Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:30, 19 January 2025

Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy

I am kind of new here. I came across a reference to an organization called Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy while reading a news article - this one https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/us-colleges-world/2024/02/16/how-texas-ams-qatar-campus-suddenly-collapsed - and went and read the Misplaced Pages article about them to find out who they are, and the Misplaced Pages article seems like, I don't know, propaganda. Can more experienced people look at it? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basalmnine (talk • contribs) 10:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Basalmnine Any specific concerns? I think there is too much self-sourced material in it. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I had a look at the article and I think the issue is that no criticism of the org exists within the article which makes its often controversial claims about campus antisemitism seem more trustworthy than might be required by neutrality. My question to Balsamnine is whether they have any RSes for criticism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

but also the editor should be aware this article is affected by the Israel/Palestine edit restrictions and requires participation from EC editors. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

If the article in question is Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, it seems pretty balanced. It's biases/advocacy and what it tries to do is well described, if you are on either side of the conflict you won't be thinking that the article is unfairly describing what it does, i.e. alleging antisemitism and terrorist links for all pro-Palestinianism in US higher education.

I added an edit to the lead just now describing its recent work on researching allegations of antisemitism on university campuses. as long as we don't go about in wikivoice, without attribution, describing pro-Palestine protests as inherently antisemitic (and I don't think that article does), we are probs fine. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess the biggest issue with the article is that some of the sourcing are the white papers produced by the institute itself. we really shouldn't be using material produced by the institute itself to attribute the research it does, though it also seems there are secondary sourcing quoting the research that is also cited. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Doug Weller talk 21:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

For NPOV, it would certainly be a good source for both facts and findings/perspectives on other Wiki pages. Scharb (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

thats a convo for WP:RSN not NPOVN Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Biased article

The 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence article is completely biased. More editors need to get involved and make it more neutral.-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

yeah, 45% of text is from User:CosmLearner, who was blocked for sockpuppetting.

another 15% is from User:B'Desh-In_Outlook who is a sockpuppet of CosmLearner.

almost all the contributions are from sockpuppets actually, clicking most of the users by text-added indicates many were blocked for sockpuppeting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Operation Olive Branch and false consensus

There is a 3 user "consensus" on the article Operation Olive Branch being called an invasion instead of an operation. I have provided Google search results and prominence of news outlets/countries' reactions on the talk page. The word "operation" appears 122 times (except for the title "Operation Olive Branch") while invasion appears as 17 times (now 18) after the false consensus. @Bondegezou: and @Traumnovelle: have been ignoring my evidence regarding WP:UNDUE. @Applodion: also explained how this is not an invasion. The issue here is cherry picked sources calling this an invasion, while vast majority of the sources calls this an operation. Example for earlier google search results:

"afrin offensive" (16,000 results)

"operation olive branch" (72,200 results)

"olive branch operation" (56,300 results)

"afrin invasion" (2,990 results)

Misplaced Pages consensus formation considers all available, valid source material. For simple matters like titling and style questions, we directly depend on aggregate results (Google Ngrams that track string-usage frequency in books over time; Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books search results and the patterns they reveal in sources; etc.). The idea that they are to be ignored, or are second place to what just happens to be cited already in the article as of this timestamp, is not only unworkable but absurd. It bears no resemblance to how Misplaced Pages:Consensus is actually formed. per Misplaced Pages:Fallacy of selective sources.

TLDR: users imposing minority view despite of undue weight. Beshogur (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

... I mean, by any definition, isn't it an invasion? I'm not a fan of euphemisms like "cross-country 1.3 year operation".

also folks have pointed out that google search counts are useless, if a thousand blogs by random folks on internet say its an operation, but 10 reliable sources call it an invasion, we should go with rs. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

What do the actual reliable sources say? Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't care actually who calls it invasion or not, for example part of my comment on the talk page: European Parliament source contains 5x Operation Peace Spring (name of the operation, propaganda in this case), 12 times operation (except Operation Peace Spring, and title 1x), 1 time invasion.

I don't care about operation as well. "was an offensive" is possible (best NPOV imo). However this is definitely not an invasion. if a thousand blogs by random folks on internet say its an operation, but 10 reliable sources call it an invasion I have provided evidence for RS calling this operation however. The issue here is undue weight. More sources calling this an operation rather than an invasion. These are just example RS calling this an operation (nothing to do with prominence).

• European Parliament: Turkey's military operation in Syria and its impact on relations with the EU
• CNN: Turkish operation in Syria undercuts US gains in ISIS fight
• AJ: Turkey’s operation in Syria’s Afrin: The key players
• NYT: Turkey Begins Operation Against U.S.-Backed Kurdish Militias in Syria
• Reuters: Turkey's military operation against Kurdish YPG in Afrin

As I explained, this offensive had more Syrian troops than Turkish.

cross-country 1.3 year operation regarding this, the offensive took only 2 months (57 days according to Turkish ministry of defence), the insurgency phase doesn't have a date at all, someone just added a begin and end date. Imo should be removed, SDF insurgency in northern Syria already exist. Beshogur (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The amount of Syrian troops doesn't mean this can't be called an invasion. The Wars of the Roses uses the term invasion even though most if not all the troops were English.

Are you even reading your sources? The first one says: 'Though the decision of Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to invade the north-

east Syrian region governed by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD)...'

The second says: 'Turkey’s military incursion against Kurdish groups in Afrin, Syria...'

The New York Times says: 'Turkey has made several incursions into Syria.'

So half your sources support it being an invasion, that is hardly 'undue weight'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you even reading your sources? The first one says are you even reading my comment? Stop cherry picking one word. The first one used 12x more operation. This is simply lying in order to gain advantage. Beshogur (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Being referred to as an operation doesn't exclude it being an invasion. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is here not operation. I am open to change it to "an offensive", more neutral tone. And this is not an invasion. It's invasion according to a minority, which makes it undue weight. Beshogur (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

For reference Assad regime and Cyprus are the only countries calling this an invasion. France calls it, if it becomes an attempted invasion. Other countries? Nothing. Arab league and EU called this an intervention. Beshogur (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The EU parliament document refers to it as an invasion, countries might be wanting to avoid the term to maintain good relations with Turkey. We rely on reliable sources and not specifically government sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Because of one word from the pdf? That's straight up Misplaced Pages:Don't lie. Stop. Operation appears 12 times.

European Parliament source: Turkey’s military intervention in the Kurdish-controlled enclave of Afrin in Syria Beshogur (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't call me a liar. The source clearly refers to it as an invasion, it doesn't need to repeat the term invasion several times once it has already characterised it as such. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

2 times vs 12 times (except for "Operation Olive Branch")? You're ignoring this. All sources contains the title operation and you're cherry picking one word from the text below. Beshogur (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Literally the first page.

Title: Turkey's military operation in Syria and its impact on relations with the EU

SUMMARY

Operation Peace Spring', launched on 9 October 2019, is the third major Turkish military operation on Syrian territory since 2016, following the 'Euphrates Shield' (2016-2017) and 'Olive Branch' (2018) operations. Though the decision of Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to invade the northeast Syrian region governed by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), may have come as a surprise to some, it is in fact consistent with the rationale of a regime that counts the fight against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) – considered 'terrorist' not only by Turkey, but also by the United States and the EU – among its top security priorities.

And you pick one word, which means undue weight. That's misleading readers. Beshogur (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Just like what DanielRigal said the terms aren't mutually exclusive. An operation can be an invasion e.g. Operation Downfall. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Syrian troops invading Syrian soil. I'm done. How can I explain those aren't same things? Beshogur (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

By this logic, the Bay of Pigs invasion wasn't an invasion either. But both arguments would be OR so this really isn't a tangent worth indulging furthe. _signed, Rosguill 00:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill: just a question, how come this can be described an invasion despite of minority views? Because few users agreed here doesn't mean it's the truth? Am I wrong? I have provided many evidence regarding this. Verifiability doesn't mean truth? Beshogur (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

What the other editors are arguing is that this isn't actually a minority view, and that it's inaccurate to argue that "operation" and "invasion" are mutually exclusive. The best evidence against such an argument would be RS stating that it is not an invasion, or else a demonstrated, overwhelming majority of RS that avoid using the phrase "invasion". _signed, Rosguill 20:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Noting that the Google Scholar results arguments in a separate thread below are a valid argument in that direction, although the search terms surveyed are not quite comprehensive (there's a lot of other ways that the operation could be referred to other than "Afrin ", and "Afrin invasion" is much less likely to be used than "Invasion of Afrin" , "Occupation of Afrin" or "invaded Afrin" ). A lot of the same sources also come up across these various searches. My sense is that the raw results are close enough that a closer reading of RS text is needed (not all Scholar results are of equal quality). _signed, Rosguill 20:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENT is a policy and we have articles like 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria. To be honest I'd suggest renaming the article to a more descriptive title, perhaps one with the word "invasion" as it would be much clearer to the reader.

Note that there are RS that use the term "invasion", for example The Kurds in a New Middle East by Gunes (2018), p. 77 and The Kurds in the Middle East by Gurses et al (p. 153). Alaexis_¿question? 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not denying people calling this an invasion, but I am saying this is undue weight. You should look how majority of news outlets / countries reacted, not some cherry picked sources. I'm trying to tell this all the time. I can also bring source calling this a liberation, etc. Do we even include it?

Comparing this to Israeli invasion is comparing pears and apples. It can be compared Turkish incursions into northern Iraq. These Syrian areas isn't even governed by the Turkish military. Beshogur (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, they can hardly be compared as the Turkish operation had a much greater scale.

