this article with Nakba. Marokwitz (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- NPOV is not a policy based on opinion, and the topic here is not about the Nakba. The denial of the Nakba, revisionism and memoricide within Israeli historiography is a subject of considerable discussion within scholarly literature. I have merely scratched at the surface of the most readily accessible works. There remains plenty powder in the chamber, not least I haven't even directly referenced anything from Ilan Pappé, because I lack a useful library. @Marokwitz: As for the part of your comment here that addresses the topic at hand, NPOV is about covering, fairly and proportionately, what is covered in the sources, and you do not in fact appear to have made a case that the page does not do that, let alone a case reinforced with sources of your own. The only "accusations" on the page are those presented by the sources, and I also fail to see how the material is one-sided. It discusses trends, including the rise and fall of Nakba denialism. The New Historians are not accused of anything, but credited with rolling back the fog of narrative. The page also discussed the grassroots initiatives spreading awareness. Support your imbalance claim. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The subject of the Nakba is addressed in depth in the main article of which this appears to be an unnecessary fork. It is also addressed in 1948 Palestine war and 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, all three of which are detailed, well sourced and at least somewhat balanced in their presentation. Beyond which I tend to agree with the views of Marokwitz and David Fuchs expressed above. I would support a merge proposal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- This suggestion doesn't really make much sense. The subject here isn't the Nakba, but an epiphenomena and child subject of it. The main sub-topic of the Nakba is indeed the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, which is considerably longer than the parent. There is a not inconsiderable amount of debate to be had over whether those two pages are one topic and should be merged. As it stands, Nakba has been kept as something of an umbrella parent for a range of related sub-topics. The proposal above does not seem to take into account that the Nakba denial page as a standalone topic currently has more readable prose than the Nakba parent, which means that a straightforward merge would leave Nakba denial as a sub-section accounting for more than half of the entire Nakba page (unless 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight was moved there also), and so would be totally undue and definitely create a balance problem. As it stands, I don't see the obvious problem with the routine WP:SUMMARY-style setup. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Nakba Per David Fuchs. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Nakba. WP:POVFORK. Loksmythe (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment looks like a WP:POVFORK. The "Nakhba" is a contentious topic, and like Marokwitz says it's a competing historical narrative with the Israeli War of Independence and a "Nakhba denial" article seems like a way to defend the Arab version of the story without representing all significant viewpoints; it talks of "settler colonial violence" and "Zionist culpability for the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight" one-sidedly. Merging this with Nakhba may create POV issues there. JM2023 (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- @JM2023: It's not a competing narrative with the Israeli War of Independence, since literally nobody denies that the Israelis fought a war of independence. Pre-the late 1980s, and still today, in some corners of the political landscape, some people do deny that Palestinians were expelled from their homes as part of that war of independence. It's not about competing narratives; it's about a full picture. The Armenian genocide is not a "competing narrative" with the Turkish war of independence; it's one event and part of what happened with that war of independence – and Armenian genocide denial is a separate, substantive topic that runs to the same length as its thematic parent, as is the case here. This is not a particularly alien or unusual structure. There are plenty of things that have ideologies intent on their negation. Actually mentioned on this page is the negation of the Diaspora, which is an ideological leaning against the existence of the Diaspora. Re: the language of Nassar, who is the origin of both the parts that you mention, perhaps it needs tweaking or better attributing, but, as it stands, those parts are nonetheless accurate to the source. Incidentally, the terminology of "Zionist" is used in the context because the Nakba partially pre-dates the declaration of the State of Israel, so the process technically began when those involved were indeed just Zionists, i.e. the Haganah, not Israeli forces. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with the Turkish war of independence at all. Not "part of it" at all. That's a falsehood. The only references even claiming they are related are the ones produced by biased authors writing books to sell new stories on old subjects that some people are emotionally invested in. Thereby widening the range of dates for the events.
- Yes indeed this Nakba Denial and Nakba are a controversial topic that is offering a one-sided view of events. These articles appear after 2021 about an event from 1940s. The Holocaust is a genocide often referred to in meaning as a "cataclysm" or "catastrophe" just as this Nakba is just the Arabic synonym for its definitional meaning.
- There's even academic discussions about other narratives in relation to it: such as exactly where to draw the boundaries for Armenian genocide, Turkish-Armenian War, Armenian national movement, Armenian-Tatar massacres, Russification of 1903-1904, and the even earlier suffering of Armenians under the Hamidian massacres. It's not necessarily that any of them are 100% "competing narratives" but that can so many events in history be merged into one article or one "overarching event or movement or set-of-events." These are often covered under Armenian national movement spanning 1860s until the Red Iron Curtain ceased the creation of any new events (or any new events that historians would know about since small uprisings can be erased in the totalitarianism of the USSR and we would never find out if any further rebellions and revolutionary heroic movements happened behind the Iron Curtain if they ended in failure). It's an important topic, where exactly do you draw the line in such articles? — talk § _Arsenic99_ 01:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- By "part of it", I mean part of the tapestry of events, which it clearly was. The Denial of Violence by Göçek, 2015, p. 19.:
"... what makes 1915–17 genocidal both then and since is, I argue, closely connected to its being a foundational violence in the constitution of the Turkish republic... the independence of Turkey emerged in direct opposition to the possible independence of Armenia; such coeval origins eliminated the possibility of acknowledging the past violence that had taken place only a couple years earlier on the one hand, and instead nurtured the tendency to systemically remove traces of Armenian existence on the other."
Iskandar323 (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- By "part of it", I mean part of the tapestry of events, which it clearly was. The Denial of Violence by Göçek, 2015, p. 19.:
- @JM2023: It's not a competing narrative with the Israeli War of Independence, since literally nobody denies that the Israelis fought a war of independence. Pre-the late 1980s, and still today, in some corners of the political landscape, some people do deny that Palestinians were expelled from their homes as part of that war of independence. It's not about competing narratives; it's about a full picture. The Armenian genocide is not a "competing narrative" with the Turkish war of independence; it's one event and part of what happened with that war of independence – and Armenian genocide denial is a separate, substantive topic that runs to the same length as its thematic parent, as is the case here. This is not a particularly alien or unusual structure. There are plenty of things that have ideologies intent on their negation. Actually mentioned on this page is the negation of the Diaspora, which is an ideological leaning against the existence of the Diaspora. Re: the language of Nassar, who is the origin of both the parts that you mention, perhaps it needs tweaking or better attributing, but, as it stands, those parts are nonetheless accurate to the source. Incidentally, the terminology of "Zionist" is used in the context because the Nakba partially pre-dates the declaration of the State of Israel, so the process technically began when those involved were indeed just Zionists, i.e. the Haganah, not Israeli forces. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria are not mentioned even once in the article. So are omitted most other Arab-side "contributors" to the disadvantages of war. And war has only disadvantages. Such a one-sided article proves ill-intentioned terminology, and does not comply with Wikipedia's standards. TaBaZzz (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Huh? Why would they be? Is anybody actually reading the page? It's not about the bloody war, or the Nakba itself, per se, but the subsequent historiography around it! God give me strength. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Assuming that you are right, this article not being neutral enough is not a reason to delete it. It can be kept and fixed. I also agree with Iskandar that this article is much more about the historiography of the Nakba than the event itself (somewhat similar to how the subject of Holocaust Denial is a different from that of Holocaust). SparklyNights 02:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I think the article should be deleted. The denial of certain historical events is a terrible moral abhorrence and should be done in rare situations of an overwhelming self-perpetuating industry of denialism in cases such as the genocide of the Holocaust. Or such as the case of the genocide of the Holodomor as recognized by an international coalition of countries to have been perpetrated by the Soviet government. Arguably with not a lot of effort one can create a collective nationalist identity based on victimhood and perpetuate a mythology of denialism when really there is little evidence to support the original event being anything more than territorial warfare. Plenty of population movements and transfers occurred throughout the centuries, if not thousands of years of war between European states, including some held under occupation for over 400 years (England), or instances of "Romanization" or "Russification" where local cultures and languages were crushed. That does not mean we should have "denialism" articles on these countless catastrophes and oppression of innocents regardless of how much they may have truly suffered especially when there is no active self-perpetuating culture of denialism associated with it.
- — talk § _Arsenic99_ 02:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- But there is an "overwhelming self-perpetuating industry of denialism" surrounding the events of 1948 – hence the vast body of scholarly literature on the suppression of facts and memory in relation to the conflict, on revisionism, on memoricide and on denial – and this isn't one of countless conflicts, it is one of―if not the―longest in contemporary history. This year was the 75th anniversary of the conflict, the Nakba, and all that these have entailed. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge
- It seems to be substantial evidence of a promotion of a one sided narrative that seems to refute the legitimacy of the Israeli narrative. I saw that @Marokwitz explained the situation fairly rationally. Chief concern is in regards to the biased content and intent in the article. Although I would prefer to see such an article deleted rather than having Wikipedia accidentally promote a certain narrative, it can also be merged as suggested above. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Wait a minute, how is this a POV fork of Nakba? You can argue it should be merged just because Nakba does not need to be split based on its size, but are yall even looking at the article? nableezy - 22:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Here's why I think it's a POVFORK, or it is not NPOV (and Nakba has the same problems):
- 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight says "The exodus was a central component of the fracturing, dispossession, and displacement of Palestinian society, known as the Nakba." and "The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians."
- Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight says "The causes for this mass displacement is a matter of great controversy among historians, journalists, and commentators."
- Nakba denial, and Nakba#Nakba denial say, in Wikivoice, that Zionism is "culpable" for Nakba, and that disagreeing with this is Nakba denial.
- I think the Nakba denial article is taking one viewpoint (that denying Zionist culpability for Nakba is something akin to genocide denial, called "Nakba denial") and is stating it in wikivoice as if it's fact or the undisputed mainstream view, and in doing so, it contradicts other Wikipedia articles. Levivich (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
This isn't AfD, it's a noticeboard to bring more eyes to the discussion. The article won't be deleted or merged based on discussion here. If you're aiming for deletion or merging, please use the correct venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah. This whole discussion is bizarre and should have been opened on the articles talk page only Yr Enw (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Right? There was a bit of a shortage of constructive feedback prior to the OP coming to this noticeboard. I'm still waiting for some evidence of their POV claims as outlined by actual sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be laden with anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli characterizations and possibly some things not directly related to the topic, but it does seem to be a topic that is discussed. Merger could work well. The tone of this needs to be looked over more than I have the interest to do. If you want to know what is wrong with the article, this sums it up: Such narratives blame the the victims of settler colonial violence for their expulsion.
Not attributed, nothing, just stated as a fact in the Wikivoice. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- @DIYeditor: That specific feedback is well noted - I may have neglected reading over and double-checking that minor section in my read-throughs - I've addressed that now based on this feedback. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- I just saw that you created this article. This is one of the most biased worst articles I've ever seen. This should be deleted. Why would you write this? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Happy to hear an explanation of this in the light of the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm gonna have a coffee and think about taking you to ANI. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- As I said on the article talk page, this (my edits except for one or two by Dimadick) and this (which you did at my behest above) say it all. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment, I think it’s worth mentioning that not only is the content of the article problematic, I think it was also created shortly after a discussion on the “Israel” page article in which multiple editors opposed including the 1948 Palestinian exodus in the lead of the article. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Happy to hear an explanation of this in the light of the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- How can you use quotes like this without saying who is being quoted?
In the late 1980s, Nakba denial began to be criticized and Israel's history was rewritten by the New Historians, who "dramatically shattered longstanding myths of the 1948 War and Palestinian exodus".
Am I imagining things or is literally the whole article like this? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)- @DIYeditor: Your "who" template additions are ridiculous. Every statement with a quote is cited at the end of the statement to a source and is obviously in the author's voice; it is perfectly allowed to quote reliable sources without mentioning the author at every turn. Every key source here is a piece of peer-reviewed literature. Maybe your style is to monumentally over-attribute content, but I just call that clumsy, cluttered content. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- There were many cases where there was no indication of who was being quoted other than that one might make the assumption (not always true) that the author of the next citation is being quoted in all prior quotes. I've never seen an article written that way. The footnotes are optional, the reader should be able to tell who said what from the text. I'm actually done trying to talk to you, have a great day! —DIYeditor (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- @DIYeditor: Your "who" template additions are ridiculous. Every statement with a quote is cited at the end of the statement to a source and is obviously in the author's voice; it is perfectly allowed to quote reliable sources without mentioning the author at every turn. Every key source here is a piece of peer-reviewed literature. Maybe your style is to monumentally over-attribute content, but I just call that clumsy, cluttered content. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- I just saw that you created this article. This is one of the most biased worst articles I've ever seen. This should be deleted. Why would you write this? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to work the most obvious NPOV issues and see if the article can be made more balanced. "Nakba denialism" gets 869 google results so I'm not sure one what grounds that is even given as an alternate term in the article. It's possible this is a good candidate for merger or deletion. The only people using the concept of "denying Nakba" are anti-Israeli sources so it is likely a POV fork. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- @DIYeditor: That only "anti-Israel" sources are used is an unfair characterization. Among the more obvious (as opposed to greyer) examples of this are the Times of Israel, Israel Law Review and the Kyoto Bulletin of Islamic Area Studies - the latter source not readily being type-cast as having any particular stake in this. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- For clarity, 3770 results for "Nakba denial". Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Enough. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakba denial. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I am requesting outside attention on Air India Flight 182. I am concerned that there is a pro-Indian government POV being placed in the article through repetition of content in the lead section, placing WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on perceived opponents of the Indian government who were not found guilty of any crime in relation to this article.
There is discussion in the article, but one editor in particular continues to make live edits to articles immediately after proposing changes on the talk page, with no time for other editors to oppose or give any input, knowing that his changes are being actively discussed. Another editor blatantly ignores WP:ONUS in order to restore their preferred changes mid-discussion [9] I also note that there are several other reverts of pro-Modi POV pushing in the article, such as [10] where a person who was acquitted has a speech placed into the article in its own section. Any outside help would be appreciated. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Let's stop blessing Medical Conflicts of Interest at WP:MEDCOI.
If I may, I'm concerned about WP:MEDCOI stating,
“ | Citing your own organization, such as a governmental health agency or an NGO producing high-quality systematic reviews is generally acceptable. | ” |
I think this would at most make sense for NGOs, but for corporations and captured regulatory agencies, it doesn't. Pharmaceutical companies spend more money on marketing than on R&D, so how can we expect to have articles that reflect a NPOV if we allow financial forces to impact editing.
While the main focus here is usually on article content or editors, it seems that raising an issue with a policy or guideline is not forbidden, so I'm doing the latter. Should we 1)reverse, 2)remove "your own organization, such as" from, 3)other, or 4)leave this sentence at WP:MEDCOI ? RudolfoMD (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think a government, NGO or private corporation should be directly promoting its own publications on Wikipedia. Why can't someone else find the material and cite it? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Actually I can see why it makes sense in some ways as a hedge against disinformation. Which governments and which NGOs are allowed to "spam" Wikipedia though? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is misleading. You've replaced an em dash in the guideline with a period. In fact, the quote above continues
— if it is done to improve coverage of a topic, and not with the sole purpose of driving traffic to your site. All edits should improve neutral encyclopedic coverage; anything else, such as promoting an organization is not allowed.
- We want people to use the best sources available. If you happen to work for one of the entities known for "producing high-quality systematic reviews", you shouldn't be required to use a lower quality source just because of that COI. That's the point. This is true outside of medicine, too. If you have a COI, disclose it, make sure you're not promoting your employer contrary to NPOV, and happy editing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Weak, weak, weak argument.
- No, it's not misleading, because all edits are "done to improve coverage of a topic" in the eyes of the editor, as long as we assume good faith. Plus, it's correct grammar to add a period when excerpting (per Warner's). So leaving out the rest of the sentence
- PhRMA-affiliated editors could claim to be part of an NGO and drive a tank through this loophole. "We want people to use the best sources available" cannot justify this guideline any more than it justifies eliminating all CoI policies and guidelines, that is, it doesn't justify it at all. RudolfoMD (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- There is a difference between promoting medical science and promoting a specific private company. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sometimes. Promoting a specific company's reverse vaccine inherently promotes the company.
- The problematic sentence, without an interposed clause which doesn't limit the scope of the advice, but rather only gives an example, states, "Citing your own organization is generally acceptable."
- It's in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine).
- Citing your employer is OK, you say. Not generally, it's not. This isn't policy: "If you have a COI, happy editing."
- Do you claim that "Citing your own organization is generally acceptable." is consistent with policy? You seem to. It's not. RudolfoMD (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
it's not misleading
- presenting a quote from policy and changing that quote to suit your argument is misleading.all edits are "done to improve coverage of a topic"
- No, edits done to promote something/someone are prioritizing promotion over improving the topic. If the edits meet all of our policies and guidelines by actually improving the article, there's no issue to be resolved.PhRMA-affiliated editors could claim to be part of an NGO
- Yes, and if we're going to assume bad faith we can just say that anyone with a COI could just lie about that COI, too."We want people to use the best sources available" cannot justify this guideline any more than it justifies eliminating all CoI policies and guidelines
- Editing with a COI is allowed. Editing with a COI in a way that violates our content policies is not. If someone is making articles better, that's what's most important. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- There is a difference between promoting medical science and promoting a specific private company. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:COIN is probably a more applicable noticeboard for matters concerning COI, someone might want to drop a note informing them of the discussion here if this goes anywhere. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- What "
captured regulatory agencies
"? Certainly not the Food and Drug Administration, which levies hundreds of millions of dollars in fines against pharmaceutical companies annually, nor the CDC or the NIH, which are stellar sources for in-depth research and content. BD2412 T 17:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)- Can you acknowledge that "By failing to enforce the law, the FDA has lost over $46 billion in uncollected fines as a result of overdue results reporting", @BD2412? Source. Intermediate source. Underlying source: a demonstrably captured regulatory agency of the US Government. $0 of $46 billion collected by the FDA. Also, @BD2412 please, do help me understand how that's not good evidence of regulatory capture. In any case, you're implying that there are no captured regulatory agencies anywhere in the world. Certainly not true. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- None of the sources to which you have pointed say anything at all about regulatory capture. It is unclear how, exactly, you think this shows such a thing, given that most of the entities purported to be delinquent in providing clinical trial results are universities and random small labs or independent physicians, rather than the large companies usually claimed to be the parties engaged in regulatory capture. BD2412 T 02:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- You're a lawyer, I see. Apparently willing to resort to tricks to push your POV. Dodging the question, subterfuge. You have provided zero reliable sources. You did what that reporter interviewing the Technoking recently did. You said that regulatory capture does not say anything at all about regulatory capture. There are Olympus Mons - sized stacks of evidence of regulatory capture out there including the relatively tiny but sample in the sources I already mentioned, alone.
