|
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||
Additional notes:
|
|||||||
Search this noticeboard & archives |
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 |
Contents
- 1 Peyton Manning
- 2 Australia's Head of State?
- 3 Attribution of a quote at Daniel (biblical figure)
- 4 Does inclusion of common English pronunciation deserve a "geographical imbalance" tag?
- 5 Unpaid contributers to oft cited publications.
- 6 List of films featuring whitewashed roles
- 7 Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)
- 8 GMO conspiracy theories
- 9 Pov pushing of Kiluminati in Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map
- 10 Deepak Chopra NPOV
- 11 Hebron Conflict of interest and NPOV of sources
- 12 Prada gender discrimination case
Peyton Manning
The controveries are all recent and aligning with both potential retirement of a Hall of Fame quarterback and Superbowl victory. Some of it seems to manufactured by BLM pundits seeking attention for themselves through an unsubstantiated rivalry involving Cam Newton. None of the controversies appear to have substance that would make them noteworthy for a WP BLP and they should be removed until they are beyond rumors and unadjudicated accusations. --DHeyward (talk) 09:15, 29 February 2016 (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.
All info on the Peyton Manning article concerning the subject's highly publicized scandals has been completely removed. Previously this content was in a "Controversy" section, but was moved to a section entitled "Off The Field" after a consensus to do so was met. This is a fear, shared by me and at least one other editor, that the page may be being cleaned by PR representative of Peyton Manning; there is no proof of this as of yet and we have agreed to assume good faith, but this is a fear of ours. Also, there are multiple users which have disputed the neutrality of this article since the removal of the content of the scandal, but there have been a couple of users which continue to remove the POV tag from the page.
I understand that we need to come to a consensus on how to add the info on the scandals, but it clear that the article violates WP:NPOV if there is no information on the scandals at all. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The issue is that the undue weight given to these events violates WP:BLP. I have tried to err on the side of caution when dealing with these issues. The lawsuit was settled long ago and the HGH issue was never proven. I used my editorial judgment and removed a 16,000 byte section in order to try to incorporate the material into a smaller and more focused section. Peyton Manning is notable as a football player, not as a participant in a settled suit from the 90s and not as an alleged user of HGH. Wikipedia is not news, and the excess weight given to these events is not encyclopedic. Assumptions of a PR firm's involvement are a clear violation of good faith. Please note that User:ParkH.Davis has now reverted the article 4 times ([1], [2], [3], [4]) instead of trying to discuss this on the talk page. ParkH.Davis was also blocked 2 weeks ago for the same behavior. Some experienced, outside eyes would be appreciated on this article. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- It does not violate WP:BLP to discuss a subject's controversial past, especially when it is well sourced by numerous reliable sources. Manning is being investigated by the USADA, the NFL and the MLB as we speak for using HGH, so you can't just sweep it under the rug. Manning's name was recently mentioned in a lawsuit against the University of Tennessee concerning the institutional sexual abuse committed by the school's athletics departments. Also, the whole point of a Wikipedia article is to record a subject's history. It is exactly because the scandal happened that it should be at least mentioned in the article.
- I made clear that Leo and I have no proof whatsoever that Manning's PR is involved in the editing of this page; I only said that it is a fear of ours. I have been in the process of discussing this issue on the talk page for almost a month now.
- It is clear that WP:NPOV is being violated as there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of Manning's scandal in the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The entire Controversy section was removed with expectations of talk page discussion on what information should be added back to the page. The "controversies" were of course covered in multiple reliable sources but the previous section gave undue weight to these issues, which if to be restored need to only be mentioned not covered extensively. The HGH allegations are just that, allegations and have not been proven. Suspecting that a PR firm is protecting Manning's page is not assuming good faith. Meatsgains (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus was made to move the content to an "Off The Field" section, not to remove it altogether. It is censorship to completely delete all of the content about Manning's scandals. There is no way for this article have an NPOV if the scandals aren't even mentioned. Also, virtually all of the coverage given about Manning by reliable sources recently have been about his scandal, how is it "undue" to give the same weight to these scandals that reliable sources are giving to them? ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I never said consensus was to remove it completely. It was removed so we could discuss and reach consensus on what pieces of information should be restored. You just said yourself that coverage of Manning recently has been about his scandal, so I suggest you take a look at WP:RECENTISM. Meatsgains (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- If there was no consensus to remove it completely, then why has it been completely removed? Consensus was to move the content, not to remove it. The sex scandal has been on going for the last 20 years and the HGH use happened in 2011. There has been a recent barrage of reliable sources discussing these scandal and as Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources, say, there is no reasonable way that the scandal content can be censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:ParkH.Davis It is clear that these incidents should be mentioned. They should not constitute such a large portion of the article. I removed them entirely because having such a large section devoted to these issues constituted a BLP violation. Therefore let's err on the side of caution. We need to build the additions collectively on the talk page. I suggest we all take a step back and wait for uninvolved editors to weigh in here. Rehashing the same arguments here does not help anything. Please do not continue to edit war.Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I know that it is clear that the scandals should be included. That is why I am so baffled as to why they have been completely removed from the article. The content in question does not violate WP:BLP as it well cited by numerous reliable sources and given the same weight that reliable sources have given it. Even with the content in question, 95% of the article has nothing to do with the scandals. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- News organizations mostly cover current events. No reliable sources are writing news stories about Manning's previous Super Bowl win, or SEC championship, or any of the other events that have led to his notability. We do not build articles based on what current reliable sources tend to cover or weight. I will refer you to WP:NOTNEWS. I will quote the relevant bit here "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." Please use the article talk page to address the best way to insert these incidents, keeping in mind the policies described above.Mr Ernie (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based on solely on what reliable sources say. Anything else is original research. 20 years of coverage for a sexual assault is not "routine news reporting", it is a major event in the subject's life. Manning is being investigated by the USADA, the NFL and the MLB for his GH usage, this also appears to be a major event in his life. The full controversy section makes up a very small portion of the entire article and is at the very bottom. The vast majority of the article is devoted to his football career, which makes sense as that is what he is most known for. There is no reason for these scandal not to be at least mentioned. I still do not understand why all mentions of either scandal were completely removed from the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- News organizations mostly cover current events. No reliable sources are writing news stories about Manning's previous Super Bowl win, or SEC championship, or any of the other events that have led to his notability. We do not build articles based on what current reliable sources tend to cover or weight. I will refer you to WP:NOTNEWS. I will quote the relevant bit here "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." Please use the article talk page to address the best way to insert these incidents, keeping in mind the policies described above.Mr Ernie (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I know that it is clear that the scandals should be included. That is why I am so baffled as to why they have been completely removed from the article. The content in question does not violate WP:BLP as it well cited by numerous reliable sources and given the same weight that reliable sources have given it. Even with the content in question, 95% of the article has nothing to do with the scandals. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:ParkH.Davis It is clear that these incidents should be mentioned. They should not constitute such a large portion of the article. I removed them entirely because having such a large section devoted to these issues constituted a BLP violation. Therefore let's err on the side of caution. We need to build the additions collectively on the talk page. I suggest we all take a step back and wait for uninvolved editors to weigh in here. Rehashing the same arguments here does not help anything. Please do not continue to edit war.Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- If there was no consensus to remove it completely, then why has it been completely removed? Consensus was to move the content, not to remove it. The sex scandal has been on going for the last 20 years and the HGH use happened in 2011. There has been a recent barrage of reliable sources discussing these scandal and as Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources, say, there is no reasonable way that the scandal content can be censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I never said consensus was to remove it completely. It was removed so we could discuss and reach consensus on what pieces of information should be restored. You just said yourself that coverage of Manning recently has been about his scandal, so I suggest you take a look at WP:RECENTISM. Meatsgains (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus was made to move the content to an "Off The Field" section, not to remove it altogether. It is censorship to completely delete all of the content about Manning's scandals. There is no way for this article have an NPOV if the scandals aren't even mentioned. Also, virtually all of the coverage given about Manning by reliable sources recently have been about his scandal, how is it "undue" to give the same weight to these scandals that reliable sources are giving to them? ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The entire Controversy section was removed with expectations of talk page discussion on what information should be added back to the page. The "controversies" were of course covered in multiple reliable sources but the previous section gave undue weight to these issues, which if to be restored need to only be mentioned not covered extensively. The HGH allegations are just that, allegations and have not been proven. Suspecting that a PR firm is protecting Manning's page is not assuming good faith. Meatsgains (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Peyton Manning is notable as a football player, not as a participant in a settled suit from the 90s and not as an alleged user of HGH. I strongly dispute that. A quick search on any part of Google (news, books, or the web) turns up scandals as the overwhelmingly highest-profile coverage of him. I feel that part of the problem here is that fans (who are mostly familiar with him through his other accomplishments) might not realize that even those high-profile accomplishments ultimately pale before some of the scandals he's been involved with. I would argue that the majority of the text in the article could be about his scandals and it still would not violate WP:NPOV based on the level (and, at this point, the duration) of coverage they're getting. Certainly suggesting that they could be omitted entirely and still produce an article that would satisfy WP:NPOV is implausible. At this point, I am comfortable saying that he is more notable for his scandals than he is for anything else. At the very least, I feel that the controversy section should be restored; people can work on incorporating it into the article in a more useful fashion, but I absolutely don't feel that your removal of it was defensible. --Aquillion (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- So let me see if I understand what you're saying: You believe that Peyton Manning, SEC championship winner, 2 time Super Bowl Winner, holder of all kinds of professional football records, etc, is more well known as a participant in a locker room
prank gone wrongincident turned settled lawsuit as a teenager and as an alleged user of HGH? This is EXACTLY the reason we have and are guided by WP:NOTNEWS. Of course current coverage is about current issues. Nobody would be writing articles about his football accomplishments at this time, because they're already written. I will AGF, but I've seen you pop up in various areas always pushing the same POV. It's getting tiresome at this point. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)- Your categorization of the sexual assault scandal as a "prank" is categorically false and not backed up in any way by any reliable source. The "prank" hypothesis has been completely discredited and the event itself has been reported on my numerous reliable sources as a "sexual assault". Most of the mainstream coverage on Manning done by reliable sources is on his scandals. Football fans seems to forget that not everyone is a football fan. Wikipedia articles are not fan pages, they are supposed to give a full and accurate overview of a subject's history. Completely omitting all references to manning scandal clearly violates WP:NPOV. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Here is an article, WRITTEN IN 2011, that reflects exactly Ernie's view with also a kind of futuristic vision: http://deadspin.com/5842474/what-if-hgh-could-cure-peyton-manning. And here is another talking about the trainer's case: http://deadspin.com/how-tennessee-s-sexual-harassment-allegations-caught-up-1759118435. Yes, Deadspin is a progressive web media, but it's the same site which published the Manti Te'o's girlfriend hoax and Greg Hardy's assault photos, so it's a quite credible media.Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't cast aspersions. And no Deadspin is not a credible source of anything - please see WP:RS. And don't interject your statements in between other threaded statements. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- First: it's not an aspersion, it's a letter to the editors asking what do they think could happen with Manning's health as he has been one of the faces of NFL (in the first half, I forgot to mention it and I apologize for that), and I mention it because you mention Manning's reputation. I don't need to say a thing about the second link. Second: Of course men, of course, whatever you say. Your WP:RS criteria doesn't apply here as, for example, the Super Bowl 50 article actually has a Deadspin citation... on the top, and that among other cases. And of course Deadspin can be sensationalist sometimes but just as much as ESPN or Fox Sports, but if your criteria about sources is so limited, IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM AND I WON'T MENTION IT FURTHER. And third: my interjections are because sometimes users don't read or putting below statements make themselves irrelevant, but if that's how Wikipedia works I won't do it anymore. SORRY FOR GETTING OUT THE TOPIC FOR THE REST. Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- I have struck my wording. Thanks for pointing it out. The University alleges that Manning was only included on the recent lawsuit to generate publicity. I believe this is important to consider. (http://www.knoxnews.com/sports/vols/football/ut-asks-for-peyton-manning-claims-to-be-removed-from-federal-lawsuit-2c79f911-0695-1eed-e053-0100007-369895141.html) Mr Ernie (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your correction. The recent Tennessee lawsuit has nothing to do with this or Manning and was never even mentioned in article before. The content in question directly discusses Manning's own scandals and the events surrounding them. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your categorization of the sexual assault scandal as a "prank" is categorically false and not backed up in any way by any reliable source. The "prank" hypothesis has been completely discredited and the event itself has been reported on my numerous reliable sources as a "sexual assault". Most of the mainstream coverage on Manning done by reliable sources is on his scandals. Football fans seems to forget that not everyone is a football fan. Wikipedia articles are not fan pages, they are supposed to give a full and accurate overview of a subject's history. Completely omitting all references to manning scandal clearly violates WP:NPOV. ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- So let me see if I understand what you're saying: You believe that Peyton Manning, SEC championship winner, 2 time Super Bowl Winner, holder of all kinds of professional football records, etc, is more well known as a participant in a locker room
I have checked the Talk:Tom Brady page and when Ballghazi happened there was a similar discussion but with worst fights. It's disproportionate to compare both cases but finally a part of Brady's scandal was include in his BLP (I think it was because there was a main page for Ballghazi). I'm in faith that an accurate section of Manning's controversies will be presented soon, and as ongoing information is published, I consider some part of the original information should go to the Tennessee Volunteers football page and not in Manning's bio. I think the section "Off the field" is the most accurate. And I can apologize for writing about a potential PR staff involvement despite I clearly said there was no accusation and it was just a comparison with past cases. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand. There is an entire article dedicated to Deflategate, but there is not a single mention of Manning's scandals anywhere on Wikipedia. Would it not be fair to create an article dedicated to Manning's scandals? ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sepp Blatter's article is full of discussion about his scandals and controversy. Why is it appropriate for other figures, but not for this one? I agree with Dsaun100 that this policy is being inconsistently applied. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- It does no good for the editors of that page to come here and bicker with each other. The purpose of this page is to get outside input on a content dispute. FWIW, my interpretation of the rules is that this is a WP:BLP dispute, not NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Which aspect of BLP does this fall under? My understanding is that under BLP, controversies can be discussed if they are backed up by reliable sources. My personal objection, however, to deleting the content, is that the NPOV of the article will be compromised if it is only presenting arbitrarily positive info or downplaying the significance of the scandals. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Some mention of these controversies should be included on the page, and so far it seems that this can be worked out on the talk page. What I don't understand, though, is why the tag has been removed repeatedly, even though there is an actual ongoing discussion of the problem and no consensus to omit the subject entirely. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- As Cla68 mentions above, this is a BLP issue, not NPOV. We chose to err on the side of caution while we worked out the best way to handle the article. It is my understanding that the NPOV tag should not be used when the consensus POV is not your POV. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, but nobody (as far as I can tell) is arguing that the entire section violated NPOV. Deleting absolutely all information on a high-profile scandal like this isn't an appropriate reaction, especially when nobody disputes the basic facts. A BLP argument based entirely around some editors holding the belief that the article gives WP:UNDUE weight to what is unquestionably a major scandal seems relatively weak; clearly it's not enough to justify deleting the section, even "temporarily." You need to limit your BLP claims to more narrow and specific arguments about the parts you object to. --Aquillion (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Could someone please write a proposal of what they would like to see included so that we can discuss specifics and stop bitching at each other? I am in favor of keeping all of the previous section and simply moving it to an "Off The Field" section. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I encourage Wikieditors to read this article: http://time.com/4180414/wikipedia-15th-anniversary/. Moreover, there is a tag about BLP on NSNYC talk page:
This template is misplaced. It belongs on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.So I propose the content blanked about Manning might be restored (after being rewritten) but with a same kind of tag, just until all this controversies comes to a clear point. Why? Because even if the information is really well sourced, the information is dispute is considered by several people harmful to Manning's name in sense of people could focus in short term on this controversies more than on his career, as in some point happened to Tom Brady and the New England Patriots, but this information should not be censored. The point is that we need to reach a consensus. Leo Bonilla (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The redacted claims clearly violated WP:BLP as containing statements of allegations as the equivalent of fact, in using argumentation in Wikipedia's voice about the allegations, and in being given absurdly undue weight. In addition, there is absolutely no apparent WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion of the allegations in such massive detail. A total of two sentences would reasonably cover the locker room incident (trainer's claim, Manning's denial), and the HGH incident is not even of any direct value at all, as involving a person who denied making the allegation as initially reported. And please avoid claims of "whitewashing" - WP:BLP has specific strictures, and following the strictures of policy is simply what Wikipedia requires. (iterating my belief "Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.") Collect (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Ben Roethlisberger and Brett Favre's cases were also allegations and that information is mentioned in Wikipedia. Some editors are not fair and, AS I REPEAT, THAT IS REASON WHY I ONCE FELT THERE WAS 'WHITEWASHING' INVOLVED AND I ALSO ASK IF IT WAS NECESSARY MY APOLOGIZES FOR THE STATEMENT BUT NO ONE SAID A THING. And there's an column for Deadspin for Drew Magary, and even though I don't share Magary's opinion in a 100%, the column reflects the reason why some of us thought there was a PR issuse: http://deadspin.com/peyton-manning-can-eat-shit-1757781250 (sorry for the profanity). Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- All, and I want to make it a point to say, ALL, of the content in question is rigorously backed up by numerous reliable sources. Giving only two sentences to a major event in the subject's life would still be in violation of WP:NPOV as it would arbitrarily down play the significance of the events and likely leave out large amounts of information vital to understanding the events. This does not violate WP:BLP as literally all of it is backed up by numerous well respected and reliable sources. I reported this to the NPOV noticeboard because it seems the content was arbitrarily deleted from even a small mention. Wikipedia is not censored and we can not remove or downplay content based on our personal opinions of the events. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and reliable sources are spending much time and effort in covering Manning's scandals. Manning's article should give the same weight to scandals that reliable sources are giving them. ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ask yourself a simple question. Would these scandals have a wikipedia page if Peyton Manning was not a notable person? Let me give you my opinion: of course not. As such, they should be weighted appropriately with the encyclopedic topics associated with this individual, taking care to satisfy the WP:BLP requirements stated clearly by Collect. It doesn't matter how many news articles are written about these issues. As I've stated so many times, please take the time to read WP:NOTNEWS. ParkH.Davis your viewpoints are directly addressed in that policy. Just add a note about the lawsuit claims and Manning's denial and let's move on. Finally, to address your point, just because the news is covering an event does not mean we have to include it in our project. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Then ask yourself THIS QUESTION: Why Ballghazi has its own page and is part of Brady's BLP if it was proved he didn't gain significant advantage tampering balls and if the great majority of the press (in a hypocritical manner) take side with Brady when he was suspended? Let me remind you Manning is under investigation by the NFL for banned substances use as well as Alex Rodriguez was once by the MLB (I'm referring about how it started not how it ended, please), and Manning also was under investigation for his sexual harassment incident in a case against the University of Tennessee until a few days ago. Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Manning is also being investigated by the United States Anti-Doping Agency and the Major League Baseball organization. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- We should give the same weight to the scandals that reliable sources are giving, no more and no less. This has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS as this is a 20 year on going event. Wikipedia is based on reliable source and not based on personal opinions or original research; we can't arbitrarily down play the significance of these scandals or pretend that they didn't happen. If the scandals are not given the same due that they are given by reliable sources, then I will continue to dispute the neutrality of this article. This is not a Peyton Manning fan page. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Ask yourself a simple question. Would these scandals have a wikipedia page if Peyton Manning was not a notable person? Let me give you my opinion: of course not. As such, they should be weighted appropriately with the encyclopedic topics associated with this individual, taking care to satisfy the WP:BLP requirements stated clearly by Collect. It doesn't matter how many news articles are written about these issues. As I've stated so many times, please take the time to read WP:NOTNEWS. ParkH.Davis your viewpoints are directly addressed in that policy. Just add a note about the lawsuit claims and Manning's denial and let's move on. Finally, to address your point, just because the news is covering an event does not mean we have to include it in our project. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not TMZ. When any scandal or alleged incident happens against a celebrity, there is going to be a systematic bias of coverage of that scandal, compared to anything else the person might have done in their life; these sources love watching a train wreck, bluntly. We absolutely must be careful for BLP to counter systematic bias generated by this type of press. (See the fact that Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations is nearly 2.5 times the length of Bill Cosby itself) That Payton has pending legal actions against him, that's a few lines but as the case is still open we should not attempt to interpolate in any manner how it might resolve and treat the subject any differently because of this. Editors that want to vilify BLP without strong sourcing to back it should recognize this is unacceptable. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- The sources cited by the content in question are only reliable sources such as the Washington Post, the New York Times and The Nation. TMZ is not a reliable source. Please assume good faith and stop accusing others of bias. There are no legal charges pending against Manning, I don't know where you got that from. This has nothing to do with BLP, as all of the content is rigorously backed up by numerous reliable sources, the conflict is over the POV of the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Amazingly good point citing TMZ. How the Ray Rice scandal was acknowledged to the public? PUBLISHED BY TMZ!!! And here is how TMZ made the dubbed as "Most powerful man in sports" Roger Goodell look bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8qVuc32Rc. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- The video is about a mention of a Goodell's press conference by HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, let me clarify. Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- While sources like the NYTimes and WaPost are not TMZ nor engage in unscrupulous standing, they do give undue weight to ongoing cases against celebrities. There is something in human nature that we want to see successful people fall hard, and by that nature, there is a standing systematic bias that much more coverage will come to these types of events. As we are writing an encyclopedia and while meant to stay current, we're supposed to be treating topics with the long-term view. Let's say Manning is found innocent of all charges in x years from now. In that situation, the allegations would end up being reduced to a sentence or paragraph, at most, and we should not be writing on the presumption he will be found guilty, even if this is backed up by reliable sources. That's a BLP violation right there. Please note that I am not saying that no mention of the allegations should be in the article, but it should be "he's currently involved in legal matters" in a sentence or two without excessive detail on a pending legal action. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Manning was never charged with sexual assault, which is part of the story, as it appears as if the University of Tennessee may have been systemically covering sexual assault incidents, particularly those in which prominent athletes were involved. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, therefore we must determine whether an event is "due" or not based on the coverage given to it by reliable sources and not on our personal opinions as to whether or not it is "due" or not. There is no reason to downplay these scandals except to give the article an arbitrarily pro-manning POV. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. I am not interested in debating whether or not manning may or may not be guilty of any crime which he has been accused of. I am only interested in telling a full and unbiased account of the events surrounding the scandals. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- WP is not in the business of "telling a full and unbiased account" (my emphasis) of scandals particularly involving living persons. We summarize topics. And in cases of scandals involving living persons, we have to be fully aware that coverage of these in even the best RSes is skewed, and we should not attempt to try to cover that as in depth as these sources provide. Effectively, we avoid WP:RECENTISM, and should consider how this topic would be presented in, say, 20 years from now. If the charges were dropped against Manning, then that means for us a few sentences should be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- There were never charges against Manning in the first place. That's the whole point. This has been in the news for the last 20 years and a recent lawsuit has brought up the point that the University of Tennessee likely covered up sexual assault incidents like manning's to protect the image of the players involved and the University. I am tired of people not even knowing the basic timeline of events here and the basic facts of the case. This is clearly not recentism as this has been a major event in the subject's life for over 20 years. It clearly violates WP:NPOV to arbitrarily downplay or omit the details of the scandal. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and reliable sources have obviously deemed this story worthy of widespread and continuous coverage. Wikipedia is NOT censored and we cannot arbitrarily downplay events which don't align with our personal opinions of those events. Once again, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. I am not interested in having a debate about whether or not manning is guilty of any crime or not. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- People can allege whatever they want in a lawsuit. You say UT likely covered up sexual assaults. That's an outright wrong thing to say. A lawsuit had alleged that the University did this. But until a court of law proves the allegations you can only say they are allegations. Can you understand this difference? This is the critical point to the discussion that everyone is trying to get you to realize. If I sued Nike for making my feet smell when I wear their shoes, and some reliable sources wrote an article about it, would you write that Nike makes people's feet smell bad in the Nike article? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- I am not interested in debating the merits of the lawsuits, any of them. This is most certainly not the forum for such discussion. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on any editors' personal opinion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- There's a part talking about sweatshops in Nike Inc.'s article. Do people still wear Nike? Oh yes! Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Part of the problem looking at the removed content is that it is attempting to outline every little detail. The section that was on the doping charges is written as proseline. For a BLP this is simply inappropriate. (Note that Deflategate came up and while that has BLP considerations, it is about the case which has more than one person highlighted as possibly doing something wrong, not just the individual), so it is reasonable more details can be there). There's a way to still include this information but as BLP favors blanking contentious material about persons than including it, discussion should happen first on the talk page to figure out a succinct version that highlights the issues without going into every facet of the court case. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- The events surrounding the scandals are summarized and hardly include "every little detail". This has literally nothing to with WP:BLP as all of the content is rigorously cited by numerous reliable sources. Completely censoring the article of any mention of the scandal clearly violates WP:NPOV, hence why I brought my concerns here and not to the BLP noticeboard. This is not a fan page for Peyton Manning, this is a description of his life's events. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Just because you have RSes (even good quality ones) doesn't mean every detail is appropriate. Keep in mind: We are a summary work, we don't try to be the last stop that someone researching a topic should use but should be encouraging readers to follow sources to learn more. We need enough of an overview to be comprehensive (that Manning had been involved in the UT situation and had been in a dope allegation must be present, I agree), but the level of coverage should be very high level. This works towards assuring we are not a newspaper, not engaging in giving undue weight to most recent events, and keeping in mind we are writing a neutral biography. Let the sources document the messy parts of both situations, but WP needs to keep out of the weeds on these, unless the situations on their own have received sufficient notability. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)\
-
- Every little detail isn't appropriate, but the content in question doesn't even come close to include "every little detail". The depositions for the first defamation is over 70 pages long, while there is a couple hundred words here on the entire scandal. This has nothing to do with WP:RECENTISM as this has been on-going for the last 20 years and this has nothing to with WP:BLP as all of the content is cited by numerous reliable sources. It is not our position to "stay out of the weeds". Omitting info on the scandals is POV pushing of the worst kind. Based on the extensive amount of coverage both scandals have received by reliable sources, I would say they are both plenty notable to warrant inclusion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I disagree, skimming the material that was removed. There's a lot of excessive discussion of the complains in the original UT case, for example that can be distilled to one sentence (a he-said, she-said situation); we don't need their statements included in full, for example. If the case alone was notable (I have no idea if it is or not), there might be reason to expand there, but definitely not on a biography page. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- This is not a "he-said, she-said situation". As is outlined in the multiple reliable sources cited, the only witness to the event confirmed Dr. Naughright's story. It would be POV pushing to omit the fact that the only witness affirmed that Dr. Naughright had been sexually assaulted by Peyton Manning. The scandal is a major event in manning's life and has been on going for more than two decades, thus is most certainly notable for inclusion in the article. There is no reason to omit information on the scandals except to push an arbitrarily positive POV of the subject. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's been explained multiple times to you now why we can't make those claims. That witness changed his mind a few times in official narratives, and there was no official judgment about what happened. Please re-read my comments to you on your talk page and we can work at it that way. If it still doesn't make sense it may be time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- It isn't a "claim" to say that sexual assault allegations have been made against Peyton Manning, this is a well established fact. I am not going to argue with you over whether or manning is guilty of any crime or not. I am not going to drop the stick. It is clear that a major violation of WP:NPOV has occurred. There is no reason why all mention of manning's scandals should have been completely deleted from the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a forum. I am not going to discuss my personal opinion on Peyton Manning here. See: Wikipedia is not a forum. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your personal opinion seems to be quite clear on this issue; you've already been blocked edit warring over it and could have been blocked for edit warring again this week. I won't be engaging with you again because you refuse to read and understand what people are telling you. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- My only personal opinion in this discussion is that the Peyton Manning article should have an NPOV, which it is currently lacking. All I want is the article to have an NPOV, that's it. There is no reason why manning's scandals should not be at least mentioned in the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with anyone's personal opinions at all: Talk:Peyton_Manning#Lack of mention of HGH or sexual assault allegations is troubling. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Looking at this version, for example, I believe it is longer than necessary, and can be cut down 25% to 50% without losing the factual nature of the allegations and the current revisiting of the case by the 2016 actions, while the doping side by definitely at least 50%.--MASEM (t) 23:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Could please give specific instead of telling us to arbitrarily cut it by "25% to 50%"? Which parts do you object to? ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Just because you have RSes (even good quality ones) doesn't mean every detail is appropriate. Keep in mind: We are a summary work, we don't try to be the last stop that someone researching a topic should use but should be encouraging readers to follow sources to learn more. We need enough of an overview to be comprehensive (that Manning had been involved in the UT situation and had been in a dope allegation must be present, I agree), but the level of coverage should be very high level. This works towards assuring we are not a newspaper, not engaging in giving undue weight to most recent events, and keeping in mind we are writing a neutral biography. Let the sources document the messy parts of both situations, but WP needs to keep out of the weeds on these, unless the situations on their own have received sufficient notability. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)\
- Ok, not every single detail, I agree. But in that case, the Al Jazeera documentary ought to have a main page because other players are involved in the NOW investigations like Clay Matthews III and James Harrison apart of MLB players. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- The events surrounding the scandals are summarized and hardly include "every little detail". This has literally nothing to with WP:BLP as all of the content is rigorously cited by numerous reliable sources. Completely censoring the article of any mention of the scandal clearly violates WP:NPOV, hence why I brought my concerns here and not to the BLP noticeboard. This is not a fan page for Peyton Manning, this is a description of his life's events. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Let me remind you the main idea of my point. Ray Rice's domestic violence incident was acknowledged completely, first by TMZ when NOBODY OR ALMOST NOBODY cared about it, and before TMZ showed the video to the public Rice just had a suspension of 2 games while other players had 4 games for banned substances, Josh Gordon for example if my memory doesn't fail me. Do you know how screwed up things have to be when TMZ reports first?! So, there are situations when other kind of media like Al Jazeera America (yes, a true news outlet which is about to close) or the New York Daily News report first. Furthermore, the charges were dropped on Kobe Bryant's case but it doesn't mean people forgot it or had to forget it, and I'm talking about current days when all the madness about his last games is lived. Under our democracy Manning is innocent until the opposite is tested but his innocence doesn't mean the deletion of the investigations or his past incidents, and their respectively reporting. A recent example is Dr. Luke vs. Kesha case: there's a main page for it in Wikipedia created recently, and talking about the case, there wasn't found enough evidence to end Ke$ha's contract or to judge Dr. Luke for sexual harassment; Ke$ha is appealing and we know half of Hollywood reaction. But there it is, reported on Wikipedia. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- The sources cited by the content in question are only reliable sources such as the Washington Post, the New York Times and The Nation. TMZ is not a reliable source. Please assume good faith and stop accusing others of bias. There are no legal charges pending against Manning, I don't know where you got that from. This has nothing to do with BLP, as all of the content is rigorously backed up by numerous reliable sources, the conflict is over the POV of the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright. I made a big review. First of all I apologize if I took side with anyone's opinion and it was libelous. Now let me report: this is a case when a part of an article POORLY WRITTEN creates dispute. There are parts which concern more about Al Jazeera's credibility than Manning's involvement in those issues (in part due to he is not the only athlete mentioned), at least for now. Currently, there is a part on Al Jazeera's page related to the documentary and the posteriors reactions to its publication; and by the way, the "Performance enhancing drugs allegations" title could be totally rewritten as "Mention in The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers documentary" whether in the 'controversies' or 'off the field section', or mention the event in his 2015 career year section (he gave an interview to ESPN talking about the issue) like it appears in Tom Brady's BLP with the Deflategate reference, as well as not write out on Manning's BLP parts which are included in AJ channels' pages. The part about media coverage of Manning's life MUST NOT be in the article as it concerns more the sources than the reports themselves, whichever relation Jim Nantz has with Manning should go at Nantz's BLP, and comparisons with Cam Newton's career coverage are JUST opinions which people can share or not. But I do believe the following facts should be included on Manning's article: the NFL, MLB and USADA investigations; why Manning hired Ari Fleischer; and the 911 call and the incident related. It's a considerable shorter recapitulation. Now let's talk about Jamie Ann Naughright. I think the incident related to her should be summarize with specific details of and related to the affidavit and not every version of the history, plus the 2000 Manning's autobiography reference and the posterior Naughright's sue for defamation (but no more than this specific fact) and the New York Daily News's publication. Now in that recapitulation wouldn't reduce the content in more than a 20% but I think would be more accurate than how it was. I HOPE I CAN HELP FOR THE CAUSE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Australia's Head of State?
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Who is Australia's Head of state?, which revolves around the issue of how to apply the WP:NPOV policy. Interested editors are most welcome to contribute. StAnselm (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- This might best be read in conjunction with Australian head of state dispute, which provides reliable sources for both points of view. --Pete (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, there are major concerns about the aforementioned topic & related 'dispute' article, being expressed there. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- NPOV is not a main issue. This discussion concerns other policies, including original research, reliable sources, notability, weighting, content forking and plagiarism. Editors StAnselm and Pete go against the official position of the Australian government, it's parliament, courts and senior judiciary and all textbook legal opinion. They would prefer Australia to be presented in conjunction with an alternate theory and to conclude the country's Head of State is unknown. They appear to want to present Australia's top level of government as a debate. These two editors disagree with 14 other editors who answered clearly, as per the official position. Finally, no editor has expressed an objection to presenting this alternative point of view within Wikipedia, so NPOV is not really being disputed, just weighting. Travelmite (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please be very careful how you hurl about accusations of plagiarism. StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have been very careful. Articles should attribute sources and ideas to the author of those sources and ideas in accordance with the Wikipedia:Plagiarism policy. Travelmite (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please be very careful how you hurl about accusations of plagiarism. StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Attribution of a quote at Daniel (biblical figure)
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Daniel (biblical figure)#Historical fiction as to whether a quote in the article needs to have attribution. It currently says "The Book of Daniel, like Ruth and Esther, is historical fiction," but previously it said "According to Michael Coogan, the Book of Daniel, like Ruth and Esther, is historical fiction." Which one is best, per WP:YESPOV? StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly the labeling of anything which is regarded as "truth" by any religious group or religion as "historical fiction" is a matter of opinion and should be cited and sourced as such. Else we could have someone saying "The Quran is fictitious" or the like - and I suspect one can easily see where we would end up. On matters of religion, conservative wording is far superior to "I told them it is fiction" posturing. Collect (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Does inclusion of common English pronunciation deserve a "geographical imbalance" tag?
Editor Ttt74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has put a "geographical imbalance" tag on the Subaru article, claiming in the edit summary "concerning the American pronunciation over-weighting". This is the latest development in a dispute over the IPA pronunciation which started over a week ago, and has resulted in talk page discussion nearly 60% of the length of the article. In that discussion, Ttt74 has stated that s/he opposes the inclusion of what s/he calls "the American pronunciation". (It is not identified as "American" in the article; as the references (linked YouTube videos) show, it is common to both the US and the UK.)
There is no noticeboard for "geographical imbalance"; I picked NPOV as the closest, and also because Ttt74 has, in the talk page discussion, accused me of POV-pushing - that including an English language pronunciation violates NPOV.
WP:MOSIPA#Foreign names says "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first."
WP:NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
My stance is that even if the common English pronunciation is labeled as the "American" one, this is hardly any sort of bias or non-NPOV. MOS requires that we include the IPA for the English pronunciation, or pronunciations. And it would be very hard to argue that the common English-language pronunciation does not have significant usage.
The fact that there are other pronunciations used elsewhere in the world, or even in specific regions of the United States, does not preclude many, many articles from including an English pronunciation. Nor should it here. If Ttt74 finds references for other pronunciations that have significant usage she or he is free to add them.
So, my question: Is this "geographical imbalance" tag warranted by the article as it now stands? (Personally, I think it's ridiculous.) Jeh (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your POV-pushing about American pronunciation is showing: in the talk page you said "we don't need an a common English pronunciation", and now you are saying the opposite "Does inclusion of common English pronunciation deserve a "geographical imbalance" tag".
Besides you failed to AGF when you said she or he instead of saying he or she.
The pronunciation you seem to be advocating on that article is a U.S marketing stuff and nothing more: it's just not well used by anyone else except of those people who are too influenced by the country you are living in. I don't think other instances of Wikipedia, like the German one [5], are wrong for not including their own pronunciation. Ttt74 (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC) - Regarding your phrase "Personally, I think it's ridiculous.": I think that describing a decision made by other contributor to be "ridiculous", is in no way a good manner to make your case on this DR forum. I warned you many times of your lack of AGF on many discussions, but you seem not to take it on consideration. This time a warning on your talk page will be enough. Ttt74 (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Re "common", the trouble is that you are confusing two different uses of the word "common". In the first case that you quoted I was referring to a single pronunciation that was known to be "common" to all or most English speakers. (I said we didn't need to find such a pronunciation, since MOS supports including multiple ones. That was in response to your opinion that we shouldn't have any English pronunciation just because there were several possible ones.) But in the second case that you quoted I was using the word in the sense of "typical; widely or frequently used".
- Regarding "he or she", this is very much a side issue... but it is common (i.e. frequent) among some English writers to use this interchangeably with "she or he". To use "he or she" all the time is, in the view of many (including myself), not in the spirit of equality that the phrase is intended to evoke. Too, consider that "she or he" is more consistent with the common (often-used) notation "s/he". In any case, this is a personal stylistic choice of mine. I have not the slightest idea how you think that use of "she or he" is an AGF violation, or for that matter that it can be construed as any other sort of attack, insult, or even a slightly mildly uncivil comment. Or anything else precluded by WP:CIVIL and the like for that matter. Now... If you will list your gender on your user page then, in deference to your reaction here, I will use the appropriate gender-specific pronouns to refer to you in the future. In the meantime, since I don't know your gender, I will continue to use such gender-neutral expressions as I see fit at the moment.
- The pronunciation reflected in the IPA is referenced to YouTube videos of, in the one case, a television ad approved by Subaru UK, and in the other, a "video article" produced by Motor Trend, a major U.S. magazine. Your dismissal of these references as "too influenced by the country you are living in" is absurd. Such videos are of course carefully designed to be as understandable as possible to the widest possible audience. So it is reasonable to accept them as representing a standard pronunciation, understandable by almost everyone in their respective countries -- even by individuals who would, in their own speech, use a different intonation or inflection. (Note that the referenced pronunciation is also completely consistent with the spelling of the word.) Your claim that it is "just not well used by anyone else" is, so far, merely your claim, unjustified by any references (and I frankly find it bizarre). But even if we assume, for sake of argument, that everybody outside the US and UK uses some other pronunciation, that does not mean that IPAs confirmed by these references these IPAs should not be included.
- No, what other-language Wikipedias do, per their own rules, is not "wrong". But neither is what we do wrong just because we have, in some cases, different rules. I am not aware of any other language Wikipedia that supports anything like WP:ENGVAR, but that doesn't make us wrong. Indeed, this acceptance, even embracing, of national variations of English is indicative of our adherence to NPOV. Regarding this issue, it may well be different in every other Wikipedia in the world... but our MOS requires that we include the English pronunciation(s). And for English language Wikipedia, that is definitive. Furthermore, the UK and US together make up a very large portion of Subaru's English-speaking market. So to exclude the UK/US pronunciation would therefore be contrary not only to MOS, but also NPOV, and even WP:DUE.
- Re. "ridiculous", I meant what I said exactly. Heck, quite aside from the validity of your complaint, the tag you added is only marginally relevant to the issue. Nor is this an AGF failure. You really need to stop chanting "AGF! AGF!" for every imagined slight; at this point anyone who regularly interacts with you will just say "oh, that's just Ttt74 crying AGF again, pay it no mind." And that's what I'll be doing. Jeh (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Having just listened to a bunch of SubaruAustralia ads, this seems to me to be a dumb and largely made-up controversy. Of course the vowels are all shifted to some great or lesser degree, but as far as the stresses, they pronounce "Subaru" exactly as Americans do: Subaru. And again, like Americans, there is a secondary stress on the last syllable. I don't do IPA and perhaps it is possible to differentiate the American versus Aussie vowel pronunciation, but then again, it would therefore be possible to differentiate between various American regional accents on the same basis. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello. I investigated the case brought here a bit and cannot see anything that Jeh might have done wrong. In all the fairness, even if he was wrong, there would still have been other forms of setting things right. Friendlier ways. In response to the question that Jeh has asked from Mangoe above, yes, I do support removing the geographical imbalance tag. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Unpaid contributers to oft cited publications.
I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Given the recent goings on concerning some major online publications not paying their contributers, (huffpo, mary sue are two named), does it warrant reevaluating their uses as reliable sources for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.42.168 (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this Q fit better at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ? Jeh (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
List of films featuring whitewashed roles
DJokerNr1, who has contested the sources used in the article List of films featuring whitewashed roles based on their application of the U.S. Census and personal knowledge, has made a very pointed POV edit here. He has pushed for his own changes to be implemented despite opposition from me and one other editor so far. I have started a discussion on the talk page and have stopped editing, but I found this latest edit extremely problematic. Can editors review the situation as well as this editor's particular conduct? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I made that edit because User:Erik would not allow me to remove additions in which the race of the character is not specified only ASSUMED, i.e. Katnis in Hunger Games. DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Other editors should review the content of that film's entry. It is reliably sourced. If sources contesting this claim can be found, they can be included as well. This has been done for several films on the list in which the whitewashing has been challenged. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- it is not reliably sourced when the author of the sources can't tell the difference between a cultural identity and a race. OR when the race isn't specified by canon sources, but the author of the reliable source puts it on himself/herself to classify the character for us. DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Your argument is not substantiated by guidelines defining reliable sources. You don't get to dismiss sources as not being reliable, simply because you disagree with what they say. So you need an argument actually backed by WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Editor has also mocked the use of sources as seen here. The editor is only interested in applying their own logic and not actually following sources for Wikipedia to summarize their coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Wiki should have standards on what sources it uses(or so I'm told). When i criticizes a source if it's an amateurish blog post or uneducated opinion piece, the response should be the points on why it is a reliable source, not just it's the source! it's the source!. Because if not, then anything can be used as reference for wiki. DJokerNr1 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Many films have multiple references showing different sources writing about whitewashing in each film. You're welcome to criticize specific sources, but you've been blanking some entries wholesale, so it is doubtful that you are even considering them. Based on your tone on the talk page, you are constantly projecting your interpretations on the topic. It does not matter if reliable sources have written about whitewashing in films like Aloha, Exodus: Gods and Kings, or 21, if it does not fit your interpretation, it should be rejected. That's a huge POV problem, which is why I posted about your contributions and conduct here on this noticeboard. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No. When discussing such a divisive issue, the characters at hand should be clear. Tony Mendez doesn't identify as Hispanic. Your reliable sources put him into the stereotypical hispanic category, nonetheless. Holding the uneducated mindset that Hispanics are universality a brown people, not a racially diverse cultural group. The lack of this basic knowledge make the source unreliable. Gods in mythology don't have ethnicities. 21 was INSPIRED by real world people. It wasn't a historical flic or a biogrpahy film. White character were creatied that were LOOSELY inspired by real world asian character. It wasn't a case where white actors played non white characters, i. e. Ghenhis by John Wayne. This is not POV pushing. this is simple fact checking. DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The Argo entry states that Tony Mendez does not identify as Hispanic. However, reliable sources have covered the criticism of Affleck in that role and that it should have been a person of Hispanic roots in that role. This is also the case for Gods of Egypt, which has been hugely covered by reliable sources about its whitewashing. In the case of 21, I've already explained on the talk page that sources state that it is a matter of under-representation in film where Asian actors could have been cast in these roles based on real-life Asian persons but white actors were instead cast. This is all covered by the sources; none of what I argue is coming from personal interpretations. Your arguments are based on personal intepretations. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This says, "The group cited 'whitewashing' by studios, referencing instances in which minority characters were either played by white actors — Emma Stone as an Asian American in 'Aloha,' Ben Affleck as an Hispanic in 'Argo' — or ethnic roles that were rewritten to accommodate white actors." The film has been the subject of such a discussion and warrants listing and explaining. As it has been said, Tony Mendez's statement about not self-identifying as Hispanic has been included. The same goes for other films where the criticism has been countered. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You are creating your own OR arguments to refute reliable sources. Sorry, but it is not the role of WP editors to refute what reliable sources say. If you feel that a source isn't reliable, then you can take it to the RS noticeboards. However, the criteria you've listed so far for disqualifying these sources, is not sufficient and is ultimately irrelevant to determining the reliability of a source.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
To that i add Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States. Forcing a cultural identity on someone, when he/she denies the identity in question voids the source as a reliable source, since it's POV pushing on an epic scale by the author. DJokerNr1 (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're contesting that the Los Angeles Times reported on the Multi-Ethnic Coalition, of which the National Hispanic Media Coalition is a part, considered the casting in Argo to be whitewashing, by referencing a Wikipedia article and claiming that the LA Times is "POV pushing" with its coverage of this criticism? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)
I'm not entirely sure as to whether the sourcing on this article is up to standard. As far as I can see, there only seems to be one reference on the article that meets reliable source criteria- the Globe and Mail article- and said source certainly does not describe the concept of charging meat producers more to kill beasts without stunning them beforehand as an 'antisemitic canard'. The vast majority of other references are to clearly biased advocate groups, self-published books, or sources that do not mention the 'kosher tax' as such (c.f. Blee 2009).
Would appreciate it if someone could have a good look over the article. 121.75.209.143 (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
GMO conspiracy theories
GMO conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I started this article because I kept finding sources that identified this topic. Certain editors think the article is not NPOV and have proclaimed this vociferously on the talkpage, but I have had a hard time identifying exactly what their objections are beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT (I am suspicious that many are anti-GMO activists who don't want this page to exist on Wikipedia for reasons having less to do with concerns over neutrality rather than wanting to paint their position in the best possible light).
It would be nice to get someone who is independent of the ongoing controversies related to GMOs on Wikipedia to review the article to see if the tag should still be there. Right now, we have only longtime disputants editing so it may not be possible for us to see where actual problems lie (if any do).
Thanks.
jps (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Pov pushing of Kiluminati in Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map
Hi. @LightandDark2000: could be a witness. Kiluminati is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. He refused sources that mentionned Hadi advance. The account appeared in December and he speaks of vandalism. He removes sources such as Masdar speaking advances loyalists and source map with Al Masira , official media Houthi . This is unacceptable. And he accused the others to vandalism. He had been warned here and here. 2016 (UTC) First, I ask Kilumnati cease to qualify those who do not think like him vandals or saboteurs . This is a personal attack and I demand punishment. For its wars of editions of removing information about advanced Yemeni government , just see his latest contributions . Enough 's enough of this pov pusher . And personal attacks , simply view comments for change , there's always a personal attack. Moreover, it is somewhat strong coffee that has come out of nowhere in December 2015 , already knows the community pages of Wikipedia and has the nerve to accuse of vandalism. So he who does not know the definition. Moreover, it is certain that behind the Kiluminati account hides an experienced account , perhaps even banned.@Jytdog: Hello. I demand an immediate sanction against the puppet socket for general behavior on the encyclopedia. For Warring he did with @LightandDark2000:, where it distorts the meaning of Article to deny that to update the map with the advancing troops Hadi . Furthermore, I demand punishment for his personal attacks, defamation that are calling me a vandal, saboteur and fanatical pro Hadi . Regards. Panam2014 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is true. User:Kiluminati has been POV-pushing on the Yemeni Map Module for months now. Despite being warned by other users and a number of discussions on the modules's talk page, he refused to cease his disruptive behavior, and is continuing to alter the map in favor of his own pro-Houthi views, using unreliable sources or seriously biased sources to carry out the changes. He also mass reverts any other users who make changes in favor of the opposite side, using reliable sources, and he accuses them of "vandalism" when this happens. And if any user happens to revert any of his unreliable or poorly-sourced edits, he reverts them also also hurls similar accusations of vandalism or disruptive editing. This is unacceptable. User:Kilunimati's edits are seriously shifting the Yemeni map module away from a neutral point of view, and sadly, since December 2015, the map has become the most unreliable map module on Wikipedia, except in the instances where I or another user managed to revert his changes or update the map using reliable sources. This needs to stop; this is damaging Wikipedia's neutrality and accuracy policies. Please attempt to mediate a solution with the user in question. If all else fails, I recommend a topic ban on the user for at least 6 months, to end any further disruption. Also, if things get too out of hand in the short term, then please lock the module for 3 days, to kill off any further disruptions or edit wars from this user, until a solution can be mediated. Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- First of all, i'm so sorry for failure to follow WP:NPOVN laws where strongly been emphasized to notify editor who is the subject of a discussion with red color! given that by coincidence i faced to this topic that it show pretenders legitimacy how observe the law!
- For POV Push accusation with regards to leaving in irrelevent section in noticeboard (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view where place to article content is compliant with the NPOV) should be snapback to Yemen Civil War talk page where editors must be told sources that based on doing edit. but the two not provide anything for their edit and always are be elusive from responding, here is visible. basically, there are not completely impartial resources for validation and accuracy of claims! and the two rely on sources that the majority of them are founder of war and the rest of its supporters. of course we all know they cant be neutral so what's the solution? answer is using all of them as jointly it's means admit one side to domination the other side and vice versa. it's the only operational way-out at the moment. except this method just lead to more chaos and i taked it for reduce disputes (User contributions).
- Now the this two trying with working together and trick handling asperse and defame me and going to introduce me as POV Pusher in public opinios but weak works not benefit. it seems to me can be work out this difficult problem side by side not against. I hope intellection overtake from ignorance, hope.... K!lluminati (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Killuminati is indeed a pov pusher and I have demonstrated. So I will not dwell on it further. Furthermore, he claims that Al Masirah is credible and using as source General People's Congress website of Ali Abdullah Saleh. that's the weakest coffee complaining about defamation when we used to accuse others of vandalism and sabotage. Moreover, Kiluminati appropriates the module by its leader of the discussion by denying the arguments that are not going in his direction. To have searched the talk page I demand punishment under Wikipedia: Harassment and its disorganization of the encyclopedia I also demand a punishment for WP:POINT. Panam2014 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- why Al Masirah not be credible? let us not forget famous mainstream news media due to lack of journalist on yemen working their own news quoted al-masirah's reports (even al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya). what's wrong with using GPC website? not clear? for what reason the using salih, ansarullah and houthis resources are forbidden but using al-Jazeera, al-arabiya & al-Akhbariyah and all of arabic coalition sources that are starters of war on yemen is obligatory? that's comical analogy! it's clear they misrepresent truth and nutrify misinformation as flipped to audiences, and by this manner put community minds in aberration and brainwash public opinions easy peasy lemon squeezy!!! now at here the two sophistries prevent from being display battlefields realities. in previous some time the two reverted anything they deem to wrong. all of them be there here [6]. with this action, the map instead of be indicative of reality is propagator of errors!
- Stretches this sealed ring endangers the main objectives of Wikipedia that's surely “public access to correct information”. The this point to be taken seriously otherwise will have troubling consequences. K!lluminati (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- This individual has lost all credibility. Sabanew (pro Hadi) or Sabanews (pro Houthis) and Al Masirah (pro Houthi) do not have to be used since these are the officials media of the belligerents. And their information is never taken up by the mainstream media. If they were credible, the information should have been included. I am proud of the confession of this POV pusher. The media like Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya are international sources and their information is taken over by large groups such as NY Times. Put the same level as the propaganda war is the POV pushing. Finally, Al jazeera contradicts Kiluminati but its information is recognized. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Deepak Chopra NPOV
There is an RfC for Deepak Chopra involving concerns about NPOV at Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC:_Is_the_lead.2C_among_other_parts_of_the_article.2C_reflective_of_the_sources_and_a_NPOV.3F.BlueStove (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hebron Conflict of interest and NPOV of sources
After several weeks, it has been determined that the source for a particularly accusatory paragraph against the Jewish Settlers in Hebron was bias and not compliant with the NPOV policy. It was discovered that the author downplayed murders of Jews and and used language which maximized the emotional value of deaths of Palestinians within the conflict. The author was described by a non-participant in the dispute and as anti-Israeli agitator, and best.
The response be the editor of that paragraph has been to remove the observations, lock up the talk section and most importantly, now claims that Wikipedia doesn't adhere to a NPOV policy. How do we get this past an editing war and into a real dispute resolution?
166.84.1.2 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP NPOV policy is strictly applied to how editors behave in presenting information in articles, it has nothing to do with how sources are written. As a matter of fact, sources are allowed to be biased, it's our representation of sources that's not allowed to be biased. From WP:NPOV "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." So attempting to remove a source because you disagree with its point of view and think its biased, is not sufficient for rejecting a source on WP. If the main concern is the source, then you should go to the reliable sources noticeboard and actually link the source and the information being used from the source, so editors have a better idea of what you're talking about.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Please be aware that the editor who started this section started a nearly identical section at WP:AN#removing analysius of POV author in Hebron Pages. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that the editor who opened this request is not permitted, under an arbitration ruling, from editing in this topic area. Under this ruling, "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". This request should therefore be rejected without regard to its merits (which, in any case, are non-existent). RolandR (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please be aware that the editor who started this section started a nearly identical section at WP:AN#removing analysius of POV author in Hebron Pages. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Prada gender discrimination case
Prada gender discrimination case ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm concerned about the way this article addresses matters that may currently be under litigation, particularly insofar as the background section appears to solely present the side of one of the litigants; from a BLP standpoint at least, I think it may need to be edited... but I'm not sure how to address it fairly without simply gutting the article. I've already made a number of changes to some of the sections, but I'm just not sure what more to do here and would like some more eyes to look at this article. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)