Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drive by Tagging is explained here:

• WP:DRIVEBY

See also: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reading up the policies on tags we find this:

Disputes over tags

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

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

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

Per Template:POV#When to remove:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The policies regarding these tags are clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

100% TarnishedPath^talk 03:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can it be established as a fact in the highest quality sources if the term is avoided by those sources? It seems that the hypothetical of it being established as fact is impossible. So the MOS should be followed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at the Jim Jones article, I don’t think removing the word cult from the lead would change the meaning of the article. Is describes him as the leader of a group and says what that group did. Most people would come to a conclusion that he is a cult leader from that description. Even if they didn’t, they would have an idea of who Jones was, and what he did. It is kinda like saying that someone is a politician and Prime Minister. The description is less subjective, and makes the term redundant. So, while it appears that one could use "Cult Leader", often one doesn’t need to. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for starting this discussion. Is a conclusion reached on this? XZealous (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note this is a WP:CTOP article which has held GA status for years despite the validity of said status being called into question during the current discussion [1].

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

From this...

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

To this...

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

I began the discussion by asking for some neutral WP:RS around Oct. 3rd, per WP:CHALLENGE, and added an NPOV tag [2].

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

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

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

In my view the editor(s) haven't acknowledged that they may be inserting MOS:CONTROVERSIAL and MOS:DOUBT in WP:VOICE into the lead sentence. One of their edit summaries seemed to accuse me of WP:OWN [3], while others seem to claim that past attempts, which I subsequently reverted, represent a legitimate current consensus despite these past editors not being presently active on the talk page at this point and failing to gain consensus, provide citations, and appearing POVish etc...

Considering the numerous past discussions on NPOV that also considered the usefulness of adding the term "controversy" [4] [5] [6] [7], including at ANI [8], I decided to chalk it up to a simple misunderstanding per WP:AGF.

I made an attempt to achieve consensus by including some of the requested wording into the last paragraph [9], but it was quickly rejected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its pretty clear to anyone who reads the article and the sources there that call it contentious and/or controversial. For example "the Biden administration is moving to end the controversial “gun-show loophole.”". Even adolescence publications use the term [11]... Thus indicating how widespread the terminology is used. It's very odd debate over one word that is clearly sourced all over. Let's see what others have to say. Moxy🍁 23:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then why is it used in a source dealing with the current president? Or by NBC in 2013. To be honest the whole topic sounds controversial let alone the term used. Seems like in the States this is a decades long debated. Even the centrist publication politico use the term [12]. Moxy🍁 01:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even encyclopedias cover this..

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

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

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

I have made a final BOLD attempt in the last paragraph of the lead to try to find consensus on the talk page. [13]

• Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have campaigned for universal background checks and an end to the gun show loophole. Advocates for gun rights find the subject controversial and dispute the existence of a loophole since current laws provide rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and do not regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens.^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

" 'Close the gun show loophole,' demands Handgun Control, Inc. The major obstacle to Congress’s complying with HCI’s wishes appears to be the desire of many Democrats to preserve gun shows as a campaign issue in the 2000 election. But if the voters learn the facts about gun shows, they will discover that there is no gun show loophole, no gun show crime problem and no reason to adopt federal legislation whose main effect would be to infringe on First and Second Amendment rights."[14] Iljhgtn (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Sources do not always describe the term as controversial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The term "Gun Show Loophole" came about as a result of the passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.^[1][2]

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

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

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

I can see why DN would want to change the opening sentence from "political" to "controversial" as the term clearly is controversial. It's also political as it's used to try to influence/sway public opinion to push for a policy change. Why not just say both? Is there an issue with this version of the lead, restored by DN, last January? [15], "Gun show loophole is a political term in the United States referring to the sale of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, that do not require the seller to conduct a federal background check of the buyer. This is also called the private sale exemption." I think it's clear the term is controversial and the last paragraph of the lead says as much. I don't think the current lead is as good since the political/controversial nature of the term should be made clear. Springee (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think 4 paragraphs in is way to far. Part of the issue with the term, the reason why it is referenced with things like "so called" is because, like many political labels, it is misleading. Consider this paper which [16] which states, "Federal law makes no distinction between sales occurring at gun shows and other sales; there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. ". Politifact also weighs in on some of the issues [17] (see section 3). Here is another PF article (run by another source) [18] which makes a similar point about the issues with the term itself. I don't think it is reasonable to put the controversial nature of the term any further down than somewhere within the opening paragraph. If the scope of the article is really going to be private party sales then the article should be renamed to the inherently less political title and the discussion of the "gun show loophole" can be treated as a sub topic. Springee (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

Back to the topic at hand. The first source you cited does not seem to claim the gun show loophole is a controversial or political term, but please correct me if I missed it. It is about a 2008 "Fatally Flawed Study Yields Misleading Results" by the NBER. Garen Wintemute, one of the author's of this source, is already quoted in the GSL article (Notable Opinions) stating "The fundamental flaw in the gun show loophole proposal is its failure to address the great majority of private-party sales, which occur at other locations and increasingly over the Internet at sites where any non-prohibited person can list firearms for sale and buyers can search for private-party sellers."^[1]

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

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

We also have other academic sources that do not call the term political or controversial, including a Richmond VA Law Journal piece written specifically about GSL. It's quite succinct and to the point.^[2]

Cheers. DN (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"controversy surrounding this term."

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should find out. They mean the same exact thing according to sources, so technical work should be nil. All the sources that use GSL should still have the same weight, but the title will be less "controversial" for those with POV concerns. I'm open to it as long as it puts this issue to bed with a consensus once and for all. DN (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Framing or assigning POV to either GSL or PSE in order to focus on CONTROVERSY is basically a WP:POVFORK. The idea here is to try to find a way to resolve the perceived inherent "controversy" that might be more attached to one term as opposed to the other. DN (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

The Gun show loophole is the same thing as the Private sale exemption. GSL doesn't ONLY refer to private sales at gun shows. DN (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

See WP:POVFORK DN (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've been busy IRL so only a limited reply. PSE would be a more neutral title and I would support the move. GSL is an inherently inaccurate and political term. Private sale exemption is still somewhat POV since it labels this as an exemption vs the reverse which is when restrictions were applied they only applied to commercial sales. It would be like calling tax free sales at a yard sale a sales tax exemption. Still, I think it would nicely avoid the issues above. The GSL term could be a sub topic of the article and wouldn't need to be in the lead. Springee (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

A version of the same subject framed solely in criticism or inaccuracy, already exists at Gun shows in the United States#Gun show loophole, in which the first sentence reads:

• "The so-called "Gun show loophole" is a controversial political term in the United States coined by gun control supporters^{[citation needed]} that refers to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows."

I don't know whether or not PSE is a more common term than GSL at this point, but your "NPOV" version already exists over there. DN (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where would Gun Show Loophole redirect? The content needs to live at the redirect. Springee (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm suggesting a title change if it is warranted, not a redirect.

RS says that PSE is simply another name for GSL. There is no difference between the two terms. We should not "move content to a new article page" because it is already treated in the current article. See WP:NPOVVIEW...

• "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia."

Creating a separate article on the same topic, framed solely to highlight negative viewpoints, creates a WP:POVFORK.

The only available reconciliation being proffered here is to see if PSE is a suitable title change. To attempt to create a POV fork is explicitly against policy AFAIK. DN (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think we are misunderstanding each other. I think changing the name to the more accurate, less POV PSE is better than leaving it at GSL. I was asking about the redirect because people may search for "GSL" so we want it to go somewhere and you mentioned the GSL section of the Gunshow article. I assumed you meant all the discussion of the controversy around the name would be there. If you meant GSL -> PSE then I think we are both good. I just want to make sure you don't mean GSL -> GS#GSL_Name . If we are actually in agreement that the current article content wouldn't change (other than the name controversy could be moved out of the lead) then I think we are on the same page.

What I would suggest is rename the current article then point GSL at the current article. We could change the intro to something like "PSE", also known as the GSL, is... I think most articles that talk about "GSL" also call it a PSE (or similar). At the same time, we don't have a lot of sources calling it the "so called SPE" or even scholars saying "the PSE doesn't exist". To avoid a POV fork it might make sense to have the GSL part of the GS article point to the part of PSE that talks about the controversy associated with the name. Springee (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for adding clarification. DN (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Mudwater, Fenharrow, Iljhgtn, Springee...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Yes. The current lead is still inaccurate and relating to NPOV in need of major corrections.

2. Not to the same extent. @Springee did raise a brilliantly worded point though worth quoting from, "Private sale exemption is still somewhat POV since it labels this as an exemption vs the reverse which is when restrictions were applied they only applied to commercial sales. It would be like calling tax free sales at a yard sale a sales tax exemption." Though, like Springee, I agree that PSE is less problematic than GSL which is extremely problematic and needs serious revisions as it currently is live in the lead, or a total page move to revise this as @Darknipples says "once and for all" (though WP is a living encyclopedia so nothing is truly ever "once and for all" though I get what DN is aiming for.

I think the page move needs to be done at this point, but then the next question will be in wording the new lead most accurately to reflect the reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Point taken, and while a title change might make sense, we cannot create or redirect to a separate article simply to focus on criticism. See WP:NPOVVIEW... DN (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Google Books Ngram viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content) was recommended to me as a tool to help determine which title receives more results. From what I can tell GSL is currently the more dominant than PSE, but I could be mistaken. DN (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have invited 2 more editors from the article talk page here to discuss the issue. It appears there is still talk of changing the lead sentence to defining the term despite WP:REFERS, regardless of the fact that it is already in the lead and attributed to gun right's advocates. Since I still feel this may frame the subject in an UNDUE manner, I made another BOLD attempt in order to try to resolve the issue. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Something else that has not been addressed, is whether the prominence, or number, of neutral RS that use the terms "so-called" or "controversial" outweigh the number that don't, per WP:WEIGHT. At this point we seem to have no idea the number of articles mentioning GSL or PSE or any of the articles referencing this subject by one of it's many names, are in the majority. On it's face, without evidence that the majority of neutral sources use these terms, the claim that it is DUE (in the lead sentence as opposed to the last paragraph where it currently is) appears illegitimate. DN (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Darknipples@Springee@Iljhgtn@Mudwater@Moxy @North8000. Apologies in advance if I missed anybody.

