Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

Gabor and Ataturk

This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It has never been resolved.

Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 autobiography Zsa Zsa Gabor: My Story. This alleged liaison has been in the public discourse ever since. Some additional references:

• "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
• Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
• Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
• Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
• Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
• Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.

A couple of editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. Removing this information violates WP:NOTCENSORED. I have restored it for the time being, but it's bound to get deleted again unless more editors enforce having the content retained. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been two days and still no feedback. As expected, my additions to Ataturk and Gabor's respective pages were reverted. This violates WP:NOTCENSORED, does it not? The reverting editors have argued against including the information because it is a claim not a fact. We're talking about a relationship from the early-to mid-'30s, long before tabloids and social media existed. Ataturk has been dead since 1938. So of course there aren't going to be receipts. Gabor's account is the only thing to go by, and many publications have long accepted it. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It has now been 17 days and still none of you have joined the discussion. Please give input so this debate doesn't go dormant yet again. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Well over a month now. Community participation is strongly needed. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you link the page in the title of this section? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's both Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Zsa Zsa Gabor. Schazjmd (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"As a possible smear, political and wartime foe British Prime Minister David Lloyd George wrote in 1919 of a meeting with "Mustapha Kemal, a man who I understand has grown tired of affairs with women and has lately taken up unnatural intercourse". Atatürk adopted seven daughters and a son."

This (quote) is an assertion that does not appear very encyclopedic. The issue may be that Gabor is a WP:PRIMARY, but it is still attributable to her. Placement in the article may be the key to resolving the issue. DN (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Parental investment

Certain passages of parental investment should probably be looked at, particularly as it pertains to humans. I'm somewhat skeptical reading language like Women on the other hand are tuned into resources provided by potential mates, as their reproductive success is increased by ensuring their offspring will survive, and one way they do so is by getting resources for them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

My general concern is that there are plenty of statements in this article that state in wikivoice that women act a certain way because evolution. I think it's important to be careful about generalizing groups of people like that and there's probably some WP:DUE issues there. I'm not an expert on human sexuality or anything so I was hoping some more eyes on this would be useful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to share your concern. The content as it stands seems overdependent on biological points of view and seems inattentive to academic scholarship from other fields (such as history, cultural anthropology, and gender studies), about how socialization and culture shape expectations of and behavior around parenting. Like, the article is basically saying stuff like 'women are biologically predisposed to X', and I'm not accustomed to thinking of sweeping claims of biological predisposition in human behavior as something that has a strong consensus in academia. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What I think is needed is for the article to take a more zoomed out perspective, cite some textbooks about human sexuality that can tackle the topic from a really broad-scope so as to account for and attend to perspectives from multiple disciplines. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

sourcing appears to be weird anthropology studies from the 90s… could be mmuch of the research remains outdated Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever posted a thread on this noticeboard so forgive me if I'm doing this all wrong, but is something supposed to happen? Are there specific wikiprojects I should contact to address this issue that I've identified? I'm not confident in correcting it myself but I also don't want this thread to be archived without anything happening. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest making the edits. There either are multiple reliable academic sources that support the idea that women select a mate based on survival of their offspring or there are not. That being said, I had not heard of the concept of parental investment before and the current lead of the article makes it seem more like an applied theory so perhaps the article should be put in that voice. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

A separate controversy section at Nijisanji

Hello, folks. A recent edit at Nijisanji placed a portion of material from the history section into a new controversy section. I undid this, as I thought the change made the article less neutral, citing WP:STRUCTURE. The controversy section was reintroduced in this edit, with part of the rationale posted on my talk page. Here is an excerpt of that:

Since the text describing Selen Tatsuki incident is longer than all the rest of 2023 and 2024 combined, breaking it out very much doesn't afford undue weight. [...] Nijisanji's actions did attract criticism and controversy [...] Also, hiding such a major and talked-about thing in an unformatted wall of text as if it was just another graduation of no note is not neutral, and could very well be used to whitewash and hide its importance.

I have excised some of the message, but you can view the entire text in the link above.

I am not well versed on Wikipedia's NPOV policies or how they should be applied in this instance, so I thought I'd ask for some input and a second opinion here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There's some discretion in how to organize the information in an article, but in my opinion creating a criticism section in this fashion is inappropriate and makes the undue emphasis problem even worse. This needs to be cleaned up so the whole situation is explained in one or two concise paragraphs in the history section. Highlighting controversies because they're controversies definitely violates neutral point of view. Pinging Mathrick, the user being quoted here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, a couple questions here:

• At which point, and by what criteria, does it become not "undue emphasis"? Plenty of articles have a controversy section, rightly so in my opinion; what separates them from those that shouldn't have it? If the company going into damage control mode and spending a good chunk of their communications on assuring everyone they're not villains isn't sufficient evidence of genuine controversy, then what is?
• Or are you saying that a controversy section always violates NPOV, in any article? In which case, I respectfully disagree, as does a lot of existing Wikipedia practice.
• You said it makes the "undue emphasis problem even worse" -- does that mean the article before my edit had an undue emphasis on Selen Tatsuki's termination already? If so, I must strongly disagree with that opinion.
• Would moving the Selen Tatsuki termination content back to the history section, but giving it a separate sub-section heading be an acceptable solution to you? I'd be fine with that. But if the idea is that it must not be highlighted in any way and be delegated to nothing more than a paragraph that doesn't stand out from its surroundings in any way, then again I strongly disagree. It's in the company's interest to make it be just a business event like any other, but it's very clear from both the community reaction and the content of what apparently transpired (such as the allegations that she was fired whilst recovering from a suicide attempt) that it wasn't. Treating it as business as usual is nothing more than taking the company's stance and helping them whitewash the whole thing, which certainly isn't neutral.

mathrick (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION provides some good reasoning to avoid using a giant "Criticism" section for articles too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Harresment

Will we have to PP this page too? Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussing whether Len Blavatnik is an oligarch or not

See Talk:Len Blavatnik#NPOV_problems_in_the_Intro_and_Sanctions_sections but been having discussion with @C at Access. We are trying to discuss how due it is to discuss if Len is oligarch... possibly could belong on WP:BLPN. In general, trying to figure out if there is WP:SYNTH when discussing this, and whether sanctions against him by zelensky would be related to ruso-ukraine war.

Of note, C has openly disclosed a COI as required.

Would like another opinion on this, especially as many media sources have indicated Blavatnik has personally gone to great lengths to avoid accusations of being connected to /being a russian oligarch. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Zionism

There are several robust discussions on this page about the balance and appropriate range of sources to use, and I think they could use wider input. Andre🚐 17:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Knock it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the existing input is just fine, it's just you are not happy with the direction is all. And it's not an NPOV issue. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC) This board isn't a good place for an involved editor with an ad hominem. For those of us not familiar with the issue, do you have any substantive information to share? SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC) Do you? Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC) You could just do what the OP asked and go look at the page, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sharjah Archaeology Museum

The Sharjah Archaeology Museum has interesting stuff in its collection, but the Wikipedia article is not great. I removed some promo, but not all. Polygnotus (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Science of Identity Foundation

Editors are requested to take a look at Science of Identity Foundation and ensure compliance with NPOV. I do not see any violations of the policy but as the primary author of the article, I might be biased. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hindu American Foundation

Editors are requested to take a look at Hindu American Foundation and ensure compliance with NPOV. I do not see any violations of the policy but as the primary author of the article, I might be biased. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

it seems fair and balanced. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom." – Aristotle DangalOh (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

State Sovereignty Day (Azerbaijan)

Hello! I'm a newbie to NPOV and most of Wikipedia in general, but I want some editors familiar with Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan to take a look at the article State Sovereignty Day (Azerbaijan). It's clear from a cursory inspection that article seem to not been in compliance with NPOV: it uses extensive judgmental language and buzzwords associated with Azerbaijani state media, such as referring to the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh as an anti-terror operation and referring to former unrecognized state, the Republic of Artsakh as an unlawful terrorist group. The article also cites exclusively Azerbaijani state media and Azerbaijani-language sources. FossilDS (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead and the "Historical context" section, removing a lot of irrelevant information and avoiding partisan sources. I think the questionable wording should be gone by now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't think there are any NPOV violations within the article anymore. FossilDS (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Jack Schlossberg and pages on Kennedy family as well as JFK descendants

Due weight and neutrality issues currently being discussed at Talk:Jack Schlossberg regarding due weight of including trivial mentions and magazine commentaries. Additional input would be appreciated, there, or here. Similar issues with various pages about Kennedy related families and descendants of Kennedy. Graywalls (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like things have improved. If this is an ongoing issue on other Kennedy articles, you might point out that if the info is already listed in the info-box it creates a redundancy and WP:LEADCLUTTER to have it all in the same spot twice. DN (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Shortly after this discussion was started, it was found that a second account was being used by the article creator to bypass consensus building, then a WP:LOUTSOCK. Graywalls (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitic trope

The article currently has massive citation issues, both in regards to over citing (ranging from 8-26 citations for a single line) & uncritical sourcing to unreliable groups such as Free Beacon, Jewish Virtual Library, New York Post, The Federalist, Rolling Stone, Fox News, & the Heritage Foundation.

I've already minorly discussed the issues at Talk:Antisemitic trope with @Steven1991, but as I'm not much of an editor myself & after running it by @Wellington Bay, I thought it'd be for the best to try & get more eyes on the issue. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You may feel free to remove citations that you consider redundant. Steven1991 (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It might make sense to rollback the article to the state it was in before September 12 and start from there since a lot of the poor sourcing, POV-pushing and editorializing seems to have been introduced over the past two or three weeks. Here's a diff[1]. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No. Strongly objected as there is a lot of original content from me. It is totally unreasonable. I don’t object to amending it per section. Steven1991 (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

From the looks of it, I think that'll probably be for the best, otherwise it would just take forever to get it into any reasonable state. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

wp:tnt applies… if a useful version exists without the objectionable citations lets use that Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

did it just now. took a peek at a few random versions in between and diffs were mostly addition of sources from super conservative sourcing like Tablet Magazine, Heritage foundation, or were simply described as \<ref\>video from smith\</ref> Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

… and steven1991 immediately reverted Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it is not acceptable. Steven1991 (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CON and WP:VANDAL. Steven1991 (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

That was in no way an act of vandalism & you are the only person against the rollback meaning that you, unilaterally, are the one who broke consensus. Please WP:AGF & don't call someone a vandal for trying to fix a massive issue with the article. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The post has only been up for a few hours. I wonder how a consensus can be reached in a few hours when parties are living in different time zones? Steven1991 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I have proposed measures, promised and shown the willingness to fix the issues being raised. Steven1991 (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The easiest way to fix the article is to rollback to before it became a mess & build up from there. 3 people have shown support for this. You have proposed to instead work backwards & edit piece by piece.

I don't understand how you could callout @Bluethricecreamman for supposedly breaking consensus for implementing discussed changes, but then claim that you can't have broken consensus by undoing those change, because you see the discussion as not having gone on long enough. Do you see the contradiction? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I did not “call him out” over any “consensus” which doesn’t exist. Where on Earth would you make a “consensus” within just a few hours of raising an issue with extremely limited participation? I don’t want to assume bad faith, but the manner this is being handled, together with some highly partisan content that can be found from relevant profiles, appear to give off a vibe that there is an intention to erase massive amount of the article’s content that doesn’t align with their personal views. Still, I hope that this is not the case.Steven1991 (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The person undid massive amount of content from the article without any input from me but only yours, neither has he used the Talk page of the article to engage in any discussion. His action also involved the mass deletion of proper content, which could have heavily skewed the article in terms of POV. How is that not an act of vandalism? Steven1991 (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess you won’t go into a random particle erasing 100,000 words while expecting no objections from their contributors? Occasionally, such act can trigger the algorithm which may prevent the operation being performed. I’d appreciate if there’d be some respect for people’s time, effort and contributions. Steven1991 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

prevent the operation from being performed*

Also, I am not the “only” person is the limited discussion to object to total erasure of my edits. Senior editor Andrevan also disagrees with such act and the lack of communication beforehand. Steven1991 (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an act of massive vandalism. You cannot simply revert such a significant amount of content contributed to by me and other editors. Steven1991 (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sigh… @ anyone else besides steven, what do we do to resolve the impasse? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I would make an effort to remove sources considered “unreliable” under Wikipedia’s relevant guidelines and reword relevant content where appropriate. Steven1991 (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by “objectionable”? Does it refer to media outlets you don’t like or not aligned with your personal views? As per sources’ “reliability” issue, it is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources that should be followed.Steven1991 (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• The diff doesn't appear to be devoid of improvements, and a mass revert doesn't seem productive either. Why not break down which specific changes are objectionable and work it out collaboratively. Andre🚐 05:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to see how they define “objectionable”. Steven1991 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  its a diff of over 100k bytes, and 400 added sources mostly from an account that only started really editing this september. the current article has significant copyrditting mistakes. the work needed to copyedit and double check all sourcing is massive.

  looking at a random big edit by steven, we cite blogs like abrock.com, religoioustolerance.org, and jcrelations.net.

  the damage is extensive and egregious when a useful version of the article exists already Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  It is absolutely not the case. The sources can be easily identified and removed, or relocated elsewhere, rather than engage in actions that would inevitably do collateral damage, in the form of such indiscriminate deletion as the one you did an hour ago, to proper content that has been reworded with regard to grammar, phrasing etc. Steven1991 (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Steven1991, it would be good if you don't use blog sites or personal websites or possibly unreliable sources from religious organizations. Take a look at WP:RS and WP:V and try to use journal articles, books, reliable news sources, or reliable reference sites. Rather than edit warring, maybe you could work together and clean up the unreliable sources and provide page numbers etc. Andre🚐 05:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, sure – thank you so much for your humble advice! I like it a lot. I am working on the issue. Steven1991 (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Reported Steven1991 to WP:ANI. Let an admin sort this fiasco out. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that, or WP:TNT, are justified. I think people just need to AGF all around. Other editors besides Steven1991 have been engaging in the article. He's wrong to call you a vandal, but you are wrong to do a mass revert without discussion on that article's talk. Andre🚐 06:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not call him a vandal. I only said that his mass deletion of the article’s content constituted a form of vandalism because it hadn’t been discussed on the Talk page. It’s the same case that we can’t go into a random article and remove a significant amount of their content. Steven1991 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not vandalism though, it was TNT. I agree the TNT is excessive and you're making good faith attempts to improve things. But these other users are also making good faith attempts to improve things in their own way for their own good reasons. Or at least we assume so. that's part of civility here. Andre🚐 06:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• OK… the FIRST thing I would suggest is to reduce the amount of over-citation - where a statement currently has more than two citations supporting it, pick the two MOST reliable ones, and remove the rest. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree am trying my best to achieve it. Steven1991 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Christopher Hills

In 1982, Microalgae International Sales Corp. (MISCORP) and its founder, Christopher Hills, agreed to pay $225,000 to settle charges that they had made false claims about spirulina. The company had claimed that its spirulina products were effective for weight control and had therapeutic value against diabetes, anemia, liver disease, and ulcers. quackwatch. The article is a bit too hagiographic. Polygnotus (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The article contained stuff like: Today millions of health conscious people enjoy the health benefits of spirulina in myriad products worldwide and With the buildup of the vitamin business surrounding discoveries that spirulina had significant weight loss benefits University of the Trees became one of the largest employers in the San Lorenzo Valley, of course without following WP:MEDRS. Polygnotus (talk)

Blue zone

The concept of a blue zone was invented by a salesman, not a scientist, who trademarked it and sold it to the 7th day adventists. This article should be rewritten. Polygnotus (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

By whom? APK hi :-) (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

By the looks of it, Dan Buettner. The way the article is written, it seems to be pushing the marketing aspects over the factual aspects. The LEAD sentence reads like pseudoscience...

• "A blue zone is a region in the world where people are claimed to have exceptionally long lives beyond the age of 80 due to a lifestyle combining physical activity, low stress, rich social interactions, a local whole-foods diet, and low disease incidence."

Only in the second paragraph is the lack of scientific evidence addressed.

• "The term "blue zones" is also used in marketing to promote a healthy lifestyle during aging. The concept of blue zones with longevity, however, has been challenged by the absence of scientific proof"

Cheers. DN (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The 65 Project

I think The 65 Project (which has been largely written by a new user) goes out of its way to present Trump's attempt to overturn the election as legitimate and some of its chief architects like Chesebro as innocent using dodgy sources like WSJ editorials. I've made some minor changes emphasising the baseless nature of the attempts to overturn the election, but more change is needed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Me and Firefangledfeathers have cleaned up the article, and I think the neutrality issues are now much less severe, and I wouldn't be massively be opposed to removing the NPOV tag. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

great job! i WP:BOLDLY removed the tag Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Repressed Memory

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.

---

I have been trying to bring the Repressed memory article up to date as it violates the neutral point of view policy and contains misleading, factually incorrect and unsupported assertions.

Extensive discussions on the Talk:Repressed memory page have been unsuccessful and I have been accused of edit warring, dishonesty, trolling and insulting other editors, despite trying to respond to the criticisms in good faith. I am finding that editorial processes are being used to shut down the argument and take it away from an evidence based discussion about the content. Attempts to resolve this through DR were unsuccessful as the opposing editors chose not to engage.

This is a serious issue, associated with trauma and PTSD, and the medical misinformation that is currently embedded in the article has the potential to cause harm. Some input would therefore be appreciated as this is not the first time an editor has attempted to bring in a NPOV, to no avail. NpsychC (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Therapists who believe in repressed memories have already caused harm and are not doing serious science. See Satanic panic, Alien abduction, Age regression in therapy and Past life regression, which are all based on the same set of dubious techniques that supposedly make people regain memories but actually makes them fantasize the specific things the therapist believes in (aliens, Satanist cults, reincarnation, whatever). As with other pseudosciences, there is a lot of attempts to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE in all those articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in your opinion on the lead sentence, since it refers to the subject as "controversial". I'm dealing with a similar issue in terms of navigating WP:VOICE and MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. Under the umbrella of pseudoscience, I think this may be justified, but is this the only type of exception to the rule? DN (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The subject of repressed memory is considered by some to be controversial, but it is not scientifically discredited as the lead suggests. Some psychologists still believe that repression is the mechanism by which memories are unavailable for a period of time, but dissociative amnesia is the current scientific explanation for the phenomena of recovered memories. I'm not sure it directly relates to your query DN as this isn't pseudoscience but hopefully this helps. NpsychC (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Use of the term "some" in that context is something we should try to avoid. See MOS:WEASEL. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"Bogus" is probably a better word: controversial implies there are legitimate voice on both sides. Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. "Controversial" is false balance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, as we have discussed on the talk page, presenting information from respected books and journals in the field of psychiatry and psychology is not pseudoscience and it is not presenting WP:FALSEBALANCE. I understand that this is your belief and you clearly have a strong opinion about this, but I respectfully ask that you bring evidence and not just your opinion as much of what you are saying is conjecture. NpsychC (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The correct criterion for books and journals as sources is not that the user NpsychC respects them. Neither is "strong opinion" defined as what the user NpsychC disagrees with. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Do we not have at least two articles on this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we have dissociative amnesia and repressed memory. Is that what you mean Slatersteven? NpsychC (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

(not my topic area; don't know how I got here) Unless I'm misunderstanding, we seem to have Dissociative amnesia about a legit psychological phenomenon, and Repressed memory about a discredited theory.

NpsychC, I see you've been trying to add Staniloiu and Markowitsch 2014 at doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70279-2 and McElvaney 2015 at doi:10.1002/car.2280 to the article under discussion here, while these sources are not cited at Dissociative amnesia. Should they be? Is that a better or less better place to cite them?

Would it help resolve this to include further prose disambiguation between the idea of repressed memory and the phenomenon of dissociative amnesia as currently understood? There seem to be several locations in the article Repressed memory where it is (confusingly? accurately?) identified with dissociative amnesia – in prose, in source titles, in direct quotes – and only one wikilink to the Dissociative amnesia article anywhere on the page.

As a non-expert, it seems pretty unclear to me, based on reading skimming this article, the major differences between these ideas. That could probably be handled better. (I could also actually read both articles before commenting 💁🏽‍♀️) Folly Mox (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts Folly Mox. Part of the reason I sought to clean up the article is because repressed memory is a lay term that is often used interchangeably with recovered memory in both professional and non-professional settings (hence the confusion). The article as it reads, implies that the process of a memory being out of awareness for a period of time (recovered memory) is scientifically discredited, without any clear references to support this position and without showing it to be an issue for which there is contention in the literature. The article also does not state that dissociative amnesia is the current scientific explanation for the phenomena. I think the articles by Stanilou, Markowitsch and McElvaney could absolutely be added to the dissociative amnesia page, but my main aim was to clear up the misinformation on this page. Repression is one explanation for recovered memory which has fallen out of favour, while dissociative amnesia is another, more current explanation based on a large body of evidence and as stated by the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5) which has a rigorous scientific review process behind it. The whole article is a bit messy, but the lead was my first priority as it is what most people read and held the most bias. NpsychC (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem with your editing remains that it is WP:OR - the sources you cite do not specifically make the points you are attempting to use them to support. I've explained that at Talk:Repressed memory, but you have not meaningfully engaged with that issue so far. MrOllie (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is blatantly untrue. I have explained this twice link at Talk:Repressed memory and provided references to back this up, including one that is already in the article. You had an opportunity to go over this in dispute resolution but refused. Not understanding the scientific literature in an area is not a reason to continue to ignore a whole body of evidence that you don't like and is an abuse of editorial processes. NpsychC (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You have explained the chain of reasoning that has lead you to your beliefs about Repressed memory - but it is not to be found in the sources you cite. And you cannot dismiss other editors or their arguments by asserting that they do not understand the literature. MrOllie (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Critics of dissociative amnesia (for example [2]) would tell you that there is no difference, and the term is an attempt to rebrand the same discredited ideas. A bit like 'Alternative medicine' vs 'Complementary medicine'. MrOllie (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Or more like an 'old theory' vs 'new theory'. NpsychC (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Critics of dissociative amnesia (for example [10]) would tell you that there is no difference, and the term is an attempt to rebrand the same discredited ideas. A bit like 'Alternative medicine' vs 'Complementary medicine'.

And in writing this, you yourself just proved the link that you are criticising and calling WP:OR NpsychC (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, my understanding of the WP:OR criticism is that I had not demonstrated a link between repressed memory and dissociative amnesia. The literature is littered with these links, including the ones put forward in the discussion, and so this feels like a using an editorial process to shut down the discussion and ignore whole raft of evidence that would establish a neutral point of view. NpsychC (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood the policy on original research, then. It is not about demonstrating a link or not. If you feel you have to demonstrate a link to use the citations in question means that the citations in question do not stand alone and you are performing WP:SYNTH. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You keep reverting to process MrOllie and once again, respectfully, you had an opportunity on the talk page and in DR to work with me to bring the article to a place where it does not violate the neutral point of view. You continually revert back to editorial processes (which is a clear strength of yours) and refuse to properly engage in the content. NpsychC (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I have directly asked for a quote supporting the edit, but none has been provided. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you stopped responding there, so here we are. MrOllie (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

HOw about letting others have a say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Having said that, lets have a quote form one of the sources supporting the edit? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Localized dissociative amnesia applies to memory loss for a “circumscribed period of time” and may be broader than amnesia for a single traumatic event, for example, “months or years associated with child abuse” (p. 298). Because localized dissociative amnesia most resembles what was formerly called repressed memory, it is noteworthy that the DSM–5 calls this type “the most common form of dissociative amnesia.” NpsychC (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

doi: 10.1177/1745691619862306 This is a direct quote from the article. NpsychC (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

And what did the edit say, what is this being used to cite? Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I am trying to do more than one thing at once.

"Localized dissociative amnesia applies to memory loss for a “circumscribed period of time” and may be broader than amnesia for a single traumatic event, for example, “months or years associated with child abuse” (p. 298). Because localized dissociative amnesia most resembles what was formerly called repressed memory, it is noteworthy that the DSM–5 calls this type “the most common form of dissociative amnesia.”

The page reference is referring to the DSM-5 and describes how dissociative amnesia is now used to describe repressed memory. This article supports the position that there is contention in the literature about whether repressed memory/dissociative amnesia is a valid phenomena. The article currently reads as though repressed memory is scientifically discredited. This is what my edits are based on. NpsychC (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The article reads that way because the best sources read that way. Here's another quote from the same source you just quoted here: A relevant question is how flawed ideas regarding the functioning of memory could be corrected. That unconscious repressed memory is still accepted with little qualification and remains popular among many mental-health professionals can be explained in part by the now well-replicated finding that it is typically difficult to correct erroneous beliefs. MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you MrOllie for engaging in the content of this. This article does indeed provide an argument that unconscious repressed memory is flawed and is one position in the literature. NpsychC (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

THis seems to be about rebranding repressed memory as dissociative amnesia instead, not that it is valid. This looks a lot like wp:cherrypicking. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not cherry picking. I am doing this quickly, and will have to go soon for a while but please consider the following from Stanilou and Markowitsch (2024) in the Topics in Cognitive Science Journal:

"There is an ongoing debate on the old idea that memories can be repressed or suppressed (Dodier, Gilet, & Colombel, 2022; Erdelyi, 2006; Freud, 1898, 1899; Hartmann, 1930; Jung,1905; Kunzendorf & Moran, 1993/94; Loftus, 1993, 1994; Markowitsch, 2000; Otgaar et al., 2019; Suarez & Pittluck, 1975). We will argue for the existence of repressed memories on the basis of the dissociative condition named “dissociative amnesia” (DA) (Markowitsch & Staniloiu, 2016; Markowitsch, Staniloiu, Kordon, & Sarlon, 2018; Staniloiu & Markow- itsch, 2014; Staniloiu & Markowitsch, 2022; Staniloiu, Markowitsch, & Kordon, 2018). By doing so, we will center on Tulving’s (2002, 2005) and Semon’s (1904) concept of the state dependency of memories, on the relation between stress and memory (Staniloiu, Kordon, & Markowitsch, 2020b), mechanisms by which DA is likely to occur (“Two-hit hypothesis”) and differential diagnostic criteria for the occurrence of DA.

We are of the opinion that our arguments favor the existence of repressed memories in the context of DA and that there are cognitive and biological bases demonstrating that repressed memories are a valid entity in the context of DA."

Their research showed physiological changes in the brain using functional imaging techniques for those with dissociative amnesia. I am not asking that the article removes the argument that recovered memories are not valid, it is an important position in the literature and there should continue to be debate about this. I am just asking that the article be updated so it doesn't violate the neutral point of view policy. NpsychC (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Then you need to give the text you want to add, not just tell us you want to add it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I have outlined the changed I am proposing in Talk:Repressed memory. Are you asking me to post the edits and research backing the changes here again? NpsychC (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Staniloiu and Markowitsch argued in their 2014 article titled 'Dissociative Amnesia' in Lancet Psychiatry that "Dissociative amnesia is characterised by functional impairment. Additionally, preliminary data suggest that affected people have an increased and possibly underestimated suicide risk." This highlights the importance of the misinformation in the wikipedia article being corrected. I hope those who are critical of the update can now see the validity of the changes and will cease trying to prevent the updates. NpsychC (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This essentially amounts to "if you do not change the article the way I want it, people will kill themselves". The way you frame it: This highlights the importance of the misinformation in the wikipedia article being corrected, when you have not demonstrated that there is any "misinformation" in the article, does not bode well for your article editing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, this isn't a personal attack. I am merely using evidence to show that this is a serious issue, and that misinformation for a vulnerable population could have real world consequences. I have provided evidence to answer all content related criticisms, but there appears serious gatekeeping going on with this page. This is a direct violation of NPOV and has the potential to cause harm. I think it is best if we don't interact further on here and give other editors a chance to provide input about NPOV. NpsychC (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No, just the text you want to add, so we do not have to wade through a talk page to find it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

1) Removal of the links at the top of the article to Freud's Seduction Hypothesis and Recovered Memory Therapy, and replaced with Dissociative Amnesia. Dissociative Amnesia is a better link than seduction hypothesis or recovered memory therapy as these are not current issues associated with the discourse around traumatic memory.

2) The 2nd paragraph needs considerable rewording. The first sentence is categorically untrue as can be seen from the evidence already submitted here but is also articulated by the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5-TR, 2022) through the diagnosis of dissociative amnesia [3][4][5]. The idea that memories were repressed reflects the discourse and understanding at the time when the majority of the research in this article was published. The idea of repression as a psychological process is no longer held by all psychological modalities and dissociative processes have been discussed in the literature from at least 1996 [6] The article should be clear therefore that these types of memories are now called dissociative amnesia. It is misleading to state that repressed memories are largely scientifically discredited as it implies that memories that have a delayed recall are never valid. The words 'and largely scientifically discredited' should therefore be removed from the first sentence. I also propose that the term dissociative amnesia be introduced early into the text so that the distinction between a repressed memory, and the idea that a memory may be unavailable for a period of time, is clear (ie. the difference between the lay term repressed memory and the psychological mechanism of repression).

3) In the 3rd paragraph it states that mainstream clinical psychologists have stopped using the concept of repressed or recovered memories. This is not true and is backed up by evidence in the text. Also, it once again reads like delayed memory retrieval/dissociative amnesia is no longer valid. The resource for this paragraph is a letter written by a clinical psychologist to the courts twenty years ago, not a peer reviewed article. This whole paragraph is also inflammatory and conflates recovered memory therapy with repressed memories without bringing in dissociative amnesia or current research. NpsychC (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Why could you now have just said what text you want to say? What do you want us to say the actual text using the words you want to use, not the justification, to the explanation just the actual text. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

See also: Repression, Dissociative Amnesia

Repressed memory is a psychiatric phenomenon that has evoked much controversy, and which involves an inability to recall autobiographical information, usually of a traumatic or stressful nature. The concept originated in psychoanalytic theory where repression is understood as a defense mechanism that excludes painful experiences and unacceptable impulses from consciousness. The return of these memories to consciousness is also referred to as recovered memories, while the process by which they are out of awareness was considered repression. More recently this phenomenon is considered to be explained by the diagnosis of Dissociative Amnesia, where the inability to recall personal information is due to dissociative processes and is inconsistent with ordinary forgetting.

While the concept of repressed memories was highly contested through much of the 1980s and 1990's, there is now a significant body of evidence that supports the idea that memories for traumatic events can be out of conscious awareness for a period of time. Historically, some overzealous therapists are thought to have provided therapy based on the belief that alleged repressed memories could be recovered, but that in seeking these memories this led to the creation of entirely false memories. This has had implications in forensic settings, where the validity of these memories has been the subject of much controversy and debate. NpsychC (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The references are all above, but I will add those in when I have more time and before making the edits. NpsychC (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It will need to be added that recovered memories for trauma is still contested in the literature, but I think it can be done in a better way that the article currently reads. It would need this to establish a NPOV, but I will have to come back to flesh it out further. NpsychC (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Well as some (all?), of the sources you are using just seem to be saying that its a rebranding, no I am not sure this does pass wp:v. They would support "Repressed memory has been rebranded Dissociative Amnesia". Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that the article as it currently reads does not violate NPOV based on the research I have brought in here? NpsychC (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Repression and dissociative are different psychological processes, so rebranding isn't quite right... NpsychC (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"We propose that during and after the 1990s, when the term repressed memory was widely criticized, proponents began to favor the term dissociative amnesia instead.", if you can't even be arsed to read the sources you use, then I am out of here with a no to this suggestion, It fails wp:unduewp:v as it is wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That is one argument, that there has been a rebranding. WP:UNDUE would dictate that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources," should be included for neutrality. There is a whole body of research, including the DSM-5 and functional imaging results that support the idea of dissociation and associated amnesia. That is not rebranding, it is the evolving science of psychology. Please don't accuse me of not being "arsed" to read the sources. It is totally missing the point of my position. Once again, I would like to ask, given the research outlined above from reputable sources, is your position that the repressed memory article, as it currently reads, does not violate a NPOV? NpsychC (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2024 (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.

Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom

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.

---

According to the latest census, 81% of the UK population identify as white. One would expect that the majority of crimes would be carried out by this demographic. However, mainly Muslim men, many of Pakistani origin, who represent less than 3.5% of the UK population, were disproportionally represented in sexual assaults against tens of thousands of white girls as young as 11 years old over many decades. To suggest that this systematic abuse resulted in a moral panic is not only factually incorrect but is also an insult to all those children that were abused by these pedophiles and let down by social services who were scared to act for fear of being called racist. 101.115.187.54 (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

[[7]] "Defendants were predominantly male (99%) and aged over 18 (97%), as in previous years. Five in six (83%) were White British...". Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I think adding that very clear context (81% and 83%) in the lede would help quell the complaints about the title of the article. At present, the critics of the article seem to believe there is a disproportion sexual offending rate by non-whites. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Or we just say what RS say, that it's a conspiracy theory, we do not need to pander to them. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The majority of child sex offences (80%+) and the majority of grooming offences (80%+) are commited by white offenders. Asian / Muslim / Pakistani (or whichever term the media is using) are slightly over represented in grooming cases, but that still only accounts for roughly 10% of such cases.

That so many believe otherwise is because the recent high profile cases are all that the media has reported on, while ignoring the majority of crimes. Hyper focusing on those cases hides rather than highlights the extent of the issue. That is why there is an article about it.

If you want to know about such crimes there are articles about all the cases involved, and about sexual abuse in the UK in general. If you want to know about how the media over and under reports such crimes, then you can read the article that certain parts of the media are so upset about. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@ip, do you have any data supporting your claim that "mainly Muslim men, many of Pakistani origin, who represent less than 3.5% of the UK population, were disproportionally represented in sexual assaults against tens of thousands of white girls as young as 11 years old over many decades"?