- None of the sources to which you have pointed say anything at all about regulatory capture. It is unclear how, exactly, you think this shows such a thing, given that most of the entities purported to be delinquent in providing clinical trial results are universities and random small labs or independent physicians, rather than the large companies usually claimed to be the parties engaged in regulatory capture. BD2412 T 02:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Can you acknowledge that "By failing to enforce the law, the FDA has lost over $46 billion in uncollected fines as a result of overdue results reporting", @BD2412? Source. Intermediate source. Underlying source: a demonstrably captured regulatory agency of the US Government. $0 of $46 billion collected by the FDA. Also, @BD2412 please, do help me understand how that's not good evidence of regulatory capture. In any case, you're implying that there are no captured regulatory agencies anywhere in the world. Certainly not true. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
A sample scoop of Olympus Mons to taste. Don't choke.
|
---|
In politics, regulatory capture (also called agency capture) is a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group.[1][2] When regulatory capture occurs, a special interest is prioritized over the general interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. The theory of client politics is related to that of rent-seeking and political failure; client politics "occurs when most or all of the benefits of a program go to some single, reasonably small interest (e.g., industry, profession, or locality) but most or all of the costs will be borne by a large number of people (for example, all taxpayers)".[3] TheoryFor public choice theorists, regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with high-stakes interests in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether.[4] Regulatory capture refers to the actions by interest groups when this is successful at influencing the staff or commission members of the regulator.
George Stigler, The Theory of Economic Regulation (1971)[5] Regulatory capture theory is a core focus of the branch of public choice referred to as the economics of regulation; economists in this specialty are critical of conceptualizations of governmental regulatory intervention as being motivated to protect public good. Often cited articles include Bernstein (1955), Huntington (1952), Laffont & Tirole (1991), and Levine & Forrence (1990). The theory of regulatory capture is associated with Nobel laureate economist George Stigler,[6] one of its major developers.[7] Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[8] This suggests that a regulator should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, it may be better to not create a given agency at all. A captured regulator is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government. However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture. Recent evidence suggests that, even in mature democracies with high levels of transparency and media freedom, more extensive and complex regulatory environments are associated with higher levels of corruption (including regulatory capture).[9] George Stigler framed the problem of regulatory capture as "the problem of discovering when and why an industry is able to use the state for its purposes". He focuses on whole industries. But, it is never a whole industry which is ‘capturing’ its regulators, but only the big companies which, using the tool of the revolving door, ‘highjack’ the regulator by offering high salaries. Brezis and Cariolle (2019)[10] has shown that the connected firms are always the big firms. Indeed, the top 5 financial companies concentrate around 80% of the stock of revolving door movements and regulatory capture. This leads to inequality of influence among firms in the same sector. It should also be noted that regulatory capture in developed country is not anymore related to corruption and illegal behavior, but to abuse of power.[11] Relationship with federalismThere is substantial academic literature suggesting that smaller government units are easier for small, concentrated industries to capture than large ones. For example, a group of states or provinces with a large timber industry might have their legislature and/or their delegation to the national legislature captured by lumber companies. These states or provinces then become the voice of the industry, even to the point of blocking national policies that would be preferred by the majority across the whole country. Moore and Giovinazzo (2012) call this "distortion gap".[12] The opposite is possible. Very large and powerful industries (e.g., energy, banking, weapon system construction) can capture national governments, and then use that power to block policies at the national, state or provincial level that the voters may want,[13] although even local interests can thwart national priorities.[14] Economic rationaleRegulatory capture has an economic basis: vested interests in an industry have the greatest financial stake in regulations affecting them, and so are more likely to try to influence the regulator than relatively dispersed individual consumers,[4] each with little incentive. When regulators form expert bodies to examine policy, these invariably feature current or former industry members, or at the very least, individuals with lives and contacts in the industry. Capture is also facilitated where consumers or taxpayers have a poorer understanding than businesses of underlying issues.[15] Jon Hanson and his co-authors argue that the phenomenon extends beyond political agencies and organizations. Businesses have an incentive to control anything that has power over them, including the media, academia and popular culture, and will try to capture them too. This is called "deep capture".[16] Regulatory public interest is based on market failure and welfare economics. It holds that regulation is the response of the government to public needs. Its purpose is to make up for market failures, improve the efficiency of resource allocation, and maximize social welfare. Posner pointed out that the public interest theory contains the assumption that the market is fragile, and that if left unchecked, it will tend to be unfair and inefficient, and government regulation is a costless and effective way to meet the needs of social justice and efficiency. Mimik believes that government regulation is a public administration policy that focuses on private behavior. It is a rule drawn from the public interest. Irving and Brouhingan saw regulation as a way of obeying public needs and weakening the risk of market operations. They also expressed the view that regulation reflects the public interest. DevelopmentThe review of the United States' history of regulation at the end of the 19th century,[clarification needed] especially the regulation of railway tariffs by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1887, revealed that regulations and market failures are not co-relevant. At least until the 1960s, regulation was developed in the direction of favoring producers, and regulation increased the profits of manufacturers within the industry. In potentially competitive industries such as trucking and taxis, regulations allow higher prices and prevent entrants. In monopoly industries such as electric power generation, there is evidence that regulation has little effect on prices, so the industry can earn excess profits. Evidence shows that regulation is beneficial to producers.[citation needed] These observations led to the emergence and development of regulatory capture theory. Contrary to regulatory public interest theory, this holds that the provision of regulation adapts to the industry's needs, that is, both the legislator and regulator are controlled and captured by the industry. The basic view of the theory is that the regulator gets captured no matter how the regulatory scheme is designed. The implication is that regulation increases the industry's profits rather than the social welfare.[citation needed] This was essentially a purely capture theory in the early days, that is, the regulators and legislators were captured and controlled by the industry. Later regulatory models, such as those by Stigler, Pelzmann, or Becker, follow the regulatory capture theory in the eyes of Posner (1974) and others. All these models reflect that regulators and legislators are trying to maximize private, not public, interests. They use "private interest" theory to explain the origin and purpose of regulation. Aton (1986) argues that Stigler's theoretical logic is clearer and more central than the previous "capture theory" hypothesis, but it is difficult to distinguish between the two.[citation needed] Regulatory capture theory has a specific meaning, that is, an experience statement that regulations are beneficial for producers in real life. So it is essentially not a true regulatory theory. Although the analysis results are similar to the Stigler model, the methods are completely different. Stigler used standard economic analysis methods to analyze the regulation behavior, then created a new regulatory theory – regulatory economic theory. Of course, different divisions depend on the criteria for division, and they essentially depend on the researchers' different understanding of specific concepts.[citation needed] Justice Douglas' dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton (1972) describes concern that regulators become too favorable with their regulated industries.[citation needed] TypesThere are two basic types of regulatory capture:[17][18]
Another distinction can be made between capture retained by big firms and by small firms.[19] While Stigler mainly referred[20] to large firms capturing regulators by bartering their vast resources (materialist capture), small firms are more prone to retain non-materialist capture via a special underdog rhetoric.[19] ExamplesEuropeAberfan disasterOn 21 October 1966, a tip containing spoil and tailings from Merthyr Vale Colliery slipped after a period of heavy rain, killing 116 children and 28 adults in the Welsh village of Aberfan. In contravention of the National Coal Board's procedures, the tip was partly based on ground from which water springs were known to emerge. After three weeks of rain the tip became saturated and 140,000 cubic yards (110,000 m3) of spoil and tailings slipped down the side of the hill, engulfing Pantglas Junior School and a row of houses. Iain McLean and Martin Johnes, in a 2000 study of the Aberfan disaster, observed that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Mines went largely unchallenged by the tribunal, although the two consider that the organisation failed in their duty, falling in line with the interests of the National Coal Board whose activities they were supposed to be overseeing.[21] Motorcyclists' protective clothing standardsWith the advent of the European standard for motorcyclists' protective clothing (EN 17092), Bennetts and Motor Cycle News asserted that "the testing standards now used to certify motorcycle riding kit have reduced protection levels by as much as 90%" because of regulatory capture as industry representatives accounted for half the standards committee members including its chair, noting "Few will be aware of the intense opposition [to higher safety standards] from within the industry."[22] However, there is a shortage of academic research into regulatory capture regarding motorcyclists' PPE standards. United StatesBureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and EnforcementIn the aftermath of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), which had regulatory responsibility for offshore oil drilling, was widely cited as an example of regulatory capture.[23][24] The MMS then became the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) and on October 1, 2010, the collection of mineral leases was split off from the agency and placed under the Department of the Interior as the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR). On October 1, 2011, BOEMRE was then split into two bureaus, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).[25] The three-stage reorganization, including the name change to BOEMRE, was part of a re-organization by Ken Salazar,[25] who was sworn into office as the new Secretary of the Interior on the same day the name change was announced.[26] Salazar's appointment was controversial because of his ties to the energy industry.[27] As a senator, Salazar voted against an amendment to repeal tax breaks for ExxonMobil and other major petroleum companies[28] and in 2006, he voted to end protections that limit offshore oil drilling in Florida's Gulf Coast.[29] One of Salazar's immediate tasks was to "[end] the department's coziness with the industries it regulates"[27] but Daniel R. Patterson, a member of the Arizona House of Representatives, said "Salazar has a disturbingly weak conservation record, particularly on energy development, global warming, endangered wildlife and protecting scientific integrity. It's no surprise oil and gas, mining, agribusiness and other polluting industries that have dominated Interior are supporting rancher Salazar – he's their friend".[27] Indeed, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, which lobbies for the mining industry, praised Salazar, saying that he was not doctrinaire about the use of public lands.[27] MMS had allowed BP and dozens of other companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first attaining permits to assess threats to endangered species, as required by law.[30] BP and other companies were also given a blanket exemption (categorical exclusion)[31] from having to provide environmental impact statements.[30] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued strong warnings about the risks posed by such drilling and in a 2009 letter, accused MMS of understating the likelihood and potential consequences of a major spill in the Gulf of Mexico.[30] The letter further accused MMS of highlighting the safety of offshore drilling while understating the risks and impact of spills and playing down the fact that spills had been increasing.[30] Both current and former MMS staff scientists said their reports were overruled and altered if they found high risk of accident or environmental impact.[30] Kieran Suckling, director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said, "MMS has given up any pretense of regulating the offshore oil industry. The agency seems to think its mission is to help the oil industry evade environmental laws".[30] After the Deepwater accident occurred, Salazar said he would delay granting any further drilling permits. Three weeks later, at least five more permits had been issued by the minerals agency.[30] In March 2011, BOEMRE began issuing more offshore drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico.[32] Michael Bromwich, head of BOEMRE, said he was disturbed by the speed at which some oil and gas companies were shrugging off Deepwater Horizon as "a complete aberration, a perfect storm, one in a million", but would nonetheless soon be granting more permits to drill for oil and gas in the gulf.[32] Federal Aviation AdministrationSince the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) charter was amended in 1996, its sole focus has been the regulation of safety.[citation needed] A report by the U.S. Department of Transportation found that FAA managers had allowed Southwest Airlines to fly 46 airplanes in 2006 and 2007 that were overdue for safety inspections, ignoring concerns raised by inspectors. Audits of other airlines resulted in two airlines grounding hundreds of planes, causing thousands of flight cancellations.[33] The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee investigated the matter after two FAA whistleblowers, inspectors Charalambe "Bobby" Boutris and Douglas E. Peters, contacted them. Boutris said he attempted to ground Southwest after finding cracks in the fuselage, but was prevented by supervisors he said were friendly with the airline.[34] The committee subsequently held hearings in April 2008. James Oberstar, former chairman of the committee said its investigation uncovered a pattern of regulatory abuse and widespread regulatory lapses, allowing 117 aircraft to be operated commercially although not in compliance with FAA safety rules.[34] Oberstar said there was a "culture of coziness" between senior FAA officials and the airlines and "a systematic breakdown" in the FAA's culture that resulted in "malfeasance, bordering on corruption".[34] As of 2023, aviation in the United States, the field in which the FAA is tasked to regulate, has had an unparalleled safety streak. Because of this, U.S. regulatory policy in this sector is regarded as one of the best in world.[35] With an estimated 29,000 flights daily, the United States hasn't had a major commercial aviation disaster since Colgan Air Flight 3407 in February 2009. On July 22, 2008, a bill was unanimously approved in the Democrat-controlled House to tighten regulations concerning airplane maintenance procedures, including the establishment of a whistleblower office and a two-year "cooling off" period that FAA inspectors or supervisors of inspectors must wait before they can work for those they regulated.[33][36] The bill also required rotation of principal maintenance inspectors and stipulated that the word "customer" properly applies to the flying public, not those entities regulated by the FAA.[33] The bill died in the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that year.[37] In 2008 the FAA proposed to fine Southwest $10.2 million for failing to inspect older planes for cracks,[38] and in 2009 Southwest and the FAA agreed that Southwest would pay a $7.5 million penalty and would adapt new safety procedures, with the fine doubling if Southwest failed to follow through.[39] In September 2009, FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt issued a directive mandating that the agency use the term "customers" only to refer to the flying public.[40] Prior to the deregulation of the US air industry, the Civil Aeronautics Board served to maintain an oligopoly of US airlines.[41][42] In a June 2010 article on regulatory capture, the FAA was cited as an example of "old-style" regulatory capture, "in which the airline industry openly dictates to its regulators its governing rules, arranging for not only beneficial regulation but placing key people to head these regulators".[43] That the FAA was a victim of regulatory capture was one focus of a United States Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation and Space meeting held in the wake of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash that followed a previous crash of a Lion Air flight and claimed 157 lives. The Boeing 737 MAX platform that crashed had been subjected to only an "amended" airworthiness type certificate. The NTSB was tasked with the investigation of the FAA's certification process.[44] Federal Communications CommissionLegal scholars have pointed to the possibility that federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had been captured by media conglomerates. Peter Schuck of Yale Law School has argued that the FCC is subject to capture by the media industries' leaders and therefore reinforce the operation of corporate cartels in a form of "corporate socialism" that serves to "regressively tax consumers, impoverish small firms, inhibit new entry, stifle innovation, and diminish consumer choice".[45] The FCC selectively granted communications licenses to some radio and television stations in a process that excludes other citizens and little stations from having access to the public.[46] Michael K. Powell, who served on the FCC for eight years and was chairman for four, was appointed president and chief executive officer of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, a lobby group, effective April 25, 2011. His role has been the cable industry's leading advocate, spokesman, and representative in its relationship with the U.S. Congress, the Administration, the FCC, and other federal agencies.[47] Meredith Attwell Baker was one of the FCC commissioners who approved a controversial merger between NBC Universal and Comcast. Four months later, she announced her resignation from the FCC to join Comcast's Washington, D.C. lobbying office.[48] Legally, she is prevented from lobbying anyone at the FCC for two years and an agreement made by Comcast with the FCC as a condition of approving the merger will ban her from lobbying any executive branch agency for life.[48] Nonetheless, Craig Aaron, of Free Press, who opposed the merger, complained that "the complete capture of government by industry barely raises any eyebrows" and said public policy would continue to suffer from the "continuously revolving door at the FCC".[48] In July 2019, congresswomen Elizabeth Warren and Pramila Jayapal issued a letter (citing a report by the Project On Government Oversight) showing concerns for the composition of the FCC's Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC), questioning whether it could effectively serve the public interest if the majority of its members were representatives of the private sector. They wrote that "having the FCC's policy-making process rely on input from individuals employed by, or affiliated with, the corporations that it is tasked with overseeing is the very definition of regulatory capture".[49] Food and Drug AdministrationFederal Reserve Bank of New YorkThe Federal Reserve Bank of New York (New York Fed) is the most influential of the Federal Reserve Banking System. Part of the New York Fed's responsibilities is the regulation of Wall Street, but its president is selected by and reports to a board dominated by the chief executives of some of the banks it oversees.[50] While the New York Fed has always had a closer relationship with Wall Street, during the years that Timothy Geithner was president, he became unusually close with the scions of Wall Street banks,[50] a time when banks and hedge funds were pursuing investment strategies that caused the financial crisis of 2007–2008, which the Fed failed to stop. During the crisis, several major banks that were on the verge of collapse were rescued via the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.[50] Geithner engineered the New York Fed's purchase of $30 billion of credit default swaps from American International Group (AIG), which it had sold to Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank and Société Générale. By purchasing these contracts, the banks received a "back-door bailout" of 100 cents on the dollar for the contracts.[51] Had the New York Fed allowed AIG to fail, the contracts would have been worth much less, resulting in much lower costs for any taxpayer-funded bailout.[51] Geithner defended his use[51] of unprecedented amounts of taxpayer funds to save the banks from their own mistakes,[50] saying the financial system would have been threatened. At the January 2010 congressional hearing into the AIG bailout, the New York Fed initially refused to identify the counterparties that benefited from AIG's bailout, claiming the information would harm AIG.[51] When it became apparent this information would become public, a legal staffer at the New York Fed e-mailed colleagues to warn them, lamenting the difficulty of continuing to keep Congress in the dark.[51] Jim Rickards calls the bailout a crime and says "the regulatory system has become captive to the banks and the non-banks".[52] Interstate Commerce CommissionHistorians, political scientists, and economists have often used the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), a now-defunct federal regulatory body in the United States, as a classic example of regulatory capture. The creation of the ICC was the result of widespread and longstanding anti-railroad agitation. Richard Olney, a prominent railroad lawyer, was asked by a railroad president if he could do something to get rid of the ICC.[53] Olney, who later was appointed Attorney General in the Grover Cleveland administration, replied in an 1892 letter:
While the Interstate Commerce Act forbade "undue and unreasonable prejudice" against interstate passengers, in the sixty-six years before Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company (1955) the ICC had ruled against every black petitioner bringing a racial segregation complaint, earning the nickname "The Supreme Court of the Confederacy".[54] The ICC then failed to enforce Keys vs. Carolina Coach, attempting to justify segregation on a separate but equal basis for six years before being forced by the Department of Justice under then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to act in response to the Freedom Riders protests of 1961.[55][56] Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAccording to Frank N. von Hippel, despite the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has often been too timid in ensuring that America's 104 commercial reactors are operated safely:
Then-candidate Barack Obama said in 2007 that the five-member NRC had become "captive of the industries that it regulates" and Joe Biden indicated he had absolutely no confidence in the agency.[58] The NRC has given a license to "every single reactor requesting one", according to Greenpeace USA nuclear policy analyst Jim Riccio to refer to the agency approval process as a "rubber stamp".[59] In Vermont, ten days after the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami that damaged Japan's Daiichi plant in Fukushima, the NRC approved a 20-year extension for the license of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, although the Vermont state legislature had voted overwhelmingly to deny such an extension.[59][60] The Vermont plant uses the same GE Mark 1 reactor design as the Fukushima Daiichi plant.[59] The plant had been found to be leaking radioactive materials through a network of underground pipes, which Entergy, the company running the plant, had denied under oath even existed. Representative Tony Klein, who chaired the Vermont House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said that when he asked the NRC about the pipes at a hearing in 2009, the NRC didn't know about their existence, much less that they were leaking.[59] On March 17, 2011, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a study critical of the NRC's 2010 performance as a regulator. The UCS said that through the years, it had found the NRC's enforcement of safety rules has not been "timely, consistent, or effective" and it cited 14 "near-misses" at U.S. plants in 2010 alone.[61] Tyson Slocum, an energy expert at Public Citizen said the nuclear industry has "embedded itself in the political establishment" through "reliable friends from George Bush to Barack Obama", that the government "has really just become cheerleaders for the industry".[62] Although the exception, there have been instances of a revolving door. Jeffrey Merrifield, who was on the NRC from 1997 to 2008 and was appointed by presidents Clinton and Bush, left the NRC to take an executive position at The Shaw Group,[59] which has a nuclear division regulated by the NRC.[note 1] The NRC Inspector General's report detailed that Merrifield had voted twice on matters involving companies he had contacted about job prospects. In addition, the report noted that Merrifield called a senior executive at another utility to request that he encourage other companies to return calls about his job search. The report also noted that Merrifield failed to report certain reimbursed travel expenses for himself and his family.[63][64] One of those interviewed by the NRC Inspector General was Dale Klein, Chairman of the NRC at the time. Klein commented that "Merrifield generally was a staunch advocate of his chosen positions and was reluctant to change his mind." The interview notes also indicated that "other Commissioners also commented that Merrifield was excessively touting his accomplishments within [a] task force, but Klein indicated that this self-promoting tendency by Merrifield was not unique to this issue."[65] Although the NRC referred the matter to the Justice Department for civil action and to the U.S. Attorney's office for criminal action, neither office pursued the matter.[66] The same U.S. Attorney's Office declined all 20 similar referrals for prosecution during the period from 2004 to 2008.[67] A year-long Associated Press (AP) investigation showed that the NRC, working with the industry, has relaxed regulations so that aging reactors can remain in operation.[68] The AP found that wear and tear of plants, such as clogged lines, cracked parts, leaky seals, rust and other deterioration resulted in 26 alerts about emerging safety problems and may have been a factor in 113 of the 226 alerts issued by the NRC between 2005 and June 2011.[68] The NRC repeatedly granted the industry permission to delay repairs and problems often grew worse before they were fixed.[68][note 2] However, a paper by Stanford University economics professors John B. Taylor and Frank A. Wolak compared the financial services and nuclear industries. While acknowledging both are susceptible in principle to regulatory capture, they concluded regulatory failure – including through regulatory capture – has been much more of a problem in the financial industry and even suggested the financial industry create an analog to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations to reduce regulatory risk.[69] Office of the Comptroller of the CurrencyThe Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has strongly opposed the efforts of the 50 state attorneys general, who have banded together to penalize banks and reform the mortgage modification process, following the subprime mortgage crisis and the financial crisis of 2008. This example was cited in The New York Times as evidence that the OCC is "a captive of the banks it is supposed to regulate".[70] Securities and Exchange CommissionThe United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has also been accused of acting in the interests of Wall Street banks and hedge funds and of dragging its feet or refusing to investigate cases or bring charges for fraud and insider trading.[71] Financial analyst Harry Markopolos, who spent ten years trying to get the SEC to investigate Bernie Madoff, called the agency "nonfunctional, captive to the industry".[72] Similarly in the case of the Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme, there were repeated warnings of fraud from both inside and outside the SEC for more than a decade.[73] But the agency did not stop the fraud until 2009, after the Madoff scandal became public in 2008. The SEC has been found by the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, the Senate Judiciary Committee and a federal district court to have illegally dismissed an employee in September 2005 who was critical of superiors' refusal to pursue Wall Street titan John Mack. Mack was suspected of giving insider information to Arthur J. Samberg, head of Pequot Capital Management,[74] once one of the world's largest hedge funds.[75] After more than four years of legal battles, former SEC investigator Gary J. Aguirre filed papers in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case he had against the SEC, seeking an order to force the SEC to turn over Pequot investigation records to him on the grounds that they had not charged anyone. Aguirre had already provided incriminating evidence of Pequot's insider trading involving Microsoft trades to the SEC in a letter on January 2, 2009.[76] The morning after Aguirre's FOIA papers were filed,[76] the SEC announced they had filed charges against Pequot and Pequot had agreed to disgorge $18 million in illegal gains and pay $10 million in penalties.[75][77] A month later, the SEC settled Aguirre's wrongful termination lawsuit for $755,000.[78] The list of officials who have left the SEC for highly lucrative jobs in the private sector and who sometimes have returned to the SEC includes Arthur Levitt, Robert Khuzami,[79] Linda Chatman Thomsen,[80] Richard H. Walker,[81] Gary Lynch[82] and Paul R. Berger.[83] The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) released a report on May 13, 2011, which found that between 2006 and 2010, 219 former SEC employees sought to represent clients before the SEC.[84][85] Former employees filed 789 statements notifying the SEC of their intent to represent outside clients before the commission, some filing within days of leaving the SEC.[84][85] Reporter Matt Taibbi calls the SEC a classic case of regulatory capture. On August 17, 2011, Taibbi reported that in July 2001, a preliminary fraud investigation against Deutsche Bank was stymied by Richard H. Walker, then SEC enforcement director, who began working as general counsel for Deutsche Bank in October 2001. Darcy Flynn, an SEC lawyer, the whistleblower who exposed this case also revealed that for 20 years, the SEC had been routinely destroying all documents related to thousands of preliminary inquiries that were closed rather than proceeding to formal investigation. The SEC is legally required to keep files for 25 years and destruction is supposed to be done by the National Archives and Records Administration. The lack of files deprives investigators of possible background when investigating cases involving those firms. Documents were destroyed for inquiries into Bernard Madoff, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, Bank of America and other major Wall Street firms that played key roles in the 2008 financial crisis. The SEC has since changed its policy on destroying those documents and as of August 2011 the SEC investigator general was investigating the matter.[86][87] Federal Trade CommissionThe decision known as In re Amway Corp., and popularly called "Amway '79", made the FTC a captive regulator of the nascent multi-level marketing industry. The situation came to a head in December 2012, when hedge fund Pershing Square Capital management announced a $1-billion short position against the company, and evidently expected the FTC to act, which, to date, it has not. From a forensic accounting standpoint, there is no difference between a Ponzi-scheme like the Madoff scandal, and a pyramid scheme, except that in the latter the money is laundered through product sales, not investment.[88] The press has widely reported on why the FTC won't act, e.g. Forbes[89] though legal opinion has been very supportive in some quarters, such as William K. Black, who was instrumental in bringing thousands of criminal prosecutions in the S&L scandal, which was also rife with problems of regulatory capture.[90] District of Columbia Taxicab CommissionThe District of Columbia Taxicab Commission has been criticized[91] for being beholden to taxi companies and drivers rather than ensuring that the district has access to a "safe, comfortable, efficient and affordable taxicab experience in well-equipped vehicles".[92] Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board and I-502Some commentators[who?] have acknowledged[weasel words] that while Washington Initiative 502 legalized marijuana, it did so in a manner that led to a state-run monopoly on legal marijuana stores with prices far above that of the existing medical dispensaries,[93] which the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board is now trying to close down in favor of the recreational stores, where prices are two to five times higher than the product can be obtained elsewhere.[94] CanadaCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionIn August 2009, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) provisionally granted a request by Bell Canada to impose usage-based billing on Internet wholesalers, igniting protest from both the wholesalers and consumers, who claimed that the CRTC was "kow-towing to Bell".[95] On February 2, 2011, CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to defend the agency's decision. Critic Steve Anderson said, "The CRTC's stubbornness in the face of a mass public outcry demonstrates the strength of the Big Telecom lobby's influence. While government officials have recognized the need to protect citizens' communications interests, the CRTC has made it clear that their priorities lie elsewhere".[96] JapanIn Japan, the line may be blurred between the goal of solving a problem and the different goal of making it look as if the problem is being addressed.[97] Nuclear and Industrial Safety AgencyDespite warnings about its safety, Japanese regulators from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) approved a 10-year extension for the oldest of the six reactors at Fukushima Daiichi just one month before a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami damaged reactors[98] and caused a meltdown. The conclusion to the Diet of Japan's report on Fukushima attributed this directly to regulatory capture.[99] Nuclear opponent[100] Eisaku Sato, governor of Fukushima Prefecture from 1988 to 2006, said a conflict of interest is responsible for NISA's lack of effectiveness as a watchdog.[98] The agency is under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which encourages the development of Japan's nuclear industry. Inadequate inspections are reviewed by expert panels drawn primarily from academia and rarely challenge the agency.[98] Critics say the main weakness in Japan's nuclear industry is weak oversight.[101] Seismologist Takashi Nakata said, "The regulators just rubber-stamp the utilities' reports".[102] Both the ministry and the agency have ties with nuclear plant operators, such as Tokyo Electric. Some former ministry officials have been offered lucrative jobs in a practice called amakudari, "descent from heaven".[98][101] A panel responsible for re-writing Japan's nuclear safety rules was dominated by experts and advisers from utility companies, said seismology professor Katsuhiko Ishibashi, who quit the panel in protest, saying it was rigged and "unscientific".[101][102] The new guidelines, established in 2006, did not set stringent industry-wide earthquake standards, rather nuclear plant operators were left to do their own inspections to ensure their plants were compliant.[101] In 2008, the NISA found all of Japan's reactors to be in compliance with the new earthquake guidelines.[101] Yoshihiro Kinugasa helped write Japan's nuclear safety rules, later conducted inspections and still in another position at another date, served on a licensing panel, signing off on inspections.[102] Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW)In 1996, the Ministry of Health and Welfare (now combined with the Ministry of Labour) came under fire over the scandal of HIV-tainted blood being used to treat hemophiliacs.[103] Although warned about HIV contamination of blood products imported from the U.S., the ministry abruptly changed its position on heated and unheated blood products from the U.S., protecting the Green Cross and the Japanese pharmaceutical industry, keeping the Japanese market from being inundated with heat-treated blood from the United States.[103] Because the unheated blood was not taken off the market, 400 people died and over 3,000 people were infected with HIV.[103] No senior officials were indicted and only one lower-level manager was indicted and convicted.[104] Critics say the major task of the ministry is the protection of industry, rather than of the population.[103] In addition, bureaucrats get amakudari jobs at related industries in their field upon retirement, a system which serves to inhibit regulators.[103] Moriyo Kimura, a critic who works at MHLW, says the ministry does not look after the interests of the public.[104] PhilippinesTobacco control in the Philippines is largely vested in the Inter-Agency Committee on Tobacco (IACT) under Republic Act No. 9211 (Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003).[105] The IACT's membership includes pro-tobacco groups in the Department of Agriculture and National Tobacco Administration,[106] as well as "a representative from the Tobacco Industry to be nominated by the legitimate and recognized associations of the industry", the Philippine Tobacco Institute (composed of the largest local cigarette producers and distributors).[105] In a 2015 Philippine Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that the IACT as the "exclusive authority" in regulating various aspects tobacco control including access restrictions and tobacco advertisement, promotion, and sponsorships. In this case, the Department of Health, which is the primary technical agency for disease control and prevention, was held to be without authority to create tobacco control regulations unless the IACT delegates this function.[107] The IACT's organization also limits the Philippines' enforcement of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.[108] InternationalWorld Trade OrganizationThe academic Thomas Alured Faunce has argued the World Trade Organization non-violation nullification of benefits claims, particularly when inserted in bilateral trade agreements, can facilitate intense lobbying by industry which can result in effective regulatory capture of large areas of governmental policy.[109] Other examplesMcClean and Johnes argued that the sinking of the Titanic and its investigation illustrate an early example of regulatory failure and regulatory capture of the Board of Trade and Parliament by the shipping industry.[110] See also
Notes
References
Further reading
|
RudolfoMD (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you consider pointing to the plain language of the sources provided as "resorting to tricks", then I don't think the problem is lawyering. Pointing to the Wikipedia article on regulatory capture, on the other hand, is not evidence of regulatory capture with respect to the FDA, which is only an empty header in the regulatory capture article. I suppose a case could be made that the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board or the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare are agencies of the sort contemplated. BD2412 T 05:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has explicitly partnered with organisations like Cancer Research UK and the Cochrane Collaboration with the aim of improving medical content (in practice, use those organisations' content). In the UK, about 1.3 million medical professionals work for the NHS. Are we saying they have a COI with citing NHS information pages? While there may be something to address here, we're also in danger of getting into the "being a member of the human race means you have a COI citing things written by humans" argument. For a COI to exist there needs to be a conflict of interests. In general, Wikipedia's interests are aligned with those of major respected medical bodies: promoting accepted scientific knowledge. We could do something to rule out more niche organisation more explicitly. Bon courage (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I did some research.
9 years ago, the Board of Directors acted to clarify and strengthen the prohibition against concealing paid editing.
Organizations, PERIOD, (including but by no means limited to "a governmental health agency or an NGO producing high-quality systematic reviews") are NOT exempt. It makes it crystal clear that a local guideline is NOT allowed to override this action. Proves I'm right that WP:MEDCOI cannot override the WMF with an effectively unqualified "Citing your own organization is generally acceptable" statement. If you (that is, anyone reading this) has been editing on organization time (with a narrow exception, i.e. for "side project time") since then (ca. 2014) and have violated the prohibition against concealing paid editing, well, I didn't determine exactly what you need to to to rectify. I suppose you would disclose now and ask what other rectification is needed.
- It seems you may need to review. But clearly this is going nowhere. BD, you're such a lawyer. RudolfoMD (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Concealed WP:PAID editing is prohibited and bad. That's not in dispute. But per WP:SELFCITE experts are not even prohibited from citing their own work for legitimate purposes, so it would seem very odd to have a prohibition on them citing the expertise from their wider organisation?! Bon courage (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I did some research.
Israeli users on International School of Temple Arts (ISTA)
This article is about an international sex club whose staff members were accused of misconduct recently (see). It has become a paradise for SPAs and israeli IPs to add basically whatever came to their minds, leaving the article in the state it is right now. I tried to fix it yesterday, but another user reverted me. FYI, the first edit of this user (SocialTechWorker, who edits mainly on the Hebrew Wiki) on the English Wikipedia was to this article in August 2022, and they have been editing it ever since.
Notice the blatant advertisement of Baba Dez Nichols' documentary in the lead (inserted by this Israeli IP), notice how you can't even tell what this organization is about just by reading the lead of the article, notice the unreliable sources (WP:MEDIUM, an IRS pdf, ISTA's own website, Tripadvisor, Baba Dez's defunct website), notice the fights at the talk page. The article is promotional in the sense that it lists ISTA's services without any good reason, but also has a controversy section, which also compromises its NPOV. Given the seriousness of this topic, and that this issue has been going on for over a year, I think this page needs some protection as well. SparklyNights 19:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that the previous version was a dog's dinner, I agree to your removals largely, but the controversy regarding consent surrounding the sex acts covered in Haaretz and other reliable sources definitiely should be mentioned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- We should keep in mind that this is an international organization. Its headquarters seems to be in Sedona, AZ, although I am still trying to document with a source other than www
.datanyze .com /companies /international-school-of-temple-arts /347054368, as that site does not work in Firefox. I think that the heavy influence on what has happened in Israeli impinges on the neutrality of the article, & that non-Israel coverage is essential. Peaceray (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC) - The coverage of misconduct/sleazyness is not confined to the Israel operations, Anke Richter talks a lot about the Australian and New Zealand operations in The Echo story. I don't mind expansion about what the organisation does, so long as its not promotional in tone, but I think the current misconduct sentences should stay. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- We should keep in mind that this is an international organization. Its headquarters seems to be in Sedona, AZ, although I am still trying to document with a source other than www
Including Israel as a possible culprit at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion
There is a disagreement at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion over how the infobox should list the culprit.
Currently, our infobox presents the claim that it was Israel as equal to the claim that it was Palestinian Islamic Jihad; however, this doesn't align with our sources, which while still not certain present the claim that it was Palestinian Islamic Jihad as considerably more grounded in facts than the claim that it was Israel. This becomes a WP:DUE issue; we are providing more weight than is due to the claim against Israel, while providing less than is due to the claim against PIJ.
The alternative is to say that the culprit was probably PIJ; I believe this would be the NPOV-compliant option, and I am opening a discussion here to get further input from uninvolved editors on this.
Regarding sources on this there are too many to list them all here, but I've provided a subset below; for a more complete sample see Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion#Analysis.
BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I concur that probably-PIJ is what the sources are saying, so that's what we should say. We can still attribute the minority POV, but I don't think it belongs in the infobox, so I agree with you. Andre🚐 04:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I also agree. | Orgullomoore (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, this does seem like an accurate appraisal of what RS are saying. I suggest simply cutting the "Accused" parameter from the infobox for now. Generalrelative (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Agree per @Generalrelative Yr Enw (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor
- Yep, this does seem like an accurate appraisal of what RS are saying. I suggest simply cutting the "Accused" parameter from the infobox for now. Generalrelative (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'd rather not endorse either in the Infobox, and leave it at "Disputed". Andreas JN466 13:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, disputed seems best. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Same, until we have a form answer (which may never ckne) leaving it disputed in the infobox and describing the general lean towards PIJ in prose is the best route for a complex situation like this. Masem (t) 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agree At this point it's WP:UNDUE to not change the infobox. The only two sources that I'm aware of that are accusing Israel are Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad which are both widely considered terrorist organizations. On the other hand, as far as countries, Canada, France, the UK and the US have all said it was not Israel. Then a slew of RSs, many linked by BilledMammal, have also stated that Israel is not responsible. Essentially all published Open Source Intelligence groups have also said that PIJ is responsible. To put this in perspective the primary source blaming the IDF, Hamas, had written in its charter until 2017 that the Jews were responsible for the French Revolution AND the Russian Revolution, quoted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its charter and proclaims the need for a jihad to destroy Judaism: this is the group we're relying on when we say that the jury's still out. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, at the same time, many if not most of the cited experts endorsing the IDF version of events are people working for, or closely linked to, the governments and defense establishment of Israel's declared military allies. Would anyone really expect them to contradict and undermine the IDF in the present situation, given the explosive effect it would have on Arab public opinion?
