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

"Genocide denial" and Uyghurs

See discussion here: Talk:Genocide_denial#POV_pushing. Is it okay to include the Chinese government's denial of their genocide of the Uyghurs in the article genocide denial, even though denial that a genocide is taking place is mainstream scholarly opinion? Endwise (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It is definitely wrong to baldly state or imply that there is a genocide of Uyghurs happening without any qualification, especially about what is meant by genocide in that context. However if there is suitable and clearly stated qualification I think it can be included in that article. At the moment it is just wrong , and it needs qualification explaining what is meant by genocide there not just attribution to fix. NadVolum (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

RS have said there is, so we do, but we can say China denies it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. We do not on Wikipedia say that China is committing genocide, there is in fact consensus against that. Endwise (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

So if we do not say they have, why do we need to include their denial? Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Huh? I'm saying that the genocide denial article should not include the Chinese government's denial of the genocide of Uyghurs. Endwise (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not seen anything which suggests that "denial that a genocide is taking place is mainstream scholarly opinion" nor have I seen any sources which say that. We can't do OR to invalidate what WP:RS are saying, if WP:RS use the term "genocide denial"(which they appear to do) then its going to be hard for us to second guess them without sources which explicitly do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There was an abundance of sources presented in the RfC at the main article: Talk:Uyghur_genocide#The_first_sentence_does_not_make_sense, and there was consensus in favour of the fact that There exists a serious debate in reliable sources as to whether the events/actions are a genocide. The events/actions may not be labelled as a genocide in wikivoice, that is, as an uncontested fact. To claim that it is an uncontested fact that genocide is taking places goes against existing community consensus. Endwise (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And how do you make the jump from a debate over the name to denial? I don't see any sources referring to the debate over the name as denial, they appear to be pointing to denial that the event is occurring at all when they talk about genocide denial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a case for saying some reliable sources say there is a genocide - but the statement would still needs to be qualified as to what they mean by genocide as the common meaning is quite different from that of the UN convention. The word does not have anything like a unique meaning. NadVolum (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

But thats not what we appear to be talking about, we're talking about genocide denial (which to be clear is not quibbling over the name). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• At a glance I don't think the current sources are appropriate for this. The problem is that "genocide denial" has a fairly specific meaning - I don't think it's appropriate for us to build a section out of news sources where a government simply says a genocide isn't taking place. We should use scholarly / academic sources specifically saying that this is genocide denial (or words that clearly have the same meaning), and should probably attribute to those unless the consensus about what's happening is overwhelming, which I don't think it is. If those sources can't be found then it shouldn't be mentioned at all; the current formulation strikes me as WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There is an extensive Xinjiang denial-industrial complex. I think that coverage of this denial complex is quite apt. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

We could only call it genocide denial if there was a consensus in reliable sources for the description. A lot of the arguments for including it are synthesis - editors conclude it is genocide denial based on their interpretation of the facts and definitions of genocide and genocidal definitions. TFD (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Arguments are not WP:SYNTH when there are reliable sources that explicitly describe the denial of abuses as a very real phenomenon. What are you talking about? — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You first have the problem that the events with Uyghur are not widely considered to be a genocide across all reliable sources in the first place, so to find if there us agreement that China is going to be considered to engage in genocide denial in widespread agreement is going to be impossible. You can certainly cherry pick a few sources but for a claim this great, that's not sufficient.--Masem (t) 19:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is the central problem. Endwise (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't forget that the "genocide denial" contains an implicit statement that the event in question was/is a genocide. Also that being sourced is requirement for inclusion, not anything else such as a mandate or a categorical green light for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't do second level analysis, if the WP:RS says "genocide denial" its not our place to ask "Sure, but was it genocide in the first place?" and by the same token if the source does not say genocide denial we can't say "Well its a genocide so thats genocide denial and we can label it as such" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

We are allowed to try and figure out the meaning of what something says rather than just searching for words and copying. That is particularly important here because of the different meanings of genocide. NadVolum (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Genocide denial means genocide denial, it is not our place to question that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Referring to which definition of genocide? The UN convention one or the dictionary one or something different or changes between sections depending on what you want it to be or you don't care provided the word is used? NadVolum (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thats a level of analysis beyond what we as wikipedia editors do. Please see WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Our job is to summarize sources, and that means being familiar with how a topic is presented across all mainstream and academic works, not just cherry picking a few sources. It was clear from the Uyghur genocide talk page that while the title uses the term, otherwise treating the situation as genocide as fact in wikivoice did not follow agreement from sources, and so knowing that, it us absolutely clear we can't treat this ad a "genocide denial" for the same reasons, lack of source agreement.--Masem (t) 14:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a lack of source agreement? I don't see any case where one source calls something "genocide denial" and another source disputes that characterization. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There is definitely a lack if source agreement on whether it is a genocide to begin with, so by that implication, there absolutely would be the same on whether China's behavior can be called a denial of that. Further, before we go stating this as fact in wikiboice, there better be mass agreement across a majority of sources, and not just pointing to a few sources that use the term (cherry picking) while others do not offer any such claim. Otherwise that's making the minority sources' view UNDUE. We are not married to only considering the story told by RSes but instead have to be fully cognizant if the big picture when we are going to make statements like this, otherwise we become an echo chamber. --Masem (t) 13:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"there absolutely would be the same on whether China's behavior can be called a denial of that." if thats absolutely true I'm sure you can find the sources. As far as I can tell the characterization of "genocide denial" is the majority opinion, I actually can't find its counterpoint expressed in reliable sources... I have to go to places like The Greyzone to find them at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets put it this way...say there are 100 RSes talk broadly discuss the situation re Uyghur. How many of those specificly say "genocide denial"? If it's anything less than say 15 or so, then you are definitely in the realm of cherry picking. It may be majority viewpoint, but if no one else is even providing a viewpoint or taking a side, it us wrong to claim that as a majority viewpoint. That's why it's important to look past just what you can claim the RSes say. --Masem (t) 14:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thats not how WP:DUE works, if the topic is genocide denial (it is, the page in question here is genocide denial, not Uyghur genocide) then we look at sources which cover genocide denial. Why when covering the topic of genocide denial would it be cherrypicking to use sources which cover genocide denial instead of those which do not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"China is engaging in genocide denial" is clearly, by its very nature and due to it being an ongoing event, is a highly contentious statement. It needs to have strong agreement across a wide array of sources to make that claim in wikivoice, or other it has to be treated as attributed opinion (which begs whether it should be included on the genocide denial page to start). This is why I again ask to what proportion of the RSes are making the claim relative to the number covering the topic. If they are in the minority, then it fails being DUE for a controversial topic. To contrary, there is widespread agreement that Russia invaded Ukraine, and not Russia's purported statement on its military encounters, so we run with the invasion angle. --Masem (t) 18:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't find any sources covering the topic of genocide denial which disagree. If its highly contentious then why don't we appear to have any RSes contending otherwise? If you are saying that we should be attributing the claims to the sources that make them thats fine, but thats not what you appear to be arguing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It is surely self-evident that anyone who argues that this is not genocide, or even argues that we don't yet know what it is, is also arguing against genocide denial, even if not stated explicitly. It would be a logical nonsense to say something other than genocide occurred but China is guilty of genocide denial (which is a wholly different thing from simply saying what occurred is not genocide, or even that nothing bad occurred). An absence of sources saying explicitly that Pincrete is not a Martian, doesn't automatically make a small number saying he is, true. All those arguing that there are no such thing as Martians can reasonably be treated as affirming that Pincrete isn't one! Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't get the analogy, in that situation Pincrete's page would need to cover the martian claims per WP:NPOV. Genocide denial also exists whether China does it or not, so martians would exist even if Pincrete is not a martian. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate read of DUE from NPOV, particularly in light of a ongoing or recent situation where opinion and debate are still developing on a topic. (I intend to raise the need for NPOV to address RECENTISM soon here). If Uyghur situation happened twenty years ago and of the RSes that reported on it, the only majority viewpoint was that it was a genocide and that China engaged in it denial, it would likely be okay to say that in wikivoice. But the situation is still ongoing, the investigation continuing, so we know not all opinions and final judgements have been formed. We know that making any claim of finality in wikivoice now is jumping the gun, and thus inappropriate for us now to try to assert the one viewpoint as fact. It can be used as attributed opinion, but that likely means not on the genocide denial page. --Masem (t) 13:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

So where is the appropriate home for the information about genocide denial? We have too many WP:RS for it not to have a home, if that home isn't genocide denial where is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It likely would have to be on the Uyghur genocide page, but included as attributed opinion of those sourced ("According to media outlets like X, Y, and Z claim that China is engaged in genocide denial in relation to the Uyghur situation."). --Masem (t) 12:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think this can be addressed with a simple logic chain. 1. Is it established that a genocide happened? 2. Is an established genocide being denied? I'm not sure that it has been established that this is a genocide thus I'm not sure we should call it genocide denial at this point. Thus, if the answer to the first question is no then the answer to the second isn't relevant. Springee (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't follow this logic. Every perpetrator of a genocide in history has denied responsibility while it is happening. Why is the Chinese government's denial at all relevant here? CutePeach (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Similarly, we do not simply say Putin is not a fascist because he says he is not. We describe the consensus of independent experts. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Some editors above have hit the nail on the head. Opinions on or acceptance of human rights abuses against the Chinese Uyghur population as genocide is immaterial to whether the topic is covered on this page. As is whether someone or some government has denied this genocide. Genocide denial as a phenomenon, process or area of study is very different from a recorded instance of "X denying the genocide of Y". We need to look at what the RS says and there is a range of literature dealing with genocide denial. I've had a good dig through this and have not been able to find any sources in this field treating the responses to the Uyghur genocide as genocide denial (aside from some opinion pieces [1] [2] [3] [4]). This is probably because the abuses in Xinjiang are ongoing and #1 rigorous academic publications are not quick to produce and #2 (according to Gregory Stanton) genocide denial is often the final part of the genocide process. In contrast, Chinese government response to abuses in Tibet have been spoken about in genocide denial literature (as in Forgotten Genocides : Oblivion, Denial, and Memory). In summary, regardless of consensus or acceptance of the Uyghur genocide if RS discuss the response to it as genocide denial (not just a news report saying China has denied this - all perpetrators deny their abuses) then it could be covered in this article (with appropriate consideration of WP:DUE as it pertains to the genocide denial topic). Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Easy solution. The article genocide denial is supposed to be about the general phenomenon of genocide denial, rather than specific cases. Focus on sources that are about the general phenomenon of genocide denial and wait to cover the Chinese government's statements about the Uyghur issue until it makes its way into such general sources. (t · c) buidhe 04:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• The genocide has been established since forced sterilization was established in 2020, as per the Rome Statute recognizing "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" as an act of genocide when "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Couching the genocide of the ​​Uyghur people in language that trivializes these atrocities is a perversion of WP:NPOV. There is a need to qualify this definition of genocide, but not to deny it. CutePeach (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  The issue with the "prevent births" part in particular is that China had a one-child (now three-child) policy that the Uyghurs were previously exempt from.

  There is however a good body of evidence demonstrating that China is "Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group" so characterization as a genocide is still valid. Pasta Enjoyer (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Azov "Battalion" - several editors stubbornly refusing to address Kremlin disinfo in lede, WP:OWNERSHIP issues, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP:CCC

Several editors continue to delete and ignore the leading scholarship on this issue, and the most eminently reliable (and recent) news sources.

Even if there was good-faith engagement regarding the sources on the talk page - which there isn't from those who blatantly claim WP:OWNERSHIP - an RfC is utterly redundant when literally all of the most reliable news outlets publishing in the English language (AFP, BBC, DW, CNN, WashPo,, Financial Times, et al) plus the leading academic experts on the issue of irregular militias in the conflict (A. Umland, K. Fedorenko, A. Shekhovtsov, et al) explicitly refute the propaganda emanating out of Moscow and repeated by online outlets, that the Azov Regiment of today, a 1,000-odd strong unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, is a "neo-Nazi" unit.

Peer-reviewed sources:

Umland, A. (2019). "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014." Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1). "As briefly illustrated below, the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group that today controls a relatively large military unit could present several problems..." (p. 107)

Gomza, I., & Zajaczkowski, J. (2019). Black Sun Rising: Political Opportunity Structure Perceptions and Institutionalization of the Azov Movement in Post-Euromaidan Ukraine. Nationalities Papers, 47(5), 774-800.

An in-depth study of Azov members' activity online, results attribute characterization of "Radical" far right nationalist to 38% of members, 0% as Nazi or neo-Nazi.

Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.

"While many commentators emphasize the right-wing extremist party as the political background of the Azov Battalion, the Verkhovna Rada deputy and Azov Civil Corps affiliate Oleh Petrenko, once a football fan club activist from Cherkassy and short-term Right Sector member, has stated that 50% of the early Azov fighters came out of the Ukrainian ultras movement of soccer fans..." (p. 243)

"Zvarych [US-born Roman Zvarych, former head of Azov] has claimed that he was critically involved in organizing combat training for Azov battalion/regiment fighters, by Georgian, American, Lithuanian, and British instructors, and to have advised the Azov movement to refrain from using symbols and ideas that could be linked to Nazism..." (p. 244)

Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall “Azov”: Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 65(1/2), 33–41.

Zu diesen gehört das Bataillon Azov. Seine Geschichte ist dubios, Führungsriege und Symbolik sind faschistisch. Aber Azov, das zum Nationalgarderegiment aufgewertet wurde, ist atypisch....

Obwohl die Freiwilligenverbände nur einen Teil der bewaffneten Formationen der Ukraine ausmachen, spielten sie bei den ersten Zusammenstößen sowie bei weiteren bedeutenden Kämpfen mit Separatisten und der russländischen Armee im Donbass... Dies ist einer der Gründe, warum die Freiwilligenverbände neben der Nationalgarde rasch ins Blickfeld der Moskauer Propaganda rückten.

Allerdings ist nur ein Teil der Mitglieder des inzwischen zum Regiment nen Verbands Azov wie auch anderer nationalistischer Freiwilligenbataillone, rassistisch...

Das im Fernsehen und auf der Straße sehende Abzeichen [the Azov logo] wird in der ukrainischen Öffentlichkeit nicht als [neo-Nazi] Symbol, sondern als eines von mehreren populären Wappen der Freiwilligenbewegung der Ukraine wahrgenommen...

Through filibustering, wikilawyering, and outright deceptive editing, this disinformation has been displayed on Wikipedia for the duration of the war - giving credence and support to those who argue online Ukraine is indeed in need of "de-Nazification", therefore justifying the Russian invasion.

I could provide a play-by-play account of the nasty gamesmanship on display, but I'm sure any neutral taking a cursory look at the recent edit history of this page, will in several minutes see quite clearly several editors are monopolizing the content of this article to the detriment of the WP project.

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment Idk much about this but it seems on a quick look to be a debate over what the balance of sources actually say, so maybe the way to go is set about totting them up. Separately, I notice that OP recently made a comment at RSN (also discussing this issue) that Al Jazeera are reliable for nothing even though classed green at WP:RSP which does make me wonder about the "neutrality" here. Accusing other editors of ganging up doesn't strike me as particularly helpful, take that to ANI if there is evidence for it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relevance Al Jazeera has to this issue, but I have plenty of resources on that if you're interested in why it has fallen so far from its heights during the early days of the Arab Spring. Watkins' 24-page 2019 research monograph is a good place to start: "Satellite sectarianisation or plain old partisanship?: Inciting violence in the Arab mainstream media" London School of Economics, Conflict Research Program, Middle East Centre Report.[5] - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

AJ is green at RSP, open a discussion at RSN if you think that's wrong.Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The Al Jazeera article says that a video circulated on social media purportedly shows members of the unit smearing pig fat on bullets. That much is true. The video exists and I have seen it. I question its authenticity, but as far as I know it hasn't been debunked Several other videos about this unit have been traced by Bellingcat to CyberBerkut, however, but that's just an aside about why I would question it.

The really important thing is that it doesn't demonstrate neo-Naziness, as Islamophobia isn't generally considered Nazi behaviour. If true it makes them hateful bigots, but that is not the same thing. This question has already been through the RSN.

Note at well wp:npa, there was a recent RFC about this, I am currently gageing opinion for another. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are assessing opinion in good faith, why are you currently dismissing concerns about another editor deleting comments about this from the talk page? [6] I am also confused by your comment at RSN about...(checks notes) "NOte, if a source says water is wet, and so is ice, that does not mean water is not wet." Police in Belarus as an authority on Ukrainian military since I *think* you are saying that an article about a German lawsuit about a man who was beaten by a policeman in Belarus for wearing a t-shirt depicting Marvel's The Punisher does in fact prove that Azov Battalion is neo-Nazi. But I am really not sure.

However, this is the NPOV board, not RSN, so let's talk about WP:DUE. What's undisputed is that the founder of the group, back in the Revolution of Dignity, was a skinhead soccer hooligan street fighter. This founder later started a far-right political party, and by law had to resign from the battalion to do so and run for office.

In a past project I have translated a large number of articles about various current and former units of the French Foreign Legion, including at least one that was part of the SAS in World War 2. Possibly it's just the French, but all of these articles covered all of the campaigns of the unit question, as well as its equipment and commanders sometimes, and any special honors, like being allowed to wear certain patches or fourragères or the SAS beret.

Azov's participation in the current Siege of Mariupol gets half a sentence at the end of "Other dates and activities". The other half of the sentence is about their commander being declared a Hero of Ukraine, the highest honor an individual can receive from the Ukrainian government.

Much is made in the article of the presence of foreign fighters; a Russian propaganda point has been that these are mercenaries. They earn, according to the article, $526 a month. There is a lot of hand waving about how a segmented circle is obviously a Nazi symbol, and an attempt is made to show that another purported Nazi symbol is still in use based on a photo.

Almost all of the references are from 2014. The primary criteria for the sources seems to be that they contain the words neo-Nazi and Azov. Those are currently sourcing "is a neo-Nazi unit" with an article about an Australian neo-Nazi trying to travel to Serbia, who according to the Australian wanted to join the Azov Regiment. This may well be true, but the concern of the Australians wasn't that he would be radicalized, it was that they considered him dangerous and didn't think he needed to learn any additional combat skills in a tough fighting unit. I think there is an obvious due weight problem here, but hey, we're asking Elinruby (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh! I meant to get back to the battles. There is a list in the infobox. Some of them get a one-sentence mention. I can't find anything in the body of the article about the Battle of Ilovaisk, however, where the casualty rate was 25% and over which military heads rolled, which seems at least as notable as the political beliefs of the founder of an ancestor organization in 2014. Also it is probably worth mentioning that somebody opined that Ukrainian Wikipedia editors could not be trusted to be neutral.[7] Elinruby (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You have to ensure that the quotes you provide support your position. For example, one quote says the former head of AZOV has "claimed" "to have advised the Azov movement to refrain from using symbols and ideas that could be linked to Nazism." Being quoted in a reliable source does not make his claim reliable. Basically, you are relying on the former head of Azov to describe them. And removal of Nazi symbols does not necessarily mean the abandonment of fascism. Lots of groups from the British National Party to the Sweden Democrats to the French National Front have done that.

Also the fact that only half of the membership once belonged to a fascist party, while the other half were soccer hooligans, is not evidence that the group is not far right. A lot of far right violence emanates from soccer hooliganism. The English Defense League for example developed out of the Luton Football Club. In any case, that is your conclusion, not what your quoted text says.

I don't know why you mention that Azov only has 1,000 members. That's another argument - that it's small enough to ignore.

TFD (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

They come up too much in Russian propaganda to ignore them. Also, the regiment has a pretty extensive military history, most recently the Siege of Mariupol and a 2022 Hero of Ukraine designation for their defense of that city.

But nod, as far as Neo-Nazi is concerned, you pretty much have the picture, except that there probably wasn't much of a 50-50. I think it was more like an organized group of soccer hooligans with neo-Nazi ideas that became a militia when the Ukrainian revolution overthrew the Russian-backed government in 2014. At least some of the members of that group were, as best I can tell, pretty definitely very right-wing, and maybe neo-Nazi. Pretty good sources say that the founder, Andriy Biletsky, was almost certainly somewhere on that spectrum. And there were definitely at least a few others. So he was the head of a right-wing militia, in a country under attack by the Russians, and the military was in a shambles, as the government had just been overthrown, so the militia was allowed to patrol and perform other duties.

At about this time Biletsky founded a right-wing party and was elected to the parliament. Under Ukrainian law he could not hold office while a member of any kind of military group, so he left the battalion. How genuinely ties were cut is in question, which is fine as long as it gets sourced as to whether they were or were not. But as you point out, the sourcing is terrible. See the Reliable Sources Noticeboard also, and the sections titled "US Congressman as an authority on Nazis" and "Police in Belarus as an authority on the Ukrainian military".

Meanwhile "separatists" in the east who definitely at least somewhat overlapped with the Russian military were attacking cities there, so the battalion fought in a number of battles there. All of these are just barely mentioned in the article, and one, where the casualty rate was 25%, seems to appear only in the infobox. This is the DUE weight I was talking about. I have been told in no uncertain terms that these battles are not important. Definitely much less important than saying neo-nazi.

In November 2014 the battalion became a regiment of the Ukrainian national guard. Another point that is in question is the extent to which the members of the regiment now overlap with the original group of soccer hooligans. My own position is that this extent is probably non-zero, but whatever we say about it should be well sourced.

This is where the handwaving and eye rolling come in. Attempts are made to prove that of course they are neo-Nazi, because look, here's a list of Google search results that contain the words "neo-Nazi" and "Azov", and look, here is a photo of a flag. I am neutral on the subject of whether a segmented circle is a Nazi symbol, but if it is, we should source that as an extraordinary claim. More than half the article is devoted to showing six degrees of neo-nazism, all sourced to articles saying that the Christchurch shooter admired the unit, and supposedly they put pig fat on their bullets.

Biletsky also founded a couple of non-profits, I believe. The article doesn't really cover those except to claim in the lede that they and the regiment are one and the same organization as the former battalion. My point is that the truth is the truth and the truth is neutral, so if really this is some massive conspiracy to put pig fat on bullets then we should be able to find sources for these statements, and they should be good ones given what the article is saying. The process seems however to have been instead to find sources for statements that were already perceived as obviously true. Elinruby (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The Azov Battalion article may be the tip of the spear of contentiousness on Wikipedia right now. It's a contentious topic, within the contentious topic area of eastern Europe and the Balkans, which is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBEE). There has been one acrimonious Rfc last year on this topic, and another is underway. So, that's the background for this.

Based on what I'm reading, there has been an evolution from a group led by a neonazi leader, and heavily influenced by neo-nazism in the early days, to one that still has neonazi members but with considerably less influence than before, and whose primary goal has shifted. Editors with opposing views at the article appear to rely on reports that tend to be snapshots in time at either end, early (neonazi), or late (less so), supported by WP:CHERRYPICKED sources telling very different stories from their earlier history and their later history, whereas a neutral presentation can only come from an approach that reflects both, and the evolution between them.

There is a group of editors on one side relying on sources exclusively or mostly from the early period of Azov's existence, which accurately report the clearly neonazi nature of the leadership, ideology, and membership at that time. This group argues for saying things like, "Azov Batallion is a neonazi unit..." in the present tense. There are plenty of sources that use that wording. There is a group of editors on the other side relying on more recent events, especially the 2022 invasion of Ukraine including reports of the highly effective nature of Azov's defense of Ukraine against Russia, the recruitment of members from all political background, and the considerably decreased influence of far-right ideology and neonazis who still belong to the battalion. There are plenty of sources for this as well. Both stories are true, but neither snapshot alone is adequate to neutrally cover this topic, and this is the big failing of this article currently, in my opinion. Only a narrative which covers both, and ideally shows the evolution between them, can be neutral.

Selfstudier has the right approach. It's a bit tricky in this case, because of how online search works. If you search Google books (which I haven't done yet) I suspect that will be somewhat biased towards the earlier period, including the 2014 Donbas War, simply because it takes time to research and write a book. Searches on the web will probably appear to stress the neonazi element less, simply because there will be articles spread over the whole period, including the current war. (These are my assumptions, which I haven't tested.) So, while I think this is the right approach, there are some pitfalls lurking, and care should be taken in carrying it out, trying a variety of queries in books, scholarly journals, general web search, news, and more to get a feel of the overall picture and whether there is a consensus that there has been change since their origins, so a neutral picture of the Azov Battalion can be presented. Mathglot (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I think @Mathglot hit the nose on the head here wrt different groups becoming entrenched and selectively cherry-picking sources. Perhaps the best way forward would be to draw up all the sources, with clear notation of their timing, and then note which say "neonazi" and which do not. And which say "formerly" or "with neonazi elements" or "with some neonazi members." Similar to what we have over at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Sources. And then write an RFC based exclusively on that source review. What we have now is a lot more haphazard. I think the current RFC as it stands is probably fine, but I also acknowledge that contentious RFCs like this need to be pretty much perfect if we want their consensus to stick... So I would support closing it as malformed and starting over from a purely source-based perspective. To be clear, there will always be someone who disputes the RFC no matter what, but at least we could make it more solid from an unbiased uninvolved user perspective. I will get started on that source review over at Talk:Azov Battalion/Sources but I will very likely be unable to finish it! Any help is much appreciated. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot, for carefully deliberating on both Enlightenment and Elinruby's points which so far have been stonewalled. --Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, my nose still hurts, but if it helps get us to a more neutral article, it was worth it. Mathglot (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to add that my DUE WEIGHT concerns have absolutely nothing to do with the current RfC and the current hyperfocus on whether the lede should say “is neonazi”, or the editor behavior that has accompanied it. It is however a good example — the lede should say “is neonazi” if that is what the sources show, right? The lede is supposed to reflect the body, and the body needs a massive re-write for NPOV. How is the Siege of Mariupol somehow not worthy of mention when many paragraphs of printer ink are spilled over a 2010 quote from the founder, whose accuracy he denies? (“of course he denies it!”). I cannot vote in the current RfC because i think we should follow Wikipedia policy rather than voting to validate the articles’ preconceptions. As for ANI, don’t get me started. I was reported for telling people to read the reliable sources policy, and I see it is now EN’s turn. I still think this article should reflect Wikipedia policy even if I get reported over there all over again Elinruby (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Personally I would avoid using terms such as neo-Nazi and neo-fascist except in the most obvious cases. The American Nazi Party for example should be called neo-Nazi. Otherwise the term far right, which includes neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, Klansmen and similar groups is preferable. My problem is that if we call Azov neo-Nazi, what do we call the American Nazi Party? That's something though that should be decided on a global basis.

There are parallels with Golden Dawn (Greece). It too was founded by hooligans, uses Nazi symbols that it pretends are indigenous symbols and honors Nazi collaborators. While it is frequently called neo-Nazi, the article does not call them that but says they have been called that.

TFD (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Big Pharma conspiracy theory

This article appears to be more advocacy than information. It's main source is "The Big Pharma conspiracy theory", Robert Blaskiewicz, European Medical Writers Association. It's a three page article by a Visiting Assistant Professor of Writing at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. The association is made up mostly of medical writers who work for the pharmaceutical industry. While the paper correctly points out that some criticisms of the industry are conspiracism, it implies that most if not all criticism is conspiracism.

The Wikipedia article then talks about various conspiracy theories that involve pharmaceutical companies even though the sources don't call them Big Pharma conspiracy theories.

Also, while the main source is about a conspiracy theory (singular), the Wikipedia article defines the Big Pharma conspiracy theory as "a group of conspiracy theories." This allows it to include conspiracy theories that the sources do not describe as the Big Pharma conspiracy theory.

The criteria for inclusion seems overly broad. It is any claim that a pharmaceutical company has acted against the public good in the interests of profits. But according to then U.S. attorneys, Purdue Pharma "admitted that it marketed and sold its dangerous opioid products to healthcare providers, even though it had reason to believe those providers were diverting them to abusers."[8] They plead guilty to fraud, which is a financially motivated crime.

The Wikipedia article seems to be more about advocacy than enlightenment.

TFD (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The EMWA "has over 800 members from 27 countries, and includes academics and professionals working in-house or freelance for pharmaceutical and medical communications companies, research institutes and in the field of scientific journalism". It would seem your associating that they mostly "work for the pharmaceutical industry" is a ... Big Pharma conspiracy theory! There's plenty of sourcing on this, so an article is appropriate. Maybe it should be called Big Pharma conspiracy theories? Alexbrn (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that pluralizing the article would solve most of these problems — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• This was already being discussed at WP:FTN#Big Pharma conspiracy theory as well as at the article Talk page. Probably better to comment in one of those venues rather than adding a third. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article I linked to says the EMWA was established "as a professional organisation for European medical writers, whether working freelance or in-house at pharmaceutical companies or medical communications companies." "About the Medical Writing Journal" says, "Most members of EMWA work in the pharmaceutical, medical communications, or biomedical publications industries."

Your cavalier approach to accusing other people of conspiracism, which is a personal attack, shows that you don't understand what the term means and instead use it as a weapon. Paraphrasing Richard Hofstader, Blaskiewicz wrote, "This agent [the subject of a conspiracy theory] is, as are all antagonists in conspiratorial narratives, improbably powerful, competent, and craven." A suggestion that a publication may take an interest in conspiracy theories targeting the pharmaceutical industry because many of its members work in that industry does not reach that bar. As someone interested in medicine, you should be aware of standards of evidence and proof.

The relevance of the orientation of the publication is not reliability but weight. A topic that merits a three page article in this publication may not receive the same degree of in-depth extensive coverage in other publications.

Incidentally, the reason for noticeboards is to bring in discussion from outside editors. If discussions were restricted to article talk pages, there would be no need for noticeboards.

TFD (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, I was unaware of the discussion at FTN which apparently you, another editor of the article and a third editor were the only contributors. When you post to a noticeboard, you are supposed to inform other editors using the article talk page. TFD (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Repeating a conspiracy theory doesn't make it true. According to the Big Pharma conspiracy theory the entire medical community is involved in it. So yes, by that, all our expert sources are part of the conspiracy. That is your argument, that Blaskiewicz has a concealed conflict of interest. But since you're also trying to attack him for being from an English professor (an excellent qualification for dealing with fiction, as it happens) then it doesn't add up. If he's from outside the medical community, how can he be also be a part of it? More generally, we don't reject reliable sources (peer-reviewed journal articles) just because a Wikipedia editor is engaged in fantasies about their provenance. (Oh, and you're wrong about FTN: there's no need to publicize a post to it.) Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• The Big Pharma conspiracy theory is a group of conspiracy theories that claim [...] pharmaceutical companies, especially large corporations, operate for sinister purposes and against the public good. What a ridiculous article. It appears that the United States Department of Justice is one of the most prominent proponents of such a conspiracy theory: List of largest pharmaceutical settlements. Endwise (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• This is clearly WP:FORUMSHOP OP hasn't been getting their way at the article talk page, and instead of continuing the discussion there, they've opened a new one here. As for "sources" and "neutrality" issues, OP has been presented with plenty of sources on the article talk page - that they keep dismissing them is their own problem. Similarly, they have been asked to clearly say what specific issues (instead of vague "this articles reads like advocacy") there are. Again, very much muted on that point. This is a classic WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY, and editors interested in the issue should go discuss it on the article talk page instead of needlessly and borderline tendentiously splitting it off here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think advertising the discussion here is tendentious or amounts to forum shopping. It got no new attention at FTN, and it appears the people in the discussion weren't notified about it, so the participants (or TFD at least) didn't know it existed. Advertising discussions at appropriate noticeboards to get the attention of additional editors is a good thing. Regarding WP:FORUMSHOP, this is the only noticeboard TFD has raised this issue at, so unless I'm reading that policy wrong isn't this essentially by definition not forum shopping? Endwise (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. There was a discussion ongoing about exactly the same issue on the article talk page. The recommendation, if one wants the attention of additional editors, is to post a sweet and short neutral notice about it, not restart the whole discussion. Splitting the discussion between multiple venues by started fully-fledged sections on different pages is not "a short neutral notice", nor does it help reach a consensus, as now editors have to track multiple posts on different pages (some of which may be by editors unaware of issues already discussed on the other page, or who simply haven't bothered to look because instead of having one big discussion to wade through there are two...) and an overall waste of everyone's time and effort. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Emphasis on the "short", when it comes to soliciting outside editors. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, you say that... I raised an issue/advertised a discussion here with a one word sentence a few sections up: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#"Genocide_denial"_and_Uyghurs. It ended up inviting more discussion here than at the talk page of the relevant article, so I'm a bit skeptical what difference brevity makes in practice. Endwise (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Endwise on this minor point, no thoughts on the thread as a whole (not getting my dog into this fight if I can avoid it lol). — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. The pot-stirring I'm seeing from TFD here is really something better left for behavior boards like AE (pseudoscience DS in this case). It's reminiscent of what happened in GMO topics years ago where they were involved too, so if tendentious behavior continues to be an issue, it might be time to revisit sanctions. FTN was already the correct venue for this, and looking for the talk page of the article, this definitely was not a neutral posting here, but rather disruptive forum shopping.

That misconduct can occur in pharmaceutical research and that people will often invoke related conspiracy theories does not mean that only one of the concepts can exist. Especially for us science editors, we see people who have trouble with this concept frequently, especially in terms of WP:ADVOCACY. KoA (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read the wording at the top of this page: "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion." I discussed this topic on the talk page then brought it here for wider attention. In fact I did not set up the discussion page on the article talk page so this is the only discussion thread I have set up. WP:FORUMSHOP is "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages." TFD (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as you just outlined, your post here was forum-shopping, especially in terms of how you did it. You've been given plenty of guidance on this, and disruptive behavior like that or attempting to wiki-lawyer is never appropriate on a noticeboard. KoA (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think it is more of a *fallacy* than a *conspiracy theory* and unfortunately it is very prevalent in my country. I think it needs more significant coverage calling it a conspiracy theory to justify a standalone page. CutePeach (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Is this plethora of scholarly and otherwise respected sources not sufficient for an article? [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] (All of these are high quality scholarly sources - not all peer reviewed, but most, which describe "conspiracy theories" about "big pharma.") — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I just saw the discussion and new sources provided [20]. The subject is clearly notable enough for its own page and I would oppose deleting it. CutePeach (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk

In the elon musk subreddit the relevant Wikipedia page has been called out for being negative and a particular user keeping it that way, could someone take a look? https://www.reddit.com/r/elonmusk/comments/u69f22/elon_musks_wikipedia_page_is_seriously_biased

Back ache (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not the first time. There is a good reason why the article is semi-protected long-term.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

👍Back ache (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Libs of TikTok

Both User:Gamezero05 and All cats are british have said the page Libs of TikTok is biased towards the left. Both users have resorted to whitewashing the article through removal of content [21]. I am open to new ideas on how to improve the article, but removing information is not helpful. X-Editor (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The only information I have removed was blatantly biased content or irrelevant content. I have not "whitewashed" anything.  Gamezero05  talk  22:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

How is it biased to say that someone participated in the capitol attack or that they have certain beliefs? Because that is what you removed. X-Editor (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Elli:@Pokelova:@Muboshgu: Since these editors have also edited the article. X-Editor (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur that the article is not meaningfully biased towards the left. It reports what reliable sources have said about the subject while avoiding false balance. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

User:All cats are british is a sock of LeticaLL and has been blocked. What I find particularly egregious is that the sentence Libs of TikTok has largely focused on conservative and anti-LGBT content was changed to Libs of TikTok has largely focused on attempting to expose the promotion of transgender and LGBT ideology by teachers in American schools by Gamezero05, which is similar rhetoric of accusations of CRT in public schools. I think it's inappropriate to remove/whitewash the content being anti-LGBT to something far less accurate. SWinxy (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is written with a left wing bent. Whether or not that is due to the contributor or the sources involved, I will never know. Nonetheless, I do believe the article needs to take a more neutral tone by introducing both the conservative arguments alongside the liberal ones and remove inflammatory language and let the reader ultimately form opinions around the facts provided by Wikipedia. Especially the ongoing debate over Taylor Lorenz and whether or not her conduct in revealing the identity of the accountholder as ethical behavior. While the article does take a more neutral tone in that regards it still falls short on the summary and debate in schools.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 19:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you are asking for a WP:FALSEBALANCE. When the reliable sources take a strong stand, so too should Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

They're not traditionally reliable. Pink news is designed with a bent and that is perfectly fine as long as Wikipedia points this out and ultimately allows users to make up their own minds. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 19:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole article is written from leftist POV, not neutral. WP is an online encyclopedia, not a Twitter account or a social media site for callouts. All I did was to remove the content that was against the rules. The person behind LOTT doesn't want her identity to be released publicly. The artı le should be deleted. Are you trying to make a callout post for editors like us?

-[User:All cats are British]

You did more than remove the person's name, you also removed plenty of content that had nothing to do with that [22]. Her identity is also already released to the public anyways, but I'm fine with not mentioning her identity in the lede. X-Editor (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

From a BLP standpoint the account identity appears to be something that the holder did not want to be known, and while RSes have publish the name, if they appeared to have continued to avoid the connection, then WP should not include the name either. This is very much like the Star Wars Kid situation prior to the person accepting the reveal of his identity, which we did not include the otherwise well published name. But I am not 100% clear if the person here has clearly tried to stay anonymous or not at a quick read level, and that's important to our decision here. --Masem (t) 23:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, the creator has used the same Twitter account throughout but changed the screenname from a self-identifying one to one that did not include her name. She only started to preserve anonymity on the platform once the account became about "owning libs". Hope that helps. QRep2020 (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Which, regardless of motive, to me implies they are actively trying to protect their identity. And for the purpose of WP and BLP, we should be taking the more cautious route and consider what has been done since the change to protect their identity. --Masem (t) 12:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I would err on the side of not revealing the name. As others have noted she didn't intend for it to get out and her name is not critical to understand the topic. Springee (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

She has openly connected herself and there are ample RS connecting her to it - this point is moot now. CUPIDICAE💕 18:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ha, no. The unmasking of the person behind the account is central to its notability. ValarianB (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

If you want to discuss things from a BLP standpoint, I suggest the already existing section at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Libs of TikTok for doing so. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Lidl

Lidl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The section at Lidl#Controversies appears to be way out of hand, and was brought up at Talk:Lidl#Controversy. The lengthy list of incidents, some of which relate to individual stores only, would appear undue to me at least. Any ideas on if, and how, this could be condensed? FDW777 (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the history, this appears to be the result of the SPA ThereminPlayer (talk · contribs). FDW777 (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Reminiscent of Criticism of Tesco ... Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Quite a few aren't controversies, just the usual product recalls. Others seem too minor. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a collection of news clippings of anything bad involving a Lidl store. Any one of 11,200 of them. It is preposterously out of balance, I will remove it. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello.

Not all of the controversies are my edits, but they have a neutral point of view. Also, they have reliable sources of information.

Not all product recalls have been mentioned. Only if somebody has died or fallen ill as result of Lidl's negligence, it's been listed. Incidents that seemingly concern only one branch are relevant because much of the questionable conduct is authorised by the main office.

Wikipedia contains adversities of very many companies. For instance, Walmart and Tesco have their lengthy criticism pages: Criticism of Walmart and Criticism of Tesco. Why exactly should Lidl receive special treatment?

My humble opinion is that the Controversies section should be restored.

ThereminPlayer (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@ThereminPlayer:Your proof that incidents concerning only one branch are authorised by the main office? I looked the Tesco article and trimmed a lot of stuff, including some stuff that was misrepresented. The Tesco article and the Lidl article are/were filled with trivia, some in the Tesco article added in 2007 by someone with a clear grudge against Tesco. The Walmart article is very, very different. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1084225029/1084486239

I think the removal of the section violates guidelines. Content should be improved, not deleted. Please see Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete and Try to fix problems. ThereminPlayer (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@ThereminPlayer: you're new here so I don't expect you to understand our policies that well. There's no violation and in fact many editors say that controversy sections should be avoided and worked into the body of the article. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The content in that section was a collection of press clippings containing every single mention of something negative mentioning some Lidl branch, it couldn't be improved, it was mostly trivial unencyclopedic stuff. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Putinversteher

"Putinversteher" (literally, "Putin understander") is a derogatory political epithet in Germany. The page currently labels various people and political parties using the epithet in Wikivoice. For example, the first paragraph of the lede states,

There are Putinversteher above all in the right-wing party AfD, the socialistic party Die Linke, and in the SPD.

Just for reference, the SPD is one of the two largest political parties in Germany, and is the party of the current German chancellor.

I think the page needs additional attention to ensure that it's neutrally written and in compliance with WP:BLP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Eyes needed on WikiLeaks

Fresh eyes would be useful on a section of WikiLeaks relating to Russia - in WikiLeaks#Reception. There are quotes that have been inserted, attributed to anonymous individuals, use of deprecated sources, and claims that are not supported by the source. Some of the more egregious extraordinary claims I've removed.

The opinion of an anonymous source is quoted from the Moscow Times to the effect that "in recent years, WikiLeaks and the Russian state have effectively joined forces." No RS have given secondary reporting on this story from the Moscow Times. It seems doubtful that a report on a website of comparatively tiny readership is sufficient to establish notability.

There's also been removal of tags on deprecated sources. (The deprecated source, Russia Today, also does not directly support the claim, but this is of little relevance with a deprecated source)

It's also claimed that "WikiLeaks has frequently been criticised for its alleged absence of whistleblowing on or criticism of Russia." Someone tagged the weasel wording two years ago. But in fact the source referenced does not support this claim of frequent criticism. Attempts to address these have been reverted by a couple of editors keen on the status quo. The section is quite poorly written at present generally, looking like an indiscriminate collection of anecdotes (almost every paragraph starts "in 20xx, such-and-such wrote..."). Cambial — foliar❧ 01:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

1. Moscow Times is being used as reliable in the article about the current war.

2. Yes, RT is extremely deprecated.

That’s all I got Elinruby (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Hunter Biden

Hello I recently wrote a Edit about Hunter Biden,I thought it both neutral a factual but was taken down within 2 minutes for being "Undue"

Other Controversies

In October 2018,the Secret Service were involved in a incident,where a .38 Revolver belonging to to Biden was discarded into a dumpster close to a high school.The firearm in question was reportedly discarded into the dumpster by Hallie Biden,Beau Biden's widow.When she tried to return to retrieve the firearm it had been removed from the dumpster by an elderly man who regularly rummaged through dumpsters and was eventually returned to Hunter who handed it over to law enforcementAccording to Politico, When Biden filled out a Form 4473 during the purchase of the firearm, answered “no” to a question about unlawful use or addiction to “marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance”,Despite his prior usage of drugs.If he answered "yes" it would make him unable to purchase the firearm.Two Secret Service agents went to StarQuest Shooters & Survival Supply in Wilmington, Delaware,where they tried to take possession of the Firearms Transaction Record,however the owner, Ron Palmieri refused later turning over the papers to the ATF.

References

I removed it as WP:UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

How is it undue? Conservative cheese ball (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely undue. Dumuzid (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Elaborate and explain your reasoning Conservative cheese ball (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

There is plenty of negative information existing regarding the subject that you don't need to reference this odd and unclear story in order to cast aspersions his way. If you want to say he lied and used drugs, better to do so with reliable sources that are about that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is about how Mr Biden's firearm was improperly disposed of and created a dangerous possible outcome while also referencing the fact that the purchase of the firearm was illegal. Conservative cheese ball (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Give it two weeks and see if there is any continuing coverage. Wikipedia isn't a place to collect every news story regarding a person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The articles are from more than six months ago, there is plenty of coverage of this and isn't just these two. Conservative cheese ball (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Did the coverage continue past the initial reporting? Is it something still being discussed now? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE indeed. This is a nonstory, inflated by speculation and whatifs. Brother's widow throws a gun away. Gun is found and returned. Whatifs ensue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The article refers to the fact the Biden lied on a 4473,which is a felony, and dangerously disposed of a firearm Conservative cheese ball (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of identifying crimes not charged by prosecutors, and the article clearly does not make the explicit accusation of a lie--instead rather scurrilously implying the lie. Note that the form's question is in the present tense and so past usage does not mean that it cannot be answered in the negative. Dumuzid (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

If the part about the purchase of the firearm is removed does that make it DUE? Conservative cheese ball (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Conservative cheese ball:Those are two sources. Bios of living persons have higher standards to meet to add controversies to, and since that incident was not widely reported, it may in fact be undue. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

How many sources are necessary? both sources widely considered reliable as states Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#.More sources reported on it but I didnt include them. Conservative cheese ball (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it really isn't UNDUE: CNN covered it, not sure about CBS, too painful to sit through video (transcripts are much better), and then we have academic Jonathan Turley writing President Biden Announces New “Red Flag” Rule Fit For Hunter Biden: President Joe Biden has announced unilateral gun control measures as part of his pledge to crackdown on gun violence like the recent attacks in Boulder and Atlanta. The measures are unlikely to have a significant impact on such massacres, which is a long-standing problem with claims of politicians on curbing gun violence. What is notable however is the inclusion of a provision that relates directly to the allegations raised against Hunter Biden — allegations of a possible federal felony that have been virtually blacked out in recent media coverage and interviews. How is that not NPOV? Perhaps a more updated re-write that covers it with more facts and intext attribution for anything deemed opinion. We should also include some of the updates now that we have retrospect; our readers want to know. Atsme 💬 📧 19:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, think of it as the weight given should be proportionate. Do you think only two sources reporting on an event six months ago involving one of the most public figures is proportionate coverage for his biography? Personally, I don't think so. But you're welcome to create an RfC if you want more independent opinions. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that not many people know about Hunter Biden,as a poll found 16% of Biden voters would not have voted for Biden if they knew about Hunter. Conservative cheese ball (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't care about that and I hope you are not editing Wikipedia with any intent to change people's voting habits by introducing certain information. As for the content, I still feel it's UNDUE to include anything more than a sentence on it. Compared to the laptop and Ukraine nonsense, this event is quite minor at the moment. If it gains more traction and indications of longterm notability, I'd suggest we expand upon it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I never said I am or condone it,I am here for the same reason you are,For neutrality,balance arguments and the Truth. Conservative cheese ball (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers what is verifiable, not what is the truth. Meaning we focus on what is covered in reliable sources and with appropriate weight that those sources give them, not try to make what may be a factual but trivial event larger than it seems. --Masem (t) 20:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Excluding it would be a NPOV issue. There are at least 8–10 RS that covered the gun incident, and we know there are more if someone wants to take the time to cite them, but that isn't necessary - 3 RS are enough for a short paragraph. How it's worded is what matters. I recommend calling for local consensus or an RFC, including a short paragraph. I agree with Masem in that we should not make a trivial event larger than it seems, but I don't see this as a trivial matter. This is trivial, and this, but something like a fraud investigation, or Russia investigation, or investigations into dealings with China, money laundering and/or tax evasion are not trivial, and neither is Hunter Biden owning a gun while still dealing with a drug problem, from what I understand. Our readers need the correct information about this event because the law classifies such possession as a felony. Biden is WP:BLPPUBLIC, and suppressing important information about his questionable activities reflects badly on us, especially when academics like Turley feel the need to call us out about suppressing other articles involving Biden. Atsme 💬 📧 03:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind: how many total RS sources are there out there about Hunter Biden overall (Google News gives me a rough number in 48 million). If there's only 10 sources out of that many covering this, this is trivial particularly with RECENTISM taken into view (a factor that really needs to be considered in UNDUE considerations). --Masem (t) 03:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Masem, I will keep that in mind, but I am also keeping in mind that searching Duck Duck Go and Bing provide much different results; therefore, I try not to use only Google when looking for other substantial views. I'm not sure if anything has changed since this NYTimes article came out, or it may have gotten worse. BTW, DUE does not determine the inclusion/exclusion of information, and the number of sources has nothing to do with NPOV. DUE requires that we represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. It doesn't say in proportion to the number of sources that have published those viewpoints. Inclusion is determined by WP:NOT, WP:VNOT & ONUS. I'm pretty sure DONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to exclude information. As for due & balance, see WP:BESTSOURCES - quality over quantity. I don't consider today's clickbait news media and echo chamber (where we know political bias exists) in the best sources category, especially in light of the reporting they've done over the past 8 or so years. At least some have finally come around and admitted their mistakes. Whether or not it changes anything is left to be seen, but it doesn't look promising. Atsme 💬 📧 05:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think an RfC for this is perfectly warranted. I still think it's undue for a BLP, but it's certainly debatable and more independent opinions might be useful. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

A reading of UNDUE should mean that we should consider the weight of the silence or absence of opinion when a topic is covered as part of their weighting to be used. This would be how FRINGE is derived for example. That few sources have covered a topic particularly on a BLP, is a good reason to exclude. --Masem (t) 15:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

With the utmost respect, Masem, this is one situation in which I disagree. What you're suggesting is actually OR because it forms a conclusion that is not supported by RS. In fact, other RS have criticized the non-reporters for not reporting these highly notable events as I've pointed out above. It is not our place to automatically assume that because other news sources didn't report it, it should not be included. Common sense tells us it's notable, as does the information provided in the cited RS. The facts speak loudly and they are indeed corroborated by the RS that did publish them. As I stated above, DUE & WEIGHT is determined by the mention given in those reporting sources, not by sources that didn't report it. The material passes V, it is clearly not trivial, and all that is needed now is consensus relative to how the material will be presented in the article...stating only the facts as reported, and without speculation. Atsme 💬 📧 02:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

From WP:OR: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy, but I was not referring to talk page discussions. My reference to OR is when editors determine an event should not be included because the echo chamber didn't also publish the story and that reason gains consensus to exclude the material. There's no problem discussing it on TP - it's actually healthy discourse. Taking action by excluding material based on that reason is when it becomes OR. Atsme 💬 📧 03:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The entire point of talk page discussion is to decide what actions to take (or at least, it should be). Determining whether to include something or not, based on our own evaluations (i.e. WP:OR) is an 'action'. And it is entirely routine to determine, based on our own evaluations, that limited coverage of something is legitimate grounds to exclude it. Indeed, such evaluation is how we decide whether we are even going to have specific articles in the first place. This place functions as it does because contributors are permitted (and expected) to exercise editorial judgement. If such judgement wasn't necessary, we could probably hand the whole thing over to the bots, and find something better to do with our time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Add that this is also about a BLP which demands extra caution on what to include. A politically charged story which has some but not extensive mainstream coverage, and which has proven to have impacted the BLP yet should be avoided to avoid rumor mongering. --Masem (t) 13:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Masem, WP:BLPPUBLIC states: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Multiple RS have reported it, and there is an actual firearm transaction report that corroborates what has been reported. Regardless, NPOVN is the wrong venue for this discussion. As I suggested above, this issue should be resolved via RfC on the article TP to determine how it shall be worded, but as our BLP policy states, "it belongs in the article". @Andy, I wholeheartedly agree with you that our TP discussions decide what actions to take per consensus. You are already aware of WP's hegemonic tendencies and ideological bias, which becomes most evident during an election year. Regardless, we cannot IAR for the reason you're suggesting because it is not based on verifiable statements of fact, it's OR that is not supported by a single RS. When arguing editorial judgment, plausible deniability and/or a false cause fallacy are not strong arguments to exclude material or scrub an article. As long as editors can cite verifiable statements of fact – such as what has been published by CNN, The Guardian, Politico, Fox News, and The Hill for starters, we include it per BLPPUBLIC. I'm of the mind that our readers need to know that in the firearm transaction report, Hunter Biden answered in the negative to a question about the unlawful use of, or addiction to controlled substances. What the actual circumstances are relative to the Secret Service is anybody's guess at this point – I have not read all the sources, and have no interest in doing so. It may also turn out that consensus determines it is not worthy of inclusion for valid reasons that have not yet been brought to our attention. Atsme 💬 📧 20:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop making s*** up. At no point did I advocate IAR. I advocated following normal practice. Which is to exercise editorial judgement, after taking relevant policy into consideration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

First, I do see no issue having an RFC on that talk page to determine inclusion. But keep in mind, and this is part of the larger problem around people and groups frequently in the news, is that we're supposed to summarize information, and that typically means we should not cover every blip of news coverage a topic may get, particularly if there's no lingering impact on the topic (per RECENTISM). We are far too eager to include WP:V-meeting info without regard to whether it really belongs in a summary of a person or group's overview. --Masem (t) 01:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Undue for some random non-story from 6 months ago. Also, I see there was no attempt to engage with others regarding tis matter at Talk:Hunter Biden. Why opt directly for a noticeboard? Zaathras (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

because noticeboards normally give more neutral points of view...unlike talk pages where everyone and the goldfish has an opinion or bias Conservative cheese ball (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they're supposed to give a more neutral points of view, Conservative cheese ball. But if you selectively notify editors you think likely to agree with you, as you did here, you will compromise the noticeboard's neutrality. Please read WP:CANVASS. If you must notify people of your current problem here (=too many people disagreeing with you), then be careful to notify users on both sides of the political divide. But this is a well-watched board, so your best and safest option is to not notify anybody at all. Please don't do it again. Bishonen | tålk 12:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC).

I asked Springee because of his experience with articles of a similar nature.I haven't looked into his political bias or what they have written about in/contribuated there edits.

~~~~ Conservative cheese ball (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Bishonen is correct that notifying a single editor is very likely to be seen as CAVASING, especially if you simply ask them to weigh in on a discussion with which they are otherwise not involved. I will admit I wouldn't have looked at this discussion had it not been for your ping. I decided to reply in part because I do think this is an interesting question of WEIGHT and because, after thinking about it, I don't agree with inclusion. I would hope that canvasing concerns are at least offset by the fact that my !vote ultimately didn't support your view. If my view persuades you, that's even better. It is understandable to want to ask another editor to help you think through an issue when your gut tells you something is correct but you can't quite formulate the reason in the context of Wiki policy/guidelines. As a suggestion, and Bishonen please correct me if you think there are better ways, it is better to ask the editor if they mind helping you and then ask a question that can be answered on their talk page rather than doing something that would be seen as asking them to !vote. Springee (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• As this is a BLP I think we should err on the side of exclusion. There are issues here and issues which the media can rightly point to as examples of hypocrisy etc. However, other than not admitting drug use on a Form 4473, this really does more to suggest others are looking out for HB vs HB did anything himself. It may be implied that HB pulled favors but then we are possibly leading readers to a negative conclusion that is not explicitly supported by our sources. Zooming out, other than the Form 4473 issue, something that I suspect many applicants have violated, this incident doesn't directly say much about HB. It does imply things but absent clear sourcing/stating of those implied things we shouldn't include them. Especially since the implied things are negative (pulled strings thanks to family members in power). Springee (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation

There are multiple problems with this article, including:

• It states, in Wikivoice, that Russia was an occupying force in Ukraine in the 1940s and 50s. Both Russia and Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union at the time.
• The article appears to be glorifying the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), calling them a "liberation movement" in Wikivoice, for example. For those who don't know, the UPA carried out an attempted genocide against Jews and Poles in western Ukraine, and attempted to establish an ethnically pure state in alliance with Nazi Germany. Calling them "liberators" in Wikivoice is more than a bit problematic.

I've noticed a few of these types of articles popping up since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and I'm concerned that current events are motivating some bad history writing on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Soo...Are you making a distinction between “Russian” and “Soviet”? I am not sure, but it sounds like you are saying that Ukraine and Russia were both occupied by the Soviets. Elinruby (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Both the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic were constituent republics in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Nether of them was "occupied" by anyone, except by Nazi Germany during 1941-44. The idea that Ukraine was "occupied" by "Russia" is a fringe POV, and certainly cannot be stated in Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We have a serious issue with that article indeed. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thucydides411 Yeah, I believe you are right. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is the link to the ongoing discussion -->[23] - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently not so fringe that they couldn’t raise an army that thought so Elinruby (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The UPA was notable, nobody said it was fringe. It is covered in this extensive article Ukrainian Insurgent Army so is the Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera involved in formation of the UPA - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I don’t think I am. If you think there are issues of DUE or WEIGHT or NPOV then you should discuss that. Not delete a considerable amount of someone else’s work because it mentions someone you think was a Nazi. They were or they were not, but Wikipedia doesn’t just cancel people it doesn’t think are politically correct Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The article repeatedly refers to a group that helped perpetrate the Holocaust as a "liberation movement", has a title that erroneously claims that Russia occupied Ukraine in the 1940s and 50s (Ukraine and Russia were two parts of the same country, the Soviet Union), and is generally riddled with wildly POV assertions (The majority of party and state cadres were foreigners from USSR, who often behaved as in a conquered country, being rude to the local Ukrainian population. ... Therefore, it is not surprising that the support of the Ukrainian underground grew.).

This article is a blight on Wikipedia. Nobody is saying we should "cancel" the UPA. We just shouldn't glorify a group that helped perpetrate the Holocaust and which attempted to exterminate the Polish population of western Ukraine. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

:hmmm. I suspect it is a lot more complicated than that. Needs sources and a copy-edit of course, but trying to prod this is just wrong, sorry. Elinruby (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to let you know the proposed deletion tag has been deleted without any discussion [24] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: There is WP:AFD. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Thanks -->[25] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Isn't this just a WP:POVFORK of Ukrainian Insurgent Army, essentially presenting that organization's view of its own history and activities? --Aquillion (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what it appears to be. Any content worth saving should just be merged into Ukrainian Insurgent Army. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Creating a separate section Post War resistance to the Soviet Union in the article about the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and incorporate some of the material could be also an option, no ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The postwar insurgency is already covered in a few dedicated subsections of the "Soviet Union" section of Ukrainian Insurgent Army. If there's any material worth saving in Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation, it should go in those subsections. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

O yeah, true... - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Cough. The fact that the Soviets considered Ukraine part of their territory doesn’t mean the Ukrainians agreed, or mean that it is obvious that no freedom fighters existed. To claim that it does ignores large swaths of history and at least one war. It also baffles me that anyone can consider a rather dry recounting of a series of battles and skirmishes problematical. Even if we adopt the Soviet version of history, which seems to be what these editors want, since their initial reason for trying to delete it was that it was “anti-Soviet”, the article heavily cites NVKD casualty figures; it just also cites other versions of the same story as well. Which is what a Wikipedia article is supposed to do when national creation stories collide.

I myself have no particular agenda here, except that the article appears to examine a critical period of history that hasn’t been well represented on the English Wikipedia. I am wikilinking and copyediting it, and will add in some English-language references. The ones that are there that I have looked at are in Polish and Ukrainian, which often represents a problem for some editors. But it’s extremely non-ideological material, except to the extent that it does document some Stalinist excesses, in very dry and matter of fact terms, based on Soviet reports to Moscow. I don’t understand the excitement, since these are in any event citable in English. And they will be. With such translations the usual procedure is to translate then format the references, then add in some references in English. I am still clearing up some language issues however, but the editors questioning its point of view really ought to take another look Elinruby (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the Soviets considered Ukraine part of their territory doesn’t mean the Ukrainians agreed, or mean that it is obvious that no freedom fighters existed. Maybe, but it does not warrant saying that Russia / the USSR "occupied" Ukraine. We have articles about Catalonia, Basque Country, Scotland, Corsica, Northern Ireland, and may other places in which there is a more-or-less strong sense of national identity with a more-or-less strong political movement for independence, none of which say that the region is "occupied" by the larger country, which is clearly POV for the separatist side. I suspect you would not support referring to the pre-2014 Donetsk People's Republic as a "country occupied by Ukraine". (Also, "freedom fighter" is an explicit wold to avoid, see MOS:LABEL.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

that *is* the Russian narrative. How much that counts for is a matter of due weight Elinruby (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find the article, please provide a link. Russia of course did not occupy the Ukraine, because it was just another republic of the USSR. TFD (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Some history for you... britannica. Moxy- 03:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy That’s about the Soviet Ukraine in the postwar period. What are you trying to say here? - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces - The article has been moved to Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance, but this is still wrong because the article talks exclusively about UPA glorifying the organization accountable for ethnic cleansing and participation in the Holocaust. Imagine a WP:POVFORK article about 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) or maybe better Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201 and creating the same WP:POVFORK article titled Ukrainian armed struggle against the Soviet Union (or something like that) glorifying those units, listing their battles etc. Note that many of Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201 members, especially the commanding officers, would later be recruited into the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

even simpler Moxy- 06:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy What’s up with those YouTube videos you keep posting all over. These are not RS’s and this is not a forum to promote YouTube channels. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Well. you clearly aren't reading the sources... This is some wikilawyering here. AfD an article then tell that girl she can't work on it because Poland needs special sanctions, because of an ArbCom case in which you were involved. You keep saying stuff that simply isn't so, and you refuse to provide a link for ANY of it.

TL;DR for anyone trying to understand this: Poland and Ukraine were manipulated into massacring each other during World War 2. Collaboration happened. Ukrainians with Nazis, Poland with USSR. Stalin laughs and sends everybody to Siberia, finds the narrative convenient. Plenty of blame all around. Everybody claims self-defense. New editor produces a pretty serious history of the Ukrainian narrative. For some reason we are here being shouted at about the Soviet version. Article is currently being updated with some serious sources that include a review of the Polish literature. This is by hampered since people are shouting on the talk page about how dandy things were under Stalin Elinruby (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh and while I am at it, the article doesn't glorify a damn thing. It's full of backstabbing and fail. GizzyCatBella keeps saying that because this article, which is about the events of 1944 under the Soviets, does not include a pogrom that took place in 1941, under the Nazis. It's light on all the mutual mayhem in 1945, but does include them in an aftermath section. The title they are complaining about? The result of their very own RfM, and now they don't like it. Me, I have committed to fixing the article. But I am also not GizzyCatBella's bitch and I am referencing it to the scope of its title. The article still has a few weight and clarity problems, with which I welcome constructive suggestions. I am thinking that the part about the mutual massacres needs to be expanded, since this also happened under the Soviets. If GizzyCatBella wants to cover Stepan Bandera personally killing Jews in Lviv then I think she should write the article, and good luck sourcing that, I say, because I am pretty sure he was in a concentration camp for having had the nerve to declare the independence of Ukraine, and even supposing I am wrong the sources say it was usually the SS that lined the Jews up and shot them. It's just nowhere near that simple. Elinruby (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Sentence in Rebel News article

In Rebel News is a sentence (inserted by Valjean, removed by Peter Gulutzan, re-inserted by Valjean) In an article for Canada's National Observer, Max Fawcett mentioned Rebel Media as one of the groups who undermine "the scientific consensus around climate change and vaccines". The Max Fawcett article is here. The talk page discussion is here. Peter Gulutzan and Masterhatch agree it is not due. Valjean says it is due. Anybody agree/disagree with either side? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau "slammed" it and said "“The reality is, organizations – organizations like yours – that continue to spread misinformation and disinformation on the science around vaccines … is part of why we’re seeing such unfortunate anger and lack of understanding of basic science,” said Trudeau. “Frankly your – I won’t call it a media organization – your group of individuals need to take accountability for some of the polarization that we’re seeing in this country.”"[26] I think we should include that. This is 5 years old[27] which might be too old. 2020: "In Canada, Rebel Media has loomed large in the deterioration of the discourse around climate change."[28] Doug Weller talk 13:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The opinion of Justin Trudeau is already included. This thread is about including the opinion of Max Fawcett, who has an MA in political science and was responsible for this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I misunderstood. I'm not convinced that makes a difference so long as we attribute it. He's still a well known pundit in Canada so far as I can see. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Doug, I have been trying, largely in vain thanks to Peter's efforts, to include documentation of the climate denialist position of Rebel News/Levant. Why someone would oppose the inclusion of this rather innocuous, but accurate, mention is puzzling. The whitewashing must stop. There is still an inaccurate view held by some editors that the word "denial" must be in the source before we can label climate change "skeptics" as denialists. The lead of our climate change denial article accurately tells us how Wikipedians have decided that many synonyms and modifiers qualify as meaning "denial". Climate change "skeptics" are indeed denialists, just as those who are vaccine "hesitant" are also classed as anti-vaxxers.

The inclusion of this blurb is important, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance (without taking a position if this applies to Peter) that defenders of climate change denial are controlling and whitewashing the article's content. I say we should keep it, but Peter claims that his consensus of two, without policy-based reasons other than "consensus", should trump well-reasoned arguments based on multiple policies explained on the talk page. No, "consensus" is a rubber argument that should never stand alone. It must be based on policies.

Also, Peter has already received multiple DS notifications about climate change and just waved them off. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Climate change denial is an article, not policy. In general, a skeptic is someone who sees something that doesn't pass the smell test and questions further. A denier is someone who ignores facts. It is not whitewashing to say they are two separate things. Masterhatch (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Masterhatch And that article says “  Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming self-label as "climate change skeptics", which several scientists have noted is an inaccurate description.” Doug Weller talk 19:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It does say "several scientists". Look, I'm not arguing for or against climate change. I'm not a scientist by any means and I don't keep up with the latest on it. I just feel that if reliable sources use the term "skeptic" then Wikipedia should too. And likewise, if reliable sources say "denier", then Wikipedia should too. Masterhatch (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"Human shields" section at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

• War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The section War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Human shields is being frequently crafted by a couple of editors to:-

1) Treat allegations by Ukrainian civilians as facts.[29]

2) Ignore any allegations made by Russian armed forces.[30][31][

3) Ignore any allegations made against Ukraine by foreign civilians.[32]

This source is being used to claim "source reports it as fact. See WP:ALLEGED", but the source appears to be quoting and summarizing statements provided by Ukrainian civilians, mainly a Ukrainian schoolteacher named Svitlana Bryhinets.

I believe the allegations by the Russian armed forces, covered by reliable sources,[33] should be preserved since Azov Battalion's claims are being mentioned for alleging Russia of using chemical weapons.[34]

Civilians from South Africa and Bangladesh have said that they were used as human shields by Ukrainian forces. This has got coverage from undoubtedly reliable sources like:

• "Desperate dash for safety as SA students flee Ukraine war zone". TimesLIVE. 2022-03-06. Moodley said she witnessed first-hand Ukrainian soldiers and police using black and Indian people as human shields while they were under attack by Russians, shouting that their lives meant nothing. "They were using black people as human shields," she said.
• "Kept as 'human shields' in Ukraine camps, say stranded Bangladeshis". The Daily Star (Bangladesh). 2022-03-05. We are being used as human shields. They don't even give us enough food to eat," lamented Malik.

This Washington Post article provides details on the use of civilian-populated areas as battlefield by Ukrainian forces. It quotes Canadian academic William Schabas, Human Rights Watch researcher Richard Weir and others.

At this moment, the section is clearly not complying with WP:YESPOV which says "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them'" and failing to maintain WP:NPOV by keeping it one-sided. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Georgethedragonslayer that a number of editors are pov pushing by deleting all details and references that are negative to Ukraine. My last major edits to the Human shield section is contained in this version here and the current version is here. Note that all references that are negative to Ukrane have been removed. Also note that the "The neutrality of this section is disputed" template has been removed, even though we are along way from consensus.

I have tried to engage the other editors in Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Human shields to reach a consensus, to no avail. Note that my latest attempted compromise at 08:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC) (ie simplifying the section and transfering the complex legal issue to a small summary in the Legal section at the bottom of the article, with a direct link to Human Shields (law), which could be expanded to cover the issue and how it effects the Russian / Ukraine conflict). Unfortunately it appears other editors interpretation of "simplifying" includes deleting all information negative to Ukraine.

Also note that this issue has now spilled over to the Human shields article, where all details negative to Ukraine have been deleted, compare this version of the "Russo-Ukrainian War" section with the latest version, with the section renamed "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Again, all details that are negative to Ukraine have been removed. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. However, disruptive editing and POV pushing have affected not only the "Human shield" section but the whole article.

• "Mistreatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters" section was removed ([35] [36] [37]) with no clear consensus (2 against 2) and has not yet been restored. It was backed by reliable sources and arguably relevant. See the discussion.
• Substantial changes to the lead section were made with no consensus. E.g. references to torture and killing of Russian POW were first replaced with references to their "ill-treatment", notwithstanding unequivocal sources [38], and later entirely suppressed [39]. See the discussion. The current version is "The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos of intimidation and interrogation of Ukrainian prisoners held by Russian forces, and videos of interrogation of Russian prisoners by Ukrainian forces", with basically no source in support - the quoted source doesn't mention the Monitoring Mission nor does it deal with intimidation and interrogation of Ukrainian prisoners.
• The BRD cycle has been repeatedly disregarded, talk page turned into a battleground and editors who have spent dozen of hours describing the atrocities of the crimes committed by the Russian army have repeatedly been accused of whitewashing the responsibilities of the Russian troops. Cooperation among editors has become difficult.
• Yesterday I solicited the participation of interested uninvolved editors with this OP. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Speaking only on the initial comment at the top of the thread... 1) yes, these "allegations" are essentially a matter of fact that have been independently confirmed by international organizations and journalists, 2) all official claims by Russian Ministry of Defense about it should be treated as intentional disinformation after so many lies they said; 3) one needs to look at the sources, I am not sure they are good enough to include such "exceptional claims". My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Just reporting by media outlets isn't enough, but they need to offer verifiable evidence. Have they? Ukraine has also made the claims like "Ghost of Kyiv", so according to you they must be "treated as intentional disinformation after so many lies they said", right? You need to get consensus from WP:RSN to treat Russian Defense Ministry as unreliable. Shankargb (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Going thorugh Georgethedragonslayer claims.

1. Two reliable sources regarded claims of human shields usage in Yahidne reliable enough to assert it without attribution. Trying to frame it as mere allegations by "Ukrianian civilians" (sic) is most blatant POV pushing.

2. Russian army has indeed made allegations, including a completely ludicrous 4.5 million human shields claim. But multiple scholars have rejected Russian claims as mere attempts to shift the blame for civilian deaths.[40][41]. So if we include Russian claims, we also need to include their rebuttal. Additionally I would note that currently the section also doesn't include claims by Ukrainian government officials, so if we add Russian government claims then Ukrainian ones will also have to go in.

3. As far as foreign civilian claims go, Bangladeshi case was already discussed in depth at talk page and is frankly blatant case of UNDUE, as the single person making human shield claims also made other highly hyperbolic claims, like "The whole of Kyiv and Kharkiv have been burnt to ashes."[42] South African case is behind subscription making evaluation problematic. As there are certain UNDUE smells here too, I would like to see a full article before commenting further.

Additionally I would note that Washington Post article does not claim that Ukraine is using "human shields".

Btw, I am in favour of removing Azov's chemical weapons claim, it does seem quite UNDUE.--Staberinde (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Do any of those "two reliable" provide verifiable evidence or do they take responsibility for the allegations? I don't see that. I only see them reporting the allegations and quoting Ukrainian citizens. Some corrections: There is not just a "single person" from Bangladesh who is alleging Ukraine of human shields but one more person "who requested not to be named". As for the South African issue, you can find the full article here and it verifies the provided quotation. Bangladeshi and South African eye-witnesses are absolutely more WP:DUE than the claims made by Ukrainian citizens since we can assume that they don't have any direct conflict of interest in the conflict. Washington Post article says that Ukraine is using civilian neighborhoods for placing arms and it is putting civilians in danger. This is yet another form of using human shields and is called "neighbor procedure". Shankargb (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Both reliable sources clearly state that people were held as human shields with no additional "X claimed" or "Y alleged". Your wish to separately verify their evidence is irrelevant. About Bangladeshis, the "one more person "who requested not to be named"" does not blame Ukrainians, in fact the relevant sentence starts with "Yesterday, Russians took over this city...", so if anything it is blaming Russians. I also find it amusing how one can think that someone calling while being held at detention center has no "conflict of interest". Also your original research about "neighbourhood procedure" is irrelevant, the Washington Post article about Ukraine is very clearly avoiding making claims about human shields.--Staberinde (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Staberinde: If the source offers no empirical evidence then it needs to be entertained only as an allegation. Of your two sources, ABC article has been already evaluated above that it is only summarizing statements provided by Ukrainian civilians, mainly a Ukrainian schoolteacher named Svitlana Bryhinets, while Economist provides only a statement from a Ukrainian civilian Nadezhda Tereshchenko to explain about human shields. I wonder why you are using a different approach for assessing thedailystar.net. Sure another person starts the quotation with "Yesterday, Russians took over this city" but the quote ends with comments on Ukrainian forces that "They imprisoned us with the sole purpose of using us as human shields." Washington Post is explicit about "Ukraine’s strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes". I am not saying that this report should be included but it at least verifies claims from Russia that Ukraine is using civilian areas and putting their lives in danger, this is why it is not sensible to reject any Russian claim just because Russia made them. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Reliable sources don't need to provide "empirical evidence" for Georgethedragonslayer to personally verify. ABC journalists visited the site, clearly interviewed multiple people and regarded the evidence sufficient to make statement about human shields with no "alleged", "claimed" etc.. Additionally we have a second reliable source to back up their assessment. That is totally sufficient. Thedailystar article uses "human shields" only in quotation marks, making it clear that it is merely reporting claims and not taking its stance on them. Difference is very clear. Also "but the quote ends with comments on Ukrainian forces" is your personal original research, there is no clear indication in the article for comment being about Ukrainian forces.--Staberinde (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• This thread makes me feel I was wise to stop editing this article when I did. I have however gone through it several times recently, and have closely followed the events of this war. I feel compelled, in case somebody reading this thread does not know better, to agree that the Russian Ministry of Defense is absolutely not a source of information that anyone should be taking seriously. The OP forgot the one where the Azov Battalion was supposedly holed up in the maternity hospital in Mariupol, holding hostages, and blew the hospital up because they are Nazis. No really, that was the official Russian version of events for a while, and be damned to the AP photographers who documented the patients being evacuated while in labor. NPOV does not require us to act as stenographers for such a disdain for the truth.Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

May be we should have an RfC that official Russian versions can only be mentioned in the context of disinformation. They are not just lying all over the place (which has been documented in reliable sources), they also sometimes add a bit of truth so that we can not claim they are ONLY lying, but this means that what they say is just random and has no connection to reality. Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

If this kind of nonsense continues this may indeed become necessary. Volunteer Marek 01:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

What is interesting about the Gerasimov doctrine is that apparently he believed that this was being done to Putin, so clearly he should respond in kind. And also, Putin's information bubble is possibly restricting his own access to information. But as to the RfC idea, I predict that users would come out of the woodwork to cry Russophobia. Yes, I do despair of Wikipedia these days, but can you blame me? I have just had to document that life under Stalin was not "dandy". I am currently kind of broken and am going away for a while now. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Ymblanter because otherwise all Ukrainian claims should be discarded too due to disinformation incidents like Ghost of Kyiv. Let us not forget that academics have also described that Ukraine used human shields in this conflict since 2014:

• Chinkin, C.; Kaldor, M. (2017). International Law and New Wars. Cambridge University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-107-17121-3. Some protestors from the Maidan formed a predominantly female self-defence unit known as Unit 39, while in Eastern Ukraine there is reported to be a 25-member all female battalion based in the town of Krasny Luch. Some have suggested that the women have been recruited on the Eastern side as human shields; a Kiev news agency reported Donetsk leaders as saying 'no one will shoot at separatists if they are women'.
• Darden, J.T.; Henshaw, A.; Szekely, O. (2019). Insurgent Women: Female Combatants in Civil Wars. Georgetown University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-62616-667-7. Women played a key role in providing supplies to family members who were effectively trapped on Ukrainian military bases in Crimea. Some went so far as to act as human shields, protecting Ukrainian troops during the invasion.

When allegations about Ukraine using human shields were correct as the history has shown, then it is incorrect to assume them as baseless this time too. Shankargb (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. Your item 1: female combatants are not the same thing as human shields. Also would Eastern Ukraine be Donetsk? Your item #2: Voluntarily remaining with a military unit is not the same thing as being held hostage. Russia unquestionably lied about its actions in Crimea, and reportedly held the parliament there at gunpoint until they passed a bill calling for a referendum. Bonus item: Ukrainian villagers have claimed to have been involuntarily used as used as human shields by Russian soldiers, including a 16yo who says she was raped. And that soldiers wrote "children" on the outside of the house. Bottom line, there would have to be some very very good sources before I believed an organization that has provably lied so much and so often Elinruby (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about TimesLIVE (what used to be a free tabloid from South Aftica) but I wouldn't call The Daily Star "undoubtedly reliable". It publishes a lot of sensationalist stories and garbage. Maybe not up there with DailyMail but maybe something like Express UK. Regardless, both of these sources "report" on claims that have not gotten coverage in any other main sources. If you search for "Russia Ukraine human shields" (or "Ukraine Russia human shields") you have to click through like 15+ pages of search results of "Russia is using human shields" before you find these stories. Someone (the editors trying to add this nonsense) went to a lot of trouble to find *something*, anything, that would serve as an excuse for them to write "both Russia and Ukraine are doing it". It's textbook POV pushing with false balance.

And in fact the story in the Star is just dubious. The individuals involved were in some detention camp "ran by the European Union" (sic) in the town of Zhuravychi which is... in Western Ukraine close to the Polish border nowhere close to where any fighting took place. Yet they are making claims that "Russians have taken the city" or "Russian tanks rolling by" and are calling on "Russian authorities to come rescue them" (!!!). They claim to be "human shields" but... like I said, there's absolutely been no fighting happening where they're at. It turns out that they're in the camp because they entered Ukraine illegally after... confusing Ukraine with Russia and crossing the border, and it seems Ukraine didn't know what to do with them ([43]). It seems efforts were being made to repatriate them but it's not like you can just let a bunch of foreign dudes go wandering around a country that just got invaded and there's a war going on. Apparently these efforts weren't taking fast enough to to their liking. The claims about being "human shields" are pretty obviously hyperbolic exaggerations at best.

If you think that the above is on par with putting carriages with children on your tanks as you launch attacks then YOU are the one with a POV problem. In fact, this gross distortion right here illustrates nicely what the actual problem is on the article, and how desperately some people are trying to "both sides" the stories of war crimes that are coming out (sad truth is that one side is responsible for overwhelming majority of war crimes that've occurred and saying anything other than that fact is a clear breach of WP:NPOV and even WP:NOTHERE). Volunteer Marek 01:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The sentence "Since the onset of Ukrainian-Russian war (2014–present), both Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of using Human shields" is well sourced and accurate. There's no reason for omitting the claims made by the Russian authorities. If their claims turn out to be false, lies will be exposed, but the fact that they've claimed something is already a notable fact that deserves to be reported.

With regard to the stranded Bangladeshi, let me repeat what I've said on the talk page: the info should be given, but not in the human shield section. On this I've found this authoritative source (HRW) and this one (Infomigrants). They make clear that it's not a case of using human shields (probably the Russians don't even know about the migrants, or don't care) but rather ill-treatment of civilians in the context of war. The migrants were held in a detention facility supported with EU funding – "ran by the European Union" is perhaps inaccurate but not false – and Human Rights Watch said that "Whatever the original basis for their detention, their continued detention at the center is arbitrary and places them at risk of harm from the hostilities". The info could fit in a self-standing subsection entitled "Ill-treatment of irregular migrants in detention camps" within the general section on " Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

TimesLIVE is not a "tabloid" and The Daily Star (Bangladesh) is also an established reliable source. You can't call them unreliable just because they disagree with your personal views. Google search results and SEO rankings have nothing to do with WP:VERIFY. You seem to be finding loopholes to keep the content out but none of your explanations fails to justify your content removal. If the article gives impression that "both Russia and Ukraine are doing it" with reliable sources, then it is called WP:NPOV not false balance. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not familiar with TimesLIVE but I am with The Daily Star. And it is indeed a tabloid. And no, it is not "an established reliable source". Care to support that claim? Here is an old discussion from 2014 which basically points out problems with it [44]. And I've just pointed out a myriad of problems with the story as presented. The UNDUE problem, of relying on idiosyncratic sources dredged up from the bottom of search results to present a false "both sides are doing it" narrative is IN addition to the fact that it's not RS. NPOV and RS are not "loopholes" but rather our policies. Volunteer Marek 05:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Daily Star Bangladesh is not a tabloid and the RSN discussion you linked hasn't said that it is unreliable as a source. The page in question Bangladesh Liberation War still use about 6 different references from this website. On historical subjects like that, it is absolutely better to rely on academic sources over news sources but the information we are discussing here hasn't been disputed by any other source and it comes from a established outlet like Daily Star Bangladesh which is running for decades. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Star quotes recently Russian Ambassador https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/diplomacy/news/some-bangladeshi-media-outlets-echoing-wests-anti-russia-campaign-russian-ambassador-2981986. Does it quote Ukrainian or neutral sources?Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• While there is definitely something to be said about taking anything said by Russian media with extremely high doubt, we should be aware that there's a lot of general unintentional misinformation going around in favor of Ukraine's position here as well, in part due to the lack of actual neutral third-party eyewitnesses able to confirm these stories. This is not to say we should have the same level of doubt in terms of Russia media stance, but we should be also wary of taking anything said in cases like this as 100% factual, at this stage. This is probably a situation that will take years after the events cool off and researchers figure out what had happened before we have something factual to be said about it. --Masem (t) 01:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Alright Masem but here are my two questions:

• If Ukrainian claims about Russia using human shields can be included, then why Russian claims about Ukraine using human shields cannot be included?
• If Ukrainian eye-witness accounts about Russia using human shields can be included then why accounts from foreigners, namely from South Africa and Bangladesh, cannot be included about Ukraine using human shields?

I see no dispute about WP:VERIFY here, only WP:UNDUE or WP:DUE. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There are disputes about WP:RS as well as WP:DUE. WP:VERFIY is a necessary not a sufficient condition for inclusion - it is the bare minimum. Volunteer Marek 05:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no dispute about WP:RS because you are alone with calling TimesLIVE and The Daily Star (Bangladesh) unreliable when they are undoubtedly reliable sources. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Asserting and repeating something is not the same thing as supporting it. These are not "undoubtedly reliable sources" no matter how many times you say it. In fact, they're hardly reliable at all. I've already linked to one discussion where other editors expressed concern about The Daily Star in particular. I've also pointed out how the story in The Daily Star omits lots of key details - reported in another source - which makes it sensational garbage. Volunteer Marek 15:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion on the reliability of the sources seems to me no longer necessary since we have Human rights watch reporting on what has happened. Notwithstanding what the Bangladeshi thought and said, theirs was not a case of being used as human shields but of being subjected to ill-treatment related to war. As such we can account for it in an appropriate section to be created. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that we are still in middle of an active event with barriers to some information transfer, I would still make sure to take any statements from Human Rights Watch as inline attributed ones. We definitely don't have to treat what they say with the level of doubt as anything out of state media from Russia, just that it should not be taken as 100% conclusive. --Masem (t) 15:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's entirely correct and is what we've been doing in that article since the beginning. Apart from undisputed facts, everything there is "according to", "X said", "Y claimed". From time to time there are always editors who eliminate an "allegedly" or "reportedly", implicitly or explicitly claiming "we know all the truth about this" (e.g. image of victims in Bucha, recently), which I find a bit annoying, but I'm afraid there's nothing to do about this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: That is what this discussion is really about that we should be providing coverage to allegations from both sides and properly attribute the allegations. I don't see what is exactly wrong with that. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Who misnforms? One example. Ukraine has allegedly inflated number of dead Russian soldiers, but some Russian sources confirm similar numbers. Russia pretends to not participate in a war (but a special operaration), which is a bad joke. So Russia is obviously less reliable.

Western people generally do not understand totalitarian propaganda, they belive that the truth is somewhere inbetween. No, the truth is 'the war' not half-war, half special operation.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Russia has staged humanitarian help for Ukrainian people, alredy probably forgotten. European Union helps the civilians, not Russia. The scam included hundreds of participants. The Ghost of Kyiv belongs to a comletely different category. Any oppressed population needs a hero.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There are no 'undoubtely reliable sources'. The NYT controversies have been documented and described, the NYT is under continuous critics and surveillance of millions, including mine. I am not sure if the Daily Star has so many critical readers like the NYT has.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ideological bias on Wikipedia and Larry Sanger

Can Larry Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia, sourced to The Times, The Independent, and The Telegraph, be included in the article Ideological bias on Wikipedia? See Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia#Larry Sanger's Criticism. Endwise (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: You could consider starting a one paragraph section Ideological bias on Wikipedia#Larry Sanger in the Claims of bias section Ideological bias on Wikipedia#Claims of bias and include the main template to point interested readers to Larry Sanger#Neutrality and ideological bias. Like this: {{main|Larry Sanger#Neutrality and ideological bias}} But he says the Covid vaccine is fake, so take his observations with a grain of salt. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

There is some opposition on the talk page to any mention of it, so I wouldn't want to go ahead with that unilaterally (which is why I posted a comment here to get wider participation). Endwise (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I commend Endwise for bringing this matter here for review. About two years ago I started a section regarding Sanger's criticisms on the article Talk page. The section in the article on Sanger's views read:

"− In May 2020, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger published in article in his personal blog describing Wikipedia as "badly biased" and stated that he believed it no longer had an effective neutrality policy, claiming that portions of the Donald Trump article are "unrelentingly negative", while the Barack Obama article "completely fails to mention many well-known scandals", and various other topics he claims are presented with liberal bias."

End quote from article. It was sourced to Fox News, which drew objections. That discussion I started is now in the article's Talk page Archive 3. Two years later, there have been several further conversations, now in Archive 3 and 4, as well as two hatted discussions and the current one. I'll leave it to others to judge whether or not it is NPOV. I have since stayed out of it but find it quite remarkable and deeply ironic that those who effectively remove all mention of Wikipedia co-founder Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia in a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia critics are seemingly, in my view, proving Sanger's point. Jusdafax (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

As multiple reliable sources report Sanger's views on Wikipedia, it's likely that they are notable enough for the purposes of inclusion. I don't see how they could fall under WP:FRINGE - is there a mainstream well-established theory on Wikipedia's bias, or lack of bias? Besides, if I were looking for accusations of bias and controversies surrounding Wikipedia, I'd be interested in knowing about Sanger's criticisms, and finding them reported here in a detached neutral way would be evidence that they are not entirely convincing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

How do we do this objectively? Sanger appears to have supported a number of conspiracy theories. Can we use his tweets for instance? If we can't, I don't think we can give his views their proper context, and without context they shouldn't be included. I don't support Rational Wiki but this article has a lot of possible sources. Here[45] he's supporting claims that the election was stolen, retweeting something based on the Epoch Times, a source we of course rarely use. A lot of the current news articles are actually the same article in different sources. It doesn't seem unreasonable to say that Sanger has become a right-wing conspiracy theorist. We need to avoid giving him any more credence than we would anyone else with the same views. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

He's also been giving interviews to OpIndia supporting their campaign against us. A few more Tweets.[46][47][48][49] Doug Weller talk 10:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think proper context is that much of an issue here, the article says for example "Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales said"... WP:OTHERCONTENT I know, but "co-founder" is context too, and that he wants to burn his co-creation to the ground is worth noting. Something like

"According to Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, Wikipedia has a liberal and left-wing bias, naming Wikipedia articles on American political topics as examples." (with good cites)

should be there. WP-proper context hopefully found at Sanger article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

But we would then also need to point out he had not in fact had any direct links to Wikipedia for years, and has tried to set up direct competition (and thus has a COI). Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we need to point that out at Ideological bias on Wikipedia? We don't say a lot about the other people that gets to have opinions in that article. We do say something about some of them, though. It may be harder to say something short and sweet about Sanger, beyond "co-founder", the reason he is an interisting voice in context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say yes, as without a caveat saying "co-founder" implies he still has some connection. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, his usage of the term "left-wing" is peculiar, as he considers even fascism "left-wing". So, quoting him without adding the context would be misleading. Essentially, he is complaining that Wikipedia does not accept "alternative facts" as facts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd leave it out as irrelevant, the only reason this person gets a toe in the door and is even talked about is because of the dubious "co-founder" tag. According to Sanger's bio here, he abdicated over twenty years ago, he has no connection to two decades of subsequent evolution. If Ronald Wayne had turned into a fierce critic of Apple, he wouldn't warrant as mention in Criticism of Apple Inc. merely because he was once in on the ground floor nearly 40 years ago. ValarianB (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, there was an rfc on it not a year ago, and it's a bit early to have a new one. Talk:Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia/Archive_3#RfC:_Should_Larry_Sanger's_views_be_included? He's been in media on this since then, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

In this caseWikipedia:Fringe theories applies: "If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

My objection in the past was that no such reliable sources existed. We therefore have pages of discussion over whether Larry Sanger's views are inherently noteworthy because he is a co-founder of Wikipedia. Whether or not these few mentions in mainstream media justify inclusion is nother question.

TFD (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise@Gitz6666@Gråbergs Gråa Sång@Hob Gadling@Jusdafax@The Four Deuces@Timtempleton I just posted to Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia#Larry Sanger's Criticism and said it was confusing to have two discussions and was told the discussion should be there. So IMHO all of this has to be moved there. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem, this is basically WP:APPNOTEing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller should recuse himself for CoI on ideological bias in Wikipedia. Liquoricia Borgia (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)