Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

Rent control: "on consensus among economists"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this discussion, the community analyzes a dispute about the phrase: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing". The discussion below contains some socking, and also some extremely helpful and thoughtful contributions backed by sources.

When I was closing this discussion, I treated sockpuppet comments as follows: (1) I gave the !vote of a sockpuppet zero weight; (2) I disregarded the opinions expressed by sockpuppets; but (3) I took the view that an academic source introduced by a sockpuppet is still an academic source. Because Pedrote112 did introduce academic sources into this debate, and because the fact that he was socking doesn't make him wrong, I have given weight to his sources, but not his !vote. If this wasn't the right approach, then I think my whole close is unsafe.

The disputed statement appears in two articles, Rent control in the United States, and Rent regulation. These two need to be taken separately, because from this source introduced to the subject discussion by Mikehawk10, it is clear that the history of rent regulation elsewhere in the world is a somewhat different animal. This source shows (most clearly on page 13) that in the UK, as throughout most of Europe, rents were frozen during the Second World War to protect conscript soldiers who were required to serve at wages fixed by the state, and rent controls remained in place during the post-War reconstruction period when so much housing had been destroyed. These supply and demand factors had a significant effect on the economics of housing. The US was also profoundly affected by that war, but, with its lower population density and its intact cities and infrastructure, is not a particularly good comparator. We should prefer US sources for the article about the US, and a mix of international sources for the general article on Rent regulation.

Because of this, in the case of Rent control in the United States, the disputed statement is supported by the sources and a rough consensus of good faith editors. This doesn't mean it couldn't be improved upon, and I suggest that it is made more specific: perhaps something to the effect that "the consensus of mainstream economists is that in the US, the rent control measures that have been tried so far have been unsuccessful or counterproductive". Qzekrom's incredibly helpful contribution, below, contains a lot of thought that could usefully be taken into account when deciding exactly what to say.

In the case of Rent regulation, as I have explained, I give different weight to the sources. In that case the disputed statement is not fully supported by the rough consensus and should be replaced by wording that is less sweepingly emphatic and more specific. I leave it to the normal editorial process to decide what that wording should be.

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 00:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Two Wikipedia articles, namely "Rent control in the United States" [1] and "Rent regulation" [2], contain a statement that reads as follows: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing".

For weeks, I have been arguing on the article's talk page [3] about how misleading this claim is. I would like to ask for help here, since the case at hand is a blatant case of lack of neutrality.

The sources used to support this claim are:

1) An article by Blair Jenkins (of whom we do not even know if she has a PhD in economics), who has no other publications on this subject and whose article is published in a journal of dubious quality (impact factor 0.920). Furthermore, what the article itself actually states is that 23% of economists either "agree with provisions" (16.6%) or directly "disagree" (6.5%) with the claim that "A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available". This is not a consensus. Moreover, the article is neither reproducible nor replicable, so it cannot be used to substantiate the claim. Finally, there is a conflict of interest between the publisher and the assertion. That is, the publisher is not neutral: The Journal Econ Journal Watch [4] is published by a self-declared "conservative" and "libertarian" think tank called Fraser Institute [5].

2) An opinion survey without peer review process, without methodological sampling and isolated interviews. [6]

3) One report by another self-declared "liberal" think tank [7], [8].

Notwithstanding that the statement is erroneous, is it encyclopaedically appropriate for that phrase to appear as the second entry in the article? I think that here again we are faced with an attempt to promote one kind of view on the rent control mechanism. I think that for the sake of objectivity, one should first explain technically what rent control is and then move on to the assessments that economists, sociologists, and other scientists or sectors of society have to make.

In sum, maintaining the claim in these articles implies a significant ideological bias and a serious lack of neutrality. My position is that the sentence should be removed. If the sentence is to be retained, then for the sake of truth, we should at least edit it to say something like: "According to one study published by a libertarian think tank, most economists agree that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available", while 23% of economists have reservations or disagree".193.52.24.13 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

As best I can tell, reliable sources seem overwhelmingly to indicate the existence of a consensus among economists on the subject[9]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, reducing the returns to any asset is going to reduce the value and quantity of the asset in the market. In the case of rent control, my sense is that yes the text reflects mainstream consensus. However more detailed peer-reviewed literature should be used to specify the conditions under which that broad statement is true and to identify the special conditions under which rent controls are an accepted, widely implemented, and beneficial policy. For example, controls on the rents of legacy housing stock, with no such restrictions on newly constructed units, was widely used to encourage the construction of new housing in 20th century America. In that regard, the proposition that most economists agree that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available" is not true -- most economists would not say that about typical selective controls because indeed it is false. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you SPECIFICO. More evidence:

A 2007 study by David Sims [10] and a 2014 study by Autor, Palmer, and Pathak [11] both look at the effects of the end of rent control in Massachusetts, after the passage of Question 9 by Massachusetts ballot referendum in 1994. Sims found that the end of rent control had little effect on the construction of new housing. He did however find evidence that rent control decreased the number of available rental units, by encouraging condo conversions. In other words, rent control seemed to affect the quantity of rental housing, but not the total quantity of the housing stock. Unsurprisingly, Sims also found significant increases in rent charged after decontrol, suggesting that rent control was effective in limiting rent increases.

A 2007 study [12] by Gilderbloom and Ye of more recent rent control laws here in New Jersey finds evidence that rent controls actually increase the supply of rental housing, by incentivizing landlords to subdivide larger rental units.

A 2015 study [13] by Ambrosius, Glderbloom, and coauthors also looks at changes in New Jersey rent regulations. As with the previous study, they find that rent control in New Jersey has not produced any detectable reduction in new housing supply.

The most recent major study of rent control, by Diamond McQuade, and Qian in 2018 [14], uses detailed data on San Francisco housing market to look at the effect of the mid-1990s change in rent control rules there. They suggest that while the law did effectively limit rent increases, and had no effect on new housing construction, it did have a negative effect on the supply of rental housing by encouraging condo conversions.

With all these references I am not trying to prove that rent control is good, or even that these authors are right. What I am demonstrating is that the statement in the article is totally false. To maintain such a claim in these articles implies a serious lack of neutrality and ideological bias.193.52.24.13 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that proper sources should be used. The Frasier Institute is basically Canada's version of the Heritage Foundation, used to publish studies to counter criticisms of the big oil, tobacco, agribusiness and other unpopular industries. What I find biased about the statement is that it is a veiled strawman argument. It implies that rent control is a failure because it has not increased rental stock or improved quality, when that was not its intended purpose. TFD (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The arguments so far on this page seem to suggest that there are more users against the claim than in favour of it (which is not surprising when the debate is between people who have no specific interest in upholding claims that may be dubious). Regardless of majority rules, the claim is false and we are witnessing a problem of lack of neutrality in the way these pages (Rent regulation, Rent control in the United States, and who knows if others too) are being managed. My opinion is that (i) the claim should be removed because it is false and (ii) the page should be labelled as Template:POV, as there is an imbalance of citations and references in favour of one ideological position. However, there seems to be a group of custodians of these pages who seem determined to prevent any change. On a side note, I just noticed that Robert McClenon had added a Template:POV tag to the page [15], and his change was immediately reversed by another user who is quite active on the page (and who had already been accused of partisanship in the past [16] by Dennis Bratland, precisely in the context of a discussion on the Rent regulation talk page [17]].193.52.24.13 (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the article itself. I put the template on the article simply to reflect the fact that it was being discussed here. The immediate removal of the template without discussion does itself look like an effort to cover up the existence of the neutrality dispute itself, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

To recap what I've said before, most of these sources that claim "consensus" have a tortured defintion of "economist" that is clearly begging the question, in the mode of a no true Scotsman argument: these sources don't count anyone who doesn't see the world the way they do as a "real" economist. An extreme example would be doctor of economics Kshama Sawant. If she had a conventional US business-boosting ideology, she'd count as one of those qualified to be surveyed in their consensus, but somehow she's not. The fact that they obstinately insist on measuring the quantity and quality of housing overall, when they know full well that rent regulation or control schemes are generally intended to increase the supply of something else, affordable housing, is further evidence that these kinds of studies are ideologically biased, and not engaging in good faith with the actual points of disagreement.

It's totally fine to mention the opinions of anti-regulation economists and political advocacy "think tanks", but they're claims to speak for all economists don't bear out. Economics is not a hard science and economic opinions are inextricably linked to political ideology. Anyone who pretends otherwise is entitled to their opinion but cannot be treated as a neutral observer.

Editors who wish to clean up these articles should go and read Wikipedia:Describing points of view. Wikipedia has a structured and reliable process for how we go about describing opinions. These are opinions, not facts. Describe these opinions as per Wikipedia:Describing points of view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

1) I was unaware of this noticeboard discussion when I removed the template; @Robert McClenon: perhaps next time you tag an article you could give at least some rationale? That would have been helpful. I only saw this discussion now that the IP linked here from the RCinUS Talk page.

2) [Personal attack removed by Qzekrom] ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

All the arguments put forward by those of us who question the assertion remain intact. The claim remains false (regardless of the credibility that some or other users attribute to some or other economists). The objective reasons (and references) why the claim cannot stand have been clearly stated by me, SPECIFICO, TFD and Dennis Bratland. In this discussion, that is the majority (although as I said, even if there were no majority, the claim that there is a consensus among economists would still be false). Therefore, I think it is time to remove the statement and label the page as Template:POV.193.52.24.13 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Avatar317, I would describe your ad hominem as not worthy of a reply and not worthy of consideration in any discussion. Please focus on content, not contributors.

You analogy is false for this reason: Andrew Wakefeild has had his medical license revoked. Medicine is a real science with rigorous oversight, and objective rules of conduct. Frauds and quacks are identifiable. Kshama Sawant has not had her license to practice economics revoked, because there is no such thing as a license to practice economics. There can't be because there is no rigorous test to determine if an economic theory is valid or not, or if an economic "fact" is true or false. Nothing an economist could do can be construed as misconduct. Sawant has a PhD in economics. That is equal to any one else's claim to be an economist. The only reason to suggest she is in any way comparable with Andrew Wakefield is if one does not like her opinions, yet cannot rigorously prove them to be false, what with her opinions being economic in nature, and thus not scientific, meaning they are not falsifiable.

You can believe in the magic of the invisible hand of the free market all you want, believe as hard as you can, but that doesn't make it science. It's still mere opinion and should be treated as we treat any other opinion, given appropriate attribution and weight. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Economists often work with empirical data, and anyone doing empirical research in any field for a university would be disciplined for misconduct if they were caught fabricating or falsifying their results. [18] For example, Brian Wansink (who studied consumer behavior and nutrition) was stripped of his research and teaching positions after Cornell determined that he had falsified data. Also, the American Economic Association has a code of professional conduct that requires its members to practice "intellectual and professional integrity," which includes "honesty, care, and transparency in conducting and presenting research; disinterested assessment of ideas; acknowledgement of limits of expertise; and disclosure of real and perceived conflicts of interest." Integrity in the research process is clearly an expectation in the economics field. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

But the definition of who gets to be surveyed as an economist in these studies that claim consensus against rent control don't limit themselves only to university employees or only to members of of the AEA, which is a self-selected group whose political neutrality is not universally acknowledged. Further irony is that these studies are not peer reviewed, so trying to wrap them up in the integrity of university standards is not convincing. And just because the AEA tells us it has standards of good behavior isn't proof they enforce them.

Insulting me by saying I'm no better than an acolyte of proven fraud and quack Andrew Wakefield is both offensive and reinforces my point that all these claims of rationality and rigor among those mansplaining rent control to us ignorant hysterics is a sham. This desperate need to attach the aura of authority to anti-rent control opinions only exposes how weak the argument is.

If you told an astrophysicist you think Pluto really a planet not a mere dwarf planet, they don't huff "how dare you! We have spoken!" They say, well, here's the evidence, here's our line of reasoning. Or consider MOS:PUFFERY. We don't need to put pedantic lecturing like "Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter" into encyclopedia articles. We can simply leave that unsaid and instead mention a handful of the long list of accolades that justify assessment. The claims about Bob Dylan are given in-text attribution so we can see whose opinion that is. If you want to give opinions about rent control, just say it with in-text attribution and not in Wikipedia's voice. If those authorities are respected enough, that speaks for itself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Snoogan's link makes it clear there is a consensus among economists on this issue with respect to the specific claim regarding "reduces the quality and quantity of housing". That doesn't mean we shouldn't note benefits of rent control or note if "quality/quantity" are the only appropriate measure. Also, it would be best if the sourcing in the article is to academic sources vs media sources. Springee (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

How? Snoogan's link is a simple google scholar search whose first entry is Jenkins' article, which is published by a libertarian think tank [19] by a person who does not even have a PhD in economics, in a journal of dubious quality (impact factor 0.920). Moreover, the article itself states that 23% of economists either "agree with provisions" (16.6%) or directly "disagree" (6.5%) with the claim that "A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available". This is not a consensus. Moreover, as Avatar317 themself says here [20], think tanks are NOT academic sources, nor reliable. Furthermore, the list of google scholar articles, besides not being a source in itself, contains the very articles I cite as counterexamples that there is no consensus.193.52.24.13 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I see several sources that make similar statements, not just one. Also, scholarship is not something restricted to PhDs and universities. I've worked for companies that have done scholarly publications. Think tanks can also do such publications. All that is required is getting a document published in a scholarly journal. I do get the concern about low impact factor. I'm not sure what is considered a good impact factor in that field but I also see a number of sources on Snoogan's list making similar claims. This isn't something claimed only by a single think tank. Springee (talk)

The point is that "rent control" is too broad and diverse a set of policies for this categorical statement to be meaningful. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging user @Qzekrom: because that editor did some changes which (in my opinion) improved the article, and was involved in the past discussions.

@SPECIFICO: Yes, rent controls have been implemented in many ways, generally to reduce or minimize the known harms from it, but that doesn't change the fact that we have multiple good sources with economists stating that it (generally) yields certain outcomes. Note, we aren't saying that it is "bad"; we are stating specifically what outcomes it produces.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That does not address the problem I identified. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You said "In the case of rent control, my sense is that yes the text reflects mainstream consensus." But then you went on to make some UNSOURCED claims. You said that ""rent control" is too broad and diverse a set of policies for this categorical statement to be meaningful." - do you have any sources saying that MOST economists do not think that the discussed statement is broadly applicable to rent control? ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN for sources is on you. SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday, based on the arguments provided here, I deleted the false claim from the article and labeled it as Template:POV. Avatar317 has reverted those changes again. I ask the more experienced editors of this conversation SPECIFICO, TFD and Dennis Bratland to verify this so that we can proceed with appropriate action. I consider what we are witnessing a very serious case of lack of neutrality.193.52.24.13 (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

For your information: an active user who acts as a custodian of these articles seems to want to silence me in order to prevent the false claim from being deleted and the article from being labelled as a Template:POV. The thread is here: [21]193.52.24.13 ---- (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the material newly added or long standing. I don't see a consensus one way or the other here. If the content is long standing then we need a consensus to remove. If it's newly added then you need a consensus to keep. Springee (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I have recently been following this discussion. I would like to say a few things:

1. The statement was introduced by Snooganssnoogans on 24 December 2020 at 14:54. As this is not a long-running content, the one who should get a consensus to introduce such a statement is the one who is in favour of it.

2. I consider that the IP is right and that the statement is false. The mere fact that there are economists who think differently should suffice as proof (e.g. [22]).

3. I find it outrageous that the IP is the only user blocked by an edit war given that it is the one who has contributed the most evidence and arguments to this discussion. Pedrote112 (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)  Note: — Pedrote112 (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I was asked to contribute to this discussion. I found a meta-analysis on the effects of rent control by the Urban Institute. For what it's worth, the Urban study discusses rent control's impact on many dimensions, such as neighborhood stability and racial equity. A neutral introduction to a Wikipedia article on rent control would discuss all of these effects, not just the quantity and quality of housing, and it would include the perspectives of social science fields other than econ.

The claim that this discussion has been focusing on is: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing." Let's break this down.

"There is a consensus among economists"

I think this is what computer scientists call folklore: something that many people in a field believe but isn't necessarily supported by evidence. Economists might believe that most other economists agree with them on a claim because all the economists they know agree with that claim, but that might be because they're in an echo chamber. Many sources, like this Freakonomics podcast episode and this Washington Post op-ed, claim that this is something that most economists agree on. However, newspaper op-eds are usually not fact-checked, so any claim in the WaPo op-ed might be false. I think the Freakonomics episode is more reliable, since the podcast creator is obviously very familiar with the econ field, but this claim needs to be substantiated by more sources. It's also worth noting that the claimed "consensus among economists" in these sources is a value judgment ("rent control is bad policy"), which isn't the claim in question ("rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing").

"rent control reduces the quality ... of housing"

"Quality" is a subjective term, and it should be qualified (pun intended). Rent control laws might reduce the quality of apartments in that they cause the apartments to deteriorate physically from neglect; there is some evidence for this (see p. 5 in the Urban paper). However, quality of housing might also be judged by the stability of the surrounding neighborhood and the tenants' social connections, which rent control might promote in some cases. Given the ambiguity of the word "quality," I think we can't say that rent control reduces the quality of housing.

"rent control reduces the ... quantity of housing"

I think the quantity of housing is easier to judge. Studies such as the 2018 DMQ study show that rent control reduces rental housing supply by encouraging landlords to convert their rental apartments into owner-occupied ones. However, when newly built houses are exempt from rent control laws, those laws don't affect the amount of new construction. To me, this pair of observations is enough to infer a causal relationship: that rent control reduces the quantity of rentals. This causal relationship needs to be stated in a reliable source, and I think we have plenty of sources that could support it.

Overall, I think we should not include the claim that "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing," because not all parts of it can be supported by reliable sources. However, we could include a statement about the effects of rent control laws on the amount of rental housing available. I also think that such a statement should be part of a broader discussion of the varied effects of rent control. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. And when you say free-market economists criticize it for reducing the quality and quantity of housing, simply follow that with supporters saying they don't care about the overall quantity, rather their goal is more affordable housing. So what if there's fewer luxury condos if there's more housing for working families? Establishment economic theory doesn't think the distinction matters because over a long enough time, the supply of one increases the supply of the other. Eventually. These studies focus on the quantity of housing stocks over spans of decades, when a person who can't afford a place to live will freeze to death in a single winter. They don't have decades. Much of public policy like rent control exists to address real world problems in the here and now, not an abstract future. In the long run we're all dead. When you describe the structure of both sides' arguments, it's clear they're using different goal posts, different metrics, and talking past each other. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no evidence anywhere that rent control INCREASES affordable housing; it just reduces how much it decreases by. We already have a statement saying that RC is a policy tool cities can use to help low income renters.

The timelines used are NOT different; NYC and many CA cities have had RC for DECADES; why? because these same cities do not allow enough housing construction, so there is a perpetual (government caused) housing shortage. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: Would this fix your issue with the "quality of housing"? - have the statement say: "...quality of housing UNITS." (or housing "stock") This is the maintenance level of rental units, which is what is meant by the term when economists use it, and avoids blurring into the Quality-of-Life issues.

For further specificity, we could add: "...RENTAL housing UNITS." since that is what was studied. Price/supply of houses for purchase is different. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I don't mind that. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been blocked for some religious (or ideological) reason [23], so I'll edit with my IP as long as they let me. I disagree with the current statement and also with the new proposition: both are wrong. The reasons have been explained by several users. The majority here is against the statement. But user Avatar317 seems to have a skewed understanding of the meaning of the word consensus. He/She edits what he/she wants without consensus and launches personal attacks on those who don't think like him/her.

I want to say that the statement was introduced on this article by Snooganssnoogans on 24 December 2020 at 14:54 (so it has been running for a short time) without any consensus. Since this edit was not debated at that time and since we do not have a consensus on it, the ones that must get a consensus to introduce such sentence are the ones that are in favor of it.

P.S. I am against the proposed version of the sentence because there is not a consensus on that either. The claim is false, and the references and arguments have been provided above by some users. 83.33.129.185 (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC). (Self-described block evasion struck) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party here, though a few sources to consider:

• A 2018 review report written by a professor at the London School of Economics states that In some circumstances, e.g. if information to both landlord and tenant is improved, contracts are made more transparent and easier to enforce, then risks may be reduced for both parties and/or constraints on investment may be overcome. It is possible that both landlords and tenants may gain from the intervention. In such cases supply will increase and rents may be lower (or there may be additional demand for the better product). However, in other circumstances, the effect of regulation is to control rents below market levels and/or to provide greater security of tenure or other benefits to tenants which reduce returns or increase risks to landlords. In this case the result will be a reduction in supply; there will be pressure to avoid or evade the regulation; immobility and under-occupation of poor-quality, ill-maintained properties; and higher rents and worse housing for those excluded from the market. In other words, if the rent control binds rents to under what the price would be in a market, quality of units would suffer and supply would be reduced. On the other hand, if the rent regulation provides better information to landlords and tenants then both could be better off due to relatively lowered risks associated with renting.
• A 2007 study published in the Journal of Urban Economics found that Massachusetts rent control was associated with the quantity of rental housing stock and the quality of rental housing stock. The study also found that rent control may have caused individuals to substitute away from renting and towards homeownership and that there were (small) effects on the non-controlled rental stock that resulted from imposition of rent control.
• A 2019 study published in the American Economic Review found that rent regulations in San Francisco reduced rental supply and that reduction in rental supply likely increased rents in the long run. The study noted that landlords substituted their stock away from rental units and towards condos in response to rent regulation.
• A 1985 paper that took a hedonic approach found that after standardizing for quality, rents in the uncontrolled sector were significantly higher than rents in the controlled sector but also that uncontrolled rents likely exceed the rents that would have occurred in the absence of controls.

I can give more input, but these seem to be very typical results on the topic that have occurred over time. Generally, economists have found that the rents of uncontrolled units rises due to rent controls, which negatively affects quality (utility/cost). They also have found that oftentimes rent control results in the reduction of housing stock. Some economists suggest that this is because rent control regulations have been poorly written and that there might exist some rent control regulations that would be helpful, but that rent controls that bind the rental stock to a lower price than the market price would tend to decrease quality of the uncontrolled stock and the quantity of rental stock overall. I'm also aware of some work that has been done on the optimal maintenance rates for a landlord that is facing new rent control regulations (and that the answer is generally to decrease maintenance if the rent controlled maximum price is set below the market price for a unit), though I am unable to recall the paper at this time. I might try to find a textbook if that would be helpful.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Thanks for the sources and discussion! I think a textbook would be helpful, as it would speak to what the CONSENSUS in the economics field thinks about rent control, as that would be what is being taught in schools. I've heard multiple times that rent control is used in Econ101 as a classic lesson, but I don't have an Econ101 textbook, and don't know how to find what (or how many) colleges use which open-source Econ101 textbook. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The idea that supply and quality of units goes down with rent control is supported by at least these two texts, Springee (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I've been able to get my hands on a few microeconomics textbooks, and I found two that explicitly talk about rent controls (within the context of legally imposed caps on the price of units). The first one, notes that markets with a typical supply and demand curve (upward-sloping supply curve, downward-sloping demand curve) will underproduce if the price control is below the unregulated level in general. It then moves to specifically use rent control as an example of this, saying that there will be an "excess demand" caused by rent controls when those controls lower the price of housing, and the source also says that "excess demand in the housing market is commonly referred to as a 'housing shortage'" and that this would result in the market having fewer houses than in an unregulated market. The second one doesn't go in as much detail on the derivation itself, but it agrees with the first textbook regarding the reduction to the quantity of housing that will result from rent controls. Regarding housing quality, the second book also states that since sellers face excess demand for their products, each will be able to make sales even if their products are not as good as those of competitors. As a result, sellers have too little incentive to maintain or enhance the quality of their products. For example, a common complaint about rent-controlled apartments is that they receive little maintenance and no renovations. In context, "to little incentive to do x" is more of a positive description that x won't be done as much (as opposed to a normative description saying people ought to do x more), so I believe that the second textbook is a source that can be used to back the claim of scholarly consensus with respect to decreases in the quality of rental units. Both books are from right before the great recession really got going, though from my understanding there hasn't been any sort of general shift on this belief reflected in relevant literature since then. (On a side note, the copyright dates on the books are both 2008, though online sources say the books were published in late 2007. I went with the dates printed in the books in making the citations.)— Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you are ignoring all the arguments given above by many users. You cannot use two or three or four books, or a survey, or a think tank study to substantiate the claim. The claim is false since there are economists who think differently [24][25]. More references have already been given, there is still no consensus on this page and the claim is still on the article page without consensus. The page is not even marked as having a conflict of neutrality.83.33.129.185 (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC) (block evasion by blocked sockpuppet WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pedrote112 struck) ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The statement that The claim is false since there are economists who think differently doesn't really give an argument against WP:RS/AC. Consensus is not equivalent to unanimity; there can be disagreement by small numbers of scholars and yet a scholarly consensus might be present. When we have textbooks (which are often considered tertiary sources) that are providing a sense of academic consensus on the rent control, I think that the consensus is sufficiently well-sourced. As always, the different views on rent control should be presented in the article relative to their prominence in published, reliable sources However, they should not be given equal weight with the consensus views in the article's description of the academic debates on rent control. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is NOT sufficiently well-sourced. There is not a single credible and reproducible study that verifies such a claim. There is no consensus among the users of this site to support such a claim. The claim was introduced without consensus recently, it remains on the page and the page is not labelled as . If the proponents of this claim had any respect for truth and neutrality, they would remove the claim first, label the page appropriately, and continue debating here.83.33.129.185 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC) (block evasion by blocked sockpuppet WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pedrote112 struck) ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

When Econ text books use this as an example of how artificially limiting prices impacts a market I think we can say there is consensus among academics in the field of econ. Springee (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Many econ macro textbooks teach IS/LM curves, which compare a stock quantity with a flow quantity. I don't think there can be many thoughtful economists who would defend plotting a flow quantity and a stock quantity on the same graph as a principled and entirely coherent practice, and yet the idea is considered something that most undergraduates should become aware of. It is certainly the case that there are many case histories where poorly constructed hard rent caps can be very bad for a city, and undergraduates should become aware of this. This does not mean there is a current consensus that the generalisation given in the article, "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of rental housing units" is true, especially since the definition of rent control given in the lead is a quite broad one, covering practices some mainstream economists actually endorse. I think this conversation should continue on Talk:Rent regulation, since the matter is quite technical, not the kind of high-level issue this noticeboard is best suited for. I am considering putting together an RfC on this point, and if I do I will advertise it here and elsewhere. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have seen a number of scholarly articles directly stating that such a consensus exists. In the face of this, unless and until I saw an equal or greater number of scholarly articles directly stating that this consensus does not exist, I see absolutely no reason to entertain the argument that this consensus does not exist.

Note that I'm making no comment on whether this consensus is entirely (or necessarily) accurate, as economics is a highly complex field of study. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just to check I understand what you are saying: if it turned out that a survey showed 60% of economists believed there was a consensus that P, 20% disputed P and a further 20% were inclined to believe P but thought the contrarian 20% had raised important arguments that needed answering, you would say there is a consensus? To be clear, I think there would not be. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You can change those numbers to 98%, 1% and 1%, and it would drastically alter your point. Pulling numbers out of thin air for the purpose of making a point is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

And for the record, what I have seen (and you may note that these are estimates; not numbers pulled out of thin air) is 100% agreement that there is a consensus, with about 10% suggesting that said consensus is wrong, while acknowledging that it nonetheless exists. Hence my second paragraph. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, my point with those figures was to show narrowly that your criterion for claiming there to be a consensus would allow us to infer the existence of a consensus when there isn't one, and hopefully broadly that showing a consensus for a claim is harder than showing general support for that claim.

The most recent high quality survey of economists says 93% of believe that P, where P is the somewhat specific claim about quantity and quality of housing (this is specific about consequences of rent control, but not about what constitutes rent control). That is just the kind of figure you expect to see if there is a consensus. However (i) at the time there was already a substantial, well-cited contrarian empirical and theoretical literature arguing for the positive effects of some rent control measures that would not see a reduction in the quantity and quality of available rental accomodation, so it may be that there were many economists who believed P but thought that not P was a perfectly reasonable position in view of the available theory and data, and (ii) this survey was from the beginning of the 1970s; the opinion of the economics profession to the kind of marginalist theoretical argument that is most commonly put forward is greeted with a bit more scepticism in the economics profession than back then and if you go back to the 1950s, there seemed to be general support for rent control measures among the economics profession. I don't think the degree of support for P has ever reached the level you indicate: which would be 99% (98%+1%). — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can't understand on your own how your claim that "if the numbers were different, there wouldn't be a consensus" is neither particularly insightful nor relevant to my initial comment, then I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to enlighten you.

The question is whether or not there is a consensus. Literally 100% of economists I've seen who've discussed the issue explicitly agree that there is, in fact, such a consensus. This includes economists who insist that this consensus is incorrect. I've said already that, unless someone can dig up a similar number of sources -again, explicitly- claiming that there is no such consensus, there's nothing to argue here. And that is not my own personal feelings on the matter, it's one of the most fundamental precepts of Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

your claim that "if the numbers were different, there wouldn't be a consensus" - this is a straw man, and one I have explicitly rejected. I was showing that the argument in your comment of 21 Apr rested on an apparent fallacy, not making any assertion as to what the current support for the position was. To misunderstand this point once suggests I have not articulated myself well. But when you repeat the mischaracterisation of what I have said after I pointed it out, I no longer think the fault is mine.

In any case, the right place for this discussion is on the article talk page, not on this noticeboard. Please respond there, and please to do not misrepresent what I say yet again. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I find it hilariously ironic that you would accuse me of claiming your argument was asserting a certain set of number as factual in the same comment in which you accuse me of straw manning your argument. It's a straw-man-ception: You straw man my response to accuse me of straw-manning your argument. Brilliant. I'll be chuckling about this for minutes to come. Well, maybe seconds. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Idk anything about rent control,we look for what a balance of sources say and go with that. If the issue is controversial, then a minority view ought to get a mention with due weight.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Part of the challenge with expressing a minority view, is that you need SECONDARY sources (or tertiary sources) that say that the minority view exists, as well as what % hold the minority view, and that it is not WP:FRINGE. But we currently have secondary sources like this one: Conor Dougherty, an economics reporter at The New York Times. He previously spent a decade in New York covering housing and the economy for The Wall Street Journal. He grew up in the Bay Area and lives with his family in Oakland. - who recently wrote this book: GOLDEN GATES: Fighting for Housing in America, saying in 2018: And yet economists from both the right and the left are in almost universal agreement that rent control makes housing problems worse in the long run. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Avatar317, the claim of Dougherty that you cite appears to be his personal judgement. He might be right, but if he is not citing, say, a study that surveys the views of professional economists, then it is a primary source. — Charles Stewart (talk)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=2 07:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I join this discussion late. There is indeed a strong consensus among economists on the negative effects on rent control, to the extent that it features prominently in many introductory textbooks to the field of economics. For example, the negative effects of rent control in Stockholm has been a key example in Swedish textbooks about economics for decades (to add an additional example to the mainly anglo-centric discussion). Claiming that there is a consensus for this is perfectly in line with NPOV and it would appear the IP who first object mainly argues from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While rent control may be a complex topic in politics, it is a very straightforward one in economics. Jeppiz (talk)\

There is not a single serious and reproducible scientific article addressing the question of how many economists argue that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing. Not one.193.52.24.13 (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting to note that despite the facts that there is no consensus among users here and the statement was introduced without consensus, Wikipedia has no mechanism to force the custodians of the site to remove the statement and label the page as Template:POV. Time goes on and the false claim remains in the second line of the article. Quite an example of the kind of neutrality our encyclopaedia claims to promote.193.52.24.13 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So? Wikipedia? Are we keeping the claim without consensus among users? 193.52.24.13 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC) 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a blocked sock of Pedrote112 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Your reading of both the consensus here and of the sources is deeply flawed. Multiple reliable sources, several of which directly state that such a consensus exists have been introduced here. That is why the article still contains the text you dispute. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bob Gibson living grandson

I am new to this and was unaware of some of the rules and still trying to figure it out and I do have a coi as I am a relative of the bio grandchild of Bob Gibson. He has a grandson and someone who likely has a coi and is a relative of Bob's son who wants to keep the fact he has a child hidden due to his abandonment of the child. The child was born on July 7, 2010 and had a relationship with Bob but not with his bio dad, Bob's son Chris. The child does exist and shouldn't be forced out of claiming himself as Bob's grandson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troooth (talk • contribs)

There is no reliable secondary source for this, and it is really immaterial, being that the fact is not about Gibson himself, but a non-notable minor child. There is no basis for inclusion in his article. Elizium23 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Troooth, this requires a source. Is there a newspaper or other reliable source reporting on the grandson and Gibson's family?VikingDrummer (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

John McGuirk and far-right designation

This relate to the John McGuirk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McGuirk) and particularly to the comment that he is editor of a "far-right" media outlet called Gript. This designation, that Gript is "far-right" has been the subject of an extensive, going discussion on the talk page, but I wanted to escalate that discussion to here as I am concerned that the article has serious issues, and I would like to involve the wider community.

Effectively the issue is that the claim is sourced to a pseudo-anonymous blog, which calls Gript alt-right, and an academic article which says Gript will sometimes "echo" the talking points of the far-right, but does not claim that Gript is itself far-right. During the discussion a third source, which does class Gript as far-right was added.

I have argued that the decision to class Gript as far-right, when it has been widely discussed in Irish media either and has never been called far-right by a reputable mainstream Irish publication, gives undue weight to a fringe publication and appears to be an attempt by an editor to enshrine a personal political view.

I have linked numerous articles which describe Gript as right-wing and conservative, and I attempt to expand the description of Gript on the page to read "He is the editor of the news and opinion website Gript, which has been described alternatively as conservative, right-wing and alt-right." I thought that was a fair compromise, as it included the description of Gript as alt-right even though it comes from a pseudo-anonymous, and openly partisan, blog, whilst showing that that was not the general position - the material was still removed.

It is my view that the article does not represent the wider understanding of Gript in Ireland, but rather privilege's a very particular political perspective on it. I would be interested in other's thoughts, as there are only four of us on the talk page and I do not feel the issues on the page are likely to be dealth with.

As a sidenote, and this may not be of relevance to this board - as a new contributor to Wikipedia I was appalled at the behaviour of one of the other edtiors (Bastun), who seemed to take my edits as a personal affront. He reverted my original attempts to fix the article without reason; mocked me; implied I am innumerate; accused me of lying; said my NPOV dispute was disingenuous; started a sockpuppet investigation into my account; and consistently refers to me as a SAP in a fashion that I take to be an attempt to denigrate rather than a mere statement of fact. It is not what I expected, and I have not done anything to him to justify his venom. It has certainly made me reconsider devoting further time to improving articles if this is the accepted approach towards new comers.

Thank you for your consideration. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a look at that page history, and I have to concur with Bastun. You've been edit warring your own unsupported claims in place of well-sourced information for over a week now, and you ought to be blocked to stop it. And while Bastun isn't entirely blameless here, they're close enough to it that, from where I sit, nothing more than a reminder that WP:AN3 exists is needed. Bastun is enforcing an existing consensus and accurate information, whereas you are making inaccurate changes that contradict the consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I legitimately do not understand how expanding the article to add in the sentence above, all of which was sourced from mainstream reporting and gives a fuller understanding of the topic, can be considered edit-warring or improper in any way? On edit warring, bar the addition of the sentence I highlighted above, and undoing the removal of an NPOV dispute tag, which another editor had accepted the need to add, I haven't made any edits to the article since Bastun undid my original edit.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)(talk) 22:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As someone involved in this discussion, here is my interpretation of the sourcing:

• IrishCentral is an Irish news site founded by journalist Niall O'Dowd and is part of the Irish Voice/Irish America media network. It calls Gript a far-right publication. It also calls McGuirk a Far-right commentator, but we're not using it to make that claim.
• The Beacon is an advocacy news outlet focusing on the far right, especially in Ireland. It calls Gript an alt-right website. The alt-right is part of the far-right, and The Beacon's own subheading is reporting on the far right.
• DCU Institute of Future Media, Democracy, and Society (FuJo) is a media research center with an impressive list of members and an equally impressive advisory board. In the section on "Manipulation tactics", the DCU writes In the US, far-right talking points have been popularised through an eco-system of influencers and partisan media outlets who relay the message in milder terms. In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean...Gript and The Burkean primarily produce opinion pieces while positioning themselves as an alternative to mainstream journalism. It also includes a screenshot of McGuirk tweeting a Gript article using the manipulation tactics that it just discussed. The article itself is titled "How the far-right incite hatred".
• The Belfast Telegraph (Belfast Telegraph) is an Irish daily newspaper published by Independent News & Media. It calls Gript right-wing.
• The Times (The Times) is a British daily newspaper, a subsidiary of News UK which is owned by News Corp. It calls Gript conservative.
• The Journal (TheJournal.ie) is an Irish news site. It says that Gript has a typically right-wing and conservative approach to news and debate. I think that's close to calling Gript right-wing and conservative, but that typically seems to weaken their findings.
• There's also The Irish Examiner, which quotes an Irish Department of Health or Department of Education document that says Right-Wing opinion/news account Gript Media. That statement isn't made in the editorial voice of The Irish Examiner, and it's unclear whether it came from the Department of Health, Department of Education, or a third-party (because the Department of Health outsourced some of their analysis). Ultimately, I don't think there's enough information here to determine who the original source was or if they're at all reliable.

Which gives us 3 sources that say far-right, 1 source that says conservative, 1 source that says right-wing, and 1 source that weakly (in my mind) says right-wing and conservative. To me, this seems like a clear indication that far-right is an appropriate label, although some other description that also includes right-wing and conservative might be acceptable, though these labels are used fewer times.

There are also 5 sources (The Independent, a second Journal article, a second Times article, a third Times article, and The Irish Times) that don't describe Gript's political leanings one way or the other. Perpetualgrasp has been arguing at Talk:John McGuirk#Far-right classification that we need to use the absence of a description in those sources as evidence that we shouldn't describe Gript on Wikipedia. I've explained that this would violate NPOV by balancing around claims that the sources don't make. Woodroar (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar gives a generally fair overview of the sourcing, but to give some slight clarifications for others who may be reading. Firstly the DCU source does not call Gript far-right. It discusses how far right talking mights may get into the public discourse and says that certain far-right talking points are echoed in Gript. I would argue that is an important distinction. That moves us to 2 sources that say Gript are either far-right, or alt-right. The Beacon is of, in my view, questionable reliability and I currently have a query as to its status on the relevant noticeboard.

On Woodroar's point about my linking of material that does not refer to Gript as having any particular political affiliation. I shared that material, not because I think it negates the other sources, but rather to demonstrate that Gript, when talked about in the Irish MSM, is not generally classed as being far-right, and that that would not be the case if the Irish MSM had a consensus on Gript being far-right. I was unable to find a single instance of a reputable Irish mainstream publication calling Gript far-right. Given the impact of calling an organisation far-right, and that in this instance it is also going to reflect on a single living person, I simply thought that was important to demonstrate. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

1) I never called Perpetualgrasp a "sap", I stated that theirs is a WP:SPA. Which it is. (Other editors should note there is currently a sock-puppet investigation open, as one other editor on that talk page has made no other edits except to that talk page and their user page; and one IP was active around the same time, making the same edits (that IP has now stopped, and agrees with the consensus to include 'far-right' as the description of Gript).

2) There is a consensus of 4 editors to one on the talk page that the description 'far-right' is accurate. Even without the IP address that changed its mind, that's still 3-1.

3) Above, Perpetualgrasp again mentions "Here are all these sources that don't mention Gript as being far-right." And they're right, some sources don't mention that Gript is far-right. But as has been pointed out at least twice already on that talk page, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If a newspaper article just describes Gript as a news site or magazine website, that does not mean that it isn't far-right. Perpetualgrasp just won't accept that.

4) Perpetualgrasp again mischaracterises the references used. As pointed out on 25 May on the talk page, The Beacon: Uses a subheading of "Far-right leaks?" when discussing Gript. Reference 2, the Future Media Journal from the DCU Institute of Future Media, Democracy and Society, in an article titled "How the far-right incite hatred", says "In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean." I mean, that's pretty clear.

5) Perpetualgrasp again disputes the validity of The Beacon as a source (after repeatedly doing so on the Talk page). They were first informed about RS/N (if they didn't already know about it, obviously) at 14:02 on 25 May, but only opened a RS/N discussion this evening? And are still asserting it isn't reliable, despite the fact that RS/N won't conclude anything for a couple of days?

6) There are five of us (currently/recently) on the talk page, not four.

7) Perpetualgrasp earlier changed "...editor of the far-right website Gript", to their own preferred version, "editor of the news and opinion website Gript, which has been described alternatively as conservative, right-wing, and alt-right" - completely omitting "far-right" in the process. Sanctions may be required. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page I had planned to hold off on bringing forward the Beacon to RS/N in order to give the sockpuppet investigation time to finish. You had said it was appropriate to bring it to RS/N if I had concerns about its reliability; I have now done so. You are correct about SPA instead of SPA, apologies I mistyped.

On far-right I changed it to alt-right as that is what the Beacon calls Gript. You can point to their subheading, or the site's tagline all you want, but what they are actually called in the body of the text is alt-right. If you want to switch it to "editor of the news and opinion website Gript, which has been described alternatively as conservative, right-wing, and far-right" and link to the Irish Central piece instead of the Beacon that would seem workable.

We have been going over this for days, and it's very clear we're, if left to our own devices, not going to agree on what should be done here, or what weight should be given to the Beacon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualgrasp (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a note, as Bastun asked editors to note it above, that the sock puppet investigation into me started by Bastun has ended with a finding that the accounts Bastun flagged are unrelated. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Coming over from WP:RSN on this after diggin a little more—I'm not sure that describing Gript as "far-right" is the best move with regards to a wikivoice statement. I have significant questions regarding the editorial process and editorial control exherted by The Beacon, and I'm not seeing a WP:USEBYOTHERS that points towards it having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, either. Furthermore, the analysis on its bias based on excluding sources that don't mention a bias seems to be deficient... couldn't that be considered some form of marginal evidence to the website not having an extremist bias? Also, regarding The Journal, their other pieces (such as this one) reaffirm that the site has a generally generally right-wing, conservative perspective, and I think that we can say that the paper provides some evidence against a "far-right" designation. When taking a look at additional sources (such as The Busineess Post, which describes the source alternatively as "conservative" and "right-wing"), it's not clear to me that the analysis above is complete or that a complete analysis would result in us labeling the group as "far-right". "Right-wing" seems to be the median, though it's still not clear to me how to analyze the sources that don't mention a site bias. In the absence of a consensus among RS that the site is "far-right", I don't think labeling them as "far-right" is justified. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

As has been noted, the Beacon is not the only source using the "far-right" label, and at least one of the sources that does appears to be sufficiently reliable. And please let's not get into any outlandish "what the definition of 'is' is" style wikilawyering here. (i.e., "Well they don't actually say they are far right, just that they employ far right tactics and talking points" - seriously?). Now, my position on this and all similar matters having to do with the far right: being wishy washy with how we describe them, whitewashing, etc, can have consequences along the magnitude of, possibly, global security being jeopardised. We should not forget that the far right started World War II, and that one of the (many) factors that allowed them to come into power back then was lackadaisical complacency among the press, etc. Hitler et al were not taken seriously as a real threat by too many people. So, my motivation for my position here is not partisan or ideological - just the track record of who were the ones that caused the biggest manmade catastrophe in the history of the world. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The DCU source on the claim, clearly the most reliable of those used, has been amended to explicitely state that they do not classify Gript as a far-right outlet. The note has been added to the bottom of the piece. It would appear I wasn't engaged in "outlandish" wikilawyering, but rather was absolutely correct about what the source did, and did not, say. https://fujomedia.eu/far-right-disinformation-tactics-in-ireland/

Beyond that the rest of your comment only holds if we presuppose that Gript are in fact far-right. If they are not your points regarding the far-right are simply irrelevent.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above SPA editor is pursuing this issue in three concurrent venues this evening: here, the article talk page, and, for good measure, the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

And you are participating in all of them, although on the talk page I merely made a note that the source had clarified and that I had previously said it was being read incorrectly by certain editors, and on the other we are debating if the Beacon is a reliable source, so I don't accept it is the same issue or forum shopping. You were wrong Bastun, just accept it and work to come to some constructive outcome. This is just undignified. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely WP:FORUMSHOPPING, as has been pointed out by other editors here, not just me. There is no active NPOV dispute on the article, so why are you here? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Bastun you know as well as I do that there was an NPOV dispute on the article, and this conversation has simply continued beyond the point it was active. I'm not in control of that, the conversation will last as long as other editors think there is something to discuss. Having said that, given that consensus was reached when the DCU source was being incorrectly used, I could now see an argument that we should again have an active NPOV dispute on the page.

I've tried to respond to your points fairly and with curtesy Bastun, even though I have noted I think you have been unceasingly uncivil towards me since we first crossed paths, but you now suddenly having all these issues, just after I point out you were wrong, seems to be a fairly transparent act of reprisal. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• MPants at work, Firejuggler86, you may be interested in the discussion ongoing here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC on whether name used by less than 1% of the local population should be in the first line of the lede

I've started an RfC on whether a name used by less than 1% of the local population of Bar, Montenegro, should be in the first line of the lede: [26]. Khirurg (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Whitewash of far right

In Far-right politics in Poland, Jan Żaryn, Lubusz Land, and maybe others there is a whitewash of the far right. Inconvenient associations and history are obliterated from view.Nulliq (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This is, what, third? Fourth? New account with very few edits popping up on obscure articles to edit war? Yeah. Somethings going on here. Volunteer Marek 03:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, SPI time, methinks. You could also go to AE and request ECP protection on the talk page of any article that's getting it particularly bad. It worked for Race and intelligence.

I doubt anyone who's even vaguely familiar with your editing would take this seriously, but the diffs speak for themselves; there's no whitewashing here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Lot's of WP:DUCK sock quacking here indeed, but SPI, sigh, who's the master? Roll the dice... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The misrepresentation of that source by this brand new account (Nulliq) and another editor (Trasz) who initially re-entered that text into the article has been addressed on the article's talk page.[27] - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC) :Not a misrepresentation, though inaccurate. The source has a few detail different on slogans than the text and "Critics" was replaced by "Western experts" which is different. User:Volunteer Marek's edit summary of "unsourced BLP vio" is more than inaccurate, it is dishonest. There is a cited source, and there is no BLP info there.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 14:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

jfc, another brand new account barely a few months old. Anyway, the unsourced BLP edit summary was actually referring to this edit [28] where there’s a big old tag right after the attack text. Volunteer Marek 06:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

:::I watch this noticeboard. The edit summary was on a different edit, and is entirely untrue. There is a source, and it isn't BLP.VikingDrummer (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 14:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

VikingDrummer - Thank you for watching this noticeboard. Since we are dealing with new accounts here, let me make clear that your account is also new, with an average editing cycle of few days per month (Jan. 4 and 30, Feb. 13, Mar. 2, 6, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 31, April 3, 17, 18, 21, 24, 28, 29, May 2, 11, 29 and June 3. You have been editing Wikipedia for a total of 22 days starting January 2021 [29], and you did run into a disagreement with VM before, reverting their edits here on April 21st [30] and posting this notice on VM's talk page [31] - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I have discussed with Marek and User:Tino Cannst on Piast Canal where information on the mythological name was removed by Marek despite sources.VikingDrummer (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 14:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

So not only do newcomers get bitten, they also get attacked and accused of operating in bad faith solely on the premise of their being new? smh. Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

So basically, you've addressed this problem - which is definitely real - by dismissing arguments altogether because of their source. Good job, really. Trasz (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Sheikh Jarrah property dispute#RFC

There is an RFC on Talk:Sheikh Jarrah property dispute#RFC concerning whether or not the current article title is an appropriate neutral descriptive title, additional views welcome. nableezy - 03:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of antisemitic statements in Mikis Theodorakis article

On the talk page, I listed sources that discuss Theodorakis' antisemitic statements.[32] But my inclusion of them in the article was reverted twice without the opponents of inclusion engaging on talk. I appreciate the attention of uninvolved editors in this dispute; hopefully we can settle this without a RfC. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source so cannot verify the context in which the remarks were made. One of the reverting editors said the remarks were taken out of context. Given Theodorakis' background and beliefs, it seems odd that he would call himself an anti-Semite. Are you able to post the passage in which the quote appears so that the context can be seen? I did find an opinion piece that mentioned part of the quote you referenced. It said that Theodorakis said "Today we may say that this small nation is at the root of evil and not of good". It does not mention Theodorakis describing himself as an anti-Semite, which would have been more noteworthy. It does discuss how Theodorakis' words were then transformed by Thomas Friedman and Israel’s interior minister, Tommy Lapid, into "Jews are the root of evil". Burrobert (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I read the first article from the list you posted on the talk page. It mentions the quote "small nation is at the root of evil" but does not mention that Theodorakis has described himself as an anti-Semite. Do any sources mention this quote? Burrobert (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

:::Here's a source:

During a press conference in 2003, Theodorakis' criticism of Israeli policy reached a new level, as he said, "Today we can say that this little country is the root of evil, not of good, which means that too much self-righteousness and stubbornness are evil." In a 2011 television interview he even described himself as an "anti-Semite and anti-Zionist," adding that "American Jews" had been responsible for the global economic crisis that had hit Greece as well.

[33] He did apologize later in a letter.VikingDrummer (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 14:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That’s not all VikingDrummer - full text below:

Accused of anti-Semitism

During a press conference in 2003, Theodorakis' criticism of Israeli policy reached a new level, as he said, "Today we can say that this little country is the root of evil, not of good, which means that too much self-righteousness and stubbornness are evil." In a 2011 television interview he even described himself as an "anti-Semite and anti-Zionist," adding that "American Jews" had been responsible for the global economic crisis that had hit Greece as well.

Those statements horrified not only people in Israel. In a later apology, Theodorakis explained his position in a letter to the Central Council of Jews in Greece. What he had meant by "root of evil" was the "unfortunate policies" of the state of Israel and its ally, the US. Had he once described himself as "anti-Semitic," he had misspoken after a very long and tiring interview. "I love the Jewish people, I love the Jews!" said Theodorakis.

[34] - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe, are there any records of him saying similar things on other occasions? - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, looks like this has been discussed in the past..[35],[36] and other editors tried to include it back in a day [37], [38],[39],[40], [41] - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it could be added .. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

One of the sentences at issue is "He has described himself as "anti-Israel and anti-Semite," because "this small nation (Israel) is the root of evil"". From the information above, this seems to be a combination of a press conference from 2003 and a TV interview from 2011. Burrobert (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It's fine to mention this since it was considered significant enough to include in his Deutsche Welt biography.[42] But you have to accurately represent the complete story. You mention for example that he once called himself an anti-Semite but don't mention his response when confronted with that. Here's a link to an article about his 2003 interview. While I believe that lots of people are falsely accused of anti-Semitism, his remarks are less ambiguous. It's surprising how little attention it received outside Israeli and Jewish media. But then I guess his fame had faded. So I think the additions provide the proper weight, since weight is determined by overall coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Are the articles Positive psychology and Martin Seligman promotional?

I raised concerns about lack of coverage of doubts about efficacy at WikiProject Psychology here. I listed some sources, but I'm hoping that someone with better psych background than I have could look at those two articles and bring them in line with WP:NPOV. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Dispute on neutrality of "criticism" section in Eric_Feigl-Ding

The article on Eric Feigl-Ding currently has a section on criticism he has received. The neutrality of this section is in dispute. I have been trying to address this on the talk page, but I have received very little direct engagement on my questions from the editors who have written this section. I believe the entirety of the section violates WP:NPOV, and almost every sentence violates some specific sub-policy.

Rather than me going into detail immediately, I would like to ask you to read the section titled "criticism" and then note your answers to the following questions, which I will argue is misleading:

1) Who was criticizing him? Are their qualifications relevant?

2) Can you name anyone who was praising him? Are their qualifications relevant?

3) What is he criticized for?

4) Who used the app he helped develop?

5) What conclusion is supported by mentioning the app in this section? What purpose is being served by mentioning the Google Scholar section?

6) Is there a source that supports the claim he has “a relevant academic background”?

7) Does the second paragraph of this 2 paragraph section have anything to do with the topic?

The article: https://undark.org/2020/11/25/complicated-rise-of-eric-feigl-ding/ provides some evidence to back up what I say below, but if you're willing to take my word for it, here's some of the concerns.:

a) The people who criticized him are among the most respected infectious disease researchers in the world. Does that come across in the wikipedia article?

b) The unsourced statement made in point 6) above is in dispute. Given that, does this statement promote one point of view above others (c.f., WP:VOICE)?

c) The named person praising him in point 2) above has no infectious disease experience. Does the juxtaposition of his praise with the anonymous criticism violate WP:UNDUE?

d) In point 3) above, did you answer that they were criticizing him for using social media or for not having an infectious disease background? They are criticizing him because they believe much of the information he is spreading is inaccurate and sometimes dangerous, and that he seemingly implied that he had expertise that he did not (which gives undue credibility to his statements). Does the section in any way convey these concerns?

Now consider the sources given about his app development. Both sources are from https://www.hackreactor.com/blog, and regard an app that was developed at Hack Reactor.

e) I believe this is an example of a "publication put out by an organization" about a "topic that organization has an interest in promoting." (c.f., WP:IS).

f) If your answer to 4) above was that it was used for the Ebola response you are wrong. It was never used for this. Hack Reactor is a site that teaches programming skills. I see nothing in the blog posts that clearly states that this was anything more than a class project which was never installed on anyone's phone for the purpose of contact tracing anywhere (the website for the app http://germtheorylabs.org/ mentioned in one of the blog posts is abandoned). I have looked extensively for any other source about this app and I can find none other than Ding's tweets, which came out after extensive prominent work on COVID apps by others was announced. I believe the current wording of the Wikipedia article on this point is potentially misleading, and I think the whole point is actually an example of WP:OR --- see g) below.

Finally, the person who added the comments on the app and Google Scholar said on the talk page:

″Also, the 'zero experience' infectious disease claim seems to be wrong. The two Hack Reactor points out Feigl-Ding was involved in the development of a 2014 contact tracing app for outbreaks. Also his Google Scholar publication record includes many papers on global health and on infectious disease risk factors. We cannot just dismiss all those. Hence added citations to them for balance.″  

g) So these are clearly intended to support the conclusion that he has prior infectious disease expertise. However, the cited sources do not themselves make this point. Additionally the "balance" achieved here also involved watering down the explicit statement from a prominent infectious disease researcher (who had undoubtedly seen his Google Scholar page) that he has 'zero experience' with understanding infectious disease epidemic dynamics. This would appear to me to be a violation of WP:SYNTH as well as WP:UNDUE. As an infectious disease researcher myself I dispute any implication that his Google Scholar page demonstrates experience studying epidemic dynamics.

I have given a detailed explanation of what I consider to be violations of a number of Wikipedia policies in the relevant talk page in the section on "balancing discussion". My impression of the responses I have received is that they have ignored my questions about whether the section violates WP:NPOV in general and WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:IS, WP:UNDUE, etc in particular. Instead they argue that the criticism is "unfair" and "propaganda". The fact that this is their response to the more clinical question of whether a statement exemplifies original research or whether a source is independent makes me believe they are not interested in conveying the content of the criticisms and the responses to them. They are engaging in the dispute rather than describing it, which violates WP:VOICE.

After feeling that my points were being ignored, I added a section "Current Violations of Wikipedia Policy in the Article", to the talk page which has been ignored except for one person who responded positively, and one person who called it "superfluous". There is still no engagement from the relevant editors on the explicit examples I claim violate the various policies.

In full disclosure, I am one of the infectious disease researchers who has criticized Eric Feigl-Ding for what I view as numerous dangerously inaccurate statements he has made on social media. Our primary concern is the inaccuracy. I can point to other people who are also not infectious disease researchers who are commenting about COVID on social media whose content I promote. So it is not about the use of social media, or even being from outside the field. These people who I promote typically make comments on specific subtopics on which they do have expertise. Additionally, it isn't even a difference of opinion about policies --- I am generally supportive of the same policies that he promotes with a few exceptions. The issue with Ding is that he does not constrain himself to things on which he has expertise --- he makes bold sensational comments on things he doesn't understand, and he is often wrong (but he strongly implies he has expertise on the topics). When he makes mistakes he tends to ignore them for a while, and if he ever does anything about it it's usually a quiet delete a week later, with no attempt to correct the record, generally after hundreds of thousands of impressions. When given a choice between an accurate statement or something misleading that might go viral, I believe he chooses the latter. These are my opinions. Because I recognize my conflict, I have refrained from directly editing the page and restrict myself to the talk page.

But I'm tired of my questions being ignored. I believe that the section not only misrepresents the criticism, it has been written to refute the criticism. It needs to get fixed, and I really want to stop wasting my time on it. I was blissfully unaware of how it had evolved over the past year, but when he tweeted out a link to his patreon page asking for monthly donations, I decided to take a look at the article, and I was shocked by the inaccuracy of it.

I would like to see the section either accurately reflect the criticism or be entirely removed. I feel that the criticism should be included, but I would prefer it be removed than that the section be left in its current form. Joelmiller (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@GlobeGores, Sahiljain22, Yug, Smojarad, Zmlpqa01, and Ekpyros:

@Joelmiller: wow, yep, you're right. This is particularly egregious, because people come here to find good quality info. Many of the citations and parts of that section are not of wiki-quality. I'll start helping you fix it!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

+1 to all criticisms highlighted by User:Joelmiller.GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 06:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Benevolent human (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Benevolent human:, your RfC notifications seem rather one-sided, all are either antisemitic topics, or Jews, or Israel, etc... Do you think that those who are active on articles such as Islam, Somalia, Islamophobia, Feminism, to name a few, would be interested in participating in this discussion as well? Zaathras (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Zaathras:, yes, this has now been addressed [43]. I think the issue, from my perspective, is that the people who frequent the articles you mentioned are already closely watching the Omar page, and I wanted to balance it out. Benevolent human (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That's known as canvassing and is highly undesirable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Benevolent human, how do you know who is watching which pages? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

Is this really a neutral term? I can tell you as someone who grew up in the faith (no longer practising but this ain't about me), when I hear the term it raises alarm bells. It is never used as a self-description, it's kind of like "Romanist", "Papist", "Romish" etc, emphasisizing the Pope rather than the catholic (universal) aspect. It came about from point scoring whereby the Church of England wanted to disallow the Catholic church's exclusive claim to the term "catholic", which stems from the Nicene Creed. Is it really such a huge imposition to use the term "Catholic" instead of "Roman Catholic", unless you're distinguishing from "Maronite Catholic", "Chaldean Catholic" etc? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

We have mutiple articles on this question: start at Roman Catholic (term). So the short answer is "it's complicated", and the slightly longer answer is "it depends on context". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should establish a consensus on use of the term, which can be easily linked to by WP:ROMANCATHOLIC, cause the issue is going to come up again. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

wp:commonname, and as said, it all depends on context. But what term would you prefer?Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

We generally use Catholic piped to Catholic Church to refer to individuals, but it does get subtle in more technical articles. Which leaves me wondering, which article(s) trggered this question in the first place? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Well for me it was specifically Ruy López de Segura (I'm a chesshead). in the context of 16th century Spain, "Roman Catholic" seemed very unnecessary to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

For that one I would have gone for "Catholic priest" piped to Priesthood in the Catholic Church. But a more interesting question is the categories Category:Spanish Roman Catholics and Category:16th-century Roman Catholic priests both of which are part of a massive tree structure beginning at Category:Roman Catholic priests. That led me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism, and from there I see that there's an RFC going on at the moment which looks like the place to continue this dicussion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, that RFC is 8 months old and basically settled nothing for us. Elizium23 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

There's also an essay at Wikipedia:Catholic or Roman Catholic? which seems like a place to catch up rapidly on past discussions. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Typically, our usage on Wikipedia is to use "Roman Catholic" to mean "Latin Church Catholic". For example, in our category trees, you will see "Roman Catholic X" in parallel to "Syro-Malabar Catholic X" and "Chaldean Catholic X" and "Byzantine Catholic X". So we use "Roman" in the sense of "non-Eastern". It is a very common consensus and I see it quite often to describe people, organizations, buildings, etc. Anyone who wishes to break this consensus will need to attack our thousands upon thousands of diocesan articles, plus our firmly-entrenched category trees en masse.

Good luck with that! Elizium23 (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

On the rare occasionas where it is necessary to make a distinction between a Maronite Catholic or Chaldean Catholic etc and a "Western" Catholic, the correct term is "Latin Rite Catholic", not "Roman Catholic". So basically I see no context where the term "Roman Catholic" is correct. Yes, it's my POV, but so is gratuitously introducing the term "Roman Catholic" into an article where simply "Catholic" will do the job. It seems many American Catholics have adopted the term and don't see any problem with it, but this is not the case for all. In Ireland, for example, where there is a long history of anti-Catholic laws and discrimination from the British rulers, use of the term will immediately get you on someone's bad side, just as calling Derry "Londonderry" will. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Funny thing about "Latin Rite". It's an ambiguous term. It's sometimes used officially such as in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (canon 1109). However, as we see in canon 1, the official name is the Latin Church. This is not to be confused with the Roman Rite.

For some decades now, the Churches have been working to distinguish "Rite" and "Church". A lot of old terminology is still out there. Elizium23 (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

But anyway most Catholics are not Italian let alone Roman. As in, "I'm not a Roman Catholic, I'm an Irish Catholic!". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a strawman. Elizium23 (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

MaxBrowne2, it used used as a self-description. A LOT. Please consult WP:RS for the official, published WP:COMMONNAME of Catholic organizations. You will find that we have reappropriated the name, and nobody who is Catholic considers it derogatory anymore.

(Actually, if you call an Eastern Catholic "Roman", they may be flattered or they may be offended. You never know!) Elizium23 (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said originally "it's complicated". I'm aware that the RFC didn't resolve anything, but that fact alone was worth knowing. And there was a post there today, so clearly some sort of discussion is still going on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It is sometimes used as a self-description, but rather rarely, especially for people rather than institutions. Individual parishes and churches often so self-describe, to make their denomination clear. To say "nobody who is Catholic considers it derogatory anymore" is certainly wrong, although "derogatory" is not really the right word. It is certainly more othering than plain "Catholic". Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Growing up, I remember praying weekly (or more) for the "...one holy, Roman, catholic, and apostolic church..." I believe the church has changed the Creed since I left, but no parishioner I came across would have considered Roman "othering". We used it in self-reference literally almost every time we went in the building. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The Nicene Creed is used in the Catholic, Orthodox and many of the more traditional Protestant churches, and definitely makes no reference to "Roman", maybe you're misremembering it. It's a reference to the Four Marks of the Church. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• '...disallow the Catholic church's exclusive claim to the term "catholic"' - so your position is that Rome holds exclusive claim to the term "catholic"? That does not sound particularly neutral. yes, the Roman church is commonly called simply the "Catholic Church", and in contexts where this is completely unambiguous that is fine. In English contexts it is somewhat complicated, because the Church of England was part of the larger Roman Catholic Church for many centuries. When they split with Rome, they did not establish a new Church: they considered it to be the same church it had always been, with unbroken succession, and still retaining its "catholicness" while also adopting some reformed characteristics. So, that was one reason for specifying "Roman" - to disambiguate. As for emphasising "Popishness" - considering the Pope had declared the Church of England heretical and had issued a papal bull ordering all faithful Catholics to engage in efforts to violently overthrow the English government & monarch and install a Roman Catholic regime...can you really fault them for that? And meanwhile on the continent Europe was having one of its bloodiest wars in history because a number of countries had turned Protestant and the Pope didnt like it. Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I will also make the point, though, that in the case of that Spanish chess player that prompted MaxBrowne2 to start this thread, just "Catholic priest" without the "Roman" epithet would have been just fine and/or preferable. Context matters, as has been said. Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hundreds of Ancestry Trees for Royal Articles Removed by Single Editor

I had first posted this in the vandal project not knowing this notice board was here, my mistake. Pretty self-explanatory but a first on this site I think. Recently a Wikipedia user Surtsicna, has apparently taken it upon themselves to rid this site of ancestry family trees for Wikipedia English as has been the conventional norm (and still is for other language Wikipedias) since it's inception. Not one other person has deleted a single ancestor tree with them as they have unilaterally deleted hundreds of for themselves, always citing the articles' content of being "not relevant" or "not important" in the edit details for the removals. They keep citing a talk page as being a "consensus" for them to do this, but a number of people clearly have a problem in the page itself with their behavior, and obviously, many more people in general would have a problem with it. I have tried to explain that arbitrarily going through and choosing individually which Royal family trees will remain and which ones will be deleted is not neutral, and obviously very bias, they keep being very dismissive and rude, and are watching and blocking anyone from restoring any of these hundreds of Royal Family Trees which they have taken it upon themselves to decide to remove.--JLavigne508 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

JLavigne508, I just peeped at the template talk page in question, and my eyes are still bleeding from WP:WALLOFTEXT. Ain't nobody got time for dat. Elizium23 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

No hurry, it isn't going to get any better lol.--JLavigne508 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is at Template talk:Ahnentafel. One user dismissing the conclusions reached after a months-long discussion does not make my edits "biased". Surtsicna (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

No one is going to read that discussion and it does not appear to of been closed with a conclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Whether you will read it or not, it is there. Surtsicna (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with you. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Surtsicna, if a dozen Wikipedia editors have a dispute in the template talk space with nobody to read it, does it form a consensus? Elizium23 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

JBW has attempted to explain things to JLavigne508, but apparently to no avail. Specifically, JBW told JLavigne508 that merely refusing to accept the result of a discussion does not entitle one to edit against it; that requesting a third opinion is pointless if the third opinion is going to be dismissed; that requesting an administrator's assistance is pointless if the administrator's advice is going to be dismissed; and that describing edits by others as "vandalism", "trolling", and "defacing" is not productive, especially when aimed at editors who produced virtually the entire article. And here we are now. Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion was raised for three articles as originally linked, not for the hundreds of pages affected by yourself that I was then unaware of, and as I stated at the top of this post I had tried searching for a venue such as this the first time and couldn't find this notice board at the time and mistakenly filed it on the wrong page. I don't know what you are referring to but all of these articles were written by people 15-20 years ago that are now long gone (I think I am starting to see why). Please stop being rude and dismissive of people, and putting things out of context.--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute between two editors who have very different opinions on inclusion of family trees in articles about members of Royal families. I have no opinion either way on that issue. However, I do have opinions on several aspects of how the dispute has been handled. I have commented on some of the issues elsewhere. However, I have one comment which is relevant here. This is nothing whatever to do with neutral point of view. JBW (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I have explained in my response on my talk page to yourself and in the top of my post here, that I was unaware of where to take this until now, this is exactly the place for this.--JLavigne508 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

My first reaction is that royal family trees are important because royal positions are hereditary and members of the family who do not hold the crown usually have positions of authority based on their membership in the family. The relationship of royalty in different countries was also important for determining alliances. But I haven't heard the other side of the argument. Were these family trees overly detailed or did they lack reliable sourcing? A genealogist determined the over 4,000 people next in line to the British throne. But I wouldn't support its inclusion in articles about members of the royal family. TFD (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, the dispute is not over whether we should have the family trees, but over whether extensive family trees should be included in each article about each person, as opposed to in a more limited range of places, such as article about particular royal families. However, I have not read all of the relevant discussion. JBW (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Correct. TFD, royal family trees are indeed important. But it is not important to name all 16 great-great-grandparents of every royal or noble person. Published biographies do not include the sort of genealogical charts that we are discussing here. They do not feature ahnentafeln (as in Template:Ahnentafel). An uncle, a cousin, or a stepmother is much more likely to have influenced a person's life than a great-great-grandmother, and is consequently much more likely to be featured in a genealogical table presented in a published biography. Compare the family tree at Lady Jane Grey#Family tree, which is sourced to an academic biography of the subject and explains her relationship to the people who shaped her life, to the family tree at Leopold, Grand Duke of Baden#Ancestry, which is a compilation of names without context, without sources, and without any basis in academic practice. Surtsicna (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey's family tree is important and belongs in her article because a major part of her story is the dispute over her claim to the throne. But the article on Elizabeth II does not have her family tree. She became queen because her father was king. If people want to know about her family, they can go to Succession to the British throne. I agree that there is no reason why Leopold's ancestry belongs in his article. Also, that's not the type of family tree that is helpful to readers. For Prince George of Cambridge for example, his royal ancestry is more important than that of Kate Middleton, Diana or the the late Queen Mother. TFD (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Heck, look at what I've been through 'recently' at the articles 1920 & 1922? Go figure. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue is not whether to include trees or not because all of them will never be removed anyway, so it automatically defaults to bias to say which individuals or which family lines are "not relevant" and "not important" and should have the ancestry information deleted, and which ones aren't, which has been done for hundreds of individual articles and dozens of royal lines (ancestry info removed for all or nearly all members of Capetian Dynasty, Kings of Castile, Kings of León, Dukes of Bavaria, and many, many, more, while other individuals' and royal lines ancestry were left alone) all done by a single individual in recent months, which is an obvious gross violation of neutrality and falls under Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. --JLavigne508 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's similar to images. We include them if they are "an important illustrative aid to understanding." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Choosing images.) Since Lady Jane Grey's claim to throne was based on heredity, a chart showing the relation between the late king and his heirs meets the criteria. The chart itself does not contain any extraneous information such as the ancestors of distant ancestors. On the other hand, how useful is a chart showing all Elizabeth II's great great grandparents? And why do we do this for royalty and nobility, but not commoners? The argument that titles are hereditary doesn't work, because we already have articles listing the holders of specific titles. TFD (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing some articles before or instead of others is not bias. What is relevant and important is determined by inclusion in or exclusion from reliable sources specializing in the subject (WP:PROPORTION). Surtsicna (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not a debate to include or not include every article's ancestry information, the ones that have been affected here are for major historical figures according to main stream scholarship, and the edit details given for removing them by this individual are concerning at times going into disturbing: see (Philip the Bold - Revision history) for a good example, "(Removing an unsourced and pointless chart. A chart that names irrelevant great-grandparents while failing to name essential relatives is simply useless)." In all of the ancestry trees removed during this person's edits it cites the "relevance" and "importance" of major historical figures in the edit details. This is not the main stream opinion (if people do not like looking at ancestry family trees for major historical figures then there are many alternative sites to go to online, but this website does not support fringe opinions and adheres to main stream conventions and norms). The fact that this was done (seemingly maliciously) all by a single individual in a number of these major historical figures' pages and not others, and considering this had been done for dozens upon dozens of them in recent months, amounts to a high degree of disregard for neutrality towards the subject in general and the individual articles' backgrounds in the edits in question. Please stop bringing up royal articles that have not been affected by this person's recent wave of edits, most of the royal article pages that did not include ancestry information prior to this were not considered to be as relevant historically, and this website's proportionality was widely looked at as quite appropriate with regards to this matter before this recent spree of concerning and frankly troubling edits.--JLavigne508 (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

"Disturbing", "maliciously", "vandalism", "trolling", and "defacing". Please do keep this going. No, people should not go to other websites to avoid being blasted with genealogy; there is a policy explicitly stating that Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. And once again, no, it is not the "main stream opinion" of historians/biographers that everyone's great-great-grandparents need be named. It is not "main stream opinion" of historians/biographers that Philip the Bold's great-great-grandparents need be named; absolutely no biography or reference work specializing in Philip or his family names them. Provide evidence for your assertion or drop it. Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The evidence is your edits and words, the bias is more than obvious. The fact that no one had noticed this until now (it was bound to be at some point), don't blame me for being the messenger. Nothing like this was done in the Plantagenet Dynasty articles or several others, while you targeted other ones. If it is a policy against genealogy, then you would have to remove the trees for those respective articles, and every other one included, otherwise, again, what you have done is a wide spread case of personal bias and violation of neutrality. I'll say again, please stop being rude. --JLavigne508 (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

At this point I suspect something must be off. No-one could seriously call another editor a malicious troll, a disturbing vandal, and then go on to say: "Please stop being rude." Surtsicna (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

You are either putting things or taking things out of context. I have never said the words "malicious troll" or "disturbing vandal" to anybody in my life never mind here lol, and yes, like the example cited above, I found a number of your edit details in this group concerning and a few down right disturbing, and also disturbing is that no one else noticed so many sections removed on this website. It doesn't matter if the intentions were good or bad, or somewhere in between as is often the case for people contributing, it doesn't matter, there is a good argument that articles were not the best served by your recent large amount of edits in this case. Nothing personal about it, if there was a harshness of tone perceived as such that was not my intention, and I will try to take heed of that, and likely was also due to myself being unfamiliar with the jargon here (difference between POV, vandalism, bias, etc.) I think a lot of the referred to edits could really have been given much more thought, my opinion, take with that what you will, it happens, and you felt you did not have to discuss the large amount of content you removed, so I am not going to just brush aside so many pages altered like that under any circumstances.

The argument for a consensus seems very weak (very limited scope, large amount of dissent, highly unorganized, very removed and isolated, unended conclusion, among others) and nor does it apply as this has been undertaken unilaterally and applied very biasly. I will point out one more time that all of the ancestry information on all of the existing biography articles will never be removed (literally impossible and nonsensical obviously), so all we can do is try to keep it as proportional and neutral as possible, which there is a VERY strong case that this exercise has undermined that on this site (if the intention was the opposite, I would strongly urge anyone to consider that). I'm sure the vast majority of people including yourself are smarter and/or more sane than me are you happy lol, but in the context of this site that is irrelevent anyway. I'm not calling anyone nor have I once called anyone on this website (or anywhere as far as I can remember, maybe I should more) stupid or crazy or whatever, that is not my business here. This is giving me a headache, but I have not switched over to another language's Wiki yet, and I'm confident in the system of this site and the state of it is what matters.--JLavigne508 (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say, put the limit at great-grandparents. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

These look like good removals, why would we allow different standards for regular and royal biographies? I would also note that these royal lineages are in general “polite” ones which often stray from the historic or scientific. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Horse Eye's Back. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yegods, the walls of text. Can no one in this dispute summarize briefly? JLavigne508, it doesn't matter what other wikis do, stop talking about that completely in this discussion or anywhere else. And your entire argument of 7:30 15 June could have been boiled down to "It's impossible to remove this stuff everywhere so we should just keep it and improve it." That's incorrect, to begin with, but my point is your entire two paragraphs could have been stated in 16 words so it should have been stated in 16 words. —valereee (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Why do we list all these relatives who are not WP:Notable? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Tether (cryptocurrency)#RFC about tone

There is an RfC at Talk:Tether (cryptocurrency)#RFC about tone concerning whether the lede (e.g. "Tether is a controversial crypto currency") and the article as a whole are written with an impartial tone. Additional views welcome. -DaxMoon (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

LBRY: "popular among members of the far-right"?

The wording in the lead of this article has been disputed. Original author, who appears to have a specific interest in content about right-wing extremism, has re-added the content back multiple times now, and the content remains. At this point, it seems to be an issue about consensus.

Disputed content in lead is as follows: "popular among members of the far-right." Brian Reading (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

"Original author, who appears to have a specific interest in content about right-wing extremism" here... As I've explained on the talk page, I restored the content while discussion was ongoing, and when discussion was apparently abandoned after acknowledgement that sources taking some other view apparently don't exist. As I also said there, I'm perfectly happy if it turns out that my opinion is overruled by consensus, but it seems to me that this is one of the more noteworthy things about LBRY, which otherwise does not enjoy a whole ton of coverage in reliable sources.

The New York Times, the Global Network on Extremism & Technology at The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, The Guardian (and The Hill, though this is largely based on The Guardian's reporting), and New Hampshire Public Radio all remark on the fact that LBRY platforms (namely Odysee) have become popular among the far-right/white supremacists/extremists. Those are four (or five, with The Hill) quality sources out of only twelve total reliable and independent sources used in the article (the rest are WP:ABOUTSELF citations and similar). MOS:LEAD instructs that The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

The arguments against inclusion appear to be that a) mentioning right-wing users on Odysee doesn't accurately reflect the coverage of the userbase, and b) there are left-wing users on Odysee. Brianreading himself acknowledged that a) is really just that it doesn't reflect what he believes coverage of the userbase should be, as he said "I do still hold the stance that there is an implication in the lead that its usage is dominated by far right political content and users, and that this is not factually true, but since no original research is allowed on Wikipedia, I will leave this issue be for now." As for argument b), this for one appears to be original research (I don't believe any existing sources in the article mention leftists, though one mentions apolitical channels), but also would not contradict the statement that the platform is popular among the far-right even if it was sourced. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page, but there needs to be a check to make sure this isn't cherry picking a few sources (even if they are high quality ones) by doing a source survey to determine where the language should fall and make sure we (as WP editors) aren't pushing the issue ourselves. To reiterate what I said there, a quick and dirty Google News search shows only 1% of the sources talking about the far right ties, but this doesn't consider the acceptability of sources (as numerous crypto works are among the hits), but if that 1% holds, then this is not a factor to be pushing into the lede no matter the weight of the journalism behind it - body of the article, yes. --Masem (t) 22:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

By all means, please do. I wrote most of the article and I included just about all the acceptable sourcing I can find, but if there's more out there I'd love to know of it. You're quite correct that many of the GHits are crypto blogs. Among those hits are also articles about unrelated topics that link to videos on Lbry/Odysee but don't have any value as a source, and a handful with very passing mentions of LBRY. There are also some sources in there that I explicitly avoided using: Media Matters for America (RSP entry), a press release, Reclaim the Net, etc. I do think twelve total sources is actually a fairly complete list of the available sourcing, as this is a relatively small platform even among alt-tech platforms. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Masem I disagree. If the highest quality sources we have all say something, but then the large preponderance of much lower-quality sources simply don't mention it, then it would be a misreading of WP:WEIGHT to suggest that the quality of sources shouldn't be taken into account. Depending on the quality of those sources, it may very well carry more weight than anything even mentioned universally in the lower-quality sources. That is a topic for discussion.

Bear in mind that it may very well be that those remaining 99% of sources have good reasons not to mention a recognizable political slant to the network's userbase. It would be entirely unsurprising to me if an outlet that focuses on crypto took a hard line approach to a "no politics in our articles" rule.

In any case, four reliable sources are plenty to establish the fact, and, as I mentioned, the fact's importance is also spoken to by the quality of the sources who deigned to mention it. Unless there are equally high-quality sources explicitly refuting it, it's not a contentious claim, and needs to be discussed with it in mind that this is just a rote fact about the network, not treated like a contentious claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are two quality sources that mention the content in a different sense. They are really easily found, so I'm not sure why they haven't popped-up yet:

• https://www.zdnet.com/article/blockchain-based-odysee-keeps-your-social-media-content-online
• https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/07/odysee-launch

One really important thing to note here is that the platform is really big among cryptocurrency enthusiasts, open source enthusiasts, and those who simply want an alternative to YouTube. It's weird to single-out only the content and users who use it only for political purposes. Brian Reading (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The TechCrunch source is citation #4 in the article, and one of the twelve I counted above. The ZDNet source looks to be a good one—it was only published a few months ago (after I finished most of my work on this article) which is probably why I didn't see it. I will look to see if it has usable content that can be added. I will note that my skim of it shows that it says, "There are concerns that far-right, or extremist content will find it has a permanent home on platforms such as Odysee, with little moderation or takedown." It's not a strong enough statement that I'd add it to the citation list in the lead, but it's disingenuous to suggest this is somehow a contradictory source. As for your comments about the platform's other users, this again is what I was talking about when I mention you appear to want to counterweight what reliable sources have published about LBRY with what you think reliable sources should be publishing about LBRY, which is not how WP:NPOV works. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

In order to suggest it is disingenuous, I think you'd need to know my intent. I'm simply showing that there are articles which discuss the content with far less importance placed on politics, and that it is at least one reason that its inclusion in the lead should be re-examined from the words that you've written there. Please don't try to frame my arguments here. My words are my own. Brian Reading (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

(To MPants) In a source survey, weight of source quality would play into that (eg: if you know how MetaCritic arrives at its aggregate score for films/etc., a similar concept would apply here: one NYTimes article likely would equate in weight to 2 or 3 articles from a more local newspaper, for example, in summing these up), so I'm not discounting that the fact the NYTimes and other high quality sources have stated that and that's going to be a major consideration. The level of detail also must be included (are the articles in-depth or just name dropping - name-dropping articles should be discounted in said survey). But, and purely hypothetical, after discounting all unusable sources, if it was still 10 high quality sources that included "right wing" to 500 usable sources that did not, that would still beg the question that focusing on "right wing" in the lede would be inappropriate but still a worthy article in the body. One also should consider if the same work uses the term over and over again. LBRY comes up twice in the NYTimes per gnews and only one time with "right wing" (though the other article is more a "what is blockchain?" explainer article and not quite sign coverage.) If it were the case that we have 5 NYtimes articles but only one of those mentioned "far right" with LBRY, that's probably a point in favor of keeping it out of the lede. A simple Gnews search result is not the end-all solution here, there's work to be done.

An issue here, and this is what I'm seeing common on the far-right spectrum, is that editors are coming in with the preconvienced conclusion "this is a right wing entity" and have a handful of appropriate sources to support that as to push the need to stress that point. That sourcing is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for inclusion at the lede level (but sufficient for the body) under NPOV - its why I stress that you have to make sure these are not cherry-picked sources, particularly for obscure entities. A source survey to show the label or similar factor is that wide-spread in the sources and not just used by a handful is critical. This of course all assumes this is just to talk about the characterization which has no other impact on the entity; if we were talking a situation like Parler where the app's far right nature is what got it in the news and in trouble with the app stores, then obviously that's going to be lede material regardless of what a source survey may say. --Masem (t) 23:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding An issue here, and this is what I'm seeing common on the far-right spectrum, is that editors are coming in with the preconvienced conclusion "this is a right wing entity" and have a handful of appropriate sources to support that as to push the need to stress that point: I created this article on January 29. It looked like this for quite some time (with no mention of "far-right" or anything else political in the lead). I didn't add anything about far-right users to the lead until May 31, after the publication of The Guardian, NHPR, and GNET sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking at least at the Guardian + NHPR sources, the issue even taking those at face value is that the lede addition (and the body too) is missing a good part of the story, in that it is the fact that it is the site's relatively unrestrictive content allowances (by design) that have drawn not only the far right to it but other groups like conspiracy theorist, extremists, etc, all in the wake of social media taking action against these groups and misinformation in late 2020. This certainly should be documented in the body, but it is a far more complex thought that needs more care for inclusion in the lede, assuming a source review deems its appropriate there. That is, simply focusing on "the site has drawn far-right" is missing the forest through the trees from a neutrality aspect - there's a larger story that needs to be told with that. Or alternately, because this is still a rather new site, RECENTISM applies - again, in the body, this is one of the reasons LBRY appears notable (but not the sole one) and so should be documented, but we should be cautious on giving it so much weight in the short term until we see how the site reacts to all this. --Masem (t) 04:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

We can certainly expand the article if you think anything is missing, although the things you mention (minimal moderation, a migration of users from social networks that cracked down post-Capitol attack) are already mentioned in the body. As for adding to the lead, I'm not against suggestions for what you think would be a more balanced representation of the sourcing, but I was largely trying to avoid more detail in the lead as I thought it would make the statement even more prominent in what is currently a pretty short introduction. Regarding recentism, LBRY is six years old. The company has already reacted to extremist content on their platform (see The Guardian). Certainly if they change their approach that ought to be incorporated, but I don't think this is a good argument to omit a prominent fact about the site from the lead. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Odysee part (video hosting) of LBRY is only 6-7 months old from last Dec, and that is what all the reactions are drawn to, not the other content backed by blockchain/crypto for the prior 6 years. That's why RECENTISM comes into play. That Guardian article is from May so we haven't yet seen LBRY yet fully implement anything (if they are), though we know how they stand (they aren't going to remove videos just because they have an extreme ideological POV, but will if they promote direct violence, etc.), and that's not well documented in the body (or at least, the way the article is structured, with "Content and Users" before "Moderation", the thoughts written out in the Guardian + NPR articles don't flow into the article well.) If something must go to the lede, it should be along the lines that "LBRY uses an open and libertarian approach to content moderation, which drew a high proportion of content from far-right, extremists, and conspiracy theorist users to its Odysee video hosting site from December 2020 onward, after other social media sites blocked the use of their services by these groups." or something along those lines. That captures a larger picture of the entire issue at hand, and not just the "the site has far right videos" which is too narrow a cut. --Masem (t) 15:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

LBRY has run media hosting sites on top of their blockchain technology under various names (spee.ch, then LBRY.tv and Odysee) since October 2017. Some of the sourcing is specific to Odysee but some (NYT, for example) is discussing LBRY's platform in general. That said, your recommendation around the organization makes sense to me. Something along the lines of your suggested lead sentence might also make sense, though I don't want to make any changes to the lead while this discussion is ongoing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Just my read into more sources, its not like this isn't wrong or inappropriate to include - ignoring the crypto sources (which are not reliable for the most part due to extensive COI problems), the primarily coverage of LBRY is from tech sites and then the recent post-Jan 6 spat of mainstream coverage. Its a situation similar to Discord (software) after the '17 Unite the Right rally - though there, Discord took steps to eliminate the use of its software by alt/far right groups and thus that association is not called out as a major factor (eg appropriate application of RECENTISM). But yes, assuming nothing changes to the site's moderation approach, just expanding to something like what I suggest would seem reasonable in the lede, though that's only a wording suggestion, there are ways to improve that. --Masem (t) 15:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• A notable feature of the site is its openness to extremist content that YouTube would remove. Section 3 of the main body describes this. The lead should summarize the article's content, so the well-sourced statement that the site is popular among the alt-right belongs in the lead; it is not undue. NightHeron (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • But does "extremist content" specifically mean "far-right" content? From what I understand, LBRY is open to all content (whether extreme or not), whether left or right, and not simply far-right wing content. Actual content is from the left, right, apolitical and government institutions (ex: The White House). Brian Reading (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    • does "extremist content" really mean "far right" content? - In the present time, yes, it does, and tbh assuming good faith with regard to a question like that is difficult. Also, I would like to remind everyone in this discussion, that the content in question is not political. Rallying people to commit acts of violence and terror as a means of achieving your ideological goals is not politics. Regarding left wing vs right wing: how many insurrections and attempted coups against the state have there been by leftists recently? Further, how many leftists have been publicly, on social media and elsewhere, been advocating violent takeovers of the state, targeted violence, etc, recently? So yes, at this time, "extremist content" is by and large limited to the far right. Sorry that the far left has let you down by failing to counter balance the far right with calls for violence and terror of their own, so we can say "both sides have...yada yada", but it just is the way it is. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Answering that question doesn't matter. We have reliable sources that say that LBRY hosts extremist content and far-right content, with at least some overlap between the two. Our article appropriately notes what the RS are saying, and the lead appropriately summarizes the article's contents. As suggested above, removal of the far-right descriptor is most likely if you find a selection of RS that reject the label or a large enough body of RS that omit mention of right-wing extremism that mention of it becomes undue. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @GorillaWarfare: It seems clear that you have an understanding of how these disputes are meant to be carried out that many of us are failing to grasp. Could you confirm that if we would provide a body of reliable sources that either reject or omit the far-right label, that this would substantiate our concerns that the inclusion places undue weight on a portion of the site's user base? I do appreciate you’ve taken a fair amount of abuse from other editors on this matter and respect that you’re doing the right thing in defending the formal procedures, though perhaps you can understand that many of the people engaging in this discussion are likely to be users of the platform themselves and feel the insistence has been on assigning them to an extremist group that they do not wish to be associated with. I may be willing to put some time in to see if this can’t be done in the proper manner but do I at least have some assurance that you’d be willing to work with me in order to come to a suitable arrangement?--Jorsh Wah (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @Jorsh Wah: Yes, I'm always happy to update articles if new sources come to light, and I imagine the other folks weighing in here would take it into consideration in their opinions as well. To be clear, I don't control this article in any way, and consensus in this discussion is what will determine whether the statement ought to be included in the lead.
        A source that doesn't mention far-right users on LBRY is not particularly useful as far as removing the information from the article (in the same way that a source that does not mention that the sky is blue does not contradict the fact that it is). However as Masem pointed out above, if there was a significant body of sources that didn't mention it when discussing LBRY, an argument could be made that including it in the lead was assigning it more weight than is appropriate. At the moment, five of thirteen sources about LBRY do mention the far-right/extremist users, which is a pretty significant proportion. Even five of twenty I would think would be a substantial proportion, so this is a tougher route. Reliable sources that contradict the statement that the platform is popular among far-right users would be considered more strongly, since at that point we would be balancing contradictory views and would want to either remove it in the lead or present it in a way that made it clear it had been questioned.
        If you need more details about what is or is not a reliable source, see WP:RS. You can search RSN to see if there have been past discussions on the reliability of a source, and commonly-discussed sources are listed at WP:RSP. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Amhara people

The original title was: Nature of Amhara ethnicity section was added to affect NPOV of the article, by including fringe statements and deliberate misattributions to give false perception of broader support.

• Cordless Larry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dawit S Gondaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello this is my first time using specialized noticeboards, and i was doubting whether this should have gone to the fringe noticeboard, so if this more suited to be in another Noticeboard, kindly move me there.

The discussion is about the Amhara people#Nature of Amhara ethnicity section which i believe was one of the section added to the Amhara people to negatively affect the NPOV and quality of the article and arguing for it's removal. You can see the discussion in at Talk:Amhara people, a User, and a adminstrator @Cordless Larry has added the most content in that section.

These are the diffs added by User: [[44]] & [[45]] & [[46]] & [[47]] & [[48]] & [[49]] & [[50]]

I have at depth explained on the talkpage each diff, what he misattributed to who, what text he altered/corrupted: a sizeable part of the contributions by the user are the views of Takelle Tadesse, an otherwise unknown author who made controversial statements including comparing Amharas to nazi's and has denied the existence of Amharas(a view held by a minority) post 1991 Ethiopia. User has attempted to give his view broader support by altering text of otherwise neutral author Gideon P.E Cohen creating perception he made the statement when it in fact Takelle Tadesse. He has several times misattributed statements to other authors including Donald Levine, an expert on Ethiopian studies.

I find mind boggeling to the level of synthesis, misattributions and extremist fringe this User/administrator went, it appears he has a obession with this article, and i'm also arguing to have his conduct on this article as a administrator be investigated. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I know something about this area and will take a peek. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou @TrangaBellam Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Dawit S Gondaria has recently posted a very long comment at Talk:Amhara people#Removal of nature of Amhara ethnicity section, a compilation/synthesis WP:OR contains and push fringe theory WP:Fringe that is outright offensive, supported by misquotes and misattributions adding to WP:RSP and WP:NPOV concerns, which I've not had time to read, let alone respond to. However, to address some points made above, I don't have an obsession with this article. I added material based on scholarly sources to the section concerned to try to address concerns that were expressed at Talk:Amhara people/Archive 1#Concerning the article "disputed ethnic classification of amhara. I'm surprised to read that I've "several times misattributed statements to other authors including Donald Levine, an expert on Ethiopian studies", as the material attributed to Levine was already in the article before I made additions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

As for "altering text of otherwise neutral author Gideon P.E Cohen creating perception he made the statement when it in fact Takelle Tadesse", I've checked what I added from Cohen, and it's a direct quote from an article he wrote. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The additions that I did make can be seen here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry You didn't mention Gideon P.E Cohen was expressing Takelle Tadesse view not his own, which is in the source and can be confirmed by everyone. You alterted the text in such a fashion that is misleading, and make it appear that it is Gideon P.E Cohen view, thus giving the appearance of broader support of what you are pushing.

●Text in the source, end of page 191 and begin of page 192 Full text: The question of whether the Amhara can legitimately be regarded as an ethnic group has also been raised, given their distribution throughout Ethiopia, and the incorporative capacity of the group that has led to the inclusion of individuals from a wide range of ethnic or linguistic backgrounds (see Takkele 1994; Tegegne 1998) ●What Cordless Larry added: Cohen, writing in 2000, there is some debate about "whether the Amhara can legitimately be regarded as an ethnic group...given their distribution throughout Ethiopia, and the incorporative capacity of the group that has led to the inclusion of individuals from a wide range of ethnic or linguistic backgrounds"..

References

As for Donald Levine, even if the text was there before, you reverted back and then added your addition without checking the source, and confirming whether Donald Levine actually made that quote which he didn't Encyclopeadia Aethiopia made a selective statement, put out of context from what Clapham(Not Levine) actually discussed in his 1969 book Haile Selassie government. Wy are you even a adminstrator if you can't even check the sources? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The words I used from Cohen are a direct quote, so they're appropriately attributed to Cohen. He cites Takkele and Tegegne as examples of participants in the debate he's describing. If you want to add that detail, that would be fine by me.

On Levine, being an administrator isn't conditional on having access to offline sources. If someone had pointed out a problem with it, I'd have gone to greater effort to find and check the source, but what I reverted was this removal, for which source concerns weren't mentioned. If the quote needs to be corrected or the attribution changed, that can of course be done.

How this all adds up to POV-pushing by me, I don't know, but I'll leave that for others to judge. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I've now seen and checked the Levine source, and here's what he writes: "Even so, Amharic-speaking Šäwans still feel themselves closer to non-Amharic-speaking Šäwans than to Amharic-speakers from distant regions like Gondär and there are few members of the Šäwan nobility who do not have Oromo ge­nealogical links (Clapham 1969:81)". So yes, he cites Clapham, but nonetheless the quote is from Levine. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry It makes a big difference by excluding Takelle Tadesse. ●Besides the controversial statements(comparison to nazi's, denial of existence) he made in 1994 at a debate, he is a nobody in Ethiopian studies(Prove me wrong). He is taking the centre stage in the fringe theory you are pushing, with the most statements pointing to him. It's points to POV-pushing by you, a administrator who don't second guess and cross check controversial inflamitory statements made by a nobody, Takelle Tadesse doesn't even publish material(or maybe you can find something)? His fringe(denial of Amhara existence) is a minority view held by post-1991, no credible non-political renowned authors deny the existence of which 20+ million people self-identify. and Takkele Tadesse inflamitory, comparison to nazi's is unacceptable. In no way is this a reliable impartial source. The way you framed the sentence by Gideon P.E Cohen and left out Takkele Tadesse(your most fav source) who view he was mentioning, makes it POV-pushing.

@The quote needs to be removed for one(as should the entire section), i explained in the talk page: that no comparison has been by Clapham between Amharas from Shewa & Amharas from distant regions from Gondar It was full of contradictions which i pointed out. It also makes a big difference that it was not a quote from Levine. In modern context, that statement would be viewed as a sick joke given the frequent episodes of violence that occur in Oromia against Amharas. In no other reliable sources do the make that comparison, and neither has Clapham. Encyclopediae Aethiopia gave no context and no examples, even with the genealogical links of the royal family, examples on page 7 were given that Galla's were ousted when they came close to controlling the throne. In page 81 there was a distinction made viewing the Shoan(Shewan) Amharas as invaders and settlers. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know who Takkele Tadesse is, Dawit S Gondaria. All I've added is based on academic sources that I found using Google Scholar. If any of the authors I've cited have been discredited or demonstrated to be fringe sources, then I'd happily remove them, but you'd need to provide evidence of that. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Re "It also makes a big difference that it was not a quote from Levine": It is a word-for-word quote of what Levine wrote in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica. The full quote is "Even so, Amharic-speaking Šäwans still feel themselves closer to non-Amharic-speaking Šäwans than to Amharic-speakers from distant regions like Gondär and there are few members of the Šäwan nobility who do not have Oromo ge­nealogical links (Clapham 1969:81)", and you can check that for yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Content from Encyclopedia Aethiopica page 231: The district of Manz became the cen�tre for the development of a political dynasty culminating in Negus Sahla Sellase (1813-47) and

Emperor Menelik II (s. Levine 1965:30- 38). Over time the term A. came to be applied to a wider range of people, although the meanings of that appellation have varied . In some contexts it denotes a native Amharic speaker; in others, a Christian; in some instances, it has denoted a member of the ruling nobility (Chernetsov 1995). Most of those so labelled, however, have tended to identify themselves, not as ethnic A., but as denizens of local regions - Goggame, Gondare, Manze and the like. Royal chronicles of the 14th-18th century, consistentl y refer to A. onl y as a geographic region in Wallo, never as an ethnic name, and the same is true of Christian and Muslim annals up through the 19th century(Chernetsov 1995:20f.) . Only in the last quarter of the 20th century has the term A. come to be a common ethnic appellation, comparable to the way in which Oromo has become generalized to cover peoples who long knew themselves pri�maril y as Boorana (Borana), Guggi, Macca and the like. Even so, Amharic-speaking Sawans still feel themselves closer to non-Amharic-speaking Sawans than to Amharic-speakers from distant regions like Gondar and there are few members of the Sawan nobility who do not have Oromo ge�nealogical links (Clapham 1969:81). ●@Cordless Larry Again Wrongly attributed to Donald Levine Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: Please don't WP:SHOUT. We can hear you. –Austronesier (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

All of that is written by Levine. He's the author of that entry in the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, hence why his name appears at the end of the entry on p. 232. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Takelle Tadesse author you say? What did he publish, share it? Takelle Tadesse fringe theory: Denial of Amhara existence. ●I answered on the talk page. During the first millenium A.D. the inhabitants of Amhara were Agew peoples who developed a distinct South-Ethio Semetic tongue, Amarinna or Amharic.. Under the kings of Amhara, as Yikunno Amlak and his succesors were called by contemporary Arab writers, the Amhara sphere of influence expanded considerably. Besides his fringe statement, he makes nazi comparison. How is that NPOV? Takelle Tadesse is rememberd for one debate where he made history with his controversial remarks. I'm eager to see what you can find on Google Scholar.

It makes a big difference, just like how you didn't mention Takkele Tadesse when attributing to Gideon P.E Cohen. It narrows down it's support to the source. Clapham's quote from 1969 citing by Levine, is full of contradictions, namely which i already mentioned that Oromo saw Shoan Amharas as invaders and settlers, and Clapham gave no examples of who in the nobility have Galla blood, except for some members in the Royal on page 78, who were ousted when they came close to controlling the throne. I also said that there's no other reliable sources that compare Shoan Amharas ties with Shoan Oromos as being closer than to Amharas from distant regions. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't cite Tadesse or Clapham; Cohen and Levine did (N.B. Levine doesn't quote Clapham, just cites him). If you have a problem with Cohen and Levine's use of sources, you'll need to take it up with them. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Cordless Larry That is a lame excuse Example: if i added French-Canadians are nazi's and French-Canadians don't exist citing a author who cited a controversial remarks by someone with dubious credibility. I can basically make the same lame execus as you did and say i didn't cite that guy, but Cohen did, take it up with them. So is that how Wikipedia works? So basically i can indirectly add controversial views if authors mentions controversial remarks by someone less credible? I just have to basically do what you did at the beginning, and attribute it to the reliable authors, and very important detail; not mention them citing the source of the controversial remarks. I learned a lot of how you do things admin. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by summarising reliable sources, which Cohen's article and Levine's encyclopedia entry would seem to qualify as. If you've got other sources that show that Cohen and Levine are wrong, then please do present them (though note that Cohen isn't even necessarily agreeing with Takkele and Tegegne, just citing them as examples of the debate that he's saying exists). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Note to anyone reading this: Dawit S Gondaria has been editing the wording of their comments after I've replied to them, so if anything in my replies doesn't make sense, that might be why. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Neglible rephrasing, see the diffs. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: I'm inviting editors from other Noticeboards, to cross check on issue's like fringe and reliable sources. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry Reliability depends on context, which is lacking when you addedd Clapham's 1969 quote: "Amharic-speaking Shewans consider themselves closer to non-Amharic-speaking Shewans than to Amharic-speakers from distant regions like Gondar and you recently expanded with [[51]] but left out what followed in page 81, which is At least in Shoa where the process of assimilation has gone the furthest, it's therefore impossible to make any clear division between the two groups, though the actual effectiveness of the process can only be gauged in time of crises. Age matters in a reliable source, this is inaccurate, because divisions are very clear. I said earlier In modern context, that statement would be viewed as a sick joke given the intercommunal violence between Amharas and Oromos in Shewa(both in Oromia's side of Shewa, and Amhara side of Shewa, also administrative division) Now if you don't care about the modern context and the clear divisions and violence. Surely you can establish a majority view with more reliable sources that are also recent; that Amharas in Shewa & Oromos in Shewa feel closer to each other than to Amharas from distant regions? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

As I've already explained, that's a quote from Levine, not Clapham. Levine cites Clapham for support, but the words are Levine's, not Clapham's. I also didn't add the quote to the article - another editor did. Your inability or unwillingness to accept this is verging on a WP:CIR issue.

If you think more material from Levine should be added, then the place to propose that would be the article's talk page, not the NPOV noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@(talk) WP:R [[52]] like the policy say the original source mattters, age matters & context definitely matters. Please remain civil, and stop dodging what i asked. WP:CIR is uncalled for, you reverted it back and kept the controversial section, and now we are here scrutinizing everything about it. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No, Levine isn't quoting Clapham. See here; there are no quote marks. I think you're confusing citing an author with quoting an author. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Dawit S Gondaria, please stop editing your comments after I've replied to them to cover up your mistakes, per WP:TALK#REPLIED. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

References

My mistake it's still early. Your newest addition did quote Clapham[[53]], nevertheles, any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material from Levine, your earlier addition, which is supported by the same Clapham, where you quoted your latest addition however, should rely on a secondary source. All i'm asking is for the claim to be backed. Levine is citing Clapham the original source, what did he say? I elaborated that. Again WP:RS, original source matters, age matters and context definitely matters. Stop dodging what i asked, and back the claim. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't quote Clapham. I corrected and expanded the quote from Levine and clarified that he's drawing on Clapham's work, which is very clear from the diff. Sorry, I'm not going to engage here any more unless other editors have questions for me, given your continued misrepresentations of my actions. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@(talk) I'm not covering up anything, i acknowledged my mistake and mixed up where you are quoting Clapham in your newest addition and your earlier addition where Levine cites Clapham in the original source. It's still fundamentally doesn't change what i'm asking for, what i elaborated, and what policies i'm referring FYI, in your newest addition is not Levine's own words anymore, it's exactly the words of Clapham on page 81 these words: and there are few members of the Shoan nobility who have no Galla blood. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation: my addition doesn't use the word "blood", so it can't be those exact words. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk) It all comes down to you not wanting to go to the original source. besides the word blood It's crystal clear what part Levine is citing from Clapham in the your addition [[54]] but your earlier addition or what you reverted; "Amharic-speaking Shewans consider themselves closer to non-Amharic-speaking Shewans than to Amharic-speakers from distant regions like Gondar is not clear, and this is what i extensively elaborated about, to see this claim backed, it's accuracy and context scrutinized WP:RS, and i'm certain you understand that's where i was going with this. What i don't understand is why want to avoid this. Any other editors input is welcome. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@ You reverted this [[55]] "Amharic-speaking Shewans consider themselves closer to non-Amharic-speaking Shewans than to Amharic-speakers from distant regions like Gondar this is what i have challenged for it's reliability and it's context which is why you can't go around original source to determine it accuracy.WP:RS I made strong arguments for the inaccuracy of the statement due to age, and not in line with modern context backed with sources. I asked you to support what you reverted/added with reliable recent sources backing the claim; "Amharic-speaking Shewans consider themselves closer to non-Amharic-speaking Shewans than to Amharic-speakers from distant regions like Gondar. If you're not backing the claim , then i'm removing it from the section. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I reverted to the consensus version of the article pending discussion on its talk page, which is standard practice per WP:BRD. Discussion took place but no one mentioned these concerns you're now raising. You raised the concerns on the article talk page yesterday, and then before I could even read your comments, you opened a case here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

And you've now removed words from the middle of a quote from Levine, thus turning it into a misquote. I've reverted that. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry What discussion? I went through the diffs, and it looks to me the Amhara people page is deliberatly made non NPOV with catchy controversial sections such as Social stratification & Nature of Amhara ethnicity with a select few adding or reverting the controversial content, chief among them you. as the diffs has shown. I want to focus on Nature of Amhara ethnicity for it's obvious inclusion of several fringe minority statements from(Takelle Tadesse) either directly or indirectly cited, such as by Gideon P.E Cohen which you added, and the problem is in what you left out from his statement, which i said on the talk page & here. You left out words, you alsof left out he was citing Takelle Tadesse, which gave the false appearance of broader support of the fringe you are maintaining. I took issue with the unsubstantiated one liner: "Amharic-speaking Shewans consider themselves closer to non-Amharic-speaking Shewans than to Amharic-speakers from distant regions like Gondar [[56]] for which you are trying to defend by expanding the quote [[57]] & [[58]] from Levine based on Clapham, i extensively elaborated about this inaccurate (now partial quote) which you reverted [[59]] citing [[60]] issue with reliability and context for which original source Clapham shouldn't be avoided to determine accuracy. I gave examples how that (now partial quote) would be inaccurate In modern context, and would be viewed as a sick joke, i cited WP:RS age and context of which Levine is basing it original source Clapham on and i challenged you and asked you to substantiate your (now partial quote) with recent reliable sources that support the claim(now partial quote): "Amharic-speaking Shewans consider themselves closer to non-Amharic-speaking Shewans than to Amharic-speakers from distant regions like Gondar. If this is truly accurate you can easily substantiate that by adding reliable recente sources. Please stop avoiding this. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm relatively new on Wikipedia, and may have made some policy errors(if it is one) like not waiting long enough for Cordless Larry to reply on talk page, but i saw clear NPOV and clear fringe issue's on the article in two sections; i went through the diffs, i went through the sources and made my case. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm coming a bit late into this discussion, and I'm not sure that I can provide anything useful beyond what Cordless Larry already presented here. He patiently explained his edits, not holding anything back, and it is clear that his edits are fully in line with Wikipedia's rules. The text in the diff says <<According to Gideon P. E. Cohen, there is some debate about "whether the Amhara can legitimately be regarded as an ethnic group...">>. He gives the correct citation in which Cohen indeed reports on this debate, citing his own sources. Here in this discussion Cordless Larry gave us the full text of what Cohen wrote, proving to us that he did not misquote Cohen (and no, it is usually not necessary to quote the sources that the author of a secondary source used). Dawit S Gondaria, please note and accept that Cordless Larry with no word indicated that he himself believes or doesn't believe whether Amharas have had an ethnic identity before 1991. He just gives us a source that proves that this identity has been under discussion, as his diff states. Let me also advise you that expressions like "pushing POV" and "extremist fringe" in situations where this is clearly not the case display a clear assumption of bad faith in an editor whose conduct in all instances I have seen so far has been beyond reproach, particularly also in this situation. This choice of words is not going to help you to win any support in this discussion. You are not going to gain anything by a continuation of these baseless accusations which are rather a testimony of your lack of understanding how sources are used in academia and on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I believe that you are not giving Takkele Taddese enough credit when you denigrate him as a nobody. He was active as a sociolinguist during the 1980s and 1990s, and produced publications such as this and this. Addis Ababa University certainly deemed him qualified enough to publish his writings. LandLing 22:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all i want to note that LandLing is not a uninvolved editor, and has made his own additions to the controversial sections. I tend to focus on @Cordless Larry because most of the reverted/added edits come from him. ● Correction: The diff [[61]] says: According to Gideon P. E. Cohen, there is some debate about "whether the Amhara can legitimately be regarded as an ethnic group...given their distribution throughout Ethiopia, and the incorporative capacity of the group that has led to the inclusion of individuals from a wide range of ethnic or linguistic backgrounds". The source says: The question of whether the Amhara can legitimately be regarded as an ethnic group has also been raised, given their distribution throughout Ethiopia, and the incorporative capacity of the group that has led to the inclusion of individuals from a wide range of ethnic or linguistic backgrounds (see Takkele 1994; Tegegne 1998) The problem: Is the way Cordless Larry phrased his edit, 1. He left out that he was citing Takkele Tadesse, and 2. He added According to, for anyone reading and not checking the source, you would think(i sure did, before checking the source) that implies there's a broader support namely from Gideeon P.E Cohen, which is not the case he was only mentioning Takkele Tadesse(most of the fringe comes from him in the section) I take issue with this because from what Cordless Larry left out from the source, made it look like he misattributed the view to Gideon P.E Cohen, a neutral source and gave false impression of broader support.

@LandLing As for Takkele Tadesse, frist of all i want to commend you finding anything about him at all. It doesn't change that the most fringe in the section are his controversial statements, not from a publication but from a debate from a congress in 1994. How is that reliable? ●Context Following the introduction of ethnic federalism in Ethiopia, Donald Levine added a preface in his 2000 edition discussing this. On page xviii he stated; From Marxism they salvaged only the Stalinist principle (which of course was never respected in the USSR) of self-determination up to seccession. The new ideology of Ethiopia was to view it as consisting of an aggregation of numerous ethnic liberation movements. In order to promote this ideology, its supporters had to find an oppressor from whom the various ethnic groups had to be liberated, and they found it in the image of the wicked Amhara. This was the political climate of Ethiopia post 1991, when Amharas lost power and were persecuted by the new regime. Takkele Tadess from Addis Abeba University with his fringe and inflamitory statements made at a Congress rightly should rightly categorized as fringe and unreliable. It's hard to shore up the credibility of otherwise a phantom proffesor(though his fringe views is affecting NPOV of Amhara people article today). Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)