Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 21 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82

Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles: NPOV, BLP, NOR and other policy problems[edit]

At articles like Karl von Habsburg, we're seeing things like this in the infobox:

Spouse: Baroness Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza (m. 1993)
 Archduchess Eleonore
 Archduke Ferdinand
 Archduchess Gloria

and similar things throughout the article.

This is a problem under all of at least WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SOAPBOX, and more. These titles are not only not used by these people, they are actually illegal to be used by most of them (other than some of those who have moved, to places that don't care), and for most of these people we have no evidence they actually attempt to use such titles, so we should not be imposing them on these subjects. These titles are basically a fantasy (and some of them appear to be "If this were still real, then so-and-so would have inherited this title from such-and-such" OR conducted by editors. The jurisdictions and legal systems in which they would be real ceased to exist around World War I or a bit later in most places, and countries like the UK where some of this sort of thing still exists do not automatically recognize such titles and honors and yadda yadda of alleged pretenders to extinct sovereignties.

There's a bit of a MOS:FICTION element here, too. For anyone from a deposed formerly royal family who does still assert and use such titles, styles, and honors (and there are a few of them running around; Karl von Habsburg's father was one of them), we have to be clear in our material that this is pretender stuff that most of the world does not take seriously (including people in non-deposed noble families in jurisdictions that still recognize nobility – except inasmuch as they may be looking for a "suitable" marriage partner, though even that stuff is drawing to a close as genetic effects inbreeding (including compounded cousin marriages) are well-studied now, and royal–commoner marriages like those in the recent British royal family have been accepted within those circles and by the public).

I'm not really sure if we just have a problem at a few dozen articles, or if there's a more systemic one that needs to be addressed in a guideline. I suspect the latter. E.g., when I look at List of current pretenders, I see a lot of entries that are people whom various WP editors believe (through various genealogy studies of their own) to be legitimate pretenders, but whom our articles (and more importantly, the reliable sources in them) do not indicate that they are in fact pretenders to (claimants of) the listed thrones, realms, titles, etc.

Let's look just at Karl von Habsburg: "Born a member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, he does not use his ancestral titles, since the use of such titles is now illegal in both Hungary and Austria. ... In 1961, his father, Otto von Habsburg, renounced all claims to the Austrian throne, as a necessary legal condition to being allowed to return to Austria." (What part of "renounced" wasn't clear?) His family has been trying since the 1960s to regain seized assets including estates, but this is not the same thing as being pretenders to the throne and other noble titles and offices and powers. Otto is also the grand master of the Habsburg-Lorraine Order of St. George which is an internal house order of the family (i.e., a private club). It is not the Habsburg Order of St. George (est. 1469); it has only existed since 2008 or 2011 (sources conflict), simply as a means of promoting and awarding pan-Europeanism; and of the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece, which is older but "an honour solely for Catholic royalty and nobility". So, this again is not the same as being a pretender to a throne or the asserter of a title like HI&RH Archduke, etc. The grand-mastering of these orders isn't really any different from chairing the board of directors of a charity or being the executive director of a learned society. It is not even issuance of historical chivalric titles as a pretender-sovereign. (In the first case, it's a recently invented private-sector award by the head of the Habsburg-Lorraine family to [any] recipients for international political do-gooding in the family's eyes, so it's not particularly different in nature from the Nobel Peace Prize or any other award from a family foundation. In the second case, it's simply an internal family matter, of nobles giving titles to related other nobles; it is a private club, albeit an old one and one which long ago meant something legally, under feudal class systems that have long since been abolished in the relevant jurisdictions.)

Much less does any of this stuff amount to an assertion that Karl von Habsburg's son Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg is "Archduke Ferdinand" as our infoboxes are claiming; it's an assertion for which he could be criminally prosecuted. So where is this stuff coming from, and how do we weed it out? SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 21:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Although I don't have time to go into details, this is definitely a problem and one I have encountered too many times, including this month . I hadn't thought of the legal issue though. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree that there is a systematic issue and a stench of OR around the area. That being said, royal genealogy is a thing and I'm pretty sure there are secondary sources in the area (e.g. Almanach de Gotha), so this is going to get into messy issues of reliability and dueness. The legal issue doesn't seem important though. The anti-dynastic laws might nominally still be on statute books, but they're as archaic and obscure as the claims themselves these days. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Two minds, you cannot (in effect) lose an hereditary title, but if its not used by the holders why should we? Guess it goes back to if its not sourced its OR.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, we can cite and attribute. E.g., "According to the Almanach de Gotha, Pübertus von Dorff is technically the duke of Elbonia by birth, though the duchy was constitutionally abolished in 1893", or whatever. And leave it at that, to the extent practicable. The WP:DUE part in is the latter; various editors are instead dwelling on the noble-family stuff and the dubious title-mongering (which is often something that the subjects themselves are not actually engaged in). And one can lose a hereditary title, in all but a silly personal-fiction sense, if the entitlement to which it refers was abolished or was renounced (both of these conditions apply simultaneously to the von Habsburgs), or successfully usurped. For much better material, see our articles on the current British royal family; they are primarily of Battenberg stock, and renounced their German entitlements a couple of generations ago in order to marry into what remained of the then-current British royal family (which itself was already German-dominated via Nassau, Hanover, Saxe-Coburg, Teck, and other lineages). We are – correctly – not implying that they still have those German titles and styles. But those are very-watchlisted articles, at which more sensible, knowledgeable, and policy-cognizant editors restrain the excesses of overenthusiastic amateur heraldry-mongers. I consider the article Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg a Wikipedia embarrassment. This should be an article about a race-car driver, with a quick mention in a "Personal life" section of his noble-family background. Instead, it's a royal-chaser OR pile, that incidentally gets into his professional career at the bottom of the article kind of as an afterthought. This is unfortunately not a one-off problem. SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 00:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Minor points: I don't believe anyone has ever been prosecuted under the various laws banning noble title - not since the French Revolution anyway. I might be wrong, are there examples? Also there is afaik no "Nassau" component at all close to the British royal line - if you are thinking of William & Mary (no, not the college), they had no children. There may well be something much more remote. Not that they are German anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone has suffered any legal blowback from this stuff either, but it's certainly statutorily possible in some places. But that's not really the point, which is that we know that various people we're putting these labels on not only aren't making such claims (in some cases because they live in places where doing so would be unlawful), they have in some cases explicitly renounced such titles (either personally themselves, or had a recent ancestor do so, which precludes our subject renewing such a claim anyway). That is, it's Wikipedians (and some bloggers and low-end journalists cribbing from Wikipedia) who are sticking these titles onto such people as Ferdinand Habsburg. There's a WP:CIRCULAR problem happening here, on top of the central OR/NPoV/BLP/ABOUTSELF/IDENTITY issue. Good point about William and Mary; I'd forgotten their line ended. SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 08:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time finding sources that refer to von Habsburg's children using the titles. If the terms are not their legal titles anymore, and the titles are not in widespread use according to reliable sources, then I don't see the justification for including them. Eleonore von Habsburg's page seems to deal with the issue more appropriately than the unsourced footnote in Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg, but the uses in the infoboxes are not supported by any of the articles from what I can see, including the children's infoboxes referring to their father. If the use of the titles is not appropriate for the lead of the article, then it is not appropriate in the infoboxes. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A lot depends on WHERE we are including the title. I don’t have an problem with including a brief mention of the “title” in the body of the text... as long as the historical context of the title can be explained. It certainly should not be used in the article title, or the infobox, as if it were extant. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Just from looking at the Karl von Habsburg article, this is clearly an issue. He's labeled as "Archduke of Austria, Royal Prince of Hungary, Bohemia and Croatia" in the infobox, but he's not. There is no Archduke of Austria, no Prince of Hungary, Bohemia, or Croatia. He's certainly notable on his own merits, but all these titles are nonsense. They should be mentioned in the article, but only as historical curiosities. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    Red Rock Canyon, and the bogus navbox needs to go. Guy (help!) 10:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In theory, current policy is clear that these titles should not be used (OR, BLP, ect.) That said, this problem is rampant. I have noticed some editors whose only contributions are jamming as many honorifics and titles into articles (especially infoboxes), regardless of factual accuracy. If we can get by without making more policy or guidelines, great, but I think this is a problem that current guidelines could be more direct with. I think it would be beneficial to add a single line to the relevant MOS explicitly stating not to attach theoretical titles to pretenders, but they can be discussed in the article if relevant. That way, when someone inevitably comes along trying to add theoretical titles, they can easily be pointed to the specific line of MOS, as opposed to requiring other editors and admins to explain via broader Wikipedia policies why theoretical titles shouldn't be included. On a similar topic, British courtesy titles are frequently used incorrectly; numerous individuals who never took their courtesy title are being assigned one in their Wikipedia articles. Not pretenders, but they come under a similar umbrella. Editing with Eric (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    Editing with Eric, I will take this up with my school chum Chez HIN HRH The Colonel Count Sir JSJ Tye-Motörhead Neasel. Yes, he really did style himself thus. Guy (help!) 21:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    Good point about courtesy titles. You're right that it's technically different, though posing some similar OR/ABOUTSELF/etc. problems on WP. SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 08:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: Would you agree to remove "von", "Archduke" from article titles, first sentences and infoboxes? I think that would be a good start. I've noticed that both Karl Habsburg and Ferdinand Zvonimir Habsburg's German WP pages drop "von", etc., which would be in accordance with their legal names as they were born in Austria/are Austrian residents. The only counter-argument I can think of is WP:COMMONNAME. DaßWölf 00:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think we'd blanket remove von and the like (van, de, etc. – varies by country/language) from articles of this sort, but should do so on a case-by-case basis, when there's compelling evidence that 1. the subject has dropped it, and 2. sources usually don't use it. While back when Germany and culturally related countries had formal nobility, von conveyed something specific (and legally regulated), for many people today it's just part of their name. That's probably surely less true in Germany, Austria, etc., than in somewhere like the US, Canada, Australia, etc., of course, but some of the original countries still have nobility (e.g. Liechtenstein). And for all I know, use of von or an equivalent might actually be legally banned or otherwise regulated in one jurisdiction but not another. (This isn't my area of expertise; I'm just tired of all the North American and British/Commonwealth "royal fanwanking" leading to shameless OR in our articles. It's an "If even I know this is bullshit ..." kind of situation.)

    In the case of Ferdinand Habsburg, the von should definitely be removed at least from the title (and probably also the lead, barring evidence that it's his legal birth name, or whatever). He doesn't use von, and sources mostly don't use it [1], so it fails various aspects of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOR, WP:ABOUTSELF, MOS:IDENTITY, and WP:BLP. Similarly, we know for a fact that Karl Habsburg renounced the Austrian title, so this archduke stuff cannot apply to him in later life, nor to his son (at all). Honestly, it's kind of weird to me that this has even come up. It's comparable to still referring to Edward, Duke of Windsor, as "King Edward VIII" after he abdicated and became governor of the Bahamas, and calling Wallis Simpson "Queen Wallis" on the basis that the wife of that king must be a queen. It makes almost exactly the same kind of confused not-sense as calling Ferdinand Habsburg the archduke today just because his father was at one time the archduke and Ferdinand is the eldest son. Gaaahhh ....
    SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 08:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

    I was actually talking specifically about Austria, which is where the people you mentioned are from. Austria blanket banned all nobility titles (including von) after WWI (except for a short period around Anschluss), see Habsburg Law. While people who would have been nobility if it hadn't been for this law are occasionally referred to by their titles, (some more often than others, e.g. Herbert von Karajan) this is irregular and controversial. I doubt that von is on the birth certificate of any of these people who are still living and were born in Austria. DaßWölf 20:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    I've just seen this discussion. I totally agree that the practice of working out who would be king or prince or duchess etc of abolished monarchies and calling them by those titles on WP is absurd and wrong. I tried to deal with this, which is on thousands of articles, years back, but met fierce opposition and gave up. You can see the discussion on the talk page of the absurdly titled Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia. His name does not have a comma in it and he isn't a prince, [2] if you look at his article in the German WP [3] it doesn't go into any of the ludicrous folderol that there is here, with a box on the "Prussian royal family" listing loads of people with nonexistent honorifics and titles. It should all be removed, everywhere on WP. User:SMcCandlish, User:Doug Weller, are you doing anything about this problem? Happy to help!Smeat75 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Smeat75: would that I could. I'm sorry Smeat, but my watchlist has gone crazy with India-Pakistan-Afghanistan ethnic warring, AP, etc. I'm finding no time to do article building and it's annoying. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • User:SMcCandlish mentions above the article List of current pretenders, truly mind-boggling stuff. The first sentence says A pretender is an aspirant or claimant to a monarchy that has either been abolished or suspended, or is occupied by another. Are these people really all so deluded that they are pretending or aspiring or claiming to be Kings or rulers of non-existent monarchic states? I don't believe most of them are claiming or aspiring or pretending anything, genealogists or somebody work out who would be in that position had it not been abolished and label these individuals as such. I think those are all WP:BLP violations unless there is a reliable source somewhere that says "So and so has stated that he pretends to be, or aspires to be, or claims to be, King Whotsis of the Two Sicilies" or whatever. That list labels Franz, Duke of Bavaria as the Jacobite pretender to the thrones of England and Scotland but when you look at the article on this person it says Were it not for the Act of Settlement 1701, Franz would be the successor to the British crowns of the House of Stuart. This is not a claim he has advanced, however. So this guy knows how silly this is, apparently, and doesn't claim or aspire to or pretend anything and yet List of current pretenders labels him the Jacobite pretender to the thrones of England and Scotland. Look at the German version of the article on that person - [4] - it doesn't call him a Duke. When German noble titles were abolished holders were allowed to legally change their last names to their title so his name is "Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern", Herzog von Bayern means "Duke of Bavaria" but that isn't a title, it is his last name. So why does the English WP translate his name, we never translate people's last names, and put a comma in it so that it comes out "Franz, Duke of Bavaria"? It's just incorrect. The German article on him does not have a box marked "Bavarian royal family" and give a long list of people with fancy honorifics "HRH' this that and the other. Taking a name at random from that list HRH The Margravine of Meissen it redirects to Gisela, Margravine of Meissen where the article just says she is two different kinds of princesses, (no she isn't) who her parents were, who she is related to, her marriage and her children and that she went to a wedding once, apparently the only even remotely notable thing she ever did. It also says "she is the Margravine of Meissen" and when you click on that you see that Margraves of Meissen have not existed since 1547! there are hundreds, maybe thousands of articles on EN WP like this of people who only have articles about them because they would have some royal position if it still existed. So absurd and this seems to be a problem specifically with English WP, the other language versions don't include such stuff so much. Are we going to do anything about this?Smeat75 (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
    Wow, this is even worse than I thought. I'm not even sure how to begin policing this. There's a wikiproject devoted to this sort of thing, but it's a near certainty that participants in that project are the source of the problem. SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 21:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

    At this point, I think a WP:VPPOL RfC might be the best bet, using a lot of examples from this thread. While WP:NPOV can often reach a decision on a small matter, it's not very good at spurring action. But everyone and their dog are watchlist VPPOL, so a clear result there should interest various people in collectively doing some cleanup on this mess. It's too big a job for just a couple of editors to try to take on. I certainly don't have the time for it in the current crisis. I barely have time to answer a few pings. SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 22:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding User:SMcCandlish. I left a message on your talk page. Please try to set up a WP:VPPOL RfC on this issue, you know how to phrase and format these things, I don't. RaiderAspect,Slatersteven, Johnbod,User:Daß WölfBlueboar,wallyfromdilbert,Guy,anybody who reads this, please watch for these discussions, join in and help if you can. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
As I said in user talk, yes, I can do it, but my time is pressed right now. The issue reported here has been a problem for a long time, so taking a while longer to get to it isn't going to break anything. Someone else might want to run with this before I get around to it, though. Part of it is also have little stomach for drama right now, so even if I had the time to write this up, I'm not inclined to do it at present. SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 23:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Smeat75, what the ever-loving fuck? That counted Franz, Duke of Bavaria as "pretender" to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland. From the linked article:
  • Franz is a direct descendant of the House of Stuart. Were it not for the Act of Settlement 1701, Franz would be the successor to the British crowns of the Stuart kings.[1] His spokesman has, however, made it clear that this is a purely 'hypothetical' issue[1] and not a claim which Franz pursues.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
    So, were it not for the thing that has been recognised as the settled law for 320 years, he would hypothetically be a rival claimant to the thrones, but has no intention of ever pressing such a claim, nor would it have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.
    That is one of the most egregious examples of synthesis I can recall seeing in a Wikipedia article. Guy (help!) 18:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, the people who care about such issues seem to live in an alternate reality. Try and remove "Franz, Duke of Bavaria" from List of current pretenders and watch what happens. "Pretender" is just the term these monarchy obsessed people use to mean, in this case, "the person who would be monarch if the Stuarts were still on the throne". The actual person doesn't have to pretend or claim or aspire to anything, and in this case has made clear he doesn't, it won't make any difference, they will insist on calling him "the pretender."Smeat75 (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Bah, what a mess. I'm sorry I don't have much energy to help deal with it myself, either. I think that if reliable sources mention that X would be King of Elbonia had the monarchy not been abolished, then we could note that in article-body text, but giving them that title in the infobox (etc), especially if they don't use it, is iffy (is it synth? is it just undue cruft? eh). I'm also not entirely opposed to there being a list of people who would be kings if their kingdoms had not been abolished etc, if there are reliable sources for that concept and the entries, as opposed to it being synth; whether it can be called a list of "pretenders" depends on whether that term is regularly used by sources even for people who don't actively "pretend" (it might be). -sche (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
It is very frustrating to me to see all these comments "that ridiculous stuff should be removed " but no one is trying to remove any of it. I almost wish I had never seen this thread. I can't try to do anything about it by myself, that didn't work before and wouldn't work now. I forced myself to stop thinking about all these absurd and incorrect articles about fake royals seven years ago and will try to do so again unless and until SMcCandlish or someone else starts an RfC about it.Smeat75 (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe the legal issues are not on point unless the subject themselves is putting the label on. Nobody is going to be arresting anyone for violating the law not to call themselves a royal title if someone else is doing so. Until a bonafide law enforcement agency files papers asking or ordering Wikimedia to desist hosting such content, I think the legal issues should be left to be as theoretical as all these titles. As for the titles themselves, it would probably be better to address things from the other end and get better rules for justifying all titles in a way that makes the use of pretender titles to be easily distinguishable and with a limiting rule. A good limiting rule would be the existence of a bonafide restorationist movement that actually is seeking to put the system the title derives from back into the business of ruling territory. TMLutas (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The people who write and maintain these articles about people who would be holders of a royal position had it not been abolished, will say that those titles are not theoretical. They also say that governments can't abolish such titles, they exist independently of governments, or something, I never really understood their way of thinking, if that's what it is. The only arguments they use that ever made any sense to me were WP:RS or WP:COMMONNAME, ie, look here's this royalist handbook that says so and so is still His or Her Imperial and Royal Highness Archduke or Archduchess Whatever and here's proof that people still call them that, so it is their name by COMMONNAME. And they will argue your arm off about it.Smeat75 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I've developed an unexpectedly strong opinion on this topic after reading this discussion and the Talk pages for the various people linked above. For several of these pages, the issue would be solved by just deleting them for non-notability. For the rest, I think it would be best if there was a policy change that explicitly addresses assignment of styles and titles when they have been abdicated or renounced by individuals, have been abolished by the issuing states, are constitutionally banned by states, are from defunct polities, or are hypothetical/OR. And I would certainly support any RfC or policy change proposal from SMcCandlish, Smeat75, or anyone else here. JoelleJay (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Glad to hear it JoelleJay. I tried to have some of the utterly ridiculous articles in this area, like "HRH Duke or Princess Somebody or Another", the small child or teenaged offspring of the person who is the brother of the person who would be the king if there still were one, deleted on grounds of notability several years ago, but all these royalty fans or whatever they are ganged up and prevented any deletions. I can't deal with this by myself and there comes a point when you think "it's not worth wasting any more of my life attempting to deal with this trivia."SMcCandlish knows how to try to change policy and how to set up RfC's, I don't, we have to hope that he or someone else who is used to dealing with these kinds of things will take it up, I usually write articles about music. I think the model for EN WP should be the German and French wikipedias, they have articles on the most important of these people, the ones who actually would be the monarch if there still were one, but not on all their relatives, they don't call them by their (non-existent) titles, they don't use fancy honorifics and emblazon their pages with heraldry. Let's all try to stay in touch, anybody who wants to try to deal with these delusional articles about fake "royals" is welcome to communicate on my talk page.Smeat75 (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What we call people can be handled perfectly well by the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Emperor Norton, Queen Latifah, Princess Yasmin Aga Khan, Princess Nokia, Princess Superstar, Prince Narula, Duke Albrecht, Princess Maria-Olympia, whatever tickles the fancy of reliable sources. It is not up to Wikipedia to judge whether Queen Latifah has the right to be called a queen. The problem here is the immense number of biographies in which no common name can be ascertained because there is no coverage. Articles such as Duchess Elisabeth of Württemberg (b. 1933) and Karl-Konstantin von Habsburg should not be renamed but deleted. They are nothing but genealogy. Surtsicna (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is a huge problem with users attributing claims to people. Here we had a living individual listed as the pretender to an imperial throne without any source stating that the person does claim that title. Apparently people do not understand how serious that is. Someone went along and named Uma Thurman's mother Baroness Nena von Schlebrügge. Neither she nor reliable sources use that title. It is a case of monkey see, monkey do: people see titles attributed to actors, politicians, and other people who do not use the said titles and they just go ahead and attribute titles to other people. Ahnentafeln have spread the same way; suddenly every article must have them despite general biographies never including that stuff. This mess should be untangled ruthlessly. Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This thread: “The law. Hungary is a Republic and deposed its royal family a hundred years ago and legally it doesn’t recognise titles so there can’t be any Princes, therefore Wikipedia can’t possibly call this Habsburg a Prince” (even though that’s what a load of verifiable sources do) An alternative way to look at this thread “The law. Hungary legally doesn’t allow a person to change their birth gender so that Wikipedia article on that Hungarian who was born a woman but now identifies as a man must be called a woman on Wikipedia because that’s what the Hungarian law says there gender is, so Wikipedia can’t possibly call her a him” (even though that’s what a load of verifiable sources do. But in all seriousness there is a really simple straightforward answer already out there, Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia:Reliable sources (which apparently gets thrown at the Editors with the law/reality on their side whether it’s a fake royal they are tackling or a fake Hungarian man/woman (because hey the law is the law right, Wikipedia must bend over no questions asked to a countries laws) - it’s always the identity of the minority groups that get erased sadly Royal, noble, transgender etc. What is disturbing here though is a lot of people would appear to want to disregard policy and cook up some random fairy tale naming conventions and rules solely for members of deposed Royal Families because it’s the law of X country. So in the unenlightened, regressive outside world people will read about a “Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece”, they will come on Wikipedia and find an article about what exactly, a Miss Maria-Olympia Glücksburg or whatever made up nonsense the progressive, enlightened Wikipedia Editors have cooked up by ignoring their own policies to serve their own agendas. I’ve got no problem with an article called Karl von Habsburg (mentioned right at the top of the thread), that would appear to be his common name I’m not insisting he be called Emperor Karl II of Austria, or Karl, Archduke of Austria, Archduke Karl von Habsburg (which is actually quite common) because I respect WP policies not just when it suits me, can everyone in this thread say the same? - dwc lr (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don’t attempt to lump royals and nobles into the same identity struggle as transgender people again. That’s utterly ridiculous. — MarkH21talk 12:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Related issues raised at WT:NCROY[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Pretenders and defunct titles, a closely related thread (though confined necessarily to page-title matters, while the above is more about in-article content). SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 18:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Other related threads[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 21:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Alleyne was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Andrew Neather (10 September 2014). "R.I.P. GB: what happens if Scotland votes Yes in next week's independence referendum?". Evening Standard. Retrieved 23 August 2016.
  3. ^ Douglas, Jason (19 August 2014). "Scottish Independence: Scots Ponder Secession Question in Referendum". WSJ. Retrieved 23 August 2016.
  4. ^ Huggler, Justin (17 September 2014). "Could the Duke of Bavaria be the next King of Scotland?". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 23 August 2016.
  5. ^ Mudie, Keir. "Independence referendum: Duke of Bavaria in line to be next King of Scotland?". Daily Record. Retrieved 23 August 2016.
  6. ^ "Opinion". Retrieved 23 August 2016.

Toxic masculinity Neutrality Dispute[edit]

Link to discussion

There is a dispute over the neutrality of the page Toxic_masculinity, over whether or not to include a particular phrase in the heading. One user is arguing that we should include the phrase "The use of the term has come under scrutiny for the implied meaning that gender-related issues are caused by inherent male traits, an idea that has been criticized by Michael Salter, a professor of Criminology at the University of New South Wales" (with a citation to the article written by said professor), as seen here. Another editor is arguing that this phrase - and any mention of the use of term being disputed - should be entirely excluded from the heading. Discussion on the topic failed, and the page is now protected until the dispute is resolved. EditSafe (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion did not "fail"; rather, EditSafe tried to force certain content into the article (Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4) in order to include "both sides of the argument", later clarifying that they meant to "include differing views when there is significant disagreement", which seems like saying the same thing in different words. I explained that NPOV means representing viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", and not in proportion to the level of agreement or disagreement. EditSafe still hasn't shown how any policy supports their claim of "bias" in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC) (edited 19:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC))
My argument, as I explained on the talk page, is that the Atlantic piece by Michael Salter is a primary source for any criticism of the term "toxic masculinity" by Salter himself, and that we should stick to secondary sources, and scholarly ones where possible. Otherwise the article becomes just another back-and-forth compendium of popular media commentary, which has latched on to this topic of late. Besides, any "criticism" should be described in the body before it's added the lead section (or at least in the same edit). Putting "criticism" in the lead section alone would unbalance the article. Honestly, we don't even need the Salter piece for "criticism" of the topic, since there's a university textbook chapter in The Palgrave Handbook of Male Psychology and Mental Health that criticizes the concept quite harshly (arguably making several strawman arguments about the concept and its use, as well as equivocating on the meaning of "masculinity", which should give one pause before citing it uncritically). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems like WP:SELFPUB applies here for the Salter opinion piece. Salter is a professor at a prominent Australian university. Google Scholar shows that he is well cited and has published works in recognized periodicals. This appears to make him enough of an expert on the subject matter to satisfy WP:RS. Whether his commentary belongs in the lead is a closer question, but I don't see it as inappropriate or WP:UNDUE to include his views on the subject in the article, and NPOV probably weighs in favor of inclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Newt Gingrich has also "published works in recognized periodicals". How does Salter's work in the area of social media and criminology make him an "expert on the subject matter"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB states Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, 1) whose work in the relevant field 2) has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. The "Toxic masculinity" concept is almost certainly within the broader field of sociology, and this professor has published and been cited in relevant works in that field. If Newt Gingrich or anyone else meets the criteria for SELFPUB, they can be considered an expert. Are you trying to exclude this material because you don't like this person's opinion or because you don't think the elements of WP:SELFPUB are met? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion here between sociology and criminology. While the latter includes aspects of the former, they're not the same thing. While Salter has written journal articles about "geek masculinity" and online harassment, as well as the "construction of masculinities" within violence-prevention programs, it's unclear how well this overlaps with the sociological concept of toxic masculinity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
So he's written journal articles on masculinity and is a sociology professor. His university bio indicates expertise in criminology and social sciences. I really don't see what I'm missing here. You guys (excuse the term) can hash whether he's undue for the lead but it seems like relevant content for the article and appears to meet WP:SELFPUB. I'm all for rigor, but I don't like all this parsing and hairsplitting when it's selectively applied. This article links out to numerous writers and pieces of seemingly equivalent weight and reliability (opinion pieces by academics, professors and such, written in various news columns), and I don't see why this one stands out as unsuited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with User:Wikieditor19920. I think it's been well established at this point that the inclusion of Salter's work is appropriate, and as such we need to focus our discussion more on whether or not its appropriate to include in the header. As brought up by User:Wikieditor19920 the article contains several sources of seemingly equivalent weight and reliability. Further, the article contains many uncited claims both in the body and in the header. The header has four sections of text, none of which relate to the controversy or opposition to the use of the term, so to maintain better neutrality, I still hold that it's important to reinstate the removed sentence. Since we've determined that the source and its content is appropriate to use in the article, and considering how the header has no information relating to the claims supported by the source, I maintain that reinstating the removed phrase from the header is appropriate. EditSafe (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: once again, you seem to be confusing criminology with sociology. Where do you see Salter listed as a "sociology professor"? The article "links out" to various opinion pieces precisely because they are unsuitable as direct sources. Where do you see any equivalent sources (opinion columns etc.) being cited for the authors' opinions? @EditSafe: this is begging the question. If there is a "controversy" among scholars, the existing sources say little about it. Once again, neutrality means summarizing the predominant views of reliable sources, not trying to balance the "sides". I've had a hand in most of the text that's in the article, and I think it's very well cited. Which statements are un-cited? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Eric Anderson, who seems to be a notable sociologist of gender, apparently (non-RS) doesn't like the concept of toxic masculinity and thinks it's non-academic, so his 2019 Men and Masculinities published by Routledge (ISBN 9781138081819) or previous papers would probably be a place to start looking for better critical sources. Though I think The Atlantic source discussed here is acceptable as well. Currently the article doesn't have a critical word, and if/when criticism exists in reliable sources, some weight should be given. Although I think Sangdeboeuf is displaying some WP:OWN behavior in the article (219 edits), I agree with him that the lead is not the place to start covering critical views of the term. However, this shouldn't be out of the question by any means, if more substantial text is written with high-quality sources in other section. --Pudeo (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm truly sorry you find my 219 edits to be a form of ownership, but I thought that was called "contributing to the encyclopedia". I'm not sure the Atlantic piece is necessarily reliable in this context. None of the other popular-media references in the article are used as primary sources for someone's opinion. If it were published in the print magazine, maybe, but the Salter piece is from the online publication, which has a different editor than the print version and lacks the print magazine's reputation and history. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead is a summery of the article, thus it should only be there if there is a significant material (in OUR article) about this criticism. If there is we do not need quotes or extensive commentary in the lead, that should go in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I see a Time and a Vice piece cited in this article. Let's not be so high and mighty. "Toxic masculinity" is a popularized term that some academics have given weight to with peer reviewed articles offering different interpretations. This is not neuroscience. Michael Salter is a published academic who has written on issues of gender, masculinity, and gender violence. It's ridiculous to sit and act like "Toxic masculinity" is some distinct field where we can't include anything not published in a prestigious academic journal (which this guy is, according to Google Scholar and his bio). I think the WP:OWN reference by Pudeo was not to the number of edits by SDB, but by the fact that this user has been heavily involved in editing all aspects of this article and is sort of lording over other users who try to make reasonable additions, which by all appearances this is. I agree it seems unsuited for the lead but I do not think it consistent with NPOV to try and purge it from the body entirely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
So how much do we say about this in the body?Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I think a brief mention, probably no more than a sentence, with an in-text attribution (Michael Salter, professor at X, said...) is fine. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
And how do you "summarise" one sentence, with a single word?Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure there are multiple appropriate ways to include the material, and this is my suggestion. My position here is that I believe the source meets reliability standards and inclusion is probably a positive thing for the overall neutrality of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not disputing inclusion, but it cannot go in the lead if its not in the body, and the lead is a summery.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I said it's appropriate to include it in the body but maybe not the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be inappropriate to include in the lead, considering that its inclusion in the body is valid and that the article is relatively short. I think that adding information from this source expands the article's scope enough to warrant inclusion in the header. I believe that one quick sentence cited by two sources (Salter and Anderson) is appropriate, considering that these sources are among the most reliable provided, and that they increase the scope of the article. The use of the term is contradicted by reliable sources as mentioned above, although most publications seem to be okay with its use. Similarly, including one sentence about it in the header along with a couple sentences in the body will expand the article to show that this contradiction exists, while still showing that most publications are okay with or support the use of the term. I think that this fits perfectly with the guidelines on due weight. EditSafe (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we all know you think the inclusion is "valid" and the source is "reliable". The discussion is not a poll or a vote. What you need to explain is why you think so, based on what sources and policy actually say. "Increas[ing] the scope of the article" is not the locus of this dispute. Whether any sources "contradict" the use of the term doesn't address the prominence of those viewpoints, as WP:WEIGHT requires. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Please refer to the previous replies. There seems to be consensus among everyone except for you that the Salter piece is acceptable. I know that this isn't a poll; I never claimed or implied it was, but you don't seem to want to listen to anyone else, so we are eventually going to need to move on from this argument about reliability. EditSafe (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I think I'll wait for a more experienced and uninvolved user to judge the level of consensus here, thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I see a Time and a Vice piece cited in this article. Let's not be so high and mighty. If you actually read and understood the article, you'd know that the Time essay by another recognized scholar is used for a basic, factual statement about how the concept is used in psychology. The Vice article is a third-party reference supporting a statement by John Stoltenberg. We already have a source for that from NYU press, so I think the Vice reference could be simply cut. Once again, Where do you see any similar sources being cited for the authors' opinions (or "criticism", as phrased here)?
'Toxic masculinity' is a popularized term that some academics have given weight to with peer reviewed articles offering different interpretations. "Meme" is another term from academia that was "popularized" online. That doesn't mean we suddenly favor popular sources over academic ones. Raewyn Connell wrote about "toxic" masculine behaviors in a 2005 academic journal article, well before the current popular usage. And of course Michael Kimmel documented its original usage in an academic work from 1995. In any case, academic sources are generally the most reliable.
This is not neuroscience. Michael Salter is a published academic who has written on issues of gender, masculinity, and gender violence. You're evading the question. Where do you see him listed as a professor of sociology as you claimed? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
As discussed, the fact that Salter's piece was published in the The Atlantic doesn't make it a popular piece. In addressing reliability, we look to the credentials of the author. He seems to be an established academic as well. Criminology is a sub-field within sociology, so this distinction you are trying to draw -- apparently as evidence he's not a relevant expert? Is sort of much ado about nothing. He has also written and been published on relevant topic areas, i.e. gender violence, masculinity, violence in men, all of which touches directly on the page's subject matter. I do not think relevance is really at issue here and WP:SELFPUB is clearly met. I'm going to step back on the where or how this should be included, but, as I've stated, I believe NPOV permits, and probably favors, inclusion. This is a really straightforward issue and not one I'm interested in seeing litigated over pages and pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The Atlantic is a general-interest, mass-media publication. It's not a peer-reviewed academic source. Yes, criminology is a sub-field within sociology. That doesn't make a criminologist an expert in men's studies or sociology of gender, any more than it makes a professor of geodynamics an expert in biostratigraphy, or a professor of particle physics an expert in atmospheric physics. They are different areas of study within a broader field. Obviously not everyone believes it's as "straightforward" as you do. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
If we're treating the source as "self-published" by a subject-matter expert (and therefore somehow equivalent to a peer-reviewed academic source?), should we also include William Ming Liu's opinion that Donald Trump "embod[ies] toxic masculinity", based on his essay in Time? If not, why not? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, but he has published on the subject of masculinity, gender, gender violence, has he not? And reliability is not limited to peer-reviewed journals. To repeat, a self published expert is an acceptable source. WP:SELFPUB is only relevant when we are looking at a column, opinion piece, or source not published in a peer-reviewed journal. All that's required is that the author of the article have otherwise been published in respected independent publications, which he has, on relevant subject matter. As to your last hypothetical, I think that's a separate issue, and a question of how much you want to make the article about Donald Trump. WML seems to also be reliable per SELFPUB. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Note that SELFPUB also says, "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." We don't have an independent source for Salter's criticism or Liu's opinion; therefore I think caution is more than warranted. Do we really want an encyclopedia article composed of dueling op-eds? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The issue is not "dueling op-eds," it's dueling experts, and considering both are published academics, and I think the latter is fine. Caution means reviewing the author's background rather than haphazardly posting from someone's blog. We've done our diligence here and confirmed that Salter is a published academic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
As for "independence," if all we're doing is offering one experts opinion, that sort of renders the "independence" issue unnecessary as long as proper in-text attribution is provided. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Once again, you're conflating "academic" with "subject-matter expert". A number of academics are known for being cranks in matters outside their area of expertise (Freeman Dyson is a good example). "Caution" means exactly what WP:SELFPUB says: seeing if the information has been published in independent, reliable sources. Independence is necessary to avoid giving undue weight to non-mainstream opinions (unless you think in-text attribution is all that's needed to include Dyson's opinion in our article on global warming.
As for Liu's opinion being a separate issue, no, it's an example of how to apply your reasoning about the Salter piece in other cases. Where have I ever suggested even mentioning Trump in the article? On the contrary, this may be more a question of how much you're willing to stretch the meaning of policies and guidelines to include criticism of a topic you dislike. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with whether or not we like the term. If anything, you seem to be biased by your approval of the term. As several of us have argued, Salter is a "subject-matter expert", as you claim he isn't, as he has published repeatedly about masculinity. You seem to be waiting for anyone to make a slight error in their speech, looking to quote a single word or phrase from their reply to prove them wrong, but this isn't going to get anywhere; You aren't changing anyone's mind by doing so. It would be more useful for you to listen to us and the points we have made repeatedly throughout this discussion rather than trying to make it look like we're saying what we aren't in order to get your way. EditSafe (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Since you seem to use the word "biased" for anything you disagree with, I'm not too concerned with what you think about my frame of mind. But since you're weighing in on an exchange between me and Wikieditor19920, feel free to address my other point. Namely, should we also cite Liu as a subject-matter expert for the statement that "Donald Trump embodies extreme (toxic) masculinity"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC) (edited 02:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, this may be more a question of how much you're willing to stretch the meaning of policies and guidelines to include criticism of a topic you dislike. Uncalled for. You are repeatedly misconstruing policy and the issues (the "dueling op-eds" is a clever example, and totally misrepresents what we're discussing) to exclude an opinion for unclear reasons. We've established that Salter has published pieces in reliable, independent, academic sources on masculinity/gender/gender violence. This is enough to make him a subject-matter expert for this article, and his commentary seems relevant. Relentlessly and endlessly arguing against inclusion of opinions you don't like is disruptive an non-compliant with NPOV. EditSafe was right to bring this up here, and I see the issue. I'm not changing my stance on this, and I believe inclusion is clearly permitted. For factual issues like the history of the term toxic masculinity, I would view a secondary source as better. For stances that are strictly his opinion, with in-text attribution, finding an independent source is less of a concern. This is a sensible application of policy, not a stretch. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a separate issue, and a question of how much you want to make the article about Donald Trump. Uncalled-for indeed.
You are repeatedly misconstruing policy and the exclude an opinion for unclear reasons. I quoted the very same policy as you (WP:SELFPUB) to show that independent sources are better according to the policy. Your argument that actually, we don't need an independent source because it's just Salter's opinion (if anything, that would call for more caution, not less) is not based on any policy I'm aware of. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
It's a common-sense reading of that policy. What would the "independent confirmation" be of the opinion of a single academic? That's more of a WEIGHT issue, than a reliability one. I agree with you on the second point to a limited extent: Statements of fact about toxic masculinity and its history should be supported with independent sources. The Salter piece, on its own, doesn't meet that standard. For more interpretive content, i.e. his opinions and musings on the subject, it seems relevant to include a brief reference if to offer a more diverse array of opinions in the article as a whole. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
That's more of a WEIGHT issue, than a reliability one. That's the point I've been making: that Salter's opinion, based on an essay from a general-interest news website, is unduly weighted in the article, and that back-and-forth commentary from similar sources would result in a bad article structure that wouldn't add to a meaningful understanding of the topic (which was my point in referring to "dueling op-eds"). Our goal should be to reflect the predominant views of the most reliable sources, not a diverse array of opinions; that's the same error EditSafe made with their "differing views" comment.
My own common-sense reading of the policy says we should stick to "independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy [with] a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments", which generally means avoiding mass-media commentary unless otherwise mentioned in more reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I know that you're interested in debating every angle, but others find it argumentative and exhausting. WP:SELFPUB offers a specific carveout, which Salter meets. We don't only need to use to academic journals on this subject. The Atlantic Piece for Salter is fine for inclusion for analysis and commentary. A broader diversity of views will help, not hurt, the article and bring it into better compliance with NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
On further review, I think that WP:NEWSBLOG might be another, possibly more relevant policy. The same analysis applies: we have to look to the background of the author, which I think is appropriate here. The Atlantic is a reliable publication, and "Toxic masculinity" is an academic concept with popular usage as well. I think that policy allows these types of sources to be used, and I don't see a brief mention as long as the publication is reliable and the author has a background relevant to the topic that there is an undue weight issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm very sorry you find it "exhausting" to support your position according to policies and guidelines. And I thought that was how we settled disputes!
The Atlantic is a multi-platform publisher. The website and magazine have different content and editors. On what basis do you conclude that the website is a reliable publication, full stop?
I think that policy allows these types of sources to be used – that isn't the locus of this dispute. Nevertheless, I'm fine with using the source for uncontroversial, factual statements. It only leads to an unencyclopedic structure and undue weight when we start using it as a primary source for the author's opinion. Where does NPOV say anything about diversity of views? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Like we've said, using The Atlantic as a source in this case meets WP:SELFPUB. See above for explanation. Also, NPOV states that "it is important to account for all significant viewpoints". EditSafe (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The key word there is significant. If the critique of the term toxic masculinity by this "well cited" professor at a "prominent" university is so "significant", why isn't it published in a peer-reviewed journal like his other work? See above for explanation of where SELFPUB says to "exercise caution" with sources like these. Also, just to be clear, are we saying SELFPUB applies to Liu's essay as well, or just Salter's? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
As we've said before, half of the sources already in the article are equally or less valid than Salter's work, so if you want to rule out Salter's work because it's no published in a peer-reviewed journal, then we also should remove all the other sources that don't meet this criteria, which is about half of the article. As for Liu's work, if you really want to include it then we can discuss that in another section, however seeing that its primary focus is on Donald Trump, I don't see its relevance to the article. EditSafe (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Who's "we"? If you think any of the sources in the article are being used inappropriately, feel free to bring it up on the talk page. Sources can be more or less reliable depending on context. As I've stated, none of the other mass-media sources are used as primary sources for the authors' opinions or "criticism". The rationale for including Salter's "criticism" has so far been that he's an academic who has published in peer-reviewed journals. The fact that this particular criticism wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal means it's less "significant" than his academic work, let alone the various academic sources that use or discuss the term without mentioning "criticism". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
"We" refers to me and Wikieditor19920, who have both brought up these points repeatedly. I and Wikieditor19920 have both already discussed these points you are trying to bring up again about the reliability of Salter's work. He is an academic who has written extensively about masculinity, and is established in this field. I don't think that anybody is arguing that his work for the Atlantic is as reliable as if he were to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, but do to the countless points we've brought up before, his work for the Atlantic is still reliable enough to warrant inclusion in this article. EditSafe (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
One again, I'm not disputing the Atlantic source for uncontroversial factual statements. I'm saying that using this one article as a primary source creates various problems with article structure, balance, and weight. Instead of just repeating your opinion that the source is reliable enough, you could try addressing the substance of these concerns. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I have addressed "the substance of these concerns". I am not repeating an opinion, I am repeating Wikipedia's guidelines. You still have not provided reason for it not to be a primary source, other than what has already been addressed by me and other contributors.EditSafe (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

To repeat, we should stick to secondary sources, and scholarly ones where possible...None of the other popular-media references in the article are used as primary sources for someone's opinion...It only leads to an unencyclopedic structure and undue weight when we start using [the Atlantic piece] as a primary source for the author's opinion. These concerns are all based on NPOV policy. Where did you or the other contributors "address" these concerns, and where did you cite policies and/or guidelines? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be selectively applying Wikipedia's guidelines to whatever best promotes your opinions, which goes against NPOV. If you honestly don't know where we addressed these concerns and where we cited Wikipedia's guidelines, I recommend you to re-read the previous responses. EditSafe (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Macuto Bay raid[edit]

Hello all! Would just like some assistance with the Macuto Bay raid, another controversial Venezuelan article. We seem to have the same group of users working on the page and disputes are getting more nasty (legal threats, etc.), so it would be a good idea to have more pairs of eyes monitoring the article in order to keep it as NPOV and lawful as possible. Thank you.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A thread in the AN/I has been started and can be consulted as reference. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Magic (supernatural)[edit]

There is a pov pushing attempt trying to take sourced content of that article related with religion and other spiritual beliefs. A WP:POVFORK was created [5] with that purpose and despite that there was consensus in the talk page that the relevant content should be in the original article, there is an attempt [6] to delete both the content moved from the fork and the tags noting the problem under the rationale that the article was "stable form for well over a year now". Rupert Loup (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterisation of the events taking place. Since yesterday, Rupert Loup has tried to make mass additions and alterations to the Magic (supernatural) article and has edit warred to restore these once they were removed as per WP:BRD ([7], [8], [9]). As far as I can tell, this editor have never before had any involvement with said article. The page itself has been in a fairly stable form for over a year now; part of Rupert's additions (although by no means all) include material that was removed from the article well over a year ago for simply being irrelevant or otherwise problematic (at which point some of it was moved into Concepts of magic per society, which Rupert has recently turned into a redirect back to Magic (supernatural)). Aside from the fact that I believe their actions represent WP:Disruptive editing and in no way improve the Magic (supernatural) article, I don't think this is a relevant situation for the NPOV noticeboard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:BRD: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting." Your edits are disruptive and you keep POV forking. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The alleged POVForking which you accuse me of took place in January 2018 so the fact that it is only raising eyebrows now seems odd. I say allegedly because moving some text into Concepts of magic per society was more about trying to split the Magic (supernatural) article which had become unwieldy and had been used as a dumping ground for almost any and all information that any interested editor thought vaguely relevant to the topic of magic. If you want to reinstate some of that material, you are more than welcome to present your argument at the Talk Page. However, please do not edit war and make unfair accusations while doing so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
"Vaguely relevant to the topic of magic" that's your POV but I don't see concensus for that in the talk page, in fact I see the opposite. WP:POVFORK is specific in that subject, I ask for intervention of other editors here. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
"I don't, however, think that you will be able to do that, because I don't think it's the case. Magic is a Western concept. That's just a fact." [10] Again, read WP:NPOV. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Rupert that this is a POV push by Midnightblueowl. I have been a long time editor of this article and Midnightblueowl has been a staunch defender of their POV for a long time.
The particular POV they are defending is a semantic argument wherein they claim that because the English word magic wasn't found in ancient societies it is impossible that magic was a concept in those societies. This position is not supported by the sources, ample of which have been provided to counter their claim. It seems to me that they are misinterpreting sources and synthesizing a view based on this misinterpretation. For example, they misinterpreted a source that says that Europe's concept of magic evolved with the rise of Christianity as saying that the concept of magic arose in Europe. However they have refused to accept any input or other sources and have reworked the entire article to support this misinterpretation. Please see the talk page for details.
The fork in question did happen in 2018, without consensus. The reason this hasn't been undone is that Midnightblueowl staunchly defends this page making it difficult to work with them. They often assert that "this page has been stable for some time now" as if this is a valid argument for not making edits. I believe the page has been stable because of how ardently they defend it. I hadn't changed it as I was taking a wikibreak because I was sick of how horrid editing had become due to a prevalence of this kind of behavior. I came back when Rupert pinged previous editors of the page to review the situation, at which time Midnightblueowl's response was a claim of canvassing. They have exhibited this tendency to ad hominem and wikilawyering if they don't get their way for some time now.
I believe Midnightblueowl is a well intentioned, enthusiastic editor and I would be happy to work with them again on the article if they can agree to abide by the sources and back away from their ownership behavior. Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment: While I totally disagree with Rupert loup bringing back "magick" as a term, I also don't think Midnightblueowl's heavily sociological view of "magic" is comprehensive. To be clear, I think it's an important perspective, and I'm glad Midnightblueowl has introduced it and tightened the article, as well as removed some of the sketchier sources used elsewhere... but... it is just one facet of how magic is viewed, and a heavily academic one. It's certainly not close to what you'd get from "actual" practitioners in the sense of people who go to neopagan stores and buy books. Also agree with Rupert loup that attempting to claim magic is solely a Western idea created comparatively recently is off too - sure, other cultures meant different things by magic and called it different terms, but if nothing else, people have back-connected these things to "magic". It is, at the very least, respectable to mention that happened and go into some detail, even if it comes with a large disclaimer of "Mesopatamian divination was its own thing that later practitioners of magic identified as doing something similar" or the like. Isn't it possible that both sides can be happy here? Keep all of the academic, sociological stuff introduced by Midnightblueowl and also include the other cultures info from Rupert and older revisions of the page? (Also agree with Morgan Leigh that "this page has been stable for a long time now" is not a reason to leave it as such. Midnight is very persistent, which can be good, but can also just mean you've scared off opposition. From afar, I don't really agree with many of the edits you made to the likes of Magic and religion, say. That said, while I mildly disagree, an active editor "caring" and maintaining the page is more important than disagreement, so please don't take this as an attempt to scare you off, Midnightblowowl - your contributions are valuable.) SnowFire (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts, SnowFire. If you have the time and inclination, why not join us over at the Magic (supernatural) talk page on discussing some of the ways to improve the article? The more the merrier. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment from Dispute resolution noticeboard. A dispute resolution thread was filed at DRN and has been closed because the dispute is being addressed here. Either NPOVN or DRN is a reasonable forum for this matter, and this was filed first. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Freudian pictures[edit]

Being discussed at ANI presently. But Freeknowledgecreator is still not getting that usage of those images/captions was inappropriate. Which is fine, I suppose, so long as these or similar violations are not repeated. El_C 07:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An image of Sigmund Freud is included in both these articles. In one the caption is "Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis", in the other it additionally says "Bieber and his colleagues discuss Freud's views".

Freud, a Victorian, apparently believed that homosexuality was aberrant. I think most of us will be aware that Freud had many idiosyncratic opinions on sex that were bound up in the fashion for psychoanalysis, but are not nowe considered scientific. The question is whether including a photograph of a distinguished-looking Freud as "the founder of psychoanalysis" lends undue weight to his outdated views on homosexuality in the context of authors writing in the 1960s.

The argument is that a (captioned) photograph of Freud does not imply any conferral of legitimacy. I dispute this. Freud is dramatically more famous than any of the article subjects or the other sources and influences discussed, and the lay reader probably doesn't know that psychoanalysis is disputed and several of Freud's ideas are no longer accepted: he has the status of quite probably the best-known figure in the entire history of mental health in terms of name recognition. I see this as asymmetric and likely to imply a degree of support that is absent from the actual subject matter of these books, which promote conversion therapy (a pseudoscience whose promotion is actually illegal in several jurisdictions due to the harms it inflicts). It is hard to see how a lay reader will fail to infer from the link to Freud that the idea of homosexuality as aberrant is a part of mainstream psychological practice, rather than what it is, an idiosyncratic and outmoded personal opinion on the part of an influential but scientifically controversial figure. Guy (help!) 21:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi, psychologist here. It's inappropriate to include those photos on reparative therapy-relate pages, as Freud didn't believe in it. His views on homosexuality were actually progressive for the time that he lived in. We have a whole page that covers this: Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Both of those articles are about post-Freudian ideas, so including his picture is an WP:OR Appeal to authority. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • An image of Freud is simply an image of Freud. It does not lend weight to any view of any kind. The images are entirely appropriate, since Freud definitely was an influence on the authors of the books in question, and it is false to suggest otherwise. JzG's claim that "the lay reader probably doesn't know that psychoanalysis is disputed" is both totally unsupported by evidence and also utterly insulting to the intelligence of Wikipedia's readers. There is a WP:FORUMSHOP issue here: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages...". JzG started a basically identical discussion at WP:ANI. As this thread is an instance of forum shopping, it should be closed forthwith. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

East Stratcom Task Force[edit]

Could editors please take a look at the East StratCom Task Force article, particularly with regard to the Criticism section? It appears that an SPA has reverted their material (or parts thereof) back into the article several times now. In the longer term, some watchers would probably also be helpful. Sunrise (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Disputed village being stated as in one of the two countries[edit]

Demchok is a village in the eponymous Demchok sector, which is part of a border dispute between China and India. Multiple reliable sources say that the entire Demchok sector is administered by China and multiple reliable sources say that the entire Demchok sector is administered by India.

The lead of the article on the village of Demchok was changed to say (diff):

Demchok is a village and military encampment in the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh, India

Is this neutral? In my understanding, disputed areas should not assert a claim one way or the other, as is done in high-traffic articles on disputed areas like Western Sahara, Spratly Islands, and Senkaku Islands.

The relevant discussion is here. — MarkH21talk 13:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I would word it "Demchok is a village and military encampment in the Nyoma tehsil in the Leh district of Ladakh, whose ownership is disputed between Indian and china".Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: A related follow-up proposal is at Talk:Demchok#Merger proposal. — MarkH21talk 16:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Undemocratic elections in authoritarian states[edit]

There are all kinds of authoritarian systems that run elections that are not free and fair, in part for regimes to appear to be democratic legitimate when they are not. Wikipedia appears to have a problem in terms of lending legitimacy to these elections by failing to clearly describe them as non-democratic. A typical page for an authoritarian election simply says that "X accused it of being non-democratic. Y defended the election." There is an enormous academic literature out there that lists and covers elections run by authoritarians. This literature should be used to clearly label these faux elections as non-democratic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

First, the tone "should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." Second, there's a continuum between democratic and non-democratic elections. TFD (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
For example, is a US presidential election with voter-suppression and with the winner in the electoral college being the loser in popular votes a democratic or non-democratic election? NightHeron (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
While there is indeed a continuum between "democratic" and "undemocratic," there are clear-cut cases of undemocratic "elections," such as in North Korea. If there is something which falls into a gray area where there is considerable disagreement, that can surely be reflected in those articles. But I don't think it follows that clearly undemocratic elections should not be described as such with proper attribution to the academic literature Snooganssnoogans suggests. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd recommend compiling the sources you have and using them as needed. At the risk of stating the obvious, academic sources are going to be far more reliable than most types of accusations or counter-accusations, to the point that those other statements may not have enough weight to be included at all. Also, if Y is someone affiliated with the government in question, then their claims are not relevant and can just be removed under WP:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. That said, since I assume you're anticipating opposition, I'd recommend starting by strengthening general articles as much as possible. That way, all the best sources would be gathered and organized in the same place, and you'd have good overall summaries to refer to in discussions. Sunrise (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Freedom House Nations in Transit 2020 report[edit]

I believe we have a neutrality issue in Poland. I wanted to include the following paragraph in Poland#Government and politics (I inserted something similar to Hungary#Government and politics with no resistance), but was reverted twice:[11][12]

According to Freedom House's Nations in Transit 2020 report, "the quality of democratic governance in Poland continued to deteriorate in 2019, marking [its] fourth consecutive year of decline and its lowest score in [the report]. The most negatively affected areas were the judiciary, local democratic governance, and the pluralism of civil society."[1]


  1. ^ "Poland". Freedom House. 2020. Retrieved 2020-05-06.

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Poland#Freedom House report. François Robere (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Several points. If you are mentioning a report, you should say something about its authors. If you don't, the implication is that it is the correct assesment and no reasonable person could disagree. If that's the case, you don't need to mention Freedom House in the text. Also, saying that the quality continued to deteriorate doesn't tell us much if we don't know what level it was at to begin with. Did it go from outstanding to almost outstanding or from really bad to even worse? Finally, we should avoid direct quotes unless there is something particularly significant about the actual phrasing used. TFD (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll address all of your points if the text is allowed back there. Do you think it's WP:DUE where I put it? It's fairly widely cited.[13][14][15][16] François Robere (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The proposed text is perfectly fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I placed the text into the History of Poland in the contemporary section instead. That section may be used more for discussing the issue rather than in Poland article which is more of a summary of current governmental structures and government type. The Freedom House report did highlight that though the situation deteriorated heavily, democracy is still intact. Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Oliszydlowski: What does that have to do with history? The whole point of the report is to provide a summary of current events.
The Freedom House report did highlight that though the situation deteriorated heavily, democracy is still intact Where? François Robere (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @The Four Deuces, Snooganssnoogans, and Oliszydlowski: At the moment there are four discussions (!) about this text[17][18][19] yet it does not appear anywhere. Anyone would like to weight in on why? It's clearly WP:RELIABLE and WP:NOTABLE,[20][21][22][23] and the overall subject is WP:DUE.[24][25][26] François Robere (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The only issue is whether this is DUE or UNDUE, as the source is reliable (although should be attributed). The question is wider, since if we add this to Polish article I think this (summary of FH report) should also be added to others. Have you tried adding it to US or France or Russia? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It's undue the Poland article at the moment, because nothing much has happened yet. The report says (I paraphrase) that the county is moving towards... or in danger of...". If Poland indeed changes categories in the future, then an addition to this effect would likely be due. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sword of the Spirit NPOV Dispute[edit]

User is currently blocked, and the content is unacceptably sourced. Guy (help!) 17:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is section header of discussion.The discussion is about the topic Arbitrarily0. Thank you. --Linn C Doyle (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is section header of discussion.The discussion is about the topic Sword_of_the_Spirit. Thank you. --Linn C Doyle (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello I am currently having what I believe to be a NPOV dispute with user Arbitrarily0 regarding recent edit to page Sword of the Spirit.

The edit made is here.

Page creator has been continuously reverting edits claiming that edit is original research (which has been disputed) and is not relevant (which has been disputed) and is not eloquent enough (which has been disputed). The original reversion is here.

Notably the page creator has also removed a section of the page created by their selves here to which my edit specifically pertains.

User has since taken a third opinion and had me banned from editing for 2 weeks for replacing the edit with comment on talk pages.

I am concerned there is a conflict of interest here, perhaps corporate vanity, and that the user is deliberately misrepresenting my edits (strategic removal of own content, repeated claim of original research where multiple mainstream news sources are cited, unverifiable content by page creator etc.).

The discussion is found here.

I believe my edit is well sourced and contains significant information regarding a significant aspect of the organisation Sword of the Spirit and Servants of the Word history and should be included. I believe if there is an issue with the eloquence or sources then a 'cleanup' should be done rather than categorical removal.

I am concerned that the repeated stonewall deletion of edits, misrepresentation and strategic removal of own content represents a Non-Neutral Viewpoint here and I am seeking an Admin to investigate and help resolve.

  • Comment For context, the third opinion offered at the talk page by an uninvolved editor agreed the text was not appropriate for several reasons. Linn reverted it back into the article anyway, for which she is now blocked from editing it for two weeks. WP:SPA is also a concern. Number 57 15:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This is indeed my first edit. I noticed the page contained unverifiable information and that I had verifiable sources containing further information on the Page Topic that was not included. I do fully intend to add further information on the Sword of the Spirit, Servants of the Word and Word of God Community which I would love to contribute also so I would assert that this is not a single purpose account.

Apologies if reposting edits is a faux pas here. I had assumed that user deleting these articles was perhaps doing so out of Non Neutral Point of View. If a ban is n order for this then that is not contested. I do believe my edit was relevant, verifiable and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linn C Doyle (talkcontribs) 15:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfCs at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake[edit]

There are two separate RfCs at Rupert Sheldrake. The first asks if we should change the opening sentence of the lede to something more readable that preserves the essence of the existing content. The second centers around the question of reducing repetition in the remainder of the lede. Your input is appreciated! HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Extremely controversial and possibly irrelevant biased POV material on Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints[edit]

Hello everyone, I have attempted to start a discussion in the talk page of the article and no responses have been given (ignored). I have marked the article with a POV template and have posted a RFC a while ago and still no change. I'll explain the issues: 1) the article is clearly a POV fork due to the fact that it seems to try to only give negative view points and used biased sources, and the article gets away from the main Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints article. 2) the title itself violated the policy of POV titles 3) there are "beliefs" that are written about that were never officially adopted, and were later repudiated (the people who suggested these beliefs in the church were speaking of opinion and it never represented the views of the mentioned church). 4) critics are used and directly quoted using extremely argumentative and controversial quotes (ie. "the critic so and so said 'this church stinks'" etc.) without there being any evidence provided, and really just being an opinion.

I am open to any feedback/criticisms of my actions so long as alternative actions and evidence/explanations are given. Thank you for your time, PeanutHat (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Concerning 1) and 2), note that Wikipedia has articles Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Christianity, so there's nothing wrong with having such an article. Concerning 3) and 4), you could propose changes in specific wording or suggest that certain content is inappropriate or poorly sourced and explain why on the article's talk-page. But I don't see any general NPOV problem. NightHeron (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
In six weeks, you have drawn only two comments, both of which disagreed. Obviously, a criticism article is going to sound negative. But, as explained to you, that doesn't necessarily make it a POV fork. Criticism of the Catholic Church is more negative, due to its history. As NightHeron said, you might try making specific suggestions. Meanwhile, I've removed the POV tag. O3000 (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

New religious movement Falun Gong and its many media and political extensions[edit]

Many readers here are likely aware of the numerous hot topics surrounding the financial and far-right political activities of the new religious movement Falun Gong, particularly among its extensions, including Falun Gong media branch The Epoch Times, performance art branch Shen Yun, and other, lesser known arms, such as the Society of Classical Poets. These topics have received increased media attention since 2016.

What may surprise readers is that English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article somehow mentions absolutely none of this. Given how high-profile these topics have become within the past few years and the account activity occurring around it and related articles, this really needs more eyes.

I've highlighted several recent media sources discussing these topics at this thread. I think this particular discussion would benefit a lot from editors from this board. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong isn't a "new" religious movement (or at least, it's been around for decades). Talk:Falun Gong#About that second paragraph appears to also be a relevant discussion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"Awards" lists[edit]

I could use some help with this article (and there are related once for other performers) - EdJohnston has the same problem I think. Superfan editors keep reinserting vast swathes of non-notable "awards" that have no reliable independent secondary sources - mainly PR stunts designed to promote the company making the "award". The absolute bare minimum we require to include a disputed award would be a reliable independent secondary source that discusses it. There's virtually no engagement on Talk, and most of them have no edits outside their narrow area of fandom. Their perspective is that removing non-notable awards is "ruining the page". Given that some of the disruption started right about the time Beyhiveboys started kvetching about his partial block, I suspect off-wiki solicitation. It could really do with ECP for a while to get them to engage. Guy (help!) 09:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We now have a draft guideline on this at Wikipedia:Awards and accolades Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect, most of the non-notable awards there are with valid sources and is existing to the page of some artists like Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey. The editor deleted too many awards (568 down to 316), what I am asking for is fairness. If you can delete those ¨non-notable awards¨ on Beyonce´s page, why not do it on the page of the other artists who got the same? Also, I was the one who got block while the person who started the edit warring still got access to the page, where is fairness in that part? Thank you Beyhiveboys (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Piers Robinson[edit]

Could do with a few more eyes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I gave up when it became clear that the discussion was degenerating into the standard "BLP protections don't apply to bad people" arguments. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


On Richard Dawkins there seems to be a tendency to marginalise some of his controversial comments by placing them in a seperate article Political views of Richard Dawkins. There are comments that have been cherry picked for the main article and the controversial comments have been left in the Political views article. An example is the line:

Dawkins identifies as a feminist. He has said that feminism is "enormously important" and "a political movement that deserves to be supported".

However many of his comments have lead to widespread condemnation by feminist groups such as his comments about Rebecca Watson and his comments about rape. These are not even mentioned in the main article despite the high profile nature of his comments and the significant controversy they caused. --Permareperwiki1664 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Christ - King of Poland?[edit]

Some time ago the Polish parliament declared Jesus Christ "King of Poland". A "coronation" was held, which was attended by the Polish President and Prime Minister. This was covered in various outlets, both in Poland and abroad.[27][28][29][30] Poland is a deeply religious country (see Religion in Poland), and as it turns out this idea of crowning Jesus or Mary has a history going back at least 370 years, to the Lwów Oath.

Seeing as this was endorsed by parliament and attended by senior political figures, it seems to merit a mention in Poland#Religion. I've tried making the change, but it was reverted.[31] Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Poland#Jesus Christ King of Poland?. François Robere (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming disruptive and is starting to border on trolling, as one editor already tried to adjust the article's Infobox to include the King of Poland as the head of state, apparently based on talk page discussion. Perhaps this discussion should be escalated to an admin board. Poland is NOT a constitutional monarchy, so the talk of including this symbolic parliamentary resolution (not sure user François Robere understands the difference between types of legislation - resolutions vs. laws) is ridiculous (this did not change the nature of Poland's government, or restored the monarchy, it was a simple honorary and symbolic resolution). Also, I would have to argue that user François Robere's approach and comments were key in exacerbating this issue, this coupled with his recent (and rather crude) comments about the Trump administration on the Talk:History of Poland page, only confirms a lack of merit in these discussions. Again, based on the fact that Poland is NOT a constitutional monarchy, you can't argue that Poland has a king, and persistent arguments to include this reference can be construed as disruptive. Also, the sarcastic language used in this discussion, is starting to border on ridicule of religion. --E-960 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree with E-960. This very clearly doesn’t belong in a high level article such as Poland (or anywhere else), the sources are borderline, the way it’s presented is over the top POV, there’s no consensus for it (aside from the usual Icewhiz sock puppetry), and it’s clearly not an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. This has become a WP:TENDENTIOUS violation of WP:POINT, and I’d advise Francois Robere to WP:DROPTHESTICK.17:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talkcontribs) 17:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This seems very tendentious now, this was a small symbolic vote which has no effect on Poland or its model of government and has no place in the main article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@E-960: I've only opened this thread because you haven't addressed several issues:
  1. This isn't about Poland's system of government (as I've suggested several times, so please spare the straw man), but about the role of religion in Poland. Poland is majority religious (94%) and Catholic (92%), and this is an extreme expression of this. As such, putting it in Poland#Religion was DUE.
  2. The fact that it is merely declaratory has no bearing on whether we should reference it. We have a lot of articles about purely declaratory resolutions (eg. National bird of the United States, Mother's Day, Honorary Citizen of Europe). You suggested these are the same,[32] so why shouldn't we even mention this one?
  3. @Volunteer Marek: you suggested that this is ridiculous and hence UNDUE, but the fact that it passed parliament, was attended by the most senior politicians in the country and mentioned in many outlets suggests otherwise.
  4. @MyMoloboaccount: Where would you suggest we put it? I'm open to suggestions.
The point of this thread is to solicit comments from uninvolved editors, seeing as the discussion on the main TP stalled without resolving all of the issues. If uninvolved editors reject this then that's fine with me; but ignoring, insulting and admonishing editors who don't agree with you,[33] while overlooking the lavish suggestions of those who do[34] does not strike me as the right way to conduct a discussion. François Robere (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This isn’t the same as “mother’s day” (lol) and the very fact you’re reduced to making ridiculous arguments like that kind of shows that you’ve crossed the line into tendentiousness and disruption. Volunteer Marek 18:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Take it up with E-960, not me: parliaments pass random resolutions just about anything, such as national this or that day, or honorary so and so, etc. François Robere (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
afaict, he’s not the one comparing this to Mother’s Day. You are. This is like insisting that National Bowling Day absolutely MUST be included in the article United States because the US Congress passed such a resolution. It’s so ridiculous that it brings WP:NOTHERE into play. Volunteer Marek 19:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Did the American President and WH Chief of Staff attend National Garlic Day events along with top garlic growers from across the country?
And don't twist my words. I didn't say it "MUST be included in the main", I said it's DUE somewhere and suggested alternatives.[35] François Robere (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Seriously, this would be a good time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Seriously, April Fools is gone. What are we discussing here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I’m not very good at creating links but long story short should this be in the Poland article.-- (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality[edit]

This article was started and for a long time WP:OWNed by a now blocked sockpuppet of a banned user.

One of the things this user introduced was an extensive primary-sourced section on commentary over the book's withdrawal from Amazon.

There is now a dispute over whether these primary-sourced opinion pieces belong int he article.

They are:

We have at least two solid secondary sources discussing the Amazon withdrawal. It is my contention that (a) we do not need primary-sourced opinion pieces; (b) we definitely don't need primary-sourced opinion pieces with titles like " Surrenders To The Homintern", and (c) given that this is a book promting the pseudoscientific and dangerous practice of conversion therapy we should be really careful to include only secondary sources. The Dreher piece is especially contentious: Google shows 24 hits for the article title, none of which seem to me to establish its significance per WP:UNDUE.

Against that we have an editor who says that there's no policy-based reason for not including primary-sourced opinion pieces from biased sources. Guy (help!) 20:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  1. The commentary is only acceptable insofar as it deals with Amazon's policy; anything that discusses the book's content is subject to WP:MEDRS, which excludes "primary-sourced opinion pieces from biased sources".
  2. While "Amazon sells other dangerous produce, so why not this?" is a valid point to make (at least by Wikipedia's usual standards), "these people, these activists, are totalitarian. They are trying to control via pressure on Woke Capitalists what people are allowed to read" (Dreher) isn't. Use common sense and the usual sourcing policies to filter out anything that smells of provocation.
  3. Mind that contemporaneous expert reviews may not be up-to-date with current medical knowledge; such reviews could still be useful for historical knowledge, but care should be taken so as not to suggest they're anything but. François Robere (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • A few of the pieces above seem likely to be UNDUE, even FRINGE, especially the Dreher piece, for reasons you've outlined. The American Conservative and The Daily Signal are also really scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as sourcing quality goes. If (as seems to be the case, with Reno) a secondary source has quoted Dreher, we should at least just cite that secondary source and drop the primary source, if not removing Dreher entirely on grounds of UNDUEness (and likewise for the direct citation of the Daily Signal). Secondary sources reporting that "Amazon's withdrawal of the book was criticized [by group X / person Y]" would be better, and higher quality sources would be better, than primary opinion pieces saying "I criticize this!". I note that Newhauser (included in the list above) seems to be not a primary source of criticism but rather a secondary(?) source—albeit not one of particularly high quality—reporting an action by House lawmakers (no?), so using that piece to support the sentence which it supports seems like a different kind of thing from using Dreher to support Dreher's ideas about a Homintern. (I would also echo Robere's point that if any of this were being used to support a medical claim, that would clearly have to go, but it seems that it is only being used to support non-medical claims.) -sche (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    -sche, yes, Newhauser is secondary but Vice is a crappy source. Guy (help!) 09:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Seeking moderation of the article on Reishi / Ganoderma lucidum.[edit]

The Chinese names and perspective are in violation of Wikipedia's global perspective. The common name in every country (but China) is Reishi and the scientific name is Ganoderma lucidum. Article is written like an advertisement of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Thanks.-wikiNoob

IP user, you're wrong anyway. I've been calling it a slightly different version ("lingzhu") for years because that is what they call it in Thailand, which the last time I checked is not and has never been part of China. Just move on. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Reishi is just the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese characters 霊芝, namely our língzhī, a Chinese sound imitated in many Asian countries through the use of it among members of the Chinese diaspora as a traditional medicine (hence the Thai form likewise derived from China via its Chinese immigrants). Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Handling variant dates of birth at Chick Webb article[edit]

I am on mobile so apologies in advance for limitations. Talk:Chick_Webb#Webbs_B-date could use some input. Numerous RS give different years of birth so how best to treat in the lead without POV. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)