1.Why GSL as an article title is inaccurate?

The lead of this article says "Gun show loophole, also called the private sale exemption, is the lack of mandatory background checks in the United States for private sales of firearms, including those done at gun shows. " when that is clearly not the case as shown by multiple sources.

For example, this source says that the term "gun show loophole" is "flawed" and fails to convey ALL the exemptions present to gun sales with background checks and some other sources 12 merely say that the loophole refers to sales done via gun shows and online markets.

Clearly, this is not reflected in the lead as it says ALL private sales fall under the "loophole".  

2. Proposal to rename this page "private sale of firearms" or "private sale of guns"

There are numerous sources that refer to the sale of guns by individuals without a background check as "private sales" and that is just calling it what it is, and suggests no "controversy" and/or is not even a "political term" like the great "gun show loophole".

Fox News and the sources which Fox News cites in its article call the selling of firearms by individuals "private gun sales" or "private sale of firearms"

ATF and its various instructional booklets call it "private sales"

The US Department of Justice calls it "private firearm transactions" AND "private sales".

Note that these US government sources, even though they intend to "close the loophole", are not calling it something preposterous like the "Gun show loophole sales", "Sales of guns facilitated through the gun show loophole" or something absurd like that for the simple reason that this term does not cover the ambit of what they seek to abrogate the same way "private sales of firearms" does.

On a personal level, I do think that this page will fare better if it were titled “private firearm transactions" as it can also include transactions like gifting a firearm that is not just "sales" which also, according to some exceptions, does not need a background check every time a firearm is gifted, and this article can have a separate section about that if necessary. Overall, the title 'gun show loophole' does not do justice to what the entire article is about. Fenharrow (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

About Darknipples's comment "impartial editors yet to comment here," I want to clarify that I am from India and have a completely Indian origin. I have never visited the States before, so I suppose I could probably be the most impartial editor here, haha! Everything that I have said here is based on what I find online, aka references, news and sources. I do not stand to personally benefit from any of this; I'm just here for the spirit of the encyclopedia. Cheers! Fenharrow (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I meant to say uninvolved, as Springee pointed out. DN (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

See MOS:FIRST. "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English."

We explain those details regarding perceived "flaw in the terminology" in the body, the way MOS seems to instruct us to do. DN (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a term designed to vilify rights related to private sales, gifts and inheritances. It's also misleading because the vast majority of what it refers to is unrelated to gun shows. Of course it's controversial, a sky is blue statement. Also the topic is so vague and with such variable uses that the target of the term is not a distinct topic. IMO for those multiple reasons, if there is to be a separate article with that name, it should be just about the term and is not the place to cover what the term seems to vilify. A good example is Gay agenda which is an article about the term and is not the place where Wikipedia covers the LGBT initiatives which the term seeks to vilify, and covering them in an article with that name would be a POV reinforcement of that attempted vilification. One way to do this would be by renaming and then covering the term in a section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is an EXTENSIVE FAQ on the article title located on the article talk page and should be considered. If we are going to do a RM on the title, what evidence is there that PSE, or whatever is being considered, is more prevalent in sources than GSL? I have tried to point to Google books Ngram, but no one seemed to acknowledge that, much like the policies and guidelines, or the fact that this article achieved GA status.

If the RM reveals no consensus, or consensus against changing the name, is the plan to then do an RfC on the lead sentence? That would seems like a lot of effort and use of the communities time to determine whether or not it is editorializing or a POV issue which I had hoped would be resolved here, by uninvolved editors. BTW, for sake of argument, I found some sources about GSL (not necessarily the term per WP:DICT) that do not use the terms "controversial" or "so-called".

[19][20] [21][22] [23] [24] [25][26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37][38] [39] [40] [41] [42][43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]

I would also note, interestingly enough, some articles use "so-called" in one part of their article but not in others. Cheers.DN (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

IMO the issues are a lot deeper and need a lot more fundamental fix than just picking an adjective. Starting with the fact that it is a term and otherwise not a distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm willing to address this via RM for the title or RfC on the lead sentence, but I'm concerned with saying we need to do both. If the current title is determined to be appropriate, as it seemed to be the last (several) time(s), would an RfC on the lead sentence still be necessary? It's not my intention to quid pro quo, I'm simply trying to find a way to resolve this without it being a drain on the community. If I'm the only one with that concern, then so be it. DN (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

What other title is more prominent in your opinion? DN (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have reviewed some of these sources that you have presented here@Darknipples, they are making the same point I made above. For example, 26, says "He cited two pitfalls to avoid: adopting a limited, “gun show loophole” approach and creating an exemption for holders of unexpired concealed weapon permits. “These more limited approaches are unnecessary and would still allow prohibited persons to purchase firearms from private parties,” he said.". GSL is not the all-comprehensive term that it is incorrectly understood to be. This source that you mentioned 27 says "Concerns about private-party gun sales and the importance of gun shows as a source of guns used in crimes have led to repeated calls for closing the “gun show loophole” — by which advocates usually mean requiring that private-party sales at gun shows be routed through a licensed retailer who will do a background check and keep a record of the purchase." Fenharrow (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"In fact, there is no gun-show loophole as such. Federal law is silent on the issue of gun shows and permits private-party gun sales to occur anywhere. As a result, such a limited measure might well have no detectable effect on the rates of firearm-related violent crime. Gun shows account for a small percentage of all gun sales in the United States — between 4 and 9%, according to the best estimates available. Similarly, they account for just 3 to 8% of all private-party gun sales" excerpts from 27

"GSL" is distinct from private sales of firearms. The sooner we reach an agreement on this, the sooner we can start to help the article. Fenharrow (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to cherry-pick and form all the WP:SYNTH conclusions you like. Frankly, it's a waste of time. DN (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any other less hostile comments are also welcome. Fenharrow (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

How about some substantive comments? That would be refreshing. DN (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do either of those sources use the terms "controversial" or "so-called"? No? Ok. DN (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

At this point, THOSE were not the changes I was talking about and I do not appreciate the tone you are using, DN. I feel unnecessarily scolded. If you want "substantive comments" please read every preceding reply of mine. Good day to you. Fenharrow (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for hurting your feelings. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

They are criticizing incorrect behavior. And redefining their motive as "hurt your feelings" is also not right. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can interpret it however you like, but commenting on it is irrelevant and unnecessary since my apology was genuine and you are not a mind reader. So let's agree that we do not have permission to speak for one another. Deal? DN (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was reading what you wrote, nothing about reading your mind. North8000 (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trying to find a source that says that the term is controversial is like trying to find a source that says rain is wet. Sources don't repeat glaringly obvious stuff. North8000 (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've been asking for reliable neutral sources since this dispute started 3 weeks ago. So far we have found one that doesn't even clarify if it refers to the term or the subject, let alone actually explains what the "controversy" is. By all means, share them. DN (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since giving WEIGHT to things that are not properly sourced tends to fall under the umbrella of WP:OR, what is it you are suggesting? DN (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unless NPOVN is able to mediate this problem more effectively, we should discuss whether an RM for title or an RfC on lead sentence is more prudent. Perhaps a poll? Cheers. DN (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think Fenharrow has really hit the nail on the head. They made very strong points. For a long time it appears the article correctly said GSL was (is) a political term and then went on to discuss both what they term generally was meant to cover and why the term was inaccurate in a literal sentence. If we are going to downplay the issue with the term I think a RM makes sense. There is plenty of evidence that the term is not accurate. Springee (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have some concerns that there is not a distinct topic (other than cover it only as a term, which would call for deletion of the majority of the article.) But I think that renaming it is the best practical solution. It could cover the legal status of private transfers (sales, gifts, inheritances) in the USA. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have just created a RM on the article talk page to change the title of "Gun show loophole" to "Private sale of firearms in the United States". @Darknipples @Fenharrow @North8000 @Springee @Moxy @Mudwater please feel free to comment over at Talk:Gun_show_loophole#Requested_move_24_October_2024 Iljhgtn (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I notice you did not ping TFD, Rhododendrites, Firefangledfeathers, DeCausa, and Alpha3031. DN (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Firefangledfeathers, sorry to be a pest, I just want to make sure there isn't any concern as to the choice of editors which received notifications above, versus the ones that did not. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

RM closed as not moved per WP:COMMONNAME..Cheers.DN (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Iljhgtn has started a new RM. Fenharrow (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is surreal. I hope we don't have a third RM next week. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Failed per (looks like) WP:GAMENAME...Cheers. DN (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe "Gun show loophole" sounds like Newspeak for "Private sales of firearms". Fenharrow (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Did not "fail" due to WP:GAMENAME, seemingly a marginal slight interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME won the day, but GAMENAME did not qualify on any of the three categories under which it was supposed to. Thus why there is an amended close even to reflect the "seems like" and not "clearl[y]" status of the close.

Beyond that, seems like it was mostly a technical close due to the proximity of the second RM opening near the 1st (my own introduction based on what I believed made sense), and that the title over time may still very much be subject to revision. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since @Iljhgtn still feels there is consensus that overrides WP:P&G in this case, we are looking at starting an RfC...

If there are any uninvolved opinions on this, now would be a good time to make any suggestions before we ask the community at large to participate

Here's what I have proposed...

Version A: The gun show loophole is a controversial political term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Or

Version B: The gun show loophole is the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Cheers. DN (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was just created. I'm really unconvinced that Wikipedia is able to write neutral critical articles about itself generally, but this article in particular just seems like a bad idea. I think it would be better covered as a section of Criticism of Wikipedia.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems highly likely to act as a POVFORK in practice, even if not intended as one. Remsense ‥ 论 03:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the sourcing also seems thin. Obviously, I suppose you could include the recent right-wing media coverage that Wikipedia is antisemitic because of its coverage of the Israel Palestine conflict, but that would have clear POV issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Made a merge request at Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Definitely a POVFORK Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

very much a povfork of a few articles. also of Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There has bee recent edit warring to restore this version [66] of the Cult Accusations section of the Landmark Worldwide article, from this recently amended version[67]. Which one more accurately reflects the cited sources, and more fully complies with the NPOV policy? DaveApter (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The restored version strikes me as more neutral. The amended version relies on cherrypicked quotes to present a simplified view. The current version has more detail and context, and seems to present a clearer picture of both the allegations of cult status as well as how they were resolved. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think if you read the full articles and sources currently supporting the cult accusations there is not as much THERE as restored version implies. The Amended version is NO LESS cherry picked than the restored version. This whole episode ties directly back to a previous NPOV Notice Board thread that asserts Landmark IS a cult and the edits over the last year that result in the currently "restored version" have effectively been original research seeking to prove the cult thesis. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Of course cherrypicking only those who ultimately concluded that its not a cult is more cherry picked than showing both sides of a story. Please read WP:OR because your understanding of what original research is is flawed. Which cult member will show up next to echo their talking points? Polygnotus (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

BTW- You are the editor who started the afore mentioned NPOV thread. Your comment clearly reflects that you are not participating in this conversation in good faith. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The material my edit replaced is biased. The opening sentence: “Landmark has faced accusations of being a cult.” is not supported by any of the three references cited. No sources in the paragraph identify any individual who has stated that Landmark is a cult. Coalcity58 (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

DaveApter (thanks for pinging me) forgot to mention that they've spent over 19 years on Wikipedia trying to remove all negative information about Landmark and related topics. The restored version is clearly better and more compliant with the NPOV policy, the recently amended version removed much of the relevant information. It is not NPOV to exclude everyone except those who ultimately concluded that its not a cult. Polygnotus (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not saying that everything in it is ideal, but the current verson (called "restore in the OP) looks much better. Has more factual content vs. value laden characterizations and mere accusations. North8000 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

For nearly all the time the article has existed, this whole article seems to read like an advertisement. There's definitely been COI editing in the past (see talk page), and there's plenty of stuff that's sourced to their own stuff. I don't know how this page can be fixed. 137a (talk • edits) 19:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I read the article and based on the facts included, it seems pretty factual vs. promotional. That being said, I think the article has definite issues with too much primary sourcing and the fact that quality secondary sourcing is minimal or week. I might be worth removing most of the content that is supported by primary sources and see if there is even enough of an article left to keep it. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

From a quick WP:BEFORE, I'm not even convinced this organization is notable (WP:NORG). I see a lot of passing mentions in the media, but no WP:SIGCOV of the organization or its mission. I've tagged the article accordingly. Suriname0 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems pretty factual with neutral type language. Scope is limited.....needs more sources in order to improve on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There has been already a discussion on the talk page on it and I believe it to be substantial evidence that the introduction of the page should be more clear on who this person was. While there is arguments on if he a benevolent ruler or not, there is no substantial discussion amongst schollars if he was a dictator or not. I feel like this article is biased and i feel like it comes from a recent Anglo-American POV. The portuguese version of that page is very clear on it while the english version seems to embelish it. I don't think no one is stating that he wasn't all of the other attributes but i would think for this page to be neutral it needs to be clear right away on who he was.

I am not sure if this is the right step after the several tries on the talk page, but i ask you to consider this issue. Shexantidote (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a good place to bring attention to a possible neutrality issue, but you usually want to start a new discussion on the article's talk page first to see if it can be resolved there. I don't see any recent activity at Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar. To address your concern, while the lead definitely needs to be rewritten, it's more because it's disorganized than because of major neutrality issues. There is absolutely extensive scholarly discussion about him being a dictator, which can be seen in the references used in the body of the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. @Shexantidote, you should remove this thread here until you have done your best on the article/its talk page and still can't rectify things. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

ok so I should bring up this topic again and title it more clearly? Should I collect the arguments that were made before? I brought it here since it had been approached two different times and both times it seemed the conclusion was that it lacked neutrality and yet no change happened.

So I should open the discussion again on the talk page but when does it qualify that there should be a change? To be fair I am a bit confused on when does the discussion on a talk page can translate to changes to the page when it seems from it that it should happen. Shexantidote (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Shexantidote, from the article's talk page discussions, it looks like you support characterizing Salazar as a dictator. The second sentence reads Having come to power under the Ditadura Nacional ("National Dictatorship"), he reframed the regime as the corporatist Estado Novo ("New State"), with himself as a dictator. and seems to have been there for almost a year. If there are changes that you think should be made, propose those specific changes on the article's talk page, which appears to have several editors who engage with the discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

associated AfD and the article. Much of the sourcing is from Russian state sources, but I am not a topic expert and dont know enough to evaluate claims in article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This talk page sorely needs some fresh eyes and editors. Particularly, this discussion. The addition of sourced content from The New York Times and AP that neutrally describes the timeline of events surrounding the explosion is being disputed, on the grounds that inclusion of these sources is a violation of NPOV.

The conclusion of several organizations and agencies - including Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, and intelligence agencies from United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada - was that this blast was caused by an errant rocket from Gaza. Yet when I looked at the article, I saw zero mention of rockets being fired from Gaza at all. So I found some reliable sources that describe the rocket barrage in question, and added it into the 'Explosion' section chronologically.

This is the intro to the section after my edit

This is the intro to the section without these sources

Does anyone else find this to be a serious violation of NPOV? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

FA material is later than those other sources, correct? Is there some reason to suppose that FA is just ignoring the earlier sources and making stuff up? Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What does Forensic Architecture have to do with these two articles from the NYT and AP? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also at this article, we've got a proposal to write about an analysis from Forensic Architecture by saying Forensic Architecture, in an analysis of footage of the blast site posted on Twitter, and as reported by the New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País, disputed Israel's account that it was caused by a rocket from Gaza and concluding instead that it resulted from a munition fired from the northeast, the direction of Israel followed by a bundled citation like this ^[1]. One of the reasons provided is that this is required to preserve NPOV at the article, because "there are lots of other organizations reporting the blast came from a rocket from Gaza, so we have to emphasize these reliable sources in prose to ensure the article is neutral." Or something to that effect.

@XDanielx and I have tried (to no avail) to enforce our guidelines on WP:CITATIONS, noting that in-text attribution like this "is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact." Simple reporting counts as none of these. There's an entire section on in-text attribution that discourages this usage of inline citations. Nobody has mustered a convincing argument in nearly 2 weeks of discussion at the talk page to contravene this guideline; despite this, both xDanielx [68] and myself [69] have both been reverted by users insisting this must be done.

Rather than continue interminable discussion on the talk page with users trying to push a POV against a guideline, I'd much appreciate some fresh eyes and editors to weigh in. Is it a violation of NPOV not to cite those sources in prose?

PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is only in the article body, right? The relevant FA material in the lead is not disputed, I take it. In which case, I would just move the bundled ref so that it immediately follows the named organizations. Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The naming of the organizations is not needed precisely because of the bundled ref. That's the entire point of citations - to refer to the source of information, outside of prose.

And yes, FA is mentioned in the lead - there was a discussion about it not long ago, and the result was to not mention these various news orgs inline. WP:INTEXT attribution was brought up then, too. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

And the current RFC? Where does that fit in? Selfstudier (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The presentation of the ongoing Talk discussion on this by @PhotogenicScientist does not do justice to its actual contents and what other editors have said. @PhotogenicScientist has also neglected to follow actual guidelines and ping the other editors involved in the discussion who have provided arguments for the inclusion of the references as they instead pushed their own POV here, so I will do it for them: @Lf8u2 @Smallangryplanet @CoolAndUniqueUsername

The claim that there is a WP:CITATIONS guideline against references being cited in prose that is being violated is simply false as detailed by @Lf8u2, as is the claim that no arguments have been provided for its inclusion, as these other editors and myself have presented them on the respective Talk page, for example here, here, here and here. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Following on from the recent litigation by Asian News International. Indian news channel Republic TV has also (correction: pledged to file) filed a lawsuit. [70] I am not suggesting that the article be whitewashed to appease the Indian courts or anything, but I am advocating that the article be thoroughly checked over to make sure that all content is due and accurately represents the sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Second American Civil War has recently been recreated and is up for deletion for the third time. The discussion could use more eyes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is an ongoing NPOV dispute at The Keys to the White House (an election prediction system), which has now also heated up at the bio of Allan Lichtman, the system's co-creator. There are different assessments of the system's accuracy, depending on the scoring of the two presidential elections (2000 and 2016) when the popular vote and electoral vote diverged. Was Lichtman always predicting the popular vote, always predicting the electoral vote, or did he change the system from one to the other? Sources differ. (See the RfC and other threads at Talk:The Keys to the White House, where editors supporting one POV assert that there is "no dispute" and "we don't need to articulate uncertainty about whether Lichtman's system was predicting the popular vote or not in 2000 & 2016.")

For the bio article, I wrote a short summary:

Lichtman is credited with a high degree of accuracy in predicting the outcomes of the elections from 1984 through 2020 using the system. Assessments state variously that he got them all right,^[1][2] or that he was correct in all but 2000,^[3][4] or that he was correct in all but 2016.^[5][6] It is undisputed that his prediction of a win for Kamala Harris in 2024 was incorrect.^[7]

In the child article, where more detail is appropriate, I wrote a subsection just on this question.

Both these texts have been reverted. The bio article now says the system "failed" in those two years, although Lichtman himself and other sources say he wasn't trying to make the supposedly failed predictions. The current Keys article, in the section on the prediction record, presents the criticism of Lichtman, but omits the multiple independent commentators who agree with his position. Some editors contend this is suitably NPOV, based on their view that there is "no dispute". There have also been heated discussions at the BLP Noticeboard and AN/I.

The subject would benefit from opinions by experienced, uninvolved editors familiar with NPOV. JamesMLane t c 04:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

JamesMLane t c 04:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please see the talk discussion for more information. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kcmastrpc: I have offered three references which WP:V that porn addiction is controversial, and a fourth reference which briefly explains why it is so.

So: it is verbatim stated in three WP:RS, explained in another WP:RS, speaking only of the four references WP:CITED at your request. Besides, several other WP:RS which were already WP:CITED in the article already explained why porn addiction is controversial. So, I would say, the controversial character of porn addiction is one of the most abundatly sourced claims from that article. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tasawar_Hayat

This is a very poorly written article that reads like a resume, so it seems to me it's probably written by the subject himself. Notability seems questionable too. It should probably be deleted. Bestworkers (talk) 07:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Head of State has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've just looked at Why Most Published Research Findings Are False and see comments such as: "As pointed out by Hilda Bastian, the main claim of the article that most published results are false was empirically tested by Jager and Leek who found that the false discovery rate in medical journals was around 14%. Ioannidis challenged these conclusions. Since then, not much has been done to settle this question. In a pre-print we improved on Jager and Leek's approach and found that the maximum false discovery rate with alpha = .05 is 13%, closely replicating Jager and Leek's findings . We also found that the false discovery risk can be reduced to 5% by setting alpha to 1%. It is time to stop citing Ioanndis's 2005 article without mentioning that empirical tests of his predictions do not support his pessimistic claims about the trustworthiness of medical research" Do we just ignore them? Doug Weller talk 13:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

{{Fan POV}} adds articles to Category:Articles with a promotional tone. This does not seem congruent to me.

Is there a better category to use? Or should a more specific one be created? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Of course its a NPOV issue, why wouldn't it be? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some fan POV articles are written with the aim of puffing up the subject with glowing reviews, which is certainly promotional. But other fan POV articles are just full of fancruft in the form of lengthy plot description and unimportant detail. Those articles are not necessarily promotional in nature. One option would be to put fan POV articles into the parent category Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes, which is where templates like {{Political POV}} go. Political POV is probably the closest analog to fan POV, as articles with political POV issues are also written by supporters rather than the politicians themselves (with rare exceptions). Pinguinn 🐧 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Adding to this, NPOV isn't just about tone and contentious/political disputes. Any article that distorts how different aspects are covered in sources is a point of view problem, including lots of coverage on a minor aspect or minimal coverage of a major one (see WP:WEIGHT AND WP:PROPORTION). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes; Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes seems more appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think your analysis leaves out one crucial aspect... Fan POV is not just a problem on the teams page, its a problem on their competitor's pages as well... Negative edits to competitors are also promotional (this is particularly well illustrated by the Political POV analogy, in the political area we have as much of a problem with fans trashing the "other side's" page as boosting their own) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would appreciate additional set of eyes on Breyers. There's a considerable amount of contents at Talk:Breyers. There has been several liaisons from Unilever, the owner of Breyers providing input on the article through PR firms. I'm concerned the article is starting to take the shape of history of company presented through the lens of the company with emphasis and deemphasizing or scrubbing out things they do not.

Although positions, such as this one suggested for inclusion by Unilever agent Breyers' advertisements stressed that its name started with the letter "B" and noted differences in ingredients between the two products, including that Dreyer's used corn syrup and color additives while Breyers did not. is presented, concerns such as the presence of propylene glycol is getting removed despite being sourced. Initial sourcing was not great, so I've fixed with different sourcing, but it was removed again. One of the reasons given was "outdated".

Then, reference to reliably sourced class action matter was removed by Zefr saying it was too soon.

Neutrality concerns have been voiced by numerous editors, as well as Edit Request response volunteers.

Currently, I feel the one-on-one disagreement between myself and Zefr is not productive and and outside editorial input would be great. Graywalls (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

In Talk:Breyers#Request_to_remove_poorly_sourced_content, neutral editor said I don't love how heavily this section relies on the A Daily Scoop source, but I'm reluctant to remove (sourced) potentially-negative content on a COI editor's recommendation. Then Zefr removed it in Special:Diff/1251164451 shortly following a talk page communication by company PR rep in Special:Diff/1251162568. I addressed sourcing concerns and added it about two weeks later in these edits, but they were removed after about two weeks, again after a request from company PR rep in Talk:Breyers#Logo,_propylene_glycol, which was not requested through standard edit request, but by direct request. Graywalls (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Inviting editors to join discussion at Talk:Donald Trump and Fascism. The article has been subject of a significant amount of debate including an AfD where the consensus was for it to remain. With it remaining, I think it is important to try and uphold neutrality and balance the POVs, I have added the banner at the top of the article for the reason that it has been subject of heavy debate for numerous reasons, and I personally think there is a weight issue with the counter argument at the bottom of the article only being a fragment of the entire content. Artem P75 (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also listed at BLP/NB WP:BLP/Noticeboard#"Donald_Trump_and_fascism" Skullers (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been protected many times due to what appears to be an inability to form consensus. Please help by participating in the latest discussion at Talk:2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence#Article protected (not here). Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The section Calls for the destruction of Israel#Children education cites a report from the Jerusalem Post that relays a report by the South African Jewish Report that says a children's book titled "From the River to the Sea" which denied Israel's right to exist and, according to the South African Jewish Report, called for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its inhabitants. Are these sources sufficient to claim a children's coloring book denied Israel's right to exist, or for that matter to state in Wikipedia's voice that such a thing even exists, and does it have weight to include that the South African Jewish Report said the book "called for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its inhabitants"? nableezy - 15:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say no. Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also the sample pages available online contain zero calls for the destruction of Israel. [71] Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am amused as it might be the only children's book I've ever seen featuring Edward Said. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think this should also lead us to question the reliability of the Jerusalem Post. Maybe we should take this to WP:RSN instead.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's already an open RFC about JPost there. nableezy - 20:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have other sources that are less biased, for example this article in Mail & Guardian. If most sources attribute it to Jewish orgs in SA then we should do the same. Alaexis_¿question? 22:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is one Jewish organization, not organizations, and I dont see how The Cape Town branch of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies alleged on Facebook the book promoted “the obliteration of Jews from our historical and rightful homeland — Israel”. as that source says merits any mention in an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 23:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

IMO the children's book isn't WP:DUE for inclusion in the article unless academic sources about calls for the destruction of Israel cite the book as an example. Alternatively, if it was widely reported in international media as an example of such (widely, not just Israeli and SA media, but like worldwide MSM). Levivich (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• This opinion piece, while highly critical of the book, says that it "contains no clear and obvious calls for violence", even though intifada and martyrdom are glorified in the author's opinion. This evidence from someone who considers the book dangerous indoctrination on the basis of actually reading it is enough to prove that the claim "calls for the eradication of Israel and the genocide of all who live in it" is a false claim. It is also enough to justify regarding SAJR an unreliable source on this issue, and similarly with any outlet which relies on SAJR without doing their own research. Zero^talk 12:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I think this issue is somewhat informative as to the problem of relying on newspaper reports to ascertain whether information is WP:DUE - frankly newspapers are far more concerned with what will sell advertising and move copies than with what is academically significant to an issue. There is no lack of scholarly work on calls for the destruction of Israel. We have absolutely no need to scrape through the gutters of newsmedia just to find sources here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's currently an RfC on the "Arab Migrations to the Levant" article that needs the attention of more editors in order to build a consensus between two revisions.

Subject expertise isn't required , but would be nice to have. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Page on Osteopathy is bashing a profession by calling it psuedoscience and quakery. 198.52.128.149 (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whether it's "nuetral" or not, there's a hatnote at the top of Osteopathy, explaining that it's not the same thing as Osteopathic medicine in the United States or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. But there are perennial talk page complaints that fail to notice the distinction that our articles, correctly, make. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have written one chinese goverment's and one Assange's accusation about transnational repression on US goverment. But the chinese goverment's point was removed with the reason "these media are state media or not have editorial independence from CCP on political topics", "Chinese goverment's accuse about Transnational repression is not relative to 'Transnational repression'". The resource "Gibbons, Chip - Jacobin" was deleted with the reason "not non-primary source" and "WP:DUE". The resolution from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from the resource RFI was exclused with the reason WP:DUE. In short, none accusation on US goverment appears anymore. Is it against the WP:NOPV? I have published one Rfc on the talk page. Thank you in advance. MINQI (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well for one I am unsure your chosen source says that the UK was doing anything outside ITS borders |https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnational_repression&diff=prev&oldid=1259194446. It also does not say the USA did do any thing, just that it was alarmed that the USA might have. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I mentioned at article talk this is a topic where news articles are entirely unnecessary. [72] Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can only judge an edit based on the sources used, not others that might exist. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The original complaint is that the article is not neutral. This is in part because it uses garbage sources like Freedom House. The complainant believed they could balance this by bringing in Chinese sources and Jacobin. They certainly provide a contrasting POV but they're also garbage sources. What I am trying to get across to the complainant is that the best way to address the NPOV issue they've identified isn't to add contrasting garbage sources but, instead, to use good sources. Which are abundant. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean Freedom House is a garbage source? It has regularly been endorsed for various sourcing throughout reliable sources noticeboard, though it should be attributed. [73] [74] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's an American propaganda outfit and it's to Wikipedia's detriment that we see it otherwise. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply