Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

RFC - Gaza Health Ministry qualifier

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier

 – ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Maté

Article is using citation methods that goes against WP:NPOV for an example citation/source 8 refers to a third party subjective opinion on the person in the article and uses this as a basis to make seemingly objective information. If this source were to be used, it should correctly state that this is an opinion by the Jewish Chronicle - or described in an article by the Jewish Chronicle, not used as a source to standing alone to use as basis of using adjective terms to describe the person or his current employer. Further, it is disturbing that editors with privileges has locked it and not adressed this issue, but kept as is even though they have continously been made aware of it by the community. Hapsback (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion should be put in the Talk Page of the article.

Locking down pages is normal for edit warring and for certain contentious topics. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the guidelines are not being following according to guidelines on neutrality, and the lock is only enforcing this by ignoring the problem. That is why I posted this. Hapsback (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hapsback, if you want to open an RfC on whether it the Greyzone is a "fringe, far-left site", you can. Otherwise, I believe the consensus is to include that. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit war at Kirk Shaw

While patrolling recent changes, I found that this article about a Canadian film producer is the subject of an edit war in which both sides' preferred versions have significant WP:NPOV and WP:BLP problems. One camp appears to be associated with the article's subject, and the other associated with people involved in a labor dispute with him. For details, see my post on the talk page. Huntthetroll (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

American Legion

American Legion has some POV problems. I have tried to fix many of them, but I do not live in the USA so it would be nice if someone who does can take a look at it.

Polygnotus (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Jinn: RfC: Proposed additions of text 1

Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

User inputs and comments are requested at:

• Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1.

Bookku (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Blacklist/whitelist

I would like some editors to review if these removals at Blacklisting, Blacklist (computing), and Whitelist on "UNDUE" grounds were warranted. Nardog (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Not warrarented. The issue over the racial connotations of those terms is well documented by academic sources so definitely not undue. — Masem (t) 19:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

These controversy sections are in part based on self-published sources, which should be removed, and are firmly rooted in Anglo politics and cultural sensitivities, and wider Western colonial context, which don't make much sense elsewhere in the world. It's WP:UNDUE to devote them sections this long, in proportion to the rest, in articles about technical concepts. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal was not warranted, but I'd agree that the sections were probably longer than they needed to be. @NicolausPrime can you clarify which self-published refs you thought should be removed? I have some WP:SYNTH concerns with a few refs from the Whitelist and Blacklist articles, especially the Martin 1991 ref as I didn't see any mention of either phrase in it, but nothing jumped out as an WP:SPS. There are quite a few refs though so I suspect I'm just missing it. CambrianCrab (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@CambrianCrab: In both Blacklisting and Whitelist, evident self-published sources were [1] and [2], as the former is a blog and the latter is an advice website.

In Blacklist (computing), a large portion of the controversy section text was sourced to:

• A company announcement, [3]
• Twitter post, [4]
• Git commit, [5]
• Another git commit. [6]

These too are WP:SELFPUBLISHED and WP:PRIMARY sources. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I had missed the first two. I did see the ones on Blacklist (computing), but figured those fell more under WP:ABOUTSELF (with the exception of the Git commits, which I agree feel a little more like WP:PRIMARY). Regardless, the bullet points for each company were a bit overkill and I don't think any of those refs are necessary for the articles in question CambrianCrab (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The controversy section in the blacklisting article was preposterous -- considerably larger than the section on every employment blacklist from 1774 to the present (including the Hollywood blacklist). I don't know if it's appropriate to remove the whole thing, but it does not seem reasonable for it to be as gigantic as it was. I feel like one paragraph would suffice, and that's pushing it. jp×g🗯️ 06:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Blacklist (computing) -- this one is less bloated, but it's still quite long, and includes 5 bulletpoints to say the same sentence over and over. There is also weird stuff like "The issue and subsequent changes caused controversy in the computing industry, where "whitelist" and "blacklist" are prevalent (e.g. IP whitelisting)" -- at the end of the section, in an article that just got done explaining what these things were. This also feels like it could just be a single paragraph. jp×g🗯️ 06:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Whitelist -- I would argue the same is true here (four gigantic paragraphs where one would have done the job equally well).