Regarding the sources, they are books written by experts. These are higher-quality sources than media outlets. Alaexis_¿question? 21:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"Operation" is a word that imparts very little information at all. It is a very broad term and it does not in any way imply that something is not an invasion. Many undisputed invasions have been known as "Operation (something)", as have a great many other things that were not invasions. When deciding whether to call this an invasion all that is required is for sufficient Reliable Sources to say that it is and insufficient Reliable Sources to say that it isn't. The ones who only say "operation" are not saying either way. Such abstentions should not be counted as endorsing either side of the question. DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Well I agree on the title being not NPOV, (it's already criticized in the article) but it was chosen for the common name since the sources referred that way, similar to Euphrates Shield, however the issue is the first sentence. It doesn't make sense since rest of the article is called operation almost everywhere. Beshogur (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If the operation was an invasion then it can be described as such, even in the first sentence. We should try to be as specific as possible where it matters but it doesn't matter if the word "operation" is used more frequently than "invasion" in the body, only if the description of it as an invasion is significantly denied or contested in Reliable Sources. DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you please describe how this is an invasion exactly while Syrian troops are more than Turkish ones? That's I'm trying to tell since 0. Turkey isn't governing over the areas (yes keeping it's Syrian proxies). But the whole war is a proxy warfare. The area wasn't even controlled by the legitimate Syrian government back then. "was an offensive" is a good solution imo. I don't try to force operation here. Beshogur (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC?

Do we need an RFC to settle it? I think I saw @Selfstudier: actually coming down against calling it an invasion on the page talk, but otherwise, I can't quite tell if Beshogur is the only one advocating against the invasion terminology? Were there others? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Idk what it should be called, except that by title it is currently called an operation, why I suggested an RM to decide if that is appropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

i am confused. the rm would determine article title, while beshugoar is complaining about descriptions in the lede of this being described as an invasion? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

We’ve had lengthy discussion on this issue. There is a clear majority view. This is largely Beshogur alone being unhappy about that view. Bondegezou (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

3 users? Clear majority view? With cherry picked sources that doesn't reflect the weight? Beshogur (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I put up an RM, should sort it out there rather than going around in circles here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but the proposed title had to be more descriptive imo. It's pretty vague. Beshogur (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It's an RM, suggest something else. Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

We had a lengthy discussion. People put forth various lines of evidence and of argument. We ended with 4 in favour (not 3) and just you, Beshogur, against. That’s how Misplaced Pages works. I don’t see any value in re-opening the discussion. I would suggest that there is plenty of other bits of Misplaced Pages that you could usefully contribute to rather than continuing this. Bondegezou (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Lengthy discussion with only argument of 5 sources, and ignoring the fact how prominent they were. You couldn't prove otherwise regarding news outlets, search numbers. This is just a false consensus. Misplaced Pages consensus formation considers all available, valid source material. For simple matters like titling and style questions, we directly depend on aggregate results (Google Ngrams that track string-usage frequency in books over time; Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books search results and the patterns they reveal in sources; etc.). The idea that they are to be ignored, or are second place to what just happens to be cited already in the article as of this timestamp, is not only unworkable but absurd. It bears no resemblance to how Misplaced Pages:Consensus is actually formed. Beshogur (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Last comment regarding this. Academic book argument:

• Afrin invasion 9
• Afrin offensive 71
• Afrin operation 205

Beshogur (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think these searches are a bit limited in their grammar. Additional search terms:

• Invasion of Afrin 101 results
• Occupation of Afrin 84 results
• "Afrin" "Turkish invasion" 310 results
• "Afrin" "Turkish operation" 191 results

My sense, prior to having done any further analysis on these sources, is that these search results are in the range where either term is plausible as a correct canonical term, and closer reading (which in practice would mean: the assembling of a working, high-quality bibliography for the article and analyzing how each of these sources refers to the topic) could provide basis for new and stronger arguments. These results, don't, however, suggest that "invasion" is an obviously remote minority among terms. _signed, Rosguill 20:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean in mainstream media, it's mostly called operation or offensive (as well as countries' reactions), however the 2019 one (still the same type of operation) was sanctioned by many countries, had more reaction. Here it didn't happen, and internationally it had no consequenses. I wonder how does this fit in an invasion description? Since English is not my first tongue, am I just confused? Invasion and occupation isn't the same thing too right? Beshogur (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems that enough time has passed that there are now many peer-reviewed sources, such that we can reduce our reliance on news media that serves only as the first draft of history. Ultimately, provided that the sources in question are reputable and peer-reviewed, their internal reasoning for choosing one term or another doesn't matter, we simply follow their lead.

Regarding invasion vs. occupation, I wasn't trying to imply that they were the same thing, apologies if it gave that impression. It simply seemed to be another relevant, similar, value-laden term to refer to the operation and its consequences, that evidently does have some purchase in the literature. It popped up in the previews when I was searching for the other terms I listed so it felt worthwhile to see how common it was itself. _signed, Rosguill 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirecting Afrin offensive (January–March 2018) to Operation Olive Branch

Relevant discussion, just notifying folks here. See Talk:Operation_Olive_Branch#Requested_move_31_December_2024, someone already attempted to blank out Afrin to do the redirect. Would like more eyes on this to confirm what right action is. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman: This redirect was removed by a blocked user (see talk page), also the content is 90% the same with an older revision of this article. It's basically the same offensive. Beshogur (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Changed it to "offensive". Beshogur (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus here to change it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus on invasion as well. Invasion is POV, if you find operation POV as well, offensive is the most NPOV term here. Beshogur (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Beshogur, do not make tendentious edits. We've discussed this at length and everyone else disagrees with you. You've tried a bit of forum shopping by coming here, but still can't get other people to agree with you. Don't start an edit war over this. Bondegezou (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with "operation", but Turkish forces did invade the territory. Hence, I do not see a significant POV issue. Of course one could also call it an "incursion". My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Muslim grooming gangs" again

• Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Halifax child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Manchester child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Newcastle sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Oxford child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Peterborough sex abuse case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rochdale child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Telford child sexual exploitation scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aylesbury child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Banbury child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bristol child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Derby child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Huddersfield sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was previously a consensus to merge Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom a few months ago, which I carried out. About two weeks ago a user edited the article, which sought again to push the "Muslim/Asian grooming gang" narrative. It would be good for people to keep an eye on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" page to make sure it fairly covers the topic, since further disruption is likely given Elon Musk's recent involvement in the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There's been an uptick of IP/SPA activity trying to push the Asian grooming gang" narrative in several articles related to the individual grooming rings in recent days, like the Oxford child sex abuse ring, Huddersfield grooming gang, Derby child sex abuse ring and Halifax child sex abuse ring, seeming to correspond to a massive rise in views. Further vigilance is needed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Also looking at several articles of the individual child sexual abuse rings (e.g Oxford child sex abuse ring), they give lists of the names of the convicted. Is this a DUE/BLP issue? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah wtf that's def WP:BLPCRIME issue... honestly also WP:NOTDB issue too Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

they were convicted, so we can mention them. Arguably question is if its due to include names like this, or if it looks too much like WP:DB Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Most of the disruption today has been on the Huddersfield sex abuse ring article, where IPs and SPAs have been variously changing the lead sentence to describe the gang as "Muslim/Pakistani" contrary to reliable sources (who generally describe it as "Asian") as well as adding unsourced commentary. Further eyes on this particular article would be appreciated. 22:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory about inclusion of anti-Chinese racism in lead

Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Should_we_mention_in_the_lead_the_"increased_anti-Chinese_racism." Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Sarfaraz K. Niazi

Sarfaraz K. Niazi is full of what I would consider to be promotional and non-neutral content. I have tried to clean it up, but @CarlWesolowski has been reverting my edits and claiming on my talk page that I'm the one breaching NPOV by cleaning it up. I'm bringing this here to get another opinion. Jay8g 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the content you removed tended to be promotional and POV, and that it should have been removed. Personally, I would have gone further, removing statements like He has published multiple books...on the subject and peer-reviewed research papers... cited to sources by Niazi. They're already listed on the subject's website. If they're important enough to mention in an encyclopedia, then we should let reliable, independent, secondary sources mention them—and we can cite those secondary sources. I also see a press release used as a source, and plenty of medical claims that appear to be citing non-WP:MEDRS sources. Woodroar (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Woodroar and Jay8g. Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

S. Niazi appears to be prolific. For example, using Google scholar for "sarfaraz niazi profile" lists 623 entries, whereas mine only has 53 entries, and I am at around the 90% for publications (ResearchGate). I have a problem with the way you classify reliability for medical papers. For example, a lot of mine are methods papers backed up by mathematical proofs. That I would consider better evidence than any double blind crossover study because the latter can only answer questions like "Is pain relief from a drug dose more effective than pain relief from 1/2 that dosage." Said otherwise, all a double blind crossover study can do is give a binary answer, or worse, yes/no/maybe. Moreover, double blind crossover studies are very expensive and are used to prevent solid theoretical questions with definitive science from interfering with the clout that only monied firms with one billion dollars per drug can offer. Gone are the days when a single medical doctor can abandon his strictly scientific principles in order to save lives, although fictional, the novel Arrowsmith explains how things used to be. Currently, we let people die rather than use common sense. Now consider what you are doing by following the influence of monied interests even when, and it is uncomfortably frequent, that influence is perverted. One other thing I do is write and review guidelines, which is what I should be doing rather than waste my time trying to convince you of anything. IMHO guidelines are very useful to present authoritarian views that can then be cited as being foolish, I have little other use for them. So, whilst you "paint by numbers" with your silly classifications, please allow that such pictures are not art. Now, to set things back to where they ought to be, you have to allow reasonable criticism and the FDA paragraphs in the S. Niazi presentation was an attempt to begin, without billions of dollars in conflicted interests greasing palms, to do that. Decide now just how much you risk going to a doctor who paints by numbers rather than take enough time to figure out how to cure you, and yes, finding a doctor who will go to any length to advocate for his patients is becoming vanishingly rare. You cannot imagine just how difficult that role has become, I can, because I have at times taken my career in my hands to do that. So, choose what is the right thing to do, or, join those who have no common sense. My experience with Misplaced Pages has leaves me cold, the convoluted tissue of lies and deceit is distinctly off-putting. What are you asking for, a double blind study on whether the FDA should be reorganized? A review paper funded by the FDA on whether it should be reorganized? Where is your common sense? I ask you to remove what you consider excessive language leading to the impression of NPOV, but not delete it wholesale. For my own part, I will continue to advocate for patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlWesolowski (talk • contribs) 23:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If we're going to be using insulting words like silly to characterize other editors' judgments ("your silly classifications"), then I'd say that the claim that mathematical proofs have anything to do with reliability of medical papers ("a lot of mine are methods papers backed up by mathematical proofs") to be the silliest statement I've seen on a Misplaced Pages talk-page in years. NightHeron (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Dose response, if organized as a mathematical function with confidence intervals has an infinite number of possible answers and would be an organized method of presenting dose response. Compare that to the result of a binary comparison of Dose A versus Dose B in a double blind crossover trial wherein there is no guarantee that either A or B has any effect, nor any guarantee that either dose is nonlethal. In the first case, it is easier to identify optimal dosing, in the second case, you still would not know, but it would be more likely than not that neither dose is optimal. Why do you resist reducing medicine to physical law? You are entitled to your opinion, but please do not think that the attempt to sort out how the body works, how it scales, the mechanics of drug effect, and all of the extensive scientific literature on that subject is "the silliest statement I've seen on a Misplaced Pages talk page in years." Misplaced Pages is filled with many moments of pure insanity, so why you would choose to pick on my calling something outrageous as merely "silly" is beyond me. CarlWesolowski (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The word "proof" has a well-defined meaning in mathematics, namely, a rigorous, irrefutable argument demonstrating beyond any doubt that a certain mathematical statement is correct (e.g., "a proof of the Pythagorean theorem"). It does not mean using statistical techniques to get support for a claim or evidence of a possible effect. NightHeron (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

MRAsians

I don't know if this is the best place for this but some more eyes on MRAsians might be good. The article was created in April but today seems to be getting a lot of attention from an associated subreddit and subsequent influx of editors here disputing it's POV. I've reverted to the stable version as it looks to be sourced, but I'm not 100% about that, particularly with only five sources. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I put in a request to WP:RFPP to increase page protection while its contentious. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Imran Khan

Withdrawn for now: There has been an ongoing effort to turn Imran Khan into a WP:FANPAGE for quite some time. While I have been trying to address this issue, I would appreciate assistance from volunteer editors on this forum, as no one is infallible, and I could be mistaken as well. Recently, an editor created a summary section (Talk:Imran Khan#Summary of Premiership) that, in my view, excludes any criticism or negative aspects of his premiership and is focused solely on achievements and praise. Could someone review the discussion in that thread, along with the Premiership of Imran Khan article and the content in the current section (Imran Khan#Prime Minister (2018–2022)), to help ensure that the proposed summary is more balanced and neutral? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: While a discussion is opened at this noticeboard about this BLP, I have concerns over the Imran Khan#Controversies section which OP has been told not to create per WP:CSECTION in the past, but has created nevertheless. I have proposed it to be merged into the rest of the article in the past and given due weight, which multiple editors have supported but they have opposed it. Please can someone familiar with these NPOV policies review the amount of weight being given to controversies and if this famous politician and former Prime Minister requires an independent section for controversies. Thank you. Titan2456 (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have temporarily withdrawn my request since I have another ongoing dispute about the same article at DRN, and Rule D there requires avoiding multiple discussions about the same article across different forums. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Vladimir Bukovsky

There is a disagreement between myself and another editor on how to describe the child pornography charges against a Soviet-era dissident. I humbly request your input. Thanks – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Anne drew, I added my two pence at the talk. Alaexis_¿question? 21:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

2024 United States presidential election

Multiple editors have raised concerns over NPOV on 2024 United States presidential election I will list here some of there concerns and WP policy related to them.

1. Trump is talked about way more then Harris to the point that almost only he about him. My suggestion here is to add more about Harris or remove/shorten some of things about Trump. The article also is having size issues so this would help fix those.
2. The article does not follow WP:WORDS when talking about Trump. As it often says Trump claimed... which needs to corrected to follow WP:WORDS.
3. It hardly every talks about the election from a Republican view point. Which per WP:NPOV should be included as it is at least a large minority view point.

This is not a complete list of things that have been discussed on talk:2024 United States presidential election.

At this current point there has been an attempt to put a notice on the article about NPOV issues, but has been reverted. There have been multiple discussions about NPOV on its talk page over the last few months. So since it kept coming up and did not appear to be getting resolved I decided to bring it here.

Thank you for taking the time to look at this. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

On point 3, you are arguing for an equal balance which is not what NPOV says. We look to present a neutral point of view based on what reliable sources say, and the largest problem is that most sources that would report on the Republican view are not reliable (eg sites like Fox News). We don't create a false balance if the support isn't there in RSes. — Masem (t) 22:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Another factor… over the last few years, Trump dominated the news (either to extol his virtues or condemn his flaws, depending on the outlet)… the simple fact is that the Media didn’t discuss Harris to the extent that they discussed Trump. This imbalance in coverage by the media impacts our own coverage. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Harris was only a candidate from July 2024 on, Trump declared his candidacy in November 2022. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Masem Let me quote what WP:NPOV says:

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

Also see Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Writing_for_the_opponent as it talks more about this.

@Blueboar Correct but there is almost nothing on Harris, just read the article and you will see what I mean. So we may have to do more digging then with Trump.

@Muboshgu Can you describe your comment more? User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 22:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Much digital ink was spilled on Trump's candidacy starting in November 2022. Then it was "Biden vs. Trump" until Biden dropped out. Of course the media talked less about Harris' candidacy, and trying to even out the page between Trump and Harris would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean there, and agree with you on that point. The main issue that I saw was on Point 2, as WP:WORDS clearly states that such words should avoided/not used. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

That being said, I do think the page needs some rewriting. Some things, like January 6 and Trump's criminal trials, ended up not mattering nearly as much as our page gives them weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Key in what you quoted is "in reliable sources". The bulk of sourcing for the GOP viewpoint on the election cones from unreliable sources. Hence we already have our hands tied. Yes, we should try to include what RSes did say, but per Due, the weight of coverage is based on the predominance of viewpoints as published in RSes. Anything else is creating a false balance. — Masem (t) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

There is much misinformation online, even from reliable sources. We don’t have to rely completely on news articles, we can rely on other things like statistics and other reliable sources. Much of the news is heavily biased one way or another, and at least I believe that neutrality is more important than perfect balance. LessHuman (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sources need to be neutral and not just reliable. You could then say that CNN isn’t a viable source either like Fox News. Most of the sources used, whether reliable or not, are highly biased, mostly to Kamala Harris / Joe Biden. LessHuman (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It usually takes a few years before American politics articles are no longer closely watched by people who want to show how awful the other side is (whether they be Trumpist trolls or #Resistance trolls). And it's around then that we get proper retrospective sourcing which can then be used to indicate balance. I agree that someone should go through and fix any WTW issues, but besides that I don't have much hope that it's going to give a proper overview of the topic any time soon and don't see a point in maintenance tags if there isn't an identifiable, fixable issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu's comment above - the article currently contains a lot of information about things that didn't end up being as important as they're made out to be. I do think that it's fair for the article to talk about Trump more often, simply by nature of there being more to say about him, and it's also fine to give fair weight to his enduring controversies in the context of their impact on the election.

I'm in favor of adding the WP:NPOVD template to the article because 1) the issue has been brought up multiple times and continues to be brought up, and 2) as long as editors are engaged in a discussion regarding the disputed neutrality of the article, like we are right now, there should be a notification stating that fact on the article - which would also help encourage other editors to offer their input.

Thebiguglyalien I almost entirely agree with you here but I'm genuinely curious - is there some sort of unspoken "time limit" for how long a NPOVD tag should be on an article? I feel like I've seen them stay up for a pretty long time before but I could be wrong. To be honest it was one of the things that originally got me interested in editing, after seeing the notification at the top of a page and starting to go down the talk page rabbit hole. Big Thumpus (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally they're supposed to stay up while discussion takes place, but in practice they can hang around longer. On a wider point, this sort of article I would expect to always have some sort of balance or weight issue. That is, an article that was an upcoming or current event turning into a past event. It has the issues of being written while in the news, which means a lot of coverage of perhaps minor or trivial points, combined with being shortly in the past which means being reformatted into a new style while maintaining all these hangovers from the upcoming/current event style. As TBUA says, it takes awhile for things to settle down source-wise. CMD (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

My thought process isn't that there should be an "end time" for the tags so much as a "start time". Right now, the tag can't be meaningfully resolved. So there's no real upside to including it, but there is the downside of people arguing about the tag. Of course, if there's an active discussion on the article's talk page about an actionable proposal, then it would be good to add the most applicable tag linking people to the discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

NPOV doesnt mean equal balance. It means fair balance to both parties, according to reliable sources. The article is pretty neutral with that EarthDude (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

As one of the largest contributors on this page, there have been frequent claims of bias going back for months now. All discussions that were raised resulted in consensus that the concerns had been addressed or were rejected on false balance grounds. Concerns raised by individuals largely failed to address specific changes they would like to be made, instead making broad generalizations about bias without much discussion on the reliable sources used. Several of those alleging bias are repeat users who make a new talk page post rehashing prior points after a few weeks. Recent comments on the page include several broad generalizations and declarations that "this is a biased and unencyclopedic article" and that "a Democrat partisan wrote it" without providing much detailed discussion on specific examples or sources that are used. BootsED (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you did in contributing to the page. With respect, I don't think that we should be surprised that the talk page discussion hasn't gone into much specific detail - the talk page discussion is about whether or not the NPOVD template should be added to the article, in order to formally begin the discussion on neutralizing aspects of the article. The template was placed but then removed 15 minutes later by one of the editors involved in the discussion.

