Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page.

Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Sections older than 21 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 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, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115

Additional notes:

Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument.
Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it.
The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here.
This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source.

Start a new discussion

Can someone neutral add '2024 Australian Jewish doxxing incident' to their watchlist?

I've deliberately avoided the Arab–Israeli conflict conflict on Wikipedia for over 16 years, but I've unfortunately found myself unintentionally brought into it this week. Quick, possibly irrelevant backstory paragraph: I do have an interest in articles about writers so I have been editing the article for Clementine Ford (writer) since 2017, long before her article had any involvement in the I/A conflict herself. Someone manipulated the information attributed to a source at that article to say something was only "alleged" in relation to the I/A conflict, when the source explicitly said otherwise: [1]. Shortly after, someone linked to the new article 2024 Australian Jewish doxxing incident at the article for Ford. I went to look at it out of curiosity, and I noticed it was also saying that specific incident was alleged, when even the sources used at that article said otherwise. I then noticed many other POV edits. If you want, have a look at the article before my first edit [2], and then look at my edits to the article and their summaries for examples. The article was written by someone who can only be assumed to feel very strongly about one side of the conflict. A second editor whose edits make it apparent they feel the same way is the only other person besides myself involved.

Examples of edits I find concerning.

For balance I added some opposing views to the article, but the paragraph was completely deleted by one of the other two editors [3] on the justification that "we cannot have a flood of opinion articles here". The irony is the article is flooded with conservative opinions (which would be fine as long as they adhere to WP:DUE), but only the paragraph offering opposing opinions was deleted with this justification.
That same editor felt the need to label a writer who signed a statement of solidarity with Palestine as a "pro-Palestinian individual" [4], yet the article uses many conservative and pro-Israeli sources, such as Tablet (magazine), without the need to clarify those writers are 'pro-Israeli individuals'.

Here are outstanding issues that I can see after asking for advice from a neutral party who also didn't want to get involved (they recommended I bring up the issue here instead).

The phrases "individuals describing themselves as pro-Palestine activists" and "a group describing themselves as pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist activists". Is this meant to cast doubt on the activists?
The over-reliance on conservative sources which are not likely to provide balanced coverage of the issue. For example, there are ten citations to The Australian. Here's a scholarly source which analysed language from that publication and concluded they have a bias against Palestine: [5]
We cannot find the direct quote "First Nations people and anti-zionist Jews" in the Times of Israel source provided.
Does the jumbled phrase "continuing the use of using Zio as a racist slur to refer to the Jewish community" come from a source or is it an editor's opinion?
The use of the cherry-picked block quote seems like UNDUE weight, just because it's a block quote. I think this should just be prose. I could easily add a block quote of what one of the members of WhatsApp group said about Palestinian activists, but I think that would be inappropriate as well.

I don't want to monitor this article for biased edits by myself, in fact I don't want to monitor it at all. If anyone is willing to add the article to their watchlist, or decide whether a NPOV tag is warranted or edits are needed, please consider doing so. Full disclosure; I get told I'm a subject-matter expert on imprisonment, and last year I gave a public talk about Palestinians held by Israel in Administrative detention, because I feel strongly about people being imprisoned without charge. While I do think I can edit about the conflict in a neutral manner, I don't want to as I don't think people who feel strongly about one side should be writing about this topic at all. I just can't bring myself to remove myself from the article while there's no other oversight. Quite frankly, I want to pass the baton for this and leave. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like another current events PIA article where everyone and their mother wants to spam it with info and try to shape it. It looks like this is already covered in Antisemitism in Australia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Made a merge proposal at Talk:Antisemitism in Australia Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: Note, the editor currently opposing your merge proposal at that talk page is the same editor who made both the edits I listed above which I find concerning, and is in my opinion the reason the article needs neutral oversight in the first place. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: @Thebiguglyalien: I'm not surprised that the merge proposal isn't being received well. Considering that, and that you're the only two people who responded to my post, would either of you be willing to look at and/or add the article to your watchlist since it very much looks like it's here to stay?

Thebiguglyalien, I absolutely understand your assessment, but I think what's happening is a group of editors who feel very strongly about the incident are writing the article, and I just plain don't want to be the only person reverting the manipulation and cherry-picking of sources. Here's another new example of changing the incident I originally referred to back to "alleged", when the source explicitly says otherwise [6]. The history of the page shows that edits that attribute false statement to sources are left intact by the writers of the article. Here's an example of a false statement being attributed to a source (the source actually says the exact opposite of what was added here [7], but note that the original writer of the article leaves this intact when continuing to make changes. Any kind of neutral oversight at the article would be appreciated. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The correct solution is to report those people at AE. Which is impotent when it comes to POV pushing and will do nothing, but at least it will be the admins' fault then instead of ours. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised to see someone else has just nominated the article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Australian Jewish doxxing incident. Comments are welcome. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Linnane, per the big notice at the top of the page, if you're going to link to an editor's diffs and effectively make the case that they're engaged in POV-pushing, you need to notify them. I will now do so. With that said, I find the case made here compelling, especially taken together with attempts to railroad the discussion at Talk:Antisemitism_in_Australia#Note_re:_close, and am currently of the opinion that a topic ban is warranted pending a really good explanation from דברי.הימים. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosguill. Thanks for letting me know. I am guilty of being too lazy to read the notice. I don't think I've ever posted here before. I assumed, poorly, that I didn't have to ping them if I wasn't asking for action to be taken against them. At the time I was only pointing out why I wanted someone neutral to watch the page. That being said, I've since actually gone through some of their other edits which show a very consistent form of behaviour regarding this topic. I'll take the case to AIN later today, with diffs, unless you had plans to initiate a discussion there or somewhere else in the meantime. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion could just continue here, it's within my discretion as admin to take action so there's no need to flag down an admin to look at the discussion. Usually disciplinary cases are brought up elsewhere, but this board is clearly suitable for it (hence the notice). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know Rosguill, I'm very happy for discussion to just continue here, where people have already been pinged.

In that case, you may find this interesting [8]. This is the the first ever set of edits to the page Clementine Ford (writer) from דברי.הימים.

To make things simpler, here is before their edits ([9]) and here is immediately after: [10]

Note that before the edits, the relevant section states, with high quality sources, "as the group grew significantly, a minority began discussing campaigns against pro-Palestinian figures, including Ford", and "According to Ford, the information had been leaked from the WhatsApp group by pro-Palestinian anti-Zionist Jews". This was removed, as was another statement made by Ford defending her position (granted this only had a primary source). One of Ford's statements related to the group was removed on the grounds it was "excess detail" [11], but information about why the group whose information she shared was founded was added in: [12]. I'm not actually overly opposed to adding that latter information in. The point is that this editor chose to remove that members of this group campaigned against Ford, which is extremely relevant to her actions, though information about why the group was initially created, which is either not (or at least less) relevant to her actions, was added in. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This diff from דברי.הימים following my notification of them does not inspire confidence. I'm willing to wait a few days in case "short" really does mean short, but absent a reply I think there is enough evidence here to justify a topic ban from the PIA topics broadly construed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill@Damien Linnane Concerns about this user go back a while:

See 1

Also a couple of other incidents:

2 adding "antisemitism in Australia" category to a politician's BLP

3 adding pretty obvious POV "apologized for saying it on camera, rather than just thinking it or bringing it up at a Greens Party meeting." GraziePrego (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

was curious about this user if they are just new, but they have 20k+ edits.
also is gathering a literal table of edits they term "antisemitic" on their talk page, which is neither the appropriate venue, nor does it seem like AGF.

they seem productive outside the topic area, but topic ban seems useful. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They also added the "antisemitism in Australia" category to the writer's BLP: [13]

They do appear to edit outside this area in a productive manner, so a topic ban seems appropriate to me. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Rosguill. Just following this up if you've reached a decision. No worries if you need more time. If you need more diffs I am willing to do a slightly deeper dive into edit history. I don't know how things usually work here but as far as I'm concerned once you make a decision, whatever that is, I'm happy for this thread to be archived, if that suits. The article would definitely benefit from more people at least adding it to their watchlist for oversight and some more minor POV issues remain, but as far as I'm concerned the editor in question and their willingness/ability to make similar edits here and elsewhere is the only major outstanding issue. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated earlier, I think that the evidence thus far already merits a t-ban. At this point, I'm less deliberating than just waiting a respectful amount of time for דיברי.הימים to offer a statement in their defense, and I don't intend to wait much past this weekend. I am admittedly going back and forth on whether the apparent WP:ANIFLU on their part warrants further sanctions (e.g. a mainspace block) or if they can be trusted to follow a topic ban. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now issued and logged a topic-ban, so I believe there is nothing further to be done in this thread at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm happy for this thread to be archived. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill Just to clarify, does this ban the user from editing in relation to antisemitism in general, or just specifically about the conflict? I worry that their POV editing stretches into general editing about antisemitism, not just specifically about the conflict, so I think it would be appropriate to prevent them editing about antisemitism in general too. GraziePrego (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GraziePrego, it is not a ban from antisemitism more broadly; first, antisemitism writ large is not covered by WP:CTOP, so it would require a more formal proposal and community discussion to approve. Second, the evidence presented here relating to 2024 Australian Jewish doxxing incident all concerns Arab-Israeli conflict material, so it's my view that additional evidence of disruption outside the overlap with Arab-Israeli conflict would be necessary to justify such an expansion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GraziePrego, my read of the terms of WP:BROADLY is that if an editor was WP:TBAN'ed from WP:ARBPIA, that they'd be playing with fire if they were to start engaging in any discussion involving antisemitism. TarnishedPath^talk 14:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i think there are clear examples of antisemitism or antisemitic topics that are not anywhere near the ARBPIA conflict area and would be safe to edit for someone tbanned. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however I'd still suggest that someone TBAN'ed from PIA would be best to stay away from it entirely. TarnishedPath^talk 23:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi all. There were a couple of edits that weren't useful. There was no need to label Copland a "pro-Palestinian" academic for one. I discussed these points with Damien_Linnane.

Noteduck (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck's conversation with me on the talk page, after I originally posted here, has indeed been constructive and helpful in improving the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Damien Linnane, if the article is full of opinion pieces, presuming they aren't authoritative opinions of subject matter experts, remove them per WP:RSOPINION. TarnishedPath^talk 04:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but because it's part of a contentious topic I'm hesitant to entrench myself further as the only editor opposing how the article was originally written. Now that one main contributor of the article has been topic banned, the only two major contributors are the creator and myself, and frankly I think I've reached my peak of how bold I want to be in making changes. As mentioned at the initial post, I've avoided this topic on here until now, and wasn't planning to get involved in this article; I've found it to be quite stressful already and I don't know how people have the stamina to actively edit in contentious areas. Thankfully most (though not all) of the POV prose issues have indeed been addressed since I started this discussion, though an uninvolved editor at the deletion nomination did say a large number of the sources currently in the article should not be used. I was hoping a neutral editor would want to become involved, though I can't say I blame anyone for not wanting to. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and tried to identify the opinion pieces as best I could. There is a challenge that The Australian, a source that is being used a lot in the article has very tight paywalls, uses inflammatory headlines, and from the snippets I've been able to find, regularly blends news reporting with opinion. If a consensus to cut that source back is not taken on at the article talk I think that a visit to WP:RS/N might be needed. Beyond that it's a real mixed bag. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223, I've responded in the article's talk. You should be able to access The Australian references using ProQuest which is available to us as part of the Wikipedia Library. You only need 500 edits, an account with 6 months of age and some very low of amount of edits a month to access it, which I'm pretty sure would pass. TarnishedPath^talk 23:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have WP library. Never tried to use it for newspapers because I prefer journals. Thank you very much for the tip! Simonm223 (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ProQuest is very good for newspapers. You just have to narrow you search to newspapers only or you'll get too much noise. TarnishedPath^talk 23:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Abu Rashid

I'd appreciate it if other editors could take a look at Amin Abu Rashid, which I've just applied ECP protection to as a general PIA measure. It pretty clearly has at least a bit of a WP:DUE problem, but it's not immediately clear how much of one. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed it a bit. Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Race and crime in the United Kingdom, insertion of material around Muslim/Asian grooming gangs, generally other issues as well

pinging @Kioj156 See also debacle previously with Muslim grooming gangs

I think generally, this entire article was significant issues which apparently haven't been addressed for a decade or more. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Kioj156 was the user who "expanded" the grooming gangs article so that it fit right -wing narratives, giving excessive space to criticism of the home office report that suggested that there was no evidence that Muslims/South Asians were overrepresented. I would say just chuck the lot, as their contributions are obviously partisan and not objective. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article apparently has had multiple maintenance tags since 2010s. Will give it another look thru later to clean it up. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also noting Kioj156 is literally copy pasting from his preferred version of Muslim grooming gangs article stored in his sandbox into this diff. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just replaced the entire section with an excerpt from the IMO now quite well written Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know I'm not going mad, as I read that version I was sure I had seen it before. A bit late to the discussion, but I support replacing it with an excerpt. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel

This is about [14] and [15].

