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

The "prophet Muhammad" (lowercase 'p')

UrielAcosta seems to be on a mission, systematically searching through Wikipedia to find "[p]rophet Muhammad" and remove the word "prophet" (even if it's in lowercase), with the edit summary: Removed religious bias per MOS:PBUH because he's not Wikipedia's prophet.

The latter link points to NPOV policy.

I and other editors have queried these edits on UrielAcosta's talk page, but UrielAcosta disagreed and soon after, s/he deleted the talk page entries, and continued to make these mass edits.

My mild objection, as a non-Muslim, is that "prophet" (lowercase 'p') is descriptive and informative, and is in accordance with MOS, so when the word "prophet" has been removed, I've instead re-added it as "Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity). To me, this is no different than referring to "the novelist Doris Lessing", or "the British politician Rishi Sunak".

MOS:MUHAMMAD actually says this: recommended action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary.

I'd appreciate the input of other editors here, please. Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Pertinent discussions held on this subject with UrielAcosta] arehere and here. I addressed the rationale "because he's not Wikipedia's prophet" by observing Pablo Escobar is not Wikipedia's drug lord, but it wouldn't be wrong to write of somebody, "It was on his trip to Panama that he became acquainted with drug lord Pablo Escobar.". Their bizarre response: ... you are 100% incorrect: Pablo Escobar IS Wikipedia's drug lord, because "drug lord" has a specific definition in English and Escobar qualifies under that definition. I mean, huh? (Have you ever heard Escobar described as "Wikipedia's drug lord"?) Then I pointed out that WP:PBUH explicitly provides for the usage that they've been obliterating, distinguishing honoring someone from merely identifying them in context on first mention, and it fell on deaf ears. When I saw that UrielAcosta had taken this campaign up again with vigor after having been reproved by at least three people, I was ready to report them to WP:ANI or somewhere, so I thank User:Esowteric for raising it here. Largoplazo (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" Some1 (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• I've instead re-added it as "Islamic prophet Muhammad" (for greater clarity). Did UrielAcosta revert these edits (by removing "Islamic prophet")? If they did, then that would be against what MOS:PBUH recommends (i.e. adding "the Islamic prophet" if necessary for clarity purposes). If they didn't revert, then they're just following what MOS:PBUH recommends. Some1 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, they changed "prophet Muhammed" to "Muhammed", but left alone my later changes to "Islamic prophet Muhammed". However, they did this to the first (or only) mention of the name Muhammed in the two articles that were on my watchlist that were affected. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  The only reason I bring this up is that these are mass edits, so a whole lot of people may either not notice the changes or choose to change the entries to "the prophet Muhammad", when they could either be left alone or the passionate editor could make the changes themselves and avoid work for others. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don’t agree with the removal of “prophet” for the first usage of Muhammad in an article because the MOS clearly allows for the usage in that case. That being said, I don’t think it’s necessary to go back and add it to articles where it was removed. I don’t agree that “Muhammad” (with the wikilink) would cause confusion to the reader. Mokadoshi (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, but how many Wikipedia articles would simply name Rishi Sunak because users could easily click on the link to find out who he is or what he is, when it is far simpler and more informative to refer to them in the first instance as (say) British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think specifying “British Prime Minister” is necessary every time. In some cases it is helpful, like the usage of “Senator Obama” verses “President Obama” can clarify the period of his career when an event occurred. I don’t think it’s an appropriate comparison to this case. Probably a better comparison would be “author J.K. Rowling” verses just “J.K. Rowling” and the former seems to be rare. Mokadoshi (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've been asked to give my two pennies worth on this matter as I was made aware of Uriel Costa's editing on Bust of Abd al-Rahman III, Cadrete, a page I had created. I did not know, but I was barely surprised, that Uriel Costa then went on to make the same edit on a variety of other pages. This is my view on the matter:
  The page I saw related to a Muslim monarch. Monarchs are known by their given name. Removing "prophet" before Muhammad could be confusing as many monarchs, including in Islamic Spain where I was writing about, were also called Muhammad.
  I just put "prophet" as a disambiguator. I think it's quite clear in the context we were not talking about a prophet of the Mormons. Uriel Costa removed this completely, he did not even negotiate by saying "Islamic prophet".
  You could say that the majority of the world does not see Muhammad as a prophet, nor has any human been peer-reviewed to be a prophet. But at the same time, we have the page at Guru Nanak when the majority of the world has probably not even heard of him, and no independent study has proven that he had more spiritual wisdom than anyone else in the world. The term Pope comes from "father" and the majority of the world does not see him that way, but we still title the page Pope Francis.
  My previous edit was not endorsing Islam, a religion I do not follow, and instead of making it more specific, getting rid of "prophet" completely made it less specific. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  "Pope" clearly means that he has a particular role in the Catholic church. Similarly for other examples given. Simply "prophet" is an assertion in the voice of Wikipedia which a majority of people would disagree with. "Islamic prophet" implicitly says that Islam considers him to have that status/role/capability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• The problem we are having here is that in those cases when it is necessary or even simply better to clarify (this often depends on context and background knowledge of subject matter), UrielAcosta is still systematically removing it based on a literal reading of MOS:PBUH, to the point of edit warring over it, without engaging in substantial discussion.
  An example of where mentioning "prophet" was better because of subject matter context is here, an example of where it was necessary to disambiguate from other Muhammads named in the article here (cf. [1]).
  In my mind, because the problem is an overly literal reading, the solution to this is to update MOS:PBUH and have it explicitly allow "the prophet Muhammad" in cases where it is needed for disambiguation or clarification. My own proposal to simply always allow it (because all relevant RS are in fact using it constantly and casually) was perhaps too ambitious, but simply instating Some1's counterproposal here would already solve a lot of the issues (Some1's proposal, but adjusted to lowercase 'prophet'):

  (The) Holy Prophet in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad" — recommended action is to use just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary. In cases where ambiguity or confusion exists, the "prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" may be used as a variation on "Muhammad".

  Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Re "overly literal reading"—except for the part about continuing to ignore except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary even when it's pointed out to them point-blank. The reason Muhammad gets his own provision in the first place is because of a matter very specific to him: the practice of some people of writing "PBUH" after every use of his name, and referring to him as "the Prophet Muhammad" or even just "the Prophet" on every occasion. There's nothing about the provision that suggests that Muhammad is less deserving than anyone else in history of being introduced in a text in the way that people are very commonly introduced, by the use of context. If anyone's being non-neutral, it's UrielAcosta, for deeming Muhammad not to deserve to be identified in such a manner. Largoplazo (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that they are deliberately ignoring the part of the MOS that they don't seem to agree with. Their he's not Wikipedia's prophet breaks the very policy that they are citing as an excuse to expunge the word from every article. M.Bitton (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• The changes en masse by UrielAcosta are unhelpful at best as they needlessly create a lot of work for others. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm in agreement with the responses expressed by @M.Bitton, @Largoplazo, and @Apaugasma. It's evident that there's an issue of overzealous editing on the part of UrielAcosta. As others have noted, even in cases where, for purely practical reasons as MOS allows, it was better to leave a term rather than removing it. I would encourage @UrielAcosta to take a breather and once again go through WP:5P5, if it might provide a newfound sense of direction and clarity. StarkReport (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• We had this one at Regency of Algiers also. I am not certain if UrielAcosta realizes just how many people can be named Mohammed in an article that covers 400 years of North African history, but this was righteously reverted by the article's primary author. I urge UrielAcosta to get a grip and find another mission. Elinruby (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the place where we refer to the Islamic prophet Mohammed. I believe that before Uriel Acosta came along it possibly said the Prophet Mohammed, This may be slightly better but seems like a really silly thing to spend time on, like arguing about whether Joan of Arc's visions were real. The thing to do is report the claim without endorsing, it, yes? [2] The sharifs were a religious nobility who claimed descent from the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and often members of the Naqib al-ashraf institution of the Ottoman Empire.[405] I spent a LOT of time on this section and made zero claims about Mohammed in wikivoice. I am not real upset about this either way but I consider myself an interested party and I oppose a mandatory naked Mohammed. Please ping me if this escalates. Going on a rampage about the word prophet is bigotry to my mind, just like it would be to insist on a disclaimer in an article about the visions of Joan of Arc or the incarnations of Vishnu.

This is merely what some people believe or believed at some point, period, end of story, and I submit that it is neither possible nor desirable to explain a religious dynasty whose power stemmed from its claim of descent from the prophet Mohammed without mentioning the prophet Mohammed. If some people feel that we need to specify that he was an Islamic prophet rather than a Hindu or an Buddhist or a Catholic prophet, ok fine, whatever.

Btw, ctl-f finds 21 instances of "Mohammed" in that article, a few of whom are mentioned more than once, and at least one of whom is the author of a reference. I think a serious count would give use ten or eleven men named Mohammed plus some honorific. Elinruby (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see why uses of the word prophet [Name] should be considered improper or require editing out when talking about a figure (notwithstanding their historicity) identified by a sufficiently significant amount of people as a prophet of their religion, creed, or belief system — especially, if it serves purposes of disambiguation. And I disagree with @North8000′s assessment of a distinct treatment of the epithets pope and prophet, since both are similar religious positions, claiming to form a bridge between the divine and humankind. The position of pope is as limited and debated among Christian creeds as the question of “Who is the real, final, ultimate prophet?” is in various branches of Islam. Konanen (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Shooks, I did not intend this to be a reply to @Elinruby, sorry. Konanen (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, IMO your argument against my point has flaws. The widespread meaning of "Pope" is a particular position in the catholic church. Saying "Pope" in the voice of Wikipedia means that they hold that role in the Catholic church. The claim in the voice of Wikipedia does not go any further than that. An atheist can take it to mean only that. An unattributed statement in the voice of Wikipeda that someone is a prophet is a statement in the voice of Wikipedia goes far beyond just saying that they have a particular role in a a particular religion. Simple attribution of the statement to Islam solves all of that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

For statements like "Joshua was a prophet who [...]" or "when the prophet Muhammad came to Mecca [...]", if the implication of the statement is 'hey, this is the prophet of God, so better listen to him', then it's obviously religiously non-neutral and problematic. If the implication of the statement is 'this figure is considered a prophet in the religion(s) we are talking about in this context', then it's perfectly fine. Not only perfectly fine, but also often necessary, because the status of these figures as prophets is often an important part of the encyclopedic information we are trying to convey. The current restrictions in MOS:MUHAMMAD often make this difficult or impossible. Readers are intelligent enough to pick out the intended implication, they don't need the current censorship to get that we are not declaring these figures to be actual prophets in wiki-voice, nor are the relevant RS who are all of them (the challenge made here to find an exception still stands) routinely referring to Muhammad as "the prophet" or "the prophet Muhammad". ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Apaugasma:You made a good point there which I think is that these are often obviously (just) statements by Islam rather than statements by / in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Both of those examples seem to imply that the individual is an actual prophet of an actual god. I find both of them inappropriate. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Removing "The Prophet" in this way appears to be agenda driven. I am not a Muslim and I see no issue with the phrase being "The Prophet Muhammed" being used when it is referencing the founder of Islam Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, I'm in agreement with inclusion of the word but, used in this way, "prophet" is a common noun and shouldn't be capitalized. Largoplazo (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. "The prophet Mohammed" is ok but "The Prophet Mohammed" runs afoul of MOS:MUHAMMAD specifically and more broadly MOS:HONORIFIC. In fact it would be better to say "the Islamic prophet Mohammed" and that is what the guidance says: except when it is the first reference in an article, or the first reference in the lead, in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" if necessary. If this were equivalent to "The Pope" it would be phrased just as "The Prophet" when obviously Mohammed doesn't occupy the proper noun of "The Prophet" in English. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

So is anyone going to get upset if at Regency of Algiers, many sections down in the article where we mention the prophet Mohammed after much discussion of sultans and Muhammeds and Amirs and Hassans and Husseins, I remove the word Islamic? The article has many images that indicate that Islam may well have been the prevalent religion and it seems blindingly obvious what religion he would have been a prophet of. He isn't even the subject of the completely secular statement involved. (quoted above) I am hearing maybe not? Elinruby (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. The context is already well established. For comparison, France has the sentence "The French perfume industry is the world leader in its sector and is centred on the town of Grasse." Chanel No. 5, in contrast, has "... obtained exclusively from the fields of the valley of Siagne above the French town of Grasse." The latter could perhaps have dispensed with "French" but at that point, especially since the immediate topic is operations in the US. In the former the addition of "French" would seem belabored. Similar considerations apply to identifying prophets, priests, nuns, popes, rabbis: no need to say he's the Islamic prophet Muhammad in a place where its explicit statement would lead many to say "Duh". Largoplazo (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Belated, but I agree with many above: of course "Islamic prophet Muhammad", "prophet Muhammad", and "Muhammad" should all all appropriate options per common sense, and most editors working on an article are able to judge which of these is appropriate for clarity in a given context. Of course "Muhammad" on its own (linked or not) is insufficient in many, many contexts to avoid confusion, regardless of whether "Islamic prophet Muhammad" is mentioned somewhere above; while "Islamic prophet Muhammad" is needlessly inconcise and redundant in a large proportion of contexts, and can be shortened to "prophet Muhammad" where some disambiguating is still needed. As Apaugasma suggested above, MOS:MUHAMMAD should be amended if it's being understood otherwise.

We should also note that it is absolutely commonplace among English-language academic and scholarly references, including those written by non-Muslim authors aimed at a general audience, to refer to Muhammad as "the Prophet" (in uppercase), the "Prophet Muhammad" etc. As Wikipedia is meant to reflect reliable sources, it is rather counter-intuitive to take a dogmatic view against this, and inserts an unusual hoop for editors writing on the topic to jump through. Lowercase "prophet", as mentioned, should be plenty sufficient for our purposes here. R Prazeres (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Its also commonplace to refer to the central figure of Christianity as "The Christ" but we don't because its weidly worshipful and we don't engage in worship (even accidentally). I would also note that in this use its an honorific like "Doctor" and we don't use honorifics widely in body (for example you will often find Jack Kevorkian called Doctor Kevorkian, but we don't use the honorific... Same for if someone is "Sir Something" we just say Something). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Except that Muhammad is a very common name, sometimes repeated multiple times in a single article to refer to different people including the prophet. M.Bitton (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You say that like we don't alrady have procedures for when multiple people have a similar name... The only time we would run into a problem here would be when there are multiple people with a mononym (but I believe that in the scholarly discourse every single notable Muhammad who isn't Muhammad has a scholarly name to avoid the ambiguity) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not say we should use "the Prophet" in Wikipedia usage, I clearly stated which options are appropriate in the first sentence of my comment. My point is that there is no basis in Wikipedia's core principles to simply avoid "prophet Muhammad". It's not a POV issue or an honorific, it's what clear professional English writing requires. R Prazeres (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Prophet in this context is an honorific, like Doctor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No, in this context (lowercase and used as a descriptor), it literally isn't. That's how English works. R Prazeres (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, it seems to fulfill the same role... islamic prophet is a descriptor but prophet alone feels like a backdoor honorific and theres no way around that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If the word "prophet" is an honorific in "the prophet Muhammad" then it is equally an honorific in "the Islamic prophet Muhammad", because those two phrases are grammatically identical except for the addition of a extra information ("Islamic") in the latter. No different than "the (American) president George Bush" or "the (Catholic) pope John Paul II", etc. (To be clear, the inclusion of the article "the" is necessary here, otherwise the preceding noun modifier would read as part of the following proper name and would thus be an honorific; which by English writing convention is capitalized, unlike the other case.) There is no such thing as a "backdoor honorific", and if we are reduced to making such marginal and out-of-the-way grammatical/stylistic claims to support this interpretation of MOS:MUHAMMAD, then we are not standing on solid ground. R Prazeres (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that isn't actually what I was going for and as it seems we've lost the plot and I've caused you frustration I will bow out with apologies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries, apologies if I misunderstood you as well. R Prazeres (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Irgun

See [3]. I reverted a similar edit a few days ago. The issue I see is do we describe the Irgun in articles the way their article does or does Wikipedia call then terrorists. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

See King David Hotel bombing which is what the Irgun is notorious for, obviously terrorism, and the attack is described in the lead as a "terrorist attack". In the section Terrorism, it says "The bombing has been discussed in literature about the practice and history of terrorism. It has been called one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century." When a preponderance of sources are all unequivocal about calling it terrorism, it's terrorism.

I see an editor objected on the grounds that we don't do that for Hamas but there is no unanimity of sourcing for that (the BBC being one notable example of a refusal to call them that). Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The way Irgun describes them is, imo, fine. This was (to my knowledge) way before proscription was a thing, so it's probably the best we're going to get if we're never going to be able to say "described by A, B, and C as a terrorist org". Extending that, however, to Ze'ev Jabotinsky is a bit weird to me. Although al-Qaeda's designation is mentioned on Osama Bin Laden. Yr Enw (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The same editor who adds mentions of terrorism to Irgun-related articles also removes mentions of terrorism related to Palestinian factions [4]. However, when reverted, they label the revert as "vandalism" [5]. This could indicate a possible conduct issue. ABHammad (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a similar view to Yr Enw in cases like this. Also, I'm a fan of aligning contentious labels to the labeling used in main articles about the thing being given a contentious label in another article. And if you are going to avoid the use of Wiki-voice via words like "proscribed", it seems better to say who is doing the proscribing. I'm not a big fan of the fuzzy wording "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" in WP:TERRORIST as a decision procedure because, in practice, editors can't/don't do enough sampling. Not using contentious labels in wiki-voice or without some kind of attribution is a simple solution. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

“not using contentious labels in wikivoice or without some kind of attribution is a simple solution”. This is my preferred interpretation of MOS:TERRORIST, and imo the only possibly impartial way of dealing with terrorist designations. But the guidance is, as you note, quite reliant on editors making editorial judgements. It’s unlikely to get resolved anytime soon either, as when I tried to get consensus on the VP for a more explicit guideline that would align with this, it wasn’t very forthcoming. Yr Enw (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

In practice, in Wikipedia, for understandable reasons, editorial judgement can be difficult to distinguish from convenience sampling. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps but the rule as it stands (I don't agree with it either but there it is) says that if there is a preponderance of sourcing, we go by that. If there is alleged insufficient sampling, editors will have to work out a consensus on that, same as anything else. Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This is true. I think we have made some progress towards neutrality though. When people in my family would tell stories about their time in Palestine in 1947-48, any mention of Irgun might be accompanied by slightly confusing statements like 'scum of the Balkans'. Of course, this was back in the days when making sweeping and/or offensive and/or inaccurate statements about 'foreigners' was fine. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't Irgun self-described as terrorists? They were formed as "restraint breakers" specifically to carry out unprovoked violent attacks against Palestinians and British as part of a campaign of political violence. They promoted terrorism, were self-described terrorists. They publicly celebrated their terrorist identity. They had a goal and their chosen path was the path of violent unconstrained terrorism, and they were proud advocates of this. Fanccr (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Fanccr, your comment is inconsistent with the WP:ARBECR rule. A quick look at your contributions suggests that you might need to (re)read that and the information on your talk page. If you have sourcing that supports the "self-described terrorists" statement, you can submit it with an edit request at the Irgun article's talk page using WP:EDITXY as a guide. Even if true, I would still favor attributing the label to them rather than using wiki-voice. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, same. The problem with their suggestion is that it assumes readers will understand what the Irgun itself meant by the term, which I don’t think they will. Yr Enw (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Yr Enw here. In an article about a different topic, appending a contentious qualifier like terrorist can be done only if that's what RS do. The onus is on the editor who adds this. Alaexis_¿question? 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I would be cautious with the label in this case, and ascribe it to them were it's due, with the onus being on those who want to include it; as stated by others, this is a case of editorial discretion with all the issues usually associated with that.

Regarding @ABHammads diffs, while I'm generally not inclined to advocate for action being taken due to a singular bad edit, it's probably something to look into or at least keep an eye on, particularly if this is or becomes a pattern. FortunateSons (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Use of contentious labels in lead of an article

There has been NPOV controversy on-going about the Reiki article on its Talk Page, which is nothing new (I have read through all archives of the talk page to get a better picture, and it has been an on-going debate for nearly 20 years).

I specifically find the use of the word quackery in the lead objectionable, which seems unduly loaded and wilfully placed in such a prominent position, as well as further uses of WP:WTW throughout the article. Taken into consideration in its entirety, the article reads as though it had been written by someone with a personal vendetta against the topic.

Input from other editors would be appreciated. Thank you! –Konanen (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it could be more specific as to labeled quackery by whom (scientists? journalists? quacks?) but I don't see the problem with it. If it is medical pseudoscience, it is quackery, isn't it? Anyway, we aren't saying it in Wikipedia's voice, we're pointing out that it has been characterized as such by presumably relevant persons to the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed the question of labeled quackery by whom in the Talk page, where I pointed out that one of the two references attached to quackery did not even use that term, and that the other reference was of questionable reliability:

The other reference tagged to the word quackery, however, does attribute said word to Reiki. Yet that source amounts to nothing more than a WP:QUESTIONABLE rant opinion piece whose inclusion in the lead definitely skews the balance of the article unduly.

–Konanen (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@DIYeditor; agree. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

See below about "parity of sources". SBM is an excellent source for this subject -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "quackery" is falling a bit into slang even if it is commonly used. It's already labeled as pseudoscience, and to me, the context to be added is why it is called that. All that is there, and can be achieved with a rewrite as: Reiki is a pseudoscience. It is based on qi ("chi"), which practitioners say is a universal life force, although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists. Clinical research does not show reiki to be effective as a treatment for any medical condition, including cancer, diabetic neuropathy, anxiety or depression. There is no proof of the effectiveness of reiki therapy compared to placebo. Studies reporting positive effects have had methodological flaws. Reiki is used as an illustrative example of pseudoscience in scholarly texts and academic journal articles. Masem (t) 01:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a personal vendetta against the topic. Even had a friend that was into it years ago. However I consider it to be "quackery" as it is pseduoscience. However as mentioned probably best to use the term pseudoscient unless there is a WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS calling it "quackery" in which case it would not be a WP:NPOV probablem to do likewise in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 02:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems easier to take it as a writing quality problem than a NPOV problem. "Reiki is a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery" is a pointless tautology. Also not sure why pseudoscience/pseudoscientific needs to appear 3 times in the lead in quick succession. CMD (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"Its practice has been characterized as quackery" must be cited to a source that says its practice has been characterized as quackery, not just sources that call it quackery. Otherwise if violates WEASEL and NOR. TFD (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Nearly every definition of "quackery" includes things like deliberate misleading, deliberate pretending and fraud. IMO this should not be in the article much less in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, and there is nothing about such aspects in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I can see a very strong consensus here. I agree with you all. Thanks so much for the helpful comments:

@Konanen, “quackery ... objectionable”

@TarnishedPath, “probably best to use the term pseudoscient unless there is a WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS calling it "quackery" in which case it would not be a WP:NPOV probablem”

@CMD, “ "Reiki is a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery" is a pointless tautology. Also not sure why pseudoscience/pseudoscientific needs to appear 3 times in the lead in quick succession”

@TFD, “..”quackery" must be cited to a source that says its practice has been characterized as quackery, not just sources that call it quackery. Otherwise if violates WEASEL and NOR”

@North8000, “Nearly every definition of "quackery" includes things like deliberate misleading, deliberate pretending and fraud. IMO this should not be in the article much less in the lead.”

. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Add back ping...

@Konanen, @TarnishedPath, @Chipmunkdavis, @The Four Deuces, @North8000 --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

SBM is an excellent RS for this type of topic. Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources, opinions and writings of mainstream authors have more due weight than the writings of promoters of fringe practices, and that includes all of alternative medicine. See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Due and undue weight. Beyond that, when in doubt, use attribution. More due weight means, among other things, the amount of content and the prominence of mention. Criticisms belong in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe our article should state clearly that Reiki is not a replacement of conventional medical treatment, and that it can involve non-standard financial costs. However,

Imagine, if, I say if, you were one of the good-faith Reiki practitioners who has never intended to deceive (you genuinely believe that you are helping others). One day you come home from work, and your children ask you,

“Dad (/Mum), my classmates said what you are doing is quackery and pseudoscience. You are bad and you are deceiving people. You aren’t doing good work as you’ve told me, is it? They said it’s what Wikipedia said!”

Is that OK? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia should avoid reporting the facts. Quacks need not be deliberate frauds - sometimes they are just well meaning but ignorant folks who have avoided educating themselves. That doesn't mean we should avoid doing so on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. -

Quacks need not be deliberate frauds - sometimes they are just well meaning but ignorant folks who have avoided educating themselves.

I don’t think so. That’s your personal opinion.

From our own definition:

Quackery, often synonymous with health fraud, is the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices. A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess; a charlatan or snake oil salesman"

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"ignorant medical practices"—from the definition just given. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

“Quackery, often synonymous with health fraud --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ignorant is right there in what you quoted. MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

“Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Quoted from PMID: 15208545. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s a “Comment” published in 2004 (apparently written by an advocate), not a review, not a meta-analysis, and not a MEDRS / MEDDATE-compliant source at all. Further, “Reiki” was not mentioned in that “comment”. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear, are you denying that it is pseudoscience and not shown in any way to be effective? We can go from there. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Not really relevant here, since that's not a medical claim. Also see WP:PARITY, we do not hold debunkers to a higher evidentiary standard than what they're debunking. And finally, WP:MEDDATE does not say what you seem to think it says - it doesn't rule out older sources, it advises looking to see if they have been superseded. Often (particularly in the case of fringey stuff where publications are limited) they have not been superseded. MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact remains, though, that the reference in question is not a secondary source, but merely a comment about something, which makes this a very low quality source. It does not prove quackery or even prove that it is the generally-held view; it merely states an opinion held by the author in a single comment about a topic by one person that is, additionally, unduly disparaging and WP:UNDUE in the lead, if it even belongs in the article at all. It is questionable that it meets notability standards, and rather than being a scientific criticism of the subject matter as required by WP:PARITY, it reads like a rant, see this excerpt:

To be honest, I really didn’t think that could go much lower in terms of promoting quackery, but, damn, did they prove me wrong! Reiki? Seriously? If there are two quackeries battling it out for the title of The One Quackery To Rule Them All, based on their sheer ridiculousness and disconnect from reality, homeopathy is obviously a contender, but so is reiki.

The article ends with:

As for The Atlantic, stop publishing utterly credulous paeans to quackery like this article.

Not at all objective, or calm and collected. I reiterate my opinion in that it has no business in the lead, and its placement within the article at large is debatable, though I could see a point for it.

-Konanen (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources are allowed to be biased per WP:RSBIAS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Sceince-Based Medicine has been discussed quite a few times on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Although it's not liked by many the consensus has been that it's a reliable source, see WP:SBM for details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This is (or at least, claims to be) an online encyclopaedia. As such, it is intended to promote knowledge, If that upsets the ignorant, that's their problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

When, sources support it we absolutely should call stuff like this as pseudoscience and explain it's faults. But we are still meant to take a neutral, impartial tone to articles, and words like quackery are unnecessary once you establish it's pseudoscience, and non neutral, as they give rise to a non impartial view in Wiki voice. — Masem (t) 13:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should explain the need for Wikipedia to state that Reiki is pseudoscience to Dustfreeworld. [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Given their activities on that article only occurred over two days and since then they have been participating here, rather than edit warring or making persistent changes, I would AFG in their actions and that they are learning the ropes of how we work on pseudoscience topics — Masem (t) 15:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think Masem is correct. Quackery tends towards name-calling. Pseudoscience (when we use it in the strictly-speaking sense instead of the smear-word sense) imparts information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld has been topic banned. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Comment: For a better overview of the situation, here is a tally of the current voices that agree with the opinion that there is an issue with the content of the article as it stands (hereunder noted as Agree) vs. those that do not or do not specifically state they agree (which I have counted as dissent, hereunder as Disagree).
If my understanding of your opinion is wrong, please let me know so I can change accordingly! Hence the pings, apologies for the annoyance.

Agree:

• @Masem: [7] [8] ([9])

"quackery" is falling a bit into slang even if it is commonly used.

we are still meant to take a neutral, impartial tone to articles, and words like quackery are unnecessary once you establish it's pseudoscience, and non neutral, as they give rise to a non impartial view in Wiki voice.

• @North8000: [10]

Nearly every definition of "quackery" includes things like deliberate misleading, deliberate pretending and fraud. IMO this should not be in the article much less in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, and there is nothing about such aspects in the article.

• @Chipmunkdavis: [11]

"Reiki is a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery" is a pointless tautology. Also not sure why pseudoscience/pseudoscientific needs to appear 3 times in the lead in quick succession.

• @The Four Deuces: [12]

"Its practice has been characterized as quackery" must be cited to a source that says its practice has been characterized as quackery, not just sources that call it quackery. Otherwise if violates WEASEL and NOR.

• @WhatamIdoing: [13] ([14])

I think Masem is correct. Quackery tends towards name-calling. Pseudoscience (when we use it in the strictly-speaking sense instead of the smear-word sense) imparts information.

• + Dustfreeworld (topic banned)
• + myself

Disagree:

• @TarnishedPath: [15]

However I consider it to be "quackery" as it is pseduoscience. However as mentioned probably best to use the term pseudoscient unless there is a WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS calling it "quackery" in which case it would not be a WP:NPOV probablem to do likewise in the article.

• @Valjean: [16]

SBM is an excellent RS for this type of topic. Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources, opinions and writings of mainstream authors have more due weight than the writings of promoters of fringe practices, and that includes all of alternative medicine. See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Due and undue weight. Beyond that, when in doubt, use attribution. More due weight means, among other things, the amount of content and the prominence of mention. Criticisms belong in the lead.

• @MrOllie: [17] [18] [19]

NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia should avoid reporting the facts. Quacks need not be deliberate frauds - sometimes they are just well meaning but ignorant folks who have avoided educating themselves. That doesn't mean we should avoid doing so on Wikipedia.

• @Tgeorgescu: [20] [21]

“Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Quoted from PMID: 15208545.

• @AndyTheGrump: [22] [23]

This is (or at least, claims to be) an online encyclopaedia. As such, it is intended to promote knowledge, If that upsets the ignorant, that's their problem, not ours.

Perhaps you should explain the need for Wikipedia to state that Reiki is pseudoscience to Dustfreeworld.

Unclear or Neutral:

• @ActivelyDisinterested: [24]

Sceince-Based Medicine has been discussed quite a few times on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Although it's not liked by many the consensus has been that it's a reliable source, see WP:SBM for details.

• @DIYeditor: [25] ([26] [27])

Maybe it could be more specific as to labeled quackery by whom (scientists? journalists? quacks?) but I don't see the problem with it. If it is medical pseudoscience, it is quackery, isn't it? Anyway, we aren't saying it in Wikipedia's voice, we're pointing out that it has been characterized as such by presumably relevant persons to the topic.

Summary of Agreeing Positions:

• “quackery” may be unwarranted in this context and especially in the lead
• “pseudoscience” being mentioned as often as it is in the article is gratuitous
• the existence of both terms in quick succession are superfluous and skew POV
• the article may be guilty of WP:WEASEL in some points

As I see it, there is no consensus, but there is lively-enough debate about the points of the matter that it warrants further pursuit. What are editors’ opinions as to the next steps to be taken? Cheers, –Konanen (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The sentence in question now reads David Gorski has characterized Reiki as a quackery that is disconnected from reality.[28] The main issue I had with using 'quackery' was that it sounded flippant. As this is now an attributed statement, rather than wikivoice I don't see a problem with it. Recent editing has also solved the repetition of 'pseudoscience'. As both issues are now solved they can't be said to skew POV.
If you have concerns that anything in the article is weaselly I suggest detailing those concerns at the articles talk page, I don't see anything detailed here or the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! I am not sure the lead is the right place to be mentioning David Gorski, Jann Bellamy, Stephen Barrett, or the Catholic Church. None of these individuals or entities have anything to do with Reiki per se. As an example, I’d like to point to the last paragraph of the article about Homeopathy:

In the 21st century, a series of meta-analyses have shown that the therapeutic claims of homeopathy lack scientific justification. As a result, national and international bodies have recommended the withdrawal of government funding for homeopathy in healthcare. National bodies from Australia, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and France, as well as the European Academies' Science Advisory Council and the Russian Academy of Sciences have all concluded that homeopathy is ineffective, and recommended against the practice receiving any further funding. The National Health Service in England no longer provides funding for homeopathic remedies and asked the Department of Health to add homeopathic remedies to the list of forbidden prescription items. France removed funding in 2021, while Spain has also announced moves to ban homeopathy and other pseudotherapies from health centers.

Except for the person who invented the concept, Samuel Hahnemann, no other individual is mentioned in the lead, because it would be WP:UNDUE to do so. A look at other articles in the category of Fringe medicine and science shows similarly well-worded NPOV articles, and I am hard-pressed to find mentions within the lead of any names of individualsnunrelated to the subject matter. I do not think the edits do justice to WP:NPOV, but rather to hide a non-neutral POV behind the shield of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I think the lead, as it is, has not improved, but traded off some problems for others. –Konanen (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead of homeopathy is full of attributed statements, they may not be individuals but that isn't a big difference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a big fan anywhere of using attributed statements in the lede unless the speaker is an immediately recognized authority (like WHO or CDC), otherwise while you can attribute such things this can play to favoritism, or RGW-ing. Masem (t) 13:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: IMHO, it is a big difference, since the entities linked in the article about Homeopathy are Academies of Science, National Health Services, and the Department of Health & Social Care, which are primarily tasked with weighing in on topics that relate to medical science in conjunction with (public) health (policies). Individuals and the Catholic Church usually are not. –Konanen (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The Catholic Church runs hospitals and is mentioned in the article directly relating to the articles subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with AD, and add that Reiki isn't really "medical science". This book says "Reiki traditionalists simply claim to channel their god’s divine energy". That's religion, and therefore a fair subject for other religious groups to comment on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Konanen, I don’t think your separation of agree/disagree is entirely useful insofar as it doesn’t consider if there is consensus based on nuances. TarnishedPath^talk 13:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• In general, labels (especially contentious labels) should be attributed in text, unless multiple reliable sources use it. Care should be taken not to give UNDUE weight to any single source’s viewpoint. Avoid using contentious labels in the lead (as they often require further context). Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  At the moment, I think the main unresolved point is whether "David Gorski called in quackery" needs to be in the lead plus the body, or whether it's sufficient to put it in the body alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  These are considerations that can easily be dealt with at the article's talk page. I think it is counterproductive to continue this thread away from those who watch the article. Can we close this now? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Although I do not agree with the objections, I have removed the mention of Gorski and quackery from the lead. The coverage in the body may be enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Those are great edits! As the article and its lead stand at the moment, I have no substantial objections. I am happy this has found a resolution, thank you for your efforts. –Konanen (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You are very welcome.

Let's move the discussion to Talk:Reiki#Lead again and close this thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Great Barrington Declaration

Article: Great Barrington Declaration

I'd like to bring the forementioned article to the attention of the noticeboard.

Issues:

• The article content seems to have a clear bias of criticism against the declaration.
• The article has multiple paragraphs where sentences read more like an editorial, not a factual wikipedia article
• The editing history on the article shows a continuous reversal of seemingly factual edits made by other editors

Examples:

A few examples (pasted from the article verbatim, problematic sections bolded):

• "It claimed harmful COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the fringe notion of "focused protection", by which those most at risk of dying from an infection could purportedly be kept safe while society otherwise took no steps to prevent infections" - Negative bias in framing the content. Multiple reverts in the edit history regarding different editors attempting to remove the "fringe" claim in its current phrasing.
• "By October 2020, many of these things had already happened in some parts of the world, but likewise were being restricted elsewhere; for instance the UK saw quarantines of students, travel advisories, restrictions on meeting other people, and partial closures of schools, pubs and restaurants." - An editorial-like sentence that appears under the "Background and content" section. The content section should focus on the content of the declaration, not editors adding their own interpretations of the context.
• "The declaration does not provide practical details about who should be protected or how they can be protected. For instance, it does not mention testing any people outside of nursing homes, contact tracing, wearing masks, or social distancing. It mentions multi-generational households but does not provide any information about how, for example, low-risk people can get infected without putting high-risk members of their household at risk of dying." - Again, the whole paragraph is an editorial and WP:OR
• "The declaration does not provide any references to published data that support the declaration's strategy." - Again, with the phrasing used, this is WP:OR. A single source provided as reference to the claim is a newspaper article. At the very least, this should be phrased as "Critics have claimed that the declaration does not provide any references to published data that support the declaration's strategy. I will attempt to correct this and will see how long the correction will remain.

~~~~

Saltsjöbaden (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is too misleadingly framed to result in well-informed outside opinions. Much of what is described as editorial opinion or original research is pulled directly from reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Another example of non-NPOV behavior by editors can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Barrington_Declaration#Signatories Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

After reading the content and checking the cited sources, the article looks neutral to me—in that it neutrally summarizes what reliable, secondary sources say, and it gives prominence to available mainstream viewpoints over fringe viewpoints. I'll also say that highlighting a list of signatories that aren't highlighted in secondary sources is a great example of an edit that should be reverted on sight, not only for NPOV reasons but BLP as well. Woodroar (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a case of Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content.

@Saltsjöbaden, when nearly all of the reliable sources say that this proposal is vague, unworkable, will result in hospitals collapsing, increase the total number of deaths, etc., then the Wikipedia article is required by policy to reflect this dominant view as being the dominant view. It is not "neutral" to pretend that both views are equally plausible.

About your claim that editors adding their own interpretations of the context: It is a fact that you can't have the schools open for in-person instruction of all kids and still keep all high-risk adults (aka their teachers, almost half of whom qualified as high-risk) at home. It is a fact that you can't have all kids in school and keep their high-risk family members from being exposed to the germs that the kids will share at school. In the US, about 20% of kids live in multi-generational homes. "Go to school" and "Nobody living with Grandma (or the baby) should go anywhere" are mutually exclusive options. These are not "my interpretations"; these are things that come from reliable sources. They are also facts, not opinions. It is not "editorializing"; it is "explaining".

We could go further: I understand that there are sources saying that the reason GBD doesn't provide any details is because they knew (or ought to know) that this was not workable in practice, but they wanted to make a political splash despite knowing that their whole idea was bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Really hard to see anything failing NPOV here. The letter was strongly criticized by experts in medicine and virology, among other sciences. It's ideas may have some possible credibility but there stances were unproven and went against the prevailing scientific thought. As such it is presented in the correct tone to reflect that it's claims are dubious, rather that yet proven

Masem (t) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel an edit war simmering

Dadude sandstorm keeps changing Ursula Andress' longstanding infobox photo to an unrecognizable photo taken in her teens [29] [30] (around a decade before she even became famous, by the way).

Everyone knows that BLP infoboxes should use modern photos. I can already tell from the vocabulary in the second edit summary that the odds of this user being reasonable are slim. Any of you willing to take the reigns? Ieonine (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, @Ieonine. Thanks for the report. Have you ever started any Wikipedia:Requests for comment? It's not difficult. Try a question like "Which image should be used in the infobox?" You might give people a link to c:Category:Ursula Andress and to whichever guidelines you think are relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that a little premature? It hasn't even been discussed on the talk page yet. It's only between two editors, so Wikipedia:Third opinion would also work. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The top of Talk:Ursula Andress has an older discussion on the same subject. This apparently has been a bone of contention for a long time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Everyone knows that BLP infoboxes should use modern photos. I'm not sure that's a rule. BLP image selection should consider many factors, and one of those is whether the image represents the subject in a way that is concordant in weight with the rest of the article. This is why we use a picture of Bill Gates as a businessman, not his mugshot, and why we use a picture of Harrison Ford from during his acting career rather than a picture of him as a shirtless carpenter, and why we include a picture of Pope Francis as an old pope rather than as a young priest.

Ursula Andress's notability stems from her work in the 1960s and 1970s, and that's the centre of gravity of the article, so ideally we'd have a photo from that era. The current photo that @Ieonine wants to keep is problematic (too late) and so is the replacement proposed by @Dadude sandstorm (too early). We used to use this one which seems just right. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

old and emaciated are 'unreasonable'?

'I feel an edit war simmering' what an absurd thing to start a NPOV discussion over. I made one edit and one revert. that is all daruda (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Last time I checked 1950 was neither in the 1960's or 1970's. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

what is this a reference to? daruda (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Well the edit warring seemed to be over one from the 50's. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Everyone knows that BLP infoboxes should use modern photos, I disagree. For historical figures (i.e. those dead or retired) we should be using the best quality photo that is most representative of the subject, preferably at a time of peak fame. Curbon7 (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

THANK YOU daruda (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Gaza Health Ministry

Some non-involved editors would be welcome at Gaza Health Ministry.

The context is essentially

• Israel and the US expressed unspecific doubts about GHM's casualty data.
• Organizations like the UN say the GHM's data has historically been reliable.
• Two peer-reviewed articles published in The Lancet did not find evidence of inflated or fabricated data. (Edit: turns out the articles are "correspondence" and not peer reviewed, see here and here.)
• Later, statistics professor Abraham Wyner wrote in Tablet (magazine) that the data contained irregularities, such as a strong negative correlation between male and female deaths.
• Later still, Michael Spagat wrote about GHM's "declining data quality", explained by a shift to user-submitted reports as hospitals have closed.

The current lede is unbalanced, emphasizing the sources that say the data is reliable, while not mentioning opposing viewpoints at all. My various attempts to include brief mentions of the latter (even just "received significant attention and scrutiny") have been reverted.

The argument seems to be that the two peer-reviewed Lancet articles trump non-peer-reviewed sources, making opposing viewpoints somewhat fringe. However, the two Lancet articles are older, and focused on very different aspects of the data. In some sense they support opposing narratives, but they absolutely don't contradict one another.

The current article also quotes a blog comment by "Ken M", with speculation about how the irregularities noted by Wyner might be explained. My attempt to remove that was reverted as well. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you might want to reflect on the concept of Materiality (auditing). No source I've seen thinks the GHM data is dramatically wrong. It's even possible that it's an undercount (e.g., bodies that haven't been found in the rubble yet). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree an undercount is plausible. No reliable sources really claim that the total is clearly inflated, just that it shouldn't be considered very reliable, especially recent data from the current war.

Some milder versions of this viewpoint are very mainstream, even uncontroversial. E.g. The Telegraph factually notes that (at the time) ~54% of the data was from hospital sources, with the rest coming from a combination of media sources and a Google form.

I suppose reasonable editors can disagree about materiality, but I think there are also very objective problems here, such as

• Framing Roberts' article as a refutation of Wyner's, when it doesn't discuss Wyner's arguments at all, only mentions it once in passing
• Using two blog comments to counter some of Wyner's arguments, one from an anonymous "Ken M" with unknown credibility

There has been significant resistance to fixing even the most clear issues like these. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Those blogs are by professors, the first by Lior Pachter, a professor of statistics who dismissed the first argument. The Ken M comment is not in because of whoever they are but because James Joyner, a professor of security studies, said it showed insight. Professor Les Roberts, who is an expert in such matters, has like you say just one comment on Wyner's article - right in the lead: "Israel’s U.N. ambassador and online pundits have purported that the numbers are exaggerated or, as a recent article in Tablet alleged, simply faked. Actually, the numbers are likely conservative. The science is extremely clear." Professor Wyners article was the one in Tablet (magazine) and if that is okay then they're okay too in the article. None of this should be in the lead. NadVolum (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As we discussed on the talk page, Joyner included the "Ken M" blog comment in a compilation of quotes and referred to it as an "insight", but didn't engage with it at all beyond that. It still seems like a pretty clear WP:USERGENERATED violation, since the argument is still from "Ken M", not from Joyner.

Right, Roberts mentioned Wyner's article once, and in some broad sense he's arguing in a different direction, but he doesn't respond to any of the specific points Wyner made. I think that makes "Wyner [...] wrote [...] to which [...] Roberts responded" rather misleading.

Not to mention that Pachter's blog post is framed as a refutation of Wyner's "main point", when it really only applies to a single figure. (The text of Wyner's first argument refers to variance in daily deaths, not the cumulative sum that Pachter argues is misleading.) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Lior Pachter, Les Roberts (epidemiologist), and James Joyner all have their own articles and I would hope that they have some idea of what they're doing when they bother to write things. Just seen Wyner also had something from Joshua Loftus, professor of statistics and data science at LSE, saying "One of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen" and "shockingly irresponsible" about the article NadVolum (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't negate the problems I mentioned. Of those three authors, only one actually engages the content of Wyner's article at all, namely Pachter's criticism of one particular visual that Wyner used. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

See the convo I linked below, Wyner's article is a minority view and critiqued. Time to drop this. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Four with Joshua Loftus. NadVolum (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And quoting professor Michael Spagat about the data quality declining doesn't justify anything Wyner did. NadVolum (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see why Abraham Wyner's article should be given any special prominence over any other sources. It's just an article in a magazine. To make it any more prominent than that seems like a violation of WP:DUE. Silverseren^C 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that the Gaza Health Ministry#Other analysis section (where Wyner's magazine article is mentioned) should be in the article at all. The article feels a bit more like a deep-dive into details and he said/she said bickering, instead of an encyclopedic summary of the subject. Also, the article is wildly unbalanced; there are ~1300 words on casualty counts and ~200 words total on everything else. Don't they have, like hospitals and budgets and employees and things like that? We're treating them as if their sole purpose is to count deaths. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  +1 Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I suspect the vast majority of coverage of them is in relation to their casualty counts. BilledMammal (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you only look at coverage during the last six months and in the popular press, you might be right. But in the 17 years before that, I think there was other coverage. The 2007 doctor's strike gets a few sentences; perhaps someday this, too, will get just a few sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're right, there should be a lot more about it like how many hospitals and doctors it has/had and it's record in looking after health issues. Do you know of some sort of tag for that kind of issue? NadVolum (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Remember this convo? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Tablet_(magazine)_and_article_by_Wharton_statistician Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I remember that okay. There's been responses by academics now so perhaps the business can end. NadVolum (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  One would hope so. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would be in favor of a WP:SPINOUT article called "Reliability of Gaza Health Ministry casualty data" to correct the balancing issue.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Might be a good idea, put a stop to all this "Hamas run" discussion every ten minutes. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Gaza Health Ministry is fairly short and is a natural place to look about that if a person is bothered. I'm not keen on such a split, at least not without a lot more development of the article. NadVolum (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  To me, this would be an inappropriate split, especially because the article is not long. Further, splitting it off would make it more difficult for due weight discussions, as they would have to occur over multiple articles. If the information isn’t due weight to include in the main article, then a split doesn’t make it due weight. If the main article is too long as a whole, then a split can be considered.

  I also find problematic the splitting of scientific studies from the section below where people voice their support/concern with those articles. This basically gives “double weight” to the scientific studies compared to the governments. Ideally, the most important/discussed studies would be given a sentence or two each, and immediately be followed by at most a sentence or two of that study’s analysis by other academics, etc. Very, very rarely would it be due weight to give credence to someone’s opinion of a study when the study itself isn’t due weight to be included in the article. And even then, only significant criticisms or adoption/agreement should be covered - some studies may not have any significant criticism/adoption and thus would only be covered themselves.

  Perhaps the solution here is to condense the “analysis” into two sections - governmental (and intergovernmental such as UN) analysis, and then a section for academic/independent analysis. Neither section should be too long, and care must be taken to ensure that the balance of general academic consensus is reflected in the article. This is a discussion that should continue on the talk page regarding how to handle that section - with a link to it from here - and only brought here if the talk page fails to come to a consensus.

  To summarize my view: American and Israeli government analysis is too big for now and needs to include information about other bodies, and there is no reason that people repeating scientific papers needs to be in the article - the papers themselves and a summary of their proponents can be covered in a single section. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  The sentence If the information isn’t due weight to include in the main article, then a split doesn’t make it due weight doesn't sound quite right to me. It's obvious that information could be an undue level of detail for our article about History and still a completely appropriate level of detail for our article about History of Gaza. Similarly, something could be undue for Gaza Health Ministry and still appropriate for an article about a subtopic like Gaza Health Ministry casualty data.

  However, I agree that even in a subtopic, it is possible to overemphasize certain things or to go into an unencyclopedic level of detail. We are looking for the Goldilocks balance, even in a specialized subtopic article. I think your suggestions are sound overall. Especially if the content stays in this article, condensing it and removing anything that looks like a "me too" duplication or endorsement would help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that it’s not a subtopic being proposed but a content fork. I agree that I could’ve been much clearer that my comments applied to content forks. Summary style still does apply when a split/sub article isn’t a content fork.

  I tend to think that, at least at this point, there is not a real need to split it off for size, and I’m not sure the casualty data can be covered in its own article without it turning into a POV fork. If and when the article becomes large (adding more history/operational/etc information, if possible), then the casualty data would be a good option for a split and summary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that there's no WP:SIZE problem here, but I'm not sure that it's actually possible to create a POV fork about casualty data. The only reason to split it would be that it's overall too detailed (i.e., about all of the POVs) for the general article, not that there isn't enough room for extra details about a single viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  If it’s too detailed about all of the POVs, that’s a sign that we may be being too broad in the coverage. Everyone and their mother can publish an opinion about the evidence/beliefs - but not all of them should be in the encyclopedia. Not even all of the authors/academics with articles who have opined should be covered. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The map in Anatolia

We seem to have a problem in Anatolia with this map [31]. Only one modern source uses this limited definition of Anatolia (Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary) as far as I'm aware. Most sources define Anatolia as the entire Asian area of Turkey. The sources can be found in the article. This map [32] seems more appropriate. Can we get a few comments on this? There was a previous RfC which wasn't closed Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?. It's currently being discussed here: Talk:Anatolia#The_map_issue_again Bogazicili (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The RfC has been requested to be closed [33] yesterday. It's not constructive to open a new discussion on the talk and another one in here when the RfC hasn't been formally closed. Vanezi (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know you requested closure, you didn't say on the talk page. Bogazicili (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Excessive? pushback on Disney CEO's comment at The Marvels

The movie and therefore the article has become a small battleground in the woke vs anti-woke discourse so I think it's appropriate to bring it to this board. Disney's CEO made comments about why The Marvels movie failed, one of which was poor supervision by executives. The supervision part of those comments and the criticism of it is currently taking up a third of the box office section: The_Marvels#Box_office. Here's me initiating the discussion about that Talk:The_Marvels#Do_we_need_so_much_pushback_back_against_Iger's_comment?. It goes on for a very long time so TLDR is that I thought it was excessive, and pointed out how parts of it was actually not in the sources being cited. I kept being told by like 5 editors that it was in the sources, but when I asked where (like half a dozen times), was never told. Eventually it's acknowledged it's not in the sources so the content is changed and additional sources are added.

The issue is that the pushback is even more excessive now, and specifically This came amid a wider narrative in the Hollywood media, which some attributed to Disney, in which DaCosta appeared to be unfairly targeted. is also inappropriate given only one commentator is alleging the director has been unfairly targeted Disney, and only one is alleging the director has been unfairly targeted by the media (the CBR article is saying the "fandom" believes it so I don't think that applies either). The media angle is also wrong to include because this is about Iger's comment and people attacking him for it, shoe-horning another commentator saying there's a media narrative against the director is wrongfully padding the attacks on Iger. Also wrong to state as a fact that DaCosta appeared to be unfairly targeted.

So I believe it's undue weight to give this minor story a third of the box office section, and undue weight for Iger's 16 words insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame for the film's failure. to be attacked with 129 words.

These are some options I propose: Disney CEO Bob Iger also attributed the film's failure to the large amount of MCU content that Disney had produced for its streaming service, but he added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame as well. Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully blaming DaCosta, noting that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office.

Disney CEO Bob Iger also attributed the film's failure to the large amount of MCU content that Disney had produced for its streaming service, but he added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame as well. Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully blaming DaCosta, noting that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office and characterized his statement as throwing the director "under the bus". Tikaboo (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You're not going to like this answer, but after looking over the talk page discussion, my suggestion would be to move on to something else. 10,000 words have been spilt, most of them your own, over a few sentences of reception that will inevitably be rewritten anyway once the MCU editors get started on making Phase 5 a Good Topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm basically in the sunken cost fallacy at this point :) Tikaboo (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

When can titles contain "massacre"?

From my reading of policy, the word "massacre" is inherently a non-neutral term that can only be used in the titles under one condition: if it used by a "a significant majority of English-language sources" (WP:POVNAME). In all other circumstances it must not be used. Am I reading the policy wrong?

Recently, I have proposed neutral alternatives for Nir Oz massacre, Tel al-Sultan massacre, Nuseirat refugee camp massacre. One of those involve Palestinians killing Israeli civilians and two involve Israelis killing Palestinian civilians. In each case I get incredible pushback from users saying "massacre can be a neutral term to describe what some sources describe as an intentional large scale killing of defenseless civilians." I agree that a strong case can be made in each case that the perpetrators deliberately and cruelly killed innocents. Yet it is also a fact that the perpetrators (and their supporters) denied doing so. The essence of WP:NPOV is "Articles must not take sides". So calling an event massacre, when a majority of RS don't do so, is taking sides and violates NPOV.