- A notable exception to this pattern is Channel 4 in the UK: [11] They argue (based on a Doppler effect analysis of the audio of a geolocated video) that whatever hit the hospital compound came from the opposite direction the IDF argues it did. They also say the IDF's audio tape of the alleged telephone conversation shows signs of having been doctored. Even the BBC ends by commenting on a discrepancy in the IDF version of where the alleged rocket came from. No major human rights org has commented yet, nor has the UN. I think it is best to assume that things may still change. Andreas JN466 17:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is a little misleading. There are many independent experts that were cited. Der Spiegel cited a Swedish weapons expert. AP also surveyed 5 experts. Not all or even most of them were people working for or linked to governments or defense establishment of Israeli allies. Channel 4 TV news doesn't trump AP, WSJ, and practically every other reliable source. Andre🚐 17:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Most of the media still seems to be couching everything in terms of what different intelligence services, etc. have said, rather than stating conclusions in their own voice. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not anymore. [12] [13] Andre🚐 18:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Politico says It’s still unclear exactly how the explosion at the hospital occurred, but it doesn’t appear that Israel was at fault., The Atlantic includes quotes "though NOT conclusive by any means", beyond that the Atlantic bit is in their "Ideas" section, which is "analysis, essays, and commentary". nableezy - 18:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- These sources still don't make a firm conclusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not anymore. [12] [13] Andre🚐 18:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Most of the media still seems to be couching everything in terms of what different intelligence services, etc. have said, rather than stating conclusions in their own voice. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is a little misleading. There are many independent experts that were cited. Der Spiegel cited a Swedish weapons expert. AP also surveyed 5 experts. Not all or even most of them were people working for or linked to governments or defense establishment of Israeli allies. Channel 4 TV news doesn't trump AP, WSJ, and practically every other reliable source. Andre🚐 17:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- There is still a dispute among reliable sources on this, enough that endorsing one view is at odds with NPOV's requirement that all significant views be included. The infobox does not allow for nuance, and sources continue to say there is nothing definitive that can be determined. Eg BBC on : We contacted 20 think tanks, universities and companies with weapons expertise. Nine of them are yet to respond, five would not comment, but we spoke to experts at the remaining six.
We asked whether the available evidence - including the size of the explosion and the sounds heard beforehand - could be used to determine the cause of the hospital blast.
So far, the findings are inconclusive. Three experts we spoke to say it is not consistent with what you would expect from a typical Israeli air strike with a large munition.
But we are asked here to say things are conclusive. When things are disputed among sources we cant determine which of the sources we want to agree with. nableezy - 18:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
But we are asked here to say things are conclusive.
We're not, though? The alternative is sayingprobably PIJ
- I'm not sure where you got the impression that anyone wanted to say it was PIJ? BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)- So out of 20 they asked, 14 would not say anything, 0 thought it seemed like Israel, 3 said they had no conclusion, and 3 thought it didn't seem like Israel. Doesn't this mean that the infobox should therefore omit Israel and say something along the lines of "inconclusive (likely PIJ)" to comply with WP:DUE? JM2023 (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Or just 'inconclusive', per the experts. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- you're saying they said "inconclusive" and ignoring that they also said "but doesn't look like Israel". It's possible to be inconclusive but also lean one way or another. In this case, 3 said inconclusive and that's it, 3 said inconclusive but doesn't look like Israel. And that's not even factoring in the statements from American, British, Canadian, French, and Israeli intelligence which all lean toward a Palestinian blame, as well as open-source intelligence QUANGOs like the CNA. JM2023 (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Doesn't look like Israel" doesn't mean "does look like the PIJ" - this shouldn't really need to be stated. And we don't need to factor in the COI views of Israel's Western allies when we already have better, independent voices. As for quangos, the key part there is quasi-autonomous. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not saying they're saying "does look like the PIJ", I'm simply illustrating that Israel should not be included as a suspected perpetrator, and then using the intelligence sources to show that PIJ should be listed as a suspected perpetrator. Labelling those sources as "COI views of Israel's Western allies" doesn't seem right, it's going after the source instead of the information. JM2023 (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- The infobox currently doesn't accuse anyone ... Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not making a positive statement, I'm making a normative one. the current infobox is irrelevant, but it does in fact say "misfired rocket or airstrike" which is obviously presenting Israeli and Palestinian perpetration allegations equally, which I am saying it should not do. JM2023 (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's a war and parties to it have allies on a scale from more to less staunch. Staunch allies can't really be relied upon for objective information. The information put out by the Allies in WWII was equally a load of propagandistic codswallop, as much as the other side. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's still going after the information and not the source. to my knowledge, Palestinian allies have not presented any intelligence analysis and the blame on Israel still rests only on a terrorist organization's statement that was echoed by Palestinian allies and later contradicted by mainstream media. It's clear there's a significant viewpoint saying "likely Palestine". JM2023 (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Somehow I think that if Palestinian intelligence or, for example, Iranian intelligence, put out a statement, it would be given pretty short thrift. Intelligence outfits, in all countries, are organs that often specifically run disinformation campaigns, and, especially when the reporting is as close to events as it currently is, they need attributing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's still going after the information and not the source. to my knowledge, Palestinian allies have not presented any intelligence analysis and the blame on Israel still rests only on a terrorist organization's statement that was echoed by Palestinian allies and later contradicted by mainstream media. It's clear there's a significant viewpoint saying "likely Palestine". JM2023 (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- The infobox currently doesn't accuse anyone ... Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not saying they're saying "does look like the PIJ", I'm simply illustrating that Israel should not be included as a suspected perpetrator, and then using the intelligence sources to show that PIJ should be listed as a suspected perpetrator. Labelling those sources as "COI views of Israel's Western allies" doesn't seem right, it's going after the source instead of the information. JM2023 (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Doesn't look like Israel" doesn't mean "does look like the PIJ" - this shouldn't really need to be stated. And we don't need to factor in the COI views of Israel's Western allies when we already have better, independent voices. As for quangos, the key part there is quasi-autonomous. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- you're saying they said "inconclusive" and ignoring that they also said "but doesn't look like Israel". It's possible to be inconclusive but also lean one way or another. In this case, 3 said inconclusive and that's it, 3 said inconclusive but doesn't look like Israel. And that's not even factoring in the statements from American, British, Canadian, French, and Israeli intelligence which all lean toward a Palestinian blame, as well as open-source intelligence QUANGOs like the CNA. JM2023 (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Or just 'inconclusive', per the experts. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like there should be room in the infobox for “Disputed (probably misfired rocket)”? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Works for me. Andre🚐 18:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- The current infobox entry is fine. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- should probably point out that it's alleged to be a Palestinian one, not an Israeli one. JM2023 (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Works for me. Andre🚐 18:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agree per nominator BilledMammal. Considering Israeli, US, French, UK, and Canadian intelligence all point away from Israel and toward Palestine, as well as apparently many think tanks and QUANGOs/NGOs. JM2023 (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Infoboxes are for simple, known facts...the slightest complexity and they al;most always go horribly wrong. "Probably", "disputed" etc etc. It cries out for not trying to cover the responsibility issue in the infobox at the moment - leave it to the article text. Silence is golden. DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Looks like there was some problematic editing that got into the page back in 2021 from an IP that has since been rangeblocked. I have protected the page indefinitely, but having done so I can't edit the page directly. Experienced editors are encouraged to have a look. See also the note on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've made some changes for balance, but the problems with the article go much deeper than the BFKIP's edits, huge amounts of the article are unsourced and make quite serious allegations, which unacceptable for a WP:BLP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I actually doubt this was BKFIP. That rangeblock is pretty wide. This was probably a completely different editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Attributing casualties at 2023 Israel–Hamas war
Attributing Palestinian casualties at 2023 Israel–Hamas war
Currently, the infobox at 2023 Israel–Hamas war does not attribute Palestinian casualties. However, reliable sources typically do so, saying "according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry" or similar.
This has been discussed on the talk page, where I presented an extensive list of sources:
These were primarily obtained by working down the list of reliable news sources at WP:RSP; the rest were obtained by working through the sources listed by another editor. I'm opening a discussion here to get the opinion of uninvolved editors on whether we need to attribute such casualties per WP:DUE; my belief is that we do need to do so, as given how typical attribution is it is inappropriate and UNDUE for us to put their figures in WikiVoice. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- The question is not do we attribute it is how. BilledMammal is suggesting we attribute in text for Palestinian figures but not for Israeli figures, or he refuses to discuss them at the same time. Whereas sources attribute all the figures the same way. Example, ABC: More than 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, including children, and more than 4,500 people have been injured, Israeli officials said ... At least 3,400 people have been killed in Gaza and more than 12,000 have been injured, according to the Palestinian Health Authority.; WSJ: Israeli authorities said 1,200 had died during attacks by Hamas militants that began Saturday with intense rocket fire and an infiltration of fighters. More than 2,800 have been injured. The Palestinian Health Ministry said 1,100 people had died as a result of Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza with some 5,339 injured.; Washington Post: Palestinian authorities said Israeli strikes have killed at least 5,087 people in Gaza and wounded more than 15,200. In Israel, more than 1,400 people have been killed and more than 5,400 injured since Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7, according to Israeli authorities. At least 32 U.S. nationals were among those killed.. The idea we should have unequal attribution as though only one side's counts are being attributed in the media is what is a NPOV issue. But we do attribute, the infobox has an end note "per Hamas-run Ministry of Health". The text explicitly attributes as well. What is being objected to is unequal treatment when the sources dont do that. nableezy - 00:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Whether to attribute Israeli casualties is a separate question, and given the complexity of this question and that question will only cause this discussion to be derailed if we try to discuss them in the same section; please, open a section below this one, present your evidence, and we can discuss. For now, without getting too deeply into it as I don't want this discussion to be derailed, the statement
Whereas sources attribute all the figures the same way
is inaccurate; in the source list above there are a number of source that in the same sentence attribute Palestinian casualties but put Israeli casualties in their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)- I've gone and opened a discussion for you; it is relevant to note that all of those sources attributed Palestinian casualties, even when they were not attributing Israeli in the same sentence. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Im discussing this here, sorry. nableezy - 00:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've merged the sections and put these as subsections; I hope you will find that structure sufficiently addresses your concerns about these being related while allowing us to consider the two questions in a structured and productive manner. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- It does not, Im discussing how sources treat both sets of statistics and how we should. Again, I decline to accept your desired framing of this as two issues. The question here is how should either set of stats be attributed. People can decide they should be treated differently, but it is one discussion. nableezy - 01:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've merged the sections and put these as subsections; I hope you will find that structure sufficiently addresses your concerns about these being related while allowing us to consider the two questions in a structured and productive manner. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Im discussing this here, sorry. nableezy - 00:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, it is not a separate question, and the repeated attempt to pretend like these questions are not connected in any way is seemingly an effort to impose a double standard, and the demand that it be a separate discussion is seemingly made so that it doesnt look so blatant when that double standard is imposed. Some sources, apparently, do that, most do not. Of your own sources, Alarm is growing over the spiralling humanitarian crisis in Gaza as Israel struck back following the October 7 attacks, which Israeli officials say killed more than 1,400 people who were shot, stabbed or burnt to death by militants. And many of the sources that dont attribute in later stories when the Israeli casualties have not changes also have articles attributing those casualties to Israeli officials (obviously, what source has themselves verified the count?). Also, many of these same sources do not attribute it to the "Hamas-run" ministry in stories, eg Reuters will in some, but will just say The Palestinian health ministry said the Gaza death toll in two weeks of air strikes had topped 5,000. in another story. nableezy - 00:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:FALSEBALANCE; needing to attribute some information doesn't mean we need to attribute other information - both pieces of information need to be evaluated separately, which is why I am discussing the other piece of information below. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Except sources largely do treat both sets of attribution the same, which is why I am discussing it here. You can quote me down there if you like lol, but this is one topic and Ill be discussing it as one topic. To repeat myself, the attempt to pretend like these questions are not connected in any way is seemingly an effort to impose a double standard, and the demand that it be a separate discussion is seemingly made so that it doesnt look so blatant when that double standard is imposed. I for one decline to play that game. nableezy - 01:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Except sources largely do treat both sets of attribution the same, which is why I am discussing it here.
- Except they don't; I've presented copious evidence of that, so I'm quite confused why you keep insisting on that point. Almost without exceptions sources attribute the Palestinian casualty counts. Typically, they attribute it to the "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry" or similar; sometimes they omit mention of Hamas.
- Typically, sources don't attribute the Israeli casualty count; below, we see that in 20 randomly selected - not cherry picked - articles 15 don't attribute while just 5 do. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, you presented anecdotal evidence. And I get different google news results than you do: UN: According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict.; ABC: At least 1,400 people have died and 3,400 others have been injured in Israel after the militant group Hamas launched an unprecedented incursion from air, land and sea on Oct. 7, Israeli authorities said. NBC: More than 3,700 people have been killed and more than 13,000 have been injured in Gaza. In Israel, 1,400 people have been killed and 3,500 have been wounded. (doesnt attribute either); AFP: "Over 1,400 were killed (and) over 120 Israelis were abducted by Hamas terrorists" since the October 7 attack, Tal Heinrich, spokeswoman for the prime minister's office, told journalists. nableezy - 01:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
No, you presented anecdotal evidence
I presented a systematic review of a random sampling of news sources.And I get different google news results than you do
That would be because you used a different search; mine was limited to the past day while yours was not. BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, you presented anecdotal evidence. And I get different google news results than you do: UN: According to Israeli official sources quoted by OCHA, some 1,400 people have been killed in Israel, the vast majority in the Hamas attacks on 7 October which triggered the latest conflict.; ABC: At least 1,400 people have died and 3,400 others have been injured in Israel after the militant group Hamas launched an unprecedented incursion from air, land and sea on Oct. 7, Israeli authorities said. NBC: More than 3,700 people have been killed and more than 13,000 have been injured in Gaza. In Israel, 1,400 people have been killed and 3,500 have been wounded. (doesnt attribute either); AFP: "Over 1,400 were killed (and) over 120 Israelis were abducted by Hamas terrorists" since the October 7 attack, Tal Heinrich, spokeswoman for the prime minister's office, told journalists. nableezy - 01:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Except sources largely do treat both sets of attribution the same, which is why I am discussing it here. You can quote me down there if you like lol, but this is one topic and Ill be discussing it as one topic. To repeat myself, the attempt to pretend like these questions are not connected in any way is seemingly an effort to impose a double standard, and the demand that it be a separate discussion is seemingly made so that it doesnt look so blatant when that double standard is imposed. I for one decline to play that game. nableezy - 01:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:FALSEBALANCE; needing to attribute some information doesn't mean we need to attribute other information - both pieces of information need to be evaluated separately, which is why I am discussing the other piece of information below. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've gone and opened a discussion for you; it is relevant to note that all of those sources attributed Palestinian casualties, even when they were not attributing Israeli in the same sentence. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Whether to attribute Israeli casualties is a separate question, and given the complexity of this question and that question will only cause this discussion to be derailed if we try to discuss them in the same section; please, open a section below this one, present your evidence, and we can discuss. For now, without getting too deeply into it as I don't want this discussion to be derailed, the statement
- Palestinian casualties should be attributed to whoever claims them if its a Palestinian source. We now know how inaccurate they can be when they claimed over 500 casualties at the hospital explosion (while also apparently falsely claiming it was Israel's intentional fault). And also, Gazan institutions are controlled by a terrorist organization. Should not be in Wikivoice. BilledMammal's systematic review is adequate evidence. JM2023 (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The game playing with the searches is getting tiresome, the claim below is CNBC does not attribute to Israeli officials when another story will say As of 5:30 a.m. ET on Wednesday, more than 1,400 people in Israel have been killed, with 3,500 injured, according to the government’s press office. But below a user will claim CNBC does not attribute the count to Israel. Shrug I guess. Same for CNN, Hamas’ attack has left more than 1,400 people dead in Israel, mostly civilian, with at least 199 believed to be held hostage inside Gaza, according to Israeli authorities. Pretty sure can find the same for each of the sources. nableezy - 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Attributing Israeli casualties at 2023 Israel–Hamas war
Opening this section in response to requests from editors to discuss this topic, but who weren't willing to open a discussion. The status quo was that we did not attribute Israeli casualties, until this edit earlier today; to determine whether this status quo or this adddition was appropriate I searched "1400 killed israel" in Google News for the past day. The first twenty results, skipping results that were from an agency that had already been reviewed or were from agencies considered generally unreliable at WP:RSP:
Of these sources, five attribute the total casualty count to Israeli officials, and 15 put it in their own voice. Based on this, I believe putting it in WikiVoice is appropriate, although as one that put the total count in their voice attributed the military count it may be worth attributing that figure. BilledMammal (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Im discussing this up above, your wanted framing is not going to be rammed down my throat here. nableezy - 00:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The game playing with the searches is getting tiresome, the claim below is CNBC does not attribute to Israeli officials when another story will say As of 5:30 a.m. ET on Wednesday, more than 1,400 people in Israel have been killed, with 3,500 injured, according to the government’s press office. But below a user will claim CNBC does not attribute the count to Israel.
- I don't claim that CNBC never attributes the count; I'm saying that in a randomly selected - not cherrypicked - story CNBC doesn't. If we were only looking at one randomly selected source that could be chance, but we are looking at 20, where 75% don't attribute, which is strong evidence that sources generally don't attribute and thus we shouldn't either. BilledMammal (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe you two stop for now and let others comment. The more this goes back and forth the fewer people will be willing to get involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Good idea, I won't comment further, and I'll trim back my most recent comment. BilledMammal (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe you two stop for now and let others comment. The more this goes back and forth the fewer people will be willing to get involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is true that many sources attribute Gaza casualties, but they don't always use the word "Hamas", and some simply say "officials"[14][15][16] etc. Second, Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health figures appear to be confirmed by the West Bank Ministry of Health (which is not controlled by Hamas):[17]
As of Monday, more than 5,000 people have been killed in Gaza, and more than 15,000 have been injured since October 7, the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Health in the occupied West Bank reported.
So attributing them to Hamas alone seems inappropriate. Third, both Israeli and Palestinian casualties should be attributed in the infobox, probably as a footnote, and I believe this is already the case.VR talk 03:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)