Gpedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101

Dispute about a sentence from Republican Party (United States)

The last sentence of Republican Party (United States)#Voting rights currently states:

Opponents argue that the efforts amount to voter suppression,[1] are intended to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people who vote,[2] and would disproportionately affect minority voters.[3]

Sources

  1. ^ Berman, Ari (February 24, 2021). "Republicans Are Taking Their Voter Suppression Efforts to New Extremes". Mother Jones.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Mystal, Elie (February 22, 2021). "The GOP's 2022 Strategy: Voter Suppression or Bust". The Nation.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Brewster, Adam; Huey-Burns, Caitlin (February 25, 2021). "Proposals to restrict voting gain traction in Republican states". CBS News.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

However, none of the three sources used here describe these impacts to be the argument of opponents, they all state them as simple facts. See talk page for further discussion.
Is this sentence a verifiability/NPOV violation as it stands? ––FormalDude (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be patently obvious that these need to be put in the form of claims (that is, as currently given) even if the sources assert them as facts, otherwise we are readily accepting one side of the argument as the truth and treating the other side as opinion. That's an outright NPOV violation. Masem (t) 02:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be an NPOV violation if we have counterbalancing sources that claim that's not the case. Do those sources exist? If not, the NPOV violation would be putting our thumb on the scale rather than accepting the claims of the sources. Loki (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly what Loki said. The sources used for the supporters positions specifically attribute those statements to the supporters. We must have the same verification standards for the opponents statements or it is false balance. For us to make the claim in this sentence, we needs sources that specifically attribute it to the opponents position. We follow what reliable sources report, and staying true to the sources is certainly not readily accepting one side over the other. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is absolutely wrong. WP:YESPOV says we should not always take what sources say as the word of god, but instead should frame statements of opinion or claims with attribution, even if the sources do not dress up the statements as opinions or claims.
The stance that we must report how RS report it, or that there are no other counter sources out there that can be used to present denial to these claims, particularly, when we are talking, within the framework of US politics, a stance related to the GOP which is absolutely not a fringe position, is not compatible with writing a neutral encyclopedia. And you already have text in that same paragraph that explains the GOP stance, expressed as claims, so to present the opposition position as fact is blatantly not neutral. You are following what the given RSes report, just with the required aspects of attribution to avoid picking a side in the controversy related to the GOP's voting rights policy. This is something that is very very easy to take the "right" side (that is, the anti-GOP position) and seemingly backed by reliable media, but we simply cannot have the essence of taking a side in a debate that has two major sides to it and yet to proven out in practice. Masem (t) 03:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To add another point, nearly all the sources here (as well as that talk page) all talk in terms of "could" or "would", which are strong claims of what could happen in the future, not what will happen. It would be yet another to drop the "Opponents argue" as that would leave a future-facing statement as "fact" in Wikivoice, when no one has no idea of what will actually happen. So these have to be taken as claims of what will be happening in the future and thus presented with some type of attribution, even if it just "Opponents argue..." (ETA) If we were talking known documented (quantified) effects of GOP voting policies that since have been shown to curtail voting rights, backed by RSes even though we'd may have GOP supports claiming they did otherwise, that would be something we'd write as fact for the past tense and leave the GOP stance as assertions. Masem (t) 03:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources are not speculating about something that will occur in the future. The voter suppression tactics have been occurring for a long time, and it's well known that they have tended to particularly affect minorities. So the sources are just making the obvious deduction that the future effects of those tactics will be similar to the effects in the past. That's not speculation. NightHeron (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC) An analogy: Would we insert "Opponents of anti-vaxxers argue that" in front of "more widespread vaccination would reduce the death rate from covid" on the grounds that this is speculation about the future rather than a fact about the past? NightHeron (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the COVID part, there is certainly (within my best guess) sources from academic experts that have the agreement of the medical community that vaccinations reduce its spread, and thus from the bounds of MEDRS, that is something we can report as medical/scientific fact. In the counter-counter-example, if a new virus no one has yet had a chance to study made a similar pandemic concern, we could not state as fact that vaccines would stop its spread, though can definitely include how medical experts anticipate a vaccine would help. Masem (t) 12:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's exactly my point. Voter suppression efforts are not like a new virus. They're like a virus (covid or flu) that has been around for enough time so that the efficacy of vaccines is a fact, not a speculation. If voter suppression were new and their effects were uncertain, your argument above would have weight. NightHeron (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then the sentence should be citing reports and journal articles from the poly-sci world that explain something like "The GOP's stance on voting rights have been shown to led to voter suppression, etc...", with inclusion of documented cases (and having worked on one the gerrymandering articles, this seems like it should rather easy to do) The sources being used are forward-looking and are not sufficient to discuss what has happened in the past. Masem (t) 12:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect that there are stronger sources on the subject, such that citing them will make the resolution of this dispute self evident. But at any rate, the question for NPOV is whether there are sources to the contrary -- like MAGAs with guns at voter locations are just there to hunt pheasants or whatnot. SPECIFICO talk 12:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are actually contrary sources - in the article present, this line follows a statement attributed to supporters of the GOP voting stance of what the intent of these policies are to do (eg reduce fraud, etc.), and then this line comes to counter that. That's the "sources to the contrary". Masem (t) 12:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not being American I don't have a huge amount of familarity with this issue. But as far as I can see the "sources to the contrary" you refer to don't pseak in their own voice, they simply quote what Republicans have claimed i.e. no WP:RS actaully make those claims. The sources at the end of the paragraph make the claims in their own voice. As they are WP:RS, I would say that means the text should read "Republicans assert X but Y is the case". That would be the NPOV requirement. To change that you would need to produce WP:RS supporting X and, subject to WP:DUE being satisfied, that would be the way to make it read "Some say X, others Y". Do you have WP:RS that claim in their own voice that X is the case? DeCausa (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The claim of widespread voter fraud has been shown in RS to be a lie. A thief can say "my intent in robbing the cash register was to give money to charity", but implausible statements about intent don't count for much.NightHeron (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP is neutral and amoral, so we don't care that the "protecting voter fraud" reasoning has been proven wrong, just that that is one of the reasons thats RSes point out that supporters of the GOP policy say. What then of course makes sense is to back the following thought, showing that the fraud claim is a lie, with factual studies and analysis from RSes based on what has happened that demonstrates that. Masem (t) 13:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have they been shown to be a lie? I know they have said the cases of someone being convicted of fraudulently voting under someone else's name have amounted to something like 31 proven cases but that isn't the same thing as proving no legitimate issue is at play. We need to be impartial in our wording, something that is an issue in this section. The article on Voter identification laws suggests that IDs are the norm in most countries and the US may be more laxed vs others. The various voter laws are also concerned with ballot harvesting which has seen recent prosecutions. The problem with the while section it's of reads like something written by people who oppose these actions vs those who are removed from the content. I understand CATO isn't an unbiased source but they do raise legitimate issues regarding ballot harvesting [1]. Treating this topic like a pure negative by the GOP is far from IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But Masem, those denials are ridiculous equivocations and the sort of thing that lead editors rightly to cite WP:MANDY etc. SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a MANDY case. No allegations have been made. The article is presenting the platform of the GOP, thus section about its voting stance. Stating what supporters of the GOP claim these policies do is absolutely expected, as well as any past studies that provide countering evidence to this. Masem (t) 13:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I provided five academic sources that provide such evidence here. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the real world as it's currently constituted, allegations, concerns, or suspiciouns of voter fraud are resolved by a robust system of apolitical civil service, public observation, and judicial review. Virtually all the recent Republican claims of voter fraud -- and certainly the claims that it is rampant and corrupting the outcomes of elections -- have failed to substantiate the Republican narratives or provide any rational basis for the "reforms" they are pursuing. Masem, what I tried to suggest is consistent with your approach. Currently RS do indicate that the Republican denials and framing of their suppression agenda are MANDY or "MANDY-adjacent", which is an essay that may be coming attractions for 2023. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you frame it that through RSes, the statement "The GOP claims their approach to voting regulation is to prevent voter fraud" is absolutely backed by numerous sources (writing on criticism of the GOP). But by the same manner, the statement "The GOP approach to voting regulations is to prevent voter fraud", is as said not backed at all by RSes (only by the GOP's own literature) and thus cannot be included.
Now the fact that tons of RSes have pointed out that the GOP's claim of voter fraud are dubious, that puts it past MANDY. We do not need to drudge through the GOP statements when we have lots of RSes that show this, as well as the explanations of why the voting fraud claim is dubious and that the GOP's intents would have effects on voting rights. Most of what I know exists now are projections and predictions if those effects, which per CRYSTAL should be kept put of wikivoice (use attribution), but we should also be citing any academic analysis that has shown these effects from the past and include that.
It is really really easy to try to handwave away the GOP's stance here given how dismissive the media covers it, (and personally agree that the GOP do pose significant dangers to voting rights) but we still need to write from a neutral angle and not let those prejudices slip in. We absolutely should frame the GOP arguments as claims, and we should include counterpoint against those claims, though be careful to distinguish from proven counterarguments and ones that are speculative. Masem (t) 16:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My concern is the implication that this is unique to the Republican Party when in fact it is common to both. Where the Democratic Party is strong for example, they suppress votes of minorities, young people and the poor, but oppose this type of suppression where the Republicans are competitive. See for example "The Blue States That Make It Hardest to Vote" in The Atlantic. But I agree that the claim that it is not suppression, but an attempt to stop voter fraud, has no support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reading through this, I think there are legitimate concerns at both ends here. Arguments about the use of voter security as an excuse to carry out voter suppression are well documented in RS and this is pretty clearly the most common rebuttal to the Republican Party's proposed policies. I think few would argue that it's not what opponents say, regardless of whether they agree with it. But at the same time, there are legitimate WP:NPOV and possibly WP:HOWEVER concerns in challenging policy positions on an article if done in a way that presents the challenge as preferable or more authoritative. The use of sources like Mother Jones and The Nation exacerbate these concerns considerably, as these are sources that are clearly intended to portray the policy in a negative light. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're talking about three separate claims as though they're all the same.
the efforts amount to voter suppression and are intended to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people who vote probably shouldn't be framed as simply "Republicans are engaged in voter suppression, intending to advantage Republicans by reducing the number of people to vote" but it's also not just "opponents" who say this. There are many instances of Republicans saying as much (without calling it "voter supression"). The "voter suppression" characterization should remain attributed to either specific or generalized parties (e.g. "characterized as voter suppression by a range of journalists and academics"), but there are plenty of sources to cite establishing that (a) Republicans believe that certain kinds of voting restrictions benefit them, and that (b) they have undertaken to implement some of those restrictions.
would disproportionately affect minority voters doesn't have to be attributed because there's research to back this up -- just cite that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reposting from the talk:
Andre🚐 20:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plenty of court decisions contest the idea that these efforts are "voter suppression." This one from NBC describes both claims of voter suppression and of significant fraud as false.[2] There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is about Indiana. It doesn't counterweight the copious sources about Southern states. Andre🚐 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, the section on what supporters play is an inappropriate place to put in what opponents say. We should look at the actual statements of supporters, not opponents' characterizations of those statements. What I see supporters saying is that the laws are designed to protect election integrity.[3] MYTH V. FACT: GEORGIA'S ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT. This source is WP:RS for the purpose of what supporters of the laws actually say. In a WP:WIKIVOICE discussion of what each side says, that's all you need for the "supporters" portion. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should attribute what RS say. Not self-published statements as the narrative. That is not NPOV. Andre🚐 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Southern Baptist Convention