If the neutrality of the article has come into question multiple times, the neutrality is disputed by definition. As far as I'm aware, the NPOVD template hasn't ever been on the page, and the entire point of the template is to encourage further discussion. Who knows, maybe nothing changes once a discussion is had - but we can't know until that happens. Big Thumpus (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion has already happened several times and has been resolved. The same user starting the same discussion over and over does not qualify as a serious dispute of neutrality. Prcc27 (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If the issue was actually resolved as you say it is, there would not be an equal number of editors in favor of and against adding the NPOVD template. If the article was truly neutral, there would not be people showing up every few days trying to discuss it. This would be open-and-shut, otherwise. Big Thumpus (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that this whole discussion over whether to include a NPOV tag is WP:DRIVEBY. The reasons raised for adding a tag have been discussed multiple times in the past and dismissed. I'm not really seeing any specifics of what people have an issue with and providing specific examples of what they think fail NPOV. All discussion is in broad, vague terms about the page being biased and some arguments that have been repeatedly dismissed as false balance. BootsED (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The !votes are equal due to canvassing, to say the least. There is no consensus for a dispute tag. Prcc27 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Prcc27, you have accused others of canvassing, sockpuppetry, SPA, bludgeoning and disruptive editing in almost every single post throughout this discussion. Some might say that this is legitimately disruptive and uncivil. If you're really concerned about canvassing or one of the other offenses, take it to ANI. But otherwise, please stop trying to shut the discussion down. Big Thumpus (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I won't accuse anyone of canvassing, but I was very surprised that curtesy pings that were sent out by a user who I know is aware of me due to our several interactions and disagreements on the talk page in the past failed to include me in their pings to re-debate neutrality on the page. BootsED (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

In fairness to that user, they seem to be occupied in their personal life and have committed to broadening the scope of future pings. Big Thumpus (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

In fairness, that user admits their pings were limited. So they basically admitted to violating WP:CANVASS, even if unintentional. I would say the “accusation” was warranted. Prcc27 (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Prcc27 I am sorry, but this is the first discussion I have started. And I am mostly concerned with the WP:WORDS issue. You also have COI on this topic as you are a democratic official that ran for election. You also have commented multiple times on other discussions about how you strongly feel against this tag. You also have made many claims of other users for things like sockpuppetry, canvassing, and much more. And at this point there is no need for you to keep trying to make your point.

@BootsED Are you saying that the WP:WORDS issue is not a problem? Cause I don't see how it can be any clearer. Here is some text examples:

"Trump made false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, and continued denying the election results."

"In the lead up to the 2024 election, the Republican Party made false claims of massive "noncitizen voting" by immigrants in an attempt to delegitimize the election in the event of a Trump defeat. The claims were made as part of larger Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 election and election denial movement. Trump continued spreading his "big lie" of a stolen election and predicted without evidence that the 2024 election would be rigged against him. Trump also falsely accused Biden of "weaponizing" the Justice Department to target him in relation to his criminal trials. Trump and several Republicans stated they would not accept the results of the 2024 election if they believe they are "unfair"."

"Trump's previous comments suggesting he can "terminate" the Constitution to reverse his election loss, his claim that he would only be a dictator on "day one" of his presidency and not after,"

"Trump and many Republicans have made numerous false and misleading statements regarding Trump's criminal trials, including false claims that they are "rigged" or "election interference" orchestrated by Biden and the Democratic Party, of which there is no evidence." Here I would like to note that the last section of this sentence sounds like an opinion.

I could list more if you wish, but it appears to me that this is does not comply with WP:WORDS. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 23:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

There's some clunky phrasing in the four examples you've listed -- and the second one in particular (where I recommend cutting the phrase "big lie," true as it may be, because of its loaded connotations) -- but they are accurate in their essentials and generally cite to reputable sources. To take just the first example, Donald Trump did say many times from November 2020 until at least November 2024 that he would have won the 2020 election if not for voter fraud. He went to court repeatedly to make that case in 2020 and lost every time, so it is correct to characterize his statements as false. And it is significant, i.e., worth mentioning in an article on the 2024 election, that one of the candidates was repeatedly making false claims about his previous election. But perhaps you could suggest an alternate way of writing that sentence that, in your view, comports with Misplaced Pages's guidance on unbiased language? NME Frigate (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is how I would word them:

1. Trump stated there was voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, and that election results were incorrect. (Please keep in mind that this is saying what Trump said and does not mean that he is correct.)
2. In the lead up to the 2024 election, the Republican Party said there were massive "noncitizen voting" by immigrants. Trump continued stating that the election would be stolen and that the 2024 election would be rigged against him. Trump also accused Biden of "weaponizing" the Justice Department to target him in relation to he criminal trials. Trump and several Republicans stated they would not except the results of the 2024 election if they believe they are unfair.
3. Trump's comments suggested he can "terminate" the Constitution to reverse his election loss, he stated he would be a dictator on "day one" of his presidency and not after,
4. Trump and many Republicans have made numerous statements regarding Trump's criminal trials, including statements that they were "rigged" or "election interference" orchestrated by Biden and the Democratic Party.

There is some room for other ways for wording it too, as I used a less aggressive tone towards Trump then some people may think I should have. The parts in (...) are not to be included they are just a note for this discussion. The main issue I see with how it is worded currently is that it sounds like a biased statement against him and not a neutral perspective, which is what WP is trying to do. In which I understand there are many sources that use a very aggressive tone towards Trump. I am not against saying bad things about Trump I just think that we need to tone down the article in it's current form, to comply with WP policies. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 05:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. Nos. 1, 2, and 4 are all of a kind:

1. If Donald Trump said during the 2024 campaign that the world was flat, should it be noted in this article that was he said was incorrect?

2. If the Republican Party said the sun revolved around the earth and Donald Trump said that Antarctica was located in the northern hemisphere, should it be noted in this article that was they said was incorrect?

4. If Republicans had said that forest fires were being started by Jewish space lasers, should it be noted in this article that what they said was incorrect?

What Donald Trump and some of his supporters actually said were every bit as incorrect as my examples and should be treated the same way that Misplaced Pages would treat any such statements. If that means not using accurate descriptors like "false," so be it. But then let's all be clear-headed about giving up the truth.

Turning to no. 3: this one is a bit tricky. You've taken two phrases and turned them into a (run-on) sentence, but you've omitted the point of the original sentence. Here is the full original sentence, with my emphasis to show what it's actually about:

Trump's previous comments suggesting he can "terminate" the Constitution to reverse his election loss, his claim that he would only be a dictator on "day one" of his presidency and not after, his promise to use the Justice Department to go after his political enemies, his plan to use the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military for law enforcement in primarily Democratic cities and states, attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, continued Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election, Trump's baseless predictions of voter fraud in the 2024 election, and Trump's public embrace and celebration of the January 6 United States Capitol attack, raised concerns over the state of democracy in the United States.

In other words, the sentence consists of a list of eight statements and actions that Donald Trump (and some Republicans) made and took, which collectively suggested to some notable observers (per their comments during the election) that Trump intends to take the U.S. in the direction of Russia or Syria, which are (were) democracies in name only: there are elections, but the incumbent (until December in Syria) always wins by a ridiculous margin that no one believes is real. Those commentators may have been wrong to interpret Trump's statements that way, but this alarm over how Trump seemed (to many) to be intending to change the U.S. was a major campaign theme.

And that list (and as far as I can tell, the whole article) doesn't even mention (1) that Trump and his allies suggested in 2024 that if he won, he ought to be able to run again in 2028 -- regardless of the 22nd Amendment -- because he was supposedly "cheated" out of the 2020 election and (2) that Trump said that his supporters, if they voted for him in 2024, need never vote again. These examples would further strengthen the impression of a not insignificant segment of the public that Trump hopes to bring democracy to an end. (Whether he really intended to make that impression is unknowable. Whether he means to follow up on those apparent plans, and whether is capable of doing so, remains to be seen.)

My big problem with that paragraph-long sentence is this phrase: "his claim that he would only be a dictator on 'day one' of his presidency and not after". This would more aptly read "his claim that he would temporarily act as a dictator".

Here's what the editors are up against: there have long been a collection of norms within U.S. politics -- and generally agreed-upon framework of acceptable behavior -- that Donald Trump completely breaks. Almost all politicians lie a little bit. By contrast, Trump tells the truth a little bit. If that's the new normal, Misplaced Pages isn't really built for it.

So for example, Trump's comment about temporarily becoming a U.S. dictator was made when Sean Hannity, a television news host who is very friendly toward Trump, was trying to give Trump the opportunity to rebut what Hannity thought was a ridiculous claim being made about Trump by some Democrats: that Trump wanted to be a dictator. Hannity expected Trump to say something like, "Of course not. That's an example of how out of touch with reality Democrats are, that they would suggest I wanted to be a dictator." It was a softball question. The answer Hannity expected was the answer that every single Democrat or Republican presidential candidate would have given. Instead, Trump said he did intend (temporarily) to be a dictator.

That's not normal. Your proposed language suggests that this article should be written as if it is normal. NME Frigate (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Where in the world (pun intended) did you hear this? (Quoted from above comment by NME Frigate) "And that list (and as far as I can tell, the whole article) doesn't even mention (1) that Trump and his allies suggested in 2024 that if he won, he ought to be able to run again in 2028 -- regardless of the 22nd Amendment -- because he was supposedly "cheated" out of the 2020 election and (2) that Trump said that his supporters, if they voted for him in 2024, need never vote again. These examples would further strengthen the impression of a not insignificant segment of the public that Trump hopes to bring democracy to an end. (Whether he really intended to make that impression is unknowable. Whether he means to follow up on those apparent plans, and whether is capable of doing so, remains to be seen.)"

Ok so my version is quite soft on Trump. I am ok if someone rewrites it with a more aggressive tone, as long as WP rules are followed. The issue I saw was with the use of the word "claims" since WP:WORDS clearly states that it should be avoided quite heavily. I sadly can't write an article well, I am much better at fixing spelling and grammar.

I understand the issue we have, Trump is very different from any other president that we know, and so people and WP don't know how to respond. At the same time though we should not sound like a newspaper article. With the current way it is written it looks and sounds like something I would read in a anti-Trump newspaper, which needs to be corrected. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 08:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Donald Trump having suggested several times over the past four years that he might run for a third term, here's the headline and subheadline of just one article, published in November by the New York Times:

"No, Trump Cannot Run for Re-election Again in 2028. The Constitution sets a two-term limit for presidents. Still, Donald J. Trump has repeatedly floated the idea that he might like to stay in the White House beyond his next term."

link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/politics/trump-third-term-2028-constitution.html

There are multiple other sources confirming what he said about this over the years. I follow the news a fair bit and heard him say these things at the time he said them.

Regarding Donald Trump suggesting on one occasion that his supporters would never need to vote again if they voted for him in 2024, here's a quick summary with links to original reporting and evidence that his comment got a lot of attention from alarmed observers:

link: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/vote-four-years/

What did he mean by that comment? As noted at the link, he was asked by Laura Ingraham in a subsequent Fox News interview to clarify, and he responded with this: "So with respect to like a statement like I made that statement is very simple. I said, vote for me. You're not going to have to do it ever again. It's true, because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group. They don't vote, and I'm explaining that to them: You never vote — this time, vote. I'll straighten out the country. You won't have to vote anymore. I won't need your vote. You can go back."

That's very hard to interpret. If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Kamala Harris had said during one of their presidential campaigns that, say, union members who voted for them would never need to vote again because "I'll straighten the country out," conservatives would be making similar inferences. Because what can a president do that can never be undone by a later president or Congress? Nothing, unless there are no later presidents or Congresses.

And then Ingraham, who supports Trump, clearly recognized the risk of his comment being interpreted as she would interpret a similar comment from a Democrat, because she followed up with Trump, noting that his statement about never voting again is "being interpreted, as you are not surprised to hear, by the left as, 'Well, they're never going to have another election."' So, can you even just respond?"

Once again, a Fox host was giving Trump a softball opportunity to clarify his point and mock critics who were alarmed by what he said. Any other Republican would have said, "Of course we'll have another election in 2028. It's crazy the Democrats would suggest otherwise."

But Trump didn't say that. He didn't address that point at all. He just reiterated his first answer.

So there you have it: the man who will be president in eight days would not confirm, not even to a very friendly interviewer, that there will be an election in 2028. NME Frigate (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I actually think what he's getting at with the "won't have to vote anymore" comment is pretty clear, which is that he's asking what he sees as a traditionally non-voting group to come out in force for a particular election in order to ensure that a party which supports their viewpoints is elected - and then they "won't need to vote anymore" since, when in power, he will "straighten the country out" and enact enduring policy that reflects those viewpoints. Big Thumpus (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If it were that clear, then (1) a friendly Fox News interviewer wouldn't twice have asked him to clarify and (2) he would have responded to her straightforward question with a clear answer. If Laura Ingraham (on this point) and Sean Hannity (on the "dictator" point) think a Republican presidential candidate has gone too far and needs to clean up his statements, that's newsworthy. And this comment was even more alarming (and much discussed at the time!) when considered in the context of the previous item I mentioned: his repeated references to being eligible for a third term.

We really must stop pretending any of this is normal. Here are two further examples of how much this Misplaced Pages article on the 2024 election is bending over backward to be generous to Donald Trump:

1. A *lot* of people thought there was one very obvious reason that Trump ran for a second term. It was brought up repeatedly in the media. Here's one example from the BBC: "Is Trump Running for Office Mostly to Avoid Prison?" (link: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66402180)

Here's another example: Congressman Will Hurd, a Republican from Texas, said in 2023 that Trump was "running for president to stay out of prison." (link: https://thehill.com/homenews/4222638-hurd-trump-only-running-to-stay-out-of-prison/).

Yet nowhere does this article mention that.

2. As Joe Biden's advanced age became a major issue during the campaign (a subject which is discussed in this article), quite a few people pointed out that Trump, should he win in 2024, would be even older upon taking office than Biden was in 2021. Nikki Haley had raised this concern about both Trump and Biden during her presidential campaign. And that concern about Trump predated the campaign: Elon Musk had tweeted in 2022 that Trump would be too old at the end of a second term. Again, there is absolutely no reference to those concerns in this article. (There is one passing reference to the simple fact that Trump will be the oldest man ever to take the oath, but nothing about why prominent people thought that might be an issue.) NME Frigate (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV "Articles should not take sides, but should explain sides fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." It is a the top of the page. Also WP:NPOV policy has to be followed no matter what, even if consensus states other wise. Also WP:ENEMY states that "Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's point of view." User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

These two points I've mentioned were widely discussed leading up to and during the campaign. As I've noted, a prominent member of Donald Trump's own party said that Trump was running for office in order to make himself immune from criminal prosecution. But at the moment, neither side of that issue (or the issue of Trump's advanced age, which, again, was cited by a prominent member of his own party and by the man who is now one of Trump's top associates) is presented in this article.

Omission is a kind of bias too. NME Frigate (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I am sure many users are registered with a political party, and ergo, affiliated with a party one way or another. I happen to have been elected to a local leadership role (I haven’t even taken office yet), but I do not anticipate being involved in federal politics. I think it’s pathetic to insinuate I oppose the template because of my party affiliation. Many users, including myself, took the neutrality concerns very seriously, and I even made a suggestion on how we could potentially improve the lead. However, we do not tolerate disruptive editing on Misplaced Pages, and that is why I take great issue with the template. Not because of my political affiliation, but because the consensus was already decided, whether we like it or not. FWIW, I was actually accused of being biased in favor of a Republicans in 2020 when I advocated for waiting to color Georgia blue until all major media organizations made a unanimous projection. I guess that’s the thanks I get for being a productive user that strives to edit neutrally. Prcc27 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I will say again that it only makes sense to put the NPOVD template on the page if we're this far into a thread about the disputed neutrality of the language of the page. If we're getting into specific language that needs to be changed, the template should be on the page. It doesn't make sense to not do it at this point. Big Thumpus (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

No. If that were the case, the template would be on the article indefinitely. We shouldn’t have a badge of shame, every time a user (and the same user(s) at that) has a neutrality concern. Prcc27 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I have to side with Big Thumpus on this one. Prcc27 WP policy makes it clear that template should be on the page. Also WP:NPOV states in the lead that the policy is not non-negotiable and can not be superseded by consensus. So any "consensus" that you claim was established before has no power then or now. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Where in WP Policy does it say that the template is a "badge of shame"? It is to help with correcting NPOV issues. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 19:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The article is neutral, so nothing is being superseded. Prcc27 (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Then why are there WP:WORDS violations & multiple NPOV discussions? Oh wait you say it is neutral so it is? You don't determine whether that article is neutral or not. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple NPOV discussions, because the same person keeps starting new discussions on the matter. Prcc27 (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

At this point I'm getting a bit of WP:IDHT. It's okay for you to personally disagree with other points of view; it's not okay to just continuously insinuate that this entire discussion is pointless and that other editors are somehow in the wrong for attempting to abide by clear policies in an attempt to make the encyclopedia more neutral. Big Thumpus (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Impressive that a new user such as yourself would be familiar with WP:IDHT. This whole discussion could have been avoided if Goodtiming would have taken a hint. Accusing me of disruptive editing seems like projection. Prcc27 (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Prcc27 I am not so sure, you do seem disruptive and should cease and desist. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 06:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to “cease and desist” (whatever that means). I think now would be a great time to end the discussion, and refocus our attention to more pressing issues. Prcc27 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

He also describes on his user page that he has not been able to log into his account. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 06:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I can log in, it's all good - I just wanted to document the attempts to get into my account somewhere public. Just in case someone is successful in hijacking my account and my posts suddenly get strange. Big Thumpus (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Some users can't help that they are new. When WP was started I was not born even, so I can't claim to have 12 years of experience. But it is nice when people don't try to make it seem that you don't know anything just because you are new (though advice is usually welcomed, if treated as though one knows at least something). User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 07:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You have been engaging behaviour that could be classified as biting towards @Big Thumpus since the start of the debate about stuff any competent editor is expected to know week one. @Goodtiming8871 has departed the debate for quite a bit now. Fantastic Mr. Fox 07:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I am currently participating in the sedition and treason case of Yoon Suk Yeol, who attempted to put the Republic of Korea at risk of war, and has been impeached by the National Assembly, so it is difficult for me to participate in this topic. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Googtiming8871, you created a section on a talk page to start a discussion, then left it shortly afterwards, eventually leading to another noticeboard discussion. Please be more careful in the future when starting contentious discussions. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I hope this wasn’t directed at me. I complimented Big Thumpus on getting a firm grasp on policy so soon. Prcc27 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I thought it was not, I should have assumed good faith. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sheriff U3 and Big Thumpus: Regarding the confusion with the words "Badge of Shame", it refers to maintenance templates placed on articles without attempting to resolve the issue or to leave it there for a longer period of time than necessary. This search shows the connection between the phrase and discussion of the templates. I included the Template namespace as some templates like Template:Multiple issues directly mention not using these as a Badge of Shame. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Great, so it makes sense that we should not call it a "Badge of Shame" since we've been engaged in an attempt to resolve the issue for two weeks.

On the other hand, it makes absolutely zero sense that the template isn't on the page right now. We are literally doing exactly what the template requires. Big Thumpus (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The only issue I see discussed is if we want to include a template or not instead of a discussion as to what changes are suggested. Regardless of that, now you know what the meaning is by some users of the phrase "Badge of Shame" regarding a number of the maintenance templates. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks for stating this, I did not know there was a reference. But we are in a current neutrality discussion. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If "neutrality discussion" refers to a discussion on the NPoV noticeboard, then yes. I am replying to your own quote along with letting another user know what it means. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I will note that some of the apparent bias is a combination of NOTNEWS and RECENTISM problems that plague many current event articles for the last ten years on WP. When the media put a story under a microscope, writing article after article for days and days about it, that the s to lead to editors to try to incorporate every twist a d turn that comes from that reporting, the clear evidence being oroseline-style writing that simply try to document an event on a time line rather than a cohesive narrative. Because editors are put every detail in, it can give the impression of bias towards the default left leaning media. Add that edits as a whole love to point out faults of any person or group that has engaged in wrongdoing (regardless of any actual court finding), this approach allows editors to pile on every bit of negative coverage about a topic because they are only following what RSes have said.
We need stronger adherence to getting event articles away from writing in this newspaper style and instead try to write towards a broader narrative approach that makes sense of how the topic likely will be covered far down the road, in the same manner if we were writing about a past event from scratch just now. That way, we can eliminate some of the apparent bias caused by the highly focused media and how that propagate to WP. — Masem (t) 14:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Well said! I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion so many times on the article itself, and common consensus has been that the article is neutral and fair. Having the same discussion time and time again, with the same results is tiring. Can we just close this? EarthDude (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this comment is a good reply to what you've mentioned Big Thumpus (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I won't repeat every here, but I advise people to look over my comments at Talk:2024 United States presidential election for a more detailed understanding on my position on the neutrality of the article.
The TLDR of my view is is that sources do exist that aren't being used. Some people are claiming using them is WP:FALSEBALANCE but this ignores the context that Trump's entire campaign hinges on media attention.
Plus, there is a just a tad of emotive language thrown in. Case and Point:

Trump called on House and Senate Republicans to kill the bill arguing it would hurt his and Republican's reelection campaigns and deny them the ability to run on immigration as a campaign issue. This ignores all the other points brought up in the referenced sources, but okay.

Harris was tasked by Biden with protecting democracy through voting rights legislation through her work on the For the People Act. I would call this WP:PUFFERY. I struggle to find how Harris was important with creating the bill other than voting for the bill. The article never mentions any criticisms of Harris either, to my knowledge. Fantastic Mr. Fox 17:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

A couple more examples:

- The lead states that The Trump campaign was noted for... engaging in anti-immigrant fear mongering even though the next paragraph mentions that illegal immigration was one of the biggest issues for Americans during the election.

- Numerous election offices are dealing with an increase in retirements and are overwhelmed with public records requests, owing in part to the electoral mistrust planted by former President Trump's loss in the 2020 election Aside from being in an odd tense that reads like a news article, the two sources cited in order to associate Trump with the overwhelmed election offices actually spend more time detailing the lack of appropriate funding and increasing work requirements for election workers. One source is even from 2022.

The article is full of stuff like this. Stuff that may have seemed meaningful in the lead up to the election, but after Trump's win feels more like sour grapes and mudslinging. I think it's entirely possible for an encyclopedia to inform readers of Trump's flaws without bloating out the article about the election. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My advice… give it time. The election is still fairly recent, and so dispassionate analysis has not yet occurred. Currently, all we have to go on is what is said in the news media, which tends towards hype and exaggerated things that end up not being important. However, as time passes, historians will write about it - and they will sort out which events were important and which were not. Once that occurs, we can (and should) completely rewrite the article. We can cut the fluff and hype of recent news media, and instead focus on what historians have to say. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's nice to see some specific examples. Regarding the third example: can't it be true both that immigration was a major concern of voters and that Donald Trump's specific comments about immigrants trafficked in fear? Here are two well-known examples from 2024: (1) Trump claimed without evidence that Haitian immigrants living in Springfield, Ohio were eating people's cats and dogs. (2) Trump said that immigrants were "poisoning the blood of our country." I cannot recall similar comments about immigrants from any major party presidential nominee (except Trump himself in 2016) over the past 50 years. Both comments seemed beyond the pale to many people, which is why they were the subject of so much media attention, and thus worthy of one sentence mentioning them in the lead. NME Frigate (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

These statements are only made with the consensus of reliable sources. We have numerous reliable sources that say as such, which is why we say it. Due to the exceptional nature of some of the statements, we have dozens of citations in ref bundles to back them up. It is not biased to say that Trump's claims of election fraud are false or without evidence, and this is not an opinion. Again, it's all backed up with multiple reliable sources. You also say that the statements ignore the other sources, but what sources? BootsED (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• These statements are only made with the consensus of reliable sources.
• Answer: Aside from the fact I am able to find WP:SYNTHESIS statements and statements that look very oddly phrased to not mention of what the sources also says, just because a certain collection of sources say that someone is secretly the devil themself doesn't translate to us calling that person the devil as a fact, since that is defamatory and also completely bogus. The same logic can be applied to Trump. It may deserve a mention, but as mentioned by others above right now the phrasing of the statements looks like mudslinging.
• It is not biased to say that Trump's claims of election fraud are false or without evidence, and this is not an opinion
• Answer:Correct but it is worth mentioning and it's widely accepted by sources that such claims are false, not "passing mentions in the context of a article that says other things on the subject too" or WP:SYNTHESIS
• You also say that the statements ignore the other sources, but what sources?
• Answer: I'm not sure what you refering to here. If you are referring to my first quotation, exactly one source attached reads "kill the bill" while the others mention it as a side reason for Trump opposing the bill and focuses on several different reasons for the bill being opposed by Trump and the Republican Party.

Fantastic Mr. Fox 09:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there's something to what you're saying. Some of the writing in this article is shallow and insufficiently sourced, and it's that aspect, more than anything else, which gives it a sense of being biased against Donald Trump. A better article, as this one will probably become with the benefit of time, would probably present an even darker view of Trump but would feel more "balanced" because it would be deeper and better sourced. And I think the reason the article reads as it does is that, since by necessity editing had to be restricted lest the trolls wreck it, there was just too much to keep up with, especially in the face of the enormous amount of misinformation being pushed (mostly but not only by Trump and his supporters).

Take this phrase from the "Border security and immigration" section, whence comes the "kill the bill" comment that you flag: "Polling showed that most Americans want to reduce immigration".

This is true, but what that sentence and indeed that whole section omits is that the percentage of the American public who wanted increased immigration had been climbing slowly from less than 10% in the early 1990s -- when 65% of Americans wanted less immigration -- to above 30% in the late 2010s. In 2019, for the first time since polling on this issue started in the 1960s, that number (34%) was higher than the percentage of Americans who wanted decreased immigration (28%). The Biden-Harris administration, although taking a hard line on immigration in some ways (Harris famously told would-be immigrants "Don't come" in June of 2021), didn't prioritize action to tighten immigration because they thought the public wanted looser immigration. But then public opinion shifted very rapidly. It had taken 26 years of changing opinion for Americans to prefer "more immigration" to "less immigration," but in just four years, almost that entire transformation in opinion was undone: by 2023, "more immigration" had fallen to 16% and "less immigration" had climbed to 55%. That's when Democrats and Republicans began negotiating the bill that was put forward in Feb. 2024, which would have been the toughest immigration bill in many decades. If the Biden/Harris administration had recognized the changing public mood sooner, that bill probably would have been introduced earlier, and maybe Trump wouldn't have blocked it.

Now obviously this article can't include all of that -- it probably can't even include the name "Lankford" -- and the top of that section does include links to articles specifically about U.S. immigration policy generally and the 2023 immigration "crisis" specifically -- but that one sentence about polling paints such a tiny picture of the truth, and maybe there's a way to get this nuance in. I suggest this:

"Polling, in a reversion to levels before 2019, showed that most Americans want to reduce immigration."

(And of course lately we have seen one of Trump's best-known associates, Elon Musk, say that he wants more foreign nationals in the U.S., much to the consternation of some of Trump's other associates, like Steve Bannon, who has lately described Musk as "a truly evil guy," vowed that he "will have Elon Musk run out of here," and called for Musk to "go back to South Africa." Musk seems to be fairly influential: will American views shift again?)

A quick note about a different sentence in that section: "In 2023 and early 2024, a surge of migrants entering through the border with Mexico occurred." That's awkward. Make it: "In 2023 and early 2024, a surge of migrants entered though the border with Mexico." NME Frigate (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

One note to make is that people in the US are upset about illegal-immigrants not the legal ones. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 08:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the survey I mentioned asks about all immigrants not just illegal immigrants: "Thinking now about immigrants -- that is, people who come from other countries to live here in the United States, in your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?"

At present, 41% (16% + 25%) want immigration increased or kept at present levels, and 55% want immigration decreased.

link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

And the controversy between Elon Musk and Steve Bannon that I just referenced was also about foreign nationals who are or would be legally in the U.S. (on H-1B visas).

Now it's possible that people responding to the survey are answering based on their opinions regarding illegal immigrants and not all immigrants. And also, people are not always consistent in how they respond to polls: they don't think about all the implications of their answers. The same poll also finds that 64% of Americans think that immigration is a "good thing" while 32% think it's a "bad thing," that 47% favor and 51% oppose "deporting all immigrants who are living in the United States illegally back to their home country," that 53% favor and 46% oppose "significantly expanding the construction of walls along the U.S.-Mexico border," that 70% favor and 30% oppose "allowing immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time," that 76% favor and 23% oppose "hiring significantly more border patrol agents" (funding for that was in the bipartisan bill that Congress blocked at Donald Trump's request), that 81% favor and 19% oppose "allowing immigrants, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time," and that 63% favor and 32% oppose "allowing the president and secretary of Homeland Security to temporarily prohibit individuals from seeking asylum when the Southwest border is overwhelmed" (that also was in the bill that Trump killed).

People are complicated! As you can see, some of these findings contradict one another.

For example, 47% support deporting all immigrants who are here illegally.

But 70% support allowing illegal immigrants the change to become U.S. citizens and 81% support allowing the Dreamers (who are illegal immigrants, albeit not by their own choice) that opportunity.

Which suggests that some poll respondents think there are different kinds of illegal immigrants, some who should be deported and some who should get the chance to become citizens. Maybe some of them don't want farm workers deported, even if they're here illegally, because they fear that U.S. crops won't get picked. (That actually happened in California this week when immigration agents starting arresting migrants near a grape orchard, following which that orchard found itself 75% short of the number of people it needed to pick the grapes.) NME Frigate (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This is quite interesting, did not know they had made a poll on this topic. Thank you for posting it! User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 22:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

First off looking at emotive language you've mentioned, kill the bill is a common way of saying to get rid of a bill. For protecting democracy while it is loaded language and we very much could improve on the wording I think it is an apt description of protecting voter rights and doesn't really seem like Puffery to me. Also for the anti immigration fear mongering, the sources says he did that so we say he did that. Also @Big Thumpus I don't think we should necessarily change articles' descriptions of things simply because of who won the election. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

"kill the bill" seems a bit aggressive to my knowledge. As for the "protecting democracy" bit, the statement itself isn't puffery, but Kamela Harris being involved in drafting it is misleading, since it was being worked on primarily by people other than Harris (based on what I read the Misplaced Pages page for the For The People Act). Fantastic Mr. Fox 09:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

"Kill the bill" & "killing a bill" are both well known and used terms in US politics. What them mean is you or someone else wants to stop the bill before it passes. There are many ways to "kill a bill". If you are in congress you can vote against it and try to convince others to vote against it, if you are the vice-president then you can "kill it" if there is a tie in the Senate. The President can veto the bill when he receives it which also "kills the bill". I think that should be a good overview of what "kill the bill" and related terms mean in US politics. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 10:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I incline toward not using the phrase "kill the bill" in this instance unless it can be shown that Donald Trump or a prominent ally actually used that language themselves as regards the bipartisan immigration bill that was negotiated for months between Democrats and Republicans only to wither on the vine after Trump opposed it.

That said, "kill the bill" is indeed commonly used. For example, last month, Elon Musk urged Congress to "kill the bill" in reference to a bill that was to have funded the government. After Donald Trump supported Musk's request, that particular bill, which had been negotiated by House Republicans and Democrats, was indeed voted down. Musk had further urged that Congress pass no bills for a month until Donald Trump's inauguration and said that the government could be shut down during that time. (That probably would have prevented Trump from having a public inaugural ceremony.) Then Musk and Trump urged Congress to pass a different funding bill. Trump in particular wanted the bill to lift the debt ceiling for an extended period of time. Musk seems to have been most eager to have certain regulatory items removed from the bill. That effort also failed. Finally, on their third try, Congress passed a funding bill that split the difference but mostly gave Musk what he wanted while not giving Trump the debt ceiling relief he asked for. NME Frigate (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Then it should be avoided per MOS:IDIOM. As the guideline points, idioms may be well known somewhere but not so much in other English-speaking places, or for users with English as a second language. And an idiom with the word "kill" in it should be at the top of idioms to avoid, for the way it sounds to someone who ignores it's an idiom and reads it literally. Cambalachero (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You are correct there thinking on it. I am from the US, so I did not know what other nations used or think when they heard this term.
User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It may be notable that the phrase "kill the bill" was used in news reports at the time. Here are three passages from a January 2024 story from the Fox affiliate in Tulsa, Oklahoma. One of Oklahoma's two Republican senators, Jim Lankford, was a leading proponent of the bill:

"WASHINGTON D.C. — Oklahoma U.S. Senator James Lankford (R) is working on a large bill to overhaul the current conditions of U.S.-Mexico border, but he is facing pushback from Former President Donald Trump who is encouraging the Republican controlled House of Representatives to kill the bill." ...

"However, Trump is now calling for the bill to be killed and is promising to do better if re-elected in November." ...

"Republican senators supportive of Lankford's efforts have openly accused Trump of trying to kill the bill in order to have a talking point to use in the 2024 election."

source: https://www.fox23.com/news/sen-lankford-working-on-immigration-bill-trump-wants-republican-house-to-kill/article_669ff9ea-bef2-11ee-96e8-1fbe4889dae4.html NME Frigate (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

And a quick search (for immigration lankford "kill the bill") finds many more examples from USA Today, ABC, The Oklahoman, The New Republic, The Washington Examiner, CNN, NBC, and more.

Charlie Kirk, a Republican activist who didn't like the bill (which he refers to as the product of that mythical creature called the "Uniparty"), wrote that Trump wasn't to blame for the bill failing to pass, but even Kirk uses "kill the bill" to describe what happened. NME Frigate (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It is used to describe bills all the time when a person feels strongly against a bill. It would be wise not to use it though since MOS says to avoid it. It would be better to use a different description in place of "kill the bill", such as "stop the bill". User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, "kill the bill" is an idiom with huge use. Nobody said another thing. And if you want to keep it, you should explain in which way the article is harmed if "kill the bill" is replaced by some literal expression like "stop the proposed legislation" that do not even change the meaning of the sentence. Cambalachero (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

We're kind of talking in circles here. As I said farther up this thread, I too recommended taking out the phrase "kill the bill" unless Donald Trump himself had used it in this instance. NME Frigate (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

A common thing said on the talk page is "there is consensus in reliable sources over this". Meaning, academic consensus. And so, citing both views would be false balance. But if there truly is such consensus, it is not enough to cite some sources, or even several, holding that view: we need sources that actually say there is such consensus. If no such source can be found, if the academic consensus can not be proven, then we have to assume there isn't, and act in consequence. Meaning, explain both viewpoints, without supporting either in wikivoice, the way NPOV requires. Cambalachero (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Which reliable sources have reported on a significant controversy of Kamala Harris? What controversies would those be? Genuinely curious. Prcc27 (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Harris has "word salads" for one, not sure if it was reported on by RS though. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If she had as many gaffes as Biden, maybe then I could understand adding her word salads to the article body. To the lead? I feel like it would have to be a major controversy. I do not support adding minor controversies for either candidate. We don’t mention Trump’s word salads in the lead, do we? Prcc27 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

True it was not a huge thing, and I agree with you that we should not add the small stuff. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Would we not talk about the winner more? Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

But should we not talk about it from their POV and about their opponent? Harris only gets some passing remarks for the most of it, even when talking about the election in general. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality isn't about giving equal representation to both sides, it is about giving fair representation to both sides, as per reliable sources. For example, the articles on the 1932 German elections talk more about the Nazi Party than other parties, simply because they engaged in more notable rhetoric and events, and because there are more reliable sources for it all EarthDude (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm reading this thread and a lot of it is veering into a general forum about personal beliefs, and is unmoored in policy or substantive discussion. An editors personal opinion on what a politician meant when they said something is irrelevant. There are frequent claims of bias from certain editors and that "there are other sources" that prove their point, but there have been little if any provision of said sources or specific, proposed changes to the article at hand other than simply removing whole sections claiming that "other sources" disprove it.

I agree, with time and a few years, this article will probably need to be rewritten with some more academic sources, but this will take time. It will probably be 2028 by the time enough academic sources and time has passed before we have enough material to work on the page. There will doubtlessly be much research on this election in future years. So why rush? There is no time limit. BootsED (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This thread was started because putting the NPOVD template on the article was brought up, in order to start the actual discussion about neutralizing the article. Now we've been having a meta discussion on whether or not the neutrality is disputed, for over two weeks. I think it's pretty fair to say that the neutrality is in dispute, and the template should be on the page so we can appropriately start having the real discussion. Big Thumpus (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I think what we should be discussing is whether or not putting NPOVD on the article is really necessary and if there are any good arguments for why the article doesn't fit NPOV. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

"only he about him" What the heck does that mean? Dimadick (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"It hardly every talks about the election from a Republican view point." That is a good thing. Why would we write from a neo-fascist POV? Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Political insults do not help anyone Cambalachero (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Oldham Council

At Oldham Council there is a dispute about how content regarding a child sex abuse investigation by the council (related to the "grooming gangs" post above) should be handled. Outside input would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Climate change denial

NextEra Energy

Hi editors, I'm Matt and I work for NextEra Energy. I had two edit requests (first one linked here that I think are directly applicable to this noticeboard. Content added some time ago by a now-banned user (Surge of Reason), which was largely copied from the Florida Power & Light article, creates some neutrality issues, particularly as relates to WP:STRUCTURE. The above linked request is to move content in a section titled "Environmental issues" about a power plant that was never built – and therefore can't be an issue – to the History section, in line with WP:NOCRIT.

The second request is a bit meatier and involves removing some content that is pulled directly from a source without attribution and/or uses poor sourcing for negative information that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS, and moving what remains to the History section, again to improve WP:STRUCTURE in line with NOCRIT. I would appreciate any feedback or help you can offer before I make these edits.  Because of my COI I have avoided making these changes myself in the past and I'd like to have this page be reflective of our overall desire to have the page be neutral and factual. Thank you! ~~~~ NextEraMatt (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

We have resolved the issue involving Talk:NextEra Energy#Remove Environmental issues heading. It might be worth reviewing the ongoing discussion regarding Talk:NextEra Energy#Solar power ballot initiatives as I feel we could firm up the section. NextEraMatt (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Did Stefanik misquote Franke?

Chess and I have a dispute at Talk:Katherine_Franke#Accusation_of_former_IDF/current_student_spraying_skunk. I want to add/maintain the following text in the Katherine Franke article:

"In December 2023, Republican politician Elise Stefanik stated that Franke had said "all Israeli students who served in the I.D.F. are dangerous and shouldn’t be on campus" at the Congress hearing on antisemitism. Franke accused Stefanik of misquoting her, and sources agree that Stefanik indeed misquoted Franke."

There is no evidence that Franke said those words (instead she said something much more nuanced). More importantly three reliable sources all agree that Stefanik misquoted Franke:

• "Ms. Stefanik misquoted Ms. Franke as having said that “all Israeli students who served in the I.D.F. are dangerous and shouldn’t be on campus.”"NYT
• "Stefanik wrongly attributed the remark “all Israeli students who served in the are dangerous and shouldn’t be on campus” to Franke."Al Jazeera
• "Stefanik misquoted Franke, claiming she said: “All Israeli students who served in the IDF are dangerous and shouldn’t be on campus.”" The Guardian

AFAIK, there is no RS that actually quotes Franke saying what Stefanik said she stated. Inside Higher Ed traces the misquotation as "A Stefanik spokeswoman said "the Congresswoman was paraphrasing reporting" from this article in the conservative Washington Free Beacon, which itself said it was paraphrasing a lawsuit from Students Against Antisemitism." Even Stefanik's spokesperson is not willing to get behind Stefanik's quote. It's clear that sources support Franke's claims more than Stefanik's claims, and we should not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

My argument is that the sources arguing Stefanik misquoted Franke are all left-wing, and Stefanik is a Republican. There are other sources that are neutral or on the other side that treat it as disputed or don't mention it. The standard that "sources support Franke's claims more than Stefanik's claims" isn't a justification to use wikivoice here; WP:DUE is clear that a minority viewpoint cannot be eliminated entirely from articles just because it isn't the majority one. Some sources in question:

• The Times of Israel doesn't mention it, and says "Elise Stefanik asked Shafik about Franke’s comments on Israeli students during the hearing" without casting doubt.
• Inside Higher Education says "Franke has maintained that Stefanik misquoted her" rather than agree with the misquoting in its own voice. Another article from that source says Stefanik "characterized Franke as saying 'Israeli students who have served in the IDF are dangerous and shouldn’t be on campus.'"

The solution I've proposed is to include both Franke's original quote in the article, part of the transcription from the committee hearing in which Stefanik characterizes Franke's remarks, and optionally an attributed statement that characterizes the quote as false. I'd like to let the reader decide if what Stefanik said was an accurate paraphrase or a misquotation, especially given that this controversy is the reason for Franke's (forced) retirement. This would also give more prominence to the view that Franke was misquoted without explicitly endorsing it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, which of the following do you not think should be in the article:

• "Franke accused Stefanik of misquoting her"
• "sources agree that Stefanik indeed misquoted Franke"
  • Do you think this should should be rephrased as "the New York Times, The Guardian and Al-Jazeera state that Stefanik misquoted Franke", or do you think this should be removed entirely?

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think both of those clauses are fair in principle, but have wording issues. "Accuse" is a WP:WTW and "sources agree" is weasel wording. "The New York Times, The Guardian and Al-Jazeera state that Stefanik misquoted Franke" is a good way to rephrase the second sentence. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Why are we attributing NYTimes, The Guardian? we only do attribution for opinion pieces. Stating these three need to be attributed for left-wing bias would mean most of Misplaced Pages needs attribution now. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• The question I have is this… why are we mentioning what Stefanik said about Franke in the first place? I seriously question whether the entire exchange has DUE WEIGHT. And if we don’t mention what Stefanik said, we don’t need to discuss Franke’s response or worry about whether there is a misquote. Just ignore the entire exchange as being overblown hyperbole on both sides. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Blueboar: Franke's career ended as a direct result of what she said about Israeli students.

  That being said, I agree with you that Stefanik is getting too much weight. It would be better to just include the original quote and how Franke's career was affected. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think Franke being mentioned at the Congressional committee on antisemitism has incredible WP:weight. Inside Higher Ed draws a straight line between that committee and the termination of Franke. All sources I've read so far, that cover Franke's termination, also mention that she was denounced in the US Congress.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  yeah, hard to disagree that accusations of antisemitism by us congressfolk are the reason franke is out. the subject matter is delicate, and we need to represent correctly from high quality reliable sourcing without pov-pushing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am not sure that there is a reason to go into details… we can just note that she said things that were interpreted as being antisemitic, which resulted in her being fired (or whatever). Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  If we list allegations against her, we must also very much say that reliable sources believe that these allegations against her were not correct. Anything less would violate both NPOV and BLP.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Tim Lambesis

It looks like Timothy Peter Lambesis has stopped trying to allegedly kill his wife(?) and is now allegedly abusing his dog. And allegedly his wife. Video leaked online. Should this be mentioned in the article, and if so, how? Polygnotus (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC) allegedly

Are there any WP:RS discussing the video? If there are, then they should be included in the article. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

wp:blp also applies to talk pages, there are serious allegations, and may need to be removed (form here). Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: See WP:BLPCRIME, dude was convicted according to RS. Polygnotus (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I see no mention of his dog. And we already mention his conviction. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and TurboSuperA+: Yeah that happened more recently. Not sure how reliable these are:

• pennlive.com

• metalanarchy.com

• theprp.com

• theprp.com
• metalsucks.net

• chaoszine.net

• loudwire.com

There are probably more sources out there; I didn't do a deep dive.

Polygnotus (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

For a blp, I doubt it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah thats the thing, for the metal scene these may be among the best sources available, and there is video of course, but it is possible that even the best metal scene source is not good enough for BLP purposes, and people outside of the metal scene are unlikely to report on this incident. Polygnotus (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

pennlive.com is a subsidiary of Advance Local , which is a WP:RS. The pennlive article is also careful not to make statements in their own voice, but uses expressions such as "reportedly shows" and "purportedly shows". I think the information can be included, as long as it's made clear that they are claims/reports, rather than facts. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

A section on controversial political views sourced to subject's blog/website

Regarding Leo_Frankowski#Political_views, we could use a WP:30. That section in this biography (not BLP, subject is deceased) is sourced solely to subject's blog. It presents some of his view, arguably, somewhat controversial (not "politically correct"). Is such a section neutral? I am concerned it represents editorial choice aiming at presenting the subject in a negative light. I'd have no problem if it was based on independent sources, but what we have there strikes me as OR/NPOV-ish. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

We can use it to quote his views, to judge them however is WP:OR. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can see all it _does_ is quote his views. There's no moral judgement at all. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

sps from himself is valid to use. removed a portion that was judgy (need someone else to judge).

maybe question is dueness of inclusion of this if nobody else writes about his views… though i think some of his views seem extreme enough to include in that merit Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• If he fell under BLP it would be a problem, I think. Since he doesn't, it's not as glaring and doesn't necessarily require immediate removal, but it would still really be best to find secondary sources - a political views section cited entirely to primary sources isn't great and still raises WP:OR concerns, even if we don't actually come out and say "this dude was a real sexist, huh?" --Aquillion (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

EMDR article needs editing to improve neutrality

https://en.wikipedia.org/Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing

Hi I'm a new user, and I think parts of this article should be checked by an outside editor because of edit warring in the article's talk page. While the article does not directly state it as pseudoscience, due to it's recommendation by several organizations. I feel it gives undue weight to the stance that EMDR *is* pseudoscience, which contradicts the article's attempt at neutrality. For example this quote "The founder promoted the therapy for the treatment of PTSD, and proponents employed untestable hypotheses to explain negative results in controlled studies"

This statement is written as fact, despite the citation directly quoting from a biased source. Who and what qualifies as a proponent? Does every therapist who recognizes it as a recommended treatment for PTSD assert untestable hypotheses? untestable hypothesis simply links to pseudoscience, and with no explanation to what these hypotheses are.

The "training" section phrasing gives a false impression that Francine Shapiro *DID* add training to retaliate against doubt on EMDR's efficiency. When that is the criticism/opinion of opposing view. The training section doesn't even go into detail on how EMDR therapists are trained to administer it, it mostly just mentions criticism of it.

The pseudoscience section is also redundant as the article already explains multiple times the argument behind the opposing view. which is that scientific studies show mixed results, and little difference in efficiency when bilateral stimulation is included. The inclusion of the libel website reference is also not needed? why bring up a website that slanders EMDR by giving the founder an antisemitic fake name? This section repeats information from earlier, but writes it as a conclusive statement to argue *for* EMDR is a pseudoscience

furthermore the article only briefly details how the EMDR practice is done, even the article on Chiropractic https://en.wikipedia.org/Chiropractic which does have objective information that it is simply pseudoscience. Has more information on how chiropractic is performed in accordance to their philosophy. The article doesn't even mention the phases of approach https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/treatments/eye-movement-reprocessing

Wiki articles shouldn't argue for any particular stance, it should be objective information such as the scientific studies cited, and allow for the reader to draw their own conclusion free of biased language. It seems clear that the article wants you to think the only legitimate stance to have on EMDR is that it's pseudoscience. Which directly opposes the information in the article that supports EMDR such as the several organizations recommending it as a treatment for PTSD. Plus the positive findings of EMDR within the mixed results.

The opposing views should be properly phrased as opposing opinions rather than as facts, the article consistently cites directly from biased sources. I don't think this article lives up to the standards of Misplaced Pages's policies, when objectively compared to an article such as https://en.wikipedia.org/Chiropractic that does live up to the standard

finally this article's tone doesn't reflect the reality of how EMDR is viewed, most therapists have a neutral stance on it and will even recommend it. Mistersparkbob (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Why did you, with your first ever contribution on Misplaced Pages, post here instead of the article Talk page? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Well like I said it looked like there was a lot of edit warring in the talk page, and I would prefer it if you remained in good faith when discussing with me. I'm not here to garner a mob against the page.

I'm a new user unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages, the editors in the talk page seemed adamant to not include certain sources. I just followed what I thought was the best protocol to receive a second outside opinion.

I'll go to the talk page, but at the minimum what is your opinion? the purpose of this post was to have someone review the neutrality of the page, and if my argument makes sense. Do you see validity in my argument? so I know how to best approach the situation? Mistersparkbob (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Have you read the archives linked on that talkpage? Maybe that is a good start. Polygnotus (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

no, but sure I'll do that Mistersparkbob (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to access them though Mistersparkbob (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mistersparkbob, Near the top of the talk page, it says Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Click any of those numbers on that talk page to view that archive. 10 will be the most recent archive of discussions from that talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution