Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
Additional notes:
| |||||||||
Search this noticeboard & archives |
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 |
Requested move of Living with COVID-19 article
I have proposed to move the Living with COVID-19 article to Endemic management of COVID-19. Please see the related discussion, more input would be appreciated. SmolBrane (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see that the discussion there is now closed. @SmolBrane: Got to say: if this were re-opened, I'd support the move on the basis that the latter is more likely to remain an appropriate title in a decade or two, but I don't think the current title is an NPOV problem, unless the "POV" is simply where we stand in history. - Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks--the POV issue was because of DUEness(a subset of npov policies) and constraint issues on the article[Living with COVID-19(policy) vs living with Covid(the sentiment)], not a neutrality issue. Nonetheless the issue has been resolved(I think) with the creation of the Endemic phase of COVID-19 article and the resultant differentiation. SmolBrane (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Turkey in NATO
I found this article on a list of articles needing a copy edit, and indeed, one or more of the authors was clearly not a native English speaker, based on a lot of minor idiomatic tells. It wasn’t so bad that an original was needed though, nor did I find one. I think I have taken care of the English, and have removed that tag.
It does seem however to have been written from a Turkish point of view, particularly with reference to Cyprus, and in a couple of places it refers to “terrorists” (Kurds? Greeks?)
So....I think it could use some attention from people more familiar than I with the geopolitics and history of the region. I myself have no horse in this race and was merely there as the machine translation whisperer. Nor does there currently seem to be a particular dispute. It’s a new article, and obviously a notable topic.
- User:Elinruby I did: [1], [2], do you approve? --StellarNerd (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@StellarNerd: Elinruby (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Depp v. Heard
- Depp v. Heard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This article is inherently quite controversial; for those who haven't followed the news, actor Johnny Depp won a defamation case against his ex-wife, actress Amber Heard, where she was found liable for making false statements that she was the victim of domestic abuse. Distilled, the main dispute is as follows:
- GregKaye has been quite active on the article. His general point of view is that news sources are severely biased against Depp, and, moreover, that a summary of the trial's effect on MeToo and related movements should not be included in the Reactions section (as perceived by various sources).
- There-being, among others (including myself), wants to include some of this criticism, including direct quotes. See Special:Diff/1092860415, Special:Diff/1093039733
- There are other editors somewhat involved as well, such as RandomCanadian, who reverted There-being's additions due to WP:ONUS concerns.
Overall there are walls of text to wade through on the article talk; the most recent section heading, Talk:Depp v. Heard#Coming to an actual consensus for the "Reactions" section, gives a reasonable taste. Resolution through bludgeoning seems unlikely. Ovinus (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was not actually the original author of most of this text, most of which I think was initially penned by User:Starship.paint. (Also, I am originally the IP editor on that page.) My position here in favor of un-blanking the section is that while the text could perhaps be improved, much like the rest of the article, it is clear that the reaction section of an article on the Depp-Heard trial should include statements on the potential effects on MeToo, domestic abuse claims, and women's rights, as concerns of this nature were a major theme of the reactions to the verdict and trial. There are countless reliable sources where expert opinions are shared on this topic. However, a minority of editors such as Greg insists on blanking any such reference as "biased." I might add I have significant concerns that the volume and tenor of Greg's irrelevant diatribes, such as that seen directly below (he has also created 6 new talk page sections in the last 5 days to complain of matters such as that the article is "whipping up controversy"), as well as direct misrepresentation of sources, are making editing the article difficult to impossible. Pinging User:Gtoffoletto, User:TheTimesAreAChangingand User:TrueHeartSusie3 as others who have been involved in the discussion. There-being (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article talk page has previously contained three complaints about bias in the article[3][4]Biased.
- A large section of text was developed that was titled Other reactions, including effect on #MeToo [5] was repeatedly removed from the text by other editors.
- On the issue of WP:Due (saying:
"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
) I conducted searches google news searches for an appropriate period, from June 1 (the day of the verdict) to June 12 (the day before the search) which now display:
- 29,900 results for Depp Heard trial
- 5,720 results for Depp Heard trial MeToo
- that's a ratio of 25,600:48 - 533:1
- The content was expanded[6] which I welcomed but I also think that there are proportional limits.
- GregKaye 06:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
In writing the above I revisited my searches and found some different search result reading and have added note on the Depp v. Heard page to say:
Full disclosure, the results for the news searches on google for June 1-12 that I'm now finding are: 29,900 results for Depp Heard trial 5,720 results for Depp Heard trial MeToo This is on the same stated methodology that I mentioned earlier that, "On the results page you can only see the result numbers by selecting the text around and under the date and copying and pasting somewhere else." Something somewhere has glitched but my search based argument for WP:Due seems to have dissipated.
This search methodology was something that we regularly used when working with the Islamic State pages but I hadn't previously come across results variations, not least like this.
GregKaye 07:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a classic case of WP:RECENTISM. An article on a very public trial like Depp v. Heard should have a section that discusses the aftermath of the trial… but it is too soon to properly assess that aftermath. Coverage immediately after an event tends to be full of hyperbole and over-reaction (OMG, can you believe this happened? This is the best/worst thing ever!!) and speculation (This is going to change everything!!). What we should be looking for is more reasoned reaction commentary from legal scholars and historians, not cause advocates and media talking heads. Be patient. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was going to say, between our position on NITNEWS and on gossip related to BLPs, it is likely best to avoid trying to develop any type of reactions to the trial, sticky mostly to the facts, and wait for some time to determine how to apply UNDUE as to what analysis and criticism is appropriate to include. The rush to include positioning this soon after the trial is a major problem. --Masem (t) 14:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Those are some good points I didn’t consider, especially Masem’s. I agree that for an actual understanding of the trial’s aftermath it will take a lot of time. What about reactions that don’t make a conclusion about the importance and future effects of the case, like data from public polls? And what about reactions from highly notable individuals, such as the founder of #MeToo herself? Anyway, respecting y’all’s experience with this stuff (this side of Wikipedia is foreign to me), I’m no longer opposed to shortening the section to a handful of sentences, but I expect it to be expanded once more retrospectives have been written. Ovinus (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- How about just posting a summary of the verdict ? There is a legal determination here, and Wikipedia can just summarize it. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Those are some good points I didn’t consider, especially Masem’s. I agree that for an actual understanding of the trial’s aftermath it will take a lot of time. What about reactions that don’t make a conclusion about the importance and future effects of the case, like data from public polls? And what about reactions from highly notable individuals, such as the founder of #MeToo herself? Anyway, respecting y’all’s experience with this stuff (this side of Wikipedia is foreign to me), I’m no longer opposed to shortening the section to a handful of sentences, but I expect it to be expanded once more retrospectives have been written. Ovinus (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- To be frank, this proposal makes no sense. The article for every major news event has a reaction section. Even films have a reaction section. For trials of similarly large cultural importance, there is literally an entire article tiled Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial. You are merely speculating when you say that it will be considered irrelevant later down the line, as we have no evidence for that conclusion. I'm certainly fine with replacing quotations from journalists with more quotations from academics and legal professionals (we already have some and more are easy enough to find) once the section is restored and unblanked, but the problem at hand is that the section is being repeatedly blanked and deleted in its entirety. Moreover, "just posting the verdict" implies that Wikipedia is treating the verdict as somehow binding on it, as if Wikipedia were a court of law. Obviously this is not the case, and where reliable expert sources react to a verdict with criticism, or praise, or fears or other analysis of its effects, there is no good reason to omit that information. No other public trial which received as much coverage of this one omits any mention of expert and public reaction. There-being (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reaction sections to breaking news events are against WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM; this is a trending problem for the last several years. A proper reaction section takes time for us to figure out how to work out what is DUE or not, and that cannot at all be done in the first few weeks after a event. On the other hand, reviews to film all come out within days of the film's release, meaning we can figure out the criticism and commentary of the film in the immediate time frame - and we're rarely fighting ideological factors that come up from major news events.
- I don't think anyone is saying that zero reactions to the verdict can be included but it should be very highly selective and not trying to fill the entire shape of the criticism or commentary like it. Particularly when this involves two major BLPs. --Masem (t) 04:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- "I don't think anyone is saying that zero reactions to the verdict can be included" Actually, the poster above me literally said that: "How about just posting a summary of the verdict ?" If you find this ambiguous, on the comment page, they opined "I don't see why a reaction section is needed at all." Also, the section as a whole under discussion was blanked, so this is not merely a theoretical problem. (Likewise, some of the same editors blanked the entire testimony section as well, but this is a problem for another day.) Finally, this is no longer a breaking news event. Even if later analysis turns out to diverge from the initial analysis of academic, professionals, media analysts, etc, the initial reaction to the verdict will remain notable. Kicking the can down the road doesn't help anyone. I think the fact that nearly all major cultural/news events include a significant reaction section (note my citation showing that in some cases, including the last U.S. trial to have such wide public cultural interest, there is an entire article solely dedicated to reactions to the verdict-- this is how notable our editors consider such reactions) indicates that the consensus interpretation of editors on WP:NEWS is that sections of this sort deserve inclusion. There-being (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that if you are going to try to summarize initial reactions, you should be using "tertiary" sources, ones that do some of that summarizing for you, as your main sources, because this close to an event it is hard without engaging in NPOV or NOR to actually determine what are the most significant views or the like. That means focusing less on individual talking heads (unless they are noted by these sources) and more on broad strokes. I know this story touches on a few controversial areas like #MeToo, etc., but you do need to keep in mind that this is a celebrity-driven story and you will have more sources from entertainment pages rather than the main news sections covering it, and we do not want to engage in the gossipy areas that entertainment pages focus on. That's probably what makes this trial a bit more difficult to cover. --Masem (t) 12:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also if you look at the OJ trial reaction page, not how many of the sources are well past October 1995, most seem to be 2000 or later. There might be that type of analysis on this trial, but that article is using the later sources that retroactively cover the reactions in a proper way that is consistent with NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, using later sources that better summarize opinion in a neutral manner than the immediate results. --Masem (t) 12:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let me put this another way. We have countless citations to articles quoting law professors, sociologists, criminologists, attorneys policy professionals saying some kind of variant of "we fear that the verdict and the misognystic treatment of Heard on twitter, youtube, and tiktok will have a chilling effect on domestic abuse claims." There are fewer, but some, experts we can cite who've disagreed with this claim-- such as Prof. Alexandra Lysova https://theconversation.com/depp-v-heard-verdict-is-a-turning-point-in-discussion-of-intimate-partner-violence-184424. However, even these experts acknowledge that most of the initial expert reaction was to claim a backlash to MeToo, and a chilling effect on abuse claims, and a setback for women's rights. Whether these claims are incorrect or not, they will remain notable and it will remain a notable fact about the trial and verdict that a wide swath of relevant experts reacted by claiming a potential "chilling effect." I promise you that I am not citing or intending to cite gossip rags. This can all be presented strictly using attributions from tenured professors. So I'm not really understanding why WP:NOTNEWS would forbid this. I don't think simply looking for sources and quoting them directly constitutes original research, and I would be happy to ensure that every citation stays scrupulously close to the original source if we could simply the section un-deleted or un-blanked.There-being (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Speculation/concern that the trial might have a chilling effect is really not appropriate… what we need are sources that demonstrate that it did/does have a chilling effect. Those probably have not been written yet (as the event is to recent for us to have data on its effect). Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- "I don't think anyone is saying that zero reactions to the verdict can be included" Actually, the poster above me literally said that: "How about just posting a summary of the verdict ?" If you find this ambiguous, on the comment page, they opined "I don't see why a reaction section is needed at all." Also, the section as a whole under discussion was blanked, so this is not merely a theoretical problem. (Likewise, some of the same editors blanked the entire testimony section as well, but this is a problem for another day.) Finally, this is no longer a breaking news event. Even if later analysis turns out to diverge from the initial analysis of academic, professionals, media analysts, etc, the initial reaction to the verdict will remain notable. Kicking the can down the road doesn't help anyone. I think the fact that nearly all major cultural/news events include a significant reaction section (note my citation showing that in some cases, including the last U.S. trial to have such wide public cultural interest, there is an entire article solely dedicated to reactions to the verdict-- this is how notable our editors consider such reactions) indicates that the consensus interpretation of editors on WP:NEWS is that sections of this sort deserve inclusion. There-being (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was going to say, between our position on NITNEWS and on gossip related to BLPs, it is likely best to avoid trying to develop any type of reactions to the trial, sticky mostly to the facts, and wait for some time to determine how to apply UNDUE as to what analysis and criticism is appropriate to include. The rush to include positioning this soon after the trial is a major problem. --Masem (t) 14:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the view that we should minimize/hold off on reactions per NOTNEWS and RECENT. It is way to early to assume any of the commentary/speculative claims that this has any impact on MeToo etc is simply too early. If we have sources that talk about how the media responded to this initially it may be OK to include those as a summary of the pattern. Quotes from individual reactions are simply too soon at this point. It's entirely possible that public sentiment with regards to this case will change after all the post trial interviews are over. Springee (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- By talking heads, do we mean journalists, or are you saying that law professor reactions, sociologist reactions, NGO/advocate reactions should also not be in the article until some indeterminate amount of time has passed? I can agree we don't really need a quotation from what a random journalist from the Guardian said about the verdict, and I would like to replace all such quotations with reactions from relevant experts and analysts, but I'm not seeing why a source (such as we do have) that gives quotations from several legal scholars, attorneys, policy professionals etc on potential effects of the case would be unwelcome. I also add that removing the reaction section would (as far as I know) make this article unique among cultural events of this stature. I don't know of a single major news or cultural event that does not contain a reaction section of this sort, though others may obviously better know the answer to this.There-being (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Defendent's plea (sorry), I know that along the way, a blunder that I made was, I think, taken the wrong way. I'd like to start with the context. I'd previously made an edit[7]
"Legal experts considered that Depp's chances of winning in the US were weaker than in the UK citing strong freedom of speech protections in the US."
Later, when edit the internal link into I'd put this text, I had a real brain fart and mixed up the US and the UK with the result of the following edit edit[8] and, in the same text as I'd previously written, it then said"Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK."
I do my best with editing, try to scrupulously keep my edits to NPOV and have done things like being the first to edit back a #MeToo reference into the article after another editor had blanked content with all the others. I think that the lack of diffs being presented here is suggestive that the accusations are nonsense. GregKaye 11:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)- I'm sorry I brought up individual concerns here, it was inappropriate. There-being (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I absolutely agree that the original section was way too extensive, however I don't think it is reasonable to completely omit these reactions. It will of course take more time and analysis from experts to know what the exact effects of the trial are, but a summary of media and DV experts' & organisations' reactions to the verdict has been so widespread and fairly uniform that there is no reason not to mention it in some way, e.g. a 1-2 paragraph subsection. I would understand the reasoning that it should not be included if the verdict had just come out yesterday, but it's been two weeks – definitely enough time to know what the overall themes discussed by media and experts in reaction to it are. I'd also like to point out that there's even a whole section on Camille Vasquez, a previously unknown lawyer who got her 15 minutes of stardom through this trial and is unlikely to be prominently remembered 10 years from now; yet we shouldn't mention the reactions and statements of the likes of New York Times, #MeToo movement and RAINN to the verdict? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you avoid sources that are singular stances/points 9f view, like an open piece, and instead use sources that work to summarize multiple views, the it is fair to write a reaction section that way. Eg you want a source like the NYTimes that is effectively "Person A said this, Person B said that, Person C said the other thing..." since now you have that source identify what they think are major opinions in the short term.--Masem (t) 17:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Anti-Russian sentiment
Over the past couple of weeks there has been a large amount of information added to Anti-Russian sentiment by a single user. Everything appears to be sourced, but I'm not convinced it's presented neutrally. I'd like to solicit the views of this noticeboard to let me know if I'm over-reacting. A collection of the edits (several difs) can be seen here, here, and here.
A few lines which concerned me:
Biased media coverage, as well as Russian actions such as the Second Chechen War, a Russian reaction to eastward NATO expansion and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections contributed to anti-Russian sentiment
United Kingdom limited how much Russian nationals are allowed to save on bank accounts. Banking industry considered the restriction to violate UK equality laws, which forbid discrimination by nationality.
A mismatch between U.S. rhetoric about promoting democratic reforms in Russia and actual U.S. actions and policy has been said to cause deep resentment among Russians, helping Russian propaganda to construct a narrative of U.S. malign interference.
— Czello 21:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just wanted to clarify, the diffs at 1st and 2nd link include a few changes done by other editors. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree there is no way this sentence is justified by the underlying sources: "Biased media coverage, as well as Russian actions such as the Second Chechen War, a Russian reaction to eastward NATO expansion and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections contributed to anti-Russian sentiment}}" The 2 sources mentioned never say the word "biased" which, one would think, is a minimum requirement for saying that media coverage on something definitively is biased. The sources only refer to "Western rhetoric", reinforced by western journalists, as having some effect here - in the view of the analysts quoted. I would think that you should split up the bit about Western rhetoric/media coverage from the rest of the sentence describing Russian actions, as the sentence is very difficult to parse when wildly different things like "Biased coverage" and "Russian actions" are being thrown together as being posited as having some effect.There-being (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @There-being: thank you for highlighting the difference about rhetoric vs bias! Changed it. Do you have a suggestion how it could be phrased overall? My big challenge writing this, and splitting media coverage and events, was that I couldn't find a source that would say that "Russian actions" had effect on the sentiment, which resulted in this cumbersome sentence. PaulT2022 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- One more thing, there are two more sources for the media coverage criticism that are referenced in the article body: [9], [10] PaulT2022 (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree there is no way this sentence is justified by the underlying sources: "Biased media coverage, as well as Russian actions such as the Second Chechen War, a Russian reaction to eastward NATO expansion and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections contributed to anti-Russian sentiment}}" The 2 sources mentioned never say the word "biased" which, one would think, is a minimum requirement for saying that media coverage on something definitively is biased. The sources only refer to "Western rhetoric", reinforced by western journalists, as having some effect here - in the view of the analysts quoted. I would think that you should split up the bit about Western rhetoric/media coverage from the rest of the sentence describing Russian actions, as the sentence is very difficult to parse when wildly different things like "Biased coverage" and "Russian actions" are being thrown together as being posited as having some effect.There-being (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, that does make it a bit more difficult and we need to take care to avoid introducing something that is not exactly said in the sources, if we do not actually have sources that directly say that anti-Russian sentiment has been increased by Russian actions (whether the Russian invasion of Ukraine, interference in the U.S. election, etc). Maybe the closest I see in the initial 2 sources you linked (i havent looked at the 2 you just posted a moment ago) are sentences like the following (but indeed these don't quite say that recent upsurge in anti-Russian sentiment is caused by Russian actions, either): "This is not to deny that there has been a great deal to condemn in many aspects of Russian behavior over the past decade, the war in Chechnya being the most ghastly example. But justifiable Western criticism has all too often been marred by attacks that have been hysterical and one-sided" That article is also very old btw (2001) and is primarily talking about Chechen I believe, though it presents a very nice analysis and remains a good reference. I guess I would try to hue somewhat closely to the general approach that author takes there and try to say something of the sort "Some analysts have argued that official Western rhetoric and journalism about Russian actions abroad have contributed to anti-Russian sentiment in recent years, despite justifiable criticism of Russian actions such as the invasion of Ukraine, interference in the 2016 election, and the war in Chechen." This version of the sentence is still kind of awkward and I'd prefer to split into two if we can, and the sentence could probably be filled out with more detail from the sources, and a more recent analysis would be useful to reference in making this claim. There-being (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps this could work? @There-being: @Czello:
Some analysts have argued that official Western rhetoric and journalism about Russian actions abroad have contributed to anti-Russian sentiment after the dissolution of Soviet Union in 1991, besides justifiable disapproval of Russian actions such as the Second Chechen War and reaction to NATO expansion. More recently, Russian interference in the 2016 United States election was proven by the investigation, however the press has been criticized for repeatedly covering unconfirmed and later discredited allegations of collusion between Donald Trump and Russia for years.
--PaulT2022 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)- Regarding the 2016 elections, please discuss the subject there Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- 'NATO expansion'? The phrase is extremely biased in Russian way. CEE countries expected Russian opression so they demanded to become members of the NATO and many NATO members opposed. Ukraine has been refused to join NATO. Name the NATO documents of the type 'Let's expand and oppress Russia'. The NATO has tried rather to appease Russia, which led to the war. Russia has broken any internation law in 2014 and 2022.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- The more I read, the more I find the article biased. Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Astrology
There is a current RFC on Talk:Astrology regarding the neutrality of the lede. 5.151.22.143 (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Astrology is fake ya know 88.110.165.143 (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Kosovo
A dispute has arisen over the use of a totalitarian-era source used to claim the demographic primacy of one ethnic group over another [11] [12]. This is a high visibility country level article. Khirurg (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Uyghur genocide whistleblower interview
Does this sentence in Uyghur genocide meet weight: "A former Chinese police detective, exiled in Europe, revealed to CNN in 2021 details of the systematic torture of Uyghurs in detention camps in Xinjiang, acts in which he had participated, as he had feared his own arrest had he dissented." ["Chinese whistleblower exposes torture of Uyghur prisoners in CNN interview", 5 October 2021.]
In the interview with CNN presenter Wolf Blitzer, a man using a pseudonym, dressed in the uniform of an inspector (3rd class) of the People's Police of the People's Republic of China, and disguised with a covid mask and dark sunglasses, claims to have participated in torture at the instructions of his superiors.
The interview was reported in The Times and The Telegraph, but I could find no coverage in other major mainstream reliable media, or any follow-up stories on CNN.
Given the lack of attention paid to this interview, I don't think it is significant to the topic, which has received widespread coverage. There are lots of red flags here: the lack of widespread coverage, the lack of corroboration and the fact that the disguise would not actually work.
TFD (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Due. As I noted on WP:RSN, CNN is WP:GREL on WP:RSP and multiple international news organizations have provided coverage of the whistleblower, including The Times and The Telegraph, as well as Sky News, and Taiwan's Central News Agency, Business Insider, and China Digital Times.
Most importantly for me, the revelation was important enough to include in the To Make Us Slowly Disappear, a 2021 report from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum that focused on the Chinese Government’s attack on the Uyghurs as an ethnic group. The coverage in that report does something very similar to what the Wikipedia page does: it contextualizes the whistleblower within the context of torture and ill-treatment. Perhaps the torture section can be written to include more detail on the specific techniques that the Chinese government has used to torture Uyghurs, but I don't see this as a barrier to including a one-sentence mention of the Xinjiang police whistleblower. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)- For what it's worth, I've fixed the grammar issue that was present. The sentence now reads:
— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)A former Chinese police detective, exiled in Europe, revealed to CNN in 2021 details of the systematic torture of Uyghurs in detention camps in Xinjiang, acts in which he had participated, and the fear of his own arrest had he dissented while in China.
- The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum tends to have some... let's just say idiosyncratic views on modern events. They authored a study which whitewashed the actions of the Obama administration in the Syrian civil war, later retracting it after criticism. Hundreds of historians also signed an open letter criticising the USHMM for its rebuke of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for describing detention camps along the US border as "concentration camps"; the historians said that the USHMM's claims were ahistorical, and "taking a radical position that is far removed from mainstream scholarship on the Holocaust and genocide." (unpaywalled version). The USHMM's views on modern, politicised events, particularly ones in which the United States has a stake, are not at all ones I would find to be the "most important" factor for WP:DUE concerns. Endwise (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- The USHMM is one of the most respected institutions in the world with respect to the the topics of genocide prevention, Holocaust memory, and Holocaust education. The most sharp criticism that the museum receives is its hard line on the Holocaust uniqueness debate, which while currently an open and passionate debate among Holocaust scholars has seen some movement away from an academic consensus for uniqueness. With respect to its report on Syria, there's a difference between its relative lack of competence in providing summaries of complex socio-military analysis (which was at the core of the criticism) and its extremely well-established core competence in documenting modern crimes against humanity and genocide. It is that competence in documenting crimes against humanity and genocide upon which their report's reliability rests. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- And, as a fun fact, they did wind up releasing a revised version of the Syria report. The big issue was the four-page executive summary in the initial release; much of the remainder of the content itself seems to have been praised by academics within the relevant fields. If you'd like to read the Syria studies, the first five documents available here are free for your perusal. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I've fixed the grammar issue that was present. The sentence now reads:
- In fairness to the USHMM, they had no reason to disbelieve that Jiang was an actual Chinese police officer, since they accepted the reliability of CNN. The claim is not central to their article. The fact they mentioned it does not however establish noteworthiness. The Uyghur genocide is a major ongoing story in the media and we would expect ongoing coverage in most major media. For example, Adrian Zenz's claims were reported in ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and major legacy media in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, France and in many other sources both when they were made and on an ongoing basis. TFD (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Undue: The problem with the proposed sentence is that it treats the report from the exile in wikivoice as an established fact ("
revealed [...] details
"). The sources (including the USHMM), from the US, UK, and Taiwan, might be completely reliable for most things, but they generally follow their government's line on China. Relations between those countries and China are at a new low, and during a "cold war" it's common for every false or exaggerated report from a refugee to be reported as news. Maybe this report is accurate, and maybe it's not. NightHeron (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)- It has been pointed out at the parallel RS/N discussion that the wording to introduce the information must make sure it is stated as a claim in the whistleblower's voice, which is fixable. That doesn't address whether its DUE or not, but we can make sure that we aren't presenting it as fact. --Masem (t) 12:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but whether it's an established fact (as asserted in hawk10's wording above) or an unsubstantiated claim has a bearing on whether it's due or undue. If the wording is fixed so that it's clear that the accuracy is open to doubt, then the question arises of why we include it at all. NightHeron (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- It has been pointed out at the parallel RS/N discussion that the wording to introduce the information must make sure it is stated as a claim in the whistleblower's voice, which is fixable. That doesn't address whether its DUE or not, but we can make sure that we aren't presenting it as fact. --Masem (t) 12:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
size of states
Wikipedia says that both Hawaii and new jersey are the 47th largest state. That can't be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.134.112.215 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? Hawaii's lead says it's the 8th smallest state, and New Jersey's lead says it's the 5th smallest state. Schazjmd (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd: there is a rank field in the infobox that has 47. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, StellarNerd, I didn't know where the OP was seeing the mistake. And thanks for fixing it as well. Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- fixed. Per List of U.S. states and territories by area, they are actually both 47th, NJ is 47th by total area and HI is 47th by land area but 43rd by total area. So it depends what area you use, HI's water adds much volume to its total area. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd: there is a rank field in the infobox that has 47. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Humanism
The Entire Article may also be a Copyright Violation as it Quotes Verbatim from Books on Secular Humanist. Which is the problem. It is Definitely also One in Which a Conflict of Interest exists with The Editor.
Here is The Link to The Article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
The Article basically Reads like an Advertisement trying to Convert You to Humanism. It has Glowing Things to say about it, disparages Christianity and Islam, and even The Criticism Page takes The Critic of Humanism from Books by Humanist Authors Who want to promote Humanism, and say Nonsense things like;
"Criticism of humanism focuses on its adherence to human rights, which some critics have further claimed are "Western"."
Seriously, The Criticism Section basically has fewer Critics of Humanism than The Humanism and Religion Section has of Theism and of Christianity. Which it offers No Counter to. It is Clearly one Sided and Biased.
It also Passes off Strawman Versions of the Existence of God as Genuine, and Attacks them, then claims their Failures are Why People become Humanist. Like Claiming The Ontological Argument is basically saying God Exists because We can Think of Him. That is not The Ontological Argument. That is a Ridiculous Strawman of The Ontological Argument. And Darwin did not Overturn The Argument From Deign. The Claims are Baseless. No Effort to Offer the Other Side is made. It just Declares them Failures and presents them ad a reason people are Choosing Humanism. If these Arguments are present, they should be Presented as they Really are and not Reduced to a Straw Man. And Counters to the Humanist View should be Included. Though in this Case I'd prefer it to simply be Removed since they don;t Serve any Purpose. Wikipedia Already has Articles on these Argukents, which explain them in Better and More Accurate Ways, and they do not serve to Explain Humanism in This Aetivle, but Rather are an Attack on Theism.
This is the Entire Humanism and Religion Section.
"Humanism and religion
Humanism is a naturalistic philosophy—it rejects gods, angels, immortal souls, and all supernatural phenomena. The universe is natural and can be studied by science.[89] While opposition to the various forms of theism might come from many philosophical or historical domains, the most convincing argument in terms of public opinion is naturalism. Historical arguments fail to convince the public because historical research is often open to interpretation.[90] For similar reasons, large parts of the population are unconvinced by arguments based on aesthetics (classical literature touches human souls more than holy scriptures) or ethics (religion's history on slavery, gay rights, racism).[89] Driven by the successes of science and technology, naturalistic arguments gain prominence in public opinion.[91]
On the other hand, traditional arguments for the existence of God are falling short. The ontological argument (roughly, that God exists because we can think of him) lacks empirical evidence, and seemingly lacks understanding of reality. The cosmological argument (God as the necessary first cause) also doesn't prove God's existence since other causes, or prime movers (physical entities, mass, energy, or something else) might have been the cause of the universe. The teleological argument (or argument from design) has been eliminated by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. However, the failure of rational arguments to prove God's existence does not prove God's non-existence.[92] A more popular cause of religious belief is personal experience—which is also problematic, because personal experiences are vague and subject to interpretation, and wishful thinking might also lead the way to desired conclusions.[93]
While humanism was founded as antithetic to religious establishments, religious views are not totally incompatible with humanism. Many deists, for example (such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Voltaire, Thomas Paine), had views resonating with a humanistic approach to life—since (for deists) God does not interfere with our daily life or give commands, they can espouse a humanistic perspective.[94] Also, many humanists have an anthropological interest in religions—how they evolved, matured, affect morality, and other features of the human condition.[95]"
Compare this o the Critisism Section where the Bulk of The Critism is basically that Humanism is a form of Christianity.
"Criticism
Criticism of humanism focuses on its adherence to human rights, which some critics have further claimed are "Western". Critics claim humanist values are becoming a tool of Western moral dominance, which is a form of neo-colonialism leading to oppression and a lack of ethical diversity.[155] Other critics argue humanism is an oppressive philosophy because it is not free from the biases of the white, heterosexual males who shaped it.[156]
Anthropology professor Talal Asad sees humanism as a project of modernity and a secularized continuation of Western Christian theology. In Asad's view, just as the Catholic Church passed the Christian doctrine of love to Africa and Asia while assisting in the enslavement of large parts of their population, humanist values have at times been a pretext for Western countries to expand their influence to other parts of the world to humanize "barbarians".[157] Asad has also argued humanism is not a purely secular phenomenon but takes from Christianity the idea of the essence of humanity.[158] Asad is not optimistic Western humanisms can incorporate other humanistic traditions such as those from India and China without subsuming and ultimately eliminating them.[159]
Sociology professor Didier Fassin sees humanism's focus on empathy and compassion rather than goodness and justice as a problem. According to Fassin, humanism originated in the Christian tradition, particularly the Parable of the Good Samaritan, in which empathy is universalized. Fassin also claims humanism's central essence, the sanctity of human life, is a religious victory hidden in a secular wrapper.[160]
History professor Samuel Moyn attacks humanism for its advocacy of human rights. According to Moyn, in the 1960s, human rights were a declaration of anti-colonial struggle but during the 1970s, they were transformed into a utopian vision, replacing the failing utopias of the 20th century. The humanist underpinning of human rights transforms them into a moral tool that is impractical and ultimately non-political. He also finds a commonality between humanism and the Catholic discourse on human dignity.[161]"
It is also not Hard to Find Criticism of Humanism. And it'd be Nice of Christian Criticism of Humanism was included. Especially given how Anti-Christian This Artcle is. I'd also Like to see Islamic Critisism of Humanism that isn't "Its another form of Christianity".
This Article claims Conservatives support Christian values, and thus are not Coompatible with Humanism. Which is just False. It Depicts Humanists as Progressives and Christians as Conservatives. It makes Outright value Judgements on Social Positions. I'd also like to have a More Neutral and Nuanced View of Humanist beliefs. This Article Demands We accept that what Humanists say about Themselves and how They Describe The World and their beliefs are an unquestionable Truth. But its not.
Why, for example, must I Agree that Humanism is not a form of Religion? Why should I accept that People are leaving Religion because Religion promoted Slavery and Bigotry and Racism? Am I supposed to Accept that Humanists did not promote these Things? Am I supped to Think all Religious people did? Am i really supposed to Thank Humanism for The Islamic tolerance and Advancements in the Middle Ages? As if Islam does not have these merits? Am I supposed to just Accept that Immanuel Kant promoted Rationalism? What of The Critique of Pure Reason he Wrote?
Am I really supposed to just Accept that Conservatives Reject Individualism and the Liberals Accept it?
Am i supposed to just Blindly Accept that Humanists Books written to Promote Humanism are Entirely unbiased and You don't Need Any Other Source to Write a Humanism Article, even for The Criticism page? And how Humanists Describe Christianity or other Religions is Accurate? Didn't Steven Law Write The Evil God Challenge? Isn't He an Anti-Theist? Isn't A. C. Grayling an Anti-Theist? Why should their Views on how Wonderful Humanism is and How Terrible Religion is, especially How Terrible The Christian Religion is, be seen as some Inviolable Truth?
The Article is a Bad Joke. And it needs to be Delt with.
SKWills (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- You need to be very much more concise. I am uninterested in reading a screed of another editors own thoughts. You say it is not difficult to find criticisms of humanism. IF you think the article is unbalanced you can go and actually find these criticisms, check they follow the policies and try putting them in. You are doing yourself no service by writing so many words - a strong case on Wikipedia does not require a huge essay to support it. By the end you are just talking to yourself. See TLDR. NadVolum (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Every Time I edit the Article it is reverted so no, I can't. I can Literally change Nothing. I cannot remove the Unnecessary discussion on The Arguments for the Existence of God, correct them so they are not Dishonest Strawmen, or add a Counter. I cannot even Add things like "Humanists claim": to make it More balanced. The entire Point is, The editors on the Page will not Allow any edits that disagree with their Polemic that Humanism is Great and Religion is Evil.
- Any Effort I make to Change Anything is simply reverted.
The article reflects what contemporary academic Reliable Sources are saying. Article moslty relies on books as The oxford handbook of Humanism, The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Humanism and other academic level, peer reviewed articles. Cinadon36 11:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. I actually looked at the Sources. you Use A C Grayling and Stephen law and Jeaneane D.Fowler, all of Whom are Secular Humanists, and The Books are Entirely a Collection of Secular Humanist Propaganda. Stephen Law Created The Evil God Chalone, or example, and has Viciously Attacked Christianity, as has Grayling. and so does this Article. And the Critisism of Secular Humanism came from Secular Humanist Books and doesn't Really represent Actual Criticism. And what was the Point of Flat Lying about the Arguments for God's existence? And You did F;at Lie about them. For example, it is a Flat Lie to say The Ontological Argument is Saying God Exists because We can Think of Him. And Hoe neutral is the Point Of View of an Article that says All of the Arguments for God Fail and this is Why people are abandoning Religion?
- You also Downplay The religion of Humanity and Pretend it is at best a Minor Influence on Humanism when Humanism as You Understand it would not even Exist if not for it.
- All to avoid having to Admit Humanism came out of a Religion.
- You didn't give the Modern scholarly Consensus of Humanism, You presented what Humanists say about Humanism and Why We should All be Humanist and Reject Religion, Especially a Christianity. Even in the Bloody Critics Section you have the Critics main Concern being that Humanism is basically a form of Christianity, as if that is a bad Thing, and present Critics of Humanism as saying Nonsensical Things like They Critisiwe Humianism for Standing for Human Rights. Do you Thing Anyone Actually Critisies Humanism for Standing Up for Human Rights?
- A. C. Grayling and Stepohen Law and Richard Normal say so, so it ust Be true. Right?
- Do You Honestly Think the Man Who said this is IUnbiased and Imparcial?
- "Religious apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you didn't argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. Now what we're doing is, we're presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain."
- A.C. Grayling
- This is a Grossly Misrepresentative Quote as well since Contrary to the Dogma, Atheists like Grayling Killed "Religious People" by the Millions to Eradicate Religion and Spread Atheism.
- Or this.
- "To believe something in the face of evidence and against reason - to believe something by faith - is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect."
- A.C. Grayling
- This is Your Primary Source. Grayling shows up more than Any other Name on the Humanist Page. Even the Others are usually Writing a Chapter of a Book Grayling is editing or Compiling.
- And does this sound like a Neutral Perspective?
- "Religions survive mainly because they brainwash the young."
- A.C. Grayling
- Grayling's Attacks on Religion, on Theism, and on Christianity don't Validate The Article.
- And again, You Include in the Article Attacks on The Arguments for God';s existence that are not even Relevant to Understanding Humanism and are Only there to Convince the Reader that the Arguments for Gods existence are Absurd Failures and We should All be Atheists.
- The Arguments are also Lies.
- it is a Lie to say The Ontological argument is God exists because We can Think of Him. it is a Lie to say The Fine Tuning Argument is Defeated by Darwin.
- Your Sources are not the Academic Consensus, Your Articles are Promotional Materials for Humanism.
SKWills (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oxford Handbook is used several times, as is Wiley's Handbook. There are more than 10 chapters from Oxford Handbook and 10 chapters from Wiley. I havent calculated how many references to those two books are in total- have you? Fowler, Grayling and Stephen Law are also used, but less. Nevertheless, they all are reliable. They might be biased, but they are world known academics (maybe apart from Fowler) and philosophers. "Leading experts" in the field. Certainly RS all of them. Anyway, you are saying "Your Sources are not the Academic Consensus, Your Articles are Promotional Materials for Humanism" Do you have RS, academic level, by other leading experts, disproving what academics already cited at the article are saying? Cinadon36 12:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I said before you do yourself no service with tl;dr screeds. Also putting capital letters everywhere makes it harder to read. After those obstacles we get to what is basically you arguing against humanism instead of giving references with page numbers. Statements like "it is a Lie to say The Ontological argument is God exists because We can Think of Him. it is a Lie to say The Fine Tuning Argument is Defeated by Darwin" are just you shouting. Wikipedia has long had a mantra 'verifiability not truth'. Talking about lies or the truth is a waste of peoples time here. What you need is reliable sources saying whatever it is you want in the article. NadVolum (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The Wiki hit job on 2000 Mules crosses the line
I am a contibutor to Wikipedia - but never again. The Wikipedia article on the movie 2000 Mules - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Mules - that can not be editted - is such an absurdly partisan hit job on the movie that I will not fund this level of lying. The movie speaks for itself and anyone could draw their own conclusions. Instead, it is nothing but a partisan political hit job.
Goodbye Wikipedia. It'll never get another dollar from me. Hope it goes broke for converting itself to being a partisan political organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwwiko (talk • contribs) 14:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Vaya con dios. Dumuzid (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Screwwiko: Wikipedia tries to reflect the viewpoints that get published in reliable sources; that is what Neutral point of view means on Wikipedia. For current political events, those sources are generally the mainstream media. The mainstream media in general characterises Trump's claims of widespread election fraud altering the outcome of the 2020 US election as false, and also specifically characterises the arguments 2000 Mules makes in furtherance of that more general claim as false. Even if you think the mainstream media are all corrupt liars, you can surely understand why these articles need to be written in a way that describes these claims as incorrect -- this is just what all the sources we have to write the article based on say. Endwise (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would say in the OPs defense, WP:RECENTISM needs to put into play here. Much of the sourcing is timing too close to events (the election itself and the release of the film) in a politically charged atmosphere. Ideally, we really should wait a few years and then can address how the film was taken in terms of its political message. I don't expect the view to change that much from the present stance that it is a film trying to promote a false idea of ballot mules, but it should be well beyond the recentness of the event. --Masem (t) 02:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you really are leaving Wikipedia because of what it says about that film may I suggest Conservapedia instead? [13] will be much more to your liking. Follow it long enough and I'm sure you'll agree with it that E=mc2 is liberal claptrap - they have a thing against atheist Einstein. ;-) NadVolum (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @NadVolum, thanks for that link. to its partial credit, Conservapedia does provide an essay which rebuts the objections to E=mc; however, I have to agree with you that the fact such an opinionated article could exist aginst this scientific concept in the first place, does highlight some of the facile reasoning which can occur due to ideology. Sm8900 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Concern about Pro-Vegan and Pro-Animal Rights Bias
I've noticed a... troublesome running thing about pages pertaining to animals, animal agriculture, and animal agriculture...
So I was on the Beef page and noticed that the page claimed that beef (and meat in general) have a huge negative environmental impact and make up most greenhouse gas emissions and would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions if everyone stopped eating beef and meat in general. This claim has proven to be exaggerated and agriculture (both plant and animal) only makes up about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions [14][15]. Multiple sources used in the article clearly had a pro-vegan bias, including use of an opinion piece of a citation..
Now that's just one article. But I went looking further and found some more... disturbing pro-vegan and pro-animal rights biases on tons of pages...
Ethics of eating meat, Carnism, Psychology of eating meat, among tons of other articles, clearly have an agenda on pushing veganism and animal rights, plus PETA is often used as a source despite the fact that the organization has actively been involved in misinformation campaigns (such as the "milk causes autism" thing). Then I found the WP:Animal rights project, ostensibly meant to educate readers about the concept of animal rights, but is clearly made to push an agenda instead. WP:ADVOCACY comes to mind in regards to this. Greyhound 84 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Greyhound 84: I'm beginning to look into this, but you can be more specific about the false claims in the articles? For example, what text from Beef is incorrect? It says beef makes up the most agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, which is true and reliably sourced. ––FormalDude talk 03:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are correct that PETA is not a reliable source, but I only see one instance of it being used (at Ethics of eating meat). I've removed it. ––FormalDude talk 03:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @FormalDude: For starters, the article claims that the majority of crops are grown solely to feed livestock. Crops are almost never used solely for a single purpose. This disregards that most parts of a plant are inedible to humans and that even the edible portions are often processed with milling or pressing and that produces additional byproducts. When we grow wheat for example, humans are only able to eat the smallest part of the plant, the fruit body. The rest of the plant (leaves, stems, husks, pods, etc.) are then fed to animals, some parts right away (the hay and leaves) and some parts later during the milling process (the husk and various forms of starches or sorghums, even gluten, which is hard for many humans to digest). In fact 86% of animal feed worldwide is inedible by humans. The overwhelming majority of it consists of forage, crop residues and by-products that have to be fed to animals because they would otherwise be wasted. [16]
- The opinion piece on the article is here Beef#cite_ref-25
- It claims that demand for beef is causing deforestation of the Amazon. Most Brazilian beef is actually exported to China and Hong Kong, and Wikipedia is banned in China anyway.
- Also I found that there was a proposal to blacklist PETA as a source, at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_310#PETA, but it didn't seem to go anywhere. Lastly, someone reverted your removal of the PETA source. Greyhound 84 (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Greyhound 84: I do not see where the article states "
that the majority of crops are grown solely to feed livestock.
" - Beef#cite note-25 is indeed sourced to an op/ed, but the author appears to be a subject-matter expert, and the piece is well referenced. The claim that beef is the primary cause of deforestation in the Amazon is accurate according to this study. I have no clue if it's true that most Brazilian beef is exported to China and Hong Kong but I am sure that does not have any affect on this claim.
- I agree with the reverter @C.J. Griffin that the PETA source is suitable and applicable as a direct quote with attribution. ––FormalDude talk 18:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Greyhound 84: I do not see where the article states "
noticed that the page claimed that beef (and meat in general) have a huge negative environmental impact
- This is not actually controversial. What's controversial is the "what do we do about it" part.make up most greenhouse gas emissions
- It doesn't say that, at least not the version I'm looking at. It says "Beef has a high environmental impact, being a primary driver of deforestation with the highest greenhouse gas emissions of any agricultural product", which seems pretty accurate.would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions if everyone stopped eating beef and meat in general
- this isn't wrong. It's oversimplified both in terms of massively scaling up replacements and the various socioeconomic considerations, but it's not wrong. More importantly, it's an opinion that an awful lot of people have expressed. We should not say, in Wikipedia's voice, that "if everyone stopped eating meat, it would fix climate change," but we can present strategies reliable sources have presented and we can highlight areas that contribute significantly to climate change (areas where there's room to make changes all the better).- We generally shouldn't be citing PETA for statements of fact, but as one of the best known organizations focused on issues like animal welfare engaged in a wide range of activities over a long period of time, there are likely a handful of exceptions, especially when merely citing their position on something in a way that's framed accordingly.
Ethics of eating meat, Carnism, Psychology of eating meat, among tons of other articles, clearly have an agenda on pushing veganism and animal rights
- A subject like carnism is predicated on there being cognitive dissonance between people's fondness for animals and being ok with eating them. Of course it sounds like it's pushing an "animal rights POV" -- because that's what it's about. With any of these articles, however, we should present ideas in rough proportion to the way reliable sources write about them, which bring me to the most important bit:- I'm responding without a ton of background with these particular articles, and am responding to the very generalized claims of "bias" here. You'll have more success effecting change in these articles if you actually edit the articles, adding reliable sources, removing unreliable sources, and proposing concrete changes on their respective talk pages. It looks like you haven't edited any of them? Wikipedia has plenty of articles with various degrees of bias, and the only reliable way to address it is to go in and fix it. If you find that your efforts are thwarted by people who do not seem to adhere to NPOV, that would be a good time to come back to this board. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I want to second @Rhododendrites insightful comments above. it is not a question of bias. if you want to broaden the coverage of a range of views on specific political issues, it is easy to do so within the guidelines of Wikipedia. simply use reliable sources, to provide basic data on the range of views on these issues. if an issue is a subject of genuine debate, then there is nothing wrong with adding material to the article, to cover the full range of valid opinions. Sm8900 (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- As someone who frequents ag. topics and misinformation in ag. science, I've noticed the general issue with some articles over time as Greyhound brings up, though I haven't had the energy to dig into it as much after the GMO topic finally settled down. It does have some similarities to the anti-GMO subject though in that there are a lot of misnomers that people regard as "common knowledge" that us educators end up having to refute, even in sources we technically can use on Wikipedia, like newspapers. They bring up how claims the most crops are grown solely to feed livestock, and that's an extremely common misnomer where the stats are often misleading either due to lack of knowledge or even purposely in real-world sources. There was a good FAO journal article/lay article awhile back that helped outline some of this.
- That's just one common IRL example, but what a lot of the articles need is just starting from square one with how things actually work rather than leave openings for one-liners that may appear valid at face-value. That's just my advice for now rather than just going and removing information. It's better to teach readers (and editors) what the background is first as this is a another agricultural science topic prone to misinformation that often catches people off guard. I don't plan to dive into the subject very much in the near future, but that's at least the tack I'd take to make some headway. Feel free to ping me if you need an ag. science expert to give input on something specific though on occasion. KoA (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites:, My intent is to raise concerns about agenda-based editing try and initiate a cleanup of pro-vegan and pro-animal rights agenda-based editing. Furthermore, PETA is not an animal welfare group. They get millions of dollars in revenue a year, and spend less than a percent of that to actually help animals. In fact, they kill the vast majority of the animals they take in. They are also known to be tied to terrorist organizations. [17][18][19][20]
- I also saw this article[21]. It is from 2013 and the original link is now dead, but it shows that vegan propaganda is indeed a years-old issue on Wikipedia that has gone unnoticed for the most part. Most of the examples in the article have been cleaned but still there's tons more work to be done. Greyhound 84 (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Greyhound 84, your first paragraph should definitely have stopped after the first sentence; the rest just makes it clear you have a beef with PETA, but has zero impact on how the various articles should be evaluated.
- As for your second paragraph, having skimmed the link, the criticism seems to be of two kinds:
Wikipedia appeals to authority by using "X claims that..." formulations
, which is laughable (contested claims should precisely be attributed to their originators rather than stated in wikivoice), andWikipedia gives prominence to fringe POVs or uses below-MEDRS-quality sources
, which is certainly a problem but not limited to vegan-adjacent topics by any means. As far as I know, MEDRS-sloppiness is not slanted towards pro-veganism either, and your posts here so far failed to convince me of that. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I want to second @Rhododendrites insightful comments above. it is not a question of bias. if you want to broaden the coverage of a range of views on specific political issues, it is easy to do so within the guidelines of Wikipedia. simply use reliable sources, to provide basic data on the range of views on these issues. if an issue is a subject of genuine debate, then there is nothing wrong with adding material to the article, to cover the full range of valid opinions. Sm8900 (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Greyhound 84, can you cite the article and the passage that says "the majority of crops are grown solely to feed livestock?" I think the reference is to corn and soy, not wheat, which are mostly grown for animal feed. Of course they are pressed for oil and some of the production is used to feed humans. See for example the WWF: "In fact, almost 80% of the world’s soybean crop is fed to livestock, especially for beef, chicken, egg and dairy production (milk, cheeses, butter, yogurt, etc)."[22] The USDA: "Nearly half (48.7 percent) of the corn grown in 2013 was used as animal feed. Nearly 30 percent of the crop was used to produce ethanol. Only a small portion of the corn crop was used for high-fructose corn syrup, sweeteners and cereal, at 3.8 percent, 2.1 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively."[23]So you might find better sources and phrase it better. But the claim appears to be substantially true. Note also that there is a range of views between defenders of agribusiness and PETA, and just because someone opposes subsidies to agribusiness does not necessarily mean they are an animal rights activist. TFD (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Postcolonialism
After reading the Postcolonialism article, it is my opinion that the section on Ireland is a blatant example of failing to comply with the encyclopedia's standards of neutrality.
First and most importantly, a review of the postcolonial discourses in Irish scholarship indicates that there's been a back and forth dialogue between literary critics (say, Joycean scholars) and who we would normally think of as "mainstream" historians, with the majority of the latter opposing the idea that 20th Century Ireland could be conceived as a "postcolonial" society. We can see historians pushing back against this theory at least as early as 1990[24]. In the Oxford handbook of modern Irish history published 2015, it was much the same story (p.516[25]). The only thing that actually changed in 25+ years of scholarship is that all the steam had left this debate by the time the Oxford Handbook was published.
In light of all this, it should come as little surprise that the Ireland section in this article was almost entirely sourced to 'Men of Letters' (ie, scholars of literature) while the dominant view of the historians has been left out with no indication to readers that this subject is controversial. By my count there were only two sources that could be qualified as mainstream historians of the subject -Liam Kennedy and Stephen Howe -but the both of these scholars explicitly reject postcolonialism (specifically as the theory has been applied to Ireland, which may require further context), and were thus misquoted in this section as defending statements they do not endorse.
I'm trying to be as brief as possible so ask for more info if needed.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- It all does sound very ivory tower to me going on about native's interior life and socio-cultural. People brought in English teachers during the famine because it would help the children get a job if they emigrated. Saying 'The recorded narratives of people who starved, emigrated and died during this period reflect an understanding of the Irish language as complicit in the devastation of the economy and society. It was perceived as a weakness of a people expelled from modernity: their native language prevented them from casting off ‘tradition’ and ‘backwardness’ and entering the ‘civilised’ world, where English was the language of modernity, progress and survival."' is just being highfalutin wanting to get a PhD thesis signed off or paper in a learned journal I think. NadVolum (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- One of the problems with Irish postcolonial theory from the historian's perspective is that it relies too heavily on postmodern forms of analysis which were used traditionally in the domain of literary critique (hence the predominance of literary scholars in this field). The subjectivity involved in this approach (which could be based on anything from emigrant love letters to Early Modern bardic poetry) is beyond what is typically found in mainstream history (taking into account the subjective nature of historical analysis vs other social sciences), and has enabled postcolonial theorists to draw dubious parallels between English colonialism in Ireland and non-European overseas colonies like Algiers and India. These attempts to remove the colonial experience in Ireland from its Western European context is what most historians primarily object to (see here[26]).
- The term "postcolonial" as it's applied to Ireland is a loaded term that specifically relates to post-independence (post-1921) Ireland. What's implied in the use of this terminology (and explicitly argued in the literature) is that Ireland wasn't merely annexed by England in the Early Modern period as part of a typical process of nation-state development (which would've been unremarkable in terms of Western European experience), but that Ireland's status in the United Kingdom after the Act of Union was a continuation of the colonial relationship. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- You should add the dispute, and the historians' view to the article (especially those currently misrepresented), and maybe trim some of the detail there now. Ireland gets rather too long a section it seems to me. Have you raised the issue at talk there? Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have, and the editor has been pinged, but she hasn't been very helpful so far. She claims that the critique of the theory is included in the section as it reads currently, which it clearly is not. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- You should add the dispute, and the historians' view to the article (especially those currently misrepresented), and maybe trim some of the detail there now. Ireland gets rather too long a section it seems to me. Have you raised the issue at talk there? Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Disagree. The article is about "a critical theory analysis," not what happens when countries cease to be colonies. Most of the section is sourced to academic writing. I would however alter the first sentence: "Ireland experienced centuries of English/British colonialism between the 12th and 18th centuries." It should be prefaced with something like, "According to post colonial studies scholars." While England subjugated Ireland, it is not clear that this was colonialism. England itself had been subjugated by Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Normans, but that was seen as different from modern colonization.
- When it is clear that the article is about a point of view, it is not necessary to rebut each analysis. I would only add criticism that specifically addresses the post colonial studies interpretation of Irish history, otherwise it raise OR issues.
- TFD (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- You disagree with who about what? Re, the first sentence, what is supposed to have happened in the 18th century to end "colonialism" in Ireland? The Acts of Union 1800 changed almost nothing. The really wierd thing about the article is the lack of a section on the "application" re South Asia. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- The average reader would have no idea what a "critical theory analysis" is or any of the other academic jargon in the lead. The section on Ireland makes vague references to "scholars" but doesn't specify if these 'scholars' are historians or people writing about Irish history from a vantage point outside of mainstream history (it's the latter). If I didn't know anything about this subject, I'm reading the section on Ireland, I'm reading a lot of historical claims about Early Modern and Modern Irish history, and I'm assuming that the scholars cited are recognized as experts in these particular periods of Irish history (they're not).
- Of course 'postcolonial' has everything to do with a society after it gains independence from a colonial arrangement. When applied to Ireland, the term comes into use only in 1921, which means that "critical theorists" claim a colonial status for Ireland not just in the Early Modern period but for the entire Union period from 1801 -1921. And they don't stop there. Rather than place Ireland's experience with colonialism in a European context, they take an exceptionalist view of Irish colonial history and draw comparisons between the Irish and colonized peoples outside of Europe (in this telling of history, the Irish are not more similar to the Welsh or Scottish, but to Native Americans, Africans and Indians; Algiers is frequently referenced by these scholars). Otherwise, why single out Ireland for "colonial" treatment? Why not speak about French Brittany in colonial terms? Or the Spanish Netherlands? Napoleon "technically" colonized Northern Italy, but we don't speak about post-Napoleonic Italy with "postcolonial" terminology because historians agree that this period is best understood in the context of Napoleonic Europe (Napoleon also expelled the Austrians from Italy, and who had also technically colonized Northern Italy). Likewise, an Irish postcolonial scholar will write about the Williamite Wars with references to the English conquest of North America, while a historian would say that the Williamite vs Jacobite phenomenon is better understood in the context of British archipelagic history and the broader context of the European wars of religion. "Postcolonialism" in Ireland is a loaded term that's historically and geographically myopic.
- Full disclosure: I was anticipating someone to come along and try to defend this content by claiming the article is about a "critical theory" and thus the normal RS rules for writing history content do not apply here. And that's probably the only argument that can be sustained in this case. But what does that imply about neutrality rules for writing about history on here? That they can be circumvented by creating a 'critical theory' article? Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I believe historians of France are now often describing the Early Modern history of the French provinces, or at least the more remote ones, pretty much in colonial terms. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Are we talking about Réunion here? That's probably fair comment if so... Girth Summit (blether) 21:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the DOMTOMs too of course, but they are mainly talking about Brittany, Provence, Savoie, Vendee etc, (in fact just about anywhere you might want to holiday). Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- For most of the Medieval and Early Modern periods, Savoy was its own independent territory, first a county and then raised to a duchy. It then changed hands between France and the Savoyard rulers several times until it was ultimately partitioned, forming the modern borders between France and Italy. I very much doubt that a postcolonial mode of analysis is at all helpful in explaining economic or social reality for the Piedmontese or Valdostans circa 1862. The negotiating of borders in that region followed a typical pattern in the emergence of modern nation-states in Europe, and was not dramatically different than the negotiating of borders between the Irish State and the UK when Northern Ireland was partitioned. It is certainly not a serious analysis to compare the Savoyards to the Native Americans under English colonization, as Ireland is being compared in this article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the DOMTOMs too of course, but they are mainly talking about Brittany, Provence, Savoie, Vendee etc, (in fact just about anywhere you might want to holiday). Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Are we talking about Réunion here? That's probably fair comment if so... Girth Summit (blether) 21:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I believe historians of France are now often describing the Early Modern history of the French provinces, or at least the more remote ones, pretty much in colonial terms. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- TFD, let me reply to some of your other remarks in case I don't get anymore feedback (I was waiting for responses but that might not happen).
- I have no problem agreeing to the idea that postcolonialism can imply an anti-colonialist attitude or similar state of mind, rather than a literal reading of the term. I really don't know how it's applied in other societies but I'll accept that it has some valid applications. My area is European and specifically Western European history so I've got nothing to say about the Eastern European section of this article either. I'm objecting specifically to the section on Ireland.
- In the Irish case, postcolonialism is not just a psychology but something literal and deeply political. The 26 counties are described as post-colonial only after 1921 (with the creation of the Irish Free State), and for anyone vaguely familiar with the nationalist politics on that island the implication here is obvious. Northern Ireland, it is claimed, continues to remain a colony of Britain.
- In addition to that, Irish postcolonialism is all about placing the Irish and Ireland in the same analytical framework as former colonies of the Global South. There's no dancing around that either. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You disagree with who about what? Re, the first sentence, what is supposed to have happened in the 18th century to end "colonialism" in Ireland? The Acts of Union 1800 changed almost nothing. The really wierd thing about the article is the lack of a section on the "application" re South Asia. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see it like that. Yes many nationalists talk that way but it is simply to set the Republic as guarantors of their civil rights to oppose Britain which so long has supported the majority unionists with an amount of power which is totally disproportionate to their numbers. NadVolum (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You may not see it like that, but the historians who've responded to Irish postcolonialism do. "The colonial analogy for Ireland in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is often accompanied by two other arguments which see southern Ireland after 1921 as post-colonial and Northern Ireland after 1921 as a continuation of a colonial arrangement."[27]
- And also the fact that virtually all Irish postcolonial scholars (like Seamus Deane) have very predictable political backgrounds, while their critics in mainstream history are all over the political spectrum. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Literary historian. I see. Might just as well have a history based on the songs people sing. That certainly explains things. NadVolum (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Most of these postcolonial theorists are either English professors, literary critics, 'cultural studies' scholars etc, and most have political backgrounds like Seamus Deane.
- My problem with this section of this article is that more empirical historians have been refuting this theory for more than 3 decades but they've been left out of the section. The editor who worked on this section was pinged but doesn't want to engage with these issues, claiming that the section is 'well written' and that there's already criticism included there (there isn't).
- I agree with another editor here that this section should be trimmed down substantially. The postcolonial position can be summed up in a few lines, and in a few more lines we can summarize why most historians object to this. And that's about all the space Ireland deserves on this page. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Literary historian. I see. Might just as well have a history based on the songs people sing. That certainly explains things. NadVolum (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see it like that. Yes many nationalists talk that way but it is simply to set the Republic as guarantors of their civil rights to oppose Britain which so long has supported the majority unionists with an amount of power which is totally disproportionate to their numbers. NadVolum (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
What I think I should do right now is state my whole case in full with sources and then back away so other editors can comment. I want to cover as much as possible so please bear with me. I should probably also leave a message on the talk page of that article directing editors' attention over here.
What is most striking when you review the postcolonial critiques is that every single one of these historians cited here and on the article page, without exception, writes in very generalized terms about the views of historians on the postcolonial question (they are not merely writing about their own personal opinions or research). And they’ve been remarkably consistent on this point for more than 30 years.
In 1990, Brian Walker wrote,
"In recent years, in the field of Irish literary criticism, much emphasis has been placed on setting Irish writing in its historical context, particularly its political and social context. This emphasis, however, has sometimes produced simplistic approaches to Irish history, and has ignored the new understanding that historians have of our past. One such questionable view is the analysis which describes Ireland as either ‘colonial’ or ‘postcolonial’. In what follows it will be argued that this approach is incorrect, and any understanding based on it will be misleading. A more accurate and more helpful approach is to set Ireland, both north and south, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in its European context."[28]
In 1993 we have Liam Kennedy writing,
Historians of Ireland, with the notable exception of writers in the "green" marxist tradition, have generally found colonial concepts of limited or little value in charting the course of social and economic change in Ireland after 1800.[29]
This piece by Kennedy was cited in the Ireland section of the article, but the editor misstated Kennedy's views (more on this below).
In 2005 Shaun Richards writes,
Prior to developing a postcolonial reading of [Brian Friel's] plays it is necessary to acknowledge some significant problems in reading his work through what might be described as an unreflective application of postcolonial theory. As noted above, the legitimacy of colonial/postcolonial readings of Ireland is refuted by historians. (p. 268[30])
In 2015, in a review of the Oxford handbook of modern Irish history, Mary Daly of UCD cites Stephen Howe on colonial/postcolonial theory (from the historian's perspective):
"..the early writings about Ireland from a post-colonial perspective — mainly by literary scholars — which attracted considerable criticism from historians, have been superseded by ‘a fast-growing literature’, which pays attention to ‘complexity and nuance’." (p.516 [31])
In the Fall of 2020, in a panel discussion on "Decolonising Irish history" (a cross-disciplinary project that's still ongoing), historian Ian McBride (Oxford) made the point that,
"When we turn to Ireland, of course the idea of decolonising Irish history divides into two: And that's because the Irish think of Empire as something that was done to them, while historians increasingly think of Empire as something the Irish did to other peoples." (commentary begins at 14 mins[32]).
What's also significant about this is that these historians all specialize in different areas of Modern Irish history (Liam Kennedy, for example, is an economic historian, while Brian Walker's research focuses mainly on Modern Irish political history), and yet they all independently agree with each other.
Earlier I mentioned that colonialism/postcolonialism in Ireland has non-European implications, that literary critics sustain the application of this theory to readings of Ireland by systematically removing the Irish out of Europe and placing them in the position of Africans, Indians or Native Americans. For the postcolonial period in Ireland (post-1921) the analogy then frames Ireland's economic and social position in the context of overseas colonies that had gained independence from European powers (countries that are often referred to as 'Third World').
In the Ireland section of this article you will read comparisons between the Irish and the indigenous peoples of the Americas. At end of the first paragraph the editor writes,
"Many scholars have drawn parallels between: the economic, cultural and social subjugation of Ireland, and the experiences of the colonized regions of the world[61]"
Citation 61 is the Liam Kennedy article I cited at the beginning. Except Kennedy never makes any comparison to "colonized regions of the world" (read "non-European").
The whole point of Kennedy's piece was that it was a refutation of the postcolonialist claim that the economic status of southern Ireland at the time of partition was on par with "third world countries". And he does this by publishing a range of economic metrics showing that Ireland's economic development during the independence/partition period was on level with European norms, and very far removed from the "third world." At one point he describes the analogies between "internal" European colonies and overseas colonies like "Namibia" as "nonsense strutting on theoretical stilts." (p. 115[33])
But readers wouldn't know this reading the article, would they? What this editor likely did was cherry-pick the parts of Kennedy's analysis where he is framing the position of the postcolonialists, right before he challenges them. But the fact that Kennedy challenged this supposition is not mentioned in this section (why cite Kennedy at all if you're not going to publish his views?)
The only other historian cited in this section was Stephen Howe, but here, too, readers are given no indication that Howe has been one of the most vocal critics of Irish postcolonialism.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Comfort Women
It is a well-known fact that "comfort women" have two opinions: "licensed prostitutes" and "sex slaves." However, in the current article, the first paragraph says "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army… and editor is eliminating the "licensed prostitutes" claim on this basis. To maintain neutrality, this paragraph should be changed to, for example, "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls to provide sexual services to the Imperial Japanese Army.... The discussion on both sides regarding this rewrite has been exhausted on Talk. I believe that this article violates 5P2. Eyagi (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You're a WP:SPA whos opinion has been unanimously opposed on the talk page. No change is happening. The best thing for you is to stop editing and cease wasting the time of people who are actually here to contribute to Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do not think your comment is appropriate for this board. Please explain specifically the basis and reasons for your claim and post them on the "comfort women" talk. Eyagi (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think your continued presence on this website is appropriate either. When you've been told "no" the correct answer is to just to stop, per WP:IDHT. Obviously you just think by writing more and more text and continuing to badger people eventually you will get your own way, but that's not how Wikipedia works. You obviously have no other purpose in this website other than to WP:POVPUSH about this one particular issue. The sooner you get lost the better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do not think your comment is appropriate for this board. Please explain specifically the basis and reasons for your claim and post them on the "comfort women" talk. Eyagi (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Eyagi: If you believe more outside opinions would be valuable for this suggested change, you are welcome to start a Request for Comment on the issue. But you are advised to accept the outcome of that if the consensus is against your proposed edit after the RfC is closed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
It is a well-known fact that "comfort women" have two opinions: "licensed prostitutes" and "sex slaves."
That may be true in a technical sense, but the vast majority were forcibly prostituted by Japan during the time period in question. The two "sides" are no where equal or even close. Zaathras (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please read the talk before commenting. Your claim has already been discussed in Talk.Eyagi (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Beergate
Reliable sources show that Beergate emerged as a controversy out of debates about Partygate, and continues to have that context. Both refer to allegations about earlier events, the first disclosed and questioned was the Durham event which did not develop into a controversy until around nine months later when taken up as a response to Partygate allegations. At Talk:Beergate#Partygate's significance? discussion was derailed by personal attacks, at Talk:Beergate#Relationship to Partygate I put together sources which were dismissed by DeFacto, who made unsourced claims that "Partygate is one thing, Beergate is another. The two involve different places, different people, different police forces, different circumstances, and have almost nothing in common other than the two leaders have been accused of breaking Covid lockdown regulations, and both denied the allegations with similar defences. To knit them together, in the way you appear to be trying to do, is total OR with no basis in the reliable sources". In a series of edits DeFacto then drastically restructured the article out of date sequence to imply that the article is about Durham police investigations rather than the emergence of the controversy, which was demoted to a section near the end of the article. In my view this contravenes NPOV Article structure policy. Layouts are now being discussed under Talk:Beergate#Article structure. Input will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 13:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Book of Daniel
Dispute over whether a particular claim should be stated in the narrative voice of the article vs. specifically attributed as the view of a particular scholar:
- "Without this belief, Christianity, in which the resurrection of Jesus plays a central role, would have disappeared…"
vs.
- "Daniel R. Schwartz asserts that without this belief, Christianity, in which the resurrection of Jesus plays a central role, would have disappeared…"
with other wordings of course being possible; several have been suggested. I'm a party to the dispute, so I'll leave it at this here. You can look at the recent history of the article and at Talk:Book_of_Daniel#Over-strong_assertion. - Jmabel | Talk 02:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- From Christianity article
Christians consider the resurrection of Jesus to be the cornerstone of their faith (see 1 Corinthians 15) and the most important event in history.[49]
- Source-Hanegraaff. Resurrection: The Capstone in the Arch of Christianity
- So, while only one source may be listed in the Book of Daniel article, it is clear that at least one other source, plus Corinthians agrees with the general sentiment. The pope also considers this a critical part of Christianity. Absent a source saying otherwise, I don't see why attribution would be required. Slywriter (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- It definitely cannot be stated as fact in Wikivoice as it is a speculative statement ("without this belief, Christianity wouldn't have flourished"), so some type of attribution is needed. If the statement could be worded "Christianity flourished on the belief that...", that's a more factual one and would not need attribution (though obviously in-line sourced). --Masem (t) 03:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing in religion is undisputed fact. It's not undisputed that Jesus existed historically, and it's certainly not undisputed that he rose from the dead. Everything is opinion - personally I feel that Jesus probably did exist, but that doesn't make it a fact. For this reason we don't bother prefacing every statement with "according to X..." The idea in our article is put forward by a reliable source, without equivocation, and introducing an equivocal "according to..." gives the misleading impression that there exists some other opinion.Achar Sva (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that this is a consensus opinion among academics. It should be directly attributed to the author. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- The statement being made has nothing to do with the "faith" (belief in what's written in the Bible) that, as you say, we normally don't question or require attribution. The statement is a non-faith based claim related to the growth of Christianity based on one aspect of the faith, and that is a historical aspect that either is clearly fact or needs attribution if it is speculation by theologists/historians. Masem (t) 12:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing in religion is undisputed fact. It's not undisputed that Jesus existed historically, and it's certainly not undisputed that he rose from the dead. Everything is opinion - personally I feel that Jesus probably did exist, but that doesn't make it a fact. For this reason we don't bother prefacing every statement with "according to X..." The idea in our article is put forward by a reliable source, without equivocation, and introducing an equivocal "according to..." gives the misleading impression that there exists some other opinion.Achar Sva (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is a bigger problem with the paragraph, in my opinion. It starts off by stating basically that the ideas of resurection and immorality were mentioned in Daniel. But the problem is they mention resurection generally, not resurection of Jesus. The influence part of the paragraph deals with the resurrection of Jesus, but nowhere does the paragraph provide any evidence that the book actually influenced any of substatial christian thought. The idea of resurection is much different than the resurection of Jesus, and even if it weren't, it still remains that we make a claim that is not supported by any sources, at least mentioned Bedfordres (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think we should have some speculation from an alternative history stated as fact. It is not in-world even like Daniel not being eaten by the lions. Anyway I think religious people are quite easily capable of coping with holes in their belief systems! NadVolum (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)