Tagging those making such arguments so they can present contrarian views here Number 57, The Great Mule of Eupatoria, Jebiguess, FortunateSons, Nishidani etc. I would like there to be a single standard on when we call an event a "massacre", regardless of whether the victims are Israelis or Palestinians.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what the WP:COMMONNAME is in reliable sources. The My Lai massacre and the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre are widely known by those names, so those are the names that should be used for those events. The same would apply to these events in Gaza; is the term massacre used widely in sources or is it in certain media only or is it not used at all and is an editorial invention, etc. Curbon7 (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Your reading is correct. If someone is trying to define "massacre" and decide themselves whether it's applicable instead of just going with what the sources call it, then they should probably edit in a different area until they have better familiarity with core content policies. This is not a topic area for editors who are still learning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I base this on the fact several Arabic sources refer to the events I am proposing being named “massacres” as such. The problem is that Wikipedia editors only want to refer to English RS, which I have pointed out have a systematic bias, in many cases not being able to pin the blame on Israel let alone refer to a massacre as such. With many Arabic sources referring to dropping 6 tons of bombs over the heads of 195 civilians as a “massacre”, that does not mean it has to be euphemised because an English western “RS” that does not acknowledge Israel as a perpetrator and refers to Palestinians being killed in the passive sense doesn’t call it as such The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(ec) What about sources that are neither English nor Arabic, e.g., El País, Le Monde, La Jornada, Der Spiegel? Do they use the term massacre? NightHeron (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

They should be used too especially if the situation surrounds an area speaking these language. I only specified Arabic because Gaza is mostly Arabic speaking and because it’s my first language so I usually refer to sources from there The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This simply isn't workable as policy. Even if we ignore recognizability as a criterion, terms do not neatly translate across languages. WP:NC specifies that we limit ourselves to English-language RS for naming conventions largely due to this, I imagine. Remsense诉 13:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I mentioned the other languages. English sources have a repulsive bias in this war and there should be an exception made: for example this sky news article just yesterday

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/eight-israeli-soldiers-killed-inside-gaza-as-palestinian-death-toll-tops-37-000-13153582

Note that it uses active tense (killed) for Israeli soldiers while using passive tense (death) for Palestinian casualties in the same headline. This is juts one example, and with such bias are you really going to expect English sources to call a massacre as such and expect us to use them exclusively? Not to mention that Arabic is one of the main languages in the locale of this war so it is better to use it (alongside Hebrew for balance) in some cases than English The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the concerns I brought up. Remsense诉 14:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I am explaining the problem with limiting ourselves to English RS, especially surrounding a place where English isn’t the main language The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You're ignoring that the fundamental concern is specifically with naming and titling. We use non-English RS happily when characterizing events in prose. Remsense诉 15:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand translation concerns but we do Help:Interlanguage links all the time. There are excellent translation dictionaries available to assist us. Opening up non-English RS could be the easiest way to solve the issue of WP:Systemic Bias.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between linking between different language articles on something and choosing wording. Sorry, but non-English sources do not, cannot, and should not count for anything in determining what the English name for something is. This is NOT systemic bias, this is just how languages work. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any Wikipedia policy that says that "non-English sources do not, cannot, and should not count for anything in determining what the English name for something is"? Certainly some cognates in different languages have different meanings. But not always. I believe that massacre in French and masacre in Spanish have meanings and connotations very close to massacre in English. And RS in French- and Spanish-speaking countries would tend to be less biased on Israel/Palestine issues than in English-speaking countries. NightHeron (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It does specifically state this in WP:COMMONNAME like I've said, yes. Remsense诉 11:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says only that Wikipedia "generally prefers" English-language sources for determining names. It doesn't say "always", and in this case coverage in non-English sources is often more neutral and balanced than in English-language sources. NightHeron (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

At the top of the first body section of NC: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. The listed recognizability and naturalness criteria are key issues here. Remsense诉 13:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says: "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". That is not the same as your statement that "Wikipedia "generally prefers" English-language sources for determining names". It quite clearly says that names are determined from English-language sources and that generally the most common names in such sources will be used. I can see no way to read it the way you are trying to. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

For the specific case of massacre the question is whether or not the rules should be followed. Perhaps this discussion needs to take place elsewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

In the sentence Khajidha quotes the words "generally prefers" refers to the rest of the sentence. It means that the rule that follows usually applies, but not always. That is, in certain situations there might be a reason to take other factors into account. In this case other considerations are that (1) some other languages have a word for "massacre" that has the same meaning and the same connotations as the English word, (2) the massacres in Israel and Gaza have been extensively covered in the international press, and (3) foreign-language sources are often much less biased than English-language sources. NightHeron (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it says that the most common name is generally preferred. It then states that common names are determned from English language usage. The "generally" doesn't apply to the material in parentheses. This is basic reading comprehension.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It then says is the operative here. Look, with all due respect, long time editors are well aware of how WP works and if we think that the question being asked was a request to state what the rules say, then one should disabuse oneself of that notion. Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The Intercept Re the systemic bias problem "Highly emotive terms for the killing of civilians like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” were reserved almost exclusively for Israelis who were killed by Palestinians, rather than the other way around. (When the terms appeared in quotes rather than the editorial voice of the publication, they were omitted from the analysis.)" Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

And the core issue with naming and titling based on non-English sources hasn't been acknowledged at all yet. Remsense诉 17:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for an editor to notice that most of the sources are biased the same way, and then fight to correct the bias. This is called "righting great wrongs", and people rightly get banned for it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty much an aspersion, and wrong headed to boot. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The RGW cliché is as usual meaningless in its lack of cogency. Calling a spade a spade when some clunky consensus asserts it is spoon is just pointing out the obvious that most refuse to admit to. It's not about righting a wrong, but of not making the wrong call. History doesn't make things right. It strives to get things right, not least by refusing to use double standards in evaluating the behaviour of both parties to a conflict.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but calling a spade a spade is the real useless cliché here. We don't get to decide what spades are, even when it hurts. Remsense诉 13:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't get to decide what spades are That's quite comical, linguistically. A spade is a spade because the object accords precisely with its accepted definition, which we ignore to our illiterate peril. To suggest otherwise is to underwrite Humpty Dumpty's theory of semantics, i.e. that any word means just what anyone chooses it to mean — neither more nor less. A massacre is 'the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of human beings' (O.E.D (1989) vol.9 p.436, col.1) To not apply the word to a situation where multiple deaths of up to 270 people in precisely targeted strikes recur endlessly means that the mass slaughter of bystanders in each of a hundred cases was both 'necessary' and 'discriminating'. A canker in a rose by any other name would still blight and reek. What is anomalous in wiki usage is that we do get to decide what is a massacre (52 Israeli civilians killed in an assault) and what is not a massacre (52 Palestinians killed in a missile strike). The semantic discriminations (in all senses) on wiki here are grounded in ethnic empathy/insouciance, an ethnosemantics, because our rules privilege RS that reflect this bias. Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm acutely aware of the unsolved problems in the philosophy of language as I was just speaking about. Remsense诉 16:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning me.

I’m assuming you are referring to due to the nature of the event (targeting civilians directly and 'interpersonally') and the coverage, where there is sufficient RS coverage. It's important to note that two of the listed sources (AP, TOI,) use massacre in direct quotes. Other uses (from sources in the article) include:

I listed 18 English-language sources (in total, not just the cited ones) that used the word (and there were 9 listed that didn’t, of which 2 did in direct quotes); could you elaborate on how my reasoning differs from yours?

The first sentence (mentioning the nature of the event) is generally a common argument in such cases, showing that the title fits the content of the article.

In my opinion, my argument showed that the title was used by at the very least the large majority of mentioned English-language RS, a claim that was IMO not sufficiently disproven (though I didn’t have time to file a MR yet, so it’s unclear if I’m right).

I would consider the single standard to be the clear majority of presented English-language RS (with an interesting question being how we count multiple articles from the same source, particularly when the use is inconsistent). FortunateSons (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: I commend you for citing sources, that's great. My objection is to "due to the nature of the event (targeting civilians directly and 'interpersonally')". I don't think its a valid line of argument, and lets see if consensus says otherwise.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Just for the sake of clarity, you don’t mean that my subsumption is implausible, but are asking if such arguments are in general permitted? FortunateSons (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I'm trying to argue that whether to use "massacre" should only be decided based on how common it is on sources (which you did indeed do) not based on whether users think the event's nature matches the definition of massacre (which I felt you implied when you wrote "due to the nature of the event (targeting civilians directly").VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. I believe it should be a secondary factor in edge cases, but obviously not primary. FortunateSons (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between sources naming/calling something a massacre and their usage of the term, often in quotes/described by. Personally, I would rather not use this word at all but if we do, then we need to acknowledge the reality of systemic bias, whereby media sources are themselves not neutrally using the word.

If we look at Massacre, the first line reads "A massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless." Now WP is not itself a source but that line is sourced to a well known dictionary. By that definition, lots of things that we might describe as "killings" or something else are in fact massacres. The second line reads "It is generally used to describe a targeted killing of civilians en masse by an armed group or person." which is a bit different because "targeted" implies intention; but that line is unsourced afaics.

If we are to use it, and I would rather discourage its use, what I would prefer is some sort of definition that cannot be easily gamed like the first line of the massacre article and the source requirement be that the word is used in the sense of the definition by at least some sources. Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether media sources aren’t neutrally using the term isn’t for us to decide; to do so would in fact violate WP:NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is an essay, Wikipedia:Systemic bias. If it exists, we can address it. Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NCENPOV is very clear about when we should use massacre; we just need to follow that guideline, and closers need to dismiss !votes that are not aligned with it.

Additionally, editors who consistently apply different standards based on whether the victims were Israeli or Palestinian should be sanctioned for POV pushing. BilledMammal (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That is a guideline, this discussion is about whether things should change, not just whether things should stay the same. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'm curious on what grounds we'd change this? Neutral point of view does not mean no point of view. Remsense诉 13:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to treat "massacre" the same way as "terrorist", WP:TERRORIST? Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually do there there is a reason: people are different than events. Anyway, WP:TERRORIST says "only when in a preponderance of RS", not "never", which is correct in both cases here. Remsense诉 13:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Still a "contentious label" for all practical purposes. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You won't catch me disputing that. Remsense诉 13:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the empirical evidence available via Category:Massacres_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict suggests that an answer to the question 'When can titles contain "massacre"?' is when one (for new articles) or enough editors want the word in the title. The reasons seem to vary - actually following policy, bias, source sampling problems, reasoning from first principals rather than policy etc. The same practice appears to apply to categorization. The answer to the question 'When should titles contain "massacre"?' seems pretty well covered by policy and is straightforward. So, surprise!, there's often a misalignment between policy and behavior in the PIA topic area when it comes to the word massacre. What tends to happen unfortunately, as far as I can tell, is that editors may notice the word 'massacre' but then often only focus on half of the issue, the half that reflects negatively on their preferred side in the conflict. This is one of the many instances where you see inconsistencies with the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct that prohibits 'manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify "when one [editor] (for new articles)", there are no barriers for editors putting the word massacre in the title of a new article they create. Article titles acquire the wiki-equivalent of inertial mass once the editor hits save. So, there is a kind of asymmetry for this word in terms of the amount of work needed to add it vs change it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with categorization is broader than this; editors add categories that are contentious or even unsupported by sources based on their own assessments in almost every topic area. We're already advised against doing this per WP:CATPOV, but I'm not sure how it can be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It can be addressed by consistently warning editors who violate it, and applying tbans whenever it becomes tendentious. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I see categorizations that seem questionable pretty often. Questionable for me because I assume categories use wiki-voice. But the statement "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to pages in Wikipedia within a hierarchy of categories." has a sort of paralyzing effect for me because it emphasizes their functional role in navigation. So, when I see contentious categorizations, it's often not clear how to balance content policy with helping people to navigate. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• What would be nice is if this issue could be addressed in a more global manner to ensure consistency across the topic area, and not just for recent events. I guess there is a near zero chance of that happening. Maybe another approach that could be tried is to address it with pairs of articles, one about A killing B and the other about B killing A where editors need to participate in both RfCs. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking this discussion ought to be about the usage globally not just in the AI/IP topic area, although it seems to be more of an issue there. Selfstudier (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Probably, but I think the thread might be asking the wrong question. A different question with the potential to solve multiple issues like this might be, why is it seemingly not possible in practice to enforce or get people to comply with section 3.3 of the Universal Code of Conduct, that prohibits 'impeding or otherwise hampering the creation (and/or maintenance) of content', 'repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content without appropriate discussion or providing explanation' and 'manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view'? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That may happen in the short term but less so over time. Things that are out of whack with policy tend to get corrected eventually. Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I used to think that things that are out of whack with policy tend to get corrected eventually. Now I think that might be a faith-based belief rather than an evidence-based belief. I guess it depends on whether 'eventually' includes geological time. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Another factor to consider - do the sources use “Massacre” as part of a name for the event (example: “The Boston Massacre was one of the events that sparked the Revolution”), or merely as a description of the event (example: “The battle of Agincourt was a massacre for the French nobility”.) We need to avoid coining names based on descriptions. Doing so bumps up against WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I really agree with this in the broadest sense, but one quickly runs into unsolved problems in the philosophy of language. What is a name, versus a mere descriptor? It generally seems to be acceptable for articles to exist based on phrasal descriptor (History of IBM), even ones that don't have RS dedicated primarily to them, as long as they clear WP:N and WP:SPINOFF. I fear we might poke at the core contradictions of "what even is an encyclopedia" going down this path of inquiry. Remsense诉 14:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  In this case, it’s quite simple… ask, do sources use “massacre” as a noun or an adjective. To avoid the NOR trap of having Wikipedia “coin” a neoligistic name for the event, we need the sources to use it as a noun. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Example articles to test whether this approach would work in practice are Ma'alot massacre and Lod Airport massacre where editors have cited sources next to the titles. A practical issue seems to be that editors don't assign equal weight to the presence and absence of terms, maybe because search works so well as a confirmation bias tool for presence-of-a-term focused searches. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NCENPOV tells us that we can use "massacre" when it is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, even when it isn't part of the WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal: how do you define "word" in that context? For example, do "attack", "attacked" and "attacking" all point to the article being titled with the word "attack"? Or only the noun counts? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Given that the intent is to tell us whether a word is generally accepted, I would interpret it as any word used by the source in their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"Massacre" is an inherently emotive word, and is often used as such whether or not it might also apply neutrally. It can be very tricky to disentangle such cases. Manual opinion about whether or not an event meets X or Y definition should not be a determinant, unless explicitly arguing for a descriptive title. I'm not familiar with the sources in question, but agree with Curbon7 that it has to be a very strong common name, such as their examples, for which the commonness of the name extends widely beyond sources of a particular view (in other words, providing lists of sources that do use a term is not by itself too helpful, as it can be done even with minority terms, or even plurality terms). CMD (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to add to the discussion that sometimes the consensus on an articles name changes over time. Tulsa Race Massacre was Tulsa Race Riot for years before the WP:COMMONNAME changed outside of Wikipedia. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's well-documented that Western, Israeli, and Arab media all have major biases in their phrasing of the deaths and actions of Israelis and Palestinians. This makes WP:COMMONNAME the most reliable, but could also be inherently euphemistic. This excerpt from an AP article, despite being renowned for it's neutrality in US and world politics, treats the intentional targeting of civilians as collateral and incidental, absolving the IDF of responsibility with "appears to have killed" versus the active voice of "Palestinian militants ... opened fire on the rescuers." The excerpt also doesn't distinguish between Palestinian civilians and Hamas by using the word Palestinian twice.

"Palestinian militants armed with machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades opened fire on the rescuers, as Israel called in heavy strikes from land and air to cover their evacuation to the coast. “A lot of fire was around us,” Hagari said. It was this bombardment that appears to have killed and wounded so many Palestinians."

Compare it to this article by AP about an ADF massacre in Kivu, which describes the killing of civilians in active voice. Titling the Kivu massacres as such on a Wikipedia article wouldn't be NPOV despite not following common name while the Nuseirat AP article glosses over the civilians killed in that event. In these situations, I think deciding whether the situation fits the definition of massacre and WP:SPADE should be considered if language from traditional RS relating to a possible common name is euphemistic. I am in favor of changing more article titles especially in the I-P conflict to massacre, and that the word should be generally be considered NPOV when civilians are killed en masse, although there are and will be situations where other titles fit an event like that best. Jebiguess (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree, I think "massacre" should generally be considered a non-neutral term regardless of the civilian death count. "Massacre" implies intent, which is generally unknowable. There are cases where intent is quite obvious, such as the Re'im music festival massacre, but in most cases there isn't strong evidence of intent. One can often find certain sources which make assumptions or insinuations about intent, but more neutral sources generally refrain from speculating about intent, as should we.

I think WP:SPADE also isn't very applicable since there are generally more neutral terms we can pick, such as "attack", with roughly equal accuracy and clarity. In any case, it can't override WP:NPOVTITLE. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that we should account for the sources' bias and declare for ourselves that it meets the definition? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thats not an inherently non-neutral term... It all depends on the context. For example if I was to make a page for the Massacre Rim Dark Sky Sanctuary the name is neutral whether or not the event the geographic feature was named for actually was a massacre or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd suggest its use in Zong massacre is perfectly appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, I was just trying to give the next levels up with the Dark Sky Sanctuary example... Its two steps removed from any actual event, first there was some sort of mass killing... Then a geographic feature was named after that event... Then a political feature was named after that geographic feature... So even if its not approriate to refer to that first mass killing as a massacre there wouldn't be any wiki NPOV issues at all with the name of the park. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  But in that case "Massacre Rim" would be the WP:COMMONNAME right?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  No it would be the official name, or do you mean just Massacre Rim alone? Because alone it refers to the geographic feature, not the associated park. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is it also not the commonname, in addition to being an official name? Both of the park and the dark sanctuary.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  One and the same, the type of park is dark sky sanctuary. Massacre Rim is the name of a geographic feature (see for example Mogollon Rim). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem posed is, why can massacre be used liberally with mass Israeli deaths, but is strongly opposed in titles dealing with mass Palestinian (civilian) deaths, which are extremely common. The answer is, RS have no problem with using it for the former, but exercise extreme caution in employing the term for the latter. The RS illustrate WP:Systemic bias, so that WP:Commonname will ensure that the ethnic distinction remains on wikipedia. There is no remedy. Titles in any case should take a back seat because what is important is writing quality content, which is lacking in both the Israeli massacre articles and the corresponding articles on mass Palestinian deaths.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Well put. Like elsewhere, Wikipedia has to follow and not lead—it's not our place to change the media landscape, only to make it more accessible. Far be it from me to point to the rules in face of obvious miscarriage of justice, but Wikipedia's are rules I genuinely do believe pan out in the end. Remsense诉 19:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You put this distinction way better than I could have. Jebiguess (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani: And this article documents some of this as pointed out by WikiFouf. But what exactly do we about this bias? Should we propose that more non-English sources be considered (assuming it doesn't create translation issues)? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thats one of the questions which has been asked... But there is another (or two more if you want to look at it another way) "When can titles contain "massacre"?" / "Am I reading the policy wrong?." I have no answer for the specific Israel-Palestine conflict question... But for "Am I reading the policy wrong?" the answer is a clear and unambiguous "Yes you are." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: so assuming massacre is not used in a WP:COMMONNAME related to the article, nor is it a commonly used term as per WP:NCENPOV, then when else can it be appropriate to use it? And most importantly, based on what criteria? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

When its the official or formal name for something, like in the given example of the Massacre Rim Dark Sky Sanctuary. Based on the existing criteria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• This seems like a case where we ought to wait for dustbto have since settled to see what the RSes say. Trying to define anything happen in Gaza as a massacre would be a mess knowing the issues of nationalistic siding that has taken place. Maybe 10, 20 years down the road, well after the current conflict is over and a more rigorous analysis of the events, can we turn the RSes for the best term. But on the short term, we should use a less extreme term like "killings" or "attack". Masem (t) 00:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Rather optimistic to think that waiting a decade or two will resolve this. If you line up 119 young men against a wall and mow them down with machine guns, IP history will eventually call that a massacre after several decades, as we do at 1956 Rafah massacre. If you kill 42 cadets, on parade, because they are, as was said at the time, potential future Hamas terrorists, then it is not deliberate slaughter of civilians, perhaps because it happened only 16 years ago.

A proposal to recognize what happened at Kafr Qasim in 1956 as a massacre was knocked back in the Knesset after 65 years had elapsed. Most obvious massacres there, in anyone's language, aren't even remembered (except by Palestinians), let alone covered by RS except in tiptoey snippets of reportage. A decade ago, I thought of writing an Arafat Police Academy massacre article, but dropped it, not finding any significant body of Western mainstream RS mentioning it as such, despite the fact that this first airstrike in Operation Cast Lead, at 11:25 am on December 2008 targeted a group of civilian police whom, by all definitions in international law (Goldstone report 2009 pp.100ff.), are not considered militants in so far as they constitute the law and order arm of a civil administration . 42 cadets, all lined up on for their graduation ceremony, as their families and relatives looked on, were 'taken out' by three missiles fired from a comfortable distance, along with another 57 in a few minutes (240 altogether in the ensuing days of airstrikes on police stations). None had ever engaged in combat with Israeli forces, and the surviving members were instructed to restrict their duties to policing Gazans even when Israeli ground troops subsequently invaded.

The undoubted mass killings of 7 October were immediately recognized as massacres by the mainstream media, rightly so, though hundreds were on active duty in the IDF. The point is, coverage of Israeli/Jewish victims is so intense, that we could easily write wiki bio stubs, with photos, of almost all of the 1139 casualties. Israeli casualties are individuals, known through service and family photo albums: their dramas are part of a (inter)national trauma, the grievings of their families are given voice to form part of our historical memory. Many of us have friends and relatives there. The 47,000 dead/missing in Gaza are not treated as individuals generally, but elements in an endless succession of mass 'Arab' deaths, 'collateral' damage in a hunt for putative murderers among them, hiding behind 'human shields'. Unlike Israeli troops, seen as decent people with normal suburban lives much like our own, defending the front line of Western civilization against a toxically lethal Islam (a meme that goes back to the Crusades, whose historical tenacity even to our times was documented by Norman Daniel in his classic Islam and the West: The Making of an Image, 1960), 'Arabs' are an essentially anonymous alien mass threat pullulating in the hovels of the barbarous fringe, and therefore, whatever the striking similarities in these incidents on both sides of the line, they must be described differently. As our rules state, we can't right the spectacular wrong of this profound cognitive prejudice in our sources, for RS language reflects it. What we can do is write articles with rigorous attention to the details buried in reportage to ascertain what does happen, and, occasionally, put a human face to these other victims, and leave it to readers to make up their own minds.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Why would denial negate a title of massacre? The crux of this argument seems to have come out of left field. 2605:B100:1132:6702:D037:A3E1:3305:55E7 (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I think "massacre" should never be part of an NDESC titling argument—only COMMONNAME. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Cargo cult

Due to a Twitter/X post, there has been an influx of new/IP users onto the talk page of the Cargo cult article contesting various aspects of it. I don't think the article has ever been great, but the topic is very difficult to write about properly because it refers to a very heterogeneous set of social political and religious movements. The opinions of experienced Wikipedia editors would be welcomed. For an introduction to the topic, I would recommend the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology entry by cargo cult expert Lamont Lindstrom, and What Happened to Cargo Cults? Material Religions in Melanesia and the West by Ton Otto. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Laken Riley Murder

I feel that there is heavy bias in the Killing of Laken Riley article which I and at least one other editor tried addressing, but were predictably ignored. Just move down to the "aftermath" section and read the main points in order:

"Riley's killing became a "national political case" during what Forbes' Sara Dorn called a "historic surge in border crossings during Biden's tenure"

"Former U.S. President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social: "Border INVASION is destroying our country and killing our citizens! The horrible murder of 22-year-old Laken Riley at the University of Georgia should have NEVER happened!" He later met with Riley's mother and stepfather before his campaign rally in Rome, Georgia on March 9, 2024." (awww)

"President Joe Biden mentioned the killing of Riley during the 2024 State of the Union address, mistakenly calling her "Lincoln Riley". The unprepared remarks came after Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene shouted Riley's name at the president" (what a hero)

Where to begin unwinding this disaster..

First, sources were produced that characterize this homicide as an episode of politicization by anti-immigration activists[34]. The reason why this tragic murder became a national story and other tragic killings that happened around the same time did not (see first link) had less to do with concern over violence against young women, which is a noble cause, and was more about demonizing migrants, which is not[35]. This speaks right to the notability of the subject, yet all requests to add this context to the article have so far been ignored in talk.

Secondly, NPR is one of several sources that's discussed Laken Riley's killing in the context of crime rates among the undocumented population.[36] Pretty much every objective researcher who's analyzed this subject is aware that undocumented migrants (ie "illegals") are significantly less likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens (both American-born and legal immigrants), so what we are dealing with here is a situation where activists are cherry-picking anecdotes to sway public opinion, quite literally the only reason Riley's case met notability criteria.

CNN talked to criminologists about this in the wake of Riley's homicide, and here's what they said.[37]

First, here's what the general public thinks:

"In a recent Pew Research Center report about the situation at the US-Mexico border, 57% of Americans say the large number of migrants seeking to enter the country leads to more crime. 'In other words, most people in the US are now tying crime to recent increases in immigration."

Versus mainstream experts:

• "When I heard about the New York incident, the first thing when I hear about this on the news is like, “Oh, God, here we go.” Because these anecdotal instances — not to minimize the seriousness ever — but the rare occurrences where individuals who are foreign-born, let alone undocumented, are engaging in crime, and it makes the news, I worry about the cascade effect of these incidents overshadowing what we know in the broader context about immigration and crime."

• "Human beings commit crime in pretty much all societies across the globe. But the bottom line is what gets lost in those anecdotal stories — those lead you to a flashpoint of negativity in which you ignore all the potentially good things that immigrants bring to our society. And it’s frustrating to try to bring evidence to the table and try to contextualize things and put it statistically when you’re arguing against this flashpoint that allows people to more or less kind of ignore everything else." (I know the feeling)

• "Across a variety of studies that use different years of data that focus on different areas of the United States — with some exceptions, there’s some nuance there. I don’t want to deny the nuance — in general, on average, we do not find a connection between immigration and crime, as is so often claimed. The most common finding across all these different kinds of studies is that immigration to an area is either not associated with crime in that area, or is negatively associated with crime in that area. Meaning more immigration equals less crime."

This is the context in which the notability of Riley's killing is to be understood. By omission, the article takes what was an exploitation of a girl's homicide for political propaganda and turns it into a natural, reasonable reaction to an "illegal" committing a murder against the backdrop of a "border invasion." Or, am I missing something here? Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I don't see what relevance social media comments have, especially ones that aren't germane to the actual topic. Bickering between political talking heads has even less reason to be included. I think that entire section can be removed. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

But also, and maybe more importantly, the subject is only notable because the suspect in her murder is an illegal immigrant, and that was exploited politically. No mention of this was made, even though sources were provided. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, what you are missing is the fact that the article in question isn’t about crime by immigrants, it’s about a specific murder and it’s impact … and in this case, the political impact of the murder is the key part of the story. What various politicians say about it is what makes this particular murder so notable. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so had the suspect been a local boy from Georgia, what are the odds this murder would've made national news headlines let alone become an issue during the State of the Union address? The reason why reliable sources are discussing the crime rates of illegal immigrants in the context of this case is because the case was politically exploited by anti-immigration activists, and that has everything to do with the subject's notability. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly… which means that the things the anti-immigration activists say about this particular murder are relevant to the article, and should be included. Note, things that pro-immigration activists say about this murder are also relevant, and should be mentioned.

Where things get more complicated (trickier) is when we start including commentary about what the various sides said. Discussing “why the anti activists are wrong” is a bit off topic, moving us away from discussing the murder itself (the topic of the article) and more into discussing the broader issue of crime by immigrants. THAT is likely a very notable topic on its own, and I would suggest creating a new article about it (if one doesn’t already exist). A lot of the “why the anti activists are wrong” commentary would probably be better placed in THAT article. Blueboar (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You might be right that the subject is notable enough to warrant its own article. The CNN piece cited the Laken Riley case along with several other examples of "migrant crime" that provoked the same pattern in political rhetoric. The issue in this section is that they quote a rather inflammatory comment made by a former president, where he is trying to link the murder to the situation at the border, as part of a broader argument about illegal immigration and violent crime, which is disputed by academic studies. I happen to agree with two other editors (one here and one on the Laken Riley talk page) that the section in question should probably be removed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think such an article about the "myth of migrant crime," would necessarily consist of articles containing the opinion of random analysts who would be in accord with the opinion of the editor(s).

The following is certainly a biased source, but no more than NPR:

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/increased-illegal-immigration-brings-increased-crime-almost-23-federal

Certainly the vast majority of illegal aliens do not commit violent crimes, however the issue here are the "bad apples." That's what some are concerned over.

Whether you agree with the politicization or not, it is entirely relevant. That is what was covered extensively in the news. Whether you think the claims of proponents of border security are valid or not is irrelevant. The reason (justified or not) that the tragic murder was covered so extensively was precisely because of the immigration debate. Therefore the coverage and responses are entirely needed. TanRabbitry (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the Heritage Foundation is in league with NPR? They are wholly unreliable on this subject in every sense of the word. As the criminologists in the CNN article explained, there's a large canon of studies on illegal immigration and crime rates, and most of them show either no relationship or a negative one (meaning there's less crime where there are more immigrants, and in fact illegal immigrants are statistically less likely to commit crimes than immigrants who've been legally naturalized, never mind American-born citizens).

What we have here is a situation where activists are cherry-picking isolated incidences of migrant crime, and then scaremongering about a "border invasion" and a violent crime epidemic. This is from the University of Wisconsin-Madison: "Undocumented immigrants far less likely to commit crimes in U.S. than citizens"[38].And here's Scientific American: "Some of the most solid evidence to date shows that President Trump’s cornerstone immigration policy was built on a wholly false premise"[39]. I really didn't want to cite this stuff because it does not mention Laken Riley and would be undue or even OR if it's used in the article; but the two sources above (NPR and CNN) do mention Laken Riley and cover the same data.

The fact that a former president and perennial candidate for president is exploiting these murders to traffic in political propaganda is the only reason this subject has any notability on a national level. Now please don't tell me you think Scientific American is as reliable as Heritage. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I just did a Google search on this so let me add this source:

https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/3/21/24097467/laken-riley-jose-antonio-ibarra-trump

I don't know what the reliability status of Vox is on here, but here's what they say:

"Trump has demagogued unauthorized immigrants as dangerous criminals since his first campaign for president, and this year he’s returning to that familiar theme, accusing immigrants of “poisoning the blood” of the country.

But while he has hosted rallies before that featured family members of people killed by unauthorized immigrants, Riley’s death seems set up to be more central to his campaign messaging than any of these prior tragedies.

Trump evidently thinks he can lay it directly at his opponent’s feet, blaming Biden’s failure to control the border (and changing the subject from Trump’s own role in scuttling Biden’s bipartisan border security bill). He’s also trying to argue that Riley’s death isn’t an isolated tragedy, but part of a larger trend of “migrant crime” — once again smearing a vast and diverse group of people as criminals."

Trump has been doing this for years and Riley's murder is just the latest example. Wikipedia needs to come up with a way to handle this considering it's going to keep happening as long as he and his minions are involved in national politics. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Sigh… no… Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. Blueboar (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

But isn't it a place to capture what reliable sources say about the significance of an event and determine why a subject warrants its own article on here? You act like everything I wrote is just my opinion when I provided sources for every last argument, and academic studies backing my statements about illegal immigration and crimes rates. But you're even suspicious about NPR and seem to think 'bias' and 'unreliability' are the same thing. Because, Heritage Foundation. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, suggesting that the Heritage Foundation is comparable to NPR is pretty silly. However, I think the pertinent issue isn't the validity of x or y source, it's whether or not such a source should even be included.

I remember this happening, and I remember the usual talking heads brewing up the usual controversy but I don't really think that is of any particular significance. At the most, perhaps a note acknowledging the controversy I could see- if it can be demonstrated that it's of any particular note, rather than the usual political rhetoric. As I indicated in a previous reply, a congresswoman shouting something and a person saying something on a platform they own doesn't really feel worthy of inclusion. Nor does single (?) reference in Forbes. Lostsandwich (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It isn't significant if you can come up with another explanation as to why this murder has a Wikipedia article. Why was it part of a national 'debate' and not confined to local Georgia news? The political aspect is unavoidable considering that murders committed by illegal immigrants aren't ipso facto notable on that point alone. Can anyone direct me to one article on here about a murder committed by an illegal immigrant (or any other crime) in the pre-Trump era whose notability was based on that factor alone? I'm genuinely curious. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I think you're questioning why something became notable. You think it due to a dishonest basis, but that is irrelevant. It is notable. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a congresswoman shouting something at an event is of any importance. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

to expand, nor do I think someone's ramblings on a social media platform that they own is either. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

To expand on Blueboar's point, this article needs to expand on where this killing took place in the context of the 2024 election cycle and the mess over the politics of funding border security came into play. This event came at a critical time that the GOP used to try to force claims of this "mass invasion", alongside Texas' antics with razor wire on the Rio Grande. A background or an impact section that establishes this should be necessary, and then.the impact framed around it, to make it clear why this notable. — Masem (t) 11:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

As others have said the interface with politics is a key part of this which should be covered. We should cover the directly related politics on this. We don't and shouldn't need to debate or evaluate or provide commentary on or try to repudiate the politics, just cover it. As a side note, US opinion, politics and laws often are driven by individual "anecdotal" incidents. We often even name laws after individual incidents which caused or catalyzed the law. North8000 (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I just found another article in CNN that actually uses the word "exploited": "Laken Riley deserves justice – not to be exploited as a symbol of xenophobia or hate."[40].

But the argument will be that opinion pieces aren't RS, I get that. I'm wondering how many sources and of what quality need to be produced to demonstrate the two obvious facts that a) the murder was politically exploited; and b) the subject's notability has everything to do with this exploitation. If an NPR article is suspect, according to one editor here, then what's the basis for including #45's blurting about 'border invasion'? This guy's been documented lying 15,000 times by major news outlets and should be treated as a deprecated source on here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I very much doubt that you can find support to factually state the murder was used to drive politics, since I am sure that that is a view from the liberal side and that the conservative side will say they aren't exploiting it. But you likely can find numerous opinion sources to support a statement like "Democrats including X, Y, and Z claimed the Republicans exploited the murder to push for immigration reform." As well as statements from the other side.
I fully agree that both the victim and the murder only have notability from the attention it got, but I don't think this type of statement needs to be explicitly made as long as the gist point on political exploitation is establish. It sorta follows from the first. — Masem (t) 16:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This is why I think there's a strong case to include sources that discuss the murder in the context of illegal immigration and violent crime. Because once we venture into the domain of academic studies, it is no longer a mere opinion war between CNN contributors and right-wing politicians. The latter has not only exploited the murder, but has used it to traffic in falsehoods about illegal immigration and crime that are contradicted by published research. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you're mischaracterizing the issue. The problem isn't that half the country (actually by polling data, much more than half) despise illegal aliens, that is inaccurate. Bringing up crime statistics are from a false premise. A opponent of illegal immigration would say, in this case rightly, that you're assuming an alien's right to be in the country. You're starting from a neutral ground, but with them already in the country. They would say that immigrants should vetted so that those with a criminal history can be refused entry. Once again, the issue isn't that all, or even a small percentage of illegal aliens are dangerous. The issue is that some dangerous criminals necessarily enter with them and those are the people that there is concern over.

A note on NPR. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/11/business/media/npr-criticism-liberal-bias.html

(Before you argue that that is the verdict of only a handful of former employees, the principal point is the reception to their claims.)

TanRabbitry (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so according to Pew Research (see link above), nearly 60% of Americans erroneously believe that illegal immigration is linked to rising crime rates. The article goes on to say that one of the reasons they believe this falsehood is because murder cases like Riley's are exploited by politicians to demonize migrants. These cases generate news coverage not because the crimes themselves are any more or less notable than other crimes of the same nature, but because of the citizenship status of the suspect and the false belief that there's a correlation between being here illegally and committing other crimes. Here's the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research on the "The mythical tie between immigration and crime"[41]. Isn't it interesting that all these different researchers, in fields as far as economics and criminology, have all independently arrived at the same conclusion on immigration and crime, yet a majority of Americans believe the opposite. Let's wonder why that is..

As to the rest of your reply -it is beyond the scope of noticeboard discussion but let me briefly say this. I do. not. care. where a murder suspect was born. All murders are tragic and a foreigner who murders an American citizen on American soil isn't any more or less heinous than an American killing an American, at least not on that factor alone. If you had asked which population I would prefer to live next to as an American citizen, and I had to choose solely based on criminality, my response would be the population that's statistically much less likely to commit crimes, which happens to be the illegal immigrants. Even framing this in terms of "illegal immigration" obscures what's really motivating many of these people. The suspect's status as an 'illegal' mattered less than his perceived 'race', and I even produced a source up top, written by a local of Athens, who described how the mood in the community changed when the suspect's identity was revealed. It wasn't merely a concern about immigration, but there were immediate tensions with the local Hispanic community, most of whom were born in the US. I doubt anyone really believes we'd be having this discussion if a European tourist killed an American at Disneyland. There'd be no hysteria, no national debate about "crackdown on tourism", no irrational arguments about how it's a greater sin when a foreigner kills you, and no Wikipedia article.

If you're wondering why there's a problem with illegal immigration in the US (and this, too, is off topic, so let's try to move on after this) you can read this source[42]. The fact is, US immigration laws are decades out of date and do not meet the needs of the 21st Century economy. Those migrants at the border -only some tiny fraction stand any realistic chance of entering the country legally, thanks to laws that were written nearly 60 years ago, that politicians failed to upgrade in 34 years. That's the real 'crisis' in immigration, not the rest of this bullshit. I wonder how quickly opinion polls would change if Americans heard less about rare instances of migrant crime, and more about how many illegal immigrants own businesses, employ other Americans, and possess degrees in fields like engineering at a time when the country's facing a talent shortage. If Trump has his way with deportations there will be massive economic costs, and then we just might see 'rising crime rates'.

Okay, no more soap-boxing. The previous suggestion to remove the aftermath section was rejected by another editor on the talk page, although the Trump quote was removed. This is not really sufficient considering Trump's "border invasion" argument is still implied in the section via other sources, with no balance. I also do not understand your point about NPR having a "liberal bias". Having a bias does not imply unreliable. Almost every RS we use is biased, especially in news media. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think race matters at all here and I dislike it being brought up. It's totally irrelevant.

I would gently like to suggest that your obviously strong feelings on the border dispute may mean you shouldn't be editing related pages. I am not suggesting you have bad motives at all, but you may be too biased to view it neutrally. However that is your decision.

I wholeheartedly agree about biased sources. All people are biased to some degree. The point is I think we can look at the Heritage Foundation article, ignore the framing that is obviously biased and focus on the facts that it records. TanRabbitry (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So then the argument that NPR has a 'liberal bias' doesn't work. We don't downgrade sources for bias -only if there's evidence they're deliberately publishing misinformation, like when Forbes used to publish pseudo-science about climate change. And even then, Forbes was still used in other subject spaces (with caution) if they were deemed reliable in that area. The first statement in this section, about the "historic surge in border crossings", happens to be sourced to Forbes.

I think I've established that NPR, despite whatever biases they may have, is a reliable source for immigration/crime data. Numerous links were provided to independent sources and I'll add this Reuters article to the list[43]. They cite several studies by academic researchers published in peer-reviewed journals, including a meta-analysis and an analysis by economists of incarceration rates over a 150 year period.

This is beyond what's normally required to establish the reliability of data in a source, so you'll have to come up with another rules-based reason why NPR (who specifically addresses the Riley murder in this context) shouldn't be included but the idiotic statement about "historic surge in border crossings" is due. Increases in illegal immigration have heck all to do with crime trends, let alone homicides. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Increases in illegal immigration have heck all to do with crime trends, let alone homicides. Hmm, since violent crimes are decreasing, I guess that means more immigrants reduces violent crimes. Good thing we don't do SYNTH. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I meant that there's no (causal) relationship between illegal immigration and more crime, as claimed by you know who. But yes you're right that violent crime is decreasing amid the "historic surge in illegal border crossings," proving yet again this claim is false[44]. There are multiple studies (cited up top) that even show a negative relationship between immigrants and crime (ie where there are more immigrants there's less crime). Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I never argued that NPR shouldn't be included or that their bias meant it couldn't be used. In fact I was saying that biased sources can be used as far as the facts that they list, for example the Heritage Foundation. TanRabbitry (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

When has the Heritage Foundation ever been considered reliable on here? You're comparing an ideological think tank involved in activism (including pushing election fraud claims) to organizations that have editorial boards and do fact-checking. NPR has a history of being accused of having both "liberal" and "conservative" bias, so it doesn't seem like they're committed to either side, and "bias" does not imply "unreliable." The data used by CNN and NPR came from academic studies; the Reuters piece cited academic studies published in refereed journals. Anything Heritage publishes is self-published -they are their own source.

At any rate, I left a comment on the talk page. There seems to be growing support for completely removing the section, at least temporarily. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Putting aside all the other issues with what you have said, if you remove that section what will be the context for mentioning the so-called "Laken Riley Act?" TanRabbitry (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The context would be the murder of Laken Riley? The whole article talks about the killing, the suspect, his undocumented status. Why do you think the Laken Riley Act would be so incomprehensible to readers without a section that says only two things: "historic surge of illegal border crossings" and a congresswoman shouting at the president? There is nothing of any educational or encyclopedic value in that section -it's a one-sided, partisan reaction and adds nothing of any significance to the article. Wasn't it you who said that "Once again, the issue isn't that all, or even a small percentage of illegal aliens are dangerous. The issue is that some dangerous criminals necessarily enter with them and those are the people that there is concern over" ? Okay, so a dangerous criminal entered and killed someone. There's the context Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The context is the national outrage and controversy over the murder. Congress passes laws in reaction to public discussion/concerns/hysteria frequently and this is one of those times. It is necessary to explain the background to that Act.

I would like to point something out to you. You've obviously read a great deal about this issue. Let's severely oversimplifiy and put it this way: out of 100 American citizens, 3 commit violent crimes and out of 100 illegal aliens, 2 commit violent crimes. While the illegal aliens may be less likely overall to be violent criminals, the handful that are, mean that if the 100 had never arrived, the 2 couldn't commit violent crimes in America. That is what people are concerned over when it comes to crime and illegal aliens. They would argue that if the 100 were either turned away or at least heavily vetted, the 2 would not be allowed in. Once again, the Americans in polls on the subject aren't worried about all the immigrants with regard to crime, they are worried about the percentage who are dangerous.

One final thought, I would note that the man accused has not been convicted and you're assuming he's guilty. That is wrong.

TanRabbitry (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The hysteria has to do with a 'migrant crime wave' at the border, which reliable sources describe as a 'myth'. Google "migrant crime myth". When the article moves from talking about this particular murder, which involved one suspect who was here illegally, to statements about a "historic surge in border crossings", it is no longer about this one suspect, but a much larger population, which has been subjected to public misconceptions. Your argument that "Well, the logic goes like this: if only 1 in 100,000 illegal immigrants commit a murder, that's one too many, and that's what people are concerned about," is cute, but not what the hysteria is over. The rationale is that illegal immigration is associated with an increase in the incidence of violent crime, which is disputed by academic studies. That's why the former president is using rhetoric like "border invasion" -a military term, associated with armies, or widespread violence. Sources were provided that say Trump is quite explicitly using this murder to make this argument, and that he is not saying there's one or two bad apples out of a much larger sample.

So, the compromise I tried to reach with you was that we leave the content about "border crossings" up, but balance it with sources that discuss the murder in the context of immigration/crime data, which I provided. But we reached an impasse because you would only agree to publish this data if it's published alongside a report from the Heritage Foundation, an activist think tank (ie unreliable) that self-publishes their 'research'. CNN and NPR got their data from academic studies, published through an academic press, like Oxford. This is the quality of research supporting the CNN/NPR position[45][46][47]. Now, compare to Heritage.

So, since we couldn't come to an agreement on a rules-based way to edit this section neutrally, I joined a number of other editors who agree that removing the aftermath section, in the state that it's in right now, would only improve the quality of the article, despite the fact that it'd be missing context. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read any of this yesterday, so it's late, but here are a couple notes:

One: 1 in 100,000, though obviously not meant to be taken literally, is so low it's laughable.

Two: You're conflating all concerns over border security into one, crime. There are many, many other issues people are concerned over. Terms like "invasion" are used to refer to the scale of the movement of people, not the danger of the immigrants themselves.

Three: You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything had to be used from the Heritage Foundation, or couldn't be used from the sources you provided. I only asked that you read the article, winnow the factual statements from the biased framing and consider them.

Considering your consolidation of all border security concerns into a false perception on crime and your adding heavily to what I said, I still think you are too emotionally and mentally invested to properly edit pages related to this. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

To try to intercede here, there is no need to go into a full thesis about the state of immigration, its effect on crime rates, or the like on this article about the murder. Certainly linking to Illegal immigration to the United States and relevant subpages is fair. But I think that as much should be said is something along these lines:

1. The murder occurred during a larger debate in US politics about the large number of immigrants crossing the border and the need to increase funding and change policies regarding that.
2. Republicans and conservatives, broadly, had been arguing that the border crisis was an "invasion" prior to the murder, criticizing Biden (eg Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration), and then used the murder to back their desires to increase border funding/security.
3. Republicans in the house did pass a bill in Riley's name as a result.

And that's really it that the killing article needs to touch. Anything else is something that belongs on subpages of Illegal immigration in the US pages. --Masem (t) 20:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 agreed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to say -this is the first time I've ever encountered a situation where someone's produced a dozen or more sources that address a specific aspect of a subject, only to be told it isn't relevant (not relevant according to us, not reliable sources). Usually I will find people pushing for edits that seem to be little more than their opinion, only to be told, quite rightly, that they need to find an RS that says what they want the article to say (and then, be bold!). So, if I'm understanding this correctly, we want the article to cover Republican "border invasion" tropes, which are total bs, but not any sources that have countered this bs, with reliable data, in the context of the Laken Riley killing.

I strongly oppose this, but if that's the consensus here's I'll accept. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You know, I just scrolled to the bottom of the Riley article, and it links to another article about the Murder of Mollie Tibbetts, who was also killed by an illegal immigrant. And they have a section at the bottom called "Politicization of Tibbetts's death" which reads:

"The case became a political talking point for more restrictive immigration policies. Opponents of illegal immigration emphasized that the suspect had entered the country illegally, despite research showing that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans."

This is exactly along the lines of what I asked for in Riley's article only to be told "not relevant". Tibbetts' article also reads:

"In addition, Tibbetts' father—responding to Donald Trump Jr.—criticized as "heartless" and "despicable" the use of Tibbetts's death for political purposes;"

Again, exactly the same pattern in the Riley case, and directly related to the notability of the subject. I'm going to change my previous "strongly oppose this" to "vehemently oppose" as it's entirely unorthodox on here to conceal important information about a subject that appears in RS. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This is basically WP:COATRACK. Within the topic of illegal immigration to the US and crimes associated with it, Riley's killing (as well as Tibbetts) are examples of highly-profiled cases attributed to illegal immigration which some (conservatives, mostly) have taken to show why the current trend in immigration is bad (but clearly we can't say that in Wikivoice). But on the article on Riley's killing, a dissertation on illegal immigration to the US is undue - a link to the main article on the topic makes sense, and establishing just enough context of why it gained significant coverage is obviously due, but to try to either justify or criticize the US's immigration problem in any length or detail is far beyond the topic - and because of how it can be written, it seems rather easy to be made into a coatrack. Masem (t) 23:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact that this keeps happening in pattern, and is related to the subject's notability, does not require a thesis -just a simple statement as we find in Tibbetts' article:

""The case became a political talking point for more restrictive immigration policies. Opponents of illegal immigration emphasized that the suspect had entered the country illegally, despite research showing that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans."

Just cite the sources relevant to the Riley case.

Here's AP News covering the politicization of Riley's murder, the Republican tropes, and the academic research.[48]

Here's LA Times doing the same thing (this piece was written by professional researchers)[49]

And NPR[50]

USA Today[51]

CNN[52]

NBC[53]

Washington Post[54]

The Guardian[55]

How many more?

The studies are reliable, the relevance to the subject has been established, and one statement is hardly undue considering every major news outlet has linked the immigration debate to the notability of these cases. Telling readers there's an 'immigration debate' and presenting only one view of it (that's premised on falsehoods) is the very definition of non-neutral. And the other editor's suggestion that we present academic research, that was published in journals and by the National Academy of Sciences, alongside Heritage Foundation polemic should not be taken seriously. No thesis is needed, just a sentence or two addressing the immigration debate, the sort of policies these cases are exploited for, and the robust academic consensus on illegal immigration and crime. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I never said that. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I never said to present it as one sided. I am not aware of any reliable source that factually documents that the current levels of immigration are leading to more crime. One side presents their case that there is a causation, the other side (Democrats) site lower numbers and other factors that try to explain the conservative's point that the border "invasion" is leading to more crime is not a likely hypothesis. However, it is only the conservatives that are using this killing to try to push their point. That that is what is happening is objectively true, just that whether the killing was actually due to current immigration numbers is clearly unknown. The killing article is not the place to explain the entire political situation around illegal immigration, hence why asking for more is a coatrack. Masem (t) 00:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Coatrack is going off on a tangent -not making a statement or two about something that's directly related to the article's main subject and is covered in multiple reliable sources.

"the conservative's point that the border "invasion" is leading to more crime is not a likely hypothesis"

It isn't only an 'unlikely hypothesis' -it's directly refuted by all published research. Crime is down, and it's lower in places that have a higher number of illegal immigrants.

"just that whether the killing was actually due to current immigration numbers is clearly unknown."

It was due to the fact that the suspect was a criminal, and probably a misogynist who preyed on women. Take a large enough sample of any demographic and you'll find some criminals, in every demographic, in any society. There is no world that could ever exist, except maybe in political fantasy land, where the number of illegal immigrants in your country is zero. Technically, someone who overstays a visa is illegally in the country and so no border crossing required. The point of all this research is that you're more likely to find an American-born criminal at your local mall than in a population of illegal immigrants. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It falls under the section of COATRACK "All About George". the article on the killing of Riley should not be a full-fledged breakdown of the political arguments over immigration, only the fact that the Republicans wanted to push on it to dismiss Biden's policies while other groups presented evidence to try to refute the Republican's claims. You cannot say that because crime is down and immigration is down that there is causation between these two, without the aid of RSes that explicitly state it. Masem (t) 01:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about crime and immigration both being down -I said crime is down amidst the "historic surge in illegal border crossings" (quoting from the article), with the aid of RSes that explicitly state it. I also said that illegal immigrants have lower crime rates than American citizens, with the aid of RSes that explicitly state it. I don't know what gave you the impression that I think a paragraph on immigration/crime should be included, but I quite literally said a statement or two will suffice. COATRACK would be talking about how her parents met, and then spending a paragraph or two on their first date. This isn't anything close to that. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

From the above, I think that we need to consider degree of WP:Relevance of material. "High relevance" is the murder itself. Medium relevance would be sources specifically discussing the murder in conjunction with politics/crime issues. Lower relevance would be getting into all of the politics / crime / immigration topics (analyzing, opinioning etc. ) not in conjunction with substantial mention of the murder. IMO the "lower relevance" material should not be in the article. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The murder itself is notable because of immigration/crime issues. A statement or two about the immigration/crime aspect in a section that's discussing reactions to the murder is not only valid, it's absolutely necessary. Concealing this aspect of the subject, on the other hand, is an egregious violation of npov. This isn't a platform for political propaganda under the guise of "just sayin' what they said." If this section can't be covered neutrally, then the next best option is to remove it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If you mean opining on the immigrant/crime issue in general, I don't agree. If you mean discussions that substantially include the murder, then I would agree. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this article on the killing is not the place to include viewpoints an opinions related to the broader topic of immigration and crime, except for enough to say that this killing came during a critical time on the debate ofimmigration (funding bills). — Masem (t) 19:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"Opining" about what exactly? Multiple reliable sources discuss this case in the context of immigration and crime, and a statement or two about this aspect would be well under the weight it's given in RSes. I'd like to see someone try and make the argument on the Mollie Tibbetts article that the single solitary statement they have about immigration/crime is "irrelevant" or "coatrack". The section exists because the case was politicized, which is why it's notable, and RSes discuss this aspect of politicization. As far as notability goes and what sort of reactions the Tibbetts and Riley cases generated -they are one in the same. If the Riley article includes a section on political reactions (statements about "illegal border crossings" with absolutely no context), it needs to be covered neutrally, reflecting all major viewpoints.

This is going in circles and I'm all talked out at this point. My next move will be to file a DRR, whether or not any of you participate will be up to you. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

One example of "opining" is saying or implying that using an individual case for a political argument is bogus or makes the point illegitimate. This is a common and accepted influencer in what happens politically (rather than statistical studies) North8000 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relevant points for the section:

1. the murder occurred during debate of immigration and border funding bills.
2. Due to this timing, the murder was used by Republicans to support their agenda.
3. The resulting bill was passed.

Irrelevant points:

1. What specific politicians (on either side) said at specific points in the debate.
2. Whether what was said (by either side) is correct or not.
3. The statistics on crime by immigrants.

Cut the irrelevant from the article and support the relevant with quality sources. Less is better than more. Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The belief that "specific points in the debate over immigration" (eg immigration/crime research) are "irrelevant" is something that was invented on this board, but not what RSes say. Their own sources cover this, right in the lead in fact.

This is from citation #2: "Despite the heated rhetoric, researchers' analysis of crime data in several studies has shown that undocumented immigrants have lower rates of violent crime compared to U.S. citizens."

And citation #3: "Ibarra’s status as an undocumented Venezuelan migrant is now being touted by several state and national GOP leaders to support their calls for tighter border security – though there is little evidence indicating a connection between immigration and crime." (and they link to research)

I'm sure I'll find it in other sources they've used, in addition to the ~dozen sources I provided here that not only mention it, but dedicate whole articles to it. The reason why this keeps coming up in RSes is because the politicization of this murder and "specific points in the immigration debate" are not only relevant, but are the only reason this murder was covered by national news outlets (and by extension, the only reason it meets notability standards on here). So, the relevance of the immigration/crime aspect is established in reliable sources, despite anyone who might want to say otherwise.

I appreciate all the time and effort everyone put into this discussion, but we're done here. I'll be filing a DRR, probably tomorrow. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Look at the relevant section on the Tibbetts article. The tie in to the larger immigration issue are there, and the only thing that seems excessive is using Trump's quote on full (though mentioning that Trump addressed that killing is well in line). But there's nothing like looking at stats, support or disproving of specific claims related to immigration and crime, and factors you've mentioned aren't included there. Instead the inclusion focuses only on the small nexus that the killing had in the much much larger immigration picture. Same applies to this killing, it's ties to immigration debates may be significant to the notability of the event, but the event isn't solving nor creating new debates within immigration politics. It doesn't need a larger section to describe the big picture around immigration. — Masem (t) 22:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The article already has an "aftermath" section, and could include a statement or two similar to what we find in the Tibbetts article, since we are dealing with exactly the same phenomenon:

""The case became a political talking point for more restrictive immigration policies. Opponents of illegal immigration emphasized that the suspect had entered the country illegally, despite research showing that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans."

Both of these statements would be backed by multiple RSes that cover the Riley case, with plenty more to spare.

I said nothing about including "stats" or starting a much larger section. TanRabbitry, who's been editing that article, doesn't even want any statement on this anywhere, despite the fact that many of his own sources use it. Instead, he wants the section to say that the murder occurred amidst a "historical surge in illegal border crossings" and leave it at that. I offered him a compromise that if he wants to open that can of worms, either do it neutrally or remove the section, and he won't do either. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I obviously don't mind disagreement. I do not however, appreciate lying. In the first place, saying "been editing the article" implies a current action. I haven't edited that article in a month. In the second place, saying "(I want) the section to say that the murder occurred amidst a 'historical surge in illegal border crossings' and leave it at that," is also deceitful. You make it seem like I wrote that. I simply disagree with your additions. I don't think we need to breathlessly "correct" notable political rhetoric that has used the tragedy as a cause célèbre in the same way that numerous other sensational events and/or tragedies are used (9/11 and the Patriot Act, switchblade legislation, Amber Alerts, etc). If you were mistaken or meant something different, then please explain. But if you meant what you seem to have, I do not appreciate dishonesty. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You really should not be lecturing editors like this. You are way out of line. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

If someone implies I have been actively editing a contested page that I haven't edited since May, and asserts that I am insisting on exactly how a section is to be written when I am only disagreeing with their changes, amidst other insinuations, I will likely respond in some manner. I did allow the possibility of a mistake or misunderstanding and also asked for clarification. At any rate, the editor's comments are poorly phrased, if not downright dishonest. TanRabbitry (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you also explain what the "compromise" or "can of worms" are that you say you offered? I'm not saying you didn't, but I read the "talk" page again and I don't see a compromise. Maybe I missed it, or it's not very obvious, but either way, can you provide a quotation of your compromise that you offered over there? TanRabbitry (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The political actors who sensationalize these murders are trying to claim that undocumented immigrants should be presumed violent and criminal. That is the whole point of why they latch themselves onto these cases, and is why all these RSes, including the ones currently in use in the article, address this subject. What is your issue with a statement or two addressing the politicization (to use your words, the 'context of why this murder is notable') and the crime studies? Right Great Wrongs has to do with publishing unverifiable information, and does not apply to content that's in reliable sources. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I notice you didn't answer anything that I said.

Are you really saying that most/many/a fair minority of politicians or related figures on one side are saying that any illegal alien must be "presumed" a dangerous criminal? I wouldn't mind a sentence or two that contained a attributed opinion that may reference studies. I would say in that situation, Trump's (or another prominent voice's) contrasting opinion should be included. The current wording is basically:

1. The story was national news.
2. It occurred during an extremely heightened wave of illegal immigration.
3. It was heavily discussed.

When Trump's statement was there, it showed one view in the aforementioned discussion. There probably should have been a contrasting opinion.

What I don't think is right is framing what is currently there with something like: "Studies have shown that illegal aliens are statistically less likely to be violent criminals. Therefore, anyone who used the case to criticise illegal immigration are wrong to do so," or something implying that.

I wouldn't care if there was an attributed opinion that contained those exact words, but saying it in "Wikipedia-voice" isn't neutral. Just because political rhetoric isn't 100% absolutely, directly, specifically factual in every case doesn't mean we need to correct every statement a politician makes. Let me ask you this: would it be right to include the line "According to the US Treasury, the top ten percent of earners pay sixty percent of taxes," on every politician's page who has said millionaires/billionaires/the wealthy should pay their "fair share?" Of course not. It would be appropriate on a Wikipedia page about US Tax policy, but not elsewhere. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No no, I didn't say anything about "critics of illegal immigration are wrong." I just quoted a line from the Tibbetts article that I think this article could use, because it applies here too:

""The case became a political talking point for more restrictive immigration policies. Opponents of illegal immigration emphasized that the suspect had entered the country illegally, despite research showing that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans."

What you don't seem to understand is that this murder is part of a set of politicized murders that all share 3 common features: 1. suspect is an illegal immigrant; 2. Trump and his supporters use it to claim there's a 'migrant crime wave' at the border 3. the case gets pulled into a political debate about immigration.

All of these features depend on the other -take one of them away, and there's no notability.

I don't know if you've ever seen the Bill Murray movie Groundhog Day, but at one point he's able to predict what's going to happen next because he keeps reliving the same day over and over again. The Tibbetts article is the same as Laken Riley, which is the same as the latest example this week, Jocelyn Nungaray (here's NBC reporting[56]). And lo and behold:

"Former President Donald Trump is blaming the Biden administration’s border policies for Nungaray’s death. On Thursday, he said on Truth Social that “we have a new Biden Migrant Killing — It’s only going to get worse, and it’s all Crooked Joe Biden’s fault.”

An NBC News review of city data shows overall crime levels dropping in major cities that have received the most migrants from Texas, including Chicago, New York City and Washington, D.C.

Nungaray’s death is the latest suspected high-profile crime by migrants, which has led to political firestorms, even as studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born citizens."''

Same thing, over and over again.

We don't even need to change the words -the wording used in the Tibbetts article is the same wording used in sources discussing Laken Riley, which is the same wording used in Jocelyn Nungaray's article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

1. You still haven't answered anything.
2. "Wrong to do so" and "wrong" are two entirely different things.
3. "Migrant crime wave" and "wave of migrants" are also different. Stating that some of them are dangerous ccriminals doesn't imply they all are.

TanRabbitry (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

While this line Opponents of illegal immigration emphasized that the suspect had entered the country illegally, despite research showing that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. is taken nearly verbatim (paraphrased enough) from that given news article, to me it really ses to be unnecessary on WP. These killings have been politicized, yes, and the Republicans have said it is a direct result of Biden's immigration policies and all that. The statement that points to the lack of corelation between immigration and crime may certainly be true, but on any of these killing articles, it seems to be a coat rack even if it seems to counter the Republican argument, and feels what turns these killing articles in the start of a thesis about immigration and crime. It's a very subtle thing but it is creating the perception of making the article into something it shouldn't be. It makes me somewhat uneasy about it's inclusion, even with the RSes that back that statement, because it Judy feels out of place. I think letting the statement like "The killing was used by Republicans to raise opposition to Biden's immigration policies, claiming that crime rates had gone up due to loose border enforcement." and Lea ING it at that without providing the counterpoint, as long as an article that does detail the immigration debate goes into the reported studies showing no increase in crim due to immigration. — Masem (t) 16:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Why not say something like: "The murder was extensively refrenced by proponents of stricter border security. They claimed that this murder and other similar violent crimes had occurred due to the Biden administration's border policy." That's a factual statement, (note that I am saying the statement is factual, not necessarily the assertion) but phrased in such a way that means it's neutral as to if they were "correct" or not, in their opinion. I would prefer merely adding attributed opinions from one or more prominent voices on each side, but maybe this is a fair compromise. TanRabbitry (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think your compromise is right on the money. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

We're done here. I'll be filing a DRR when I have the time. You can explain your position there, if you want. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I would only add that a link to the best article covering the debate over immigration and crime that applies here, so that this is nearby that text and so a reader who wants to know more can read there. — Masem (t) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what the best article is, but I suggest linking "border security" to it. TanRabbitry (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's seriously flawed. Congress, on both sides of the aisle, commonly passes acts with names that fit their political narrative. In this case, partially to bolster their popularity with racists. They aren't saying anything about the porous Canadian border. Also, we cannot say anything about the Biden administration's border policy without explaining it. The Biden border policy was to pass a border act which the Republicans blocked also for political reasons. Trying to balance this would require too much space in an article about this girl's death. And frankly, we still do not know the circumstances of her death. There were no witnesses. If something must be added (and I don't think so) then I think one or two sentences without any reference to political talking points would be enough. Whatever the circumstance were, the girl's death is tragic. But Congress didn't wait to find out. They appropriated her name for political reasons knowing they could pass a bill with the name as few would dare vote against it. The only connection between this girl and the political nonsense is specious. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's worth responding to, but here you go:

1. About 10,000 people were arrested for illegally crossing the Canadian border last year. In just December of 2023, 250,000 people were arrested illegally crossing the Mexican border. Do not bring nonsensical allegations of racism into this without cause.
2. The bill didn't pass because Congress couldn't agree on it. Don't bring in assumptions about political motives. Two out of the three main sponsors of the bill voted against it moving forward because they said the process had become about optics and appearances instead of substance. I will say I think the sentence could be changed to say something like: "due to the record amount of illegal immigration," or "due to the Biden administration's handling of the border."
3. It is irrelevant to this if the suspect is innocent or guilty. What matters is what the political aftermath was.
4. Your personal thoughts on whether connection between the murder and the perception was legitimate or not is immaterial. Congress does things like that all the time and it isn't our job to ignore them just because we don't like it. There are plenty of articles/sections of articles that we would each disapprove of, but they're still notable and we don't get to remove them because of our feelings. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

1. How many people were not arrested from Canada? Racism is a huge part of this. Trump said, why can't we get more immigrants from Norway. Now he's added Africa to his claims of countries emptying their jails and asylums. Where did that come from? He has again said immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country".

2. The Biden bill was largely written by a very conservative Republican. Trump told the Republicans not to vote for it. This is well documented by RS.

3. I said nothing about innocence. If I must, he is innocent under the law. Neither Congress nor RS know the circumstances of the death.

4. Of course Congress does crap like this all the time. I said that and said both sides of the aisle are a part of this cynicism. I do not claim this has something to do with an editor's "feelings". You started with I'm not sure if it's worth responding to and ended with the characterization. Please learn how to AGF.

5. You ignored my point. You proposed that we mention Biden's immigration policies. That cannot be stated without explaining what they actually are instead of what the Republicans claim (completely open borders -- Hah, I just heard Trump say that again on the TV while typing this.). We would end up with a section as long as the current article if we get into this political imbroglio. The article is about her tragic death. Let us not lose site of that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I filed a DRR, and notified you on your talk page, so make your case there if you want. The average person reading the Laken Riley article, will not be there out of morbid curiosity, but because they heard a former president and his acolytes spewing bs about illegal immigrants and criminality, which will probably be sprayed at the debate Thurs. night. The fact that his claims are false is utterly relevant to the subject, is mentioned in reliable sources, including the RSes used in the article, and is the reason why most people have interest in this case. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

So, the decision to close the DRR was based on:

"Closed as pending at the neutral point of view noticeboard. The instructions for DRN say: We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums. As another editor says, it is under discussion at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Let the discussion at NPOVN continue for a few more days. If the discussion fizzles out inconclusively or is closed as having been inconclusive, discussion can then be started here. In the meantime, you may optionally take part in the discussion at NPOVN'

So, you want to let this discussion fizzle out for a few more days, after the presidential debate. Drip..drip..drip..

Who wants to say that this murder is notable because it's an isolated, relatively rare crime of an illegal immigrant, and not because Trump demonizes migrants as a sort of herd that lurks ready to pounce on anyone who has a social security card. Make your case, and do it with reliable sources. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is starting to feel like WP:RGW territory. I think we all agree that it is really bad that some people wanted to politicize any of these killings, but it is not our place as WP editors to try to drive the narrative in that direction without sources. Again, we can say on these killing articles that it was used by Republicans et al to attack the Biden immigration policy. But the next step from that would require third-party sources that document what other significant voices say to respond to the Republican claims, otherwise we are stepping into OR/POV/COATRACK territory. We absolutely can let an article discussing immigration and crime discuss more in depth including the counterclaims at the broad picture level, but unless those counterclaims are narrowly focused to the specific use of these killings in the Republican politization of the matter, its beyond the scope for these killings articles. --Masem (t) 04:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

So, I'll let this fizzle out a few more days. Anyone else have 2 cents to spare? Drip..drip..drip Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You also need to WP:AGF. Masem (t) 04:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not only assuming good faith, but great faith, in the almighty powers of Wikipedia editors to sort this stuff out. I'm dead serious -I appreciate everyone who's taken the time to participate in this discussion, and I don't believe any of you are 'racist', 'xenophobic' or partisan, not even TanRabbitry. I truly believe we all want to contribute to this encyclopedia in an honest and transparent way, and that this is a legitimate point of disagreement. I vehemently disagree with TanRabbitry, but I don't think he's up to no good -he truly believes everything he's saying, no matter how nonsensical it is. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I have declined the case request at DRN because We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums, and this dispute is still being discussed here at NPOVN. I will comment that it appears that some of the discussion here is becoming repetitive. However, if I were moderating a discussion at DRN about this topic, I would begin by reminding the editors that the purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the encyclopedia, and then asking editors what each editor wants to change in the article, or what an editor wants to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Exactly what sentence or sentences do any of you think are non-neutral, and how should they be changed? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Mr. McClenon, the discussion is highly repetitive here and I don't want to participate in it any longer. The disputed content in this discussion appears in reliable sources and is due for inclusion. It's very simple. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Mr. McClenon, their own sources say:

"Despite the heated rhetoric, researchers' analysis of crime data in several studies has shown that undocumented immigrants have lower rates of violent crime compared to U.S. citizens."[57]

Pray tell, why can't this information appear in the article? Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Because it is not relevant to the article topic. The relevant information is that Riley’s murder was used by Republicans as a political talking point. It does not actually matter to the story of her murder whether that use was justified or not. Blueboar (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If we include that the Republicans are blaming the killing on immigrants in general and Biden's policies in specific, we cannot just leave it at that and not include the actual facts in RS that counter this. Either we include an unbiased view of the politics or nothing political at all. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, not in this specific article. The fact that Republicans used this murder as a talking point to push their political agenda is relevant to the story. Whether they were/are justified in doing so is not relevant. To put it another way: what happened is both neutral and relevant… why it happened isn’t. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV You cannot add a cynical accusation by a political party while ignoring the actual facts documented in RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Saying, as part of the killing's relevance, that "it was politicized by Republicans critical of Biden's immigration policies", is not creating a POV issue that needs to be resolved on the page about the killing, but there should be a link to an appropriate article that does go into the specifics of the Republican criticism, and where NPOV would also there require the appropriate counterpoints. As soon as one tries to go far than a broad statement like this one in the killing article, you're wedging in the need to go into a whole amount of unnecessary detail as to maintain the NPOV. Masem (t) 12:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Saying that "it was politicized by Republicans critical of Biden's immigration policies" may not create a POV issue in the minds of discriminating, intelligent readers. We cannot assume that's the bulk of our readership or that they will follow a link. What are the stats on how many readers even go past the lead? Further, Biden's immigration policies are not what the Republicans claim on a daily basis, which will put in the mind of the reader a ring of truth that is in fact a false narrative. We simply cannot state one side of an extremely polarizing issue even if it weren't in an election cycle. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure we can… example: Our bio article on Winston Churchill notes that “He was particularly opposed to Mohandas Gandhi, whom he considered "a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir" His views enraged Labour and Liberal opinion, though he was supported by many grassroot Conservatives.” - we don’t try to “correct” Churchill’s view of Gandhi… We simply state that this was his view, and that some reacted to his view negatively while others positively. Our coverage of Churchill’s views is strictly neutral. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Are either of them currently involved in an election? Indeed, were they ever in the same election? Are they involved in a current cycle of hate? And I am not trying to correct a view or RGW. How many times do we have to hear that false claim? I am trying to avoid Wikipedia engaging in a gross WP:NPOV violation, one of our five pillars. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah… the fact that you bring up the current election is telling. It shows that you are not approaching the topic from a neutral, historical perspective. The current election should not impact what we say in our article. Instead we should focus on what aspects of the story will be relevant long after the election (in 10, 20 or 50 years). THAT is how you achieve a proper NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said if we just leave the short summary as "The killing was used by Republicans to criticize Biden's immigration policies." we are not even stepping into statements that take a POV.. That statement is very much true and not a viewpoint. — Masem (t) 13:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The statement is very much a true lie. It is the presentation of a POV. One side. Look, this is very simple. Three options.

1.) Present a neutral view of the politics.

2.) No mention of politics at all, possibly a See also link.

3.) A neutral statement with a link to an article. Something like "This event became a part of a contested election issue." along with a See also link.

O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a lie, it is the factual and neutral truth that Republicans used the killing to criticize immigration policy. We are not saying exactly how they are criticizing it, just that they did, predicated on this event. If I said, instead "Republicans used the killing to claim that illegal immigration has led to increased crime." now we're entering the territory where this might be too much a POV, where we may need additional statements in the article to properly valve it, at which point you likely have to venture into many details of the larger debate, which is simply not necessary here. Masem (t) 14:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It is true that the Republicans are lying about Biden's policies and criticizing a policy which does not exist. It could easily be argued that it is their fault for voting against the bipartisan Senate Border bill. With no clarification, the statement strongly suggests that this death is Biden's fault. Being "true" does not mean being neutral, and this is the Neutral point of view noticeboard. Neither argument belongs in this article. Neither or both viewpoints must be included. Not one viewpoint. There has been an effort from multiple editors to included one viewpoint for five days. What is wrong with option 3? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You know, I know, and likely all involved in this discussion know that the Republicans are exaggerating or even falsifying the data relating immigration and crime in their use of the killing. But NPOV says we can't write as if we knew that. Republicans are critizing Biden's policy, and leaving it at that avoids any type of claim or subjective statement under NPOV would require further prose to achieve appropriate balance within the bounds of DUE. This statement is not a viewpoint, it is factually what has happened. It may not be a "sky is blue" statement but it is clearly a neutral fact easily verified in sources across the board. Masem (t) 15:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the Republicans are NOT criticizing Biden's policy. Hundreds of times I have heard them state that his policy is a completely open border and that the border is in fact now completely open. They also argue that he wants the border to be open to bring in migrants to vote for him -- even though they cannot do so. The statement that Republicans are criticizing Biden's policy is NOT a true, verifiable statement. It is a verifiable lie. We should not state a sham viewpoint without the opposing viewpoint. What is wrong with option 3, an actual neutral statement that is not misleading? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You are going into exactly what the Republican complaints are, their viewpoint, which most here consider to built on lies and exaggerations that, if discussed at that detail, need the other viewpoints the be NPOV compliant. But that they have complaints that we actually don't mention to any detail don't touch on their viewpoints, it simply gives the factual reason why the killing was in the national spotlight without touching on viewpoints. Masem (t) 16:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It is NOT factual. They have NOT criticized Biden's policies as stated. No one actually answers my comments about this nor my suggested solution. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

We should obey NPOV. We have zero idea what will happen in the future as we do not have a CRYSTALBALL any more than did Chuchhill. And your comparison with what a drunken leader thrown out of office after WWII once said about the Mahātmā isn't close. What is the point of purposely presenting bias in an article? I can see why Jonathan left this discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

We are not presenting bias, we are presenting the story of what occurred with an eye to historical perspective and relevancy. You are 109% correct that we do not have a CRYSTALBALL… we have no clue whether any of this will actually have an impact on the current election… nor should we care. IF it does have an impact, future sources will record that impact and we can add it to the article. Right now, however, the historical facts are: Riley was killed, and Republicans made (are making?) political hay out of it.

Ultimately, that is ALL the article needs to say. We don’t even need to quote what Republicans said (except, perhaps, as examples of the type of rhetoric they used - similar to how we include the Churchill quote about Gandhi in the bio).

It does not matter to the story of Riley’s death whether the Republicans are saying Truth or spouting Bullshit. The statistics on crime by immigrants do not matter. It is all irrelevant to Riley’s killing. ALL that is relevant is: Riley was killed, and Republicans made political hay out of it. The Truth/Bullshit content of that hay may matter in some other context, in some other article. But it is irrelevant in this context, in this article. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It ain't neutral if only one side's view is presented. It is misleading. What is wrong with option 3, an actual neutral statement? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Saying that Republicans made political hay of the killing isn’t a “view”… it is neutral historical fact. What is a “view” is any commentary on whether the content of that hay is Truth/Bullshit. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Saying that the Republicans are criticizing Biden's policy is a lie. It is not a fact at all, much less a neutral historic fact. They are criticizing what they are pretending is his policy. What is the point of adding a lie to the article without explanation? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That is a matter of wording, not relevance, and can be fixed with copy editing.

Please read what I have been saying again… the relevant information is: 1) Riley was killed. 2) Republicans used her death as a talking point to further their agenda. That’s it. Those are the basic facts. It doesn’t matter to that story whether the agenda is Truth or Bullshit. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not at all what the suggested text says. And it still isn't neutral. Option 3 does not make any suggestion as to the politics. Just that related politics exist and are explained elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Well, I have asked multiple times what is wrong with option 3, an actual neutral solution, and no one will respond. Just constant repeats as Jonathan said when they left the discussion and insistence we add a non-neutral, false statement. This is pointless. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Blueboar and Masem are extremely policy-expert, experienced and neutral editors and IMO have given excellent assessments and recommendations here. Respectfully, maybe it's time to absorb, accept and benefit from some of what they've had to say. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I know who they are and I fully understand NPOV. Their assessment is incorrect and have not responded to my neutral suggestion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I have no objection to something like option 3… in fact, that is precisely what I have consistently been talking about: All the article needs to contain is a simple neutral statement outlining the history of what occurred (Riley killed, Republicans use the killing as a political talking point). Where we seem to disagree is whether the article should go beyond that… and discuss the truth/bullshit content the of the political talking points. I’m saying it shouldn’t, as such a discussion is irrelevant to the story. Blueboar (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I did not say go beyond that. I did not say discuss political points. I suggested the opposite in Option 3. I said do less than that. Merely state that this has become political without mentioning either party as that will suggest a POV. A link can be included. This is neutral. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me we are mostly in agreement. It's just the language that has to be worked out. I think it is fine to mention that politics raised its ugly head. I just don't think we should add how as there is no neutral way without a large amount of text. That stuff belongs in another article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Currently in the article on Muhammad, the section on Banu Qurayza suggests that the tribe of Banu Qurayza was innocent and that Banu Qurayza had not violated any treaty or agreement with Muhammad. However it seems that this claim is not in accordance to WP:NPOV since, Primary as well as several reliable secondary and tertiary sources refute this idea, and here I will mention a few: Primary sources:

1. Tareekh At-Tabari (History of Tabari) vol. 8 Pg.14

2. Sirat bin Ishaq part III pg. 453

3. Al Waqidi's Kitab Al Maghazi vol.2 pg.225

4. Ibn Sad's Kitab Tabaqat al Kabir vol.2 pg.82

5. Sahih Muslim 1766

Secondary/Tertiary sources:

1. Jonathan AC Brown's "Muhammad, A very short introduction" Part 1 Pg. 42

2. Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" Ch. 4 "Jihad", Pg. 148

3. WM Watts’s "Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman" Ch.6 pg.171

4. Tariq Ramadan’s “In the Footsteps of the Prophet” Ch.11 Pg.140

5. John Eposito’s “The Oxford Dictionary of Islam” Pg.36

6. R.B. Serjeant's The "Sunnah Jāmi'ah," Pacts with the Yaṯẖrib Jews, and the "Taḥrīm" of Yaṯẖrib Pg. 9

7. Washington Irving’s "Mahomet and his Successors" Ch.23 Pg.149

8. William Muir’s “The Life of Mahomet and the History of Islam” Ch.17 Pg.259

I suggest there to be revision of the section on Banu Qurayza on the basis of these sources, because it seems that the narrative of the Qurayza tribe violating an agreement is the primary narrative. QcTheCat (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is how we do this:

1. List all the reliable sources that say BQ violated their treaty.

2. List all the sources that disagree.

3. Determine which side has more weight.

• If one side is the overwhelming majority, state their position with higher authority ("most scholars state...")
• If they are about equal then state both opinions with equal weight.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@QcTheCat: why not start a discussion on article's talk page? Ping me there when you do.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I believe the discussion has already been had at Talk:Muhammad#Banu Qurayza + following section. @QcTheCat:, is this correct? Left guide (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that those primary sources cannot be relied on because they're all written from the Islamic POV and thus had reason to portray the Banu Qurayza as treacherous, and the secondary and tertiary sources only have those primary sources to rely on since Muhammad had everyone on the other side killed. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a historian's job to analyze unreliable, biased, and mistaken primary sources and get some kind of idea of what really happened out of them. And if they don't know for sure, they'll allow for the ambiguity. We don't need to worry about that aspect of the problem, we can just look at the weight of reliable secondary sources and report their conclusions. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan AC Brown and Tariq Ramadan are Muslims, and therefore they have a conflict of interest in writing their books, so I am not sure they meet our WP:SOURCE policy that tells us to "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." John Esposito founded the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which received a $20 million endowment from a Saudi Arabian prince. Karen Armstrong only majored in English. W. M. Watt made a critical error in recounting the events concerning Banu Qaynuqa that contradict primary [58] and other secondary sources [59]. The works of Muir and Washington Irving are too dated.

Regardless, several books about Muhammad use "the prophet" as a pronoun for Muhammad, but we cannot do that on Wikipedia because it conflicts with MOS:PROPHET. Some books might say "Muhammad received revelations from God," but we should instead phrase it as "Muhammad said that he received revelations from God." The same principle, in my opinion, applies here. The claim that Banu Qurayza violated the treaty comes from Muhammad and Islamic sources, which was (and is still) used as justification for the subsequent massacre ordered by Muhammad against the men of Banu Qurayza and the enslavement of their women and children, some of whom were sold to Najd to buy weapons and horses for the Muslims. Several secondary sources also doubt that Banu Qurayza violated the treaty with Muhammad or even took part in it [60]. Therefore, I believe the statement that "Banu Qurayza broke the treaty", if included, should be attributed to Muhammad or Islamic sources. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 09:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The complaints about the above sources are trivial and irrelevant in most instances ... if mildly offensive and aspersion riddled. The religious affiliation of scholars does not alter their reliability when we are talking about tenured professors published in the world's most renowned university presses. Imagine if Christian professors could not comment on Christian history. We would likely have to gut the history of early Christianity, the crusades, etc. The very notion is daft. It raises the question of how the poster thinks academia works. It's an altogether unbecoming line of thought. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan AC Brown and Tariq Ramadan are Muslims, and therefore they have a conflict of interest in writing their books is an absolutely bonkers statement. Imagine saying Jews have a conflict of interest in writing about Judaism, or Christians have a COI about Christianity. This statement by itself should lead to a topic ban. nableezy - 18:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

To disfavor academic scholarship—published by Oxford University Press no less (Ramadan's Footsteps of the Prophet; Brown's A Very Short Introduction)—merely on the grounds that the authors are Muslims is disruptive. Imagine saying that American academics aren't independent of George Washington and that content about him cited to American historians should be attributed on those grounds. To the extent that the user lets this Islamophobic assessment of sources guide their contributions, they are not a net positive to the topic area.

The stylistic concerns, like about MOS:PROPHET, are red herrings. On Wikipedia we're already plenty accustomed to rephrasing content in neutral ways, and this isn't unique to Islam. A biography calling the topic "the Prophet" is not a reason to disfavor it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I am not saying that we should disfavor books that use "the Prophet" as a pronoun for Muhammad. I am saying that in several books, even from secular academics used in the article, "the Prophet" is used as a pronoun. However, because we have MOS:PROPHET, we cannot follow that practice. This doesn't mean I am saying those sources are invalid. We can still base our statements on those sources but without using the pronoun "the Prophet" to refer to Muhammad.

The attribution I mentioned is not to the secondary sources in question, but to Muhammad and Islamic sources. This is because Banu Qurayza themselves denied they were involved in a treaty with Muhammad (Tabari, vol.8 pg.15), they also denied taking sides against Muhammad, and several reliable sources also question those claims from Muhammad and early Muslim sources [61]. This is not uncommon in secondary sources, as they also consider that Muhammad did not perform miracles during his lifetime, but those miracles were attributed to him in Islamic traditions several hundred years after his death.

Regarding my comment that I am not sure if sources with a conflict of interest meet our WP:SOURCE policy, this is because the WP:SOURCE text itself states, "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and the word "independent" there is linked to WP:IS, which says:

An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)."

And in this matter, I think I more or leas agree with @Apaugasma that [62] [63]:

Historical subjects generally require (secular) academic scholarly sources.

In general, authors like Barlas who explicitly self-identify as Muslim scholars and who write from an explicitly Islamic religious perspective should all be treated as primary sources on this topic, i.e. their views should only be given if and as discussed by secular secondary sources. This will not only guarantee that the article meets minimum quality requirements, but it will also make it easier for editors to come to a consensus on what should or should not be included in the article (if a reliable, secular secondary source discusses another contemporary scholar's view on the subject, whoever it is, it's good to go).

Kind regards. :) — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You are merely further underlining your inability to understand our sourcing guidelines. You have literally quoted our conflict of interest guidelines, in which no mention of religious affiliation is made. You are not arguing for independence in sourcing; you are arguing for inequality. All individuals are equal before publishing standards, the peer-review process, etc. As Nableezy has noted, your thoroughly misguided line of reasoning is akin to saying white people cannot be considered independent on white history because their identity is, in of itself, a conflict of interest. That is not in the guidelines. Your quoting of other editors is even less meaningful. If Apaugasma wants to comment here, I'm sure they will, but I doubt they will throw in their lot with you. As they note, authors that write from an "explicitly Islamic religious perspective" are often not fantastic. There are many of these coming from South Asia, often from additionally explicitly religious publishers. These are not good. Just as books coming from religious Christian publishers in the US are rarely good. This is unrelated to tenured professors published in university presses who also hold to a religion (freedom of religion being fundamental human right). Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Doubling down on this claim that an author being Muslim constitutes a conflict of interest with the topic sufficient to disqualify university press-published work written by academics is pretty troubling. I'm now inclined to agree with User:Nableezy that This statement (or rather, this ongoing sentiment by itself should lead to a topic ban (probably from Islam as a topic area) because it evinces a disruptive misapplication of our guidelines that has led to Kaalakaa excluding major university press-published scholarship, merely on the grounds of the writer being Muslim (this factor somehow entirely outweighing all editorial control a publisher like Oxford University Press exercises in choosing what manuscripts it does and doesn't publish). Kaalakaa instead favors material from niche and outdated books (permanent link) like Rodgers's Generalship (covered in only one H-Net review that explicitly notes the book's greatest shortcoming is its inattention to a religious founder's religious life) and a sixty-year-old book written by a man its republisher calls a "maverick Marxist".

I'll add that the very next sentence of WP:IS following Kaalakaa's quotation of it is Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic (italics added), and the entirety of the explanatory essay makes clear that the community's primary concern with independence is in direct relational entanglements: CEOs writing about their own companies, a person writing about their family member or themselves, staffers writing about the politician they campaign for, etc. To insist that mere affiliation with a religion or heritage is on that level is to misapprehend the purpose of WP:V and the meaning of WP:IS. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

2021 Canadian church burnings

There is a discussion at Talk:2021 Canadian church burnings that could use additional input. Elinruby (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Some rough thoughts as someone uninvolved who's just getting up to speed on this -

• It's not obvious why related events in the US wouldn't be appropriate to mention. It's not unusual for articles to "spill over" with a bit of discussion of adjacent events that aren't technically within the scope implied by the title. Most "Background", "Aftermath", and similar sections include such events.
• We should stick to events with explicit connections made by reliable sources, though, and not give much weight to adjacent events, unless a RM is first done to broaden the article's scope.
• The Catholic Sentinel does at least mention Canadian fires, so it doesn't seem like WP:OR is involved in making that connection.
• In general no policy guarantees inclusion of certain content; when there's no content policy violation it comes down to editorial judgement. So I'd be open to hearing arguments that the content isn't significant, or that it has low relevance because there's speculation involved in the connections, etc.
• If such content is included, it might be appropriate to move it out of the "main" section and into a section like "Related events".

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

2021 Canadian church burnings cites and appears to have been based on a list compiled by True North. On the talk page someone debunks that list also, and see current RSN thread on that source. It also devotes an entire paragraph to an arson at a Coptic church committed by a mentally ill woman who was mad at her boyfriend. Since you ask for more input.Elinruby (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I essentially echo XDanielx's comments in full. I also think this should have been discussed more first on the article talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That's rather...something... in context. I can't really comment freely even here, since you consider criticism of content to be a personal attack. Elinruby (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

To get clarification, is the current list of burnings based on True North? Because of so...dear God, that would need revamped. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think so. So far somebody has come in from RSN saying nope nope not ever and removed it as the source Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Somebody else has removed the arson committed by the lady who was mad at her boyfriend Elinruby (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Page Joseph Kallarangatt significantly violates Neutral point of view

The page Joseph Kallarangatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) significantly violates WP:NPOV under the section Pastoral Ministry

as of latest revision [64]

1. It was criticised for ignoring the large population boom in India and for going against the existent two-child norm in Kerala, the critics from within the Syro-Malabar community described it as an unethical and immoral scheme created for petty political gains and as interference in the sexual lives of married couples by unmarried clergy

This line was added from an opinion piece article in https://www.laity4justice.com/post/pregnancy-package-of-indian-catholic-church-sparks-controversy-in-india . This citation was later removed citing its unreliability, but the line still remains.

And the context of Bishop's and Church's position isn't added(falling birth rate of Christians of Kerala and Bishop's stance is keeping in line with official Church doctrine against contraceptives and family planning) where reliable sources exist and is the ground reality.

1. The remarks attracted immediate and widespread condemnation from within the Christian community.

the already cited source here gives evidence to widespread condemnation “and support” within the Christian community but it is blatantly skipped and didn't included in this article even the word “support” is reverted.

1. From within the Syro-Malabar Church, the former spokesman of the Synod, Father Paul Thelakkat criticised Kallarangatt

For context, this father Paul Thelakkat who is portrayed here as “within the Church” was removed from that position due to an FIR registered based on a complaint filed by the Syro-Malabar Church itself back in 2019. Source https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2019/May/31/document-forgery-case-probe-team-questions-fr-paul-thelakkat-fr-antony-kallookaran-1983969.html Although overall context between the person who criticizes the Church and the Church isn't always apt but when addressed as “former spokesperson, within Syro Malabar the context is ought to be included.

1. The Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council (KCBC) in which Kallarangatt and Perumthottam held influential positions released a statement…

The official stance of Syro Malabar Church to which the Bishop belongs and KCBC isn't included. The Kerala Catholic Bishops Council(KCBC) is portrayed here as a personal tool of this Bishop sans any substantial citation or reliable source(that line is strictly POV edit) when in reality KCBC is the regional council of all Bishops of the all three sui iuris Catholic Churches of Kerala. KCBCs official statement and endorsement of Bishop and Bishops supporting him shouldn't be skipped when considering neutral point of view that too on a living person.

In essence, this section of article selectively tries to give negative image all with the criticism of the Bishop while in reality equal and positive side exists(with reliable sources) and are left out.

As of now the page is under protection and I can't correct these issues unless the protection level is dropped. The issue has been noted in the article's talk page. The NPOV issue has been on that page for a great while now. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Gaza genocide again

Three months after a previous requested moves post was made to change the title of the Allegations of genocide in the 2023_Israeli attack on Gaza to "attempted genocide" or "Gaza genocide" was rejected, see Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 29 February 2024, a new move request has been opened, where it has again been proposed that the article be retitled "Gaza genocide" or similar. See Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)