There are two WP:RS which have not been mentioned at those diffs:

Theissen, Gerd; Maloney, Linda M. (2011). The New Testament: A Literary History. G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Fortress Press. p. unpaginated. ISBN 978-0-8006-9785-3. Retrieved 11 February 2025. In the case of Mark and John
Charlesworth, James H.; McDonald, Lee Martin (2014). Sacra Scriptura: How "Non-Canonical" Texts Functioned in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Jewish and Christian Texts. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. xxii fn. 28. ISBN 978-0-567-29668-9. Retrieved 13 February 2025.

Note that I'm not opposed to stating it with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

The book by Oegema and Charlesworth is unpaginated at Google Books. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing the reliability of these sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote If your arguments were convincing, I'd have changed my position. But they weren't, especially in light of you being contradicted several times by the very sources you've mustered—something I've repeated since the first message in this section. at [16]. Do convince us that my sources do contradict me. As I said, you mentioned one page, whose message about false attributions is murky, so I don't see that page as contradicting my claim. Maybe there are other pages of that 312 pages book, which would contradict my claim.

As I said, that book was published in 2011, so quite probably did not address Ehrman's two books about false attributions (published in 2011 and 2013). Barring prophecy and time travel, it probably didn't.

Further, you are denying a descriptive label for historical facts that you don't seem to deny.

Your claim that those WP:RS contradict me is simply put ipse dixit. It is just something you say without mentioning any evidence for why you say that.

Just to be sure: the page which would allegedly contradict me is the page preceding https://books.google.com/books?id=p-7KDwAAQBAJ&pg=PR29 at Google Books.

Your edit summary for reverting my edit is Cited sources do not support the claim "false attribution" for all four Gospels (though verify such terminology application towards Matthew and, to a lesser degree, Mark). Which I take it to mean you're accusing me of playing fast and loose with WP:V. As far as I can see it, your accusation is false. One RS does mention only one gospel as falsely attributed, but it would be odd to construe the other two RS as not meaning all four New Testament gospels. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no such accusation; if anything, I think you only slightly misinterpreted two sources and applied undue weight to others. I recommend returning to the article talk page. Anyone else who wants to offer their thoughts is encouraged to do so. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only way I can construe the statement Cited sources do not support the claim "false attribution" for all four Gospels (though verify such terminology application towards Matthew and, to a lesser degree, Mark) (emphasis mine). My opinion is that your statement is flat-out false. Ehrman and Burke do claim that all 4 NT gospels are false attributions. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide relevant page numbers and / or quotes from the text? Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I have not dealt at any length with false attribution here, even though it affects a number of the writings of the New Testament (the Gospels, 2 and 3 John), not to mention later writers (Pseudo-Justin, Pseudo-Tertullian, Pseudo-Chrysostom, and on and on). In many instances the attributions may have been made in full cognizance that there were no real grounds for making the ascriptions (the Gospel of Matthew); in other instances they were probably simply made by mistake (Pseudo-Justin)." From the WP:CITED book by Ehrman. A quote from Burke will follow a tad later. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While biblical scholars have been hesitant to use the term "forgery" to describe biblical pseudepigrapha (often preferring to label them "pious frauds"),51 they have been far less timid in their assessment of noncanonical pseudepigrapha, particularly texts written in late antique or medieval times.52 From as early as the late second century, texts not accepted by the Roman church have been characterized using the terminology of forgery: nothön, pseudos, falsa, and, of course, apokryphös (Irenaeus, Haer. 1.13.1 ; 1.20.1; 5.21.2; Tertullian, Pud. 10.12; Res. 63; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.24; 3-3; 3.25; 4.11.8; 4.22.9•, Athanasius, Ep. 39).53 But few of these texts actually bear false attributions—some, like the canonical Gospels, were originally anonymous and acquired apostolic credentials late in the manuscript transmission; others are written about early Christian figures, not by them. They are "false" principally because the early Roman church did not like their contents, not because of their claims of authorship.54 That said, some apocryphal texts have at times approached the canonical in estimation. For example, 3 Corinthians, though not valued in the West, was canonical in Eastern churches for centuries; Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans appears in over 100 Vulgate manuscripts;55 Eusebius, an authority on canon in the
50. For suspicious qualities about Simonides' manuscripts see Farrer, Literary Forgeries, 48-49, 55-56; on the Shapira Scroll, see Rabinowicz, "Shapria Scroll," 9—10, 14-15 51. Metzger, "Literary Forgeries," 15—19 surveys some of the literature; see also Ehrman, Forgery, 35—43.
52. On forgery and apocrypha see Chambers, History and Motives, 12—14; Frarrer, Literary Forgeries, 126—44; and inter alia Ehrman, Forgery.
53. For a comprehensive discussion of the terminology as applied to Christian apocrypha, see T6th, "Way Out of the Tunnel?" 50—63; also Speyer, Die literarische Fälschung, 185—86. Speyer incorporates a variety of early Christian apocrypha in his study but particularly noteworthy is his excursus on apocryphal acts (ibid., 210—18). Brox (Falsche Verfasserangaben, 26—36) surveys a range of examples of pseudepigraphy in Christian apocrypha and church orders, focusing, like Speyer on the motives for attribution and noting that in some cases, attributions are due to secondary efforts to determine authorship rather than an intention to deceive.
54. See Metzger, "Literary Forgeries," 14—15.
55. The manuscript sources are provided in Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate. 9
— Burke, op. cit

Hyphens have been omitted. Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure, the WP:RS are:

Brakke, David (2016). "Early Christian Lies and the Lying Liars Who Wrote Them: Bart Ehrman's Forgery and Counterforgery". The Journal of Religion. 96 (3). The University of Chicago Press: 378–390. ISSN 0022-4189. JSTOR 26543540. Retrieved 13 February 2025.
Burke, Tony; Gregory, Andrew (2017). Fakes, Forgeries, and Fictions: Writing Ancient and Modern Christian Apocrypha: Proceedings from the 2015 York Christian Apocrypha Symposium. Cascade Books. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-5326-0373-0. Retrieved 13 February 2025.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics. Oxford University Press. p. 534 fn. 14. ISBN 978-0-19-998689-7. Retrieved 13 February 2025. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But as it turns out, there are also two kinds of pseudepigraphal writings. Sometimes a writing was published anonymously, with no author’s name attached, for example, the Gospel of Matthew. But later readers and copyists asserted that they knew who had written it and claimed it was by a well-known, authoritative person, in this case the disciple Matthew. In writings of this sort, which are wrongly attributed to a well-known person, the author is not trying to deceive anyone.14 He or she remained anonymous. It is only later readers who claimed that the author was someone else. This kind of pseudepigraphy, then, involves a “false ascription” a work is “ascribed” to someone who didn’t write it.
Whereas some pseudepigrapha—writings under a “false name”—are forgeries, others involve “false attributions” in this case someone other than the author claims that an anonymous writing was written by a well-known person, when in fact it was not. Sometimes, to be sure, that can be a form of deception (though not by the author). Other times it is just a well-intentioned mistake.
So, for example, four early Gospels that were all anonymous began to be circulated under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John about a century after they were written. The book of Acts was known to have been written by the author of the Third Gospel, so it too was assigned to Luke.
— Forged (book)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For copyright reasons, I'm not allowed to cite everything, but I can assure you that the statement about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is under the subtitle False Attributions, and in a context which explains what false attributions are. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do find the quotations from the second source pretty compelling. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About Ehrman's book: Google Books says it was published in 2012, but the book itself says it was published in 2013. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion isn't about Ehrman, but that the term "false attributions" is disputed and considered misleading by other scholarship. See James H. Charlesworth, "The Parables of Enoch and the Apocalypse of John", The Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011): "The assumption that 'pseudepigraphical' means 'false' attribution and therefore not important needs to be dismissed." ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm the unconvinced one. the term "false attributions" is disputed and considered misleading by other scholarship fails WP:V in the WP:RS just given. The RS rejects "not important", but does not reject "false attributions". The RS is a collection of papers from 2001 to 2006, so obviously it does not address books published in 2011 and 2013. As explained by Burke above, "false" traditionally does not mean "false authorship", but "false teachings, according to the Roman church". The reevaluation of "not important" works is lambasted by Rodney J. Decker in "The Rehabilitation of Heresy: 'Misquoting' Earliest Christianity". Just for the record, I don't agree with Decker, but he represents traditional Christian thinking.

Or, if the quote you offered does not fail WP:V, it is at least a cryptic statement, which can be interpreted in various ways. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roman church? What are you talking about? ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the quote from Burke, posted above. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So Burke and Charlesworth object to the term of "false" in this context. I think we've established scholarly object to the term, which is the crux of the issue here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again: that's only an interpretation, your interpretation. You're reading your own views into those quotes. But I will let other Wikipedians be the judge of that.

The broader problem is the lack of a realistic alternative. Suppose those should not be called "false attributions" or "wrong attributions". Do state how those should be called, instead of that. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WTF Pbritti, looking at the three sources you've given here i would say if not a WP:CIR issue then sanctionable misrepresentation. fiveby(zero) 02:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby: cool it. Both you and tgeorgescu have been insistent on making this personal. If you have a rationale for your comment, provide it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling it "an interpretation" or "reading into". I don't know how to state it otherwise, in order to avoid a possible ad hominem. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as an example, when an editor claims an author is arguing the gospels are not falsely attributed, and provides a link to text which includes In the New Testament "false attribution" applies notably to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,... i'll call it lack of competence or misrepresentation. fiveby(zero) 02:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can definitely say that launching an ANI and referring to my edits as pontificating ;([17]) had a very personal chilling effect. Fiveby, your reading of the source is not perfect in the context of the paragraph before it. It's not worth fixing this issue if I have to deal with personal attacks. I'm tapping out. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Pontificating", because the only WP:V statement you have produced is a multi-interpretable statement, from a paper preceding by at least five years the publication of Forged (book).

So, there is no evidence that Ehrman got sidelined, five to seven years before publishing his germane claims.

And you complain of personal attacks, while for me: (i) it is not clear what your evidence is about considered misleading, or about Ehrman got sidelined (ii) you have been falsely accusing me of making rookie mistakes, namely making claims which are not supported by the sources.