User:Nowhere2Go, a single-purpose account, keeps removing sourced and cited content from the lede of the SBC article, arguing that the SBC doesn't do that anymore (so ugly stuff that happened within my lifetime as a Southern Baptist should be buried in the past history); and something about "heresy" I didn't understand; and besides, accusations did not all lead to convictions, so they don't count. Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems due to include in the lead when considering the organisation holistically in its historical context, but if the SBC has repudiated white supremacy and its past treatment of black people, then that should probably be mentioned in the lead too. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of that history is necessary for the lede , but the lede goes so far into depth on it that it reads as if it is purposely preparing the reader to read the article as "they were bad before, now they claim they don't do that". Particularly in the order it gives. A sentence or two summarizing the negative facets of its origin is fair, and need to include modern revisionism (eg the 1995 resolution to separate itself from its past racism roots). Remember that wikivoice cannot judge or take stands on moral issues like racism, but we should be clear that because it was connected to racism it was perceived negatively, for example. Masem (t) 00:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or, as an another point, anytime someone is loading up the lede with sources not reused in the body is a problem; the lede should reuse sources already incorporated in the body. Otherwise, it looks like you are striving to be as critical as possible of SBC. The past actions of the SBC should not be whitewashed, but the lede panders so much to coerce the reader to see the view "they are bad". Masem (t) 00:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've attempted to address their concern about balance in the lede; but they seem unable to grasp that "credibly accused" is not the same as "convicted in a court" and that we can assume our readers will understand that. (And I still haven't figured out how "heresy" got in there!) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now we've got an IP trying to whitewash the origins of the denomination in pro-slavery faction of Baptist denomination --Orange Mike | Talk 05:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at that opening paragraph, my biggest concern would be WP:UNDUE. See here[4] for example. The pro-slavery past is mentioned, but it does not dominate the source. Nor should it dominate the first paragraph of the article, or even the lead. See Robert Byrd for an example to compare. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-vegetarian, Requesting inputs

Requesting inputs / guidance about WP:Due whether sourced content in following two subsections:

  • 1) be retained in the article Non-vegetarian ,
  • 2) Or Include in respective community/ region related articles
  • 3) Create a new article
  • 4) It's better to drop the idea of community/ region wise Non-vegetarian food related cultural content altogether?
  • It is presumed that content mentioned can be modified as per suggestions and requirement.

Above questions itself are brief summary of following context

Context: Non-vegetarian is an article about India food containing meat and the people/ communities consume the same, has long history. Article retains at least some cultural/ social aspects and issues. I do have considerable list of credible resources which I wanted to updated the article, that includes communities and regions wise cuisine and Non-vegetarian food culture . Some users seems to have reservations about mention of any thing vegetarian in the article and that is perfectly okay for me. But following community wise cultural aspects are also objected too and deleted. The user says ".. The non-vegetarian dishes of muslims discussion about halal and haram, party, dowry, .. are I think out of topic. .." . I understand this point of view too. But wish to have WP community inputs as asked in above questions for better understanding.

Following 2 subsections about content under consideration are made for ease of reading. Bookku (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a) Non-vegetarian cuisine from Indian Muslim communities

  • Content which needs advice as per questions above:
".. According to Sadaf Hussain while Indian Muslim communities largely avoid haram food and only opt for halal food in their diet otherwise there is nothing Islamic about Indian Muslim cuisine and often similar to Indian non-Muslim communities except for some nuanced variations in techniques and cultural practices like serving food in a big shared plate on a yellow cloth called 'Dastarkhan'. Hussain says Kebab and Biryani are most known dishes and quotes Chitrita Banerji saying arrival of Muslim rulers was first substantial foreign influence on Indian cuisine, Hussain further adds that though commoner Muslims though known being non-vegetarian used to afford meat hardly once in a week while poorer among them would afford meat once in a year on Eid festivals only.[1] .."


b) Non-veg dishes in Nikah (marriages)

  • Content which needs advice as per questions above:
".. According to Raghu Paithari's report about Muslim marriages in Telangana traditionally lot many number of cuisines are served like Mutton Marag a thin spicy mutton soup served as a starter usually prepared from tender mutton with bone,[2][3][4] Haleem (or Harees) a type of stew that is widely consumed in the Indian subcontinent, Red Chicken, Green Chicken, Biryani,[5].[6] Paithari says since recent past, serving ten more varieties of non-vegetarian fry dishes as starters has become a new trend in Telangana Muslim marriages.[6] Paithari says having to serve lot many Non-vegetarian dishes in Muslim marriages is kind of a prestige issue, but practically very expensive affair (the Paithari's report gives figures to the tune of Rs 3 lakh to Rs 4 lakh non veg feast in rural hamlet of Vemulawada, Rajanna Sircilla district) for brides families to spend even with their limited income sources while besides the feast brides family usually spending huge sums on dowry to the groom.[6] Paithari also reports that in January 2022 Muslim community of Vemulawada mutually decided to limit number of non-vegetarian dishes in the marriage to put limit on expenses and reduce burden on bride's families.[6] .."

