Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States". This echoes the Declaration of Independence. "One people" dissolved their connection with another,[clarification needed] and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity".[1][disputed – discuss]
Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States", echoing the Declaration of Independence in its claim to speak for all Americans.[2][1][3] The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold: "to form a more perfect Union" and to "secure the blessings of liberty",[1] though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I.[4][5]
Penlite and Dhtwiki have rejected this proposal because one of the cited sources is biased, but I don't think that should be grounds for rejection, especially when it's not the only source for the information. Looking for an outsider well-versed in Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines to weigh in. — Freoh19:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the article but isn't this really a question about sourcing? And about interpretation rather than presentation? They don't seem that much different except for the part at the end of the second one. If that part is common in reliable sources I don't see a problem in including it. I guess that part is interpretation rather than merely conveying only what it says. Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Everybody says POV when they don't like something, but NPOV is ultimately a question of what's in the sources, isn't it? On balance. I was trying to figure out what the request is really about, if it is "just" a content dispute between several editors and it can't be sorted out, then maybe an RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. To be honest, I'm also trying to figure out what the request is really about. I was trying to understand Penlite's NPOV rationale, but he disengaged before we could reach a consensus. I'll post an RfC if people here think that this isn't a neutrality issue. Thanks! — Freoh21:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The "biased" source must be Howard Zinn's book, although Freoh doesn't make that clear. That's not the only basis for objecting. In Freoh's version, such phrases as "in its claim to speak for all Americans" and "though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I" spend a lot of time pointing out how hypocritical the preamble seems to people today, which should be understood or deserves a separate article. Also, the proposed version, while admirably concise in some respects, leaves off the helpful demonstration of the need for "a more perfect Union" arising from the flawed "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The end of the proposed change/version sounds like a POV created angle rather than straightforward coverage of the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by a POV created angle? Are you saying that the contradiction between liberty and slavery is just an opinion? How would you prefer to word it? — Freoh23:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Freoh: Essentially, yes. Whether it's a justified opinion is irrelevant. No one gets to add one specific viewpoint about the failings of the Constitution to the lead. To give you an example that I hope makes the issue clear: imagine if a conservative user added "though this contradicts the legal restrictions on the right to bear arms" and then cited something like Kopel, Gallant, Eisen. Human Rights and Gun Confiscation. Obviously that would be inappropriate, right? I would oppose that change, and I oppose this one for the same reasons. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not trying to add it to the lead, and I don't understand the comparison. Your example is about legislation that arguably acts against constitutional principles. I'm talking about a contradiction (between liberty and slavery) solely within the U.S. Constitution, one which reliable sources describe directly as a contradiction. Isn't this within the scope of the article? — Freoh09:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe the answer is to think of it as two separate sections (I am intentionally not visiting the actual article), the first section would be the presentation of what it actually says (per sources/quotes) and a second section devoted to interpretation/implications etc (also per sources and respecting DUE), I am sure the slavery thing is not the only issue and if it is, then there ought to be sources saying that, apart from that, everything else is rosy. Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, @Freoh: What issues remain for the Preamble sub-section? As I just posted on your Talk page, I'm still fine tuning the wording and may add another thought or two but nothing major. Others are of course welcome to pitch in, including changes to what I've written.
I wholeheartedly agree with @North8000 on the need for "straightforward coverage", which to me means focusing on mainstream secondary sources. To that I'll add that our "filter" should also be the needs of our audience. IOW, we're not helping anyone if we belabor details that are well-sourced but go beyond the scope of why people come here to learn.
On that last point: The sub-sections on the Constitution's Articles that follow are under-sourced. While I think the basic information outlined is good, in the interest of readers, that's not true of the forays in constitutional law and the attendant history. IMO such discussions belong elsewhere, either in another article or a separate section. Allreet (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Freoh: I've added sources to supplement the existing Congressional Research Service sources you dispute. On further reflection, I disagree that the Service's published statements constitute a Conflict of Interest, though I have no problem providing more sources. In any case, as best as I can tell, WP:COI does not apply here.
Meanwhile, you've added the same footnote to the word "liberty" in two places in the Preamble subsection with citations linked to Critical Race Theory sources. This seems to be Citation Overkill so one of the two needs to be removed. Allreet (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Freoh: What is your rationale for applying the same footnote to the same word in multiple places? To quote David Byrne, "Say something once. Why say it again?"
And as I've requested before, please ping me when replying to my comments. It's a requirement of the noticeboard (see the guidelines at the top) and it's good form on regular talk pages as well. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking that it could be useful to put it in both places because the context is different (one in a quote, the other in wikivoice), but you can remove the second one if you'd like. — Freoh22:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The first doesn't belong in the quote. You've soiled it. Affected people's reading experience by interrupting it with your political POV.
The second may just be a first in publication history. Publishing the same explanatory note twice for the same word in the same section.
The quote, the most iconic passage of the Constitution, should stand on its own without interruption so that people can read it on their own, entertain their own thoughts, and reach their own conclusions. That's not possible with a note in the middle of the quote, one that introduces a political theory of a highly controversial nature. That's going to stop most readers in their tracks, even those who are amenable to those views, myself included. That should answer both your questions. Allreet (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
How does the current version make it impossible for people to read it on their own, entertain their own thoughts, and reach their own conclusions? Wikipedia guidelines encourage us to favor secondary sources over primary sources, and I still don't see evidence that anything I added is highly controversial. — Freoh19:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
You're in the middle of a dispute over neutrality, and your use of sources has been questioned. Then you apply a source on a controversial theory to one of the least contentious sections of the Constitution. Would you think it innocent if someone did the same to Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Or that this is "neutrally presenting" the Preamble? I think this is disingenuous. Allreet (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the question is more WP:DUE than WP:NPOV. Is this something that comes up immediately when one starts looking for information on the Preamble, or it is more of something that some observers/analysts note? If it is not a prevailing observation, it should not be in the first paragraph, but should be given DUE weight in the body of the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Answering the question put to me, the statements in the constitution are general and need context (including the norms of the time) to know their intended meaning, and also include even more general goals (e.g. liberty) . You can interpret ANY power given to the government over people as a conflict with the goal of liberty. Also you can interpret allowance of any forcing by one individual over another as a conflict with the goal of liberty. Criticizing it as self-conflicting based on such thought processes is a POV argument rather than straightforward coverage of the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Whether any part of the Preamble is widely criticized for a contradiction is the relevant thing here. The lede should reflect the prevailing summary/context of the Preamble. If when looking for information on the Preamble one immediately runs into observations of some contradiction in stated goals, then that would be relevant for the opening paragraph here. If not, it should be given WP:DUE weight in the body of the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
^Collier, Christopher (1987). Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. James Lincoln Collier (reprint ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. p. 103. ISBN0-345-34652-1. OCLC16382999.
Freoh: Early on, in the second of three discussions related to Neutrality on the Constitution's Talk page, your use of Critical Race Theory and far-left sources was called into question as potentially violating WP:NPOV as was your proposed edit. Now you've done exactly the same thing in terms of text and sources with a footnote you've added in the Preamble section.
In the article's Preamble section, a footnote was inserted in the middle of a direct quote of the Preamble questioning the word "liberty" because Article I of the Constitution originally protected slavery.
Thanks for the reply. Actually, two discussions are going on, here and on the Talk page. Yes, it needs to be consolidated and the latter would be the place to do that. However, everyone else seems to have lost interest and something else may need to be done to garner consensus. Allreet (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Do readers need disclaimers warning them that they're about to be linked to unreliable tweets? (Twitter Files)
No. Taking that we expect editors to be competent, they can see the target of a link before clicking on it. And I would think it is not our place to necessarily say the links are not reliable at the point they are being clicks, particularly in the case of the Twitter Files, as they are a mix of truth (actual messages from past Twitter employees) and poor interpretation of what they mean.
If we start to do that for that, I can see us being dogpiled to do the same for opinion sources and the like. I think its better to just make sure the prose around the links to be clear what's going on. Masem (t) 03:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
?? I posted the two notifications at the same time. How could I be looking for a different outcome? WP:ELN is probably more strictly relevant, but ELN is quite low traffic, and since it is also an NPOV issue, I posted it to both noticeboards. It's quite normal to advertise for participation at RfCs and other such discussions at more than one location. Endwise (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
We're talking about many links all to unreliable sources many pushing conspiratorial political and medical claims. And the section head here is incorrect. They are links to biased commentary reading things into cherry-picked, internal conversations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Reliability is the wrong issue… in this case, the tweets are being linked as primary sources simply so readers can see the text of the original tweets - the subject of the article - in their original form. Linking to the tweets themselves is the MOST reliable way to do so.
Let me give an extreme example of a similar situation: in our article about Adolph Hitler’s book “Mein Kamph”, we might include a link to a scanned copy of that book (so readers can see what Hitler said in his own words). Now, we can certainly debate whether doing so is appropriate (or not)… but, if we do include it, then we want to do so directly, and NOT via a secondary source discussing that book. We want to take the middle-man out of the equation. The most reliable link is to the original.
So… We can debate the reasons why we should/should not include links to the original tweets but, in this situation, reliability is not one of those reasons. The most reliable link to ANY text is a link to the original text itself. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
These are NOT the original text in context. They are snipped pieces of corporate conversations. That is, edited. And. conspiratorial commentary has been added which is demonstrably false. This is more like taking small pieces of Mein Kampf out of context to make Hitler look like a sweet guy who just wanted to improve life. Remember the bulletin boards in Germany showing happy Jewish families in the relocation “communities”? Sorry, you brought up Hitler I'll say it again, "take the text out of context and you are left with a con." O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I disagree… The “Twitter files” refers to a selected group of tweets… those presented (and edited) by Elon Musk. In other words… the subject of the article isn’t the internal communications, but rather MUSK’s tweets about selected internal communications at Twitter. His exposé. So the original text is whatever MUSK tweeted. That is what we are linking to. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
If the section ahead of the table of links actually went to explain, using RSes to back this up, that the Twitter Files are a specific narrow slice of the company's communication that appear selected to push a certain message, putting that in prose above the table, then you don't need to have the additional warning - you're using RSes to explain the caution readers should take on reading further. Masem (t) 17:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually, as I've read, Musk only sent the various journalists the slices of communications and let the journalists write the narrative around it (likely with Musk's prodding at the implications). Musk talked about the tweets but did not actually reveal directly any "Twitter Files" himself, just advertised the published articles about the tweets when they came out and answered questions related to them from others. Masem (t) 17:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The info box points to the files. Why do we need 18 links (and growing) to twitter conspiracy threads with misleading titles? This isn't neutral or RS. We are in the business of information based on reliable secondary sources, not misinformation directed by one man supposedly gleaned from communications we (and reliable sources) are not allowed to see. Otherwise, we are simply aiding claims the FBI paid off Twitter, Twitter conspired with the government to block Covid information, (he also suggested Dr. Fauuci be prosecuted), Russia didn't interfere with our elections, etc. Reliable sources have not done this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
There's no requirement to have a link in the infobox, since there's actually no single website that published the original stories. That would leave a section with appropriate prose warning that the information should not be taken as fact.
But that said, we do not put warnings about links to other organizations or websites which may have unreliable information when there is an actual existing website (eg take Alliance Defending Freedom as an example). If you make a starting point here, you create the slippery slope to apply everywhere, where it is better to establish why information provided by an EL may be questionable as determined by other RSes in the surrounding prose, and trust our readers are not taking these links in absence of the prose. Masem (t) 18:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
There is already a link in the infobox to a compendium of these links. The "surrounding prose" included "Russiagate lies", "Twitter, the FBI Subsidiary" with no explanation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I see nothing on our prose about that. Our surrounding prose in the lede next to the infobox is clear that the Twitter Files are very questionable about being legitimate. Masem (t) 19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
It was at the very bottom, past the reflist and nowhere near our prose. That's why I felt it needed a warning. It has been removed during discussion. Here's a version before the removal:[1]O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, so we're talking the actual titles of the published TF pieces. Which would be inappropriate to outright remove if the links were kept as those titles are part of the proper referencing for the links. But the prose that I was suggesting to be included prior to the table, to be clear that these are the original published stories but which are considered to be improper interpretation of the various events claimed to be described, would be the included prose to warn the reader w/o the need for a special warning box. Masem (t) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The compromise suggested (and rejected) was to change the warning box to an info box. It needs to stand out considering the length (which was continuing to increase). In any case, I don't think this increasing table belongs anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Prose ahead of the table would be sufficient as a warning/notice that the links in the table are the original published stories and should be taken as questionable. Masem (t) 20:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, everything about the both the titles and conclusions should be taken as wild conspiracy theories based on secret communications that reliable sources have not been allowed to see. I simply don't understand why an encyclopedia would link to such. Should we start linking to StormFront posts? Isn't the infobox link enough? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
To me, if we have an article about a specific article or articles from a source we'd normalky call unreliable but otherwise accessible, it is silly to not link to the specific stories, as to help readers that are furthering research on it. Of course, I would make sure that the reader is well aware of the RS view of the works, and common sense that by linking them in the context of discussing them directly that we are not necessarily promoting or supporting the material.
If we were talking an organization like Stormfrint or Libs of TikTok, where the story is on their general practice and not any one specific article, then it doesn't make sense to link to any specific article they have published. Masem (t) 14:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Not only are the readers unaware, some of the editors adding these are unaware. One states these "prove" FBI collusion with Twitter (indeed paying Twitter) to hide information from the public. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
If an article is explicitly about a publication (whether it is a book, website, newspaper article, et cetera) a link to the publication is warranted as an external link. The specific example you're trying to use as a reductio ad absurdumis linked in its article: Stormfront (website) links to the hellhole in question right in the infobox. The Unabomber Manifesto, famously written by a murderer as an exhortation to overthrow civilization, has a link to Industrial Society and Its Future, hosted on the Washington Post's website, in the external links section. Mein Kampf has no less than eight links to different versions and translations. So does The Communist Manifesto – plus a link to a Wikisource page of the entire thing. It is hard to overstate how firmly our policies stand on the side of allowing readers to access the materials that we write articles about: it's the way an encyclopedia works. The singular exception I'm aware of is the now-defunct 8chan, where if I recall correctly the external link was removed due to the fact that people regularly spammed it with child pornography which would show up on the main page if you went there, i.e. the link was literally against the law to click. That is not the situation here. jp×g08:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I wish another example was used other than Mein Kampf. It is a supposed B-class article with more than one inline citation tag and at least 15 entries in the "External links". But thanks anyway, -- Otr500 (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to flag this article for a few eyeballs. We had a bunch of discussions and an RFC on this a few months ago. At issue is whether trickle-down economics is a term of political art, or an economic one, or both, or neither, and whether the article as written is balanced. Andre🚐00:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Balance is not really the problem. A mess of incoherence is. I moved content to a more appropriate heading that already exists on the article. A revert of an edit that only moves content to start organizing the article is not helpful. Are you objecting to even moving the existing content to be near like content? This is a little twilight zone for me right now. I didn't expect to get SLAPPed. At least, not right away. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
It's impossible to comment without a description of what changes you made and what improvement you were trying to make with them. SPECIFICOtalk01:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, there's a ton of repeated arguments on the talk page, going back years. A lot of what I'd like to do has already been discussed a great length, but it seems a small minority keep reverting everything.
Bare with me while I learn this platform, my edit is here. I did remove an emphasis on "US Republicans", sorry for forgetting that. IMO, it's a little outside what I'd call NPOV and doesn't seem to add to the information quality of the article. It's small, so I don't really want to argue over that.
The larger change I made was moving some content from the lead in to a heading called Usage that already exists. I don't see how that particular content is any different than the other content in the usage heading. I think any typical reader would find the article overall confusing, rather than clarifying. I think reorganizing the existing content is the clear place to start. At the moment, it's kind of just splattered in there. Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
It is rather a lot of waffle with little meat. The mathematics clearly indicates that in a straightforward economy the money will go up and an oligarchy will form without needing any encouragement from the government never mind any trickle down encouragement. Taxes are needed to offset the strong drift. That's the state of the US at the moment where more than 12% of people would still owe money if they went on the street and sold their clothes and 30% of the wealth is owned by some varnishing percent of the population. NadVolum (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Quoting from WP:not a dictionary: "In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped, seen or renamed. In such cases, coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such. The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the "lens" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia." In this case it's a pejorative term for the concept that a rising economy (on average) lifts all. So, IMO, the article should only be about the term and rely on the coverage of the economic concept elsewhere. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
You're making the assumption here that trickle down economics makes the country richer. I guess on the basis that the US is rich on average and taking care of its citizens is counted as socialism and next door to communism. However there are other countries in the world to compare with, ones with nowhere near so much in the way of natural resources per person, and yet for instance comparing the US to Denmark for instance they are close on GDP per person and yet Denmark has one of the lowest levels of income disparity and a very high level of happiness and the US one of the highest in disparity and is rent by viscious struggles where all reason has gone out the window. Trickle down is not the same as making the country richer. NadVolum (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure he is making that assumption. If I'm reading his comment correctly, he is saying that this is a term being used about a set of policies that are discussed elsewhere on Wiki. I would agree with that assessment.
To the extent there is a NPOV problem on this page, I would suggest that it is arising because this article is currently structured as if "Trickle-Down" was an economic theory with data and models to be discussed rather than as shorthand largely used by politicians and the media. As noted by multiple editors on the talk page, this article should be closer to Tax and spend, Social justice warrior, Anchor baby, or Gay agenda. These are colloquial terms used in reference to other peoples' views or positions. They are not synonymous with those positions and are often contradictory in application.
As such, the article should be structured a la those pages, discussing primarily the usage of the term historically and linking to pages as appropriate to discuss the merits/demerits of any specific policy being referenced. There has been overwhelming consensus on the talk page going back for a year at least on this. Progress has largely been stifled by one or two editors who have dug in their feet, but who have generally not been willing to discuss it on the talk page. It is a long read, but a perusal can find pretty quickly a WP:OWN mentality and the rebuttal "I don't agree so you don't have consensus, no explanation needed." This page will remain the target of every random IP looking to grind an ax until it is reshaped away from being a WP:FORUM and into an encyclopedic article. Squatch347 (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the notion that "a rising economy (on average) lifts all" is a false assumption designed to make the (journalistic short-hand phrase) trickle-down "theory" more palatable to the unschooled masses. Since it is not at all proven that there is an improved well-being for "all" when a few benefit, this should not be part of the discussion. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
If trickle down is to be regarded as 'pejorative' and avoided, then what non-perjorative term should be used for the concept that giving the rich more in proportion or making most people poorer will grow the economy or that it will be good for most people? NadVolum (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Can we please keep this discussion to the article and stop with the amateur economist analysis as to whether TDE is 'right' or 'wrong'? For my part i agree with User:Squatch347 'trickle-down' is not a scientific term or one used in a meaningful sense in economics. Rather it is a colloquialism used by the media et al. Bonewah (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't call TDE an economic theory as such and in the hands of politicos, even less so. I think it might be better referred to as (a) trickle down theory, a phrasing that extends beyond economics. I seem to recall a time when it was thought of as a good thing (in theory, the idea of it) rather than implying a criticism. Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but "Trickle down economics" as a pejorative term for anti-interventionist, laissez-faire, and subsidies for the investment classes has existed since the 1930s; I think Will Rogers is generally credited with popularizing it as a criticism of Herbert Hoover's response to the Great Depression. It laid dormant until the Great Malaise years of the 1970s led to a return in the U.S. of supply-side type policies under Reagan in the 1980s. The Washington Consensus wasn't a thing until 1989, and it came to represent the sort of broad acceptance of supply-side economic policies by both parties, especially as the rise of the New Democrats led to the economic theory being basically the only game in town from that point forward. Clinton and Obama generally continued the same kind of economic thinking that was the Washington Consensus. --Jayron3217:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
That at least talked about education and healthcare for all which trickle down is definitely not about. Obamacare where are you. NadVolum (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
NadVolum, can you please stay on topic. We are not discussing trickle down economics. We are discussing whether the wikipedia article on it should be reorganized to show more clearly that it is a term, not a specific policy, usually used by critics of a specific policy, and has been used to describe quite a few different things. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
And as a term would it be okay to apply in describing a characteristic of some these specific policies that come out at the rate of one or more per country per year? Or do you think it should be deprecated a pejorative? NadVolum (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think it's pejorative, as in, meaning to offend, but it is a shorthand term among critics. Its one-sided use is everywhere and easy to find. Non-critical use doesn't seem to exist. But, maybe it is intended to offend. One cannot escape the image of urine falling another's head as it "trickles down", an image that is oft expressed in comics.
If new usages become common, well then they should be added to the article. For example, hypothetical President Wright successfully implements a new tax and economic policy in his first term. Senator Yeft quickly critisized it as "trickle down". Some years later after implementation, analysis of the policies show it had X effects.
The successful implementation of Wright's policies would get their own page. Yeft's "trickle down" comment could be added to the trickle down usage section. Analysis of the policies and their X effects go the page on Wright's policies. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
It's a pejorative term that is applied /used against a range of schools of thought and policies and so there is no distinct alternate term or even a distinct topic. Like Homosexual agenda . So the article should be about the term. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
But it is not "a pejorative term for the concept that a rising economy (on average) lifts all." its much more specific than that. Interesting comparison, it says a lot about you but almost nothing about trickle-down economics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. Maybe it's best not to clarify if it was a personal attack.North8000 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
If there is no better term then the idea should be covered under the term. And I agree it is not about the economy rising on average being good for all. NadVolum (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The point is that it is just a pejorative metaphor that is applied to wide range of economic policies and theories, it's not a distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Because they share a common characteristic which is the topic. As Back|Horse Eye's says it is more specific than what you say. Yes when some new disruptive thing comes along the income disparity will almost certainly increase but people in general will probably be better overall eventually. However that most certainly does not imply that if one just increases disparity that everyone will be better off eventually! NadVolum (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I've not seen any common characteristic between the wide range of concepts, economic theories and policies that the term is commonly applied to. Other than the intended effect of helping the lower class. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
So you disagree ith the very first sentence in the article 'Trickle-down economics is a term used in critical references to economic policies that favor the upper income brackets, corporations, and individuals with substantial wealth or capital'? NadVolum (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with that first sentence possibly poisoning the well. With that starting a reader's mindset, they might reasonably read every example in the usage section as "policies that favor the upper income brackets ..." The article shouldn't be making those judgements, since they are put on many different things. This one article cannot be a place to address all of them. Those things have their own pages already. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand your reply. It doesn't seem relevant to what I said. I'm not trying to counter what the article says, nor it's current sources. Nor am I supporting it. I am saying that the current message is that "trickle down" is merely a common term, but not a specific thing, which has been used to refer to a lot of different things. What those things share in common is criticism that they are "policies that favor the upper income brackets". Whether those things are reasonable described that way belongs on those things' specific pages. For example, whether supply side economics (a real thing with a wiki page) is reasonably described as a policy that favors upper income brackets belongs on the supply side economics wiki page. It does not belong on the trickle down page just because some critics have called it that. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. It belongs where it is and where it is used. There is no policy or guideline that says to banish it to another page. Quite the opposite. Andre🚐19:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. You provide nothing to back you up. You fail to demonstrate a NPOV. You have relentlessly obstructed any changes on this article for years. You have insisted, falsely, that any newcomer into the discussion must work things out with you before making edits already heavily discussed and largely agreed by the parties involved. You demonstrate an attempt to own the article and it's contents. You revert edits instead of improve them. You insinuate on a user's talk page that his engagement in the discussion and article is due to a conflict of interest, without recognizing the irony that your own year's long effort on this specific page to defend a small minority opinion would make that case much better. You filibuster the talk page, failing to answer direct questions, in an apparent effort to simply outlast everyone else. I can go on, but it's clear to me you are simply obstructing, for whatever reason. You just feel like you must have some message known on this particular article. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
This message is extremely inappropriate and lacks good faith, and bordering on incivility. I am not obstructign anything, we are discussing the question at hand. Relentlessly obstructed changes to the article for years? What are you talking about? I never edited the talk page or the article before October 2022 [2][3]Andre🚐19:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
It is the latter. I'm new to the platform. I know what NPOV means, since it's not a wikipedia only concept. Now I see it is a shortlink syntax. WP:NPOV Thanks. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
"If there is no better term ..." That's exactly the point. There are better terms in every usage instance we can find. Someone says "Oh, this is trickle down economics", which is in reference to a specific economic or political policy that does have a specific wiki page. This usage is so pervasive that many people believe trickle down is some specific thing. It is not. The current version does say this, which is good, but it's so messy that it is confusing and could fail to make this point to an uninformed reader. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with NadVolum. The article is about all the meanings and usages of "trickle-down economics." In politics, in economics, econometrics, socioeconomics, media, anthropology, whatever. Andre🚐18:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The difference is that mammal is a distinct topic, "trickle down" is pejorative characterization applied to a wide range of concepts, economic theories and policies. That's why the article should cover it as a term . Homosexual agenda is an excellent example of how to do this. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
No, you can't. Even Investopedia, generally a great encyclopedic source, loosely hobbles together roughly what is on Wikipedia. There is no pointer to anything, because there is nothing to point at. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
That's a pretty terrible metaphor. Suggesting it at all leaves me questioning your commitment to bettering the article. The only people who would make a list called "Trickle down economics" are critics of the items in the list. Last I checked, there's no critics of any specific mammals, though I certainly don't trust the pangolin. I mean, really, what kind of respectable mammal has scales???
My initial comment on the talk page had this challenge: But what we need here first is admitting that this challenge hasn't been met: no one has called any economic theory they advocate for "trickle down". It is not a name that anyone self-describes.
Without conceding that point, the handful of editors that are insisting that the trickle down article be this ever growing list of criticisms of various policies strongly give the impression of pushing a POV. Put those criticisms on the things they are actually about. You seem so vested in the POV you can't even agree to reorganize what's there to make less confusing the message it already says: trickle down is a broadly used term, not a specific thing. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Every single example on the first page I got from Google when I put in 'defnition trickle down economics' said practically the same thing so I think the weight is against you. Go and try if you can though. NadVolum (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Let me see if I can track down something scholarly, a book or journal article, something like that. It doesn't surprise me that there will be many sources saying TDE for rich folk or similar. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Neither I nor anyone I've seen here has a problem with the description. How the term is used seems pretty consistent, and no one is arguing that it's not. I don't think you are following what exactly is being suggested for this page. Like I've already said, the current message is more or less already where it should be. It's just confusing; it's not very clear to an uninitiated reader. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I've thrown the ball to them to provide citations supporting their point of view rather than what it currently says in the article. That after all is the firm basis of Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I support the points made by NadVolum and I will note we had a prior RFC on this a few months ago and didn't reach a conclusion that trickle-down was purely pejorative or that it should be a term alone. That is a view not shared by all editors. Andre🚐20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Let's see if we can refocus this a bit since it does seem to have become a debate. The question is, yes or no, is the primary point of this page to discuss a term's usage? I feel like reading through this thread that we actually do have pretty good consensus on that point. Squatch347 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, that's odd, because we don't do that with any of the other pages I mentioned above. Instead, we simply confine ourselves to the term's usage and evolving meaning over time and link to other pages discussing the relative merits or (more often) demerits of the underlying policies or actions being referenced when people are using the term. This usage makes a bit more sense because the editors most likely to understand the kind of primary sources used for that discussion are on the main pages, not sub-pages referencing colloquial criticisms. Squatch347 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
We are required to abide by WP:NPOV in all articles. If we don't do it elsewhere you need to address that elsewhere. I think you will also find if you check Tax and spend, Social justice warrior, Anchor baby, and Gay agenda that you've told a little bit of a fib there... Might want to strike it out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I read the article. I think most of the article stays the course of covering it as a term including the history and usage of the term. IMO there are only a few problems areas and they could be fixed by relatively minor wording changes. Adding a few sentences clarifying what the term seeks to do and I think you'd have a pretty good article.North8000 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I went through the article again to make a proposal and I am coming around to your view. I think a honestly a bit more clarification and the lumping of a few comments that read as policy analysis rather than term usage would probably do a lot to make this page better.
Do you have a specific proposal?
I'd make two broad changes
1) Re-organize lede to move some of the content to Economics or Politics sections, it is a good 20% of the article as is. Para 2 should go to the politics section since the examples of use are political in nature. Para 3 should be the intro to the history section. Para 1 needs to be expanded to follow the article and note that this term is used by a wide range of critics in reference to a wide set of policies.
2) Combine the three lines that read as a list under economics into one paragraph saying "Some economists have begun using the term to broadly refer to lowering progressive tax distributions when publishing in less formal literature."
As long as we WP:PRESERVE what exists I am not opposed to a reorganization. I will note that the edits I reverted earlier did not simply reorganize the existing content but removed some. But if it is sourced and if it is relevant and NPOV, we shouldn't be removing the more economic or scientific content from the article to make it "just about the term," because that removes the substance and the basis. In other words, if it's a NPOV statement to say, as others have said, that there is no evidence for trickle-down economics (by which we mean, Reaganomics/supply side economics primarily), working, we need to not strip that fact out of the article or we are misinforming our readers on a content-relativist idea that "trickle-down doesn't mean anything so it might actually work or be accurate because it cannot be defined." If you catch my drift. That is the NPOV question in my view. If it's true that trickle-down is pejorative and only used negatively, we can still cover what it is used to criticize and clarify that said idea doesn't work empirically. If the answer is to merge the page with voodoo economics, Reaganomics and supply side economics into one monster page, well, you can propose that and I might agree with you. Andre🚐21:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
And as long as the content is referencing how the term is used, I definitely agree that it should stay. What I am offering in my proposal is to refocus the text on the term's usage and point readers to the host policies/schools of thought for the debate on their effectiveness. We shouldn't be including back and forth debates on whether supply side economics results in localized disemployment on a page that is talking about a label. Likewise, I don't think it adds any value for us to have a long discussion on Conservative vs Liberal ideology and their affects on society in the "lib-tard" page. We recognize that it is a term used to label an ideology and point back to that ideology for a more indepth article. Squatch347 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal because you removed a number of statements: Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum.In each of the aforementioned tax reforms, taxes were cut across all income brackets, but the biggest reductions were given to the highest income earners as well as the Washington Post review and the section under Stiglitz that describes the review study. Are you positing some NPOV or balance reason to remove these statements or what is the reason? Andre🚐21:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Because it improperly suggests that there is an economic theory that is called "trickle-down" rather than it being a term applied by critics to a broad set of very different policies. It also doesn't agree with the body of our article which has references to the term being used against broad tax cuts, progressive tax cuts, tax rebates, and even externality imbalances (nothing to do with tax cuts). I also don't think "The Balance" is a good enough source to justify that kind of broad definition. Squatch347 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the crux of the dispute IMHO and what we had the past RFC on which was never formally closed, but I would approximate a no consensus, and am open to a new RFC. Andre🚐21:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, and that is a little confusing tbh. There is essentially no one who doesn't recognize that this is a term used by opponents of various policies. That position is unanimous, even it would seem by you. We also recognize, minus you I think, that there is no one who advocates for an economic development theory called trickle-down. The question is, do we include criticisms of the policies labelled by critics here or on their actual pages. That also seems to be largely agreed on as well. Squatch347 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it might go a long way if you could answer these two questions: 1) Are there improvements to the article that you would make? If yes, can you make a suggestionon the talk page now and we can discuss that? Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Again, what are you talking about? I didn't make any proposal to change the article. I do not believe the so-called improvements being proposed are actually improvements. Andre🚐23:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I know you didn't make any proposal, but you oppose them all. So you make one now. It's quite one-sided for you to oppose so quickly just about everything, but not suggest anything else. Do you think there are improvements that could be made? If yes, suggest one. I jumped in here because I'd actually like to improve the article. Two days and about 5000 words in, that hasn't happened yet. Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
There is WP:NODEADLINE, which you alluded to earlier. I don't currently have a proposal to make, but you seem to like to say that I'm not answering questions. As far as I know there isn't a question that I haven't answered. I responded below to the details that I oppose about your proposal. I am not in any authority position, I am just one contributor, and others have opined above. That's how it works, we all discuss proposals, and not all of them will become reality. However so far, your proposals don't appear to be grounded in a firm understanding of policy. Since you are new here, perhaps you should take a step back and let the discussion play out for a while before we either start a new RFC or discuss another compromise solution to address the article content if one is agreed to. I would say, we aren't close to it yet. Andre🚐23:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I just think it's really easy to be the guy who says no, instead of the guy trying to make an edit that will not get reverted. You've said a lot about what you don't want. You haven't said much about what you do want.
I read wp:nodeadline like a double edged sword. The ethic is that there will never be a practically perfect article, though we should edit as though we can theoretically get there. The key point being that we should edit, not get caught in some never-ending talk page loop. Most of what I'm saying has already been said a lot on that talk page. I see that as edit time. I think it's reasonable for me to make edits. By the wp:3rr rule, three per day. If you feel you must revert them, fine. But after some time if it's always you reverting them, maybe that means something about consensus. Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Um, no, that is not how it works. 3RR is not an allowance, and WP:EDITWAR is not encouraged. And consensus is not continuing to make the same edits against the status quo when other editors are reverting and telling you to discuss. The status quo has stood in the article for a long time, and I was not the one who wrote it. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you don't get to stand astride the work of thousands of contributors and decide it's no good and that you're the only one who can WP:RGW. Andre🚐01:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I've made some notes about changes I would make, which I would characterize as what you say here. See my user page. I've got to go for now, but I'm going to put those in the talk page probably. Heavy Chaos (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with your proposal to add the WP:WEASEL "are said to" for so-called neutrality. I do not think it is a non-neutral statement to describe, per WP:YESPOV, the expert position that tax cuts do not trickle down. Furthermore your idea that we need to attribute an expert is not based on Wikipedia policy: proper academic consensus expert opinion should be stated as a fact in Wikivoice if it is largely unrebutted. And isn't that the argument that y'all have been making, that nobody seriously accepts trickle-down theory? What do you mean by The way it highlights that these tax cut policies are almost always Republican is not NPOV? Are there any other tax cut policies that are supply side and trickle-down from Democrats? Because I do not see any. Negative coverage is not automatically not neutral. WP:FALSEBALANCEAndre🚐23:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I definitely also oppose removing the bit Andre opposed above saying supply side economics is not automatically trickle down. The latest incarnations of supply side economics have tended that way but it is most definitely not part of what it was supposed to be about originally. Personally I view these various schools of economics as tools of various think tanks whose purpose is to push what their donors want rather than anything related to a well researched basis for economics. NadVolum (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
It would help me if you were more specific as to how this pertains to NPOV. Which categories would you say this pertains to and why (some specific examples and arguments)? To clarify I added some points from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view...
Stating opinions as facts.
States seriously contested assertions as facts.
Judgmental language.
Fails to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
I think that subtle-looking changes in about 6 sentences would fix the problems. I'd be happy to blaze though and make them and then someone could revert them if they don't agree. Or I'd be happy to just leave, having said what I had to say. I'm not really worried about the outcome of this particular article, but I do have an interest in the structural terminology challenges this is an example of which are pretty unrecognized and widespread which leads to unnecessary eternal issues at some articles. North8000 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I think you have a sense of what is controversial and disputed. Subtle changes in a handful of places are certainly not going to raise an objection if they are an improvement. If you think they're likely to be controversial you can certainly spell out a little more what you'd like to change - maybe someone are uncontroversial and some would merit some discussion or other opinions. Andre🚐04:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree that minor changes are likely sufficient. I've boldly started with one sentence, which was completely misattributed.
Apart from that, the article needs major expansion rather than removals. It's bizarre that an article on "trickle-down economics" doesn't discuss tax progressivity at all. Even though the lead should stay focused on the term, I'd favor significantly expanding the article by adding subheadings under "Economics" that cover economic studies on each of the policies that have been labelled trickle down (as long as it's properly sourced); basically expanding on the WaPo paragraph I just changed. And when I say "policies", I don't mean laws like TCJA2017, but general policies like "lowering capital gains", keeping the carried interest loophole, etc. It may not even be particularly out of place to mention BEPS in this article (again, as long as sourcing is found). Despite being a political term, it still refers to a range of specific practices; it's not that nebulous, unlike other pejoratives. DFlhb (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, what I propose would be better covered in the Supply-side economics article, which should cover the effects that lower income or corporate taxes would have on employment, consumption, income inequality, wealth inequality, and poverty, sourced to studies by economists. I agree that this article should stay focused on the term, so it doesn't become redundant. DFlhb (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
My tweaks would be to more treat it as a term, not to deal with "balance" etc. I'll put a note at the talk page and give it a try. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I made the intended tweaks but I was wrong....they are not enough to fix the issues. IMO it needs significant paring to cover it more as a mere term. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Can I suggest you get some citations which express whatever it is you're thinking of first. In fact we're supposed to try and look neutrally for good sources but at last a few supporting what you say would be a very good start. Your own thoughts count as WP:OR. NadVolum (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
If you are talking about my "what's still needed" comment, I'm not planning any more changes. I only mentioned it to note that my previous projection turned out to be incorrect. IMO there are some issues with the rest of your post but don't see the need to dive into that here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and restored the status quo. There were too many removals of sourced material. PLEASE can we DISCUSS the removals? Andre🚐15:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to post each of the suggested edits one at a time so we can discuss them in detail. This seems unnecessary since there does seem to be broad consensus on the direction of the page and that reordering does need to be done. Better, would be an approach to edit based on the changes to suggest improvement. But, having been down this road before I'll note that discussion is not an excuse to WP:OWN a page. Digging your feet in and reverting all changes is not constructive editing. Squatch347 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
You keep repeating that you have broad consensus but then you seem to substitute whatever argument you're making for consensus, that sort of behavior is generally viewed as disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, that is an interesting take. Do you not see a consensus here that the article is primarily aimed at the use of the term? I don't think any editor has so far objected to that goal. Squatch347 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I believe that there has been an objection raised to ignoring WP:NPOV on WP:IAR grounds but if you would like to continue to argue for IAR be my guest. If by that statement you don't mean that we should ignore NPOV and that statement is meaningless (basically a statement of what a wikipedia article is) then what's the point? Thats the problem with the statement meaning whatever you want it to mean, its either absurd or meaningless because we all agree (and nothing would change as a result). Note the NPOV discussion above that you abandoned, are you sure you meant to say "I don't think any editor has so far objected to that goal" when you're involved in the discussion[4]? Is this a memory issue or have you told a fib? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The term "Trickle down" is inherently at least two assertions:
That a policy/person/law/direction advocated is about favoring the top
That the proponent's main or sole justification is that something given to the top passes to the bottom
In sticking to coverage of the term, the article/editors must recognize that the term is inherently an allegation of existence of the above two items. Material which treats "trickle down" as an extent entity rather than a term is inherently asserting that both of the above items are fact. The article has a lot of that in it. North8000 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I think this is correct if I'm reading it correctly. Do you have an example of material in the article that currently does that? Squatch347 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Sources don't cover "how to build a Wikipedia article". Implying that a talk page comment about development of the article is invalid if it is not ironclad sourced is, to put it mildly, not correct and not constructive. The same for implying that I was violating a norm or requirement by my post. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Those assertions are not about building a Wikipedia article, they're assertions about "trickle down" and you absolutely do need to provide a reliable source. This is the NPOV noticeboard, did you forget where you were? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
You are mistaken....WP:Ver does not apply to text here or in talk pages. Being mistaken is not big deal, but then you built an insulting post founded on your mistake.North8000 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying it does, I'm asking where you leaned that "The term "Trickle down" is inherently at least two assertions..." or if you just made it up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
OK look you are both right... no you don't need a source for assertions on talk per se, but you do need to provide one if asked. I agree with both of you in general about what trickle-down IS, but I don't agree that we need to "stick to coverage of the term." We should cover the term and the studies and the academic contention on the CONCEPT of trickle-down which, while it can have multiple meanings, chiefly refers to tax cuts for the wealthy helping the economy/all boats, and that's what economic studies have generally looked at. Andre🚐17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree on the point that "trickle down is only a term." I'll start a new RFC on the article talk. Andre🚐17:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I was talking about how to cover it. Structurally, it is an alternate spun/POV way to describe real world stuff and an assertion of #1 and #2 regarding it. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Politicians often brag about the second point - that "massive" deregulation and tax cuts will benefit the little guy. Trump comes to mind. They're not policymakers, so I would still count this as "term" rather than "economic theory", but we should include something about this in the article. DFlhb (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I also agree with this. There are a couple of sources in there that would cover this, but any sources labelling those as trickle-down (which I imagine are legion, especially in the UK context) should be referenced as the term broadens from must tax cuts to larger policy debates. Squatch347 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to say that the article is primarily about a term, or that "trickle-down economics" is exclusively used pejoratively. Trickle-down economics is used extensively in academic sources to refer to a real academic theory, by sources that treat it as the proper name of a real economic theory. My reading is that it has been subject to a euphemism treadmill where people who support trickle-down economics are trying to use other terms now because they believe it has acquired a negative reputation, but that's not the same as it being purely pejorative and it's not a good reason to try and rewrite the article to cover it solely as a term, especially when that doesn't really reflect the sources. I suggest that people who are arguing that it is analogous to eg. "tax and spend" or "loony left" at least glance at Google Scholar; the sourcing is extensive and doesn't treat it as just a pejorative to be discussed but as the proper name of a genuine economic theory. The argument that we could exclude those sources - which discuss trickle-down economics and actual results related to it at length - simply because some editors personally feel the term is pejorative is not appropriate and would result in a non-neutral article due to the exclusion of a prominent and well-sourced perspective on the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is an accurate reading of the term's use. And in fact there was a large, prolonged discussion on exactly that on the talk page awhile back. Looking at your list there doesn't seem to be a single use of the term not in a pejorative manner nor a single author on the first three pages at least saying "I believe benefits will trickle-down."
What is interesting is how it has become a more broadly used term than it was historically being used to label traditionally demand-side policies as Trickle Down as well. Those would definitely be worth a review and add, but (getting back to my main point). Does that mean we need to include empirical studies on every single policy that someone somewhere calls "trickle-down?" Squatch347 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
+2 I was going to ask what Aquillion specifically what "the subject" means in their last sentence. Everything that anybody has called "trickle down"? Only when the proponent of the policy has said "give the money to the rich people and it will get to the poor people" (which is never)? I thought of an even better example Welfare Queen because while there could theoretically be a few who meet the definition (getting rich from abuse of the system) the common use is applying or claiming that term much more widely. And the coverage of the article is about the term, it does not cover or study people who are receiving payments just because they are the topic of the term. Covering the ostensible "topic" of the term in the article would be tantamount to Wikipedia saying that they are welfare queens and Wikipedia participating in the renaming of them as such..North8000 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I tend to disagree with narrowing the scope of any topic to an oversimplified classification such as "just a term", but that may not be the intent certain editors might be perceived as attempting here. The point being, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic collaboration, not some kind of autocratic dictionary, and I assume in good faith that most editors here would agree. DN (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images
I see there was a previous discussion in August of '22 , and some things have changed since then. I wasn't sure if I needed to come here or RSN first, originally I had intended to go to RSN, but then an RfC was started and I wanted to let that pan out first and see if a consensus could be reached to quell my concerns. Despite weeks and weeks of debate I still seem to have concern for possible issues related to both VERIFIABILITY (which may be a more RSN related concern) and POV. Even after weeks of debate and 2 RfC's in the last few months, I still have concerns. I currently am trying to abide by the most recent RfC close by an admin, by not starting any new topics on the matter. However, the discussion on this topic seems to be ongoing and admins don't seem to take issue with letting debate continue in attempt to find consensus.
I originally became involved when I noticed (certain) sources do not seem to reflect the context used in the wiki-article accurately (IMO). Other editors seemed to take issue with it as well, but that's beside the point. The citations use words like "believed" or "purportedly", which the lead does not seem to reflect, and instead puts into Wikivoice what I feel may be an implied "certainty" that may not be of a neutral point of view (IMO). I asked about including some attributions to help alleviate the issue but some of the editors said it was unnecessary.
Essentially, I could really use some guidance/opinions from uninvolved and unbiased editors to help me re-examine my own personal perspective. If you are currently, or were formally involved in the discussion on that article, please realize that I am only interested in hearing from other editors that were not and are not involved, so I may not respond to you. I am looking for more unbiased opinions here.
So, to reiterate, this is NOT an invitation to participate at the article in question, or a SOAPBOX to sway anyone's opinions either way, I am just looking for feedback for my own personal sanity. It should also go without saying, I am trying to avoid crossing any lines as far as WP:CAN, so again, please do not get involved because of anything I say or the way I say it. I believe editors there are acting in good faith even though I may disagree with their interpretations. I will do my best to accurately represent citations, context and quotes as neutrally as I can, to reflect their current state in the lead of the wiki-article, as of today.
So my main concern has to do with using Wikivoice to say what the lead sentence currently says here...(bold emphasis mine)
In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop[5]. The New York Post published the first story, based on information provided by Rudy Giuliani. Forensic analysis later authenticated some of the data on the laptop, including one of two key emails used by the Post in their initial reporting[6]...."
(CBS citation) We recently added the "involving data" portion to the lead, which I did feel was an improvement, but even the headline from the citation being used for this says... "Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data turned over by repair shop to FBI showed no tampering, analysis says"[7] (bold emphasis mine)...
(WaPo citation) "Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, are authentic communications that can be verified through cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies, say two security experts who examined the data at the request of The Washington Post."[8] (bold emphasis mine)
I would like to just focus on these 2 cites for now to keep the feedback focused. Is it possible or probable we are not being CAREFUL enough with the lead, or do you think this is safe to put into Wikivoice? Why or why not? Cheers... DN (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Grahaml35 Thanks, but I am already an involved editor on that page, and if you read my post here, you can see that I'm looking for some uninvolved and less biased opinions as to whether this characterization of cited sources qualifies as a WP:POV issue. Care to comment on that? Thanks. DN (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Grahaml35 Yes, it's been discussed at great length but with no resolution. The cited sources do not support the statement in the lede, no alternative source has been found, and the primary argument seems to be that two RfCs decided it was ok. I believe the lede violates Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, which states that you need an RS to include, not to exclude. Echoes, opinions, beliefs, and "purported" statements don't count. If you look at the Talk page history, including the archived sections, it seems to be the case that editors show up, assume the lede is a mistake and try to fix it (that's what happened with me — it didn't even occur to me that a non-vandal had put that statement in), they get shut down by the same disagreeing editors, then give up. I believe this repeated activity, along with the fact that there has been no explanation as to why the statement currently in the lede doesn't need an actual RS, is why DN brought this here. If we can find unbiased editors to assist, that would be a good thing. RoyLeban (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
GoodDay, if you notify ScottishFinnishRadish, everybody on the Talk page should be notified, including editors that have been pushed away. This isn't about the RFC per se, but specifically about whether NPOV is being maintained in the lede. To invite one editor you think will agree with you is a WP:CAN violation.
But, please, let us not create a huge discussion here. DN brought this here to get "guidance/opinions from uninvolved and unbiased editors", not to start a general discussion here. It's not the place for it.
ScottishFinnishRadish is the RFC closer. He would've been notified here, no matter how he would've closed the RFC-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
This isn't even all of the noticeboard discussions, 3RR discussions, discussion on admin talk pages, etc, that have gone on regarding this. This isn't a situation of "needing some uninvolved eyes," because this has already been discussed, at length, everywhere. At some point we should just let the horse lay where it is, set down sticks, and back away. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
And all this for a person who has never held or sought public office and is notable only because of his father. We need to remember this is an encyclopedia, not a news source looking for the next big scoop. 13:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)O3000, Ret. (talk)
I don't disagree, but consensus and consensus, and dead horses remain dead. At some point there needs to be acceptance of consensus until something significant comes up that makes another discussion worth the effort. The more this comes up over a short period of time the fewer uninvolved members of the community will take part in the discussions, and the same entrenched users will continue to go back and forth. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with O3000, Ret.; wanting "the next big scoop" is not NPOV. With respect to ScottishFinnishRadish's comments on "the same entrenched users", it can't refer to me, because I only came across this article recently (though I have written a lot). The only entrenched users I see are the ones who insist an unsourced statement belongs in the lede of the article (coincident with arguments that citations say things they don't). But, if you look at the history, you have editor after editor appearing, trying to fix the article, and then being driven away, with pretty much the same editors on the other side.
And that's why this is here — not to resolve the issue, but to try to move the discussion towards an NPOV one, where we follow Wikipedia policy. It would be good to get the assistance of neutral editors who have never contributed to this article or any related one, and who don't have an opinion on the issue itself, just on the discussion and how Wikipedia policies (WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, etc.) apply. RoyLeban (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I added several citations (that have been discussed ad nauseam including in the previous RFCs) to the sentence that is the source of the complaint, but was reverted a few hours later. A handful of editors continue to complain that something is unsourced but appear to ignore the repeated attempts to show the sourcing. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Undocumented immigrants are individuals who have either illegally entered the United States without inspection, or legally entered the United States with valid nonimmigrant visas but those visas have expired.
Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, are foreign-born people who do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation, because they entered the U.S. without inspection, stayed longer than their temporary visa permitted, or otherwise violated the terms under which they were admitted.
Is an undocumented immigrant the same as an illegal alien?
Theoretically yes, but "illegal alien" is not a technical term. It's popularly used jargon, nowhere found in the U.S. immigration laws. Because of its insulting connotations, however, we at Nolo prefer to use more neutral terms like "undocumented immigrant" or "unauthorized immigrant."
Now I suppose one could use the term "undocumented immigrant" for people who immigrated to a country before there were immigration laws, but I don't think that's how it's used - that would just be an "immigrant" wouldn't it? —DIYeditor (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not just about the USA, so U.S. immigration laws are not in general for this discussion of any importance. --Bduke (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
While of course non-policy-based arguments can be made either way, academic research does not support[9] this being an NPOV violation. DFlhb (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I can lie on my declaration form or in my interview, which would make me documented but illegal. Not that I believe this is a strong argument, or that it happens much more regularly than these. In discourse, these terms are synonyms, with the only notable distinction being "immigration" vs "immigrant". DFlhb (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree that this is a potential BLP issue; I think your diff is much better than the previous version. If sources use "undocumented", then should use the same term in a BLP, not come up with our own. DFlhb (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
If BLP is involved, using "illegal" when the individual hasn't been accused or convicted of being in the country illegally would be a violation, but "undocumented" would be fine. Thus probably better to treat the concepts differently but obviously connected. Masem (t) 00:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@Masem: It's my understanding that in the US violating immigration laws is not a crime, so one would never be convicted of that alone, merely subject to deportation. I do see a distinction between terming something "illegal" and terming it "criminal". —DIYeditor (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
On the contrary, people commonly do go to jail for re-entering the US after deportation, so your understanding is erroneous. Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
On paper, the US law is *terrible* in how it handles immigrants (eg "alien" remains in many of the early texts). And while being deported is not technically a crime (eg no jury trial, etc.), it is proverbally a harsh sentence, particularly if they are splitting up families, etc. In other words, until an immigrant is determined to be in the country without papers and has no recourse to stay in the county, calling them an "illegal immigrant" can be seen as harmful.
Also, and I haven't looked this up, we should see what the preference is in RSes for the language here. Obviously when talking the specifics of the law and language used, we have to stay with the terms in the lawbooks, but when talking about the class or any individually generally, we should try to follow how current RSes handle the language. Masem (t) 13:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
U.S. scholarship nowadays exclusively uses the term "undocumented immigrant"; none of it since the early 2010s uses "illegal immigrant/alien", since scholars also see it as dehumanizing.
WRT the term "immigration" (as opposed to "immigrant"): there was a move request to move Illegal immigration to Undocumented immigration, but it failed since editors argued that while U.S. RS no longer used the term, the rest of the world still called it "illegal immigration". It's not exactly an optimal situation.
But Illegal immigration to the United States should certainly be moved, and I'm surprised it wasn't done already. A half hour of compiling a survey of scholarly sources strongly repudiating the term "illegal immigrant", should be enough to gain consensus on that. That would be very easy to do with elicit.org or other scholarship search tools, but I'm working on other things right now. If anyone here wants to do it, do ping me so I can participate. DFlhb (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment - Admittedly a US perspective, but there is no question in my mind that "illegal alien" is pejorative, especially in Texas and Arizona. See the political discourse around "dreamers". Question: is this term ever applied to Syrian refugees in Europe? Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
On the subject of pejorative; ever notice how many sources use "illegal immigrant" or worse "illegals" for Hispanics; but not Europeans who overstay visas? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Of course. You cannot, absolutely cannot, have any dealings with the US immigration system without noting its racism. Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
So, the thing is, no one has provided clear guidance to show that the terms mean anything different. Without wading into the "Which of these two terms is best" part of the debate, what no one has shown is that reliable sources treat them as different concepts. Certain sources may, for linguistic, cultural, political, or other reasons choose to stick to one term or the other when describing the concept, but so far no one has produced a source that unambiguously shows that the terms may be used differently. Ideally, we need to see a preponderance of reliable sources that say things like "While an undocumented (worker/immigrant/whatever) is <blahblahblah>, an illegal (immigrant/alien/whatever) is not that, instead it is <yadayadayada>" No one has showed us anything like that. If that doesn't exist, then maybe they are the same thing, or nearly so that reliable sources can't articulate enough of a difference to make it worth not having just a single article on the two. Simply put; if they are different concepts there would be enough reliable sources to create different articles. If they are the same thing, or close enough that it isn't worth having two articles, then there should be one article with a redirect from the other term. --Jayron3214:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Common meanings matter. IMO the best term for them all is "illegal immigrant". "Illegal alien" sounds negative (even if it technically isn't) "Undocumented immigrant" avoids the actual useful description.North8000 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
While "alien" is dehumanizing --Robin Williams did a bit on this once in "Mork & Mindy" -- "illegal" is much worse, as it carries connotations of something that should be eradicated with extreme prejudice. Think how you would feel about your mom being illegal, as many of the Dreamers have said. (And props to them for changing the public discourse on this.) It seems to me that there is some IDHT going on here, or perhaps some of the editors in this conversation live in places where Rush Limbaugh is the only thing on the airways. News flash: Rush Limbaugh is not mainstream. I'm saying this primarily based on years of living on the US southern border, I admit, but I've seen the term almost exclusively used in very ugly ways, often violent. I don't have time to compile sources today, and I've probably shut down too many bullying tirades to be really "neutral" about this. We should not enable or endorse dehumanization, period, end of statement. But here's one authoritative source as to the way the discourse is going: ALA on Library of Congress. If anything it should be the deprecated term that is redirected. Elinruby (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
to be clear, since I see I wasn't, the "immigration* may objectively be "illegal", whatever we think of the laws. (Good luck getting your spouse a resident card if you as an American marry a Mexican, for example, seen that one) What people object to is *human beings* being called illegal. So yes, I would definitely consider "illegal alien" a BLP problem. Elinruby (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Words used don't change the feelings people have. Maybe you are aware of how technical jargon about a negative thing enters common use, then eventually becomes a slur, then new technical jargon is invented? Consider the evolution from idiot, simple, retard, mentally disabled, mentally challenged, etc. Switching from "illegal alien" to "illegal immigrant" to "undocumented immigrant" to "undocumented migrant", etc, does not change people's feelings about it, since they all refer to the same thing. I bet if we looked in books from 1890 we might find someone writing something very close to "we got to do something about these idiots". Whether there was hate in his heart is not really for Wikipedia to address. Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't mean we should perpetuate it. And btw, in 1890 people were saying that, absolutely. It was just about a different ethnic group. See Chinese Exclusion Act. Just because the racism is old, systemic and well-established, doesn't mean it isn't racist. Elinruby (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
In original use, "idiot" was not used for any particular ethnic groups... Actually, I don't think it ever has been. What that has to do with the Chinese Exclusion Act is not at all clear.
Just because racists use words doesn't mean it's racist if you use those words. Especially if the words in question are the official terms in many spaces. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
"Terrorist" is still sometimes used as an official designation, but Wikipedia has now learned not to blindly parrot it. As for what "idiots" has to with "Chinese", it's your red herring, you tell me. Though maybe you should look up "Mongololoid" and then read this, shrug. Elinruby (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we should check whether "illegal immigration" is still the common name (we can compare it to "undocumented immigration" and "irregular immigration"). M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Quite simple for this particular instance: I just noticed that Doug's diff says parents who arrived in the 1970s but were granted amnesty under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 If they were granted amnesty, then they were de jure no longer in violation of the law or in danger of prosecution for any past breaches. So yes, in the case of that particular article, illegal is false and an egregious BLP violation that somebody should kill with fire. For the broader policy question, I believe I have made my feelings clear <g> but this isn't really about my feelings. I understand that we go by sources, but we have to maintain some relationship to objectivity also. It can be instructive to edit articles on the "war on terror", let's say. A lot of the commonly-used language of the period parroted US government positions and hasn't aged well, to put it mildly. If Trump is re-elected, will we call whatever the new "Muslim ban" is a security measure? All that said, if somebody wants to compile sources, more power to them, as long as we consider the nature of the sources when we discuss them. I personally think the Library of Congress is a pretty strong authority. I haven't seen "irregular immigration" much; I guess that's the British term? I myself find it less objectionable, as it describes a process, not a *person*, but it may be that a single term does not fit all, and we need more than one redirect. What word do international agencies use? Migrants, from what I have seen (?) Elinruby (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Expanding on my previous post,"alien" is unnecessarily negative sounding even if it a bit more encompassing because someone who is here illegally isn't necessarily an immigrant. But for common meanings, I think "immigrant" covers it. "Illegal" is essential to defining it. Conversely, changing illegal" to "undocomented" removes the key part of the definition. Simply because the action could be legal under different circumstances doesn't mean to convert the description to "undocumented". If someone is selling opioids illegally we don't change the description to "undocumented pharmacist" simply because there are cases where the same action is legal. North8000 (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
That's a bit of a category error. Driving is an action, which can be done illegally. Residence is a characteristic of the state of being. Resident status: illegal alien. There is no driving status, though I guess you were hoping someone would reply unlicensed driver or something? That would be "driving without a license". The operative word is "driving", an action that you do. It's not a status. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
My point that that if an action is illegal, you call it illegal, you don't call it "undocumented" because it could be legal under other circumstances which are confirmed by a document. If I perform surgery on someone, it would be illegal. It would not just be "undocumented" because I could do it if I had a medical degree and certification and calling it merely that would be POV. Responding to M.Bitton, "illegal driver" infers that in that case the mere act of driving is illegal (e.g. with no license) and in cases discussing that status in particular, it would be appropriate to call me an illegal driver. But using that moniker on me outside of that context would be out of line. It is not a main definition of who I am, it is just nounifying my driving status in a discussion where driving status is relevant. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I think WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA are the measures by which we should have this discussion. In those sections I don't see anything about being kind and considerate, just directions that we use the most common and recognizable name. So if "alien" were the most common term, that's what we would use, negative sounding or not. As far as it is simply a judgment call on our part, there is room for erring on the side of kindness. I don't have an opinion about what the title of illegal immigration should be at this time or when it should be linked, just trying to offer some direction for arguments being made. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
There's a bunch of conflated issues here, but at the basic level of western political discourse, they absolutely refer to the same thing, just via a different framing, the same way the opposing sides in the abortion debate frame themselves as pro-choice/pro-life. I don't think "undocumented immigrants" is any less a NPOV violation than "illegal immigrants" because it's deliberately obfuscating the fact that the "undocumented" are in violation of immigration laws with the aim on focusing on the humanitarian plight of the immigrants and the issues with immigration laws themselves, while the "illegal" verbiage is part of the rhetorical framework in opposition. With that said, "illegal immigration" definitely seems to be the default framing. So, while it's a complex issue, it's not a NPOV violation by my reckoning. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk16:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
It might be tough to write it so it doesn't privilege a US perspective, but given such a global issue with tons of NGOs, public and private entities and scholarship, there should be decent sourcing for just such a thing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk17:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I checked Ngram, since I was under the impression that WP:RS had abandoned the term "illegal", but it seems I was wrong (on both "immigrant" and "immigration"). No longer believe this is an NPOV violation, per DIYeditor and Wohltemperierte Fuchs. DFlhb (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute on the Irish slaves myth article which has degenerated to the point where a certain editor is removing talk comments which challenge some of the sourcing in the article. These comments are directly related to the article's sources and were in no sense forum or soapbox rhetoric.
There are multiple issues I have with this article but to single one out:
"Treatment of Irish indentured servants varied widely, but the transport, physical work, and living conditions have been compared by scholars to the treatment of enslaved Africans." (second paragraph, background section).
This is not the opinion of scholars but one historian named John Donoghue. And, unlike the other scholars cited in this article, Donoghue actually believes in the idea of Irish slavery and his essay has been publicly refuted by a historian.[15].
There's other content sourced to Gera Burton and Brian Kelly -one a scholar of literature and postcolonialist, and the other a historian with specialized knowledge in 19th Century American immigrant history, also a postcolonialist.
I suppose to an amateur encyclopedia editor one scholar who writes about Ireland is much like another, but transatlantic and economic history are highly specialized and technical areas of scholarship in which postcolonial modes of analysis have little or no value in an Irish context (see author's reply p.245[16]). Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
It's actually more of a neutrality issue. The sources in question add no value to the article and were selected among hundreds of other sources for no real reason other than an editor's personal views. This is exactly the wrong reason to choose a source. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't really seem like a sourcing dispute so much as you posting your opinion on a talk page and other editors giving valid reasons why you should stop. If you think users are engaging inappropriately, the correct venue is WP:ANI. I would strongly advise against that, however, given the high likelihood of a WP:BOOMERANG sanction. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
It's entirely a sourcing dispute and nothing to do with my opinion. I'm perceived as a pest on that article for the crime of challenging a source that promotes the idea of Irish slavery on an article about the same myth. That this is such a hard call and has persisted so long is remarkable, although typical in this particular space. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Mikhail Tolstykh
the article for Mikhail Tolstykh currently describes him as a war criminal, but the subject has never been tried or convicted of this so i put an edit request on the talkpage asking for the removal of this claim, to no avail. next i went to the help desk here: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 February 1#war crimes allegation not supported by citation where i was told that the claim is unlikely to be removed but i could request to add the word "accused" to the "war criminal" claim, or i could ask here. so i put in a second edit request on the talkpage but the request was rejected and i was told to gather consensus on the talkpage, which is more-or-less inactive. so my question is, is it appropriate for someone accused of war crimes to be called a "war criminal" on Wikipedia? if not, how would the change be made? .usarnamechoice (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Not familiar with this, but no someone who has not been convicted in a court of war crimes should not be called a war criminal. As far as "accused" I think it depends what the source of the accusations is (and what coverage it has received) whether it should be mentioned at all. Sorry I didn't know he was dead. Dead persons have no protection from libel, but the accusation should be attributed to where it is known from. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I thought accused by the Ukranian government of war crimes could be cited to where it says he was charged with that in 2016 - but the citation doesn't say anything about that. I think it would be okay to say accused of and by whom if there is a good reliable citation - which there currently isn't so it shouldn't be there at all. NadVolum (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
that's just it. i think "accused" is fine but the article currently calls him a "war criminal". i've tried to get it fixed only to be stumped at every turn so i've given up. thank you for replying. .usarnamechoice (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I see that the caption under the picture in the citation further down says he was charged with war crimes by Ukraine in 2016 so something like that is okay. NadVolum (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
yes but the discussion at the (abandoned) talkpage has gone nowhere to fix the problem. "accused war criminal" is accurate, the assertion in the article, as it is now, is not. .usarnamechoice (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The mentioned article cites the historian Hasanli, who possesses a clear conflict of interest as he openly disavows the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide, [17] which has been widely acknowledged by the scholarly community. Furthermore, considering the ongoing hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is pertinent to note that Hasanli served the Azerbaijani government for a decade. Given his evident partiality towards one side, it is advisable to exclude him from the page's sources as his inclusion would compromise the objectivity and credibility of the encyclopedia. Therefore, I strongly advise against using such sources that lack neutrality and undermine the scholarly standards expected in an encyclopedia.Nocturnal781 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Apologies LegalSmeagolian, I missed your reply/question. The issue is lessened now that the page has been protected from IP edits, but see the last three items on the talk page. There have been multiple disputes going on, including over sourcing, original research and POV language. The film promotes Serbian nationalism so has had negative responses from Bosnian activists, and the editing disputes have been over how this should be framed (e.g. how much space to give the criticisms and the director's responses to these). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
In the article
Minneapolis > Cuisine, is this image non-neutral content? Many sources, including the Minneapolis Star Tribune explain a 60-year-old rivalry between Matt's Bar and the 5-8 Club over invention of the Jucy Lucy. I feel picturing one bar and not the other is unfair, and that picturing both is too many dive bars. I would prefer no image, or a different image. Earlier, I failed to have the image replaced (I closed that RfC with WP:SNOW). This has been discussed on Talk:Minneapolis at length since it was introduced into the article on October 25. I will notify the editor who added the photo. Thank you for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion where User:SusanLesch claimed "this photo violates WP:NPOV" was at Talk:Minneapolis#Jucy Lucy. Other editors involved were User:The Banner and User:Bobamnertiopsis. My comment at that discussion was "First, the most recent photo choice was made by consensus at an RFC you initiated. Second...and let me get this straight...because there is a rivalry between these two restaurants about which one invented some greasy local cheeseburger, you feel it would be unfair to feature the photo of one restaurant over the other. Is this correct? Seriously?" Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not see how a one sentence mention of a cheeseburger variation requires a photo of a restaurant, especially if it creates a perception of non-neutrality. Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The plan was also to replace the photo with a poor picture of another restaurant where SusanLesch was working on. So the NPOV could also been seen as: I don't like photo A (the present one), refuse any alternatives (both competing restaurants) so let us replace it by a photo of another restaurant with doubtful notability or by a half eaten burger. The Bannertalk00:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The 5-8 Club was founded in 1928 as a speakeasy; it claims to be one of the creators of the Jucy Lucy cheeseburger.
Two notable restaurants, 5-8 Club and Matt's Bar, both claim to have invented the Jucy Lucy. The article currently displays an image of one of those restaurants, with the caption stating: "it claims to be one of the creators of the Jucy Lucy cheeseburger." How is this POV? Where in MOS:IMAGES does it say every notable building in a city must be included, lest someone's feeling be hurt? The current image was selected because of its relevance, as it should be. Moreover, the photo caption completely removes any hint of POV by acknowledging the burger feud, and that this is one of the claimants to its creation. A simple solution to this POV issue would be to remove that sentence from the caption.
A glance at Talk:Minneapolis shows many discussions between User:SusanLesch, myself, and others, regarding the content of the cuisine section. My editing of that section has primarily involved removing what appeared to be over-the-top puffery, and excessive details about Owamni, a restaurant where SusanLesch is top editor. Past discussions about photos of Owamni include:
Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#Owamni/Fuji Ya exterior photos - SusanLesch announced that they had contacted the copyright owner for two photos of Owamni, and the copyright owner agreed to release them to Wikimedia. "These were the best I found out of about 2,000 images".
Gentlemen, Owamni is a separate matter and your conclusions are wrong. You argue that James Beard's best new restaurant in the United States should not be pictured in Minneapolis, the birthplace of the American Indian Movement. I did not expand the Owamni article until after the RfC and after it was flagged{{Notability}}, {{POV}}, and {{Weasel}}. Then I "worked on" Owamni, incessant sparring continued there, and I became its top editor. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The Matt's Bar and the 5-8 Club feud is more than 60 years old. Wikipedia does no one a service by acting a scofflaw[18] on a non-negotiable policy: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.". To stop this battle, in fairness I prefer no image. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Philadelphia is fortunate that Pat's and Geno's are close enough to each other that you can get both in a single shot (see Philadelphia#Cuisine). Note that buildings are depicted, and not a cheesesteak. I don't think including one photo over another amounts to taking sides in a rivalry; the important question is what image (or images, if there's space), best represents cuisine in Minneapolis. There are other notable alternatives, such as Al's Breakfast or the Band Box Diner. Mackensen(talk)14:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
RFCs are supposed to settle issues like this. Continuing on with this after the RFC didn't go your way is starting to look disruptive. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Have to conclude that this noticeboard went nowhere useful. This was my first ever such appeal. Disappointing, guys. Not counting Mackensen who was looking at alternatives, this !vote stands at 3 to 2 demanding use of a tourist trap to illustrate a city. Nobody even pinged User:Sectionworker who participated in the original discussion. P.S. And neither Matt's nor this bar made the Star Tribune's list of the city's 15 best dive bars. This NPOV noticeboard makes no sense. We are stuck with somebody's arbitrary preference, an image that takes sides in a decades-long dispute. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
You should realize that by choice of venue, your questions is "does this violate WP:NPOV?", not "should the image be included?". My opinion on the first question is "probably no clear violation" and "probably best decided by an RFC" On the second my thought "best to leave it out". Being one of two contending claims for invention of a local hamburger isn't enough to include an image in the top level Minneapolis article. And since including it is inherently promotional ofan individual restaurant, I'd advocate requiring an even stronger reason to put it in. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Cullen328. Why has the photo of one restaurant been picked over a photo of the other restaurant, and why is a photo necessary? On the Talk page, it appears SusanLeschsuggested using an image that depicts both restaurants (which hopefully now shows in this thread). What is wrong with that option? -Location (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The image in question was part of an RFC: Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#RfC: photo in the Cuisine section. This sort of forum shopping undermines the outcome of that RFC. This completely exaggerated "restaurant feud" and the inequity of putting the photo one purported inventor of a greasy cheeseburger over another purported inventor, seems kinda...grasping at straws. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Images are a form of editorial direction, and WP:WEIGHT applies to them too; they shouldn't just be used for decoration. I absolutely can see how the choice to privilege a single establishment to illustrate the cuisine section is undue weight. I don't think SusanLesch's attempt to replace it with Owamni is any better, but frankly I don't think the status quo is much better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Then just change the caption to acknowledge both restaurants. Easy-peasy. I could come to this board every day and complain about cities with 10 NRHP buildings, but only displaying one of them. Why does the article have a picture of the city hall, and not a firehall, or city train station, or police headquarters? Is city hall privileged? MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE doesn't mention that every notable building needs to be mentioned, lest others will be...less privileged. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
SusanLesch clearly has concerns about perceived bias in showing only the 5-8 Club and not Matt's Bar due to the competing claims about Jucy Lucy (which is completely different than deciding whether to show a photo of city hall over police headquarters). In order to resolve that issue, Susan started an RfC asking if the photo of the 5-8 Club should be replaced by a photo of Owamni. Although the RfC only last 2.5 days, I think she properly closed it when it was clear that editors did not think that was the right way to solve the problem. Today is the first time that I was aware of this issue, but I agree with Susan that there is a perceived neutrality issue here that is unresolved and from the comments I have read I think other editors see that, too.
I'm not inclined to go along with claims of forum shopping. "Unless you come with another RFC..." was proposed by The Banner[19] and that is effectively what Susan has done by bring the issue here. Options to "include both" and/or "remove both" were also brought up by other editors on the Talk page (see Collin[20] and Sbmeirow[21]) and here. For formality's sake, my ivote is to include both or remove both. [Edit: Stricken after commenting in RfC below.]-Location (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I was pinged to this discussion by Magnolia667. I have followed the Minneapolis article since its FA promotion, and have carefully watched it for the last three years as SusanLesch has worked to prepare it for a much needed FAR. Working alone (relative to a decade ago, where all of Minnesota WikiProject pitched in to help build a singularly impressive suite of Minnesota FAs), SusanLesch has toiled diligently to respond to numerous long lists of items I've given to bring the article in line with FA standards. [22] I've never encountered a difficulty with her, and have found her willing and eager to work as hard as possible to meet my requests. It is true that the article was overcome by quite a bit of Minnesota boosterism, but Susan has not balked at removing that when I have pointed that out.
In that environment, the ongoing issue over images has been most discouraging; as I've mentioned several times on talk, I wish content issues would be addressed first.
That said, there is a serious neutrality issue here, and SusanLesch is right to raise it. The verylongstanding rivalry between the two restaurants over the Jucy Lucy is very well documented in reliable sources, and apparently quite a passionate topic among Minnesotans. Portraying one, while leaving out the other, is decidedly non-neutral, and places Wikipedia in the position of advancing one side over the other, and that affects small business owners. If this is what was decided on talk, it's wrong, and local consensus should be dealt with by a broader consensus.
Now, to the bigger picture, have we never heard of {{Multiple image}} ? This is a big rivalry, and there's nothing wrong with a 3-image multiple image including the hamburger and both restaurants.
Regarding the link you suggested, the article says, "these include chef Sean Sherman—whose restaurant Owamni received James Beard's 2022 national award for the best new restaurant." Am I missing something? Saying any more about this one restaurant, while leaving out all the other notable restaurants in Minneapolis, is decidedly non-neutral, and places Wikipedia in the position of advancing one restaurant over the others, and that affects small business owners. If readers want to know more about Sean Sherman or Owamni, they can read the articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The multiple image solution has been proposed a few times, but SusanLesch has previously not been supportive (see comment in the RFC). If that compromise is now on the table, I think it would be a good way to settle this for good. MrOllie (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I suggest Minneapolis have no image for Cuisine per WP:WEIGHT. NPOV is a non-negotiable policy, "This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well." How easy is that? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
That would mean removing about 100,000 images of businesses from city articles, lest we not show bias. I have an idea! Why don't we just pick one image...how about the one decided by a consensus of editors at this RFC? And to avoid accusations of bias (and not put any small business owners out of business) we could add a Commons link to this category. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
An RfC attended by a total of five users is hardly some ironclad consensus that should never be looked at. Especially since a lot of what people here are talking about isn't the framing of the RfC (replacing the image with another, versus side-by-side or just removing it altogether, which I agree with.) As for the rest of your comment, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk21:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
And any of those restaurants is more important than one in Minneapolis. But the point is that that page is irrelevant in regards to image placement in the Minneapolis. You've got multiple uninvolved editors (Cullen, North, Location, me) pointing out that a paragraph in the article doesn't require any images, selecting a representative one is subject to NPOV the same as any article content, and you're being combative (Personal attack removed) in your responses. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk22:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Christ Church Lutheran Ah, I get it. It's about the greasy cheeseburger rivalry. What about the picture of Christ Church Lutheran? It's the only church pictured in the religion section, and this certainly shows bias and privilege towards Protestants. Why not a picture of Church of Saint Stephen? There has been some rivalry between the Protestants and Catholics you know. Let's remove the photo, lest Wikipedia appear biased. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Is there a significant rivalry between Christ Church Lutheran and Church of Saint Stephen which has received extensive coverage in WP:RS? If so I would say we should absolutely be careful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Magnoia677 please stop this OTHERSTUFFEXISTS going-in-circles. The one-restaurant image is creating a blatant bias and needs to be removed. In this case, no image is better than this bias. I agree with Fuchs (both or neither). And the over focus and going in circles about images has impeded the one editor who is trying to work through lists on content from progressing, and some of the reasoning is approaching the obtuse/obfuscation; we're here talking about a clearly established rivalry and one image. Not every problem in every other article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
" ... you're being combative and/or willfully dense in your responses. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)" And you have not yet removed the image that creates a bias. It is my understanding that you added it, but there's too much persistent edit warring from you at that article to be sure. Please remove the image, and read WP:FAOWN, and gain consensus on talk for edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
This discussion started last year. Has there been a consensus yet? I don't see one. Look above, has User:The Banner agreed? User:Mackensen suggested Al's Breakfast. When I added Al's Breakfast to the article yesterday, SusanLesch deleted it. Has User talk:MrOllie agreed? Please have an uninvolved administrator close this discussion before you start threatening editors with sanctions. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
One issue is the discussion of what/if to remove an image for POV; a separate issue is what, if any, image(s) to add. In all of the many discussions about same, could you please point out where you gained consensus to add the POV image to a Featured article? Unless you had consensus to add it, then it's up to you to remove it. (So as not to prompt an edit war.) Oh, The Banner is in this discussion, too? How surprising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The image wasn't POV when I added it, and I don't need consensus to add anything. My suggestion would be to find an admin to close this multi-year discussion. You do realize I asked SusanLesch today if she would agree to swap out this image, for an image she uploaded. No luck. I'll remove the image, and start a discussion on the talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Quite a sprawling discussion, but the consensus appears clear enough. There is consensus against a solo image of the 5-8 Club, and a consensus to include an image of both the 5-8 Club and Matt's Bar. There is also some support for using a different image, rather than the two Jucy Lucy inventors, but nothing concrete formed out of that discussion because it was a bit unfocused. There was support for the Jucy Lucy picture, a small collage, a breakfast place, and a then there were a bunch of other pictures no one opined on (COI notice: I love a tater tot hotdish). The broadest support there was for the collage with the two restaurants and the burger. It may be worth having a further discussion on the talk page on if a collage would be an improvement over the two restaurants alone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Two separate questions are being asked. The first section addresses whether to Keep or Remove the single image of one burger restaurant. Please enter a declaration in only one section (Keep, Remove Neutral). The second question is open ended and addresses whether different images should be used in the cuisine section, and if so, which. Different options may be proposed, and first, second, etc choice can be declared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Solo image of 5-8 Club
Claiming to be the creator of the Jucy Lucy cheeseburger in the 1950s, the 5-8 Club was founded in 1928 as a speakeasy
Comment - SandyGeorgia, first, there was an RFC about this less than two months ago, Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#RfC: photo in the Cuisine section, and it was withdrawn by the nominator because it was a snow. Second, you just threatened sanctions against me for not removing what some felt was an obviously biased image, and now you are giving editors the choice to reinsert that same biased image? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Support Having read the single sentence in the article that discusses this restaurant (and the other), an image of just the one is undue weight. Schazjmd(talk)22:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing wrong with the image. Unless we're going to do a collage of every restaurant in town, promoting one place over another isn't a concern. - MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Support. Given the competing claims about Jucy Lucy, I believe there is perceived bias with the inclusion of one restaurant and not the other. I am currently neutral on all the other propositions. -Location (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Support. I wrote most of the article on the 5-8 Club but having photos of building exteriors tells us next to nothing about the cuisine of Minneapolis except that it is served in buildings. I support showcasing a food item or dish here (even a "greasy cheeseburger" as it has been described because, yes, regardless of who created it there are numerous credible sources to support this greasy cheeseburger being invented in Minneapolis) or going with no picture at all. —Collintc02:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Note: I just now realize we're on the NPOV noticeboard; with that in mind, I do think there's merit to the case that favoring one of the two purported creators of this burger but not the other with an image goes against the spirit of seeking a neutral POV. Based on that, I affirm my above opinion: remove any images or put in an image (or images) of food. —Collintc05:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Support per User:SandyGeorgia. Additionally, even if we knew which restaurant invented this burger, it would be better to show an image of the burger instead of an image of the restaurant. Both restaurants can be mentioned in the burger image caption. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
When it works, it works because subheadings categorize supports and opposes. But the 'supportive' categories below were opened with oppose comments. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose; but would accept as second choice, Minneapolis is well recognized for an abundance of quality restaurants, and there is no reason (like lack of space in the article) to leave out an image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Striking all my (other) !votes in this section; as long as the POV image in the first section is removed, I don't care what is added or not in its place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Support The Cuisine subsection covers a lot of names. Frankly, the food desert information seems the most meaningful; if there were an illustrative map, I think that would make sense. But otherwise I don't think the section needs an image at all. Schazjmd(talk)22:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose - other articles on American cities have a restaurant or food item depicted, I think it's reasonable to include something here. --Sable232 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Support, but as a shared thumbnail with the two pictures adjacent and with a single description talking about the historical rivalry (as done in the adjacent example). I think two whole pictures on their own along with another is too much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Support - We have a section about the cuisine of a city, that cuisine includes a silly "we put the cheese inside instead of outside!" creation called a "Juicy Lucy" that's well-known in the area, and there are two restaurants with a decades-long feud over who invented it? How is this even a choice? Yes, obviously include a photo of both! Preferably with a dramatically lit photo of the burger in between them! Go back to Matt's to take a photo that orients it so they can be "facing" each other, too! This is the the kind of interesting, illustrated bit of information-drama that readers like to come across in articles (not to mention, say, Depths of Wikipedia/Annierau), and it's entirely policy-compliant. I wouldn't say that including one and not the other is a big NPOV problem, but if we have a photo of both, it's just good article writing to include both rather than one. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Minneapolis is known for a bunch of particular foods. See here. If we put images of that cuisine in the cuisine section, it will clutter things up a lot to also include photos of places where those items may have originated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
So expand the cuisine section or break it off into a daughter page. If something has gotten more coverage than the Juicy Lucy you can propose changing the picture, but you seem to be operating backwards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Support - This seems the best way to resolve this issue. We have good pictures of both restaurants, both are equally worthy of inclusion, so let's use them both. --Sable232 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, Owamni may be a wonderful restauraunt, but it makes for a poor image since it occupies only a portion of a mixed-use building. What we get is a photo of a nondescript building. - MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose if it's supposed to be an alternative. A new restaurant vs. a 60 year old feud over a long-time local [delicacy?]? Let's be serious... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - The photo is of a plain looking building, and the restaurant shows diners in silhouette. Poor choice for an illustrative aid. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Support First off, the is an excellent photo. It shows the attractive entrance and also shows the upstairs restaurant seating section with the window view. And secondly, I feel that the Native American menu adapted for an award winning cuisine is quite remarkable and deserves note, including a photo to show the establishment. Sectionworker (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, last choice, we have possibilities for a well-documented rivalry over what a Chicago Tribune writer called the "best cheeseburger in America" or an innovative award-winning and internationally recognized indigenous restaurant; no need to go fishing for an alternate image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Tater Tot HotdishFresh walleye being cooked over a fireLefsedessert barsWild rice stir fry
Support an image of the Jucy Lucy instead of any image of the restaurants that claim to have invented it. The restaurants don’t look unusual, it’s the unusual cuisine itself that should be the focus. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Support Collin's reasoning along with Anythingyouwant have convinced me. An image of a building does not convey anything about the cuisine of Minneapolis, and could risk looking promotional regardless of which is chosen. So for the same reason, I'd not opt for the proposed (on talk) Al's Breakfast either, or the interior of the Owamni (also proposed here). An actual food item, such as (but not limited to) the Jucy Lucy is more descriptive of cuisine. Cuisine of Minnesota gives us little to work with, and is more about regional dishes than Minneapolis per se, while regardless of which restaurant(s) claim it, that the Jucy Lucy was invented in Minneapolis is easily sourceable. That doesn't mean we have to be limited to one food item; the FA India offers ideas for how to use multiple images, in case anyone can come up with something else unique to Minneapolis, or an image of an indigenous plate from the Owamni. Apparently the Jucy Lucy was good enough for Obama as a sample of Minneapolis cuisine when he visited Minneapolis, and we have a source calling it "the best cheeseburger in America", so that works for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Weak support - When brought up in the past, there was a tepid reception to this idea, at least partly because commenters didn't like either of the available images. I like Rhododendrites' suggestion to incorporate both the burger and the two establishments. --Sable232 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Oppose. No good reason to fixate on unhealthy food. Don't need or want tourist trap. Why is this RfC a moving target? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Susan, if no clear consensus emerges for any single image, a second RFC can be run after the options are narrowed down. The more important issue, the image some found as POV, is addressed separately, and having that resolved will make it easier to move forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The closing admin will sort that, and likely make suggestions for what were the definite findings of the RFC, and likely options for a followup if one is needed. This is not an urgent matter, an RFC takes time, more people will weigh in over time, and trust that it will get sorted eventually. Meanwhile, content matters at Minneapolis can proceed while this image RFC runs it course-- the good news is that we are now seeing feedback from independent editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Strongly support the juicy lucy restaurant over something different, and since it would be biased to chose one over the other we would need to include both. Juicy lucy burgers have been around for decades and the only food item that a president has asked for. Sectionworker (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Support per Anythingyouwant. The purpose of images is to help readers understand the subject matter. The images of the two restaurants show unremarkable buildings and don't help me understand the fact that they purport to have invented a special hamburger. The photo of the Jucy Lucy helps me understand the description of a food item I've never seen before. Ajpolino (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
That’s a reasonable position, Sandy, but in that case I’d suggest narrowing the header to cuisine unique to Minneapolis, or cuisine invented in Minneapolis. This source does say that Minneapolis is known for the food items I have discussed, but you’re right that other places are known for some of them too. DISCLAIMER: My Minnesota ancestors lived in Norway, Minnesota rather than Minneapolis! Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to alter the header, in the event others agree with your position, I don't see why we should chunk up Minneapolis with images that would duplicate images that should be in the Cuisine of Minnesota article. Jucy Lucy is uniquely Minneapolis; none of the others are. I also reject the (non-policy-based) POV expressed by others that says we should leave out "unhealthy" images; if that's what Minnesotans eat, it is what it is. Tater hotdish is also unhealthy, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe we have any evidence that the Jucy Lucy is what Minneapolitans eat regularly. It is a curiosity more likely to be what visitors eat. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
User:SandyGeorgia, you’re apparently saying we should leave the tater tot hotdish out of the Minneapolis cuisine section not because it’s unhealthy, but rather because it neither was invented in Minneapolis nor is unique to Minneapolis. Minneapolis is known for this dish, but so are other places. If we tragically decide to omit this delicacy, then maybe we can narrow the header to unique aspects of Minneapolis cuisine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Rather than narrowing the header, I'd prefer to let others opine. To me the scope of the Minneapolis article is obvious, but what do I know :) For example, we don't repeat the entire history of Minnesota for Minneapolis ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm from Minnesota, both Mpls and da range, and in my experience none of those photos are representative of Mpls foods. They are Northern Minnesota dishes, especially church supper, walleye [the walleye lakes are up north], anything wild rice is northern where it is harvested (except I don't know what that stir fry thing is and I've never heard of it) etc. See here for Mpls cuisine: Cuisine of the Midwestern United States. Also read Hotdish. Sectionworker (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I have struck some of my commentary above. I still support including an image of Juicy Lucy, but no other images of food unless they were invented in Minneapolis. I don’t think any unremarkable image should be shown of a restaurant where Juicy Lucy started, but if such an image is included then an image of the other restaurant making that claim should be included too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
General discussion
Re Magnolia's question at 21:39 above, it has been pointed out already that the previous RFC was about something else, and no consensus has formed in the five-person discussion on a talk page, and this disruption has gone on for several years now. It's time to get it settled at the community level so progress towards restoring the article's featured status can be made. The questions being asked here are broader than those in previous RFCs, and will hopefully end this undue focus on one image in an article needing content work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Three people do not a consensus make, the dispute has drug on for two years and has impeded progress on content at the article, the issue was not being settled above even after becoming the oldest thread on this board, and so I put forward every possibility for a broader group to opine. This campaign needs to end so progress can be made on content; now please stand aside and let the broader community decide so you can once-and-for-all hopefully let this issue go and let others make progress on content. It would not be helpful to move to yet another forum; the discussion was already here, so let the community opine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, if Mackensen wants to add Al's Breakfast, I'm sure he will. The talk page discussion was going in the same circles it has for two years, which is why Mackensen asked you and SusanLesch to stop interacting there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
This has spiraled out of control if now we're entertaining passing mentions. Somebody came to Minneapolis and ate a meal. So what? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
SusanLesch, just as an FYI, I'd LOVE to come to Minneapolis and eat a meal, or ten. My sister in law lives there and I'd like to visit. And obviously I need to determine which Ju(i)cy Lucy is the best. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
MrOllie regarding your concern above, there are two different issues to settle here, hence two different formats. The first was a stalled discussion when Magnolia677 had refused to remove an image that they added but that many had opined was POV, and hanging on to a local consensus that didn't address that question, rather a different one. Hence, for that discussion, it's Remove the image, Keep the image, or Neutral (don't care). There are only three choices; that's to settle the POV question, which was stalled at Magnolia677's refusal to remove the image they added in spite of several editors seeing POV. The second question is more open-ended; do we add images or not to the cuisine section, and if so, which ones. There have been a variety of ideas put forward. I envisioned that people would order them by choice as I did. If you think this explanation helps, we could add some statements to this effect above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Magnolia677 removed the POV image and I thanked him. Ultimately, this noticeboard had a positive effect on the article. Thank you. I have no appetite for more arguments. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
One of Minnesota's smallest restaurants, Al's Breakfast received the 2004 James Beard "America’s Classics" award.[1]
As an independent contributor, feel free to adjust as needed. Just please keep the basic questions, with all options on the table. The invitation to adjust does not extend to involved contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
So the first set with three options is mutually exclusive and you'd only argue "support" under one right? But people seem to have argued both support and oppose even though that makes no sense. The second set with four questions is partially mutuality exclusive, supporting the first category means opposing the other three and vice versa but someone could support all three other options (Add image of both burger restaurants, Add image of Owamni, and Add a different image). The only crossover between the two is that support for "Add no images" automatically counts as support for Remove solo 5-8 image but people have commented both places. Do I have that right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back I'm open to suggestions, or you're free to adjust it yourself. I've already laid out above (in my response to MrOllie) what the two-fold intent is: a) Remove or Keep the single image, b) add or not another image, and if so, which one or ones. (How unfortunate that Magnolia677 didn't just remove the POV image before we had to come to this, but the image issues at that article have gone on for two years, so let's get everything on the table, else it will pop up in yet another discussion on yet another forum.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back if that means removing my declarations, go for it, no problem ... I only entered them as I thought it would make it clearer what the bullet format was. Once you restructure, I can easily (or not) re-enter -- feel free to delete and move at will. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back Well, another possibility is to remove the whole first section about the solo image, since Magnolia677 finally removed it (after it came to this). Would that help ? Would it make sense? With the two-year disruption, I fear that if I remove it, that issue will come back as unsettled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
So the two-pronged RFC, to establish global consensus for both -- 1) the sole burger restaurant image, and 2) whether to add other images and which -- was in fact necessary, as I suspected. Glad to know it's not a further waste of our time. Re your claim to feel threatened and intimidated, see the post just above the one you link; review your treatment of other editors for several years across several Minnesota town/city talk pages, and then User talk:SandyGeorgia and User talk:David Fuchs are that-a-way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Your caption is unrealistic and may bias editor's decisions. Please wait for others to comment about the appropriateness promotional captions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I know it shouldn't have been done and that even good-intentioned attempts at humor can be derailing, and personally I get really irritated when editors try to be funny in serious discussions and I hate to encourage that behavior...but that edit made me laugh for so long, I simply had to appreciate it. Sorry. Schazjmd(talk)15:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
User:SandyGeorgia , why are you continuing to add newspaper articles to the caption of Owamni? The adds bias to the caption, and is deceptive because that caption would never exist on a US city article per this consensus not to add newspaper "rankings". Magnolia677 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
See discussion above. Stop edit warring, and stop misinterpreting a mere suggestion (taken from earlier captions). Please add back the sources and stop editing other editor's posts, and stop edit warring during an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Your caption is unrealistic and may bias editor's decisions. Please wait for others to comment about the appropriateness of your promotional caption. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
OK… this whole thing has gotten so out of hand that I now must support the extreme boomerang position… omit all mention of food and restaurants. No pics, no text… nada. Place sanctions on the article to enforce it. Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Blueboar I share your frustration, and could also support this option, but the image issues at Minneapolis and Minnesota articles have extended beyond food and restaurants, so I fear that would be just a bandaid to the underlying problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
We now have an admin altering captions for humor (funny, but it encouraged further disruption and led to an edit war over captions), when the RFC is about images, and captions were only suggestions. Could we come to consensus to remove all captions in the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Add images section, so we can focus on images and stop the edit warring and editing of other people's posts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Support, remove all captions in the Add images section. Once an image is settled upon, content issues can be resolved via normal processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
It's been ten days since any new feedback here, and there remains the possibility that a second (clarifying) RFC will be needed. Does anyone care if I put a Request to close at WP:AN? Or do you want to run the full 30 days? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
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.
As of the time of publication of the review, the author was a MA in "Nonprofit Management and Public Policy". The discipline is not remotely relevant to the topic of the book, she was not even pursuing a PhD, and there is nothing to suggest that she had any expertise in the field of sociology/history of Holocaust!
As of now, she is a Professor of Sociology and specializes on the body art of youth. As far away from the contours of Holocaust Studies etc. as possible. So, nothing to suggest that she developed any expertise in the field of sociology/history of Holocaust!
The journal is a fringe-y journal — initiated by someone who took umbrage at American Sociological Association and split away — and is not indexed in any selective bibliometric database. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I support inclusion on the following grounds:
the author was a junior scholar and became a regular scholar. She is a reliable. She is also a sociologist reviewing a book by another sociologist
the journal is indeed pretty minor but nothing suggests it is not reliable. According to [26], it is indexed in four "Specialized databases".
WP:BOOK recommends that a reception section about a book should "quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews... Because this section involves opinions, it should be heavy with quotes and citations." Nothing suggests we should exclude reviews from minor scholars/journals, as long as they are properly attributed. An article about a book, in its reception section, should mention all reliable reviews.
One thing that I'll add is that (per WP:PROPORTION and WP:BALANCE) the lenght of quotations etc. might be adjusted, so that for example a review by a well-known expert in a major journal should be longer than that of a minor scholar in a minor journal. But as long as a book review is from a reliable source (not some crazy WP:FRINGE Journal of Flat Earth Studies), it should not be removed (censored) out of an article about a book it is reviewing. Here, WP:POVDELETION is very relevant: "there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary... Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." Is her review "Especially contentious"? If not, it should remain in the article (after some possible rewording/balancing for lenght/etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
According to her Linkedin profile, she graduated in Sociology and Gender Studies from Rutgers University in 1989, taking six years. Three years later, she received a MS in Nonprofit Management and Public Policy from The New School. She would enroll for her next degree — PhD in sociology — in 2008 at University of Wroclaw. Thus, as of the time of the review, her highest qualification was a MS in Nonprofit Management and Public Policy. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Having a hard time finding a faculty page for them on Kean's site. Kind of surprised to not see Adjunct Instructor at Raritan Valley Community College on that Linkedin profile because thats the only place I can find which lists them as faculty[27]. Keen has an adjunct faculty search feature[28], it doesn't show a Lisiunia Romanienko, anyone named Lisiunia, anyone named Romanienko, and the only Lisa is another woman. There is also no rate my professor profile for them at Kean, the only rate my professor profile has them teaching at Farmingdale State College in 2020[29]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Her website gives us the requisite info: she was an "instructor" at Keane from 2014 to 2018; then, she transitioned to some non-academic role for a Pennslyvanian NGO. Further, it sheds some light on her academic training:
"Louisinia State University: Doctorate of Philosophy 1996-2005 Sociology ABD {until Hurricane Katrina)"
Ok, so let me get this straight... At the time she wrote the book review she A. was a PhD student B. was not a professor C. had no academic background in holocaust studies whatsoever D. had never been published before? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely fascinating. Can you strike " As of now, she is a Professor of Sociology" from your opening statement now that we know she is not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
That's incorrect. It wasn't her first publication. In 1999 she published: Gender differences in adaptation patterns among scientists in developing nations: exploring the case studies of Ghana, Kenya, and Kerala, link. In 2000 she published Structural impediments to managerial mobility in industrialised nations, link. And
Dual labor market theory and the institutionalization of farmers' markets: marginalized American workers adapting to inhospitable conditions, link. Marcelus (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I understood "never been published before" as a query about whether she had been published in any relevant fields. Which of these third-tier publications have some connection — however tangent — to the Holocaust in Poland? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Looking at Romanienko's publishing history [30] it appears that this book review was their first piece of published work and they wouldn't publish again until 2007. How an unpublished student came to be writing a book review I don't know, but it doesn't say good things for the reliability of the source which published it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
...even if it's not a book about sociology? So if a sociology writes a cookbook, it should be reviewed by another sociologist? Any, she wasn't a sociologist when she wrote the review. (Nor a "junior academic", which is not a real thing.) Levivich (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
(Tagged in below, commenting up here to address the "unpublished student" thing.) Unpublished students frequently write book reviews; it's a relatively easy, low-ball kind of publication to put on your CV (which is why they aren't counted for much in tenure/hiring discussions). If you're not capable of doing a book review, you aren't going to be able to write a dissertation either. If anything, ABD PhDs are actually pretty well-placed to write them, since becoming ABD typically involves reading all the relevant recent literature in your field. I don't think any of these things really have to do with any individual book review can be seen as a reliable source or not. There are careless reviews written by senior scholars, and attentive ones written by students. I will say that there is enormous pressure on ECRs ("early career researchers", the more common term for "junior academic", which absolutely is a thing, sorry Levivich) to review books overly kindly, since obviously you don't want to piss off a senior academic who might end up being a future coworker (or the deciding vote on a hiring decision).
I also don't think any of this is particularly relevant to this issue. The issue here is "should this review be cited in this article", with some editors being for and some editors being against. The editors against have given many reasons, the editors for have mostly argued against those reasons, rather than showing that this review is particularly fundamental to the article or particularly useful in this context. This doesn't look like a case where there is some possible consensus compromise - either the review is cited, or it isn't. What's the argument for using it? What is it adding to the article that readers won't get if it's not there? If there isn't one, doesn't it just make sense to remove it and move on with writing the encyclopedia? -- asilvering (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't seem particularly due to me, given the apparent lack of subject-matter expertise in the reviewer. Is there any evidence that this review reflects a broader consensus on Piotrowski's book, or has it just been selected for its positive response? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
If there are really only three reviews (the one being discussed here, and the other two currently cited), there clearly can't be a 'broad consensus' at all. Which leads us back to the question as to why we should be placing so much emphasis (a third of the relevant material) on a work by someone with no apparent subject-matter expertise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump I think there was one more review, now removed and under discussion on the article's talk page. In either case, I fully agree we should not place much emphasis on a minor review. I fully agree about restructuring the content so that reviews by minor scholars in minor journals are not made to look (by lenght, for example) as those by their more expert/senior collegues in more major outlets. My preference would be to expand on what the more senior/expert sources say rather than cut down on what the minor sources say, if given the choice. What I am opposed to, however, is a total and complete removal of the very fact that this review exist from the article in question (unless we judge the source to be unreliable). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: To quote from our article, Klaus-Peter Friedrich writing in Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung criticized the work as an "apologetic" tract.[7] Jan Grabowski characterized the book as a "collection of quotations taken out of context" — among other ahistorical claims, Piotrowski held Jewish "collaborators" responsible for the Holocaust in a major part and blamed Polish antisemitism upon the Jews.Friedrich was entrusted by the Yad Vashem, Bundesarchiv, UoFreiburg, and other affiliated institutions with the editorial responsibilities of two of the four volumes on Poland as part of the magisterial The Persecution and Murder of the European Jews by Nazi Germany, 1933–1945. And, we have a long article on Jan Grabowski.So, we have reviews by domain-experts. Interestingly, the review by Romanienko is quite effusive but I am sure that this is a coincidence. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think a journal published by Rice University that publishes papers with titles like "The Difficult Topos In-Between The East Central European Cultural Context as a Post-Coloniality" [32] can be described as "fringe Polish nationalist". Can you articulate what exactly you're basing that assessment on? Volunteer Marek 21:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
It wasn't published by Rice its just archived there (it went belly up in 2017). It was published by the Polish Institute of Houston as the link you provided makes clear. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Now, can you explain why you claimed that it was a "fringe Polish nationalist" journal? What thought process or research led you to make that assertion? Because even a very quick glance at the articles in the journal strongly suggests that it's nothing like that. I mean, "fringe Polish nationalists" don't usually go for post-structuralist discourse and rhetoric. Volunteer Marek 21:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The source you provided says "Published by: Polish Institute of Houston." How is the "Polish Institute of Houston" not inherently nationalist? Nationalist doesn't mean fascist, they often go for post-structuralist discourse and rhetoric. Also note that the Rice page you linked to is contradictory, the description says that but the documents actually don't they say "The Sarmatian Review is published by the Polish Institute of Houston, an independent, publicly supported not-for-profit foundation."[33] so not published by Rice, independent of it. Looking at the board though I do retract me claim of fringe, obscure appears to be more appropriate. What is your opinion of using a PhD student for a book review? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
That's quite a strange definition of "nationalist" you have there. Are "Mexican Restaurants" nationalist too? Cuz you know, they also state their nationality in their name. And the description is not contradictory at all if you're familiar how partnerships between academia and "independent" institutes usually work.
As far as the "PhD student" goes I don't know I haven't looked at it. I'd say the determining factor should be where it was published. Volunteer Marek 22:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Is that rhetorical? The answer is yes, I take it you don't have much of a background in food politics? On the topic at hand we generally consider both author and publisher, especially for something like a book review which is largely the authors own opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so let's be clear: the "Polish Institute of Houston" (affiliated and published by Rice University) is "nationalist" in the same sense that a local Mexican restaurant is "nationalist". Um... then why does that matter? Why are you even bringing it up?
Oh, then that's fine. It's a reliable source, published by Rice University with peer review and an editorial board staffed by professional scholars. Volunteer Marek 23:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Wow, having deja vu... The last time someone tried to play games with me it was you [34][35]. Who was the other editor then? Oh right it was Volunteer Marek, what the hell is going on here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
"Peer review"? Piotrus said the same thing. We're talking about book reviews here, and book reviews aren't peer reviewed. And "staffed by professional scholars" also doesn't matter when the author isn't a scholar. Romanienko was a PhD student in 2000 when she wrote this review. When PhD students write reviews of books written by established scholars, what do you think the chances are that the review will be negative? Or even a little bit negative? Also, what qualifies a PhD student to review a work by a scholar, under any circumstances? Is it really a "review" or is it just a "write-up", reporting on the fact of publication, as opposed to offering a qualified opinion on the quality of the book. Levivich (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I know within my own field they aren't, I think its the same for most. Book reviews work almost the opposite of most articles, they begin with the journal reaching out to the author and requesting that they write a review. The author then sends their review in and its published after being reviewed by an editor (often the same one who requested it). It generally is not sent out for peer review. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Obviously it is up to the journal to decide whether to send a book review to an external reviewer or just review it in-house. We don't know what happened in this case. At a minimum it will have been read carefully by an editor; nothing is published sight-unseen. Since peer review is not a fact-checking process except in limited disciplines like mathematics, it is hard to see the difference. Zerotalk03:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The difference is that the lack of peer review means that we treat book reviews (along with editorials) as opinion content, most of the time that makes little difference because the author is a subject matter expert and as such their opinion is notable. The flip side is that book reviews by non-subject matter experts have almost no uses on wikipedia (as with all opinion pieces by non-subject matter experts). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
So now we're down to arguing that book reviews shouldn't be included in Wikipedia articles on... books... because some people think they're not "peer reviewed". Well, that kind of speaks for itself. Volunteer Marek 05:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is arguing that. What has been suggested however it that we take into consideration the subject-matter expertise of the reviewer when deciding whether to include such content. We want 'expert opinion', not just 'opinion'. Same as with Wikipedia content generally... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying very hard, per WP:AGF, to imagine that if Romanienko's review had been less than enthusiastic about Piotrowski's book, the same contributors would be making the same arguments here. Evidently I need to try harder still, because I can't seem to convince myself of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
My 2c, based on what's been said above: initially, I'm not seeing a strong case for including this review; as another user said above, some editors are presenting reasons why it shouldn't be used (e.g. it's by someone who wouldn't have been considered a subject-matter expert at the time, there's no evidence it was peer-reviewed, and in a contentious topic area we should use the best sources and not borderline ones) and other editors are mostly arguing against those (e.g., it's possible that, deviating from the norm, this specific review secretly was peer-reviewed) but not really making much of a case for why it does need to be included. I understand desire to represent the full spectrum of views, but if other reviews are by more established authorities and are negative, and only this one of questionable quality is positive, we need to be wary of false balance. However, if there are other more reliable sources that do attach weight to the review / its viewpoint, that might suggest that some summary of the parts of it which other works attach weight to could indeed be due. So, what works consider Romanienko's view/review significant (one by Messina is suggested above), and how reliable are they? -sche (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a content dispute at Ottawa Rowing Club regarding the recent addition of various lengthy lists of non-notable club members. This is not a list article, and it is my opinion that the depth of detail, and the quantity of text, given to these lists of non-notable club members who have competed in rowing events is WP:UNDUE. There is a discussion at Talk:Ottawa Rowing Club#Recent edits by Magnolia677. Your input would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