@ActivelyDisinterested, I don't the the breakdown of grooming offenses by race in the document linked by u:Slatersteven, where do your numbers come from ("still only accounts for roughly 10% of such cases")? Alaexis_¿question? 20:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

See Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom, this is spill over from a discussion on the articles talk page. The exact figure (from very poor data) is that Asian's account for 14% or grooming cases, but it's easier to talk in rounded figures. There also more information in Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Group based child sexual exploitation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the RM has really upset online nazis, and we can't really divorce any discussion about the article at the moment from that. Sceptre (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

And as soon as I post that, Milkshake Boy decides to stick his oar in. Typical. Sceptre (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2024 (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.

International Churches of Christ

Inviting editors to a discussion at Talk:International Churches of Christ#NPOV as a couple of editors have continued to push {{POV}} templates on the article in order to push a content dispute which is currently being addressed in an RFC TarnishedPath^talk 14:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I see the RfC started on Oct Sept 19th, and the tags were just put up today, is that correct? I would think adding tags in the middle of an RfC is generally frowned upon, TAGTEAMING seems to cross the line no matter when, but especially during an RfC. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but consensus being required for POV tags only seems to make sense if discussion is already under way, or am I missing something? DN (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

19 September rather than 19 October. The tags appear to have been applied in part due to perceived issues with the lede, which are the subject of the RfC, but also the general "negative" tone of the article. As I've tried to explain more than once, including at Talk:International Churches of Christ#NPOV, this "negative" tone is a reflection of what reliable, secondary sources have to say about the topic. If editors arguing that the article is unduly negative present evidence of views from secondary sources that portray the ICOC in a more positive light being absent from the article, then those could be used, but I've not seen many such sources presented in the various discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I've notified the two editors who've been adding these tags of this discussion as a courtesy. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest creating a link on the talk page so that all are notified, transparency is important for any/all involved. See WP:CANVAS. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@DN done. TarnishedPath^talk 04:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify: since my comment above referred to the actions of two specific users who tried to add these tags, I felt I needed to notify them of this discussion to comply with the requirement specified at the top of this board to notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. No canvassing involved! Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Darknipples, yes discussion is underway in the RFC which addresses the lead. The lead has been the focal point of a lot of discussion with a few editors pushing that there is a NPOV problem and two of them drive by tagging a ridiculous number of POV related TAGs on the article. TarnishedPath^talk 04:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath If this is in reference to me, I do not appreciate it. I did not create the tags, and I'm not even saying I agree with all of them. I just saw that you reverted them without having consensus to do so. I do not find your accusation of me "drive by tagging" to be appropriate. XZealous (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@XZealous at Special:Diff/1250249051 you added four tags to the article at the same time. Call it reverting or whatever you want, the effect of adding four tags to the article at the same time, while there is active discussion on the topic in an RFC, is exactly the same. It's extremely unproductive to say the least. TarnishedPath^talk 07:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all the tags were related to the RfC. I also did not add any tags, I only undid your reversion. However unproductive adding the tags may have been, it was not right for you to remove them, hence why I undid your reversion. You cannot just remove tags because you don't like them there. They should be discussed on the talk page and a consensus should be reached. XZealous (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Undoing a reversion which removes tags, is exactly the same as adding tags. The effect of your edit was to add tags. It was not right that anyone engages in WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING to push a content dispute. It's disruptive and many would consider it to be WP:TENDITIOUS. TarnishedPath^talk 07:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you further explain how this is WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING? I have read that policy a number of times now and cannot seem to find how it was violated. XZealous (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding four tags at the exact same time which are all minor variations of each other, particularly when you've advised that you don't agree with all of them? Can you please advise how this is anything other than WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING? TarnishedPath^talk 08:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive by Tagging is explained here:

• WP:DRIVEBY

See also: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup

Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed—is frequently referred to as "drive-by tagging", particularly when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or subjective tags, such as {{npov}}, it is important to explain yourself on the article's talk page or in an edit summary. It can be helpful to refer to applicable content policies, such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, though WikiLawyering is discouraged.

By contrast, adding tags for obvious, major flaws can be helpful. However, if an article has insufficient references or other issues, then pointing this out with a tag may not result in the problem being fixed. It may be better to fix it yourself.

There is no requirement in Wikipedia policies that editors must "pay their dues" by working on an article before they can add a tag, so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page.

- The problem was clearly identified on the Talk Page with a heading of #NPOV and concerns raised about #UNDUE weight given to one perspective. Also, there is lots of disagreement over how the LEAD should be formatted, as shown by the current RfC. Hence the Tag on the page that reflects that reality. I have referred to policies and am hoping for more experienced editors to weigh in on the disputed perspectives.

- I have been, and remain involved in this project as an active editor of the article. No-one is driving by here. I have "paid my dues", even though it is not required. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Dumping 4 tags which are all slight variations of each other on an article in one instance is clearly WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING. Please cease your wikilawyering. TarnishedPath^talk 13:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that the effect of the edit added the tags. However, I am not interested in adding the specific tags. I was only preventing what I thought to be an inappropriate reversion on your part. If you find @JamieBrown2011's tag adding to be tendentious, then feel free to open a discussion on the talk page about it before having an unneeded back and forth of adding and reverting. XZealous (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You added the tags also, whatever way you want to spin it. That you advise that you don't agree with them all just makes your edit more problematic. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath you keep shifting the conversation to the tags, which is only making me believe that you really don't like them there. My issue is not with the tags, but your reversion. I am not defending or advocating for those tags. I will attempt to keep making this clear as it seems you are mischaracterizing my statements. XZealous (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, this discussion appears to have established that there's no consensus for the tags to be added. XZealous, who reverted their removal, doesn't appear to agree with their addition, leaving only one editor who seems to support them. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Is consensus needed for a tag to be added? I have not seen that in the policy. I have only seen that concensus is required for its removal.

I will clarify again, I did not state that I "don't agree with their addition." Please refrain from summarizing my comments in that way. If I decide to make a stance of my view of the tags I will do so at the ICOC talk page XZealous (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, XZealous, it doesn't require a whole discussion that establishes consensus before a tag can be added, but if an editor adds a tag and then it's reverted, that indicates that the tagging is contentious and should really be discussed further. It's analogous to WP:BRD.

On the not agreeing with the tags' addition, I was going by your comment that "I'm not even saying I agree with all of them", but apologies if I mis-summarised your position. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying here. However, I have went to remove tags that I have found contentious before and I was told to take it to the talk page to achieve consensus before my removal, and the tag was then replaced. I'm confused as to why the process on this one seems to be different. XZealous (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That would also be analogous to WP:BRD. If you make a bold edit such as adding or removing a tag and you're reverted, it's on you to seek consensus for the addition/removal through talk page discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that people need talk page consensus for the removal of a tag. That process was not followed for @JamieBrown2011's tags. They were removed without consensus. That is why I think they should stay up. If an editor disagrees, they can open up a talk page discussion and see where it goes from there. XZealous (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be, my removal of an earlier tag was treated differently than this one. I wouldn't want it to be acceptable to have double standards. XZealous (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus for their addition in the first place. I strongly advise you to drop this stick, as it's verging on tendentious now. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It crossed the line of WP:TENDENTIOUS a while ago. TarnishedPath^talk 23:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Refer to Template:POV#When to remove, which states:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

There is clearly consensus here (at the NPOV Noticeboard) that the tag does not belong on the article.

Please cease continuing on with your WP:wikilawyering and WP:IDHT. TarnishedPath^talk 23:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this has established there is consensus against the tags being there. TarnishedPath^talk 09:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Reading up the policies on tags we find this:

Disputes over tags

Whether a tag should be placed on an article is sometimes the subject of disputes. Occasionally, editors place tags to make a point, to disrupt editing, or to be tendentious. Similarly, editors occasionally remove tags without solving real problems because they are embarrassed by the tag, do not want additional attention from other editors, or do not like tags.

Rather than reverting or edit warring over the placement of a tag, use dispute resolution procedures. Start by engaging in a calm discussion on the article's talk page.

Some tags, such as {{POV}}, often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Per Template:POV#When to remove:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

It is clear that there is consensus here in this discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard to remove. TarnishedPath^talk 10:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Im unsure on how you think there is consensus on this? Also, there was no consensus when you removed them in the first place. I see you talking about tag teaming, drive by tagging, and tendentious editing. I would rather have engage in honest conversation with other editors rather than having an edit war with other labels being thrown out. XZealous (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There's four editors in this discussion and not one of them, yourself included, is for adding all four of those tags. There's not even been a argument proffered which is correct policy-wise for the maintenance of the tags. That's consensus for removal. TarnishedPath^talk 11:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment here. As you yourself have noted to me, consensus is not about a vote count. I see in no way how this discussion can lead you to the conclusion that consensus was reached to take the tags down. If you do, could you explain how you see it that way. XZealous (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote count, but you have proffered zero valid policy reason for the maintenance of those tags which would overcome the numerical superiority of those who have indicated that they are against the tags. TarnishedPath^talk 23:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Tags shouldn't be a "Permanent resident" on an article. You wouldn't allow them to be up for even 12 hours!

Also, happy to remove the "Buzzword" tag if that seems to bother you. (Even though that exact debate is going back and forth in the current RfC) the Tag simply reflects that reality. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This discussion demonstrates that there is consensus against any of the tags so no don't add anything. TarnishedPath^talk 13:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I found this Noticeboard discussion through a reference in the ICOC article’s Talk Page. Having just posted on the Talk Page’s NPOV discussion, I want to add my voice here that the NPOV Tags in the ICOC article are justified. ~~~~  Meta Voyager (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm yet to see any credible policy based arguments that the article has a NPOV problem and that weighs towards there being consensus that the NPOV tags stay removed. TarnishedPath^talk 05:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The policies regarding these tags are clear:

"Some tags, such as {{POV}}, often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time."

- Many editors have mentioned concerns over the article. From the LEDE, even stating it "needs to be completely re-written" Talk:International Churches of Christ#c-Cordless Larry-20240918194300-GreenC-20240918192100, to new editors need to be called in because of the disputes Talk:International Churches of Christ#c-WhatamIdoing-20240918172400-NPOV to wholesale misrepresentation of what sources are saying Talk:International Churches of Christ#c-JamieBrown2011-20241011170500-XZealous-20241011164900 . There is certainly NO CONSENSUS that NPOV has been applied.

- Secondly, since we are concerned with following policy, POV tags do not need consensus to be added, they need consensus to be REMOVED. (as is clearly stated in the policy above) You removed them 3 times in a 24 hour period, coming awfully close to edit warring. (which is again going directly against Wikipedia policies). JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You're incorrect. Please don't repeat yourself over and over. TarnishedPath^talk 07:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Your continual dismissal of @JamieBrown2011 is getting concerning. I would encourage you to listen to other editors rather than brushing them off. XZealous (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I've listened and then I've told them why they are incorrect. Other editors have done the same. I don't plan on doing it ad infinitum. TarnishedPath^talk 09:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the view that Tarnished is being dismissive, much less "brushing off" other editors here. I recommend we try to stay on topic, but only if there's anything NEW to add. Repetition is inappropriate and might be interpreted as WP:BLUDGEON. Cheers. DN (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is already underway via RfC, and the term is properly attributed with an inline citation. IMO the tags really aren't that necessary. DN (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we describe someone, in wikivoice, as a cult leader (in principle)

Today I have decided to swing the bat at the hornet's nest and bring up something that has always bothered me: can we describe people as a cult leader in wikivoice? Per MOS:CULT, we cannot, but people often do, and this stays in very high profile articles that have passed our review processes. This will disproportionately apply to very high profile cases, but as these are the examples to follow, I feel they are influential.

As such, here is a survey of the highest profile ones I thought of off the top of my head:

• Jim Jones (which is a GA) calls him a cult leader as first descriptor and in short description
• David Koresh calls him a cult leader as first descriptor and in short description
• Larry Ray (cult leader) not an article yet, but a high profile recent case, and the mainspace redirect and draft is "cult leader"
• Keith Raniere says cult leader as first descriptor and in short description. I'm more sympathetic to this because NXIVM isn't a religion and I don't know what else to call it
• Jeffrey Lundgren, has it as second descriptor
• Roch Thériault says says cult leader as first descriptor and in short description
• Marshall Applewhite (FA), does not say cult leader, says religious leader
• Shoko Asahara, says "was the founder and leader of the Japanese doomsday cult", which is kind of iffy but doomsday cult is, unlike cult, an actual definable term

Probably dozens of other pages from search. These are the people I thought of off the top of my head. Cult is inherently a value descriptor, hence per MOS:CULT you should only ever have it attributed; this rule is flouted constantly. What brought this up is @Hemiauchenia (tagging because I feel you may have some thoughts on this) challenging the descriptor on two other articles. I actually agree with this decision generally, the only reason I added it was for consistency with the Koresh & Jones articles (and the fact that I was hesitant to apply religious leader given the questionable status as a religion). But given the MOS, should we ever even describe someone, in wikivoice, as a cult leader? I do not care which way we go, I just want consistency with MOS. Can we, in wikivoice, call someone a cult leader? I feel like we shouldn't but the ur-cult leader Jim Jones has it there so I feel like if that article, a GA, says it other people are going to emulate it in writing their articles. Thoughts PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Well looking at the first one Jim Jones there are citations calling it a cult and him the leader - but for BLP reasons we probably should attach one of them to the sentence calling him a cult leader. Normally citations aren't required in a lead but yes I agree this is a case where attribution in the lead is called for. NadVolum (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum I'm not sure if attribution fixes the issue here because unlike other contentious labels cult doesn't really have any definition besides "group that is bad", and any attempts to apply it as such are fiendishly controversial. The word itself is opinionated, vs even terrorist, which applies to doing a specific thing, "cult leader" as a label has problems it doesn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

If it is a label regularly used of them and here's no serious disagreement then the label is fine. However it needs attribution. NadVolum (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum There is much serious disagreement with the label cult itself. The relevant academic field largely stopped using it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think it depends the quantity and quality of sources. "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term."

Maybe WP:VOICE can help with clarification. Otherwise, I concur that unless the mainstream consensus agrees, it's safer to use attributions. DN (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• However, it would need attribution - no, this is untrue. WP:NPOV is clear that we cannot attribute uncontested facts in ways that would imply that they are mere opinions; and as core policy, it overrules the MOS on this. Terms listed on MOS:LABEL can (and in fact must) be used unattributed in situations where they are uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources, since to do otherwise would be to treat them as opinions in violation of NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, are you saying that something must be factually established as a cult before an article can use the term? XZealous (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sort-of. In order to call something a cult in the article voice, it must be clear that the highest-quality sources, as a whole, treat the fact that it is a cult as straightforward, uncontested fact. ("Uncontested" means there's no serious dispute among the highest-quality sources; they can still be called a cult, in that case, even if their adherents disagree, or even if there's dispute in lower-quality pop-cultural sources and stuff, as long as there's eg. a very clear academic consensus.) The term can be used in situations that don't reach that bar, but in that case we'd usually have to use attribution. Also note that the bar to call a specific person a cult leader is higher than referring to a large group as a cult, on account of WP:BLP; with groups there is a little bit more leeway (but you'd still need, generally, an agreement among the sources that it's a fact, yeah.) Keep in mind that this can be as simple as a bunch of high-quality sources describing them as a cult in their article voice, with nothing of comparable quality that disagrees and not too many sources that tiptoe around it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I've made similar mistakes many times: BLP doesn't apply to Jim Jones, who died a long time ago. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject means if it's widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject then it may no longer be best avoided. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

In which case it should be attributed, which in the case of everyone listed above, it is not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant cited not attributed in the lead if the label is due. NadVolum (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." This is why I asked. I see no issue with saying someone is "commonly described as a cult leader", but saying they are directly seems to flout the manual of style even if cited. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

So how does one of these academics you refer to describe someone who gets a following and then gets them all to commit mass-suicide? NadVolum (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

They just don't use the word, or if they do use it they attribute it. Journalists tend to use it, of course. Further "someone who gets a following and then gets them all to commit mass-suicide"; that's like eight or so people so they could probably just list them by name at that point. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification NV. DN (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No. If it's only used by a couple sources, then it should be attributed. But if virtually every time the person is discussed in reliable sources they are labelled a cult leader by those sources, then there is no attribution needed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

So, the MOS is wrong, and we can call someone a cult leader in wikivoice? I want it to be established one way or the other. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The MOS is a style guide. It is expected and accepted there are sometimes exceptions to guidance issued on style. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There being "sometimes" an exception doesn't quite apply when it seemingly applies to every example that involves the cult terminology. What makes this an exception instead of the rule? What differentiates the people we call cult leaders in wikivoice from the people we should attribute it with? Because as demonstrated above even in the highest profile cases there is inconsistency. We call Jones and Koresh cult leaders, but not Asahara or Applewhite. All four are the most popular conception of cult leaders to the modern public. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The MOS is not wrong. You are wrong in trying to take portions of it without the rest of it. I'll quote it and add emphasis for your understanding: may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. It isn't a contentious opinion if it's widely reported in reliable sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That still feels like it's reading "you should always use in-text attribution for these labels", which has always driven me mad even outside this case because clearly is not how it works in practice! But perhaps I am interpreting it overly literally. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• No, that part of the MOS is incorrect. WP:NPOV, the actual policy, is very clear: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice... If something is an uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion, it cannot be attributed; it must be stated, unattributed, in the article voice as fact. This is true even for specific terms listed on MOS:LABEL. The issue is that when the guideline for LABEL was written, people mistakenly believed that those terms would always be treated as opinions by RSes - but in situations where they are not, as core policy, NPOV takes priority and the MOS recommendation to attribute them must be disregarded. --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I've said this before, but MOS:LABEL frequently gets people in a position where they're actively opposing NPOV while attempting to defend it. We should state the plain and relevant facts as facts, and not add misleading attribution. Jim Jones was a cult leader. It's his primary notable role. The article would be worse if we started with a less informative, less supported role and then said "These books and these journal articles and these news sources have called Jones a cult leader." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What annoys me about that is if "cult leader" is the defining aspect, I feel it would naturally follow the group be labeled the same way, we don't label the group the same way as we do the person; the lead of Peoples Temple says "religious movement", only noting at the end that it is popularly considered a destructive cult. What makes someone a cult leader is leading a cult, there is no other definition, but then we don't label what makes him a cult leader a cult. And is Jim Jones the only cult leader then? I'm using him as the highest profile and clearest cut example because he's everyone's idea of a cult leader, but how many newspapers calling someone a cult leader do we have to add before we can call someone that in wikivoice? This can't only apply to Jones. So what is the line? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

On your first point, I urge you for the sake of your own sanity to abandon your hopes of consistency between articles! I'm not saying Jones is the only cult leader. If the question is "Can we describe someone, in wikivoice, as a cult leader (in principle)?" then the existence of one cult leader appropriately described as a cult leader in wikivoice means the answer must be yes. When you get to "how many", there's never a satisfying answer. There's no line, but there is a test: NPOV's "seriously contested". Interpretation is up to local discussion or dispute resolution, but I personally favor analysis of the best sources available. Among those top few books and journal articles, is Jones's status as a cult leader seriously contested? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Little hope of inconsistency not bothering me given my OCD, but I will try not to bother anyone with it haha. But yes, sorry if I came across as pushy. I just wanted to get more thoughts that weren't my own because I am not sure where exactly the consensus is.

It's not contested in books by journalists, but is contested by most "new religious movements" academics, who overwhelmingly reject the word cult entirely except for a handful of people, but the field as a whole has been criticized for being too nice to groups accused of being cults, but generally the word is not used in religious studies academia. But very much is by journalists, hence the tension. NRMs/Cults are a nightmare topic area. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The actual policy (WP:BLPSTYLE) is less strong than the MOS... It says "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." so it doesn't have the blanket direction to use in-text attribution which we find in the MOS. The actual policy does not prohibit describing people as a cult leader in wikivoice... Perhaps the MOS needs to clarified, Policy trumps MOS after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Well, BLP isn't an issue for most of the people here, as most have been dead or executed. So I'm not sure how applicable that is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting. We expect extra caution with neutrality in BLPs, so it's odd to see a weaker rule there than in the MOS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's surprising to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Would you agree that in general that what is "widely used by reliable sources" is exactly the sort of thing which doesn't get in-text attribution? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem with "cult" specifically is that 95% of the academics who discuss cults do not use the word cult. But journalists do, overwhelmingly. We could probably have an article on the fight over using the word cult. So calling someone a cult leader or something a cult will always be contested to some degree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't what I asked... I asked whether you would agree that in general what is "widely used by reliable sources" is exactly the sort of thing which doesn't get in-text attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm. Not sure if I can give one answer there. I'd say it depends on the exact label and how negative it is, how widely used it is (is it every source or just most) and how clear the definition of the label is, or if different kinds/opinions of sources always give the label or it varies between things. For example, if something is the popular word used to describe something in the news, that doesn't mean it's always accurate. But for example, terrorist is clearer, because you can be convicted of a terrorist act. You can't really be convicted of being a cult leader, and unlike terrorism cult doesn't have a clear definition. So in the case of terrorist, yes, but I'm not sure about the specific label "cult". PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other... I'm asking an extremely broad question, not about labels but about all content in mainspace. Across all of mainspace we do not use in text attribution for that which is "widely used by reliable sources". Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW WP:VOICE is also relevant and more generally applicable to dead people. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's been attempted. I'd contribute a !vote if it came up again. People tend to forget about all the policy backups and see changing LABEL in isolation, and worry it'll enable POV-pushing, when the goal is really the opposite. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think something here probably needs to be clarified but I am not exactly sure how. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It'a sad how many people in this discussion are saying MOS:CULT, a part of manual of style, should just be ignored. Like "terrorist" vs "militant", I don't think there is ever going to be complete consistently on Wikipedia on which term is used, but I always think that "cult" is a pejorative and should be avoided being objectively stated in wikivoice, particularly with regards to the religons themselves. That doesn't mean that the term has to be omitted completely, just that it should be attributed, with stuff like "widely described as a cult (leader)". I think Jim Jones may be an exception in that he didn't appear to actually believe many of the things he taught. I'm iffy about "doomsday cult", what is usually meant by that term is that the movement is millennarian, but if sources specifically describe it as a "doomsday cult" I see no reason not to mention it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Could always take the Manson family approach and say a "commune, gang, and cult". There – all bases covered! Bon courage (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If "cult" is used to describe a high control group or if it is an expression of distaste towards a group, then I do not find it appropriate to use. The term is highly subjective, but also highly critical. Because of this, I would be very careful in using it. XZealous (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources characterise the article subject as a cult leader the article should reflect that. The claim that "the relevant academic field" stopped using the term "cult" is inaccurate and loaded. The only academic field in which a majority have largely stopped using the term is religious studies. Therefore, implicit in that opinion is the notion that the only "relevant academic field" is religious studies. This is clearly only the case if we accept the circular argument that all cults are actually religions and therefore the relevant field of study is religion. The word I would use to describe that argument is bullshit.

Scholars in the fields of clinical psychology, law, skepticism, philosophy, psychiatry and others continue to use the term cult. These have equal or greater claim to be the relevant academic field to study these groups than religious studies. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, actually, I did not think of it that way. But the issue is, they all have different definitions for them, no? And this still lends the issue of which ones we are and aren't describing as cults. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV is unambiguous on this point: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice... As core policy, NPOV overrides the MOS on this (and, in particular, overrules LABEL) which means that in situations where it is unambiguous that the sources treat something as an uncontested and uncontroversial fact, it must be stated in the article voice and cannot be attributed in a way that would make it seem like an opinion. The MOS can set a high bar for this, of course, but it cannot set a hard-and-fast rule that cult leader can never be stated in the article voice regardless of the state of sourcing; that would contradict NPOV, which means that arguments from that position can and must be disregarded as being against policy. Now, nothing stops someone from setting a very, very high bar for such language - but as soon as someone says something along the lines of "you can never describe someone as a cult leader in the article voice", you can safely start disregarding them, because NPOV is clear that there's a point of sufficient sourcing where we would not only be allowed to do so but required to so; we cannot overrule the sources just because editors personally disagree with using a particular word or term in that fashion. --Aquillion (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Bit like terrorist, preponderance of sources say so, we say so. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that, when dealing with WP:BLPs in particular, it's reasonable to require a higher bar than just a preponderance - there needs to be a genuine consensus among the highest-quality sources available that it's indisputably true. My point is just that there is such a threshold where we'd have to describe it as objective fact (ie. WP:NPOV prevents MOS:LABEL from establishing a list of verboten words that we can never ever describe as objective fact in the article voice, the way some people have sometimes tried to interpret it.) The threshold can still be extremely high, especially for BLP subjects or exceptional claims; 51% of sources saying someone is a terrorist and 49% of equally high-quality sources saying "lol no" obviously wouldn't be enough. To override the MOS, the sourcing has to reach the point where the state-facts-as-facts part of NPOV unambiguously kicks in and says "no, sorry, this is just an undisputed fact among the highest-quality sourcing." --Aquillion (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Gun show loophole endless discussion over NPOV

See Talk:Gun show loophole#How should this term be labeled?

Please note this is a WP:CTOP article which has held GA status for years despite the validity of said status being called into question during the current discussion [8].

The originally requested change was to include the term "controversial" in the lead sentence.

From this...

• "Gun show loophole, also called the private sale exemption, is a political term in the United States referring to the sale of firearms by private sellers..."

To this...

• "Gun show loophole, also called the private sale exemption, is a controversial term in the United States referring to the sale of firearms by private sellers..."

I began the discussion by asking for some neutral WP:RS around Oct. 3rd, per WP:CHALLENGE, and added an NPOV tag [9].

I was given various sources of different quality that use terms such as "so-called", "notorious" and ones that said that only gun control advocates use that term or invented it, which seems a dubious assertion to me, given the NRA and the GOA rant on and on about how "The Gun Show Loophole" doesn't exist.

• Politico April 2024
• Wapo 2013
• CBS April 2024
• The Hill June 2024
• National Interest 2016
• CNN June 2024

I only found 1 recent RS that uses the term "controversial" in this context, but the article doesn't seem to explain why it's controversial. NBC News April 2024. IMO we have more neutral high quality sources that do not use such terms.

In my view the editor(s) haven't acknowledged that they may be inserting MOS:CONTROVERSIAL and MOS:DOUBT in WP:VOICE into the lead sentence. One of their edit summaries seemed to accuse me of WP:OWN [10], while others seem to claim that past attempts, which I subsequently reverted, represent a legitimate current consensus despite these past editors not being presently active on the talk page at this point and failing to gain consensus, provide citations, and appearing POVish etc...

Considering the numerous past discussions on NPOV that also considered the usefulness of adding the term "controversy" [11] [12] [13] [14], including at ANI [15], I decided to chalk it up to a simple misunderstanding per WP:AGF.

I made an attempt to achieve consensus by including some of the requested wording into the last paragraph [16], but it was quickly rejected.

I'm all for trying to improve this article, but it's past time for some consensus and or explanation on whether reverting the lead back to the version it was ten years ago on the Gun shows in the United States article (current version BTW), is somehow better. Maybe I am the only one that sees a nearly 10 year old WP:DEADHORSE.

Cheers to all the impartial editors willing to comment here or at the article talk page. DN (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I would simply state that this was, and is, an ongoing conversation with consensus building on the article talk page itself around simply describing the term as reliable sources currently do (which is to say that there is a multitude of heated opinions about the very validity of the term, a.k.a. "controversial", but I think "disputed", "contested", or any number of various synonums would suffice. "So called" is how the majority of reliable sources seem to describe the term, and while normally that would be a weasel word to avoid, if the RSes use the language directly, then we are generally obligated to follow in using the language of the RSes, but felt that "controversial" might actually be a bit of a best-of-all-worlds compromise of sorts indeed given the MOS:CONTROVERSIAL nature of this specific article. @Darknipples said repeatedly he or she would bring this before the NPOVN, while myself and other editors currently working on building consensus on the talk page of the article (in a direction that clearly was against the liking of DN) have asked for patience and cited the essay WP:NORUSH.

Happy to continue to work on consensus building at the article's talk page and welcome any other input that others might be able to offer. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's been a week, and you haven't provided a single NEUTRAL source explaining what the controversy is. DN (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Nearly all of the sources provided, excluding possibly the Nat Interest as you already pointed out, were reliable secondary sources and which use language describing the term in a highly charged and controversial manner. I already provided direct quotes from the body of each of them on the article's talk page as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a dubious assertion. Please quote them here. What do the neutral sources say about why it's controversial? DN (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear cut. Without doubt it's controversial. Are people not able to view the sources be presented? Moxy🍁 22:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

They are all on the talk page here if you or anyone else wants to participate. We were building consensus there and still are. Talk:Gun_show_loophole#How_should_this_term_be_labeled? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I will repost here, but I believe it would have been best to keep the conversation in one location, there are far more sources on this too, but these were just some that I found:

1. From Forbes, "The Justice Department announced new rules that would force unlicensed gun sellers who primarily sell firearms at gun shows and online marketplaces to register with the federal government—a significant change that could close the notorious “gun show loophole” [2]https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2024/04/11/biden-closes-gun-show-loophole-heres-what-to-know-and-when-rule-comes-into-effect/

2. From CNN, "In a preliminary injunction issued Tuesday, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives cannot enforce the rule intended to close the so-called gun show loophole in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Utah." [3]https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/politics/gun-show-loophole-injunction-texas-kacsmaryk/index.html#:~:text=The%20new%20ATF%20rule,%20which%20took%20effect%20May%2020,%20seeks

3. From NBC, "The Biden administration announced Thursday that it is proposing a rule to eliminate the so-called gun show loophole — one of the biggest attempts to regulate the sale of firearms in years." [4]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administration-proposes-eliminating-gun-show-loophole-regulation-rcna102800

4. From National Interest (only potentially non-RS, but I do not see it on the RSP list, so it is not unreliable either), "In reality, there is no “gun show loophole.” If an individual wants to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms retailer, which typically makes up the majority of vendors at gun shows, the individual must fill out the requisite federal firearms paperwork and undergo a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check."[5]https://nationalinterest.org/feature/10-myths-about-guns-america-14850 Iljhgtn (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The Forbes article is easily misread. Where it says "a significant change that could close the notorious “gun show loophole”....The significant change is referring to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Bipartisan, meaning "supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties". DN (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yet the "gun show loophole" is labeled there as "notorious", which one might say would be a decent way of describing something that is "controversial" don't you think? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Otherwise, it could just as easily have said, "a significant change that could close the gun show loophole", the "significant change" still would then be referring to the BSCA of course, but the nature of how the gun show loophole is being described by reliable sources is what we are discussing. In that regard, the language chosen by the reliable sources is, at minimum, describing a term that is highly charged and controversial to its very core. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

How many neutral high quality sources describe it as notorious? Enough to justify putting it in the lead sentence?

If the loophole is notorious, as in, notable in a bad sense, does that mean it does exist and gun rights advocates are wrong? DN (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

which one might say would be a decent way of describing something that is "controversial" don't you think?

That's called original research. I don't get paid enough to make inferences sources don't explicitly state on Wikipedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Controversial according to the NRA, definitely. DN (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Controversial to both left and right sources. Not just "the NRA"... You have I think helpfully introduced an important follow up question DN, which is Why is it controversial? But that is a ancillary point to what we are discussing here. Which is just: Should the term "Gun show loophole" be called "controversial" in the lead? Or, alternatively some other variant such as "disputed", "contested", or some other term. That is the only aspect of what is being discussed, and you have made your argument that you feel no such label of any kind is needed. I do genuinely feel your "why" question matters, but it is a secondary question to the discussion at hand. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Explaining "the why" is actually the purpose of an encyclopedia. What do you think it does? DN (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The why is just one part (which can be part of the lead as well, in addition to being explained more thoroughly in the body... ancillary to the core of this discussion though)... the what is another, and the words that we use should accurately reflect the way that reliable, most often secondary sources, write about each and every subject which is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article as part of this encyclopedia. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Pretty easy to find it seems to be all related to unregistered sellers and buyers...... Even Layman sources explain this.[17]. This is covered in the article..... That by the way is very interesting read... As someone from a non-gun loving country it's just interesting to see how people get around these things. Moxy🍁 22:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Which part explains it? DN (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's in the article all over or are you referring to the sources being presented? (Do you need access to the sources) The opinion section is great in explaining even to someone new to the topic like myself. Moxy🍁 23:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I realize it's in the article and yes I have access. What words does the article use to explain why GSL is controversial? DN (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Its pretty clear to anyone who reads the article and the sources there that call it contentious and/or controversial. For example "the Biden administration is moving to end the controversial “gun-show loophole.”". Even adolescence publications use the term [18]... Thus indicating how widespread the terminology is used. It's very odd debate over one word that is clearly sourced all over. Let's see what others have to say. Moxy🍁 23:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying it's clear without showing us where the explanation is. I have already presented the NBC article which also doesn't explain it.

The Teen Vogue article is just commentary ie OPINION by Prince Shakur. The article says..."In recent decades, however, gun culture has become increasingly controversial in the United States."

However, it does NOT seem to say that GSL is "controversial" DN (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone has the ability to search these terms and should before commenting (I get hundreds of hits). The term has been used for over three decades from what I can see...CNN 1999 "Gore's presence on the Hill was intended by Democrats to remind voters that the controversial "gun show loophole" amendment to the Senate's juvenile justice bill only passed due to Gore's tie-breaking vote last week.". I'm not seeing a debate that controversial is even a debate its just there in the context of the loophole. Is there some controversy over partisan usage? Moxy🍁 00:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

In terms of NEUTRALITY, yes. DN (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I can agree it was considered controversial in 1999, per your source, but in 2024, much less so. DN (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Then why is it used in a source dealing with the current president? Or by NBC in 2013. To be honest the whole topic sounds controversial let alone the term used. Seems like in the States this is a decades long debated. Even the centrist publication politico use the term [19]. Moxy🍁 01:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it has no value in the lead sentence. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we are supposed to remain neutral. Other sources say "so-called" which again ignores MOS:DOUBT and MOS:CONTROVERSIAL respectively.

See Wikipedia:Controversial articles. We are supposed to DESCRIBE the controversy, not Wikipedia:Don't "teach the controversy".

Cheers. DN (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We should explained to our readers it is a controversial term and subject as the sources do and lead our readers to more exhaustive information WP: purpose. Why leave our readers in the dark to guess or click source after source to get this information? Topics of this nature should be edited by people who don't have a vested interest in them. Moxy🍁 01:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting Deja Vu here. Where do these articles EXPLAIN the controversy?

Speaking of vested interest, the majority of sources that call this controversial are not academic or high quality. These days, many of the ones saying EXPLAINING how it is controversial seem to be OPINION based. DN (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Again many types of sources cover this topic and why from juvenile publications to academic publications such as....

Chambliss, W.J. (2011). Crime and Criminal Behavior. Key Issues in Crime and Punishment. SAGE Publications. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-4129-7855-2. Retrieved 2024-10-11. One controversial route to gun acquisition comes from what gun control proponents refer to as the gun show loophole

Even encyclopedias cover this..

Schildkraut, J.; Carter, G.L. (2022). Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law [3 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 290. ISBN 978-1-4408-6774-3. Retrieved 2024-10-11. "gun show loophole" remains a contentious goal of the gun control movement. Moxy🍁 02:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Controversial route" and "contentious goal"... see WP:SYNTH. DN (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Reading the sources, it's not clear to me whether they think it's the term that's "controversial" or the loophole itself that's well known for some bad quality (i.e. notorious). Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I have made a final BOLD attempt in the last paragraph of the lead to try to find consensus on the talk page. [20]

• Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have campaigned for universal background checks and an end to the gun show loophole. Advocates for gun rights find the subject controversial and dispute the existence of a loophole since current laws provide rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and do not regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens.

Cheers. DN (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Responding to the top post, just expressing support for DeCausa's edit here. No need for the "term" business in the first sentence. That said, IMO it could be simpler: "The gun show loophole is a legal exception in the United States that allows the private sale of firearms without requiring a background check for the buyer." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep. That's an improvement. DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The key to this discussion is that there is absolutely not a consensus over whether the term itself is even a validly neutral term simply describing a phenomenon of policy, law, or otherwise, or if the term itself is a tool of propaganda. By calling the situation a "loophole", which many say is no such loophole at all, the mere usage of the term does advance one side of the argument, even without further definition. Therefore, if we were to follow the reliable sources which report on this term, they often say "so-called Gun show loophole", "controversial Gun show loophole" or some other such descriptor. I am sure there is also controversy surrounding both the term as well as the related policy, but at the moment the only discussion is really based around whether or not the term itself is neutrally used without any further commentary (and that is simply not how the reliable sources use the term, they always seem to couch it with additional descriptive language). If we were to quote from the source Rhododendrites just cited for example, many claim "there is no loophole" at all, which is why something to the effect of "the term is controversial" in the lead of the article is both warranted and heavily supported by numerous reliable sources.

" 'Close the gun show loophole,' demands Handgun Control, Inc. The major obstacle to Congress’s complying with HCI’s wishes appears to be the desire of many Democrats to preserve gun shows as a campaign issue in the 2000 election. But if the voters learn the facts about gun shows, they will discover that there is no gun show loophole, no gun show crime problem and no reason to adopt federal legislation whose main effect would be to infringe on First and Second Amendment rights."[21] Iljhgtn (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There should be an article on the phenomenon, whose existence is not seriously in doubt, of private firearms purchases that do not require background checks. If there's a better article title available, we should start a requested move discussion. The article about that phenomenon should not start by discussing the controversial nature of the term, but with a plain description of the phenomenon itself. If this means waiting a while before the bold restatement of the title, that'd be fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There has been much discussion over the title, and we discussed naming the article Gun show loophole controversy at one point if you want to check the archive, but we seemed to stick with WP:COMMONNAME.

Sources do not always describe the term as controversial.

These days, sources say closing the gun show loophole through universal background checks appears to enjoy high levels of public support on both sides of the aisle. See Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

The concern here is that the term is Loaded language via MOS:LABEL, and really doesn't provide any informational value other than to to give unconfirmable assertions the appearance of fact. See WP:VOICE

• Avoid stating opinions as facts.
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
• Avoid stating facts as opinions.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.

I can agree that certain prominent opinions say that it is a controversial term but they are opinions that tend to be attributed to gun rights advocates. DN (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I am open to a renaming of the term, but feel that reliable sources do use it often enough, though they do very often speak of it with that exact language mentioned in MOS:LABEL. We are advised according to the MOS in those instances to use the language often used by the reliable sources, "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." We should absolutely include all of the aforementioned sources in the lead when we add "controversial" to the lead of this article, which is not always required in the lead (body normally being sufficient), but in this case, due to the contentious nature of the subject it is warranted. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The current iteration already takes it a step further and devotes the entire last paragraph to explaining the opinions of both sides. DN (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That is more of the "why" you were focused on, the "what" still revolves around the term itself being contested, controversial, disputed, or simply not agreed upon in terms of use and meaning, therefore we need to include that per MOS:LEAD which says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The "controversy" in this case being the term itself according to the reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We need to remain neutral and give each side their DUE WEIGHT, by not leaving out sources that do not call this term controversial, such as this https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/2024/what-does-closing-the-gun-show-loophole-do. It was an arduous task getting this article to GA status, and we did it by not putting one opinion over the other in VOICE. DN (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, but the majority of sources claim some form of controversial nature attached to the term itself, including "so-called" as discussed previously ad nauseum, or call it as such outright. It is also placing WP:UNDUE weight to not include the descriptor most accurately describing the term according to reliable sources. That is in fact an editorial decision that runs directly counter to the language used by the reliable sources when reporting on and referring to the term "Gun show loophole." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like we are going in circles because we aren't acknowledging why that conflicts with WP:VOICE, MOS:DOUBT and MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. It seems like you are claiming that sources that don't describe the term as controversial are somehow WP:FRINGE. You have yet to provide neutral high quality sources that EXPLAIN why the TERM itself is controversial, as opposed to the debate over it. DN (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Do the sources you refer to say the TERM is controversial or the debate? DN (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources you provided aren't exactly clear on whether they are referring to the TERM or the debate/perception/opinion. See WP:SYNTH. DN (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's a more academic source that explains the term WITHOUT using the term "controversial", like most NEWS organizations might.

• The term "Gun Show Loophole" came about as a result of the passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.

References

Cheers. DN (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The simplest solution is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as we have tried to do with the last paragraph in the lead. Why put "controversial" in WP:VOICE and ignore high quality sources like the one above? DN (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Besides the fact is that it isn't entirely clear whether news sources are referring to the term or the actual loophole, we must also consider that GSL is referred to by many names. It is also called the private sale loophole, the private sale exemption, the private seller loophole, the Brady bill loophole, Brady law loophole etc...etc...etc... While the "Gun show loophole" is likely the first prominent term for it, the fact remains that is not the only nomenclature for GSL. See Gun show loophole#Provenance DN (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I can see why DN would want to change the opening sentence from "political" to "controversial" as the term clearly is controversial. It's also political as it's used to try to influence/sway public opinion to push for a policy change. Why not just say both? Is there an issue with this version of the lead, restored by DN, last January? [22], "Gun show loophole is a political term in the United States referring to the sale of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, that do not require the seller to conduct a federal background check of the buyer. This is also called the private sale exemption." I think it's clear the term is controversial and the last paragraph of the lead says as much. I don't think the current lead is as good since the political/controversial nature of the term should be made clear. Springee (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

No need for either. We don't need to make the subject of the article a term to talk about how the naming is controversial. "The gun show loophole is the exception to background check laws for private sales" is simple. Then, after describing the subject, explain that there's disagreement over whether to call it a "loophole". I'm unlikely to edit that article anytime soon, but for the record I oppose any "term" framing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts as well. I barely have an opinion on whether to use "political" or "controversial" or some other descriptor when discussing the term, but the article needs to start with discussion of the topic, not the term. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, since I made this edit that's been fixed - although it could definitely been improved with Rhododendrites more succinct version. My edit hasn't been challenged so I'm unclear whether there's any point to this thread anymore. Is the issue about the article name instead? DeCausa (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Although the subject of the article is the topic (i.e. that U.S. federal law does not require background checks for private sales) and not the term -- and thanks for fixing that -- part of the article can still discuss the term itself. And some people -- especially but not exclusively gun rights supporters -- object to the term, and say that it's misleading or confusing. But there's not agreement about how to explain that in the article. That's the main point of this thread, I believe. "P.S." Re topic vs. term, the article hatnote should still be adjusted too. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the term really agreed upon though? Can an article just start talking about a term when the term itself is deeply controversial in terms of how its meaning and definition is even understood? I saw the DeCausa point, but cheese is not controversial, we all agree on what cheese is. The only thing agreed here too on a "sky-is-blue" type level is that the term itself is indeed controversial, but then the policy around what it means is a separate debate and whether or not that policy is beneficial or not is all also ancillary and additional information beyond the initial point as reliable sources discuss. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

We'll see if there are anymore objections when someone removes the NPOV TAG, or we could take a poll. DN (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa, Rhododendrites and Firefangledfeathers, as they are the most impartial editors yet to comment here. DN (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting other editors aren't impartial? What do you consider your level of impartiality? Springee (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I brought this issue here because I'm involved and impartiality is not only relevant, it's essential, as is assuming good faith. DN (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's probably better to say involved vs impartial. I'm also uninvolved I've never edited the article or it's talk page. Springee (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Springee except for one addition based on the entirety of this discussion was adding the following based on how the reliable sources use language on this term, "Gun show loophole is a controversial political term in the United States referring to the sale of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, that do not require the seller to conduct a federal background check of the buyer. This is also called the private sale exemption."

That keeps both political and controversial in the lead, which accurately describes how the reliable sources for the most part deal with the term itself and then also gets right into the concept as well without confusing the reader. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Would it work for all involved if the "political"/"controversial" label was placed in a second sentence rather than the first? I think the political nature of the term should be in the opening few sentences but I can see, when if I don't agree with, the arguments for not having it in the opening sentence. Springee (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be at least helpful to see what it might look like as part of a Bold attempt to resolve the discussion, I support making the edit and we can discuss whether or not it is genuinely an improvement then or not. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Where are the sources that say this is a "controversial TERM", or even a "political TERM", for that matter? DN (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hang on. WP:REFERS. Maybe the article can deal with the controversy around the term. But that can't be anything to do with the first sentence or, I would say, the first paragraph. That should summarise the substance of what the article is about. If there are any issues about the name then that should be dealt with through WP:RM or an etymology section, and certainly not in the first paragraph. That should be only about what substantively is covered by the article. I speak as Brit who knows nothing about the substance of the article, never heard about the issue until 2 days ago and is just basing my view on WP first principles. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. What I've tried to do is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in the last paragraph. DN (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think 4 paragraphs in is way to far. Part of the issue with the term, the reason why it is referenced with things like "so called" is because, like many political labels, it is misleading. Consider this paper which [23] which states, "Federal law makes no distinction between sales occurring at gun shows and other sales; there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. ". Politifact also weighs in on some of the issues [24] (see section 3). Here is another PF article (run by another source) [25] which makes a similar point about the issues with the term itself. I don't think it is reasonable to put the controversial nature of the term any further down than somewhere within the opening paragraph. If the scope of the article is really going to be private party sales then the article should be renamed to the inherently less political title and the discussion of the "gun show loophole" can be treated as a sub topic. Springee (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear from the sources whether the loophole is controversial because it allows otherwise prohibited people from buying guns or because it isn't actually a loophole. IOW is the term controversial or the policy? TFD (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the term is controversial because it is misleading. I mean when we have a noted researcher saying there is no such thing as the gun show loophole, that certainly suggests the name is not accurate to what is typically being described. Springee (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The idea was to spend the first 3 paragraphs focusing on facts explaining why and what it is to give context to the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in the last paragraph. If there is a consensus by impartial editors for such a change I am open to it, but it doesn't seem prudent. POV in the lead should be minimal as possible AFAIK, but I'm no expert.

Back to the topic at hand. The first source you cited does not seem to claim the gun show loophole is a controversial or political term, but please correct me if I missed it. It is about a 2008 "Fatally Flawed Study Yields Misleading Results" by the NBER. Garen Wintemute, one of the author's of this source, is already quoted in the GSL article (Notable Opinions) stating "The fundamental flaw in the gun show loophole proposal is its failure to address the great majority of private-party sales, which occur at other locations and increasingly over the Internet at sites where any non-prohibited person can list firearms for sale and buyers can search for private-party sellers."

Section 3. from PF also does not appear to call it a controversial or political term, but again, correct me if I'm wrong here. I would also note that the NRA often cites Kleck's work.

The PF repost in the Austin American Statesman seems like they used a collection of sources to write a commentary, also does not seem to use "political" or "controversial" to describe the term either from what I could parse, but again, maybe I might have missed it.

We also have other academic sources that do not call the term political or controversial, including a Richmond VA Law Journal piece written specifically about GSL. It's quite succinct and to the point.

References

Cheers. DN (talk)

The source you provided, despite being an editorial, seems to support the idea that the term is controversial by noting the opposing views of those who are familiar with the law. It notes that gun rights advocates note that this isn't a loophole in the law, rather that what how the laws were designed. At the same time the author clearly is concerned that the law has ambiguity over who doesn't require a permit to sell and that private party sellers can attend a gun show thus connecting with buyers. So again, the issues with the term are illustrated even by a source that isn't sympathetic to the gun rights side of things. Springee (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"The source you provided, despite being an editorial, seems to support the idea that the term is controversial by noting the opposing views of those who are familiar with the law"

It's from a Law review, and we don't try to draw conclusions from sources per WP:SYNTH. Let's look at the text...

• The term "Gun Show Loophole" came about as a result of the passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.
• These laws effectively created a dual standard for gun sales based on the federal license status of the seller. The Brady Act mandated that licensed gun dealers must conduct criminal background checks on potential buyers regardless of whether the sale takes place at the dealer's store or at a gun show, whereas the Firearm Owners Protection Act expressly exempted "persons making occasional sales or selling all or part of a personal collection" from the need to obtain a federal license to sell firearms.
• Thus, a private individual who is not considered to be "engaged in the business" of buying and selling guns, or who sells occasionally, is not required, or even allowed, to conduct a background check on a prospective buyer.
• The reason for the exception to the background check requirement for private sellers was to allow for the unregulated sale or transfer of guns between friends and relatives or the "occasional" sale of guns by individuals from their personal collection.
• The gun lobby argues that since this exception was included in the original intent of the laws it is not technically a loophole.
• The counter argument is that many private sellers at gun shows exploit the vague definition of "engaged in the business" and the equally undefined concept of "occasional" sales.
• While some private sellers at gun shows do indeed only sell one or two weapons and attend just one show as a seller, many gun show sellers who are not federally licensed buy and sell large numbers of guns and attend many shows each year.
• Therefore, a private seller using the exception written into the law in a way that was not originally intended creates what is in fact a loophole.

No mention of "controversial" or "political" so far. If you still feel this is inaccurate, please quote where the source mentions either of those things. DN (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Many sources have said "so called..." Perhaps we could use that instead? The problem is trying to find a way to summarize the way the term is not treated as literal by many sources across the spectrum. Springee (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

As per the sources provided by myself and various other contributors, it is evident that there is a significant controversy surrounding this term. According to MOS:OPEN, it is crucial for the lead's definition of the term to acknowledge this controversy by labelling it as a "controversial term" or using similar terminology. It is inevitable that such terms will arise in an encyclopedia though infrequent. Alternatively, @Springee's's suggestion of referring to it as "so-called," as supported by numerous sources, appears to be an acceptable approach for the same reasons. While I understand @Darknipples's perspective, it is important to consider more than just the optics of the lead and prioritise accuracy. The disputed status quo of the article warrants a revision. Fenharrow (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"controversy surrounding this term."

We have tried to address these concerns by using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to mention "controversial" in the last paragraph of the lead, and WP:REFERS to determine that the lead sentence was improperly formed. DN (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, it's not clear if these sources are referring to the term or the loophole/exemption itself. See WP:Synth. DN (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I am open to the idea of WP:RM to "Private sale exemption" if there is consensus that it will help resolve this NPOV "controversy" objection once and for all. The lead sentence could then read...

• Private sale exemption, formerly called the gun show loophole, is the lack of mandatory background checks in the United States for private sales of firearms, including those done at gun shows.

What do we think? DN (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Is that nearly as common though? It could be considered if it's close but we wouldn't normally override RS if there is a significant gap. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to propose changing the name of the article to "private sale exemption". Although I find your suggestion better than the current lead, I wonder what everyone thinks of renaming the page to "private sale exemption" and referring to "gun show loophole" as a colloquialism used by gun control advocates. As indicated in the lead presently, "gun show loophole" does not solely refer to the lack of background checks ONLY at gun shows. Please feel free to weigh in @Moxy @Darknipples @Springee @Mudwater. Fenharrow (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Lets try to clarify this to concise points of contention in order to expedite a resolution.

Mudwater, Fenharrow, Iljhgtn, Springee...

1. Does the current lead still violate NPOV in your opinion, despite "controversial" being mentioned in the last paragraph with attributed POV to gun rights advocates? Yes or No.

2. Is the same "controversy" that is claimed to be attached to the term GSL also innately attached to the term Private sale exemption? Yes or No.

Gun show loophole, also called the private sale exemption, is the lack of mandatory background checks in the United States for private sales of firearms, including those done at gun shows. Under U.S. federal gun law, any person may sell a firearm to a federally unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have cause to believe that the person is prohibited from possessing firearms,[1][2][3][4] and as long as the seller is not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms.[5]

Federal law requires Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) stores, such as gun stores, pawn shops, outdoors stores and other licensees, to perform a background check of the buyer and record the sale, regardless of whether the sale takes place at the seller's regular place of business or at a gun show. Firearm sales between private individuals who reside in the same state – that is, sales in the "secondary market” and with an unlicensed dealer – are exempt from these federal requirements; however, in some states, it is the same. According to a statement by the United States Department of Justice in 2024, unlicensed dealers are a significant source of firearms that are illegally trafficked into communities.[6]

Twenty-two U.S. states and the District of Columbia have laws that require background checks for some or all private sales, including sales at gun shows. In some of these states, such non-commercial sales also must be facilitated through a federally licensed dealer, who performs the background check and records the sale. In other states, gun buyers must first obtain a license or permit from the state, which performs a background check before issuing the license (thus typically not requiring a duplicative background check from a gun dealer).[7]

Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have campaigned for universal background checks and an end to the gun show loophole. Advocates for gun rights find the subject controversial and dispute the existence of a loophole since current laws provide rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and do not regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens.[8][9][10]

Cheers. DN (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies Moxy, I forgot to ping you as well with regard to the 2 questions listed directly above. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The Antioch Review article looks suspect

Not an editor, just wanted to bring this to people's attention. The Antioch Review article looks suspect, in terms of neutrality. It gives off "person who is affiliated with thing being a major contributor to the article for that thing" vibes. I'm mostly talking about the fifth paragraph of the "History" section, although I'm uncertain about the article as a whole too. Hope this is the right place to post about this kind of thing, I'd appreciate for someone to take a look at it. 66.73.175.231 (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to this paragraph?...

• Free speech is taken seriously at The Antioch Review. The Winter 2016 issue published an article considered offensive to many transgender individuals and supporters, but was nevertheless defended against a wave of criticism on the grounds of free expression of ideas and opinions, even when they run counter to one's own.

References

If so, I can see how the first sentence may be WP:UNDUE in WP:VOICE, but might be attributed to the author, if they are considered significant or prominent as a WP:RS.

Cheers. DN (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna take a poke at the article and see what I can clean up. Sirocco745 (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I've found in relation to NPOV.

The first paragraph of the History section was added here by now-inactive user Jbbirwin using a reference from "review.antiochcollege.org". Since the website is unfortunately dead and I can't retrieve a copy of the page due to the Internet Archive recently being hacked, we can't yet confirm whether this was just a copypaste. However, it's definitely not got a neutral tone about it. If the part that states they "sought to establish a forum for the voice of liberalism in a world facing the forces of fascism and communism" were in quotation marks, so as to indicate to readers that this does not reflect Wikipedia's view on the subject but it is rather the subject's own self-assessment, then that's bare minimum.

Next is the paragraph mentioned above by DN. This would be more relevant to include if there was sourced evidence of "free speech (being) taken seriously at The Antioch Review" that showed this commitment to free speech demonstrated over the course of the Review's history.

And last thing I'll mention before I get to work on the article is that the whole History section reads like a newspaper article and is quite non-specific with its claims. "While its pages have been populated by innumerous academics" does not tell us anything about said academics, for starters.

So that's all I've got for now. I'll get started on making some changes and tagging the page with WP:PEACOCK and/or WP:WEASEL, along with the one on style (I forgot what it was called!). Unrelated side note, but screw those hackers. The Internet Archive is an invaluable resource given the constantly changing nature of the internet and access to material, and it being down is more than a minor annoyance. Sirocco745 (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the article, I appreciate it.

Another unrelated sidenote, I find it absolutely lovely that you guys use the terms WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL to describe those things. This is a good website. 66.73.175.231 (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Mullenweg's philanthropy section

Not sure what to do with Matt Mullenweg § Philanthropy. I'm not familiar enough with the relevant policies to decide if we should just axe the content or merge it into the unrelated personal history or do something else about it. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It does read like puffery. But you do need to raise this on the article's talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops. Well, since I've already opened this, I've transcluded this thread to the article's talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC on lede of Masada myth

Here: Talk:Masada myth#RfC on the article lede. Is the lede too POV, or OK? (Involves the Middle East so hang on to your hat lol.) Herostratus (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Fátima prayers

I'm bringing this here because the whole thing is stating catholic beliefs in wikivoice. Starting with the lead: "of the seven prayers, reportedly (...)" on the origin of the prayers, is very much POV. The prayers were published by a nun starting in 1937, from what I can gather. TBH, I'm not even sure this meets notability standards, as the whole thing is based exclusively on primary or not-independent sources. Should WP be a resource for people to learn their prayers? VdSV9•♫ 14:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Trying to address NPOV on Trap-Neuter-Return and reached an impasse

The Trap Neuter Return page has NPOV concerns going back at least 5 years. I proposed edits, starting with the lead paragraph, but the active editor on the page @Geogene is not accepting any edits. I've withdrawn edit requests to the lead sentence and would like to proceed with edits to the rest of the paragraph that are not NPOV concerns; they are clarifications to increase accuracy. I'm here to ask for guidance on how to reach consensus. Nylnoj (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)