Ref list for this section

References

  1. ^ Hussain, Sadaf (2019). Daastan-e-Dastarkhan : Stories and Recipes from Muslim Kitchens. Vikas Khanna. Gurugram: Hachette India. pp. Introduction. ISBN 978-93-88322-42-3. OCLC 1282792050.
  2. ^ Sajjad Shahid. "Biryani, Haleem & more on Hyderabad's menu". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 6 November 2012. Retrieved 3 February 2012.
  3. ^ "US Consul General floored by 'Arabi daf'". The Hindu. 2010-12-01. Archived from the original on 19 January 2011. Retrieved 3 February 2012.
  4. ^ Bilquis Jehan Khan. "A Song of Hyderabad". thefridaytimes.com. Archived from the original on 22 February 2014. Retrieved 28 January 2012.
  5. ^ The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum
  6. ^ a b c d Paithari, Raghu (2022-01-27). "Restrictions on non-veg dishes in Nikahs in Vemulawada". Telangana Today. Retrieved 2022-02-23.

Bookku (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think, this should be added in cultural and political aspects section of Non-vegetarian article not in popular dishes section as the discussion is about Islamic haram and halal food and trend in muslim marriage. It talk less about popular dishes and more about culture of muslim. Dev0745 (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I think the entire focus of that page is wrong. Why is it all about India? Where are other countries? Or, should it even talk about countries? Or more generally about the diet? Why do you need this page at all, when there is Meat? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The term is effectively only ever encountered in India, though obviously you can find the food anywhere. Why on earth was this issue raised here, pretty clearly the wrong venue. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The term non-vegetarian, generally used in India as many people don't eat meat who refer to themselves as vegitarian. So those who eat meat as known as non-vegetarian in India. Dev0745 (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Without relevance to the rest of the world this article should be deleted or moved to Non-vegetarian food in India. I think the article makes the case that this is worth moving in stead of deletion. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I also agree for moving the page as the term generally used in India and the term generally not used in other countries other than countries of South Asia. Dev0745 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kautilya3 @ Invasive Spices
I also would prefer confirmatory AfD before further commitments to the article since that shall save everyone's time.
For record article is not created by me and not contributed before many others contributed to.
My above cited content can be discussed if the article survives in an AfD. @ Invasive Spices can you help in writing AfD proposal. Bookku (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is to be on India, then there should be a single page that covers all forms of diet. The term "non-vegetarian" is inherently non-neutral, and I don't think there should be any page with such a title. If you call it "Meat-eating in India" in proper English, then it becomes obvious that it is a ridiculous topic for an encyclopedia. It can be a redirect to something, because it could be a search term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
???? "The term "non-vegetarian" is inherently non-neutral" - why? it happens to be the usual term in India. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only in English. Popularised by English-speaking upper castes. In Indian languages, it is called meat diet, just like it is called everywhere else. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Only in English" is plenty good enough for en:wp. Nowhere I know of talks of a "meat diet". That would suggest the Atkins diet or similar to most English-speakers, not a "normal" mixed Western diet. Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Options a) AfD b) Move the title similar to Indian vegetarian cuisine as suggested by Invasive Spices may be Non-vegetarian food in India or Indian Non-vegetarian cuisine c) Merge & Redirect to Indian cuisine. Bookku (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kautilya3 is correct that it does sound inherently non-neutral, however I think we cannot avoid that title because that is the phrase that is really used. As the references section shows this is the real term. Unless someone has an even greater number of sources which show an alternative term is more common. Invasive Spices (talk) 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment by Fowler&fowler How about option (d) Keep as is?

I see no need to delete the page or change it. The word was first used by the newly sprouted vegetarian societies in the West in the late 19th century. The first attested use mentioned in the Oxford English Dictionary is in Racine, Wisconsin in 1883. It came to be used in India much later, but that is where it has found both enduring and widespread use.

The reason is that a very large majority of the Hindu Indian population is effectively vegetarian. The cuisine section of the India pages speaks to this issue, "Although meat is eaten widely in India, the proportional consumption of meat in the overall diet is low.[467] Unlike China, which has increased its per capita meat consumption substantially in its years of increased economic growth, in India the strong dietary traditions have contributed to dairy, rather than meat, becoming the preferred form of animal protein consumption.[468]"

In North India, for example, Hindu families which describe themselves as being meat-eating, do not cook meat more than maybe once a week; men who describe themselves as meat-eating might not eat meat at home because their wives don't eat meat; landlords in urban areas might prohibit the cooking of meat on the premises. Moreover, a "vegetarian" in India is not just someone who does not consume meat, but someone who has an emotional aversion to meat. Thus Indians in America protested the use of a small amount of lard in the oil used in American fast food for deep frying French fries. Indian political leaders on foreign trips have insisted that no meat be served at their table.

Among some in the Indian Hindu elite, there has also been a love-hate relationship with meat, in part because India's conquerors, the Turkic Muslims and the British were real meat eaters. Gandhi mentions a doggerel popular in his childhood: "Behold the mighty Englishman. He rules the Indian small. Because he is a meat eater. He is five cubits tall." So in a modern version of that aspiration, the Indian English-language press will every so often report the high incidence of meat eating in India. What they fail to mention is that the proportion of meat in the diet is lower in India than in any country in the world, by a big margin at that.

Summing up, the page should begin with the vegetarian societies of the West. (Gandhi, a lifelong vegetarian, joined one or two during his student days in London.) It should then move to India, but be not so much about recipes as the socio-cultural aspects I have mentioned. Non-vegetarian in the early vegetarian society literature was a term for the "other," the meat eater of the West. Around where we live in the US, for example, that traditionally meant meat and potatoes for most dinners, except fish on Fridays and maybe baked beans on Saturdays. On the other hand, "non-vegetarian" in India means only that don't invariantly eat grains and vegetables, occasionally they do eat meat.

A final note: Stray domestic cats, which like all cats are obligate carnivores, are a good indicator of meat-eating among their host human populations. In many urban areas in India, you will not find cats openly walking around in Hindu neighbourhoods, only dogs. If you go to Muslim neighbourhoods, it is the opposite. It reflects in part the Islamic aversion to dogs and in part the hallowed place cats had in the life of the Prophet, but mostly that there is much more meat found in the dumpsters. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is also a philosophical aspect. No society or culture has pondering the meaning of eating meat as has India's. From the middle of the first millennium BCE, in Buddhist, Jain and Hindu philosophical speculation, the killing of "sentient beings" for human consumption has held a central place.
The prohibition that emerged, moreover, was interpreted to be non-negotiable. In the many famines in India that killed millions of humans, livestock which also died in the millions were not consumed by humans. See File:Bellary Zilla,Great Famine of 1876–78..jpg Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fowler&fowler Interesting insight.
First But @TrangaBellam @ their talk page weighed in saying ".. topics so generalized, that they should be rather in a dictionary than in an encyclopedia. ..". @Kautilya3 seems to have similar plus NPOV concern. How do you propose to address those concerns.
Secondly ".. but be not so much about recipes as the socio-cultural aspects I have mentioned. .." specially most issues you mentioned above seem to be socio-cultural aspects so why do you wish to refrain. And if we refrain what will be the content in the article. Or may be I am understanding your sentence incorrectly. Elaborating little more will be helpful.
Third Part of your above discourse seem to be about Indian Vegetarianism that is okay but may not necessarily help this article because there seems some reluctance in some users to refer to comparisons you are making to include in the Non-vegetarian article. In that case @Kautilya3's NPOV concern seem to have point. How would you propose to address that too.
Bookku (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meat eating is not even remotely the majority human diet in India as the Non-vegetarian page proclaims. All it means is that between 30-odd and 40-odd % Indians claim to eat meat occasionally. But as I've stated India has the lowest (by far) proportional consumption of meat of any country. You cannot describe the dynamics of that food choice as either Meat or Vegetarian. That is why this article in its current form is essential. Obviously the insight I have advocated will not be found in any dictionary. Nor is it POV. I'm sure I can find academic sources. I disagree with both K3 and TrangaBellam Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify more: "Non-vegetarian" food choice in large parts of India is the occasional eating of meat in a largely vegetarian society to which an haute-cuisine of meat was brought by Muslims and to a much lesser extent by the British. This is especially the case in the Hindi-speaking belt, Gujarat, and non-coastal South India, especially the rural areas. Non-vegetarian would not really be applied to Sikkim, which doesn't have a vegetarian cuisine (to speak of), i.e. what it does have would be fermented vegetables, grains, or dairy foods eaten with meat-based dishes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is actually a nice perspective on the importance of the article. Btw, why we are at NPOVN? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • comment In context of Indian diet, non-vegetarians are those who don't confine themselves to a Lactarian diet J mareeswaran (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As F&F says, the term, as a regular thing, is exclusively Indian, and the article is very largely about India (the other bits could go frankly - possibly to fill gaps at meat) so I don't think a rename is appropriate, any more than for say Chigali. This is (rather typically for User:Bookku) completely the wrong venue for this, & it should really be transferred to talk there. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Johnbod I have no issues if you suggest to shift discussion back to article talk. you can do it or let me know the procedure. Bookku (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neo-Nazi pedophilia guilty plea undue weight concerns

The lede of Kevin Alfred Strom does not mention his time spent in prison for possession of child pornography. This is a significant lede-worthy fact because, for one, it is one of the things that led to his downfall in the neo-nazi community. User:Veverve removed this text after User:Zezen claimed this was undue weight. Zezen was later indef banned by the community for making violently antisemitic/anti-LGBTQ edits. Please comment here: Talk:Kevin Alfred Strom#Undue. Schierbecker (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QNet NPOV

Qnet’s page has seen a years-long war between various editors that has left it in a paralyzed and far-from-neutral state. Reading the page as a whole, it skews incredibly negative and suffers from many of the issues mentioned in WP:NPOV (states opinions as facts, using judgmental language, lack of balance, among others). Many of these issues stem from edits made by a now-banned editor, Jitumoni1995, who published more than 50% of this article from 2016-2019. They made a total of 222 total edits to the page. Since that single purpose account (WP:SPA) engaged in WP:DISRUPTIVE, no effort appears to have been made on the page to properly review it for neutrality issues.

While this is a COI-declared account, I am following COI guidelines by refraining from making direct edits and utilizing the Talk page as my primary means of engagement. That said, I sincerely believe that the state of the page runs afoul of Gpedia’s “non-negotiable” principles of WP:NPOV. I acknowledge that looking at the edit history, this page appears to have been bombarded by many people with anti- QNET biases and a small number of people with pro-QNET biases. I certainly do not seek for the page to become WP:PROMO whatsoever. I merely seek to have fresh eyes address the overall status of a page that was not appropriately assessed for neutrality in the wake of the disruptive editing.

I have posted to the Talk Page to request feedback on the situation and edits to the page (specifically to the Controversy section) that align with Gpedia’s neutrality guidelines, but I have not received any concrete responses. I was hoping to garner more feedback on this noticeboard.

I’d like the entirety of the page, but more specifically, the controversy section to be reviewed, given the context through which a lot of the content was published. As for a few specific examples of where this lack of neutrality exists throughout the page:

Intro & History

The opening paragraphs set the tone that this is not an NPOV page. The second paragraph states opinion as fact when it says that QNET “has been charged as a ponzi scheme in countries like India”. The sources cited do not make mention of the term “ponzi scheme” and its use in the introduction of the article is pejorative and states seriously contested assertions as fact.

“Qnet changed its name repeatedly and launched at least 76 companies (as per the Bombay High court order of May 2016), often to sell lesser-known products manufactured by smaller companies using a multi-level marketing/direct sales model.[31](subscription required) Common people (IR in Qnet parlance) were taught to sell these products (often through workshops).[citation needed] Sellers earned commissions for each new seller / buyer brought into the fold.[citation needed].” (The information on this page is not found in the cited document, and the document is uploaded by an organization that multiple Gpedia contributors agree is unreliable.)(See talk page request here.)

“It was sued by Egypt, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka for allegedly operating a product-based pyramid scheme. The company and its franchise Vihaan are under investigation in India.” (This is false, unsupported, and misleading. QuestNet was the entity in question. Egypt didn’t sue anyone, a private religious group issued a decree stating the activities were haram. QNet was able to obtain a decree from a different religious group called ‘Dar illfta’, that stated that QNet activities were in compliance with sharia law, and hence not haram. Source is here.)(See my edit request from June, here.)

Business model

The second paragraph of this section states opinion as fact. Nowhere in the citation associated with this paragraph do any government entities describe the business as a “pyramid scheme.” It’s merely the opinion of an author (writing in an opinion piece whose neutrality and reputability we have previously raised here).

Controversies

This section suffers from the most blatant violations of the NPOV policy on Gpedia. This section was built by the above-mentioned Jitumoni1995 account and is full of edits which use judgmental language, state opinion as fact, and do nothing to further the balance of neutrality of the page. We indicate a few specific instances below, but as mentioned above, this whole section really warrants a full review that it never received after the disruptive editor built it from scratch. The edits made to this section after Jitumoni1995’s ban not only haven’t shown that a review has been done, but have only stacked on additional biased edits that have tilted this page out of a neutral balance.

“It has faced litigation in many countries and hundreds of IRs working for it and/or its many subsidiaries have been arrested.” (Written judgementally and doesn’t have a citation associated with it)

“India declared both Goldquest and Questnet to be Ponzi scheme companies.” (None of the associated sources ‘declare’ these entities to be Ponzi schemes)

“ The same year, Syria shut down QuestNet for violating its commercial registration, stating that the company had operated a pyramid scheme and withdrawn billions of Syrian pounds from the country, while paying few taxes.” (The way this is written doesn’t reflect the text in the associated citation).

“Over 100 people from Togo became victim to a big scam called QNET” (Judgmental language that isn’t even supported with the associated citation)

There are also multiple instances of Jitumoni1995 using a very controversial source to cite a handful of their edits:

Example 1 (Use of discredited Source to Negatively Impact QNet)

Example 2 (Large Reversion of Sourced Content)

Example 3 (Unreliable Blogs as References)

With all of this context in mind, I ask that editors participate in conversations around this content and this editor, and make neutralizing edits to the page that are aligned with reliable sources and Gpedia’s guidelines. QNetLars (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Conflict with Rosicrucians section of the Illuminati page

I recently made an WP:RFC regarding the Conflict with Rosicrucians section of the Illuminati Gpedia article. XDev and I have been discussing for several months now whether this section presents a "conflict" between the two groups in an NPOV way and whether it relies too heavily on the writings of René le Forestier himself, mostly his Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande from 1781. That discussion can be found at Sourcing and POV in Conflict with Rosicrucians Section on the talk page.

The section talks about a rivalry between the Illuminati and Rosicrucians that appears nowhere else on Gpedia. It portrays the Illuminati as rationalists who were under a one-sided attack from superstitious and fraudulent Rosicrucians. The Rosicruciansim article does not speak of this conflict, nor does the page for the Order of the Golden and Rosy Cross. Rosicrucianism does not appear again in the Illuminati article, making this section somewhat of an orphan on its own page.

My most recent edit here adds a request for the POV to be toned down, such as

"A conflict became inevitable as the existence of the Illuminati became more evident, and as prominent Rosicrucians and mystics with Rosicrucian sympathies, were actively recruited by Knigge and other over-enthusiastic helpers."

and

"The Bavarian Illuminati, whose existence was already known to the Rosicrucians from an informant, were further betrayed by the reckless actions of Ferdinand Maria Baader, an Areopagite who now joined the Rosicrucians."

While I have argued that these wrings seem like primary sources and the section additionally uses NPOV wording, such as "reckless action," XDev has said that contemporary historian rely on the writings of Adam Weishaupt, René le Forestier and Adolph Freiherr Knigge more or less directly and thus them being primary sources is acceptable to Gpedia. The reason I have not put this in the Secondary Source noticeboard is that, while that is an aspect of our discussion, it is (excuse the pun) secondary to the main question of the POV of this section.

Any input from those with a background in History, Secret Societies, the German Enlightenment, etc. would be most helpful. Thank you! AnandaBliss (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Debate about WP:FALSEBALANCE in an RfC at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

Readers of this board may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#RfC_on_first_paragraph. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big Bang nucleosynthesis

This article reads as though this is an established fact or natural law, when in fact it is a theory, but fails to note it. 146.113.232.10 (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A theory IS established fact in scientific parlance (though I admit I don't know if thats what you mean when talking about that article) 107.190.33.254 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move request for Breast binding

More comments are welcome at Talk:Breast binding#Requested move 2 November 2022, where it has been proposed to move the article to "Chest binding". Crossroads -talk- 04:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hidden ads in the Liniment article

On 16 November 2022, a user Spottz created an account, and made a couple of edits on the article Liniment adding a claim (to the Notable Liniments subsection) that a company offers a certain type of liniment. This user provided a source citation. The link leads to a webpage where one may purchase the liniment, but the webpage doesn't have any words about the liniment's notability. DIFF I addressed to them (on their talk page), but I believe, they are beneficial to stick to not-responding tactics. Thus I wrote here. Tosha Langue (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brentwood School (Los Angeles)

Judging by the talk page, this piece of promotional fluff about an incredibly expensive and exclusive school near Hollywood where the children of the rich and famous attend has been problematic at least since 2009. I tried to do a bit, partially by rescuing nearly-hidden "Notes" about disputes relating to the school and putting them into appropriate places in the body; but most of this still reads like something between a recruiting brochure and a breathless article in a Hollywood gossip magazine. Orange Mike | Talk 19:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of Nagorno-Karabakh

There seems to be a consensus on the talk page that the article is not neutral. I have removed some emotional language but the article would benefit from a review by editors who are well-versed in this history. The references also seem to need a lot of work, so I encourage anyone interested to take a look. Elinruby (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC at Firehose of falsehood

I am a new editor who's been lurking for a while and I'm kind of winging it, so I apologise in advance if this isn't the correct procedure. To stay neutral I'll just say there have been disagreements regarding the Firehose of falsehood article: Neutrality, bias, the right to edit, etc. It's all detailed in the talk page and recent edit history and isn't a huge read. I'd really appreciate it if some other experienced users could come and offer their take on the issue. Thanks :) ShabbyHoose (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes needed at a RFC about the deprecation of POV sources

Please express your vote at this WP:RFC about the deprecation of what have been questioned as WP:POV sources. Æo (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just nit-picking: RFCs are not a vote. They are request for comments. Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bernard Looney

Hello editors, I'm Arturo and I work for bp. Several months ago, some changes were made to the Bernard Looney article by Thenightaway following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, discussing the role of bp and Looney in a rather non-neutral way. This diff shows the major contributions by Thenightaway. I have worked with several editors to reduce undue content and have made edit requests for updates, and it was suggested at BLP/N that I seek some additional opinions here about this content.

My primary concerns now lie with the subheading "Russia controversy" in the article. I made an edit request on 1 September to remove that subheading as I believe it conflicts with NPOV guideline, in particular the one which notes: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure." Calling it a controversy, particularly in the article about Looney when the purchase of Rosneft shares happened before Looney became CEO, doesn't seem accurate to me, as there is not evidence of a "widespread public debate" about Looney's role with Rosneft, in particular since he stepped down from the Rosneft board days after the invasion.

On that note, I'd also like to bring up the lead, which declares that Looney's tenure as CEO has been controversial due to the relationship with Rosneft. This is not supported by the sourcing, which noted how quickly bp pulled out of Rosneft/Russia following the invasion of Ukraine (for example, this article from The New York Times). That telling of Looney's tenure was added on 27 February, two days after the invasion. Coincidentally, that was the same day bp announced that it would sell its stake in Rosneft (see NYT, Reuters, for more information on that). I think changing the lead in this way is certainly WP:UNDUE and isn't really impartial in tone.

I will rest my case there. Are editors willing to take a look at the article and the edit request to make an adjustment? Thank you in advance for your consideration on this matter. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edward Gierek

Could someone look over the page for Edward Gierek? I don't know enough about Polish history to confidently say that the article has POV issues, but some of the language seems questionable, and I get a vague impression of thread mode. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV and Torture in Ukraine

Editors may be interested in the ongoing discussions at Torture in Ukraine, especially these two on whether the article should be moved to draft, deleted or merged (Talk:Torture in Ukraine#Move to draft, merge, or delete and Talk:Torture in Ukraine#Source broken link, overreliance on single source) and this one on the subject of the article: torture perpetrated by Ukrainian state agents or torture taking place on the territory of Ukraine? (Talk:Torture in Ukraine#The subject of this article) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Comment The OP has argued of the article, Torture in Ukraine, that The subject of this article IS NOT torture perpetrated by anybody within the confines of Ukrainian territory...No, the subject of this article is torture committed by agents of the Ukrainian state.[5] Given that context, editors concerned with maintaining NPOV may well be interested in the discussion at article talk. Cambial foliar❧ 22:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV heading at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

What should be the title of this section? Videos purportedly showing Russian soldiers shot after surrendering in the Makiyivka area, as originally proposed, or False surrender of Russian soldiers in the Makiyivka area, as it is now? IMHO the topic doesn't deserve an RfC and some input from other editors should be sufficient. The discussion is here: Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#And again with the POV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PoV editing against consensus

I am going to join the chorus of voices calling for help at Talk:Torture in Ukraine. Elinruby (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

fanpov tag at Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone

@MrsSnoozyTurtle has now twice added the {{fanpov}} tag to Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone with no explanation as to the issue in the edit summary or on the talkpage. I for the life of me cannot understand the POV issues here considering the information is well sourced and doesn't seem especially fawning. Without an explanation given for the issue, I am removing the tag. Am I missing something here? Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My concern is that the Background section is not written in a dry, encyclopaedic style. Also, checking the sources shows that the referencing is shaky in places (eg there's no mention of "non-diegetic music").
Nonetheless, I see that you are passionate enough about this to place a Discretionary Sanctions notice on my Talk page. Message received loud and clear... I won't edit your article again. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally, it is good practice when adding POV tags to start a talkpage discussion as to the problems with the article or at least give reasoning in the edit summary. After the first tag with no explanation, I tried to fix the one problem I could see. The second tag with no explanation forced me to reach out to find out what the problem was. The background section seems pretty dry to me. As to "non-diegetic music", the source says Except when they occur in the clips themselves, there is no music.
This is not my article - I'm just genuinely trying to improve it. A tip for the future: give an explanation when adding a POV tag to assist editors in fixing the problem or, better still, try to fix them yourself. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moral panic

IP editor User:71.57.35.130 keeps trying to insert poorly-sourced assertions that efforts to ameliorate gun violence in the U.S., and efforts to control COVID-19 by masking, qualify as moral panics. Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fringe BS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the stuff related to COVID and the GBD, yes. However, there is one addition about gun violence as a moral panic included earlier that does appear legit (and having to write about video games and moral panics, this definitely is a point that can be expanded on). Masem (t) 17:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There may possibly be grounds for discussing some responses to gun violence in the 'moral panic' article. Not like the IP has done though - sticking it in the lede without further expansion. If it is to be included, we'd need to be very careful to distinguish between 'panic' and legitimate responses to a controversial issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP is still edit-warring this nonsense in... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like the IP is temporarily page blocked now, so hopefully an actual discussion can take place. A quick search essentially confirms what Masem said; there are plenty of reliable sources associating the response to gun violence (and mass shootings in particular) with moral panic, while I couldn't find much on COVID-19. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Torture in Ukraine

please dispatch trained therapists and a mop. I can't even and it"s definitely not just me. Help help help. Elinruby (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, this has gotten out of hand. I've brought it to ANI. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, because I do not have the bandwidth to mediate this. I want to emphasize that the problem as I see it is not that one editor after another has had a meltdown on the page; it's that they are being gaslighted into these meltdowns, over issues as basic as WP:ONUS, then reported for discourtesy. I'm definitely involved but am trying to maintain. I appreciate the report, as I do not think I could write one. It's just mind-boggling. I will comment later on the ANI thread.

Talk:Modern paganism#RfC

Please see subject RfC about amendment of the lead per this edit to the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on Male expendability

There is now an active RfC on the Male expendability talk page about whether specific ideas should be listed in Gpedia's voice or attributed. You are welcome to lend your voices to the discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elon Musk's proposed peace plan

Please see the discussion on the question of whether Elon Musk's proposed peace plan for the Russo-Ukrainian war is due in his biography, either as a subsection of the Views section, or tucked into the Politics subsection of that section. Despite being covered by many reliable sources, some editors seem to believe it doesn't merit any inclusion, even in a summarised form. I don't agree with this and I would like to avoid an RFC. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The argument regarding UNDUE is absolutely correct, until such a point where Musk actually appears to make steps along that plan. Musk rambles on about a lot of topics, so not every topic he mentions is due (in addition to NOT#NEWS). A brief inclusion as has been argued is fair, but until there's actually something actionable to talk about, its just one of many views he has, so UNDUE has to be used to balance how much we cover it. Masem (t) 13:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it is not relevant in any way. Musk says a lot of stuff about a lot of things. No one took this seriously, and it does not appear to have had any lasting impact. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chick-fil-A and Asian Americans

During AfC review, I have explained to Fastfoodfanatic why their draft which appears to me to be a point-of-view fork of Chick-fil-A to focus on race-related incidents involving the company is not appropriate. My reasoning is given at my talk page. I would appreciate input from other editors who are experienced in this area of policy. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it was truly non-neutral, I would have deliberately excluded the apologies on CFA's part and the settlement for the case of James Kwon. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a WP:SYNTHESIS of a new topic that doesn't actually exist in the sources. Multiple users have explained why this is not a viable article. Fastfoodfanatic, you cannot compile a list of unrelated incidents under a single article. It seems like you made up this connection between Asian Americans and Chick-fil-A. It's not the same as Chick-fil-A and LGBT people because major news outlets have written about a connection between Chick-fil-A and LGBT people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I previously commented on the draft's talk page explaining the issues with this draft's topic. - Aoidh (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral POV for Christine Lagarde Bio

Christine Lagarde is a convicted criminal. This is an important fact that is highly visible in the bios of other criminals. After making the relevant update, the page has been locked and reverted to the biased POV language that omits her criminal conviction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonQalg (talkcontribs) 20:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy link: Christine Lagarde. Describing someone as a "criminal" in the first sentence of their article should only be done for people who are most well known for being criminals (for example, Jack the Ripper or Bernie Madoff). It should not be in the first sentence of an article for someone most well known for other things but happens to have been convicted of a crime at some point. Given that this is an article of a living person, there is a high level of scrutiny in what is added, and locking the page was within reason. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is a derivative under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. A link to the original article can be found here and attribution parties here. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.