Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 99

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I would like to get some eyes on the recently created Kyle Rittenhous BLP. I'm concerned this article has a number of issues and may be not much more than a FORK from the original Kenosha unrest shooting (here after KUS) article. The issues start in the opening sentence where Rittenhouse is described as a "conservative celebrity". Most of the sources used to support that claim don't actually support it. Typically they will say something like his trial was a cause celebre or he was a celebrity among some "far-right" or "militia" groups. Most sources discussing Rittenhouse don't mention anything about celebrity in any form. Thus there is a NPOV question, how many sources need to make a claim before it can be the opening claim in a BLP. I'm also concerned that, based on the content of the article, Rittenhouse's media appearances etc are given far more weight vs his actions related to the shootings and the trial. I think the best action here would be an AfD with a merger of a reduced versions of some content back into the KUS article as some level of aftermath. The rest of the content seems more trivia than substance. Thanks. Springee (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I looked at it and the sources to that lede sentence look A-OK to me. I think the best way to provide proper weight would be to put 2-3 more sentences about the shootings/trial in the lede, not removing anything. It's not like it's a very long lede. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the sources and commented on their issues here [1] and in a few other spots. Almost none support the specific claim and as phrased the sentence suggests that Rittenhouse is primarily known as a type of celebrity rather than for shooting people. Springee (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, @Springee, the first sentence of the article that calls him a celebrity also mentions his trial and him shooting three people. It would be disingenuous if the article said the subject was a celebrity without any description of why. Instead, the sentence continues and describes how he initially achieved his celebrity status. And when you say "Almost none support the specific claim", there are eight RS in the cite bundle specifically describing him as a celebrity. --Kbabej (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee Notify the other editors involved in that discussion that you have brought it here please. Template is at the top of this page.GordonGlottal (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

As the editor who created the article, I'm perhaps biased but thought I'd throw my two cents in. Many, many RS refer to the subject as a "celebrity" or a very close variation thereof. It isn't one or two blogs or YouTube reactions; it's green-level RS at RSP, including: The Guardian, NBC (x2), the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, NPR, The National, and The Conversation. And those are just the sources that currently appear in the lead. I cite bundled them to not overcite, but I think eight high-quality sources are enough to "prove" a short description. If needed, I can add many more, but I think that would absolutely be overkill. I'm not sure where @Springee is finding "Most of the sources used to support that claim don't actually support it." I actually bolded the use of "celebrity" in the cite bundle so it could be easily found, and every single one of them describes him as a celebrity.

As an aside, I'm not sure Springee's concern is actually due weight; it sounds like they think this should be AfD'd, which is a completely separate issue that doesn't need hashing out here. --Kbabej (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

As I noted in my link, most of the sources (specifically the ones you reference) use either the term "celebrity" or a similar term but almost none of the presented sources (much less even a simple majority of sources that talk about Rittenhouse) claim he is a conservative celebrity. Note that even the article's short description says he is "American conservative celebrity" rather than the teen who shoot three people. Springee (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

As examples of the misuse of sources, The Globe only uses the term celebrity in their headline. Per WP:HEADLINE that makes it not usable. The WP article is an OpEd. A person interviewed by Slate said, "He’s a celebrity for many of these right-wing militia groups". Unless you are claiming "right-wing militia groups"=conservative that one doesn't support the claim either. These are examples of the sort of issues with the sources used to support this claim. Springee (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide more sources with that description; there are many out there. Is your contention with the short description those three specific sources (leaving five other RS as the page currently stands), or is it the short description overall? If you have an alternative, what would you suggest? --Kbabej (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are some examples of additional coverage: There's the City Journal that wrote the subject "has recently entered the conservative celebrity circuit" here; The Washington Post wrote "The celebrity treatment that conservatives are giving Kyle Rittenhouse..." here; the San Antonio Current described him as "far-right celebrity Kyle Rittenhouse" here; PJ Media that wrote an entire article on him becoming a celebrity under the title "Why Is the Right Making Kyle Rittenhouse a Celebrity?" here; Mother Jones wrote "Rittenhouse quickly became the perfect young, right-wing celebrity.." here; Arizona Central said he was "caught up in his celebrity" here; etc, etc, etc.

Please note I have not read all these sources in depth, and I'm sure some don't appear as green-level at RSP (lookin' at you, PJ Media). I'm using these to demonstrate I just quickly pulled them off Google with a cursory search. Mainstream sources regularly refer to the subject this way. --Kbabej (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• What occupation would be better to list in the lead than something like "conservative celebrity"? That seems to basically be his job -- doing media appearances in conservative conferences, podcasts, etc. There are sources cited in the article which say "right-wing celebrity" in direct, exact terms, e.g. the first one cited ("He has since emerged as a rightwing celebrity"), but also ones that discuss it in less direct/more drown out terms, e.g. the Boston Globe article, which only mentions the exact word "celebrity" in the headline/subheader, but is generally talking about that throughout the rest of the article. I don't think listing his occupation as "celebrity" in line those articles is particularly problematic. Regarding little weight on the trial itself, that's what the article on the trial is for, no? The reason a Kyle Rittenhouse biography exists is because it doesn't make sense to discuss his media appearances in the article that is primarily discussing the shootings and subsequent trial. Endwise (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I see two issues. The first is that almost none of the presented sources actually establish that he is a "conservative celebrity" thus stating it in Wikivoice is undue. As I said, most of the sources that note the celebrity aspect either say he is a celebrity to a narrower group (militia, far-right etc) or say that his position/cause/criminal defense was seen as a cause celebre presumably for people who view is actions as legal self defense or similar. It is not at all clear that "conservatives" as a group view Rittenhouse as a celebrity nor that any of the source who make that claim would view that claim as true. The second issue is if we are going to cite the thing he is most known for, the shooting is it, hands down. It's not at all clear his post trial interviews etc will survive the 10YEAR test but his roll in the shooting will. Springee (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee, did you review the sources in the cite bundle as well as the additional ones I added in this thread? Just from the ones I added on this page, they almost all mention him being a conservative celebrity. City Journal: "conservative celebrity circuit"; Washington Post: "The celebrity treatment that conservatives"; PJ Media: "Why Is the Right Making Kyle Rittenhouse a Celebrity?"; Mother Jones: "the perfect young, right-wing celebrity"; and San Antonio Current: "far-right celebrity". They literally use "conservative", or a very close variation thereof (the Right; far-right). I'd argue "the Right" is basically synonymous to "conservative" in this instance. Even if we don't agree on that point, there are still the verbatim results.

Secondly, I've asked you this on the subject's talk page at least once, and up above in this thread as well: What do you suggest as a short description if you do not agree with "conservative celebrity"? --Kbabej (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The second issue is if we are going to cite the thing he is most known for, the shooting is it, hands down -- I guess I can understand this point. Maybe we could have two sentences in the opening paragraph, one for the shootings/trial and one for his subsequent fame and media appearances? I.e. a division like "Rittenhouse is known for the Kenosha unrest shooting and subsequent trial. He now has fame/celebrity status and does media appearances."? (Obviously not in those words). Endwise (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Kbabej, I only reviewed the source in the article lead. I did see the previous discussion and it doesn't appear that sources have a consensus description when discussing his status as a "celebrity"/cause celebre etc. If they don't agree we shouldn't favor one vs the other nor put such a claim in Wiki-voice. Also, while some source will use "right-wing" and conservative interchangeably, few would agree that "far-right"=conservative. You reverted my attempt to provide a better intro [2] where I described him as the teenager known for the shooting. Endwise, I think mentioning that his case made him a cause celebre is DUE. Many sources note that he got a lot of support from people who felt he was acting in self defense and they felt his prosecution was an attack on a right of self defense (many others felt the opposite). It would be better to say he was a cause celebre for many on the gun rights side and seen as deserving prosecution by many on the other side. It is way to early to know if his fame is going to be fleeting. Springee (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@

MOS:LEADBIO

states the information for the first sentence in BLPs follows this order:

• 1. Name
• 2. DOB
• 3. Nationality/citizenship
• 4. "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." (What I take to be the short description)
• 5. "The main reason the person is notable"

To me, it seems clear cut that the short description goes before a description of why the person is initially notable. --Kbabej (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I just did a Google news search for Rittenhouse. These are the first 4 hits and how the summarize him.

• Newsweek [3], "the teenager acquitted in November 2021 of first-degree intentional homicide and four other felony charges,"
• WP [4], " who shot and killed two people and wounded a third during a protest in Kenosha, Wis., in 2020, "
• The Root [5], "The acquitted Vigilante of Kenosha"
• USA Today [6], "Rittenhouse gained national attention in August 2020 after he went to a police brutality protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and fatally shot two men while wounding another – actions he argued were in self defense"
• Fox News [7], no specific summary description of Rittenhouse.

Basically, "conservative celebrity" is a very poor high level summary of Rittenhouse. Springee (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

So, again, @Springee, what is your suggestion? You have taken specific umbrage with the description. What is your suggestion to replace it? --Kbabej (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I made my suggestion. You reverted it. " is an American teenager who became known for his trial and acquittal after he shot three men in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The circumstances of that shooting made him a cause célèbre with some right-wing and gun rights groups. " (slightly edited from it's original form) Springee (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"American teenager" is not an appropriate short description. While he initially became known for the shooting and trial, MOS:LEADBIO states the "main reason the person is notable" comes after the short description. The reason the BLP on the subject exists is because Rittenhouse is known for more than the shooting and trial, or else it would be covered under the parent article. The BLP is for coverage of the subjects life through today, not stopping at the point of the trial and verdict. Rittenhouse is notable today for parlaying his notoriety into a conservative celebrity status.

I've made my points and don't want to bludgeon the process; I'll take a step back so others have space to respond. Please ping me if needed! Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO Springee's text is much more informative, gets to the point of why he is wp:notable and why people will come to the article. (the "teenager" could be decided separately.) This is also supported by the presented review of the sources and review of what the first sentence should contain. Finally, defining him primarily as a celebrity sounds like "famous for being famous" which is definitely not the case here. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree in general with Springee's main point re: "celebrity", but the bigger issue isn't the lead but the article in general reading like a fan bio of said celebrity. Lots of quoted praise, lots of detail about Rittenhouse's activities, perspectives, etc., without the context RS typically provide. So we have The Guardian's "Outcry as Kyle Rittenhouse sits down for Tucker Carlson Fox News interview" used just to say that "Carlson interviewed Rittenhouse about a wide range of subjects" and that Rittenhouse said he wants to be a lawyer or nurse. And this cnn op ed which is clearly critical of the interview used just to extract a long quote of Carlson's praise sans context. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• My take is as follows:

1. The lead paragraph is poorly written, and noncompliant with BLP, especially considering the subject was only 17 yo at the time.
2. Rittenhouse is not a celebrity. Civil unrest neither creates celebrity nor should it be celebrated.
3. Why does the section about his early life specifically state, "He is a white American." Does he somehow change color as he gets older? What is that about? Are we now including race and religion in all WP:BLPs?
4. FACT - found not guilty of even one of the 5 charges, and that must be made clear in the lead. He shot out of fear for his life; i.e., self-defense. That should not be omitted from the lead. Per NPR: Rittenhouse had a strong self-defense case and was found ...not guilty on the five charges he faced after fatally shooting two people and wounding a third during a night of unrest in Kenosha, Wis.
5. That article needs work to get it accurate and compliant with NPOV. Skirting around and avoiding mention of what that trial determined in its verdict is an embarrassment to this project; especially one that boasts NPOV and claims accuracy.
6. When it comes to BLPs, editors need to strictly adhere to policy, and present the facts in a dispassionate tone. Ask CNN+ what they'd do differently if they could do it over - see The Daily Beast article. And the [NYTimes: CNN must now emerge from one of the most chaotic periods in its history: the firing of its top-rated anchor Chris Cuomo; the ouster of its longtime president Jeff Zucker over an undisclosed romance with a colleague; and the absorption of its parent company WarnerMedia by Mr. Zaslav’s Discovery. Viewers knew there were too many times they got the story wrong, and simply stopped watching, so yes, ratings matter. HTH ~ Atsme 💬 📧 00:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

My post was on a pretty narrow question. A broader one is to echo the same points that Atsme just made. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence about whether a separate BLP is warranted, or whether this falls under
  WP:BLP1E and should be covered under Kenosha unrest shooting. Rittenhouse is notable for that incident, in which he took an assault rifle to an anti-racism protest and used it to kill two people. His subsequent buddying around with white supremacists, his trial, acquittal, and embrace by the political right are potentially enough to justify a standalone article, although they're arguably extensions of the single incident for which he's notable.

  The strongest claim to notability for an independent article is Rittenhouse's celebrity on the political right. A decent number of reliable sources highlight him as a symbol of the Republican Party's fetishization and glorification of political violence against its ideological opponents. But again, that might be best handled in an "Aftermath" or "Legacy" section in the Kenosha shooting article, rather than a standalone BLP, since the themes have less to do with Rittenhouse himself and more to do with the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism and violence. MastCell ^Talk
  15:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  I second that, and also would emphasize that there is no rush or time limit. We should respect his privacy and go to a standalone if his current stature and presence within the Republican right gets ongoing coverage or analysis in the mainstream. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I would add "two of them fatally" after mentioning that he shot three men. I would also place more emphasis on the shooting than on appearances before right-wing audiences, since that is his main claim to notability and the only reason he has an audience. And of course it received far greater attention in the media than his current career. The tone of the article could be less promotional. Although he was acquitted, it's questionable how he found himself in that situation. Also, as someone who chose to be a celebrity, he forfeits his right to privacy, at least to the extent that it is provided to otherwise unknown people in Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Glancing at the article talk page, why is it contentious to include that all the people who were shot had pursued or chased Rittenhouse? --Kyohyi (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Based in part on concerns raised in this discussion I have opened an AFD for the Rittenhouse BLP here [8]. Springee (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The AfD failed to gain consensus. Some additional eyes on the article would be helpful. Springee (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee's statement is incorrect. There was overwhelming consensus the subject was notable and the article was summarily kept. What Springee meant is their opinion failed to gain consensus. --Kbabej (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• An RfC has been opened on the subject's talk page here about the short description. Any input appreciated. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Should this article, about a controversial land mine, mention allegations of use in the ongoing war in Ukraine? Ukraine has alleged use by Russia and vice versa. There's some question about the reliability of some sources involved, but I see this mainly as an NPOV matter. More eyes would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Is that commentary article

Northeast heritage (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

How do you know he did not do "serious research on Boro history and culture"? Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Slatersteven: , This is his profile where i couldn't find any publication related to Boro history and culture. This commentary article simply tries to understand regional violence on the basis of agrarian practices with unsubstantiated historical narrative. Northeast heritage (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Also Sarma(2014:70) pointed out - A concerted effort to knowing the individual histories of the various groups of the Bodo-Kachari communities have not come into sight, at least to the knowledge of the present author. Northeast heritage (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Arupjyoti Saikia is a well known and much published historian, who is a professor in Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati. He has worked extensively on peasants and ecology, and has published extensively on the in the subject, that includes a book too, published by Routledge India. The reason Northeast heritage is objecting to him here is because he has challenged the use of this author in Boro_people#History. His objections there have been addressed by Austronesier (e.g. [9]). The source in question is The Historical Geography of Assam Violence, EPW 47(41). This topic is probably more/also appropriate in WP:RS. Chaipau (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I didn't challenge the use of this author and my early objection/edit has nothing to do with this post. This post is a question if the EPW commentary article is WP:DUE because that article is nothing more than 4-page essay without substantiating the pre-colonial historical narrative. Article is very simple but its claims direct a very simplistic and imaginary history. So, I am seeking attention from the WP community. Northeast heritage (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You are aware that people can do intensive study, and still only publish one book? What evidence (not your own

wp:or do you have he has not studied this topic? Slatersteven (talk

) 13:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if He did intensive study but He didn't substantiate his claims so i said Saikia isn't known to have done any serious research on Boro history and culture. So, Does his essay-type article fall under WP:DUE? Northeast heritage (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

There are many good sources but these only slightly touch Boros history. From these sources i can add many facts which will conflict the imaginary history given in that EPW article. Northeast heritage (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The claims made by Saikia are all widely accepted in scholarship since they are non-sectarian, non-nationalistic types. Sure, those pushing nationalistic narratives are uncomfortable with historians such as Saikia, as you have yourself demonstrated with this thread. The only problem with these nationalistic narratives are cross claims that lead to each narrative trying to negate the others. We have seen the effort in articles such as

Dimasa kingdom, and others where these nationalistic narratives were being foisted. This is not what Wikipedia should be doing---promoting nationalistic narratives. There should be no such criterion as made out here---that Saikia should have worked on the history of Boro culture---for his work to be considered relevant. We are dealing with history here before the term "Bodo" was coined by a colonial officer (19th century) and before the Boro identity emerged as a political entity (early 20th century). The Boro nationalistic narratives are from even later times, and they do what most nationalistic narratives do---project themselves into the past. These narratives are a bane of Wikipedia since they lead to unending edit warring, POV pushing and such as we have witnessed. Pinging Fylindfotberserk, Abecedare, Bbb23 for visibility. Chaipau (talk

) 15:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is suitable for colonial era but you've used to push its claim upto Kamarupa kingdom. So, I doubt if this article can be used the way you are using. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be questioning both the author and reviewers here. Saikia mentions Nathan (1936) here (cited) which is an account from "1936): Baharistan-I-Ghaybi (A Histor of the Mughal Wars in Assam, Cooch Behar, Ben- gal, Bihar and Orissa during the Reign of Jahangir and Shah Jahan". The author says, and it is noted in the citation "Over the second millennium of our common era, the process for consolidation of these habitats began." which is after the fall of Kamarupa. We also know that the first mention of ethnic groups come from Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, by Mihraj us-Siraj, composed and compiled c. 1250. Chaipau (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This claim "The Bodos were continuously, albeit slowly, on the move for a long period. This practice was fairly true for most communities who resisted any entry into the formal state-led fiscal system whether it was the Mughal, Koch and Ahom rulers or the British colonial government." is unsubstantiated historical claims related to almost 600 years. This claim is undoubtedly not WP:DUE. This claim impose a imaginary history for period of 600 years. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is it "undoubtedly not WP:DUE"? Chaipau (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I wrote multiple times that the claim is unsubstantiated and it impose an imaginary history. If Boro history can't be pushed beyond colonial-era with current understanding of the History of Assam, Keep it simple, No need to add Saikia's unsubstantiated claims. If you agree, No more discussion is required and thread can be closed. Northeast heritage (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

And please don't mix up nationalistic issues everywhere. This is a simple question about unsubstantiated claims. As far as i can remember, I don't start editing controversial topics with weak source. If you have seen problem in my editing, please do report me at WP:ANI, i will accept my mistakes. And please don't call me nationalistic POV-pusher. Your comment on the community and your edits actually say something. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You should be specific about what text is proposed that is sourced to this article. Also, what is being questioned as due: are they the facts that the author presents or his opinions? TFD (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Opinions about cause of conflicts in modern times. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Which specific comments are those in the article? Chaipau (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This article should be used for colonial era. But it is used to claim pre-colonial history which is problematic. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@

putting the cart before the horse, you never established that the article in question is actually commentary which needed to be the very first thing you did. Please do so now. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 16:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

EPW has different categories of articles. The article is commentary-type which is written on top of every page. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The "commentary" section is not just a commentary in the literal sense of the term. It is a regular article that undergoes the regular review process. And it is 2000-3000 words long on "Short, analytical articles on topical and contemporary, social, economic and political developments will be considered for this section." (https://www.epw.in/notes-contributors.html). Chaipau (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere, that sounds like what we'd call analysis more than commentary but we treat them similarly. With that in mind I'd say its due, but it should be attributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Very well. Thank you. I will be very busy for next few months. So, This thread can be closed. Northeast heritage (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Thank you! It is cited here. Chaipau (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Heavily promotional verbiage for an electric vehicle is here in case anyone is interested in cleaning it up. I should attend to other things instead. Biosthmors (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It's also very close paraphrasing, which should be looked at. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Todd Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm in a bit of an editing dispute with a new editor around the Todd Mason page. Their original series of edits here added a fair number of very poor sources and what to me was pretty clear promotional text - "Todd is a sought-after live broadcast director for a wide range of programming" as an easy example. Rather than revert everything, I did a quick cleanup pass and added an {{

I noticed this when the advert tag was removed the other day. I reinstated it as the article contains lots of examples of

WP:PEACOCK, such as stating that Todd Mason first worked "where the longest-running Christian program in America is produced" or listing a long list of companies his company has worked with. I've attempted to clean up a few egregious examples of this but there's still more to fix. Jns4eva (talk

) 07:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There's clear evidence of paid creation and further paid contributions. I've tagged it as such. I'm also going through the sourcing, and so far it's extremely weak. Valereee (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Did a source assessment: Talk:Todd Mason#Notability and now have AfD'd. Valereee (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this is something that could use some more eyes.

I think you got

WP:NPOV confused, this isn't the place to discuss notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 01:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not really a notability issue since the WSJ is clearly notable. I wasn't sure of the best place to ask for input but since there is a possibility for a POVFork this is a good place for that concern. Note that this is a concern of mine. Currently the new article is largely a copy from the parent. Springee (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Whats the POVfork concern? The new article contains thousands of bytes of unique content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It does feel like a purposely done split to add POV stances related to the editorial board, which is against NPOV policy. Its piecemealing multiple smaller complaints to created a larger criticism section, which we're not supposed to be doing. There's a few para in the history section that do describe the editorial board's problems, but beyond that, the rest seems like throwing any bit of criticism about the board at it, which we should not be doing per NPOV. --Masem (t) 02:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no criticism section on either

Wall Street Journal. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 02:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The "Position and views" Section in the Editorial Board is written as if it were criticism, since nearly every point raised is against normal public opinion. WP shouldn't be making a point in pointing this out, and because you've taking from multiple seperate sources to create that, rather than one single source that may outline the issues with the board, it looks like OR and NPOV in wikivoice. --Masem (t) 02:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats mostly longstanding content from Wall Street Journal, I didn't "create that" and you'd be wise to mind

WP:NPA. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 02:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There's no NPA in expressing concern about an article split on POV grounds. That said, yes I see that content was mostly present in the original article, but it still has the same problems, and now that you've split it own, this now lookins more like "Criticism of the Editorial Board of the WSJ" page. Most of those seem excessive or cherry picking, particularly given the comparable section on The New York Times#Editorial stance (though the other example, The Washington Post, has a rather hefty political position section too, though given how many stories the Post broke over its time, that actually seems somewhat due). But still, those papers don't have a separate article for the editorial board. Cut out the nitpicky position sections or trim that down (eg keeping its stance that is against climate change) and that would be better to merge back into the main paper article and avoid the NPOV-like split. --Masem (t) 02:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The NYT and WaPo's editorial boards don't get the same level of coverage that the WSJ Editorial Board does. If you have coverage that would address the "excessive or cherry picking" issue you claim exists please provide them, if not then it seems like what we have now is an accurate reflection of the coverage the subject receives in WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRIT covers the issues when crafting sections that appear to be mostly critical of a topic; this is the type of content that - perhaps outside the WSJ's stance on climate change - is better reduced or integrated into other parts of the article. --Masem (t

) 02:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRIT is an essay and what we have is already completely integrated into the article. Note that its not the WSJ's stance which is at issue, its the WSJ Editorial Board's stance which is separate from the paper's. Its errors like that we're trying to prevent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the idea of splitting the Editorial Board views, though I have a few concerns: the political stance section contains several examples of individual reactions to news events, rather than an overview of the board's rightward shift during Trump years, and this may raise reasonable concerns of cherrypicking. The "other science coverage" describes opinions WSJ no longer holds. In general it would be good to see more than simply the most controversial and criticised parts of WSJ's opinions (what about in vitro? abortion? LGBT? budget issues - big govt/small govt? balanced budget? some other president than Obama?)

That's a good try, but this needs work. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm working to flesh it out but this will take time and I can't do it all today. The "overview of the board's rightward shift during Trump years" is actually the next on my list (although it seems to have been more a see-saw than a persistent rightward shift) sources I have open but haven't yet sat down to compose from are [12][13][14][15][16] if you want to take a crack at it. You are correct that the science section describes opinions WSJ no longer holds but the editorial board still does, the WSJ news side has reported on anthropogenic climate change as a fact for decades but the editorial board has still not accepted that fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm worried you may be taking minor aspects and turning them into something more significant than they really are as a way to justify this split. Springee (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If they were minor there wouldn't be so much coverage, we let the coverage in WP:RS guide us not our pre-conceived notions of what is and is not important or significant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Bits of criticism that only appear in one or two sources is cherry picking, and definitely does not meet DUE considerations of what is important. That doesn't mean things like the board's stance on climate change, which has been covered in multiple sources, can't stay, but you shouldn't be writing to include "one-off" criticisms, as one source is not indicative of being significant or important. Masem (t) 19:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Am I "writing to include "one-off" criticisms" ? Thats news to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

[17] Yes. Though I suspect some of the stuff in there was before the split too. Masem (t) 19:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That was covered in multiple sources [18][19][20][21][22] etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It would likely be better to wrap that about the Board's stance on abortion, which without doing a lot of extra searching, has been discussed by RSes before or atop that situation eg [23] [24] [25] so that it doesn't appear to be a one-off aspect. You can then still go into depth on the specifics of that recent story but it attaches to more sources related to criticism of the board's stance on abortion. Masem (t) 19:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, you should do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There are several issues in this discussion: should the Editorial Board be split off, and are the resulting two articles written from a neutral point of view. I don't think that the last two issues should affect the decision to split. They should be addressed individually beginning on the article talk pages, if anyone sees an issue.

The editorial page meets notability standards and probably receives more attention in rs than any similar publication. It's also more distinct from news coverage than one would see in other publications. Historically, Wall St. Journal reporting was seen as more liberal than the other major papers, while its editorial page was seen as far to the right.

Splitting articles is recommended when they get long, which appears to be the case here.

TFD (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, Requesting inputs @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Travel and Tourism#Requesting inputs, how situation of leads in Tourism in X country articles can be improved ?

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the talk page about whether it is fair to have stats about NYC crime stats spiking in the lede section and some disputed language about how bad it is. Andre🚐 18:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The reason I’m starting this discussion here is because I felt threatened after some of the editors attacked me once I only suggested to improve the article on the Talk’s page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindu_American_Foundation#Unbalanced_article

Once I suggested to balance the article on the Talk page, I got this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Evilfreethinker#Important_Notice

That means my account could be sanctioned based on discretionary opinion of an administrator. My first though was to complain on the NoticeBoard of Incidents but for now I assume a good faith that the editors attacking me were simply overreacting because of the multiple attempts to change the articles. However, I do feel safe even discussing with them the issues, so I’d like to request a second opinion from other editors.

There seem to be a NPOV issue in Hindu American Foundation related to the name of the section, which was also raised by other editors on the Talk page. I also have a few updates with the sources — I’d like to ask other editors to evaluate them.

• 1. I propose to rename the section ‘’Attacks on Academic Freedom’’ to ‘’Controversies’’. The current name seems to reflect only one side of the story. Here is the suggestion of another editor who opposed the title, with whom I agree:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindu_American_Foundation#Attacks_on_Academic_Freedom_vs_Controversies

«we are beholden to reliable sources, not opinions, and none of the sources in the section even appear to explicitly call these 'attacks on academic freedom' thiough some cite opinions which come close. The title of the section as it stands is not sufficiently neutral. Clearly the HAF undertake some very problematic activities, but this presentation is not in line with policy.» ‘’’I propose to check and incorporate this information based on the sources:’’’

• 2.. In 2016, HAF released its first report on bullying on Hindu students in US schools. Based on preliminary data collected the previous year, Classroom Subjected: Bullying and Bias Against Hindu Students in American Schools found that half of the students surveyed felt awkward and socially isolated due to their religious identity, with one-third of students having experienced bullying due to religious identity.

Source: https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/clery/1_in_3_u-s-_hindu_students_bullied_for_their_religious_beliefs/

Section: ‘’’Hindu rights in USA’’’

• 3. In 2020, HAF filed a motion to intervene in the case of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cisco Systems. The organization’s motion alleged that the way in which the State of California defined caste, as a Hindu theological and social hierarchy, was unconstitutional, on the grounds that the State was defining Hindu beliefs for Hindus. As of March 2022, the case is still pending.

Section: Controversies (to be named instead of «Attacks on Academic Freedom»)

Source: https://indicanews.com/2021/01/13/cisco-caste-case-haf-says-hindus-wronged/

https://indicanews.com/2020/07/02/caste-bias-in-us-cisco-sued-tech-insiders-cite-deep-rot/

• New Subsection: «Climate change»

In 2015, the Foundation partnered with The Bhumi Project, a Hindu environmental project of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, and multi-faith environmental organization GreenFaith, to create the Hindu Declaration on Climate Change 2015. The Declaration was signed by many Hindu spiritual and social leaders and organizations from around the world, prior to the COP21 Paris climate talks. In 2019, HAF partnered with Yale University and other Hindu environmental and community organizations for the “Hindu Earth Ethics and Climate Action” conference.

Sources:

https://news.yale.edu/2019/02/15/hindu-climate-activists-take-lead-combating-climate-change

https://brill.com/view/book/9783657760367/BP000017.xml?language=en

https://unfccc.int/news/hindu-declaration-on-climate-change

https://hinduclimatedeclaration2015.org/english Evilfreethinker (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

None of your sources (except the Brill chapter) are

reliable sources. TrangaBellam (talk

) 08:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain why the United Nations website and Yale website are not reliable sources? Evilfreethinker (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The author of the news article on the Yale website is Murali Balaji, who is the director of Education and Curriculum Reform at the Hindu American Foundation. COI etc. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to have more than a stub article.

The first source in the article for the statement, "According to critics, HAF has repackaged the Hindu nationalist agenda in the language of "Hindu rights" to suit mainstream American politics" is the Coalition Against Genocide," which is even less covered in rs, but whose membership is mostly Muslim.

While the HAF is nominally nonpartisan, the Trump campaign said a questionnaire they sent to him and Biden was "heavily biased against Trump."[26] They are alleged to support Modi, who was falsely accused of directing a genocide in India and banned from the EU, UK and U.S., but after he was cleared was invited to the White House by Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The allegations against HAF for being "far right" are largely based on their alleged support of Modi.

The SPLC, which tracks hate and other extremist groups in the U.S., does not mention them.

I do not have an opinion on HAS because there is insufficient information about them to form one. Unless more can be found, I would suggest reducing the article to a stub.

TFD (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no dispute here, but I am looking for some help. This is a sub-article. The parent article is broad, and includes this topic as one of several short sections, but as a sub-article, this one is quite detailed. It is a complicated joint-topic, yet it is all about a single POV. That might be okay going by this: [27] which says articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, and the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally.... This is definitely a subject that represents a point of view. I have a commitment to neutrality on WP, so I am feeling the need for input from others. Please comment on the neutrality of this presentation of an acknowledged POV, and please, if you can, make concrete suggestions for improvement. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I would be deeply grateful for any comment of any kind. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Page: Hunter Biden laptop controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is this a neutral opening sentence for the lead: "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that conservative media outlets claimed (without evidence) had belonged to Hunter Biden."[28]

While initially the laptop's authenticity was questioned, mainstream media appear to treat it as real. See for example, "Analysis of Hunter Biden's hard drive shows he, his firm took in about $11 million from 2013 to 2018, spent it fast." (NBC News May 19, 2022)

TFD (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead needs to be updated, but that part is correct... When the story initially broke the claims were being made without evidence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We could rewrite the Watergate scandal to say it "involved a claim made by liberals (without evidence) that White House officials were responsible for the Watergate burglary and cover-up." TFD (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Except that didn't happen. What happened was that people asked, "what did the president know, and when did he know it?" And maybe they're asking that again today, and if so, that is entirely valid. What's not valid is a political oppo research conspiracy that can't be verified (unlike Watergate). Watergate had several false starts and moments where the trail had gone cold. But we can't rush to a conclusion that there is any "there" there, except that "there" which reliable sources confirm is there. There's a big gap between what NY Post reported and what other outlets can confirm. Andre🚐 20:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That would be ahistorical, our personal political POVs are no excuses to write fantasy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest breaking it up to two sentence. "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves information leajed from a laptop computer reportedly owned by Hunter Biden, first reported in 2020 ahead of the presidential election. Conservative media outlets initially claimed without evidence that the laptop had belonged to Hunter Biden, leading most other major media outlets to discuss the story. However, new forensic evidence in 2021 revealed the authentic of information from the laptop." Or something like that. Masem (t) 19:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Masem's suggestion helps, but is still confusing or even misleading to a reader, who would at first think the story was false. A more direct phrasing would be:

The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves information leaked from a laptop computer reportedly owned by Hunter Biden, first reported in 2020 ahead of the presidential election. Forensic evidence in 2021 revealed the authenticity of information obtained from the laptop. In earlier reporting on the story, conservative media outlets were criticized for stating that the laptop had belonged to Hunter Biden, when evidence provided at that time was poor or misleading.

TFD is correct that we need to change this lead. -Darouet (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The article does appear to be out of date given these recent articles which consider the laptop at least authentic: [29] [30] [31] [32] Particularly the 3 paragraphs in the Vox piece that begin, "This is a reference.." However, that doesn't mean that the entire story is confirmed and vindicated, or that there isn't disinformation associated with claims that Hunter Biden has criminal tax fraud or whatever is being alleged. [33] April 2022 WaPo quotes the leaker saying: "I do know that there have been multiple attempts over the past year-and-a-half to insert questionable material into the laptop as in, not physically, but passing off this misinformation or disinformation as coming from the laptop". So I think we need to tread with caution and consider what different outlets are saying, and reflect that in the article in appropriate weight while recognizing it is a timely news story that may continue to change and shift. Andre🚐 19:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The without evidence part doesn't make sense. The NY Post researched the laptop and the story was prima facie evidence that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. RS do this all the time when reporting on stories advancing claims their research has validated. What's the sourcing for "without evidence?" It's unsourced since it's the lead and it is not followed up on in the body. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The Post couldn't confirm the story so they had doubts, and other outlets stayed away from it.[34] "Bruce Golding, a reporter at the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid since 2007, did not allow his byline to be used because he had concerns over the article’s credibility" Andre🚐 20:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Article could use

WP:TNT to be re-written from the ground up. Its a confusing mashup of earlier credibility concerns with current revelations. The relevant information of the laptop being real, having some real emails but also questions about data integrity are currently lost in the middle of the article. Slywriter (talk

) 20:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There's a lot of stale recentism and inside baseball. Sennalen (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If we wanted to put the without evidence thing somewhere, we should put it after the claim made by the Intelligence officials, that the laptop was Russian disinformation. They even admitted they didn’t have any evidence of it, so at least there it would be appropriate (and sourced). Mr Ernie (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Should a NPoV template, be placed on the page-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

no. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The whole article is a sequence of SYNTH. The article should be AfD'd if anyone has time. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure an AfD would succeed. But a re-write of it, wouldn't hurt. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that lead is neutral. As far as I can make out there was enough evidence to do a story even if it turned out the evidence was rather shakey. The article should concentrate on the topic but it looks like political point scoring. I think also the forensic evidence and intelligence response should be moved near the top so the status of the laptop and its contents is clear before the article goes into the back and forth between the newspapers and others. It coud do with having someone editing who can make it more readable. NadVolum (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC on "military objectives near civilians and Stara Krasnianka attack" at

See Template:POV: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." If you don't follow the template usage notes, expect it to be removed. TFD (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page", as you did not start any discussion, ther is no reason to have a tag, that is supposed to be linked to it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces and Slatersteven: Hello and thank you for the message. I did not do this as a "drive-by". I tagged this while on NPP after reviewing the article. I also started a talk page discussion on the editor's talk page. Bruxton (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Great, the discussion is meant to be on the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. I apologize for bringing this here and for not following the correct steps to voice my concern. Slatersteven has removed the tag which means I must have been incorrect in my assessment so I will move on. Bruxton (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

NO, I removed it as you did not follow the correct procedure, the conversation has to be (as it is where the link takes you) on the articles talk page, make your case there. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If I place a tag there I am edit warring - I placed the tag there twice in 24 hours. I have to move on now. You have far more experience on the project than I do - it was my first time using the tag with the curation tool. I will leave this to another reviewer. Bruxton (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit waring is 3 reverts. You reverted once. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You can still outline your POV concerns on the article talk page without adding a template. TFD (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the notification issues, the article likely would be better if placed on the Anti-LGBT rhetoric page, under a section called "Grooming accusations". I do think it seems to early to call it a conspiracy theorh on its own but when tied to the so-called "Gay agenda" (which is well covered on that page), it can be discussed in depth with having to call it a conspiracy theory. Masem (t) 15:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Ovinus (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Template:POV removal condition #3: "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:N as a guideline lets policy override when a standalone article is appropriate. Eg: this is the reason we try to avoid "Criticism of..." pages unless that itself is notable. Here, an article that can only present a biased take on what may be notable would be better as part if a larger article that is more comprehensive to cover that broader topic neutrally, so that the implicit bias in this topic is minimized.--Masem (t) 18:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

What bias? I wrote a beautifully neutral article and just to be clear my bias is American conservative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Part of the bias is inherit in the topic: the major sources simply aren't going to give this a shred of credence so all the coverage appears to be attacking the idea instead of debating it (and proving it wrong via that debate. But also as the OP said, pushing that thus is a conspiracy theory from only a few sources that day that is cherry picking. It absolutely is an anti LGBT rhetoric, conspiracy theory or nit, so better in that other arti ke, where there is the debate and prove against the broader anti LGBT stance. Masem (t) 18:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Vox, Slate, The Independent, ABC, Global News (Canada) etc are all major sources. We don't care whether a source attacks, defends, or debates a subject, all we care about is that they give it in-depth coverage. Even if we cut it down to only those sources which explicitly call it a conspiracy theory it would still be

WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 19:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The GNG does not require an article to be created on a notable topic, only creates the allowance for that. I am just saying that the Anti LGBT rhetoric page is a much more comprehensive article to include this and avoid the too soon presumption it is a conspiracy theory. Masem (t) 19:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

An article *has* been created on the topic, this is a NPOV discussion not a N or AfD discussion. Unless you have a source which says that its "too soon" to call it a conspiracy theory (as multiple WP:RS do) then NPOV is clearly to call it a conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

RECENTISM says its too soon to call this conspiracy theory. And the NPOV aspect is that as standalone from the rhetoric page, it fails to give a comprehensive and neutral overview of the past history of LGBT and claimed indoctrination. Putting the content in the rhetoric article helps to "dilute" the issues since the bulk of that article is a neutral approach to the overall topic. Masem (t) 19:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

So if its not a conspiracy theory what is it and what sources can you provide which support that characterization? Surely you aren't saying that these accusations leveled against the lGBTQ community and its allies are true or possibly true? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As Masem states above, this would be better merged with the Anti-LGBT rhetoric page. It is nonsensical to suggest that there is a single coherent 'conspiracy theory' to build an article around. Such prejudices have been central to anti-gay rhetoric for centuries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

We have mainstream WP:RS like Vox being "nonsensical" then, are you suggesting that we re-evaluate their reliability? Vox: "The second irony is that the notion of “grooming” — slowly conditioning someone over time to accept a belief or a state of being that could harm them — arguably applies to the grooming conspiracy theory itself."[35] Now that doesn't mean we can't cover it on the Anti-LGBT rhetoric page, but its not nonsensical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

From Vox: Framing homosexuality as a wicked specter and queer people as pedophiles is one of the oldest narratives in the homophobic playbook.... Same old same old. Not new. Doesn't need a new article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Vox does appear to treat them as separate (old and new), "The new pedophile conspiracy rhetoric is essentially the same as all the old pedophile conspiracy rhetoric, but with an added layer of wrongness." acknowledging that there is a unique "groomer" conspiracy that emerged in 2020-2021 does not invalidate previous homophobic conspiracies. Much the opposite in fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Invalidate what? I never said anything about invalidation. If I could make head or tail of what you have just written, I'd try to respond. Meanwhile, can someone please explain why the new article uses the term 'conspiracy theory' in the singular? Is it about one specific theory? And if it is, what specifically marks it out as needing a separate article? And why doesn't the title tell readers which of the many such theories it is, rather than implying that it is the only one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If thats what WP:RS said we would do that, I made the page because the topic received substantial in-depth coverage in WP:RS. I am not aware of previous Grooming conspiracy theories (similar ones yes, but none that used the "groomer" rhetoric), if theres significant coverage of course they should have their own pages! When those pages exist we can talk about changing the name so as not to confuse readers, to do so now when they don't exist feels like putting the cart before the horse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The New grooming rhetoric, as I read from the sources, is another spin on the claim that LGBT are indictoring kids. It users to be riding on the coattails of new legislation like Florida's "don't say gay" law in which parents are to have full control of how their kid learns to avoid this. It is not a wholly new idea but just spun a different way. It thus is better at that other page. Masem (t) 18:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS actually frame it as the opposite of that, they frame it as legislation riding on the coattails of the conspiracy theory. If you have sources that frame the realtionship the other way I'd love to read them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Also yes it is about one specific theory, the one that emerged in 2020-2021 cheer-led by Libs of TikTok and the rest of the American alt-right (unfortunately like QAnon before it its going mainstream). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If that is what it is about, it needs a title that says so. Explicitly. Right now. Wikipedia shouldn't be implying that such prejudice is new, or that it is confined to US political discourse - that is just plain offensive. The US is not the centre of the universe... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

What in the article implies that this prejudice is new or confined to US political discourse? Have you actually looked at

Grooming conspiracy theory? Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 18:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at it. The article is crap. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Crap? Yep thats the one, guess you have looked at it. Now what in the article implies that this prejudice is new or confined to US political discourse and what sources do you know of that we could use to alleviate these supposed implication? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The new article is entirely unnecessary. 'Alleviation' merely requires that any relevant content be added instead to the Anti-LGBT rhetoric page where it belongs, putting it in its proper context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Merging wouldn't appear to address either of the issues you raised. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The new article is entirely unnecessary, then wouldn't an AfD be more worthwhile than line after line of you complaining about the article being "unnecessary", "crap", and so on? ValarianB (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

AFD is not for merge which is clearly the desired result. Masem (t) 19:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There isn't actually much to merge, when you eliminate the unsourced claims, and the obvious WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced claims and obvious OR? Do tell! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

In my experience Merge is a very common outcome of AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

An AFD can result in a merge, but as per the PEREN proposal, AFD is only when the nominator seeks deletion. Nominatibg a merge at AFD is an improper use of that. Masem (t) 19:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I though PEREN was only for proposals which have been repeatedly *rejected* by the community? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Plus there is not even an allegation of a "conspiracy". North8000 (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There isn't?

• NPR says "The "grooming" smear often expands to include accusations of pedophilia and sex trafficking — conspiracy theories spawned by far-right extremists such as QAnon supporters, propagated widely through social media and right-wing channels and spreading through mainstream conservative thought.
• FiveThirtyEight says "“Grooming” is a term that neatly draws together both modern conspiracy theories and old homophobic stereotypes, while comfortably shielding itself under the guise of protecting children. Who, after all, can argue against the safety of kids? But by adopting this language to bolster their latest political pursuits, the right is both giving a nod to fringe conspiracy theorists and using an age-old tactic to dismantle LGBTQ rights."
• Salon says "So in the past month, there's been a rapid escalation of conspiracy theories falsely accusing Democrats of being somehow pro-pedophilia. ... Soon, a generalized accusation that Democrats and even companies that are mildly pro-LGBTQ want to "groom" children spread across Fox News." EvergreenFir (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Those do not explicitly call grooming a conspiracy theory, only that it is associated with othe theories. Masem (t) 19:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This is sufficient to call it a "conspiracy theory." Andrevan@ 19:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

'Theories', plural. Not a single theory - just more homophobic rhetoric. We already have an article on such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you proposing a name change to "Grooming conspiracy theories"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

No. I am proposing that what little properly-sourced and relevant content there is goes into the article on the topic we already have. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

We have an article on grooming conspiracy theories or anti-LGBTQ conspiracy theories? I thought we just had an article on anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. We have Category: LGBT-related conspiracy theories, but I'm not seeing an article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position on whether there is largely 1 cohesive conspiracy theory, or many related theories, or several unrelated theories that are distinct, either way though I think there's sufficient sourcing here to talk about the idea of "grooming conspiracy theory/ies" in general, I am not well-versed enough to say how many there are. Andrevan@ 20:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The main sources, by journalists Aja Romano and

News organizations: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Romano has a BA in voice and opera, while Kirchick has a BA from Yale. Their determination about what is or is not conspiracy theory is no better than the average Wikipedia editor. TFD (talk

) 03:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thy don't appear to be marked as "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces" so the relevant part of WP:NEWSORG is "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We have to keep in mind that many web-based news sites like Vox do not clearly distinguish between fact and opinion, they use a loose combination of opinion mixed with facts, so one has to be careful to assume all such material stated is facts. For Vox, it is better to attribute any statements to them - not that this can't be used to source the grooming stuff, just that it can't be taken as pure fact. Masem (t) 14:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is that Vox is generally reliable, why are you suggesting that they be treated as if consensus is additional considerations apply without there being such a consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Per

WP:YESPOV

, we have to be fully aware of commentary and analysis that may be intermixed with simple factual reporting, and make sure we present that information with attribution. Vox's journalism style is nearly always this mix of facts and commentary. It doesn't make them unreliable, but we just have to be fully aware when they switch from facts to analysis. (Eg I have used Vox articles on discussions of Supreme Court decisions and they are usually "straight-faced" in reporting on the facts of the case and then make at least a clear inter-article switch to analysis which I then use with attribution).

What policy does not say is that we must accept what RSes publish as "news reporting" as always being objective, non-subjective treatment of facts. Masem (t) 15:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It's analysis rather than news reporting. First, all the facts in Romano's article are sourced to other articles. There is no original news reporting. Instead, she analyzes facts to come to a conclusion, as suggested in the article's title, "The right’s moral panic over “grooming” invokes age-old homophobia: “Groomer” accusations against liberals and the LGBTQ community are recycled Satanic Panic."

She provides a thesis statement in the first paragraph: "The term — which describes the actions an adult takes to make a child vulnerable to sexual abuse — is taking on a conspiracy-theory tone as conservatives use it to imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers." That's not sourced to experts, but is her own personal opinion.

Because Romano is not an expert - she has a BA in voice and opera and is an "internet culture reporter" - we cannot treat her conclusions as facts and cannot say they have weight for inclusion. That's why analysis articles by non-experts are not considered reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliability is a very low bar. It is generally met just by being "published". Outside of BLP, MEDRS, "exceptional claims", and self-published sources, there is no author expertise litmus test. What expertise does effect is due weight. Given that the topic is presumed notable, what are the sources on the topic most deserving of due weight? Sennalen (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a policy, which I mentioned,

Self-published sources

.

Expertise incidentally does not effect due weight, because weight requires the representation of all significant viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That an expert believes something is only significant if it has attracted the attention in the body of reliable sources, not just an isolated paper.

TFD (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you are reading NEWSORG correctly. The passage in question reads:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

I believe that "editorial" is the key words there - commentary and opinion published by news organizations may all kn fact be "editorial" (whether by editors or in op-eds), but it is certainly not the case that all "analysis" published by a newsorg is "rarely reliable for statements of fact". Investigative reporting, for example, will often combine primary reporting with secondary analysis, and I have seen no consensus on wiki that such reporting is generally unreliable. In my experience, editors only make that argument when they are striving to exclude a specific source. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The salient feature is not the writer's credentials, but whether or not the publisher vets and stands behind the work. If the publisher has a hands-off attitude, the work becomes more like a self-published source, and the author's expertise comes into play. Sennalen (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

How do you fact check the conclusions reached in an analysis? We already agree that the actual facts in Romano's essay are sourced to (presumably rs) news media, but the analysis is not. TFD (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

If they did not mean to include analysis, then it would not be included. News analysis is a clear concept, it is defined as "An article written to inform readers about recent events. The author reports and attempts to deepen understanding of recent events—for example, by providing background information and other kinds of additional context." (CSUSM Library)[36] It is not original reporting and includes the writer's opinions or "analysis." That's why it fails rs unless written by an expert. The facts have already been reported and the analysis is by a non-expert. That btw is why opinion pieces are also non-rs unless written by an expert. Or forget policy and think about common sense. Why would anyone rely on the analysis of an amateur when writing an article? TFD (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

"Grooming" has become kind of a far-right meme over the last few years. It's not very different from the old narratives, but it's more politics-via-morality than morality-via-politics (at least that's my read). It's not really a "conspiracy theory" as much as a bigoted fictional scaremongering narrative that makes its way into many conspiracy theories as well straightforward (as opposed to conspiratorial) hate speech. You could say that "LGBT+ democrats are using their power over school systems to groom our children" is a conspiracy theory, but "grooming" in general isn't, by itself. My $0.02 would be that while this isn't a conspiracy theory, it could be reframed to spin out the very real, and ever-expanding subject of, as the current anti-LGBT rhetoric page puts it, "Conflation with child abuse". I'd say that with the current "grooming" meme, it would certainly meet GNG and merits more coverage than the short section it gets at the rhetoric page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wrong doing usually does not involve a conspiracy, and so claims of a conspiracy are generally considered to be implausible. And so a common pejorative for claims of wrong doing is imply that the claimant is also making a claim of a conspiracy behind the alleged wrong doing, I.E changing it to a implausible straw-man variant of what they actually alleged. In short, in most cases, "conspiracy" is a false pejorative. So unless there are actual claims of a conspiracy, we should not be repeating a false pejorative in the title (which in this case is a statement in the voice of Wikipedia), even if others said it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The term "

WP:RS call it a conspiracy theory/theorist (like Marjorie Taylor Greene), we can too. Andrevan@

20:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide when or how to use "conspiracy" per se. Rather, it's RS that do that and we need to make sure our content matches those RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, those who raged over Barack Obama's birth certificate did not believe and did not allege that a global-Marxist conglomerate conspired to smuggle a black child out of Kenya and into Hawaii in 1961 to establish residency in hopes he would someday be President. and yet we have Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. "Conspiracy theory" is really just shorthand for "what you believe is actually batshit insane", it does not have to mean that people literally gathered and conspired to form a false narrative. 21:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

In general, you should never take the wording of a Wikipedia title, or Wikipedia itself, as a complete view of reality. Wikipedia should not shape culture, or language, it should only reflect it. Wikipedians collectively do seem to be somewhat more fond of the word 'conspiracy' than the general public. Oh well. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This is true of all things, one who was too literally minded and sat down to read "Hairy Potter" might be shocked to find that the subject of the novel is not in fact a maker of ceramic wares with a bear-like physique. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that many views better described as alternative theories are described either through oversimplification or partisan reasons as conspiracy theories. That's why policy says we cannot rely on these statements and instead must rely on expert opinions, viz., people who know the definition of a conspiracy theory and determine whether a certain view is a conspiracy theory. Andrevan, no conspiracy theory can ever possibly be proven to be true in the sense that none can be disproved. Conspiracists believe that a secret clique (possibly of extra-terrestial or supernatural origin) that is 100% evil, omniscient and omnipotent dictates world events. Saying that maybe COVID-19 leaked out of a Wuhan lab and the Chinese government is keeping it secret isn't in itself a conspiracy theory, although some non-experts thought it was. It is only a conspiracy theory when combined with conspiracist logic. For example, if the claim is that a plan to destroy mankind found in messages from Karl Marx in the 1840s, in which the U.S. elites are complicit. TFD (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Whoa there. Ya lost me, TFD, which perhaps is not surprising. Some conspiracy theories were indeed verified, and some were falsified. It turned out to be true that there was an

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

are well-understood to be a forgery. Other conspiracy theories will probably remain a mystery. Others may be one day verified or falsified, but are a mystery today.

I agree that some of the particularly pernicious, Illuminati-type stuff always finds a way to morph and live on in other forms, so it never really gets pinned down. But you actually can find sources that describe and debunk things. The

lab leak conspiracy theory is indeed a conspiracy theory, according to the experts, and most experts agree that multiple origins of COVID in a wet market show the animal origin (from, I guess, pangolin or bats, but there was additional research on other animals, I think civets if I recall correctly, I'll have to brush up on the details). Regardless, I digress, but, I don't believe that a wacky theory has to allege actual collusion for it to be a "conspiracy theory" by the popular usage of that term. Andre🚐

20:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Jerusalem#Should the infobox contain this flag and emblem? and contribute if you have input. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Argh. I hate it when I feel like I know just enough about a subject that I am compelled to engage. Happy Friday nonetheless. Dumuzid (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Editors are invited to help improve this article, which is about recent events, to help ensure strong sourcing and balance. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editor turned out to be a sockpuppet, now banned. Article still needs work, however. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Robert Fisk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have noticed that certain biographical articles on Wikipedia tend to be

The sentences you refer to were nowhere remotely close to properly referenced. Quite the opposite; they relied on opinion pieces by unknown authors with no academic credentials whatsoever. Your heading for this section is

not neutral. Cambial — foliar❧

11:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

QED: more disparaging remarks towards Mr. Fisk's many critics. Oz Katerji is not unknown, on the contrary: he is one of the most respected on-the-ground reporters in the Middle East, with excellent media outreach (he has published in various reputable outlets). If we were to use your criterion for inclusion, we would have to jettison a whole lot of the positive reception as well. Balance, you see. Nutez (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

More evidence-free assertions: "most respected"^{[by whom?][according to whom?]}. When they are not published by reliable sources, are published as opinion pieces and express opinions, posts need secondary coverage to indicate they are of any significance. That Katerji lacks any credentials that might position him as any kind of expert is a simple fact: if he is keeping his recognised scholarship hidden, that is unfortunate: the far more likely reality, and what we must assume given no evidence to the contrary, is that he has none.

If you wish to remove reception that is also from opinion pieces by non-experts published by far-from-the-mainstream websites without secondary coverage, that you view as positive, go right ahead. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Academics aren't the only people whose opinions are inclusion-worthy in biographies. Mr. Katerji is an on-the-ground journalist with huge media outreach in respectable outlets. My point being that Mr. Fisk's article ought not read like a hagiography, with only positive comments, given his reputation for "fisking". Nutez (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right that academics are not the only people whose opinions ought to be included, nor have I suggested as much. But subject-matter experts are almost always academics, and Katerji is not a subject-matter expert. We would only include the opinions of someone who is not an expert if they are published in an RS (i.e. news organisation obituaries, not opinion articles), or referred to by a third party in an RS. That has not occurred in this instance. If it were true that Katerji has "huge media outreach" we would expect some RS to comment on his expressed views. It appears he has little to no media outreach; his views on the topic are not considered significant in secondary reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If it is not written by a subject-matter expert whose publishing record accord him any weight to have his opinions noted, then it needs to show that secondary reliable sources treat the opinion as worthy of consideration. No secondary source covering Fisk has considered Katerji's views as even approaching important enough to merit the briefest mention. So neither does Wikipedia. nableezy - 13:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Oz Katerji wrote, "The veneration of Fisk, in his obituaries and throughout his career, serve as an indictment of a British foreign press that continued to indulge a man who they knew was violating not just ethical boundaries, but also moral ones. In a way, the glowing obituaries, free from the constraints of the normal journalistic practice of fact-checking and evidence, were a fitting tribute to Fisk. Like him, they preferred to tell a story that was not true, because stories are often far more comforting than the reality."[37]

He's saying that Fisk was highly respected, which is conveyed in the Wikipedia article. I am willing to entertain the possibility that the media is wrong and Katerji is speaking the truth. But first, you need to show that his view has attracted attention in reliable sources, per

WP:WEIGHT

.

The other problem is that opinion pieces are reliable sources only for the opinions of their authors. I do not see how we could present his opinions without including the "facts" upon which he bases them.

TFD (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It is unfortunate when partisan editors, who evidently wish to attack a figure they dislike, think that the addition of any negative opinion, no matter how obscure the author or website, is deserving of mention on Wikipedia. We rely on secondary sources, and occasionally the views of subject-matter experts. Editor Nutez in a section immediately above has made some pretensions about subject-matter experts. None of the sources or authors remotely fit this description. None of the views expressed have any secondary coverage, anywhere. Wikipedia is not merely a collection of blog posts and one-man websites dug up on the internet; anyone can buy some server space. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Oz Katerji is a freelance reporter/activist that has no academic qualifications whatsoever. His Twitter following has no bearing on his expertise, he has no publications in peer-reviewed journals or by well regarded academic focused publishers. Beyond that, the idea that we should take the most reactionary and absurdly hysterical commentary from some random op-ed and use it in a biography in an encyclopedia is asinine. Katerji's opinion of Fisk has been treated seriously by no secondary source covering Fisk. Nobody cares that Katerji thinks Fisk is a "fabricator and a fraudster", and it is an absurd abuse of

I don't have a strong view on Katerji's inclusion (although I think that the other deleted material about Syria and Arabic is very much noteworthy). The argument against Katerji's noteworthiness here is the lack of secondary coverage, but we include positive evaluations of Fisk that are have not been cited in secondary sources. My understanding of our neutrality policy is that whether Katerji's comments have due weight should be assessed on the basis of whether the outlets he is commenting in (in this case The Critic) are considered reliable so we can see what the balance of reliable sources say.

I think the issue of academic qualifications is completely a red herring: Fisk has a degree in Latin and a PhD on Ireland during WWII, but nobody would dispute that he is a subject matter expert on late 20th century Lebanon, on which he has no academic qualifications. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Bobfrombrockley for your thoughtful remarks. My thoughts exactly wrt academic qualifications: that's neither here nor there. It also quickly morphs into a type of personal attack on Mr. Katerji ^{(reactionary, random, hysterical, no academic qualifications, Nobody cares etc.)}, where his motives for writing the article are called into question. The aspertion by User:DeltaSnowQueen that it is somehow a hit piece that could only be written after his death (Mr. Katerji frequently criticized Mr. Fisk during the latter's lifetime) is frivolous, and constitutes an egregious breach of our BLP and edit summary policy (even if Oz Katerji is not yet portrayed in the encyclopedia). Also, @Nableezy: I am a female editor and prefer she/her pronouns. Thank you for respecting this. Nutez (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether he has academic qualifications is a relevant factor in determining whether he is a subject-matter expert. No-one has discussed Katerji's motives: your attempted rebuttal of a point no-one has argued does not advance your position. The issue is not the content of Katerji's opinion post, but that it's of no consequence whatsoever. Which is why no reliable sources have made even the tiniest reference to his opinions on the subject. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• No-one has discussed Katerji's motives: this edit summary by User:DeltaSnowQueen proves otherwise. It includes a speculation as to why it was published after Mr. Fisk's passing away. We don't need to vet each and every opinion by a second reliable source: in that case a lot of the positive reception Mr. Fisk received would by the same principle have to be jettisoned. Nutez (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to vet each and every opinion by a second reliable source, yes we do. That is what

WP:DUE requires. You cannot just say I like this opinion so it is going in to an encyclopedia article. If a viewpoint does not have secondary reliable sources covering it then it has no weight to be included in our article. nableezy

- 16:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It demonstrates nothing of the sort. You referred and linked to a comment by Nableezy, and I was working on the fair assumption you were discussing comments made in this discussion and the similar one on the article talk page. DSQ merely speculated on the reason for the timing of the article, not the motivation for writing it. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether he has academic qualifications is a relevant factor in determining whether he is a subject-matter expert. Yes, but not the only relevant factor, and not necessarily the most relevant one. Reporting on the Middle East for a long period is why Fisk, Spencer, Nashad, Whitaker and perhaps Katerji might be considered subject matter experts, for example; being an ambassador in a Middle Eastern country is why Miles might be considered one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that would not make somebody a subject matter expert, certainly not an ambassador. That is a politician, not a scholar. Being a reporter makes you a reliable source for your news reports that have been vetted by your employer, but not an expert on the topics youve covered if you dont have any publishing record to show that your views are taken seriously among informed sources. nableezy - 16:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Its the publishing record that matters for expertise Bob. Fisk is author of Pity the Nation, a history of modern Lebanon published by Oxford University Press, so yes he would be treated as an expert on modern Lebanon. An opinion piece is only ever reliable for the opinion of the author, and an op-ed by a non-expert lacks weight to be included. As far as positive views, Bowen is cited from a BBC obit, and Ive already said that Im fine including the negative view from the editor of another paper. We likewise include David Pryce-Jones cited in an obit in the Indy for a negative view, putting lie to the claim that only positive views are included. Sorry for the gender Nutez, corrected. But no, there are no "personal attacks" on Katerji in my comment, nobody does care that he thinks this about Fisk, thats why nobody has noted it and why we should not give that view any weight either. We dont just find the most absurdly hysterical take from somebody with strong views that no serious source has thought worthy of mention. Katerji's views have no weight given to them in reliable secondary sources, so they can have no weight given to them in our article. nableezy - 15:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I could cite the fact that Katerji's piece was extensively retweeted upon publication, which puts lie to the notion that nobody cares what Katerji thinks. Sure, for our purposes the Twitter engagement is irrelevant, but it proves your statement wrong – plenty of people cared. I do still think that evaluative adverbs and adjectives like absurdly hysterical constitute a personal attack, but I'm getting tired of arguing my case here. I was hoping a third party, with no prior engagement with the Fisk article, could take a gander at the dispute, yet here we are… Nutez (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Ummm, it's been fast approaching two years since I edited the article in question & I have no time (or inclination) to read through walls of text now. However, as you've pinged me (twice) - I'll contribute the following: I'm not "partisan", nor do I hold Mr Fisk in particular "great esteem". I do, however, object to BLP's being used to coatrack the negative opinions of random people. BLP's require the use of high-quality sources; "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". At the time of my edits, Mr Fisk had very recently passed away. Katerji wasn't (and still isn't) widely known outside of Twitter & I felt that the information was poorly sourced. I stand by that. Thanks! --DSQ (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, no it wouldnt. Since, again, Katerji's twitter following has nothing to do with anything. You need reliable secondary sources showing a view is taken seriously to give it weight in an article. It really isnt that complicated a concept to grasp. As far as personal attack, no, I am saying a piece written by some person reads to me as absurdly hysterical. That may well be an attack, but it is on the opinion piece, not on the person. I havent said anything about Katerji the person besides he has no academic qualifications to treat him as an established expert so that we would include his opinion on the basis of that expertise. And since he does not have that expertise we would need reliable secondary sources establishing that his view, regardless of whether it is absurdly hysterical or completely spot on, has been given any weight in coverage of Fisk. As that is not true, because no reliable secondary source has considered Katerji's view to merit even mentioning in their coverage of Fisk, our article cannot give him or his view more weight than that (that being 0). nableezy - 22:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Cambial , nableezy, and TFD that there's no indication Katerji's criticism of Fisk deserves space on Fisk's biography here. Katerji is indeed unknown, and the lack of secondary sources (twitter retweets don't count) describing Katerji as an expert leave no reason to cite their opinions. Here is the heart of Katerji's complaint: "Fisk’s reputation among scholars and journalists in the Middle East was destroyed by years of distortions of the truth in his work on Syria. But even before he started embracing pro-Assad conspiracy theories, Fisk’s relationship with the truth was widely scrutinised. Katerji clearly hates Fisk's position on the Syrian war, but provides only the weakest evidence for their bombastic claims about Fisk as "fabricator" or "fraud:" complaints from other journalists who also disagree with Fisk about Syria. BobFromBrockley asserts that academic qualifications are not necessarily the only or most relevant metric of expertise needed for citation on Wikipedia; while that may be true in some instances, academic qualifications are useful particularly when deciding whether controversial and/or overheated criticism should be added to a BLP on a political topic. -Darouet (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has so far focused on one single critical sentence, citing Oz Katerji. In my view this is the weakest of three critical passages which several editors have sought to include in the article. The other two are listed on the talk page here (under "Syria/Arabic/Katerji"). Can I urge un-involved editors to read that talk page section and comment on items 1 and 2, where the sourcing is far stronger than the third (Katerji-based) item. Thank you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley, I am not involved in that article or dispute. Reviewing the three items you linked at the Fisk talk page [38], I think #2 is inappropriate, but #1 could conceivably be included, since the material in question is written to carefully attribute the viewpoints aired. -Darouet (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Darouet. I didn’t mean to imply that you’re involved; I’m simply asking for editors to look at these items. Why do you think no.2 is inappropriate? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Bob, Im not Darouet, but Im already on record in support of including some of the other sources raised there. But the Katerji bit is polemic and from a non-expert in an opinion piece, it simply does not belong in anything pretending to be an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 18:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I wonder if we can get consensus that no.2 is appropriate if it does not include Katerji? (Probably a discussion for the article talk page, not here.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, the discussion just died out last time, but what I said at the time still stands as my opinion. nableezy - 14:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I was against incl. Katerji too. Similar reasons as Cambial, TFD and Nableezy have mentioned here, no relevance among the many possible obituaries from experts and in the discourse more relevant sources (that Katerji worked for the Daily Mail and the Turkish State Broadcaster TRT raised further doubts). The complaint also seems to be misleading. That the article mentions no criticism is untrue, the criticism by The Times and The Spectator is described in the reception. Maybe more is possible, but evidently it's also not like the conservative side got ignored. It looks to me like the labeled "partisan editors" just looked out for what's relevant. Pasting anything negative somebody can find on the net into the article would obviously misrepresent the reception of a journalist that received many awards. --Casra (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• His stance earned him praise from many commentators, but was condemned by others. What's up with that? It seems like a really stilted, awkward way to say he was controversial, and it's cited to two pieces written by Fisk, which seems totally inappropriate for that sort of statement. Surely there's a better way to convey this and better sources that can be used for it (ie. not things Fisk wrote about himself.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)