I'm not saying that I don't make mistakes. But sometimes the accusation that I made a mistake could be itself mistaken. And you could have avoided all this fuss by declaring that you made a mistake. You could see me as mercilessly attacking you, while I only ask you to admit you made a mistake. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Tang Dynasty Television

Recently an editor has made a few efforts to significantly alter the POV at New Tang Dynasty Television - a TV station affiliated with the Falun Gong. Eyes would be good. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery as a positive good in the United States

See Slavery as a positive good in the United States...

This title seems extremely editorialized and without RS to justify it. Literally identifying any subject as a "positive good", let alone slavery, seems extremely misleading and or non-neutral...

Thoughts?.... DN (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the title is editorialized, it's discussing viewpoints that held American slavery as ultimately at least "better than the alternative" to much more enthusiastic support for the institution. The question is really whether there are enough modern sources discussing slavery in that framing, and if the level of detail is summary style, and that's where I find nothing that justifies the article's existence (on a trip down Gbooks and Jstor I didn't find papers or books that discuss just this aspect of the slavery question in America) and think it's excessively wordy. It's ultimately a POV fork and duplicative of content that should discussed holistically; Slavery in the United States currently already links to American proslavery movement and those two articles already cover the majority of what's in this discussed article. A merge seems most appropriate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are much better titles available, which are more consistent with the way this topic is discussed in mainstream scholarly sources. I've suggested Pro-slavery ideology in the United States and created a move request on the talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Generalrelative. That name is non-neutral and should be changed. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: as it stands, American proslavery movement redirects to a section of Proslavery thought. I would be fine with a merge to Proslavery thought, as David Fuchs suggests, in principle. But if the consensus is that there is enough notable material for a full article on proslavery thought in America specifically, I'm fine with that too. But that article should have a better title. Generalrelative (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My knee-jerk reaction is that there is probably enough material for a separate "US-pro-slavery" article. US-slavery is covered like no other kind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RM discussion is up now at Talk:Slavery as a positive good in the United States#Requested move 14 February 2025...Thanks Generalrelative. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

original author

the person who originally created that article is @DoomedToRepeatHistory, who appears to be inactive.

In addition that article, they created:

Revolutionary nationalism, which included equating Mussolini to revolutionary nationalism, and has an OR tag on it.
Controversy over Hitler's participation in the Bavarian Soviet Republic, which is apparently a theory to suggest that Hitler supported communism (he def did not)
Fascist syndicalism, another thing suggesting fascism incorporated marxist ideals
any number of libertarian articles...

all of these deserve discussion at NPOVN as well, many have the essay maintenance tag on them. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

much of these edits are mostly in terms of trying to equate marxism with fascism, and promoting libertarianism. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like serial POV. DN (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Reversion of Other Scholarly Perspectives on Safi-ad-Din Ardabili’s Lineage

An experienced editor reverted the content I added. The inclusion of different historians' views on the genealogy of Safi-ad-Din Ardabili is being prevented.

As you can see from the messages in talk page, it seems unlikely that I will reach a consensus with the editor on the talk page. Despite asking the editor how I could contribute, @HistoryofIran did not provide constructive feedback. Moreover, I believe @HistoryofIran overlooked policies such as

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS ,
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,
Wikipedia:Ownership of content,
@HistoryofIran is particularly disregarding the fact that WP:DUE states that a viewpoint can be included in the article even if it represents a minority opinion (which is not the case for minority here).

Chronologically:

@ HistoryofIran reverted my edits with
1. disregarding the other WP:RS and instead putting forward a source from 1980 to present it as "disputed" is not an improvement. Savory, whom you are relying on a lot, said later in 1997 that they were of Kurdish origin https://iranicaonline.org/articles/ebn-bazzaz.
The most fundamental problem with this revert is that, as I later asked on the talk page, it did not demonstrate that Savory's views had changed after 1997. Moreover, I had not added any opinion for or against Savory's view, particularly the one case referenced in the Encyclopedia Iranica.
My edits was mostly about the differing views of various historians regarding the lineage of Safi-ad-Din Ardabili were written with clear attribution to who held which perspective. Among these historians were notable figures such as Hinz, Ayalon, Togan, Gelvin, whose significance is unquestionable.
@ HistoryofIran claimed in talk page:
1. Rudi Matthee, one of the most prominent scholars for Safavid studies, also say that they were originally of Kurdish origin [8]
2. Quote (2008): ^{while ethnic Persians, called Tajiks, were dominant in the areas of administration and culture. As Persians of Kurdish ancestry and of a non-tribal background, the Safavids did not fit this pattern, though the state they set up with the assistance of Turkmen tribal forces of eastern Anatolia closely resembled this division in its makeup.}
As you can see, the quote above is not directly related with Safi-ad-Din Ardabili.
However, I brought a quote from Rudi Matthee's compilation book (2011), which has a title in a chapter directly focuses on Safi-ad-Din Ardabili's lineage. Quote: ^{postulate various other possibilities for the family’s ethnic and linguistic background, including Arab and Kurdish.}
I brought an attention to WP:NPOV Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.
Despite asking how I could contribute to the article to reach a consensus, I have not received a clear response.
I asked in which of my edits I had made comments on whether Savory was Kurdish or not. No response given back.
Additionally, if we look at the statements made by @HistoryofIran on the talk page in 2020, it could be inferred that he attempted to assert Wikipedia:Ownership of content .
1. "There is no dispute for the original origin of the Safavids, which was indeed Kurdish, and is acknowledged by the majority of scholarship"

TarantaBabu (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If TarantaBabu could put the WP:BATTLEGROUND pitchfork down for a second and actually take their time to read my comments, they would consider this report an oddity. It makes it a bit more difficult to have WP:GF when you are such in a hurry to spin a false narrative of me. Possible WP:OUCH and even WP:GAMING here.

1. Which you did.

2. and 3. See 9.

4 and 5. That so, who does Rudi Matthee talk about then? Perhaps you know something others don't?

6. That chapter is still not written by Rudi Matthee, which you keep omitting. Though he indeed edit the book. But as I said, I'm not sure what to make out of this, as I have no problem with showing uncertainty and even being wrong. And instead of replying to that, you keep being combative.

7. On whose realm you're tip toeing.

8. You never asked this, this is blatant falsehood, and again makes me question your WP:GF even more. I even openly said "You might have a point, but the execution was, respectfully, not good." This is the part where you continue having a proper discussion and tone, and thus, a WP:CONSENSUS.

9. Sigh.. you're heavily relying on a 1980 source by Savory in which he presents the origin of the ancestor of the Safavids, Safi-ad-Din Ardabili as disputed. However, a decade later, he no longer considered that to be the case and outright said that they were Kurds, as shown in the talk page.

10. I'm not sure how you find a diff from 5 years ago relevant to cite, I didn't even remember that comment, not that I find anything wrong with it. We ultimately rely on WP:RS says and its consensus, which I'm sure I was aware of back in 2020, despite how you are trying to misrepresent it. You also omitted the first part of that comment, in which I mentioned that the IP was misusing sources, or did that not with fit with your narrative of me? I would like to remind you of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor is referencing the Media and Journalism Research Center across Wikipedia to classify news media as state media or not.

Moved from Reliable sources/Noticeboard

– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Astropulse-20250214063500-An_editor_is_referencing_the_Media_and_Journalism_Research_Center_across_Wikiped

@CommonKnowledgeCreator is making edits on 100's wiki to establish Media and Journalism Research Center as a central authority to classify news media as state media or not. This can be violating WP:DUE and WP:BALASP, WP:NPOV I dont think Media and Journalism Research Center as WP:REPUTABLE or a WP:RS.

Also violates WP:FAIT

Their edits : Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Daily&diff=prev&oldid=1270307767

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China_Internet_Information_Center&diff=prev&oldid=1270458534

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TVB_Jade&diff=prev&oldid=1270521962

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China_Media_Group&diff=prev&oldid=1270307086

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oriental_Sports_Daily&diff=prev&oldid=1270461804

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_France&diff=prev&oldid=1269532532

and more Astropulse (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these articles are still a work in progress, and CommonKnowledgeCreator is making a valuable contribution. MJRC provides an important distinction between state ownership and state control. If other reliable sources have published relevant information on these media outlets, and they believe that those views are missing, then it's up to the editors to expand the articles with additional research, not spend time trying to tear down the work of someone actively building the encyclopedia. MJRC is a great source, and the prominence the editor gives it is not excessively weighted, neither for word count nor position in the article. Similar classifications from Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, and the Economist Intelligence Unit are frequently used on Wikipedia. If there is concern about undue weight, the solution is not to remove verified information but to include other reliable sources alongside it to provide a well-rounded perspective. Manuductive (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have agreed and there is consensus editor CommonKnowledgeCreator has violated WP:FAIT [18] Astropulse (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're really forum shopping this one eh? Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were trying to move it here because the first two replies said RS/N wasn't the right place and that it was more an NPOV question, but that could've been made more clear so the discussion didn't get split like this. @Astropulse next time you should leave a comment when you try to move a discussion like this. You can use this template CambrianCrab (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, I just saw the ANI post. While I do see that Aquillion said "...I would actually take it to WP:ANI..." having three threads open at once is not a good call. In the future, if you really think you have to open another thread, you should link to the other discussions (which you partially did, just no link to this one) and offer some explanation for why you're opening a new thread instead of just continuing the original discussion. CambrianCrab (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. i should have used the moved template. but i didnt know about it. ty. anyway question is should we ask the editor to revert their 100+ changes ? Astropulse (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not WP:FAIT. That policy is about intentionally undermining or evading discussion by making a huge number of edits, whereas, these edits were made in good faith before CommonKnowledgeCreator was even aware that they were being challenged. FAIT is not just about any editor who makes a large number of similar edits. Maybe there is another policy that deals with that, but it's not FAIT.

Now that this is on the NPOV noticeboard, the appropriate venue for this challenge, I suggest that the point of coming here is to establish in a timely manner whether or not these insertions actually have undue weight (which Astropulse arguably hasn't), and not just pointing to a purported consensus on some other page. That way we can discuss the NPOV issue and come to a consensus here.

To the point, trying to stifle these contributions only serves to whitewash significant criticism about these media outlets, which actually puts the editor suggesting the removals in violation of NPOV. Manuductive (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this is not a WP:FAIT situation and that there was no consensus on RSN about this point. - Amigao (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the disagreement was first surfaced on jan 18 ( if not earlier ) on their talk page. CKC's defense with IgelRM. However they continued the edits onto feb 5th on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_Media_Network&diff=prev&oldid=1274029172

This started an edit war with me and disputes and i started looking into their behavior and i found out about this. So id argue it is WP:FAIT

If I haven't reported it, they may have continued to do this. Astropulse (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the disagreement was first surfaced on jan 18 ( if not earlier ) on their talk page. CKC's defense with IgelRM. This is an inaccurate characterization of that discussion. IgelRM said that they did not oppose including the MJRC rankings in the articles, and that their concerns were mostly related to the inclusion of the MJRC classification in lead sections. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However they continued the edits onto feb 5th on [the Al Jazeera Media Network article] This started an edit war with me and disputes and i started looking into their behavior and i found out about this. This was discussed at the Al Jazeera Media Network article talk page. There, as here and at the WP:RSN discussion you started, you have not clearly explained how including the MJRC's evaluations of media organizations violates WP:NPOV, why the MJRC is not a reliable source, and cannot not be addressed by following the recommendations of WP:NPOVHOW to simply include other sources or rewrite the content with the existing sources. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is not a propaganda machine. WP:NOTADVOCACY For. eg. in this edit [19] you opened a section section and tried to push MJRC opinions. You later removed most of it. But it still has Editorial independence section that reads "As of August 2024, the Media and Journalism Research Center evaluated France Télévisions to be "Independent State Funded and State Managed/Owned Media" under its State Media Matrix."

Whats you are trying to do is influence public opinion because MJRC said its state media or not. You have inserted this to lead sections of many article. Also what is State Media Matrix? Its not a widely accepted terminology. Its something MJRC came up with for their evaluation. It can be considered as WP:PROMOTION

Many of your edits is also WP:UNDUE because you have blindly copy pasted this text into 100's of article. Its really inappropriate WP:FAIT - because i feel your edits are disruptive - because you are trying to make it look like a media is state media because MJRC said so. You should have got consensus before such mass editing.

MJRC lacks significant coverage in other reliable sources. MJRC evaluations are subjective at best and cannot be really verified. It also lacks credibility because i dont see large number of references to MJRC

As per WP:QUESTIONABLE can you prove MJRC has editorial oversight?

I still don't see a consensus MJRC is reliable based on discussion in reliable sources noticeboard.

Self published rating system like MJRC should be rejected because of lack of reliability. There is no single recognized authority on this issue, and classifications can be disputed based on perspectives.

Id ask you to please revert your changes and stop repeating this behavior. Astropulse (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTADVOCACY mainly defers to WP:NPOV, and WP:NPOVHOW says Generally, do not remove sourced information.

I agree with you about State Media Matrix promotion and that large amounts of copy-pasted text into 100's of articles are FAIT. However, FAIT is about a bot-like editing pattern to multiple articles. Edit warring on only article isn't, and should be discussed at WP:AN3 but both of you broke 3RR. The edit to Al Jazeera Media Network was balanced out by [20] as NPOVHOW instructs. AJMN should be a separate discussion.

establish ... central authority This isn't created by editing. We can deprecate/blacklist anything for removal, even with 1000's of uses.

Per WP:QUESTIONABLE Manuductive at RSN gave [21]. Nobody else considers MJRC GUNREL, and most at RSN think it's GREL. This reliability argument is WP:1AM and I should/will respond at Talk:AJMN not here.

make it look a media is state media because MJRC said so You could claim WP:ECREE for the mass edits where MJRC is the only source. 173.206.110.217 (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think ... WP:REPUTABLE or a WP:RS. Irrelevant, due to WP:RSOPINION. violated WP:FAIT The RSN link is more concerned that The massive paragraphs are clearly WP:UNDUE. CKC self-reverted the undue portion of the largest addition. I prefer the trimming as mentioned to avoid an undue quantity of text (violating WP:DUE and WP:BALASP, WP:NPOV as Astropulse said):

~~As of September 2024^[update],~~^[a] the Media and Journalism Research Center ~~of the Central European University~~^[b] evaluated^[c] ~~[the parent company of]~~^[d] the People's Daily, ~~[the Example Company]~~^[e] [as] "State Controlled ~~Media~~" ~~under its State Media Matrix~~^[f].

^ Unnecessary and too fact-sounding in Wikivoice

^ False

^ This looks fine, but it could be further softened into "considers" or "opined that"

^ Is this distinction meaningful?

^ Some cases don't have an article or take up too many words to be WP:DUE

^ The link anchor has been broken, and the section could change the definition to that of another source. Even if a separate article existed, 100 edits to add this might be too promotional.

The Media and Journalism Research Center considers the People's Daily "State Controlled".

Based on CKC's defense with IgelRM, MJRC is presumably reliable enough for at least a concise mention. I prefer placement in a Reception section, not the lead section. 173.206.110.217 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen similar behavior from CKC with the use of the Congressional Research Service reports on various US legal matters. It is not the case that CRS is an unreliable source, but excessive inclusion of material from the CRS to the point of being UNDUE. Specifically, I had issues with how much they weighed on CRS on Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (see Talk:Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act#Section on National Security Concerns) They have incorporated CRS into several articles, though at that point I wouldn't have thought of it as a FAIT issue, since not all uses of CRS are bad. But the similarity in terms of weight and dueness are there: just as with MJRC (a reliable source, but not the authority), CRS is not the authority for US legal matters. So probably establishing something about artificially elevate a source to deem it more authoratative than it actually is considered to be by other RSes is the underlying issue here. --Masem (t) 13:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To follow-up on the main concern raised at the WP:RSN discussion about due weight, this concern has already been raised with me by another editor in a discussion with me on my talk page.

To reiterate some of what I said there, I believe that the content that I was adding should be retained due to the requirements of various content policies and guidelines. If a broadcasting media organization has a Wikipedia article about it, then any claims or statements of fact in the article about whether the organization is a public broadcaster with effective editorial independence (i.e. independent media) rather than a state media broadcaster would require independent sources to substantiate such a claim per the requirements of WP:V and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, as well as the recommendations and guidance from WP:REPUTABLE and WP:COISOURCE. Including the content that I added that cited the MJRC would provide at least one independent source for claims about the editorial independence of a specific organization. With respect to the general due weight concern, as other editors have noted, the content summarizing the MJRC classifications included only one sentence in each article and a fairly brief one.

With respect to the concern about due weight to a specific source (i.e. why the MJRC and not some other source), the MJRC's director wrote a report for UNESCO in 2020 about editorial independence that was used a prepare a broader UNESCO report in 2022 about media development globally—which I would argue is not dissimilar from the consultative status that Reporters Without Borders has with the United Nations. The MJRC database about specific media organizations appears to be an extension of this work. As such if the Reporters Without Borders evaluation of press freedom in a specific country is allowed to be used in Wikipedia articles about the media industry in those same countries (e.g. Mass media in Russia), it is unclear why the MJRC classifications for specific media organizations should not be allowed to be included in articles about those same media organizations. More importantly, and as other editors who have left comments here have noted, inclusion of additional content citing reliable and independent sources rather than removal is what is warranted per WP:NPOVHOW if there is a concern about undue weight given to a single source that is otherwise considered to be reliable.

With respect to the prominence of placement concern raised, MOS:LEADREL says "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject" and "Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not [sic] covered in the remainder of the article". If the lead section explicitly refers to the organization as public broadcaster or state media, it may not be necessary to include the MJRC classification there although I think that depends on how well-developed the article is. I do not think "Reception" would be an appropriate name for a separate section per MOS:SECTIONHEAD (and MOS:AT by extension) because it is not always clear what reception means if the media organization in question is a broadcaster, since reception could be a reference to what geographic area receives its broadcasting signals and the size of its audience rather than being an evaluation of its content (like on the Radio New Zealand article).

@Masem: If you have WP:NPOV or WP:RS concerns with my editing to on articles about other topics, then I think you should open a different section on this Noticeboard or WP:RSN per WP:TALK#USE because most of what you said in your comment is unrelated to the topic of this specific section. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on images containing Islamic honorifics or calligraphy

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#RfC on images containing Islamic honorifics or calligraphy, offering various proposals on the text of MOS:CALLIGRAPHY. Editors are kindly invited to comment there.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Outlaws

A merger discussion is actively taking place at Talk:Denver Outlaws and article is fully protected to allow the discussion to reach consensus. Notification of editors should happen on the editor's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@AFC Vixen== Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Denver Outlaws. Thank you. The user is making biased edits on the Denver Outlaws Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_Outlaws. They have repeatedly reverted my edits, despite the fact that the PLL has clearly outlined how they want the Outlaws to be discussed in relation to Chrome LC.

A primary source for this information comes from the Founder, CEO, and President of the PLL, as stated in this official video: [[22]].

Their edits are not aligned with the official statements from the league and are presenting a biased narrative. Can an administrator review this issue? Emoore2914 (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr. Simone Gold Wikipedia page

I just read this Wikipedia article and find it to be completely biased and contains much information that is untrue. Dr. Gold was arrested by the FBI on information that was untrue, and her actions were actually caught on cameras in the building, showing that she was not involved in any of the activities of January 6th. Dr. Gold held views that were contrary to the Administration's view on COVID vaccines, and was charged with felony crimes that were unrelated to her activities on that day. It turns out that current scientific research backs her then views on COVID vaccines. Dr. Gold was facing 20 years in prison which would have cost her her medical and law licenses and her organization. She was offered a plea deal of a misdemeanor which should have meant no prison time and possibly a fine. Misdemeanor crimes never result in prison time, but in this case she was sentenced by a judge who had dated her in college and should have recused himself, but instead sentenced her to 60 days in a maximum security prison. You can view her side of events, including video evidence of her activities, in a YouTube interview she gave. Frankly, the completely biased article on Wikipedia is embarrassing, and has no business being on a website that claims neutrality and information only. This is a wholly political article that should not be allowed on a site that makes the claims that Wikipedia makes. Ghostrider1948 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Gold was arrested by the FBI on information that was untrue, and her actions were actually caught on cameras in the building, showing that she was not involved in any of the activities of January 6th. One of the charges on which Gold was arrested, to which she ultimately pleaded guilty, was unlawfully entering the Capitol Building. You can't say both that it didn't happen and that it was caught on camera in the same sentence!

Misdemeanor crimes never result in prison time. According to our article on misdemeanors, In the United States, misdemeanors are typically crimes with a maximum punishment of 12 months of incarceration ... People who are convicted of misdemeanors are often punished with ... short jail term, or part-time incarceration.

What Gold says on YouTube is not a reliable source: obviously most people are incentivised to minimise their involvement in crimes! Her statements in interviews are usable here, if at all, only to source the fact that she said what she said in those interviews. Do you have any reliable sources to support the changes you want to make? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sambhaji

Sambhaji and its talk page have been locked so I am posting this here. Please feel free to move this discussion to Talk:Sambhaji.

I am not a right-winger Hindu and I am *not* opposed to negative portrayal of Sambhaji on Wikipedia. But I'm afraid to say that the Wikipedia article fails to live up to the project's standards of neutrality and verifiability. Just one example -

The lead claims that "Maratha soldiers raped Christian women and later sold captured men and women to Arabs and the Dutch." The reference cited (Stewart Gordon p 106) does not mention anything like this.
This claim comes from a Portuguese Christian missionary (Padre Francisco de Souza), and appears in a book by Pissurlencar (cited elsewhere in the article), who does not present it as a fact. No mainstream historian - Hindu or otherwise - states this as a fact, but the Wikipedia article chooses to present this Colonial Portuguese Christian missionary propaganda as some kind of undisputed historical fact, that too, in the lead without a source.
Such undue weight for an unattributed claim by a colonial missionary is unwarranted. Biographies of other leaders whose soldiers are *confirmed* to have committed rapes don't follow this lead convention. Winston Churchill's lead doesn't say "In 1945, his soldiers invaded Germany and raped German women". Barack Obama's lead doesn't say "During his tenure, US soldiers killed and raped civilians in Asia" (referring to Maywand District murders, Kandahar massacre etc.)
The claim does deserve a mention in the article body, but the article goes overboard with WP:OVERQUOTING:
"These enemies were so barbarous that when a woman appeared very beautiful (lit., best) to them, five or six of them violated her by lying with that woman alone, Up to now nowhere else in India has such barbarity been seen, nor even among the Kafris (Negroes). For this reason, many women of Margaon ... threw themselves into pools, where they died of drowning. Others who bravely resisted the lewd intentions of some of the enemy soldiers, were killed with strokes of the broadsword, and of some others the breasts were cut off.
Why does the article body need a 100-word quote from a colonial Christian missionary who thinks that "Negroes" are prone to barbarity? Why not also also include other 100-word quotes from native Marathi authors who glorify Sambhaji? If the answer is neutrality, that we should omit the missionary's quote as well.

Father de Souza's claims being presented as facts is just one example and the article has many such issues. The edits come from a mix of rather well-intentioned editors attempting to counter Hindutva right-wingers (but losing objectivity and neutrality in process), the well-known Rajput brigade attempting to showcase the rival caste of Marathas in a poor light, and the usual saviors bent on portraying Indian men as gang-rapists.