In general I think that these could just be condensed into a single paragraph in a section about the origin of the term. jp×g🗯️ 06:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations

Content on this page appears to be heavily controlled by Michael Jackson fans who will not allow neutral/referenced points they do not agree with or like to be added to the article. The article appears to have a non-neutral point of view/bias towards highlighting that Michael is innocent, and that his accusers were only after financial compensation, e.g. with loaded text such as "Chandler demanded money from Jackson, threatening to go to a criminal court" opening the second paragraph in the introduction.

My recent edit was to provide context to the claim that "The investigation found no physical evidence against Jackson", by adding the factual statement that "less than five per cent of child sexual abuse allegations have medical evidence available, and prosecution typically relies on testimony.", with a supporting reference backing up this statement. The text I added in no way implies Jackson's guilt or innocence; it merely provides context that physical evidence in child sexual abuse cases is the exception, not the norm. Yet multiple editors have reverted my edit, for a bunch of different reasons - none of which appear to be valid.Nqr9 (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The source for less than five per cent of child sexual abuse allegations have medical evidence available, and prosecution typically relies on testimony doesn't mention Michael Jackson, so it is original research. Geogene (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Why does a report on facts about child sexual abuse, in an article relating to an accusation of child sexual abuse, need to mention the alleged perpetrator? That does not make sense.Nqr9 (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Because of Wikipedia's rule against synthesis, WP:SYN. If you want to make this point you need a source that relates to the specific case at hand. MrOllie (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The example of Synthesis at WP:NOREX is very similar to this: Intelligence officers of the attacking forces claimed to have telephoned the residents of buildings where military assets were suspected of being stored, to warn them to leave before it was bombed.[Sourced to an article about the bombing] During the war, 90% of the telephone system was down.[Sourced to an article that does not mention the bombing] (Implied: Thus the attacking forces could not have warned 90% of the residents whose buildings were bombed.) As MrOllie said, if there's a source that applies the testimony statistic to the Michael Jackson case, this won't be a problem. Geogene (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

OK...Nqr9 (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is incredibly biased/non-NPOV in general, though.Nqr9 (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Geogene. I attempted to explain to him one of the potential reasons his edit was reverted. He proceeded to accuse me of being a sock puppet. I am still a newbie and learning to navigate Wikipedia. I fully intend to stick around and contribute to unrelated articles.

Here are his Reddit posts about the situation:

[Redacted]

Here is our conversation on his Talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nqr9#c-Magnesium77-20240725204400-Nqr9-20240724022300 Magnesium77 (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

What I post on other sites has absolutely zero relevance to what I post here. Any reasonable editor would understand my skepticism on being lectured on Wikipedia rules by an account that was opened less than 48 hours ago, and has only posted on topics relating to Michael Jackson's sexual abuse allegations or discussion relating to this, when I have been posting here for over 18 years. Nice try, but you are not very convincing.Nqr9 (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not attempting to convince you, Nqr9. I merely expected a balanced, neutral and tactful approach from you due to your 18 years of editing experience.

As I explained in the Talk page, I am familiarizing myself with the platform. Reading Wikipedia’s editing rules is part of the process. If that makes me a so-called sock puppet, so be it. Magnesium77 (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Why did you feel a need to mention that I am a cancer patient in one of your replies on my talk page if you are as butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-your-mouth innocent as you claim to be? Using someone’s illness to make a point against them is really quite low and nasty.Nqr9 (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Stay on topic. I was not using your diagnosis to make a point against you. I was simply making an observation. In fact, I even encouraged you to prioritize health and wished you healing on your cancer journey earlier in the conversation. Magnesium77 (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Would WP:DRN be a possible useful place as well? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The Tortured Poets Department and album variants

On the article The Tortured Poets Department, there is disagreement regarding whether the following passage is worthy of inclusion in the article:

"Sales were boosted by the release of "variants" of the album, each containing one bonus song, such as acoustic tracks and voice memo demos. The The Tortured Poet Department is below average for vinyl variants among top-10 selling U.S. physical albums in 2024, with five variants against an average of seven. However, the album had double-digit variants in the mediums of both digital and CD. The trend of releasing significant numbers of physical variants of the same album was popularized by K-pop groups and grew rapidly in 2020. Individual sales of a physical variant album count as a full album sale, weighing as much as 1,500 song streams according to the RIAA. Previous Swift albums—including Folklore, Midnights, and 1989 (Taylor's Version)—also saw large numbers of vinyl variants that similarly proved popular with fans."

References

My position is that it is worth inclusion, while Ippantekina disagrees. Previous discussion on this can be found in this talk page section, with some similar discussion occurring in this earlier talk page section and this RSN discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion: I originally inserted this material because, despite months of coverage from numerous reliable sources, there was only a single sentence on the role multiple album variants played in the album's dominance of the charts in continues volume of sales. This sentence was targeted for removal and ultimately resulted an overwhelming majority at RSN recognizing its relevance. The passage being discussed here focusses on identifying the significance of the multiple variants (over 30 in total) by selecting a couple of the innumerable RS articles from over a multi-month period that covered the subject (a sampling: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]). It neutrally establishes the context for Swift releasing the multiple variants within a broader industry trend and acknowledges her previous employment of the sales tactic in the past. I believe the persistent minimization of this content, while subjective material received extended coverage in the lead, reflects an NPOV issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 Harehills riot

Hi all

I'd like to request help, please could someone assess the NPOV of the article 2024 Harehills riot and if the actions of any editors are breaking any rules and what can be done to discourage future NPOV additions. This is not really an area I work on but for context the event has been a strong focus of racist online forums, Facebook and the right wing press. I have not contributed to the article, but my reading of the situation there are several editors (or maybe one editor with multiple accounts) are being extremely NPOV:

• A number of accounts which don't appear to have edited any articles or many articles before are edit warring with established editors, the fact that they appear to start when the previous one stops might indicate they are sock puppets
• The information they are adding is what I read as a British person as British tabloid style racist dogwhistles to the great replacement conspiracy theory; that Pakistanis, muslims and Roma 'taking over' areas of the UK, they're even trying to include anti Palestinian and anti Romanian dog whistles somehow.

If someone could take a look and suggest a good course of action that would be really helpful, if the article coud be protected in some way that would be helpful I'm sure.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That Background section is highly dubious. I've just posted this on the talk page in the already opened thread on the Background: This section is very WP:SYNTHy. It's using sourcing pre-dating the incident (largely) to editorialise what editors here in Wikipedia think is relevant to the incident. Those issues should be strictly limited to what the sourcing reporting the incident is giving as relevant background. I'm seeing very little of that. DeCausa (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much DeCausa, I guess my question is is there any protections that could be added given what has happened (lots of edit warring, lots of dubious edits) that would discourage this continuing, it looks like a lot of work to stop it becoming very NPOV. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act

Hi all, requesting help from non-involved editors to keep this article neutral and suitable for an encyclopedia.

• The bill is currently making its way through the California legislature and has become the subject of heated online debate.
• Recent additions are welcome but have made the article unbalanced. Would like to see the article become weighted more evenly between support and opposition if possible.

Thanks for your help. Astudent (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, the article is much improved from the extra attention. Removing the Unbalanced template. Cheers. Astudent (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it NPOV or UNDUE to include basic details about the ownership of Reform UK in the main articles including those of MPs?

User:Czello and I are having a very collegial discussion about their edits here[15] where I added details about the ownership of the party, including the its share holders and also added "Reform UK is a limited company (Reform UK Party Limited) controlled by Nigel Farage." to the lead. This is a unique situation in the UK and little known I believe, and I think it is relevant and important for the sake of transparency. It's an uncontested fact, stated on their web pages and by Farage himself as well as reliable sources. I've told Czello I'm posting here and would like other opinions. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, on their page, but we did not need it on every page. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems entirely undue in bios of the MPs. Do WP:RS even mention this when discussing them? We don't discuss the complex relationship between the Labour Party and Trade unions in articles on their MPs, or the equally-convoluted relationship between local Conservative Associations and the broader party in tory MP bios. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That's entirely different. Those relationships don't involve legal ownership. I don't understand how they can be compared. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This feels like coat racking unless that ownership issue is specifically discussed in context of the MP biography. — Masem (t) 16:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

On main page, sure, not on the others unless RS are explicitly linking them to the fact for some reason. Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Presumably it's ok on the BLPs of the shareholders? Doug Weller talk 16:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No, as its still not about Reform. After all (other stuff alert) I am unsure this is a common practice to list a person's share holdings. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Nigel Farage's page lists share holdings (other than these). Doug Weller talk 17:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And I can't understand why an article about an officer of the party shouldn't mention that they also own shares in it. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

So not then, its not usual. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to mention this in the articles about the party and about Farage himself as we do have RS describing the "unusual arrangement." I don't think it should be mentioned in the articles about other members of the party, unless RS overwhelmingly do so. Alaexis_¿question? 17:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I am in opposition to mentioning it for the reasons I laid out here, but to summarise:

• It is, ultimately, WP:UNDUE. McMurdock is one of their MPs, but is not a shareholder or otherwise seemingly involved in the mechanics of how the party runs.
• Talking about the technicalities of how the party runs, no matter how different to regular parties, it outside of the scope of his article. If anyone wants to learn how it works, they can visit the Reform UK article page.
• Fundamentally, the article is about McMurdock – not the stocks and shares of his party.
• We do not mention the internal mechanics of other political parties on their respective MPs' pages.
• The sources do not mention McMurdock at all, which indicates that how the party runs is not notable in relation to McMurdock himself. (As a general rule of thumb, if a source doesn't mention the subject then it's probably there to support something that shouldn't be there.)
• I am, however, in favour of mentioning such a system on the Reform UK page and on the pages of Farage and Tice (each of whom own shares in Reform), as these seem more relevant.

Also worth mentioning DeFacto is also in opposition (pinging per WP:APPNOTE), although this user is currently under a short block. — Czello ^(music) 18:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

In the article for the party and maybe to a smaller extent in the article for Farage himself, but I don't think it's necessary not repeat it in every MP's article. That is unless secondary sources make note of it in relation to the specific subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

So besides Farage, the only other shareholder with an article is Richard Tice who is mentioned in several sources. Thanks guys. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

From the sources I've seen I'd think Farage and Tice would be fine because of their roles in the party, their shareholdings and the unusual relationship. I'd probably steer away from other MPs though unless there was something more in RS. I'd think the party's article should be fine too, again given the unusual set-up and that it is well covered in RS. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Concur that we should include this in the articles about the party and about Farage himself and Tice and any other co-owners. But I don't think it should be mentioned in the articles about other members of the party, unless RS overwhelmingly do so. The arrangement is extraordinary and goes a long way to explain Farage and Tice's effective, total control of the party.Pincrete (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre

The article is subject to an ongoing edit war which I am involved in, but not the primary instigator. The current point of contention is the first sentence, for which I've submitted an RfC. It's my understanding that there are some differences between the meaning of Srebrenica massacre / Srebrenica genocide and between proposed terms in the opening sentence to qualify it as any of massacre, genocidal massacre, and/or genocidal killings. There are implications to the edit war which violates NPOV by way of introducing terms which exclude the totality of what is meant by these terms and appear to objectively lessen the totality of crimes denoted by the terms. In particular, the opposite party has for multiple days now been submitting a revert which would exclude rape and deportation. I previously notified an administrator who is aware of the edit warring but may not of their own volition have time to address it. 122141510 (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510 has now left the project, but any opinions about the defining sentence would be welcome. Pincrete (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Do sources mention rape and deportation as a part of mens rea and is it true that you have tried to exclude those from the article text? Trimpops2 (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the place for detailed discussion of the topic, but crudely yes (sources cover rape and deportation), not AFAIK (as a part of mens rea), no I've certainly never tried to exclude the 'additional horrors' from the article. Pincrete (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hamas

See Talk:Hamas#Neutrality. Disputes on the talkpage about whether Hamas should be described as a resistance movement, and about how much emphasis should be placed on Hamas's attacks against civillians. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Augusta Victoria Hospital

The Augusta Victoria Hospital is in East Jerusalem, part of the East Jerusalem Hospitals Network and is therefore not in Israel.

Editor @Onel5969:, reverted changes to that effect and when challenged in talk, responded

"Sorry, East Jerusalem is a part of Jerusalem, not a separate entity, and Jerusalem is in Israel". (this is completely not a NPOV and against all practice in umpteen WP articles).

Since this is not a well traveled article and I only came to it because I was pinged, eyes on this please. Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Doping in China

Raised at ANI. Looks like there is a NPOV problem at Doping in China. Some eyes on this would be good. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Will second this, I think we need more eyes on the article and it's talk page. A lot of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:TAGTEAM. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I support more eyes on this too. You are also directly involved in the dispute, Allan Nonymous, (not an unrelated third-party) and have not yet responded to concerns and proposals raised by me and MingScribe1368 on the Talk page. As the two of us are willing to compromise, I suggest you do so as well to settle the dispute. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about material at Sigma Nu

More participation at Talk:Sigma Nu#Inclusion of Mateer would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

English Defence League

There is currently a dispute at Talk:English Defence League about whether the organization should be described as defunct (as reliable sources state it has been for some time e.g. [16]), or whether it should still be considered active as some members of the British far-right identify as supporters. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Positions on reproductive rights

I have encountered a user who is repeatedly changing "anti-abortion" to "pro-life" in a biographical article. I feel sure that this terminology must have been discussed somewhere but cannot find a specific guideline. Does one exist, or does some past discussion exist? Whasha (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

See [17]. NightHeron (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There generally is consensus on Wikipedia to use the terms "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" and avoid the "pro-*" terms. NicolausPrime (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's some more discussions: [18] [19]. NicolausPrime (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Considering that I am this editor and I was NOT notified of this discussion, may I ask what the penalty is for not obeying the bold, bright red text at the top of this article? Because editor Whasha has done so. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Whasha: as noted at the top of this page, you are required to notify any editor who is subject of discussion here. I have notified TanRabbitry for you, even though they are already aware of the discussion. No further action is required at this time but remember to notify users of discussions you start about them on this and similar noticeboards in the future. Polyamorph (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I would also add that it is this editor who has been changing the article from its status quo, not the other way around, as well as engaging in personal attacks. TanRabbitry (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

esitwarring and rfc. see Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

please see. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Bloating and neutrality, largely in Scottish articles

This comes from a discussion at WikiProject Scotland, initially about Bloating in Gaels articles, which are, variously, cluttered with excessive examples and detail, lengthy quotes, excessive background material and diversions into peripheral and off-topic material. They feature superfluous interludes of praise or contempt for individuals, institutions and sources, and excessive material about their bona fides or nefarious activities, relationship to other notable figures, often in matters not connected with the article subject.

It became apparent that this may have a significant neutrality aspect, with the bloat an effort to build some sort of a case about the subject, packing in as much evidence as available. Dòmhnall Ruadh Chorùna, Iain Lom, Catholic Church in Scotland, Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair, Morar, Loch Morar, Eigg and Whiggism have been noted in the discussion but perhaps an example to highlight is Alexander Cameron (priest) as this is being edited heavily at present.

Even at the point of creation from draft the article was tagged with Comment: Also not written in a neutral, encyclopaediac tone. Please add sources and fix the tone. The article has expanded greatly in the intervening years but in the same vein.

The initial draft was by User:KSC-C1 who displays stylistic similarities with the editor currently acive, User:K1ngstowngalway1, who has been promoting contested material from KSC's draft, about the Knights of Saint Columba (the source of the user name, KSC?). (User:Kingstowngalway seems to be another earlier identity FWIW.) There has been minimal engagement on talk pages by the editor (one post at the Project thread, one at the Cameron article) and re-insertion of material without consensus gained. Edit summaries are rare. Self-published and primary sources are a feature, as is editorialising.

What is a detached impression of the Cameron article, in terms of neutrality? 19:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A couple of fresh illustrations. This material (mentioned above) has been contested and removed, pending consensus, at the subject’s article, with no engagement at talk by the editor. Despite this, it has just been dropped in to a related article. Part of a trend of the editor copying the same lengthy passages of background/case-supporting material into multiple articles. Also, this WP:SYNTHesised essay, regarding the active absence of the subject from popular culture, none of the sources even mentioning them, as far as I can tell. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is, after all, a collaborative project and some editors have different styles of how to process and organize facts and how to write articles than others do. That being said, some editors also have areas of special interest that they care passionately about, in the case of this editor Celtic studies and the revival of threatened heritage languages. Sometimes, such revivals may be aided by carefully researching the literary canon in those languages and spreading awareness of a threatened language's most iconic poets and writers. The facts at hand regarding figures like Alexander Cameron are particularly important due to those seeking to tell his story and promote his canonization. In that event he will belong to all Catholics worldwide, rather than the mere 13% of the population that identifies as Catholic in Scotland. The facts regarding such individuals are important and do at times affect all of our emotions, although we all try to keep them in check to the best of our ability and write in as detached a manner as humanly possible. Historical context is equally important and can lead to subjects a certain other editor prefers to treat as irrelevant and tear articles in progress to shreds rather than allow. The writer of this post has often found that at times the facts he puts on this site, however well researched in reputable sources or objectively presented they may be, have been objected to and been the cause of attacks like this one by other editors who do not like the effects that those facts are having on public discourse. In this particular case, the editor raising these concerns is very resistant to facts, however reputable their sources may be, regarding the history and past religious persecution of both Catholics and Episcopalians in Scotland or of behavior that would be grounds for court martial proceedings in the modern British armed forces. Facts about Scottish Gaelic literature that might lead to greater interest in learning the language worldwide also seem to threaten the feelings of the editor raising these concerns. The writer's efforts to engage with him in the past have proven fruitless, as the writer's words are taken out of context and weaponized. When dealing with such a person, the only winning move is not to play that game. This writer is okay with other editors adding new information or removing and replacing parts of articles to correct errors this writer may have made, but not with gutting articles completely. Censorship, intimidation, and cancel culture are what the editor raising these concerns seeks. Rules exist only for others and not for the editor raising these concerns. Let the other editor do their own research and cease to trouble those who can prove what they say.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"The facts at hand regarding figures like Alexander Cameron are particularly important due to those seeking to tell his story and promote his canonization. In that event he will belong to all Catholics worldwide, rather than the mere 13% of the population that identifies as Catholic in Scotland."

"weaponized" Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Meaning those from the Knights of St Columba at the University of Glasgow who are Mass producing holy cards and urging prayers for his canonization as a Saint and a Martyr. A certain editor keeps preventing this from being even mentioned in the article, no matter how reputable the source.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It shines a light on the way the entire article is written. These subjects "belong to" everyone, not those who you perceive to have a special interest. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

For someone who feels these subjects as belonging to everyone, you sure have a funny way of showing it. You gut them and them cut them well beyond the bare bones, which is NOT the behavior of someone who cares about these subjects. It's the behavior of someone who seeks censorship and control of facts. The fact is that anti-Catholic period sources, such as reports from the local Church of Scotland synods, are used for the article. So are John S. Gibson's descriptions of Captain John Fergussone, alias the "Black Captain of the Forty-Five", as in other ways a very brave and effective naval warfare commander and his pivotal role in the British victory at the Siege of Louisbourg, which similarly add to his complexity. Antagonists with complexity are always far more fascinating, both in fiction and in nonfiction, that one-dimensional, cartoon villains. In fact, Flora MacDonald's account in The Lyon in Mourning of meeting Captain Fergussone for the first time make him seem at first, for all the cruelty, arsons, floggings, lootings, etc., that Bishop Robert Forbes and other historians lay at Fergussone's door, to actually be very normal. And this comes from an oral history collection wherein every allegations was carefully checked and annotated between multiple interviewees, and that you repeatedly have dismissed as mere "Jacobite atrocity propaganda" deleted information coming from it. And as I have slowly acquired additional reputable history books relating to the individuals and to the period, you still fight tooth and nail. You really need to take the advice of William Shatner and get a life.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There was, to my memory, a solitary reference to "Jacobite atrocity propaganda" and not by me but by User:Buidhe. Your reliance on primary material is a major concern but at least as much of the material in dispute is down to its off-topic nature. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if it's published in an oral history collection, I don't think it's encyclopedic to cite various letters and statements from involved parties, especially when, from the tone, the main purpose is to make Jacobite enemies look bad. A related problem is that the editor was coatracking Hanoverian atrocities into tangential articles where they were not verifiably relevant. (t · c) buidhe 01:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I use both primary and scholarly sources while I am editing articles, even though waiting for the necessary books to be delivered to me tends to delay things much longer than I would often like. What you describe as off topic I consider 1. Setting events in their proper historical context for those who may not understand and aiding them with article links. 2. Trying to get to the bottom of what really happened and why, similarly to solving a puzzle. 3. Building an ark for other researchers who may wish to continue digging.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Bishop Robert Forbes also reports countless cases of Hanoverian officers and enlisted men behaving in an antithetical manner to Captain John Fergussone and refusing to follow what would now be termed criminal orders. His research remained unpublished until long after his death, so in my opinion, he was simply seeking the truth with the intention of aiding in future criminal prosecution of those responsible for committing alleged war crimes during the aftermath of the Rising. It never turned out that way, as the regime change that Forbes expected and longed for never took place. He is, however, considered a reputable source by serious academic historians of the Rising, hence John S. Gibson's expressions of regret that Forbes' papers only resurfaced after the death of Sir Walter Scott.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If you cite Forbes' own conclusions I would think that is a better source (although really we should be focusing on scholarly sources from the 20th century or later). The reason why I am critical of reliance on primary sources for history topics is because a historian will go through the primary accounts, cross-check them, and determine what is most likely to be accurate based on a wide range of factors. Wikipedians shouldn't be trying to do that work ourselves because we are not qualified and it is likely to shade into WP:original research. (t · c) buidhe 02:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

With this discussion ongoing and still no engagement at the article discussion you persist to war contested material back! This time to the already turgid lead section, along with note of the existence of a self-published source. You really think this is crucial, the guideline being to contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right venue for this. ANI? DeCausa (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ive done so here, regarding this last aspect but it occurs to me you may have meant the whole campaign. Could you clarify? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It seems to me you (and Buidhe) are raising what are actually behavioural issues across a number of articles, covering WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:ADVOCACY/POV-pushing and issues around mishandling of sources. I haven't looked in detail into whether what you are saying is justified or not - just that seems to be what you're raising. Is it not? DeCausa (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

So well put I've quoted the above in the repurposing of the report, with your disclaimer regarding no view as to the justification. Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Gabor and Ataturk

This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It has never been resolved.

Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 autobiography Zsa Zsa Gabor: My Story. This alleged liaison has been in the public discourse ever since. Some additional references:

• "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
• Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
• Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
• Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
• Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
• Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.

A couple of editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. Removing this information violates WP:NOTCENSORED. I have restored it for the time being, but it's bound to get deleted again unless more editors enforce having the content retained. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been two days and still no feedback. As expected, my additions to Ataturk and Gabor's respective pages were reverted. This violates WP:NOTCENSORED, does it not? The reverting editors have argued against including the information because it is a claim not a fact. We're talking about a relationship from the early-to mid-'30s, long before tabloids and social media existed. Ataturk has been dead since 1938. So of course there aren't going to be receipts. Gabor's account is the only thing to go by, and many publications have long accepted it. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Lucy Letby: wrongfully convicted?

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Lucy Letby#Grossly WP:UNDUE: Doubts about conviction section that would benefit from more input from uninvolved editors. Some1 (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Belarus' (current?) participation in the war in Ukraine

There is a discussion on whether or not to include Belarus in the infobox in Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please do check it out if you're interested. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Kris Kristofferson

There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Kris Kristofferson#Lyme disease - revisited on whether or not we should include the subject's lyme disease diagnosis, as well as the wording, NPOV and due weight regarding said diagnosis. Please participate if you're interested. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)