This article needs some uninvolved editors to check that every sentence meets neutrality guidelines such as Attributing and specifying biased statements and Due and undue weight. 2607:FEA8:5943:3700:A915:44E1:9196:8080 (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geography map dispute

On the Geography page, a map is using The World Factbook as a source (attached). The previous map was a derivative of it from 2015, however the World Factbook has changed boundaries and @User:Interstellarity added a map using boundaries from 2023. @M.Bitton disagrees with the decision of the U.S. government to make the changes, and is insisting on an outdated map based on their point of view. Discussion last year on the talk page suggested changing to a different data source, specifically the UN, but that has not happened. M.Bitton has templated the section as disputed NPOV due to their disagreement with the change in the underlying dataset in protest.The borders from the previous map had numerous disputes on them, and the UN boundaries are disputed by multiple countries. This argument could therefore apply equally to almost any map showing borders. As borders are inherently based on the point of view of the organization drawing the, the only way to resolve this is to include the source and date in the description of a map, otherwise this template can be applied by any editor who disagrees with the stance of the organization that publishes the boundaries we use for a map. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As repeated more times than I care to remember, the map that was replaced is a derivative (last updated in 2024) and a more accurate one than the one that was updated by the CIA in 2023 to include the latest US pov (that wipes out an entire country because Trump decided so). This has nothing to do with a border here and there (as presented above), this is about facts and GeogSage is yet to provide a valid reason for why we should prefer a map that is factually incorrect over one that isn't. Their The United States is a Superpower excuse doesn't hold much water when it comes to facts. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles: "Similar to other types of sources, maps should not be self-published sources, and the reliability of the publisher should be considered before use. Maps directly derived from government surveys, GIS data and aerial or satellite images are generally reliable. Maps made by commercial interests for promotion of business may not be reliable. Online maps should be treated the same as web sources, listing both the date the cartography was completed (if known) and the date the information was accessed, as online content can frequently change." Your disagreement with the 2023 change does not make it "factually incorrect." The World Factbook is not a fringe source, as long as the data source is noted and dated, I don't see any reason to use an older version besides it better conforming to your world view. We could change sources, but no source would avoid all disputes. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I feel like the discussion on the talk page has gotten so heated. I'm hoping that we can stay calm and find a solution that makes everyone happy. Many past issues have found resolutions, so I am hoping that we can find a resolution here. I also requested a third opinion that I am waiting to hear back from. Hopefully, we can resolve things quickly and efficiently. Interstellarity (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the essay that you're quoting, WP:NPOV is a policy that I suggest you read. M.Bitton (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason they are resorting to personal attacks is because they can't justify the introduction of factually incorrect information in the article (violating NPOV in every possible way for no reason whatsoever since the article is not about the US view of the word). M.Bitton (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding personal attacks, I'm still waiting for you to list evidence for the very serious accusations you levied against me on my talk page, and on the geography talk page. I don't know what about my comment comes off as an attack to you besides not agreeing with you, and I'd really like for an explanation as you felt it necessary to template me. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Factbook is not a fringe source the recent map that it published most certainly is since it is factually incorrect (a whole country is missing) and contradicted by most RS. In other words, the 2023 map is the definition of FRINGE. M.Bitton (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, which country is missing? Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed territory of Western Sahara has been added to Morocco. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. So, as a note, this issue may be peripherally associated with the Israel / Palestine CTOP due to the given reason for US recognition of the Moroccan claim so I would recommend all involved editors be particularly careful of Ps and Qs. Excluding a country with disputed recognition for realpolitik reasons isn't exactly fringe but using a map that replicates this American POV certainly is non-neutral. I would recommend using the UN maps - even if they aren't as aesthetic. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that no map is "neutral" when it comes to drawing borders, the previous one has border disputes on it, and the UN ones have disputed borders. For example, this one is missing a label for Taiwan despite having labels for Guam, Western Sahara, and symbols demarcating the Gaza strip and West Bank. Any map on Wikipedia showing international borders will have this problem, for example if any is noted to have the Nine-dash line on it, we are using something that has Chinese POV. Citing sources for the boundaries and dating the map is really the only solution. The page is Geography, and the map is supposed to just be an example of a world map. It should ideally be an aesthetic map to illustrate what a world map looks like, that is the main priority. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetic sensibility is relative though. Disputed borders are not. The UN is a more neutral source than the USA for disputed borders. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, we could then apply this to maps across Wikipedia that are using non-UN sources for their international borders, and even UN borders are still disputed. It would be quite the quagmire to insist on one source for all maps on Wikipedia, and the CIA world factbook has been considered a reliable source for quite a long time. I'm not sure how cited it is on Wikipedia, but would not want to track down an alternative source that is as comprehensive. Citing where we got the boundaries is the only solution. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the CIA is reliable. The question is whether this map is neutral in a general context. In my opinion, no, it is not, for the reasons I have already addressed.Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By your criteria, we could not choose ANY map that shows political boundaries… because NO world map shows every dispute. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The US government is becoming less reliable as a source by the day. Are we to keep using CIA maps when they change the gulf of Mexico to the gulf of America etc.? It needs to change, but the UN maps are quite ugly. Maybe we can use a map with no borders drawn on it so we don't have to have this discussion again? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Place names for physical features are really not as significant as country boundaries, if we're using U.S. sources I'd change it for consistency. I've worked on a lot of projects spanning large time periods, and the only consistency is change when it comes to this kind of thing. For example, Councils of governments in Connecticut have superseded List of counties in Connecticut. The United States has a lot of sources of spatial data that are used in a lot of areas. I guess I'd support removing borders completely, but that argument could be applied to most of Wikipedia then when it comes to world maps. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While a map without marked borders is certainly neutral I would suggest no strong rationale beyond personal preference has been presented for using US sources. Regardless, I think the map that disregards disputed areas not recognized by the USA is equivalently non-neutral in a general context to a map showing the nine dash line and should be avoided. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of maps using US sources for boundaries on Wikipedia. The main rationale is that the datasets have been made widely available and are extremely easy to use, and represent one major world view from an authoritative source. We used the CIA World Factbook fairly widely, and it is only the latest update that is causing this. It is important to cite sources on boundaries because of this, but we have many maps in the commons that don't do that. There are many maps across the project using CIA World Factbook boundaries, or other boundaries that are also disputed. Would these all need to be changed, across all pages, to one set of borders? The geography page is just using it as an example of a world map, and the World Factbook one is public domain and a good example of what a world map looks like. There isn't really a solution to the border problem besides citing sources. Look at search results for World Maps on Wikimedia, you'll see a lot of the world factbook, and a lot of uncited maps. A broad decision like this could be disruptive overall. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what you seem to think (The United States is a Superpower), the US is not the centre of the universe. M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did not have a problem with using the CIA World Factbook boundary files until you disagreed with them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I didn't because before that, it was closer to the UN's. Did the world change (a new country emerge or disappear) since then? No. The only thing that changed is the position of the US. M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would these all need to be changed, across all pages, to one set of borders? Sounds like an all-or-nothing argument. We can address POV problems on this one page without overturning community consensus on the entire project. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very high level page, and the problem is on other pages. I would want whatever decisions we come up with to be applied consistently across other maps, or instances where these same maps are being used on other projects. Updating a map that has been on a page for a few years to reflect changes in the underlying source shouldn't be controversial; if the source was appropriate and stable before, the update should not change that. The editor blocking the update didn't think the POV was a problem until it didn't align with their world view, has maintained a "Derivative" product (top image) based on the world factbook without updating boundaries, claimed the map has been "kept up to date," and blocked attempts to update it for a year despite a previous discussion last February that indicated it should be replaced with either something else or an updated map. Their problem is a personal disagreement with the update itself, and picking and choosing which version of a source we use based on our personal opinion is not neutral, and can play out any time we try to update any map with a boundary file. As noted below, this is not the only location where the editor has pushed against updates to files when it comes to this issue. Many, if not most, of the existing world maps on Wikipedia are using U.S. state department boundary files. This is likely because they are the best widely available and most easily accessible ones you can get online. Older ones are used on the World map and map pages as well for examples of general reference maps, and they need to be updated as well. The map I linked on smoking is using an outdated set of boundaries. I'd like to be able to update maps/pages with relatively consistent boundaries/maps. I don't particularly care as long as we're using the most up to date ones when they are available to keep consistent with the source. Picking and choosing which version of a source we use based on our personal opinion is not neutral, and can play out any time we try to update any map. That is what we have had for over a year now, and the editor is blocking anything besides changes that conform to their POV. Changing the map figure to something else entirely is certainly an option, but this is not an isolated problem on the project, and whatever decision we make should be applied across several pages that have the same situation/figures. Why wouldn't a consensus on figures and appropriate boundary sources on a high level page apply to those same figures/maps on other pages? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you keep personalizing the discussion, I'll be very honest with you: your problem is that you think that the US is centre of the universe, and its president the almighty (whose POV everyone has to bow to).

The rest is just the usual WP:AON way out. M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the U.S. Government made boundary files available for free, and that has resulted in their widespread adoption here and across the internet, academia, and in general cartography. We have used the boundaries here for over a decade without issue, as long as we cite the source it is clear that they represent the U.S. world view. Not updating those maps to reflect the changes in the underlying data isn't neutral, it is imposing our opinions on the change in the source. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is being used to show how the US government uses maps, or for US claims (attributed) it would be fine, but not for any other uses as the USA is not the world. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every map would reflect a POV. The disappeared country is West Sahara and its disappearance reflect the changed US policy. However *showing* it separately reflects a different POV. There is no reason to privilege one over the other. You may argue that more countries don't recognise the change, but on the other hand, the situation on the ground is much more close to the new map, with Morocco controlling most of West Sahara. Why should we privilege de jure borders over de facto ones?

Since every set on boundaries we'd draw would represent a POV it's better to use the latest CIA map and clearly attribute it. Alaexis_¿question? 15:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It would be better to use a map designed by non-state-affiliated academics. Failing that a map from an international body like the UN is preferable. Asking "isn't it better to use the CIA bias?" implies the CIA bias is somehow preferable to other POVs. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UN 'disappears' countries too. Every map does. The 2015 CIA map does. The issue in question seems to be which particular version CIA map to use. If it's a general example of a current map, then the latest should be used, not whichever particular time point best meets a particular editor's POV. CMD (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but one cannot compare the UN to a single country (or to be precise, the unilateral decision of a passing president). M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire map is the decisions of past Presidents, and you can indeed compare the UN to any other body. CMD (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"body" is the magic word. The US is a single country (headed by a president who decides which country exists, which one should belong to the US, which sea should be renamed and which territory should become a Golf course) that cannot and will never be compared to an international organization such as the UN. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UN explicitly labels every single map it produces with a long disclaimer stating that it doesn't endorse any of those borders. The magic term here is Western Sahara, which brings particular POVs regarding how it should be displayed. CMD (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a problem with Western Sahara (that you labelled as the "magic word")?

The UN's disclaimer is one more proof that it will always be more reliable than the CIA and the reason why its map us used by others, such as the World Bank, etc. M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd question. Do you have a problem with Taiwan or Somaliland? CMD (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd question. Did I suggest that they were "magic terms" like you did (like you did)? No. M.Bitton (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have very strongly advocated for maps excluding them immediately above. The initial mention of magic words came from you, and the reason Western Sahara is the key word here is because you have a very strong POV on the matter, which has now apparently led to a significant dispute over a simple update of a map to a newer version. This is not the only time you have disrupted maps due to your preferred Western Sahara border display, the last time I recall is the slow edit war you carried out at File:Greater Middle East (orthographic projection).svg where for a year you reinserted very obvious errors such as deleting Eritrea and dividing Yemen (changes which pushed the map much further away from the apparently preferred UN-style one) to try and get the version of the Western Sahara borders you wanted. CMD (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense! Commons has its own rules that everyone has to abide by (the concerned one is called "COM:OVERWRITE"). That's how Commons work, end of. Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are you trying to personalize it just for the sake of it? M.Bitton (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they have a very strong POV on NPOV compliance for this issue. It would look the same. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COM:OVERWRITE does not explain your actions. You did not revert the map to the initial version, and in the end uploaded a version with many changes from the original. That is plainly evident, not a provocation. It's evident in similar changes, like this (noting in this one, where the original borders did not reflect your POV, you overwrote the file despite COM:OVERWRITE). Similar to the discussion here where you did not explicitly state the concern was Western Sahara until I raised it, you do decline to actually mention Western Sahara in an edit summary, but it is a very clear thread connecting all these edits. CMD (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second example was approved by a COMMONS admin. In any case, I don't owe an explanation of any sort and if you're still not happy, you take it to COMMONS and make your case there. Good luck to you.

Back to our discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new reason. It's not an isolated case however. File:Italy Morocco Locator.svg was also overwritten to show a different version, despite the appeals here to COM:OVERWRITE. This is a very consistent pattern, and this discussion is part of it. If you do not wish to explain the pattern, that's your prerogative, but the pattern has apparently led to disruption at the Geography article for a year. CMD (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert it and I will upload a new one. Happy days.

The only consistent pattern here is your utter disregard for NPOV. Care to explain what you have against one of our core policies? M.Bitton (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel COM:OVERWRITE is the "end of", you should self-revert. If you do not, you should clarify the earlier statement. There's no core policy which dictates the selective adherence to policies based on your personal political beliefs. Geogsage has clearly explained, as have others, the issues with the peculiar interpretation of NPOV here. It should be axiomatically clear that pushing a preferred view of a territorial dispute is not trying to uphold NPOV. That said, it isn't a unique occurence, similar issues occur regularly with Taiwan, Kosovo, and others. That's the reason behind the COM:OVERWRITE policy. CMD (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, unlike those who, for reasons that reason cannot explain, have a very strong POV for non compliance with NPOV. M.Bitton (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a map designed by non-state-affiliated academics that is authoritative. States gain their recognition We can argue forever about who's bias is better, but when drawing boundaries, there is always a bias and dispute. There are a lot of maps used on Wikipedia with different boundary files, and in academic publishing non-state-affiliated academics will pick a set of boundaries appropriate to their study area and time, and cite them. We have a lot of maps on Wikipedia and sister projects that use various boundary files, changing all of them to one source would be difficult and not really neutral as we would be picking a world view and asserting it as the official one of Wikipedia. Using and citing the CIA world factbooks world map as a public domain example of a world map is as reasonable as anything else. Not updating the maps because we disagree with the source we have been using for a long time is in itself a bias. Sovereign states recognition by other states is one of the ways we can identify them, and the U.S. has extreme diplomatic influence; recognition by the U.S. of a state or annexation is not an insignificant thing on the international stage. This is a major geography page, so decisions made on what figures we use may influence the rest of the project. I'd prefer to just use well cited up to date boundary files, regardless of where they are sourced from, to avoid setting a precedent that can be applied site wide. For example, the map in this comment is from 2009, updated in 2013. It shows "Number of cigarettes smoked per adult per year" and uses the CIA world factbook as sources for population data. A person creating a similar map for data today should use the most up to date data and boundaries, but a blanket insistence on one or the other would cause problems. The 2009 image has many disputed borders on it as well, but is considered a "valued image" on commons. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what?Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

up to date boundary files you mean up to date POV of the US president.

the U.S. has extreme diplomatic influence you seem to be confusing it with the almighty (with the power to turn facts into fiction and vice versa). M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV compliance is mandatory. That should rule out any map that includes a completely obvious NPOV violation like this one, unless it is being used to illustrate the position of the party that produced the map. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All maps are not neutral, and illustrate the position of the party that produced it. I am being serious when I say I can bring in a few dozen peer-reviewed publications based on Critical cartography and Critical geography that discuss how there is no NPOV when making a map, that all maps are being used to illustrate the position of the party that produced the map, and pretending there is a more objective set of lines is disingenuous. That thread is very in the weeds when it comes to the practical applications of making maps here. The reality is we use CIA World Factbook data and maps based on U.S. state department boundaries across the project, and have done so for over a decade. Wikipedia:Reliable Sources states "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." The source has widespread use, and the old boundaries are superseded, updating the maps to reflect that is basic maintenance. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another wall of text won't change what you already said and believe in (highlighted above in green). You can add The United States is a Superpower to that for a more complete picture of what you insist on using something that violates NPOV. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have a problem with the U.S. boundaries until you didn't agree with them, and you have continued to use outdated versions of those borders while claiming the maps are up-to-date. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition usually signals the end of the discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've been repeating yourself on this since last February while defending an set of boundaries that have been superseded by the source, and claiming your derivative boundaries are "up-to-date". GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There (you can't miss it). M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disputing that the US Government has changed the boundary files we use? Wikipedia:No original research: "Original images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy." Your image derivative appears to "synthesize material found in a primary source yourself" in my opinion, and the argument these boundaries are "up-to-date" seems to be your own unpublished idea of what the world boundaries look like, or an argument for what you think they should be. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that old CIA maps are not original research? worldometers, for instance, uses the 2013 version. M.Bitton (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"A derivative of the 2015 and 2021 CIA maps that is kept up to date -names of places- and was last updated in 2024", as your caption reads, is not a single old CIA map, and it is not "up to date" if you don't actually update the boundary files. You were fine with the previous map, but disagree with the current one. This is your POV and you're entitled to it, however it does not mean we should avoid updating our maps. The use of these outdated boundary files is widespread on Wikipedia, and if someone updates those maps to reflect changes, it is not less neutral then the old maps using the same source. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Updating the names of places doesn't constitute OR. The rest has been addressed (here, here, here, as well as other comments), so I see no reason to repeat it ad nauseam. M.Bitton (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have selectively updated a map that is synthesized from two separate sources, while not applying the update the official source has published, and claimed the product is up to date. That is OR enough to try and get the methods and products published in a cartography journal, though I doubt it would pass peer review. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many maps made by non-state-affiliated academics. Each reflects a certain POV

.. Alaexis_¿question? 22:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of arguing about this for a map which is not essential to the Geography article, just pick a map without this issue. Either a historical map, or one from a corner of the world without any disputed borders - there are plenty to choose from. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We had discussed options last year for exactly that on the geography talk page, but never came to a consensus other then that we wanted to change the existing one. The bigger issue here is that this problem extends to multiple pages, any map that uses the U.S. state department boundaries could be reasonably updated with the more current boundaries. I'd like to address the root of the problem so I can apply it on other pages like Map (where we are using the same outdated figure(s) disputed here) without having to discuss it every time. This is an important discussion to have from a cartographic perspective, and there is a lot of literature on this problem in Critical cartography, Critical geography, Counter-mapping, Collaborative mapping, and Neogeography. The issue hasn't been addressed really by Wikipedia, so here we are with an update to the base boundaries many/most of our world maps use without a good solution. Not addressing the problem here only kicks the can a bit, and the editor who has blocked the updates is maintaining a user generated derivative map based on the old boundaries and calling them up to date. They have also blocked updates on other maps based on their POV. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. Last year, we agreed to either add the UN map or do what MrOllie has suggested (something that you suggested).

I also suggest you read the WP:NPOV policy to have a better understanding of what it means. M.Bitton (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of looks like it's WP:1AM. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't do that though, and never actually arrived at a consensus. A year later, you're still blocking editors from updating your map with an updated version without replacing it. The outdated map is on multiple pages, and addressing it here doesn't change that it would be correct to update it on those pages as well. Even if we can swap a map in on Geography, it does not address the widespread issue of outdated boundaries. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are in the appropriate board, so I suggest you concentrate on this, and ideally, read what the others have said. M.Bitton (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're supposed to have a NPOV. If we only have a single map we're better having disagrements in it rather than taking a single point of view. I don't think just attributing it to a single country like the US is good enough. The UN is better but it is still beset by politics. So I'd go with the opinions of the various areas and only leave out fringe opinions like those people in Germany or the US that declare the land or ship or whatever they own is an independent country. NadVolum (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the List of territorial disputes, there are very few sets of boundaries we can use to show any region that would satisfy all parties. Maps, by their nature, are not neutral. All we can do, if we want to include maps showing political boundaries, is document the source of the boundaries we are using and the date they were published. This is a problem in academic cartography that is discussed at length in several textbooks and journals. Book I could recommend on this is How to Lie with Maps (note, article is originated by me, so it might reflect my biases/opinions on the matter). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can show both sides' boundary according to them. NadVolum (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a "both sides," there are 14 sides in the America's alone, and at least 39 disputes in Asia, according to our list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant to the fact that the 2023 map is fringe. M.Bitton (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying the 2023 map is fringe, but that is really not the case. the opinion of a global super power and member of the UN Security Council is not what I would call "Fringe." Countries have different official diplomatic stances on the recognition of other countries, that doesn't make the views "fringe." There are at least 26 territorial disputes in Africa, none of the maps are "fringe," just differing perspectives. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what dotted lines and "disputed territory" labels are for. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maps, by their nature, are not neutral. there is a difference between the neutrality that you're referring to and the neutrality of Wikipedia. If some content (including a map) happens to be fringe (such as the 2023 map), then it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia, except perhaps in an article that discusses its fringe view. M.Bitton (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the map and start an RfC on which map we should use. (If we can use the UN map as fair use, that would be my preference as it seems most likely to accomplish NPOV.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The UN map is in the public domain. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this move. Remove the map as it is subject to a good faith NPOV dispute and the editor who wants a map do an RfC on which one should be used. Cartography uses a very old map. Using a historical map helps avoid NPOV issues with appearing to take a side in a conflict like the dispute over Western Sahara. Dw31415 (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about two options for a map in geography. First option and this one will probably be the least controversial, is to use an iconic historical map similar to how we use an iconic image of Earth in the infobox. Second option is to use the most up-to-date world map that we can find that details things like countries and that sort of thing. There are people that ask questions about the neutrality of a map, but I feel these concerns can definitely be addressed should that new map be chosen. I'm open to any options we throw out in this discussion, so I'm hoping to get the conversation going to figure out something that makes everyone happy. Interstellarity (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think using an iconic historical map (and specifying its provenance and date) is a fine solution, assuming that such a map can be found that meets the needs of the section in question (a map showing both physical features and political boundaries to illustrate overlapping fields in geography). Of course that map too will express a point of view, a problem that is not solved by using either the US or the UN's map of the moment. But as we can agree there's no reason to show a recent map, why not just show an older World Factbook map that does include Western Sahara? As long as the date of the map is included (as it is at present), it will still perform the function of illustrating different fields of Geography.

But this whole discussion is silly, exactly as @GeogSage pointed out in the opening comment. The point is to have a map that shows both political boundaries and physical features. It's not making a claim that those political boundaries are the correct ones (and I do not believe that any reasonable reader will think so). The UN also affords recognition to some partially recognised states and not others, why would those foreign policy choices be considered any "more" neutral? As long as it's sourced, there is no WP:NPOV concern. Discussions of WP:FRINGE are also misplaced - as the essay WP:FRINGENOT points out, Issues unrelated to scholarship and science, then, cannot be fringe despite being minor viewpoints or widely opposed. In those cases, WP:UNDUE in the appropriate policy. The offended political sensibilities here are just out of place - and even if I think an older map would satisfy them, but I don't see why editors' time is being taken up with such nakedly political preferences. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the point is simply to illustrate, then there is no reason why an older CIA map shouldn't be used (this one for instance is fairly close to the UN's and has been stable for a long time, except for the addition of South Sudan). If, on the other hand, the idea is to show the latest US pov (because the United States is a Superpower), then there is a problem.

It's not making a claim it is. The major change in the CIA maps was done in order to account for the recent US view. The next one will relabel the Gulf of Mexico and god knows what else.

As long as it's sourced, there is no WP:NPOV concern that's not what the NPOV policy says.

As to whether the new one is fringe (which is part and parcel of the NPOV policy) or undue (likewise), it doesn't really matter since it boils down to the same thing when dealing with content (including the use of imagery) that contradicts most RS. M.Bitton (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia can have a map that disputes Canada’s sovereignty in a year if the CIA decides to play along with Trump's saber rattling over our water and hockey team. Basically, at this point, the US government is not a reliable source for geography. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, at this point, the US government is not a reliable source for geography. is quite the POV statement, and not one I would be comfortable making without an overwhelming number of reliable sources to counterbalance the number of sources that make use of the U.S. boundaries. Fundamentally, the objection to updating the boundaries here is political, and what should be very basic maintenance is being blocked because of associations with Trump, the broader Israel-Palestine conflict, or other political discourse I'm not aware of. There are several international disputes on the previous several iterations of boundaries, and they have widespread use on Wikipedia, and as we move forward in time, those maps will all need to be brought up to date. In an academic or professional setting, boundaries require a citation and justification, and any disputes brought up by a map user can be directed to the source. Failing to use the most up to date boundaries would requires justification, and declaring a source that has been reliable for decades unreliable requires justification. A shift in Wikipedia policy to view the new boundaries as generally unreliable after over a decade using the source is not neutral, and would require some substantial discussion from the project as a whole as that has some pretty broad implications. As @Samuelshraga said, in this case a famous historic map could satisfy the local dispute, like the 1733 figure from Geographia Generalis I included, or one of Ptolemy's maps. More broadly, (and the answer I need as someone who has made maps for Wikimedia and wants to make more in the future), are we going to block every user, on every page, from updating U.S. state department borders? If we insist on UN borders here (or any other source), do all our maps require an asterisk if they don't use another set? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The political dispute in question is that the United States agreed to recognize Morocco's disputed claim to Western Sahara in exchange for Morocco normalizing relations with Israel. The problem is that this creates a specific US government POV regarding those boundaries. If a map with boundaries is required it should ideally come from a non-state-aligned academic or, barring that, from an international organization in order to be as neutral as possible. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the point is simply to illustrate, then there is no reason why an older CIA map shouldn't be used. As I said, I agree with reference to the local dispute, but I don't know why editors' political preferences should be catered to in this way. Anyway, I'm sure some older map is going to have - or lack - some marking for Kosovo, North Cyprus, Transnistria or one of I don't know how many other entities that some people recognise as a state and others don't. Or implicitly take a position on some border dispute. So if a map used as an illustration has to also show a Wikipedia:NPOV on all of the political boundaries it shows, then Wikipedia basically can't have maps with political borders. Certainly not world maps.

The major change in the CIA maps was done in order to account for the recent US view. The next one will relabel the Gulf of Mexico and god knows what else. Ok, and how are we going to come down on the Sea of Japan? Persian or Arabian Gulf? Falkland Islands or Malvinas? What's the "Neutral" answer to these disputes?

Wikipedia:IMGCONTENT says that "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." The fact that a world map implicitly takes a side on political disputes is unavoidable, no matter the provenance. If we want to use world maps illustratively, we should just note the source and date, no other action is needed. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why .. that's because you think that As long as it's sourced, there is no WP:NPOV concern (which is obviously at odds with the NPOV policy).

how are we going to come down on.. the same way we do for everything else (using our policies, guidelines, etc.). The rest of your comment about what is "neutral" revolves around the misunderstanding of NPOV.

I agree with reference to the local dispute this is all that matters in this case. M.Bitton (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So your position is that WP:NPOV means no political map on Wikipedia can ever omit Western Sahara, which I read here is recognised by 46 UN member states? Can you point me to what in the NPOV policy I'm missing? And why if we use an older map somebody else who is partisan for Morocco/against Western Sahara wouldn't be able to come and make the same argument for the opposite conclusion? Samuelshraga (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My previous comment says it all. M.Bitton (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice re debates over maps and images… it helps to focus on the positive rather than the negative. Instead of arguing that a current map/image is “bad”… find another map/image and discuss why you think that map/image is better. We almost always support replacing “good” images with “better” images. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The map we have is a user generated derivative set of boundaries, and the map that is proposed is up to date with the source the current image is using. A more up to date source is better, in my opinion. The issue is there is political disagreement with the updated boundaries. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeat of the same personal opinion that isn't based on any policy is not going to get us nowhere. Please give others the chance to weigh in without your bludgeoning. M.Bitton (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-admin comment): I love that these two editors are so passionate about getting the right maps on the page. I’d encourage both editors to argue the merits of their positions a little more (as if to third editors) and talk at each other a little less. In my opinion, it’s probably time for an RfC but I’ll re-review and give some thought to it. Dw31415 (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, professionally one of my major research focuses is cartographic ethics and the web, and fixing up the geography page up over time has been a passion project of mine. I really would like to work on getting very strong sets of guidelines for maps on the project at the policy level, and RfC sounds like the only place we could ever set those policies. Outside this issue, there are several basic cartographic conventions that are not enforced in any meaningful way. Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps states "As maps can be politically charged, it is important to cite your sources and/or your methodology when editing or creating any map. This is particularly true for historical maps," and gives the source Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Source materials for map sources. The essay Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles goes into detail on the topic, but it is an essay so will be rapidly dismissed. Consistent rules on appropriate use of thematic map types, different projections, and boundary files would be the three main areas I think would need attention. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair to say that the US position about boundary issues is, in some cases, at odds with the vast majority of countries in the world. Its position on the Golan Heights and Jerusalem are good examples. Therefore I would not recommend using a US government map except to show the US position. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this will be true for ANY map. Any map that is chosen will reflect the political stance of the country producing it.

If the purpose is simply to illustrate what a “typical” political map contains, perhaps the solution is to present a map that is intentionally out of date… say a map from the 1950s. The caption can state when it was created and note that it is outdated. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is starting to remind me of one of my five favorite Borges shorts: On Exactitude in Science. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the On Exactitude in Science article should be an exact copy of the text of On Exactitude in Science. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Borges has entered the public domain then we could potentially put an exact copy of the text of On Exactitude in Science into the article. It's very short. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked. We have until 2056. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing this, I had not heard of this short story and will be using it in the classroom! All maps are models, abstractions of reality. All models are wrong, but some are useful. A map that doesn't use abstraction and cartographic generalization, that is a 1 to 1 scale, wouldn't be a map, it would be a copy. There are several ways to address this problem, one piece of literature to throw in is Ethics and Map Design: Six Strategies for Confronting the Traditional One-Map Solution, as we are currently encountering the "Traditional One-Map Soultion." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you or your students might be interested in how the Boyle Family model and map the world at various scales, including 1 to 1. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has used data from US governmental institutions because for the most part they have been uncontroversial. Other sources should always have been used, this is enwiki not usgovwiki, but those sources were handy and easy to get. The problem arises when those sources are no longer uncontroversial, when instead they represent information in a way that has been politicised. In this case the change in question happened because it fits with a US diplomatic effort, but that means it no longer represents the generally accepted view of the international community. No map is perfect, in fact all maps are political in nature, all those 20th century map showing areas of linguistic use come to mind. But that doesn't mean Wikipedia should just give up and use any map. The same issue in found in all sources of data, to go down that route is to just give up on WP:NPOV.
To paraphrase "All major view found in reliable sources, presented fairly and proportionally", using a map that only presents one view of a contested area is very obviously a failure of that goal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does that not also go for the maps that present one view of say, Taiwan or Somaliland? Because if so we can't use... most maps. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the community has been very resistant to displaying maps of Russian and Ukraine that show something different to the 2014 borders. With regards to this discussion, all maps presented do "only presents one view of a contested area". We haven't seen one in this discussion that shows more than one view, which I suppose would require two sets of dotted lines. The assertion that Wikipedia uses data from US governmental institutions because they are uncontroversial isn't true as far as I've seen, Wikipedia uses maps in particular from US governmental institutions because they are public domain. User generated maps seem to draw data from a variety of sources. CMD (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes being public domain makes them easy to use, the fact that they haven't been objected to shows they were uncontroversial.
Also yes the maps we use of other places should show contested territory, the exact same way that the text in the article should. Just because it's an image doesn't mean it gets an exemption from NPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear that doesn't necessarily mean that we should show Ukraine as being part of Russia, that would be FALSEBALANCE. Rather maps should show the mainstream general concensus. For instance in this case that Western Sahara is fully part of Morocco is unsupported by the general consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have been objected to before though, this isn't a new occurrence. They're not usually used. For example, the Factbook maps show Taiwan as part of China, something maps used on en.wiki generally tend not to do. Saying maps should show contested territory but also saying this could be FALSEBALANCE does not create a very clear or coherent space. Whether something is contested is usually reasonably binary, it's contested or it isn't. There's no general consensus that a contested territory is not contested. On the example, it seems a safe assumption that there is no general consensus that the Western Sahara is a country, under various definitions of general consensus. However, the position being advanced and treated here as the alternative, that there is a country called Western Sahara, is not even common enough to be examined as fringe. It's the view of precisely zero parties, from Morocco, to the Polisario front, to the UN. CMD (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Western Sahara is a country or a non-self-governing territory is irrelevant to the fact that it's separate from Morocco. As an aside, your "zero parties" claim is factually incorrect (I ignored it because I didn't want to pay attention to the straw man). 14:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The whole point of WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE is to avoid bothsidesism. For example, just because racists do have views doesn't mean that we should present their views (as another side), much less give them UNDUE weight. M.Bitton (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a curious definition of fact, but at any rate I do not think it is productive to follow through another argument treadmill, I write in reference to the second post of this thread which stated the issue was that the 2019 map "wipes out an entire country". CMD (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to what you wrote. M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to be clear for others that is what I was referring to by argument treadmill. CMD (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man springs to mind. M.Bitton (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this not also apply to China and Taiwan? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cited policies apply to everything. As always, the devil is in the details: which map are you referring to and what aprt of it are you disputing? M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would a map that shows either side of the Taiwan/China dispute be inappropriate for an article on geography? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the devil is in the details: which map are you referring to and what part of it are you disputing? M.Bitton (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either side, disputing Taiwan is its own country or disputing that it is China. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which map are you referring to? I insist on this because I see no point in comparing apples to oranges. M.Bitton (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not apples to oranges. You dispute the updated map of the US's claims because it shows the WS as Morocco and not its own country. The current map shows Taiwan as not a country. Is that not an equally contentious claim? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is comparing apples to oramges because, unlike WS which was erased, Taiwan is visible.

The current map shows Taiwan as not a country how did you come to that conclusion? M.Bitton (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because on both the political and physical maps it is shown as a province of China. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How could you tell that by looking at the physical map? M.Bitton (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because Taiwan is written in a different font, unlike every other country on the map? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the UN show it differently? M.Bitton (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would that matter, if it's erasing a country? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not erasing it (it's clearly visible), and second, it does matter as far as NPOV is concerned (the UN's map is widely used). M.Bitton (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think there would be a clear and coherent rule that will cover all the different situations? NPOV discussions are inherently complicated. Western Sahara may not a country (I have never said it was) but that it is fully part of Morocco is not a widely accepted fact. All I have said is that the situation in Western Sahara is contested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re ActivelyDisinterested I don't think there is a clear and coherent rule for all situations, hence my objection to suggestions there is one. That has been what GeogSage laid out at Talk:Geography. This is why assumptions such as "The problem arises when those sources are no longer uncontroversial, when instead they represent information in a way that has been politicised" are wrong, and do not reflect the actual issue at hand. All political geography maps are politicised. The 2015 map is political: Taiwan is contested, but is not displayed so on the map, Kosovo is contested, but is not displayed so on the map, and so on. (Winding back to clearness and coherentness, what you could have, and should have for NPOV, is a clear and coherent set of rules for a particular map [similar to how list articles define inclusion criteria]. This would require consideration of all issues at hand, rather than a singular focus on one border.) CMD (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreadimg my point, it's both coherent and clear. All maps are political, I said as much in my comment. The issue with the new CIA map is that is has been politicised in a way that is no longer compatible with NPOV. While such sources are compatible with NPOV they remain uncontroversial, and due to there ease of use get used more often than they really should.
Again to say "all maps are political" so we should use any old map is to give up on NPOV entirely, and is obviously unacceptable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarity ActivelyDisinterested. I suppose that makes clear the crux of the disagreement, which is that while you see the other aspects of US policy, such as a general portrayal of Taiwan as part of China as compatible with NPOV in some different way, I do not. What is not clear is the bases of that distinction. To me, that seems a somewhat arbitrary and systematically biased stance. CMD (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portrails of Taiwan on maps is generally less controversial whether a boarder exists or doesn't exist in the sea is mostly glossed over on maps. A much better example would be Kosovo where the existence of a border or how that border is portrayed is more obvious.
Also I've made no distinction, or even mentioned Taiwan, so you I wouldn't understand it either. If you want to discuss other issues I'm willing to, but you can't say my position on it is arbitrary or biased when I haven't stated any position. Maybe ask me before deciding what it is. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ActivelyDisinterested, I specifically raised this two comments above. I included in my reply to you, "The 2015 map is political: Taiwan is contested, but is not displayed so on the map". You replied, "All maps are political...The issue with the new [2019] CIA map is that is has been politicised in a way that is no longer compatible with NPOV". That reads as a clear statement that the previous map was compatible (unlike 2019) with NPOV. Given the display of Taiwan as part of China didn't change between 2015 and 2019 (the display of Kosovo is unchanged too), so I'm not sure how else to read your reply. CMD (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You brought Taiwan up, I didn't discuss it. If you want to go into asides you can, but I'm more interested in discussing the specific issue. My lack of engagement with an aspect of your argument doesn't mean you can construe what my position would be.
Read my reply as written without putting stuff into it that isn't there. If Kosovo isn't probably displayed in the old map the that map shouldn't be used either, as I've said repeatedly and will say again maps should comply with NPOV. If a previous map didn't agree with NPOV that's hardly my fault, nor is it in anyway a reason that a new non-NPOV map should be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would add no map is perfect, I missed the situation with Kosovo but I didn't notice that neither demark South Somalia correct. Noone's brought that up, because it's such a small issue that it isn't a big deal. As a map moves further and a further away from the general consensus of reliable sources it's use because more and more problematic. The next likely change to the CIA map could be something that no-one outside part of the US public agrees with, are you suggesting that no changes to the map would show it falls outside of NPOV? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an aside, it is the issue under discussion, the choices made by the map. I read your reply as a reply to my comment, which specifically said what about the old maps treatment of Taiwan, and received a reply that the new map was incompatible with NPOV. The 2015 US foreign policy position is not more or less NPOV than the 2019, 2023, 1777, or other foreign policy position at a particular point in time. Each displays the same POV, that of the United States. CMD (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was against NPOV and RS in 2015, in 2019 and is still the same in 2023. So yes I agree that hasn't changed. What has hanged per my very first comment is that the changes to the map have made it more controversial, and so it's use has become more problematic.
Ultimately us governmental sources are valid with attribution for the US goverment, that they were free to use and less controversial in the past gave them a pass from that policy. Things change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The US government sources got a free pass because it was easy and uncontroversial, sources from other governments didn't get that free pass. That the issue was ignored in that past doesn't show that it wasn't an issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of map borders hasn't been ignored in the past at all, it has been discussed probably since the start of Wikipedia, and we handle it differently in different places. For example, generally (exceptions exist), we display two sets of borders on country location maps, the de facto borders of the country's control, and the de jure borders per that country's laws. (Neither is specifically the US position, although one or both usually aligns as most are undisputed.) The vast majority of our maps do not follow US government policy. The map of the CIA Factbook does, because it a public domain map specifically a map showing that policy. CMD (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - so what do you want us to do? What is the mythic suggested non controversial map? If we cannot use US maps because of Western Sahara I would oppose using any other map in the same grounds. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how NPOV works. M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I don’t think there is a map that is satisfactory for this purpose. At least not one that is free and professional. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note, again, that the current map is a user generated set of boundaries, that the source is "Derivative of the 2016 and the 2021 Physical maps of the world; from the CIA World Factbook," and lists the author as "US Government, Central Intelligence Agency." The 2021 CIA World Factbook map does not include Western Sahara. M.Bitton has literally omitted a change to an official map and presented it as coming from that source because they don't like the update. As a cartographer, this is an egregious misrepresentation of the source. I'm trying not to shout this to the heavens, but in a professional publication this would be unacceptable, and in terms of cartographic ethics, the most generous description would be Misinformation. Even if the US view is determined to be fringe, it is still objectively the current U.S. view. This is no different then modifying a direct quote from someone to reflect the global consensus. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that you noted the same opinion (that has no basis in policies) ad nauseam. M.Bitton (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

"Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader."

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you spend more time learning the policies, instead of repeating the same irrelevant opinion while quoting a policy that doesn't apply. M.Bitton (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant to this discussion (the current maps have been used without issue until someone decided to replace them with the latest US pov, because according to them The United States is a Superpower, and therefore, we have to respect its POV. M.Bitton (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...the current maps are out of date, and aren't even U.S. POV. You have literally taken the U.S. maps and "derived" a product from them to suite your preferred world view. I didn't notice how bad the situation, that we are attributing things to the CIA authors that are user derivatives, until I took a close look at it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus doesn't require unanimous agreement. I'm not saying that we should use the new CIA map because I dislike it, I'm saying it's not NPOV as it doesn't agree with the consensus view of Western Sahara. If there are issues with the map that is currently being used you can raise them, but you would have to have a reason why. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what map DO you like? … and why do you like it? Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolved in the content dispute, I don't have a preferred map. Policy would point to continuing to use the pre-existing map until a consensus has formed on whether to change the map. If you have a preference then you should show why it should be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think, at this point in time, an RfC is probably wise on this topic. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably wise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they key point here has been touched on a few times but mostly in an indirect manner: there is no such thing as a perfect map, any search for one is bound to fail. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. There's a phrase that comes to mind: the perfect is the enemy of the good. So then the question becomes, considering that maps will be, as a result of their status as a simulacrum, imperfect what does Wikipedia think makes for a good map? Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Workshopping an RfC question

Thinking about how to format the RfC question and I'm wondering whether we would prefer something very simple and straightforward: Is the CIA World Physical Map (2023) appropriate for inclusion in articles about geography per WP:NPOV and WP:RS? Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK in light of Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)'s comment above maybe we should use this instead:Are CIA World Physical Maps appropriate for inclusion in articles about geography per WP:NPOV and WP:RS? Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the assumption behind this, that is, that the CIA World map is a strictly physical map, given it has political borders as well. A (geo)political map is likely due, and should be labelled as such, but I would assume a physical map (more focused on natural geography) would be one that did not include these (not that this avoids all issues, but it does specifically avoid border/country issues). CMD (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fair. Third attempt. Are maps produced by the CIA appropriate for inclusion in articles about geography per WP:NPOV and WP:RS? Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be dancing around the bush, if the issue really is Western Sahara then its not an issue with this specific map and we should ask "Is a map which does not include the political boundaries of Western Sahara appropriate for inclusion in articles about geography per WP:NPOV and WP:RS?" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly specific and neutrally worded. I'm fine with it. What do others think? Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That beats around the bush in a different way, ignoring the other points raised in the Talk:Geography discussion. Unless the plan is to have a separate RfC question for each issue (Kashmir and the Koreas were mentioned during the discussion), it would be better to have something more comprehensive that that, but perhaps less comprehensive than examining every map from a source on every article on a category. CMD (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would you propose? Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just spinning my wheels, a first question might be 1) should there be a political geography map on the Geography page (I do think we can move boldly on physical geography maps if one can be found, and I don't think it's worth asking if there should be a combined map), and then 2) if so, which one? That's the crux of the issue discussed at Talk:Geography, and might generate the creative answers that have been requested for here and at the DRN. CMD (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would give editors a choice of several maps… and then ask: “Which map is better, and why?” Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that. My concern is that selection of maps may run into perceived neutrality issues in this case. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main question I have is, "Should there be a definitive set of political boundaries used on maps on Wikipedia, or is citing the source of the boundaries adequate?" GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That just muddies the waters. The crux of the issue discussed at Talk:Geography is the controversial map that omits Western Sahara (there was no mention of either Taiwan or Kosovo), so let's deal with it without beating around the bush. M.Bitton (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A definitive set of boundaries would address the Western Sahara issue, as well as all others. The crux of the issue is what sources we can use for boundaries, and what to do when those sources are updated to reflect the changing official stance of the organization publishing the boundaries. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your sudden interest in "perfection" is surprising given that you tried to impose Trump's POV because, according to you, the US is a superpower (to which we must bow). M.Bitton (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is an accurate characterization of what I have said. I don't see this as "Trump's" POV any more then I saw changes as "Biden's" or "Obama's." I just follow what the official sources say. A countries official stance on international borders are what they are, and the U.S. status as a Superpower gives it the ability to assert/impose its views in ways that are not possible for middle power countries. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a note - if this is a 2023 map it would have been during Biden's tenure. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The map was changed to reflect Trump's decision during his first tenure (Biden was asked to reverse it, but it never happened). M.Bitton (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza genocide Short Description

There is currently a RfC on the talkpage of Gaza genocide to change the current short description, should people wish to contribute. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight on fringe theory at "Predictions of the collapse of the Soviet Union"

This addition relies entirely on a book about astrology, written by an astrology. The editor, Horsechestnut (talk · contribs), has been warned by several editor that astrology is a fringe theory at Talk:Astrology#Unfriendly Presentation. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Dominicans

This article heavily relies on government sources pushed by a party that actively promotes race “whitening”, the piece is heavily slanted towards only 7% of the population representing the topic, despite considerable academic research being conducted on the matter and placing the total much higher. I wish for a NPOV review to take place and for neutral academic sources to be used to provide a fair representation of the topic, instead of unreliable local sources. 24.42.24.193 (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#WhatsApp_group regarding Blavatnik's inclusion in group which urged NYC mayor to use police force against Columbia students

@C at Access is proposing changes, arguing that inclusion of some info about the group, in particular about how it urged a police response, is non-neutral.

I'd like more eyes. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I agree with your position at that article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Unnecessary and too fact-sounding in Wikivoice

[2] False

[3] This looks fine, but it could be further softened into "considers" or "opined that"

[4] Is this distinction meaningful?

[5] Some cases don't have an article or take up too many words to be WP:DUE

[6] The link anchor has been broken, and the section could change the definition to that of another source. Even if a separate article existed, 100 edits to add this might be too promotional.

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards