Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:36, 5 April 2021

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Requesting assistance at Vineyard Vines

Hello! My name is Nicole and I work for Vineyard Vines. I've clearly disclosed my employer and conflict of interest on my profile and at Talk:Vineyard Vines, where I've been working with a very helpful editor (User:Crystallizedcarbon) to update the page by submitting a series of edit requests. I understand this is the preferred community process and I'm happy to abide. However, I am concerned about a single editor who seems solely focused on adding allegations about the company to the page, even when User:Crystallizedcarbon has attempted to remove not once, not twice, but three times over the span of a couple months.

I believe the editor's early attempts introduced copyright violations, violated WP:BLPCRIME, and included Category:Discrimination and Category:Lawsuits, which I think speak to this editor's motives. The sources about the allegations are local and I assume Legal Newsline is not considered a reputable publication by Misplaced Pages. I understand editors can and should be skeptical when companies attempt to update their Misplaced Pages articles, but I also think these edits are a clear violation of Misplaced Pages's rules. User:Crystallizedcarbon has asked User:OdinNeith to discuss on the Talk page; the invitation has not been accepted. OdinNeith has also said they will "escalate to wiki administrators", so I'm taking them up on this offer. I should note, Crystallizedcarbon has said they wish to avoid engaging in an edit war and are willing to remove the Legal Issues section again in March. I appreciate this offer, but would prefer to address sooner. Again, I thank Crystallizedcarbon for their continued help and willingness to review update requests.

I'm hoping some editors here may be willing to address this issue. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Nicole at Vineyard Vines (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Nicole at Vineyard Vines, (formality) yet not had a look on the edits but you must notice the User about that there is a discussion ongoing, just noticing that I have done this for you in the meantime. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I have two issues with the contributions by OdinNeith one is with the content and the other is with the failure to follow advice on our policies. The user added the section: (Vineyard_Vines#Legal_Matters). I removed it as undue because in my opinion it violated WP:BLPCRIME for the first part and WP:NOTNEWS for the rest, as it was referenced by routine coverage. I asked the editor to follow WP:BRD and discuss in talk before adding the disputed content back. I tried both with edit summaries and in the user's talk page. You can see the response here: User_talk:OdinNeith. I did not know how best to proceed, as it was not just a matter for dispute resolution, and after three failed attempts I simply gave up to avoid an edit war. When Nicole at Vineyard Vines requested help on the talk page about this issue I contacted an admin but got no response, so I decided to let it sit for a while in the hope that some new editors would get involved.

I don't think that edit warring is the right way to impose changes to an article. OdinNeith is a single purpose account that only edited this article (see here: Special:Contributions/OdinNeith) and made bold changes by introducing that negative section about lawsuits, my attempts to restore the status quo and my pleads to the user to follow WP:BRD and discuss to reach a consensus on the talk page all failed. The user made small changes, but the section is still in the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

On the class action lawsuit: Sourcing is extremely thin here. WP:UNDUE, it seems.
On the discrimination lawsuit: When someone sues a company, even if the lawsuit names the owners of the company, I have a hard time seeing a justification of removal from the company page based on BLPCRIME. Justification for being careful with the wording? Sure. The lawsuit was picked up by the Hartford Courant and Vineyard Gazette. That's not a bad start to establish WP:WEIGHT, but it's not a sure thing either. Certainly doesn't seem like enough to justify its own section, but I can see why it was separated out given the current organization of the page.
On the behavioral issues: OdinNeith is a single-purpose account who has made no attempt at discussion and is instead just edit warring. @OdinNeith: Misplaced Pages relies on volunteers talking things out rather than just repeatedly adding material over objections of others. If you don't find consensus on the talk page, you will almost definitely be blocked (either altogether or blocked from editing that page).

In sum: remove the class action suit and remove the discrimination lawsuit pending discussion on the talk page about how best to include it. Don't restore until consensus is reached per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no hidden agenda here. Wiki is intended as a public open source fact based exchange of information. I do not post information that does not have multiple references. And none of my posts contain personal opinions. If you take issue with the articles referenced or dispute the fact based information then I suggest you take it up with the authors of the source materials referenced in the section. I will also point you to several other similar wiki pages such as “legal issues” on the Abercrombie & Fitch wiki page, the “other issues” and “labor practices” contained on the H&M wiki page, there are hundreds of equivalent examples contained and published on Misplaced Pages. It is a standard practice and quite typical. To suppress this info runs counter to the terms of Misplaced Pages. If you would like to present information that refutes the references please do so, but suppression is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 00:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@OdinNeith: Please do take the time to read WP:UNDUE, WP:ONUS and specially WP:BRD. When we make a bold edit and it gets reverted, the course of action is to discuss in the talk page and reach a consensus before adding back the contentious content, not to edit war by continue to add it back. Some of the content you added might be notable enough to be included in the article, but this is a collaborative project. The way forward is to debate first and once consensus is reached then the changes can be introduced. It is not correct to just to keep adding what you think is right, disregarding other editors. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Those are very thin arguments at best and in the context you provided which is also very thin one could suppress pretty much any publicly referenced factual info. Do you have a hidden agenda here? Do you work for a company trying to “clean up” or suppress public factual information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and you are of course welcome to provide arguments to defend it at the article's talk page and to try to reach a consensus there. To answer your question, No, I can assure you that I have absolutely no hidden agenda and I do not work or edit for pay for any company. My only interest is improving Misplaced Pages, but since you raise the point of a possible conflict of interest, please clarify why your only contributions to our project have been to insert a lawsuit section in the article about that company and to repeatedly engage in edit-warring to repost it despite the many requests to follow WP:BRD. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, what recourse is there if a company is disputing and potentially suppressing public info with multiple references from appearing on their wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs)

OdinNeith, why are you starting a new discussion when this issue is under discussion earlier on the page? Schazjmd (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OdinNeith, there is no evidence that the company itself is suppressing information on these legal matters. Rather, the issue appears to be the proper degree to which those legal matters should be brought up at all; you have been directed in edit summaries viewable on the history page to first reach consensus on the article's talk page, but have failed to do so. That is the first step you should take before bringing it to this Noticeboard: creating a section on the talk page explaining your reasoning, pinging involved editors (in this case, the one/s who have reverted your edits), and going from there. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OdinNeith that people are objecting to your additions does not mean there's a conspiracy here. Misplaced Pages operates according to consensus and doesn't prioritize one person over another. If you want to add something that has been challenged -- regardless of what that is -- it is your responsibility to convince people to add it on the talk page. Forums like this are intended as a secondary discussion venue when talk page threads have been unsuccessful. It looks like you have not participated at all on the talk page but jumped here. Make your case there (Talk:Vineyard Vines), and don't restore the material until there is consensus to do so. See above for my assessment of the material. I'm watching the page now, so you can be assured at least one more person with no connection to VV (even as a customer) will be involved. There is no need to keep this noticeboard thread open before article talk has been tried. — Rhododendrites \\ 00:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites clearly this is an attempt to suppress publicly accessible and factual referenced informations from respectable and established newspapers, public proceedings, and open source factual public information all of which been accurately referenced. Stop suppressing the info without due cause or you will undoubtedly be suspended. It is not my job to convince you that open, public, factual, relevant and referenced data and info be included. It is now your job to demonstrate why it should not be. Let’s hear your case sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This is now at WP:ANI. — Rhododendrites \\ 19:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Ahmed ibn ibrahim al ghazi

Dispute on the Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi article. An editor (User:Ragnimo) is adamant on the introduction labelling the subject a Somali despite this being one of the rare articles that has a whole ethnicity section. The subjects origin is disputed, any academic that discusses his ethnic origin in detail disagrees with Ahmed being regarded as a Somali. I've tried to explain this to the user with no avail .

I propose the article should leave out his ethnicity in the intro and let readers decide by reading all viewpoints in the ethnic section. hence the introduction should only state "Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi was an Imam and General of the Adal Sultanate"'. Magherbin (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It's the mainstream consensus view point. The lead should have the mainstream view, the most widely head view is that he is somali. Only a negligent small minority of scholars differ in that POV.

Again i refer you to Misplaced Pages:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#NPOV,_neutrality,_and_false_balance

"NPOV does not mean "neutral" or neutered content, nor does it mean that there should be a false balance between opposing POV. All opinions are not equal."

"The mainstream view should get the most weight, so the due weight of the article should read in favor of the mainstream view."

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Based on this i am not even certain that we should even add any other minority view point.

Ragnimo (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes only if the creators of the article didnt decide to have an ethnic slot to debate his ethnicity, oh and Oxford; "His legacy as the guardian of Islamic pride and resistance to Ethiopian-Christian domination was recycled locally mainly by Somali speakers, who refer to him as Ahmad Guray. Though it was never fully established that he was a Somali, he was adopted by modern Somali nationalists and Islamic activists as their forefather" Magherbin (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you show me the full text in where that statement is mentioned? Because i don't see it from the link you showed.

Furthermore:

In the standard Ethiopian historiography,. Imam Ahmad is presented as a Somali

These are not modern Somali nationalists but a diverse group scholars of scholars that reviewed the evidence and came to that conclusion. And there is enough reliable sources is listed for that on the page itself , 8 of them actually.

Lastly we should debate about removing the ethnicity slot altogether. Aside from the widely held scholarly view of him being Somali , everything else seem like fringe theories and minority opinion that differ from it.

Ragnimo (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Atleast quote an author who doesnt disagree with the subject being Somali, also quote the full text; "In the standard Ethiopian historiography, Imam Ahmad is presented as a Somali. However, Arab Faqih makes it clear that he was not a Somali", this is on p.179 . Taddesse Tamrat a well known Ethiopian historian states on p.120 " A number of these Somali tribes did participate later in the campaigns. But Gragn himself was not at all a Somali; and his army was multi- ethnic in composition just as the forces he had to confront in the Ethiopian interior. Besides a number of Somali tribes, the Futuh also lists several other ethnic groups contributing troops to Gragn's army, like the Harla, the Hargaya, the Šáwa, and the Gedaya." . Also Merid Wolde Aregay states on p.133 "Ahmad ibn Ibrahim was born sometime in 1506 or 1507. Although there is no clear evidence to show that he was a Somali, his father seems to have been connected with the chiefs of Harla". The PDF can be accessed for free if you create an account Magherbin (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID misinformation and PPP loans at PragerU

This is currently under discussion at RSN and Talk:PragerU.

Two sources, Yahoo! News and Slate, have covered PragerU's Paycheck Protection Program loan. Slate discusses it in the context of right-wing organizations that have received PPP loans, while Yahoo states "The analysis by Global Disinformation Index and Alethea Group also flagged Prager University, or PragerU, as both a top source of COVID-19 misinformation and recipient of a PPP loan of between $350,000 and $1 million." Several options have been suggested:

1. Include the PPP loan in the Financials section. (example)
2. Include COVID misinformation in the Reception section. (example)
3. Include both pieces of information together as reported by Yahoo

Arguments for inclusion:

• Reported in multiple reliable sources
• Yahoo News is a reputable source
• The Yahoo News source is not promotional; it includes in-depth reporting and responses from the organizations mentioned
• Misinformation is a significant aspect of PragerU

Arguments against inclusion:

• There are only two sources, and the Alethea/GDI report has only been reported by Yahoo
• The Yahoo News source is a puff piece/warmed-over press release/churnalism
• Content is undue/promotional because Alethea Group and Global Disinformation Index are redlinked/non-notable
• What constitutes COVID misinformation is highly subjective
• Neither Yahoo News nor Alethea are "prominent"
• It's unclear how the PPP loan is relevant; it doesn't tie in with the rest of the article and we don't tell the reader why they should care
• The PPP loan sources imply something negative about PragerU, as an "appeal to outrage"
• We shouldn't just insert standalone facts into articles
• "Including it as a sort of easteregg to get the desired "PragerU is hypocritical" content linked to the article is a problem."
• "Neither Slate nor Yahoo have much weight"
• The claim that Yahoo News has wide readership seems suspect

Is this content DUE in any form? –dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors: @Springee, Hipal, Noteduck, LokiTheLiar, North8000, MasterTriangle12, Ryk72, Jlevi, Shinealittlelight, Rhododendrites, Horse Eye's Back, and Acousmana: –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• There are strong arguments to treat Yahoo! News (shortened to Y!N) original reporting in general as standard NEWSORG RS, as discussed on RSN and the article page. The piece in particular is extensive, including multiple avenues of inquiry: a joint report from two nonprofits, an investigation into PragerU's media output by the reporter, inclusion of financial data from the Small Business Administration compiled by ProPublica, attempts to reach out to the discussed companies for their perspectives, and analysis weaving these pieces together. Since this is reported in an RS, and since this is a substantive exploration of both financial details and misinformation, discussion of both features is DUE.

The brief discussion by Slate also helps establish weight for the financial information. There is also extensive (though more ticky-tacky) discussion of PragerU's coronavirus misinformation in other sources that could bolster support for inclusion, though the Y!N piece seems strong enough.

Finally, it seems like the behaviors and fates of any company during a (hopefully) once-in-a-lifetime pandemic should have some enduring significance. The fact that PPP loans have been discussed regarding many entities suggests that it is generally of interest. Jlevi (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Edited: 04:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the object to say we should cover the response to PragerU's COVID related videos? I don't see an issue with that as COVID is a big topic. Like their climate change videos their positions and what others think of those positions should be covered. But why should that mean we cover the PPP loan? It seems little more than a moralist rant by Slate and AG. Springee (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A comment on the PPP loan stuff - a LOT of entities that questionably shouldn't have qualified for the first round of PPP funding ended up getting funds, an issue that I presume is covered on that page. That PragerU was one of those seems to be something we shouldn't stress unless there is additional commentary about PragerU's specific loan request. It would be different if it were the only entity that abused the program but that's definitely not the case. --Masem (t) 04:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of the sources said that PragerU didn't properly qualify or somehow shouldn't have been able to accept the loans. Springee (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Then even in general, thousands of businesses got PPP loans, and unless there was something unusual about PragerU's, bringing it up seems trivial and unnecessary. --Masem (t) 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• This doesn't pass the 10Y test. No sources have actually claimed PragerU didn't rightly qualify for the loans. The Alethea Group tried to suggest it was hypocritical for a group that it felt was spreading COVID misinformation to then take COVID relief money. That's a logically disconnected claim since the relief money was meant to help organizations that have been harmed by the response to COVID (ie shutdowns etc). None of the sources are specifically about PragerU. All mention PragerU deeper in the articles as "one example of" sort of things. An argument has been made that Y!N is reliable but that doesn't mean it carries any weight. How many people see Y!N articles on their home pages because they haven't changed the Edge default settings? Should we care what the Alethea Group says? We don't have an article on them which suggests they aren't a very significant special interest group. That means there is basically no weight for the "spreads COVID misinformation but takes PPP loan" angle. Slate has a similar but not identical "hypocrite" angle talking about various companies that rail against big government then took the loans. Clearly PragerU wasn't their primary focus since it was only mentioned with a few others in the last paragraph of the article. So what about just the "Org participated in the PPP loans" angle? Why would that be significant? What does that add to the article? What is the reader supposed to take from such a statement? Again, why would we care in 10 years? No one doubts that PragerU took the loans since Propublica lists them with many other companies. The question is why should the readers care? The outrange angles are UNDUE. Springee (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, but I already said my peace and sort of left. IMO both should be left out for the sake of article quality. They are just spin swipes / talking points by their opponents and are not info about nor informative about PragerU. North8000 (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Putting aside this US culture war/partisan nonsense that certain editors here are obsessed with, sources pass WP:RS, and - relative to the coverage of other aspects in the article - the content passes WP:DUE. Whether or not they qualified for PPP is not the issue, the reason receipt of payment is notable is that PragerU actively participated in a COVID19 disinformation campaign. It's notable that a bailed out organization worked against the public interest during the pandemic, that's why mention is due. Acousmana (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Are you saying editors involved with the PragerU article are acting that way or some editors generally on Misplaced Pages? Suggesting that motive in this case is failing to AGF. As for RSs, please see ONUS. DUE is being debated here and yes, if PragerU qualified is an issue. As was said before, if PragerU was being harmed by the response to the pandemic then why shouldn't they use a program for which they were qualified? If the only reason to cover this is the "hypocritical" angle then we have very limited sourcing and sources that don't have much WEIGHT. The sources are conflating legitimate criticism of Covid coverage with some sort of moralistic opinion that critics of the governemtn response couldn't have been harmed and thus shouldn't use PPP loans. That's a logically flawed position. Springee (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • sources are WP:RS, it's WP:VER, and article content stemming from cited material meets WP:BALASP, there really is very little more to say on the matter that doesn't stink of political bias. Acousmana (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Please see ONUS. Yes, BALASP does apply and "controversies" that are trivial or have no lasting impact are UNDUE. Springee (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• When the Yahoo source was brought up at RSN, I did point out that it would be far better if the article was structured to have a section that talked broadly about PragerU and its problems with misinformation, where this Yahoo piece would fit much better in a summary piece, rather than as a standalone fact. That seems to be the crux here as well - by itself it seems pointy but if a proper summary that talked of how PragerU has been criticized for misinformation was put together, it would be wholly appropriate there. --Masem (t) 14:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Acousmana and Masem, and am concerned that behavioral problems are disrupting consensus-making. We've spent more than enough time on the factoid that PragerU received PPP loans. That factoid should be included in the article. We need to move on to determining what context it should be presented in. Thirteen potential references are listed in Talk:PragerU#Climate_change_and_COVID-19_coverage_and_misinformation, yet with all the discussion there's still no proposal for how to expand the article from them. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Just in case, I want to make it clear I am for putting information regarding responses to PragerU's COVID videos. I think the PPP loan material is not worth including but I'm not opposed to including it in context of "PragerU used the program". My concern is only when we try to highlight what a few sources have claimed is hypocritical behavior. Springee (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Which source mentions hypocrisy, and what's wrong with highlighting it if they do? –dlthewave ☎ 18:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Jlevi and Acousmana: these are clearly RSes and they're clearly due. I agree with Masem they should be put in the context where the criticism makes sense, but I would have thought that was obvious, honestly. Loki (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • So what is the correct context? Since this isn't a case of all or nothing perhaps a discussion regarding what to put in and where? Springee (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe the correct context is to have just a small mention of the PPP info in the 'Finances' section, as has already been implemented, and a COVID disinformation passage should be placed in the 'Content' section until there is a separate 'Misinformation' section or similar. They should be separate unless further sources link PU to more significant hypocrisy than has already been discussed i.e. if it turned out they had argued against COVID relief or something like that. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Unless there was something "special" about PragerU's PPP loan that differs from all other companies that got PPP loans, it's an unnecessary fact here. We are not required to document everything that is published by RSes, and unless the concern is that PragerU should not have gotten that loan (and moreso beyond the general problems that the PPP loan program has had) then this is just random info that doesn't fit into a summary article. --Masem (t) 23:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there is general agreement that the PPP info does not need to be and/or should not be connected with the COVID misinformation with the current sources we have, and that expressing it as just financial information in the 'Finances' section is NPOV. The current content on the page seems to fulfil this, so unless opinions differ from the current content, or my characterisation of viewpoints, then I believe we should put more focus into discussion of whether inclusion of the COVID misinformation with our current sources is NPOV.
Also, several sources have been brought up elsewhere and I think it may be useful to repeat some of them here: thedailybeast, reuters fact check, huffingtonpost, healthfeedback, MSN/Y!N. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes obviously due and the source is acceptable. Most against-arguments cited by dlthewave appear invalid... —PaleoNeonate – 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV despute in Kaworu Nagisa

Hello. This is for the Kaworu Nagisa article. The other editor that has been updating the Neon Genesis Evangelion articles, as a new film has recently been released, but he is much more adamant about some of the stuff here than he was in the other articles and though his work is generally good it did need adjustments before. I already made hundreds of edits to his previous rewrites. I think he doesn't realize he's not close enough to NPOV - he used a lot of inaccurate translations and was way too selective in his representation of facts, lots of undue weight, non-neutral language, blatant mistranslations, etc. I presented some 10+ new sources that were necessary to improve things and had to rewrite about a third of the article. He agreed to that initially but after a while just started to stonewall me. He has accused me of vandalism and now refuses to reply to my arguments, accusing me of sophistry. It bugs me because I don't want to discourage him.

• About a third of the article was rewritten already and this was agreed by him before, but now we're at an impasse as he insists on his changes, though he either just says "no", or responds to an argument I didn't make. Here is the diff. I have asked a number of experts outside Misplaced Pages for consultation on how to adjust the article (as before). One of them has also expressed his agreement in the talk page. There were, earlier on, several problematic practices like insisting on Google Translator over professional translations of sources (despite those translations being referenced in sources used elsewhere in the article), to use non-neutral language. I have also asked some other WP users involved to a lesser degree and one of them has broadly agreed, but suggested I go here as content is fairly esoteric and the discussion got really long over a few days. In Talk:Kaworu_Nagisa#Section break I have re-explained my remaining disputes. Those were explained further before in more detail, but I do not require you to go through all of that as it includes things that were already resolved. I'll just briefly reiterate my points, not going over the evidence proper which is available on the talk page. I believe the current state of the article leads the reader to assume an intent on the creator's part that is not true and a particular POV and interpretation of the character and work:

• I am not defending the deletion of the early episode drafts as the other editor says, but to balance their depiction. Instead of long, detailed and puffery descriptions of individual rejected scenes, I simply referred to their differing tone from the accepted, canon version. I used the same argument for replacing the long spin-off detailing with more numerous instances instead. These early drafts were done independently by an episode writer, and ultimately rejected by staff and the director, something which the original rewrite of the article neglected to include.

• Removal of fan speculation identified as such, on the character being based on the creator of another show. This is a persistent fan rumor motivated by Shipping (fandom), and he insisted on including an interview with the target of this speculation in a fan book, a fairly normal way for interviewers looking for a scoop to fish for some bombastic revelation. In this interview, he is dismissive of the rumours, but mentions he understands why some people would think that. However, it was denied by the creator and the character designer directly in sources already mentioned in the article. It was additionally never even alluded to in more than one source that details the character's design process, including sources already used in the article.

• Including the creator's comments on the ambiguity, open-endedness and value of the interpretation of the series as a whole. This is supported previously by talking about the depiction of the character and language. Ambiguity doesn't disprove or prove any particular point of view, it just says that both sides are plausible. People may argue that either side is undisputable, and the editor has done so in the past, so I had to add in more stuff from the same sources he was using. A few were misattributed, or had third-parties presented as official information. One source was a fan book with a reprinted comic panel, with the page presented as an official guide on the character.

• Removal of a joke made by an assistant director, and half of the quotation fails presents something an interviewer said as coming from this director. I quoted the translator himself saying it. It's not just because something is in a reliable source that it needs to be included. The director responds jokingly and makes fun of fans. In that very same section, he does the same with another character, Rei Ayanami, along with other humorous remarks of all sorts. That joke isn't included in that character's page, but I provided it as an example of how ludicrous it'd sound to take something a non-staffer says. For that matter, a joke made by a third character's voice actor in an obscure music event is inserted twice, even in an image box (I suppose it can be seen as a reception, but I'm not sure), yet in a more recent edit a well-sourced interview with the VA for the series protagonist and the other member of the relationship denying it has been removed.

• Inclusion of additional context in the Reception section, including from a book specifically dealing with the series and including a part on the character's depiction and the cultural phenomenon he's part of, to counterbalance an extremely over-represented view by biased sources (including an advocacy group) made around a fan controversy that gathered media attention back in 2019. Those sources were, additionally, taking an extremely Western point of view to give their views on the Japanese media landscape and culture. Again, I have been asked to include this from the people that translated the material used and provided me consultation and are familiar with that landscape. It might not look like it, but it's quite a sensationalist claim. They find it culturally offensive.

• One more review. WP:RS says that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." This writer is used in reference #97, writing for IGN, an independent publication, so I assume he can be considered reliable in his own site too, particularly just for a critical reception.

• Lastly, Legacy has one mention of a bonus material that is not related to the character at all, but this isn't made explicit(and it'd look silly if it was) so it naturally leads the reader to assume it is, so I removed it.FelipeFritschF (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't bother to spend this much effort on an article on a character in one episode of a TV show, and based on the lack of response nobody else at this noticeboard can either. It's not clear why "Neutral Point of View" is the issue here, this seems like a regular content dispute. Did you try asking at a WikiProject? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I'll try that. I was suggested to post it on a noticeboard so that's why I tried it here.FelipeFritschF (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Livi Zheng

I'll try to make this very simple as I've been going from different noticeboards to noticeboards trying to get help to resolve the issue, including leaving messages to discuss with the user on their talk page + asking for help from admins.

• Livi Zheng (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 45.48.15.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few weeks ago, I added substantial information to both pages to reflect important aspects of both individuals (who are siblings in the film industry) that have been major points of public interest. This includes a string of controversies regarding the former claims of her achievements in the industry. The other problem that led me to make the edits was that both pages read too much like promotional advertisements of them as people in the film industry. It only highlights self-made claims and statements quoted by obscure publications. Some examples:

• "She began her career as a stuntwoman at the age of fifteen" -- not supported by any credible source/film credit
• "Zheng represented Washington State’s Karate team during her college years and won more than 25 medals and trophies for regional as well as national competition throughout the United States. Zheng won competitions ranging from 2009 US Open, Orlando, 36th Annual Shorinryu Open Karate Championships, to 2010 Washington State Karate Federation Invitational Tournament and USA National Karate Federation Qualifier. Livi started her career in stunts." -- not supported by any credible source
• "Livi produced and directed her first feature film “Brush with Danger” at the age of 23. “Brush with Danger” tells a story about a painter, and a fighter - both artists in their own ways. The brother and sister, forced to flee their home, and they arrive at Seattle, the Emerald City, inside a shipping container. Trying to make their way in a new strange world, the pair struggle to survive. Until, one day, an art dealer takes an interest in the sister’s painting, and the pair find themselves living a dream come true. The sister loses herself in her art, painting, and the brother seizes the opportunity to express himself, as a fighter. But it really is all just a dream. Conned by her patron into forging a long lost Van Gogh that was purchased by a ruthless criminal with a passion for fine art. The brother and sister soon find themselves embroiled in Seattle’s criminal underworld and a Brush With Danger. “Brush with Danger” was released theatrically both in the US and internationally in 2014." -- no source whatsoever, which raised my suspicion that the IP address making these edits are either connected to her/herself/paid to make these edits.
• "After “Brush with Danger”, Livi produced and directed “Bali: Beats of Paradise” starring Grammy Award Winning American singer-songwriter Judith Hill, Nyoman Wenten and Nanik Wenten. “Bali: Beats a Paradise” is a story of this profound and irreplicable love. Love - it’s more than a relationship between two people. It is a connection between two souls that embodies a passion for music and culture. This film explores the story of Indonesian couple Pak Wenten and Bu Nanik - two artists who bonded over their love for traditional Indonesian dance and its accompanying musical style of gamelan. When they moved to the U.S. from Bali in the 1970’s, Pak Wenten and Bu Nanik gained acclaim as ambassadors for their respective crafts. As the sun is beginning to set on this aging, yet ever energetic couple, they wanted to share gamelan and Indonesian dance one more time in an inspiring way before their retirement to Indonesia. They decided to break the paradigm and teamed up with Grammy winning musician and songwriter, Judith Hill and filmmaker, Livi Zheng. Their ambitious project is unlike anything else in the music industry: the creation of a music video that bends the rules of gamelan and Funk to create an awe inspiring music video set in Joshua Tree National Park. This film is the story behind the art and the music video. It is an unforgettable blend of documentary, love story, and genre shattering music." -- reads more like a promotional adverts.

In addition, the edits made by the aforementioned IP address does not follow the standard formula used in making a biography article. Would appreciate your attention and help on this as the last thing I'd like to be involved in is a warring edit. In their editing notes, the person behind the IP address suggests that the references used to highlight her family political connections have been deemed infactual by the Indonesian Press Council (which had since been removed from the article) and that my edits are not neutral (which is just the pot calling the kettle black, given that if I was not neutral, I'd include a lot of rumors about the person but instead I only included information that are confirmed through verifiable sources).

If you ask me, given that this IP address seems familiar with how to edit a Misplaced Pages page, including in using the coding, as well as because their only "contributions" to Misplaced Pages have been on both pages, my suspicion is that they are engaged in UPE and/or related in some ways to the subjects and seek to use Misplaced Pages as promotional avenues that only include what could be deemed "positive" of the persons and not the unpretty facts.CalliPatra (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• The current version of the article is strikingly negative. I did a bit of searching online and got the impression that this negativity may not fully reflect the consensus of reliable sources. That said, the IP's version of the article is certainly not neutral either. I've made a small edit per WP:CSECTION and will try to look at this more closely later today. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly these sources, some of which I found in a previous revision, could be used to expand the Livi Zheng article and make it more balanced: Some more detail could be added from these sources:

As for the Ken Zheng article – I think it's too focused on Livi Zheng instead of Ken Zheng. I'd say we should cut down the amount of information about Livi Zheng's comments in that article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for pitching in Mx. Granger. Your inputs are very insightful and I'd take a good look and re-edit the article to portray better, more neutral narrative of her based on the available sources (including the ones you tagged) tomorrow. CalliPatra (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

" is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations in the world."

Good evening, I've recently come across this claim on the page United States: " is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations in the world. Considered a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, its population has been profoundly shaped by centuries of immigration."'

This claim is placed in the introduction of the article, with no source being cited. It was originally added by Ovinus in revision 975555920. Given WP:V, I started searching for empirical studies to back up this claim and did not find any. In fact, the studies that I did find opposed this claim.

1. James Fearon (2003). "Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country". Journal of Economic Growth. 8: 195–222. doi:10.1023/A:1024419522867.
2. Alberto Alesina; et al. (2003). "Fractionalization". Journal of Economic Growth. 8: 155–194. doi:10.1023/a:1024471506938.

I therefore made the following edit (as I did not want to completely delete it): "Popular national myths claim that the U.S. is an exceptional melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, though scientific studies have shown that the U.S. ranks averagely in a global comparison of ethnic and cultural diversity."

The studies I quoted are peer-reviewed and highly-cited (having been cited in over 8,000 other scientific publications). They have also been praised for their contribution in providing comprehensive measurements of diversity. See for example: "We obtained the data on host countries' ethnic and linguistic diversity levels from Alesina et al. (2003), who calculated these levels using the hitherto most comprehensive data on the sizes of ethnic and linguistic segments in countries."

1. Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd; Slangen, Arjen; Maseland, Robbert; Onrust, Marjolijn (August 2014). "The impact of home–host cultural distance on foreign affiliate sales: The moderating role of cultural variation within host countries". Journal of Business Research. 67 (8): 1638–1646. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.09.004.

They are also being used on other relevant Misplaced Pages pages, see e.g. Papua New Guinea, Italians or Multiculturalism.

As my edit was reverted and the original, unsourced claim was reinstated, I would like to see discussion on two questions:

1. Do you consider the article in its current state ("The US is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations in the world", no source) to be neutral?
2. Do you consider the wording of my edit to be neutral? If not, what improvement would you like to see?

Sarrotrkux (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• The lead paragraphs of an article are not usually supported by citations, as they are supposed to be a summary of information that is gone into in more detail (and supported with cited sources) later in the article. So... check the subsequent sections to see if there a similar statement, and whether it is cited. If so, then that citation supports what is said in the intro. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The dubious claim does not seem to be supported by the body as far as I can tell. At least it's not supported by the "Demographics" section, which is where I would expect to find this information. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I did check the section about demographics, but none of the sources there support this claim. The claim is also not made anywhere else in the article, only in the intro.

--Sarrotrkux (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok... just making sure. If it isn’t supported later (and since you have contradictory sources) then I would say it should indeed be challenged. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think the OP is correct, but I would suggest two changes in the OP's edit, so that it reads something like: Popular national myths claim that the U.S. is an exceptionally diverse mixture of cultures and ethnicities, though scientific studies have shown that the U.S. ranks about average in a global comparison of ethnic and cultural diversity. Replacing "averagely" with "about average" is just a copy-edit. The trouble with the word "melting pot" is that it implies a homogenizing of the population and cultural assimilation of immigrants, and so many have questioned whether the "melting pot" notion is pro- or anti-diversity. NightHeron (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, especially the seeming contradiction of "melting pot" and "diversity" (and the surrounding debate) is indeed an important factor to consider and should probably be avoided in the lead.

--Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the discussion had to move here from Talk:United States. Per my comments on that page, the "most .. diverse" sentence doesn't seem to be supported by the article or its current references, but the suggested replacement also has serious problems. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The reason I am asking for input here specifically is for judgement of the phrasing (of both the original claim and my edit) and potential changes that could be made from a neutrality POV. There was some criticism of my phrasing on the talk page but no suggestion of what to change, so I thought it wise to get a discussion started here to address the issue of neutral phrasing specifically. The suggestion of NightHeron is a good example of the kind of feedback that was not at all present on the talk page.

--Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me about this. I don't recall adding it but I apologize for my carelessness. It'd be nice to include in the lead that the U.S. has roughly average diversity among countries, but not that it's a "popular myth". That it's a popular myth could (and imo, should) be included in the body, though I'd prefer "misconception" to "myth" in the name of neutrality. Best wishes, Ovinus (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Rent control: "on consensus among economists"

Two Misplaced Pages articles, namely "Rent control in the United States" and "Rent regulation" , contain a statement that reads as follows: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing".

For weeks, I have been arguing on the article's talk page about how misleading this claim is. I would like to ask for help here, since the case at hand is a blatant case of lack of neutrality.

The sources used to support this claim are:

1) An article by Blair Jenkins (of whom we do not even know if she has a PhD in economics), who has no other publications on this subject and whose article is published in a journal of dubious quality (impact factor 0.920). Furthermore, what the article itself actually states is that 23% of economists either "agree with provisions" (16.6%) or directly "disagree" (6.5%) with the claim that "A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available". This is not a consensus. Moreover, the article is neither reproducible nor replicable, so it cannot be used to substantiate the claim. Finally, there is a conflict of interest between the publisher and the assertion. That is, the publisher is not neutral: The Journal Econ Journal Watch is published by a self-declared "conservative" and "libertarian" think tank called Fraser Institute .

2) An opinion survey without peer review process, without methodological sampling and isolated interviews.

3) One report by another self-declared "liberal" think tank , .

Notwithstanding that the statement is erroneous, is it encyclopaedically appropriate for that phrase to appear as the second entry in the article? I think that here again we are faced with an attempt to promote one kind of view on the rent control mechanism. I think that for the sake of objectivity, one should first explain technically what rent control is and then move on to the assessments that economists, sociologists, and other scientists or sectors of society have to make.

In sum, maintaining the claim in these articles implies a significant ideological bias and a serious lack of neutrality. My position is that the sentence should be removed. If the sentence is to be retained, then for the sake of truth, we should at least edit it to say something like: "According to one study published by a libertarian think tank, most economists agree that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available", while 23% of economists have reservations or disagree".193.52.24.13 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

As best I can tell, reliable sources seem overwhelmingly to indicate the existence of a consensus among economists on the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, reducing the returns to any asset is going to reduce the value and quantity of the asset in the market. In the case of rent control, my sense is that yes the text reflects mainstream consensus. However more detailed peer-reviewed literature should be used to specify the conditions under which that broad statement is true and to identify the special conditions under which rent controls are an accepted, widely implemented, and beneficial policy. For example, controls on the rents of legacy housing stock, with no such restrictions on newly constructed units, was widely used to encourage the construction of new housing in 20th century America. In that regard, the proposition that most economists agree that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available" is not true -- most economists would not say that about typical selective controls because indeed it is false. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you SPECIFICO. More evidence:

A 2007 study by David Sims and a 2014 study by Autor, Palmer, and Pathak both look at the effects of the end of rent control in Massachusetts, after the passage of Question 9 by Massachusetts ballot referendum in 1994. Sims found that the end of rent control had little effect on the construction of new housing. He did however find evidence that rent control decreased the number of available rental units, by encouraging condo conversions. In other words, rent control seemed to affect the quantity of rental housing, but not the total quantity of the housing stock. Unsurprisingly, Sims also found significant increases in rent charged after decontrol, suggesting that rent control was effective in limiting rent increases.

A 2007 study by Gilderbloom and Ye of more recent rent control laws here in New Jersey finds evidence that rent controls actually increase the supply of rental housing, by incentivizing landlords to subdivide larger rental units.

A 2015 study by Ambrosius, Glderbloom, and coauthors also looks at changes in New Jersey rent regulations. As with the previous study, they find that rent control in New Jersey has not produced any detectable reduction in new housing supply.

The most recent major study of rent control, by Diamond McQuade, and Qian in 2018 , uses detailed data on San Francisco housing market to look at the effect of the mid-1990s change in rent control rules there. They suggest that while the law did effectively limit rent increases, and had no effect on new housing construction, it did have a negative effect on the supply of rental housing by encouraging condo conversions.

With all these references I am not trying to prove that rent control is good, or even that these authors are right. What I am demonstrating is that the statement in the article is totally false. To maintain such a claim in these articles implies a serious lack of neutrality and ideological bias.193.52.24.13 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that proper sources should be used. The Frasier Institute is basically Canada's version of the Heritage Foundation, used to publish studies to counter criticisms of the big oil, tobacco, agribusiness and other unpopular industries. What I find biased about the statement is that it is a veiled strawman argument. It implies that rent control is a failure because it has not increased rental stock or improved quality, when that was not its intended purpose. TFD (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The arguments so far on this page seem to suggest that there are more users against the claim than in favour of it (which is not surprising when the debate is between people who have no specific interest in upholding claims that may be dubious). Regardless of majority rules, the claim is false and we are witnessing a problem of lack of neutrality in the way these pages (Rent regulation, Rent control in the United States, and who knows if others too) are being managed. My opinion is that (i) the claim should be removed because it is false and (ii) the page should be labelled as Template:POV, as there is an imbalance of citations and references in favour of one ideological position. However, there seems to be a group of custodians of these pages who seem determined to prevent any change. On a side note, I just noticed that Robert McClenon had added a Template:POV tag to the page , and his change was immediately reversed by another user who is quite active on the page (and who had already been accused of partisanship in the past by Dennis Bratland, precisely in the context of a discussion on the Rent regulation talk page ].193.52.24.13 (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the article itself. I put the template on the article simply to reflect the fact that it was being discussed here. The immediate removal of the template without discussion does itself look like an effort to cover up the existence of the neutrality dispute itself, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

To recap what I've said before, most of these sources that claim "consensus" have a tortured defintion of "economist" that is clearly begging the question, in the mode of a no true Scotsman argument: these sources don't count anyone who doesn't see the world the way they do as a "real" economist. An extreme example would be doctor of economics Kshama Sawant. If she had a conventional US business-boosting ideology, she'd count as one of those qualified to be surveyed in their consensus, but somehow she's not. The fact that they obstinately insist on measuring the quantity and quality of housing overall, when they know full well that rent regulation or control schemes are generally intended to increase the supply of something else, affordable housing, is further evidence that these kinds of studies are ideologically biased, and not engaging in good faith with the actual points of disagreement.

It's totally fine to mention the opinions of anti-regulation economists and political advocacy "think tanks", but they're claims to speak for all economists don't bear out. Economics is not a hard science and economic opinions are inextricably linked to political ideology. Anyone who pretends otherwise is entitled to their opinion but cannot be treated as a neutral observer.

Editors who wish to clean up these articles should go and read Misplaced Pages:Describing points of view. Misplaced Pages has a structured and reliable process for how we go about describing opinions. These are opinions, not facts. Describe these opinions as per Misplaced Pages:Describing points of view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

1) I was unaware of this noticeboard discussion when I removed the template; @Robert McClenon: perhaps next time you tag an article you could give at least some rationale? That would have been helpful. I only saw this discussion now that the IP linked here from the RCinUS Talk page.

2) ---Avatar317 22:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

All the arguments put forward by those of us who question the assertion remain intact. The claim remains false (regardless of the credibility that some or other users attribute to some or other economists). The objective reasons (and references) why the claim cannot stand have been clearly stated by me, SPECIFICO, TFD and Dennis Bratland. In this discussion, that is the majority (although as I said, even if there were no majority, the claim that there is a consensus among economists would still be false). Therefore, I think it is time to remove the statement and label the page as Template:POV.193.52.24.13 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Avatar317, I would describe your ad hominem as not worthy of a reply and not worthy of consideration in any discussion. Please focus on content, not contributors.

You analogy is false for this reason: Andrew Wakefeild has had his medical license revoked. Medicine is a real science with rigorous oversight, and objective rules of conduct. Frauds and quacks are identifiable. Kshama Sawant has not had her license to practice economics revoked, because there is no such thing as a license to practice economics. There can't be because there is no rigorous test to determine if an economic theory is valid or not, or if an economic "fact" is true or false. Nothing an economist could do can be construed as misconduct. Sawant has a PhD in economics. That is equal to any one else's claim to be an economist. The only reason to suggest she is in any way comparable with Andrew Wakefield is if one does not like her opinions, yet cannot rigorously prove them to be false, what with her opinions being economic in nature, and thus not scientific, meaning they are not falsifiable.

You can believe in the magic of the invisible hand of the free market all you want, believe as hard as you can, but that doesn't make it science. It's still mere opinion and should be treated as we treat any other opinion, given appropriate attribution and weight. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Economists often work with empirical data, and anyone doing empirical research in any field for a university would be disciplined for misconduct if they were caught fabricating or falsifying their results. For example, Brian Wansink (who studied consumer behavior and nutrition) was stripped of his research and teaching positions after Cornell determined that he had falsified data. Also, the American Economic Association has a code of professional conduct that requires its members to practice "intellectual and professional integrity," which includes "honesty, care, and transparency in conducting and presenting research; disinterested assessment of ideas; acknowledgement of limits of expertise; and disclosure of real and perceived conflicts of interest." Integrity in the research process is clearly an expectation in the economics field. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

But the definition of who gets to be surveyed as an economist in these studies that claim consensus against rent control don't limit themselves only to university employees or only to members of of the AEA, which is a self-selected group whose political neutrality is not universally acknowledged. Further irony is that these studies are not peer reviewed, so trying to wrap them up in the integrity of university standards is not convincing. And just because the AEA tells us it has standards of good behavior isn't proof they enforce them.

Insulting me by saying I'm no better than an acolyte of proven fraud and quack Andrew Wakefield is both offensive and reinforces my point that all these claims of rationality and rigor among those mansplaining rent control to us ignorant hysterics is a sham. This desperate need to attach the aura of authority to anti-rent control opinions only exposes how weak the argument is.

If you told an astrophysicist you think Pluto really a planet not a mere dwarf planet, they don't huff "how dare you! We have spoken!" They say, well, here's the evidence, here's our line of reasoning. Or consider MOS:PUFFERY. We don't need to put pedantic lecturing like "Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter" into encyclopedia articles. We can simply leave that unsaid and instead mention a handful of the long list of accolades that justify assessment. The claims about Bob Dylan are given in-text attribution so we can see whose opinion that is. If you want to give opinions about rent control, just say it with in-text attribution and not in Misplaced Pages's voice. If those authorities are respected enough, that speaks for itself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Snoogan's link makes it clear there is a consensus among economists on this issue with respect to the specific claim regarding "reduces the quality and quantity of housing". That doesn't mean we shouldn't note benefits of rent control or note if "quality/quantity" are the only appropriate measure. Also, it would be best if the sourcing in the article is to academic sources vs media sources. Springee (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

How? Snoogan's link is a simple google scholar search whose first entry is Jenkins' article, which is published by a libertarian think tank by a person who does not even have a PhD in economics, in a journal of dubious quality (impact factor 0.920). Moreover, the article itself states that 23% of economists either "agree with provisions" (16.6%) or directly "disagree" (6.5%) with the claim that "A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available". This is not a consensus. Moreover, as Avatar317 themself says here , think tanks are NOT academic sources, nor reliable. Furthermore, the list of google scholar articles, besides not being a source in itself, contains the very articles I cite as counterexamples that there is no consensus.193.52.24.13 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I see several sources that make similar statements, not just one. Also, scholarship is not something restricted to PhDs and universities. I've worked for companies that have done scholarly publications. Think tanks can also do such publications. All that is required is getting a document published in a scholarly journal. I do get the concern about low impact factor. I'm not sure what is considered a good impact factor in that field but I also see a number of sources on Snoogan's list making similar claims. This isn't something claimed only by a single think tank. Springee (talk)

The point is that "rent control" is too broad and diverse a set of policies for this categorical statement to be meaningful. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging user @Qzekrom: because that editor did some changes which (in my opinion) improved the article, and was involved in the past discussions.

@SPECIFICO: Yes, rent controls have been implemented in many ways, generally to reduce or minimize the known harms from it, but that doesn't change the fact that we have multiple good sources with economists stating that it (generally) yields certain outcomes. Note, we aren't saying that it is "bad"; we are stating specifically what outcomes it produces.---Avatar317 22:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That does not address the problem I identified. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You said "In the case of rent control, my sense is that yes the text reflects mainstream consensus." But then you went on to make some UNSOURCED claims. You said that ""rent control" is too broad and diverse a set of policies for this categorical statement to be meaningful." - do you have any sources saying that MOST economists do not think that the discussed statement is broadly applicable to rent control? ---Avatar317 03:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN for sources is on you. SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday, based on the arguments provided here, I deleted the false claim from the article and labeled it as Template:POV. Avatar317 has reverted those changes again. I ask the more experienced editors of this conversation SPECIFICO, TFD and Dennis Bratland to verify this so that we can proceed with appropriate action. I consider what we are witnessing a very serious case of lack of neutrality.193.52.24.13 (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

For your information: an active user who acts as a custodian of these articles seems to want to silence me in order to prevent the false claim from being deleted and the article from being labelled as a Template:POV. The thread is here: 193.52.24.13 ---- (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the material newly added or long standing. I don't see a consensus one way or the other here. If the content is long standing then we need a consensus to remove. If it's newly added then you need a consensus to keep. Springee (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I have recently been following this discussion. I would like to say a few things:

1. The statement was introduced by Snooganssnoogans on 24 December 2020 at 14:54. As this is not a long-running content, the one who should get a consensus to introduce such a statement is the one who is in favour of it.

2. I consider that the IP is right and that the statement is false. The mere fact that there are economists who think differently should suffice as proof (e.g. ).

3. I find it outrageous that the IP is the only user blocked by an edit war given that it is the one who has contributed the most evidence and arguments to this discussion. Pedrote112 (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I was asked to contribute to this discussion. I found a meta-analysis on the effects of rent control by the Urban Institute. For what it's worth, the Urban study discusses rent control's impact on many dimensions, such as neighborhood stability and racial equity. A neutral introduction to a Misplaced Pages article on rent control would discuss all of these effects, not just the quantity and quality of housing, and it would include the perspectives of social science fields other than econ.

The claim that this discussion has been focusing on is: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing." Let's break this down.

"There is a consensus among economists"

I think this is what computer scientists call folklore: something that many people in a field believe but isn't necessarily supported by evidence. Economists might believe that most other economists agree with them on a claim because all the economists they know agree with that claim, but that might be because they're in an echo chamber. Many sources, like this Freakonomics podcast episode and this Washington Post op-ed, claim that this is something that most economists agree on. However, newspaper op-eds are usually not fact-checked, so any claim in the WaPo op-ed might be false. I think the Freakonomics episode is more reliable, since the podcast creator is obviously very familiar with the econ field, but this claim needs to be substantiated by more sources. It's also worth noting that the claimed "consensus among economists" in these sources is a value judgment ("rent control is bad policy"), which isn't the claim in question ("rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing").

"rent control reduces the quality ... of housing"

"Quality" is a subjective term, and it should be qualified (pun intended). Rent control laws might reduce the quality of apartments in that they cause the apartments to deteriorate physically from neglect; there is some evidence for this (see p. 5 in the Urban paper). However, quality of housing might also be judged by the stability of the surrounding neighborhood and the tenants' social connections, which rent control might promote in some cases. Given the ambiguity of the word "quality," I think we can't say that rent control reduces the quality of housing.

"rent control reduces the ... quantity of housing"

I think the quantity of housing is easier to judge. Studies such as the 2018 DMQ study show that rent control reduces rental housing supply by encouraging landlords to convert their rental apartments into owner-occupied ones. However, when newly built houses are exempt from rent control laws, those laws don't affect the amount of new construction. To me, this pair of observations is enough to infer a causal relationship: that rent control reduces the quantity of rentals. This causal relationship needs to be stated in a reliable source, and I think we have plenty of sources that could support it.

Overall, I think we should not include the claim that "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing," because not all parts of it can be supported by reliable sources. However, we could include a statement about the effects of rent control laws on the amount of rental housing available. I also think that such a statement should be part of a broader discussion of the varied effects of rent control. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. And when you say free-market economists criticize it for reducing the quality and quantity of housing, simply follow that with supporters saying they don't care about the overall quantity, rather their goal is more affordable housing. So what if there's fewer luxury condos if there's more housing for working families? Establishment economic theory doesn't think the distinction matters because over a long enough time, the supply of one increases the supply of the other. Eventually. These studies focus on the quantity of housing stocks over spans of decades, when a person who can't afford a place to live will freeze to death in a single winter. They don't have decades. Much of public policy like rent control exists to address real world problems in the here and now, not an abstract future. In the long run we're all dead. When you describe the structure of both sides' arguments, it's clear they're using different goal posts, different metrics, and talking past each other. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no evidence anywhere that rent control INCREASES affordable housing; it just reduces how much it decreases by. We already have a statement saying that RC is a policy tool cities can use to help low income renters.

The timelines used are NOT different; NYC and many CA cities have had RC for DECADES; why? because these same cities do not allow enough housing construction, so there is a perpetual (government caused) housing shortage. ---Avatar317 05:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: Would this fix your issue with the "quality of housing"? - have the statement say: "...quality of housing UNITS." (or housing "stock") This is the maintenance level of rental units, which is what is meant by the term when economists use it, and avoids blurring into the Quality-of-Life issues.

For further specificity, we could add: "...RENTAL housing UNITS." since that is what was studied. Price/supply of houses for purchase is different. ---Avatar317 20:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I don't mind that. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Corporate media" has glaring bias issue

Corporate media, oh man. If you renamed the article to "Criticism of corporate media", it'd work just fine. Every single section, from the lead to the background to I'm pretty sure even "See also", consists entirely of a long, long essay about criticism of the concept of corporate-owned media, pushing the idea that they censor and twist perspectives (while I sort of believe that, c'mon, at least make the article coherent). Most of the article is uncited. Apparently, the article was written by a student who was doing this for a mass communication course at a university or something.

A while back, I removed some wording (including one emotive line that appeared to imply corporate media was responsible for the Iraq War and thus the deaths of hundreds of thousands) and added POV and cleanup notices, but that's really all I can see myself being able to do, since I'm not an expert at this topic. Can someone help and try and reword this stuff or something? AdoTang (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that article is terrible. Why not redirect this to Media ownership? Neutrality 17:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Made a merge request, not sure I formatted it right or did it right. Looking to make this a "Criticism" section under Concentration of media ownership or Media bias in the United States. Of course, if that doesn't pass, I'm going to make this a redirect and this article is going to the abyss. AdoTang (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Article is gone, now redirecting to Concentration of media ownership, but why didn't you use AfD? There's no content worth keeping, and the redirect target is too narrow for "media owned by corporations". Can I bring it to RfD? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I see the article Corporate media is gone. Are we still discussing here the neutrality of Concentration of media ownership? Or is that now going to be discussed on the talk page? Cheers, Pedrote112 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

AfD thing made. AdoTang (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section in the Sean Duffy article.

Hi. After a fairly extensive series of additions I made to the Sean Duffy article were blanked by another editor, I started a discussion at Talk:Sean Duffy#Duffy's Feb 2017 CNN interview, before I knew there was a Noticeboard for NPOV. Can interested parties join that discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

List of cities in Morocco

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_cities_in_Morocco&diff=1014030736&oldid=1013464104&diffmode=source

Could someone knowledgeable about the Political status of Western Sahara please have a look at the history of List of cities in Morocco? Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Who count as being Middle Eastern?

Please help resolve this POV dispute.

RFC HERE

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Are we gonna do anything about Tariq Nasheed and Hidden Colors?

Since I've seen pretty much every discussion on these topics result in a firestorm on the person looking to change it... well, I'll go ahead anyways. Worth a shot.

The setting is Tariq Nasheed and Hidden Colors. Bread and butter small-scale article about someone the world has never heard of, and his little documentary series about African-Americans. Great! Perfect.

And it's got issues! Hidden Colors, for example, leads us to believe that "Africans were the first to circumnavigate the globe, there was "pre-European settlement in the United States", that Africans created the first Asian dynasties, and that the Vatican created Egyptology": WP:Fringe? The reviews for that page have only one negative review, and one semi-negative review. Even though, y'know, I'm almost certain black people didn't create Asian dynasties or reach the New World and not tell anyone, but whatever. I'm Asian, not black. I think.

Then you've got the page of the man himself. Brief, short, and straight to the point. You can call a black woman who dates a white woman a bed wench, according to this guy. Go ahead! Call someone that! It's very inspirational...

Then you check the talk page, and you realize you're in for some deep... er, sit.

Four deletion nominations, a wall of text of heated conversations about the guy, and a big ol' section about how our friend Tariq is actually a racist, homophobic black supremacist and conspiracy theorist! Oooh. And people are defending it, because he can't be a bad person, no? You just don't like how he, y'know, hates everyone and thinks black people can't get COVID. Nah.

With none of this info present anywhere. No, rather, the entire article is presented like the word of God! Crazy. And did I mention a self-admitted representative of Nasheed edited the article? Because he did. And it says it nowhere there.

Almost all of the talk page knows Nasheed exists knows he's a black supremacist, but every attempt to mention this is blocked because it doesn't have a source or whatever (barely anyone knows the guy exists for God's sakes, how do you expect me to find a source that isn't some random page that supports him?!). I get we can't add controversy sections to BLP, and I agree, but wow. Dude's banned from entering the UK; there's clearly something up, and it certainly ain't the Brits being mega-racist...

This page is worse than Corporate media. Just in a different way. Can we do something, or are we just gonna let the stew simmer? AdoTang (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Tariq Nasheed is definitely not "someone the world has never heard of" even as someone not from America I've heard of him. He has a notable and controversial presence on Twitter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Judging by the talk page, the problem is simply the lack of reliable sources (given this is a BLP) that discuss these facets of the person. Even if "everyone knows" he has these fringe views, if that's not reported by quality sources, our hands our tied. We can downplay any puffery that may be present to try to present that person better than they are but WP cannot introduce criticism that's already existing out there, period. --Masem (t) 21:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Socraticlove appears to have brought in a good amount of sources. I wasn't saying we should create things against him out of thin air, but c'mon, the articles act like this guy came from Heaven. AdoTang (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The bulk of those sources presented fail WP:RS; the closest is the NYTimes but that would require additional interpretation to get any any of the requested claims, which we don't allow particularly on BLPs. If no RSes has validly criticized him, our hands our tied that we can't criticize him either. --Masem (t) 21:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources with criticism are lacking, it's a good AfD candidate (indication that BLPN is not met, or marginally)... —PaleoNeonate – 20:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin

Two editors are seeking to exclude properly sourced and relevant information from this article; I suggest that this is because of non-neutral points of view which I believe may be motivated by nationalism and/or possibly anti-homosexuality.

Background: Frédéric Chopin is an FA article, attracting about 1.2m views per year. Confession: I was one of the editors who brought it to FA and I have kept a watching brief since then. There are many reputable biographies of Chopin, and editions of his correspondence. Modern authorities on Chopin mention and have discussed a series of letters written by Chopin at the age of 19 and 20 to his friend Tytus Woyciechowski, which contain wording which can be (and has been) interpreted as expressing homosexual intent. There are no indications of homosexual activity by Chopin in later life. There is a consensus amongst modern writers on Chopin that the wording of the letters to Tytus is suggestive of homosexual yearnings on Chopin's partvat that time, but that nothing can be proved. Nonetheless, Tytus is the only one of Chopin's male correspondents whom he addresses in such language.

In November/December last year the article was the subject of a concerted attack by two or three editors to assert that Chopin was fundamentally gay. This was discussed in a detailed RfC on Chopin and Sexuality. The suggestions included a separate section on Chopin's sexuality. There was little support for the "hard" gay line, and some concern about mentioning Chopin's sexuality at all. The conclusion reached by the the closing editor was "the community fails to reach a consensus". There is concern amongst Polish nationalists at attributing any 'weakness' to figures in Polish history and this may also have been an element in some contributions.

Subsequent to the RfC, I and one or two other editors subsequently sought to tidy up the article, updating references and adding new material, outside the scope of the issues discussed in the RfC.

I did however add the following (the references are to sources listed in the article, all of whom are recognized authorities on Chopin):

Other letters from Chopin to Woyciechowski in the period 1829–30 contain erotic references to dreams and to offered kisses and embraces. Chopin's biographer Alan Walker considers that, insofar as such expressions could be perceived as homosexual in nature, they would not denote more than a passing phase in Chopin's life.

together with a note:

Walker writes that the letters, from which he cites many excerpts, "open the door to a large topic through which more than one Chopin biographer has wandered with no satisfactory explanation of what was found on the other side." He also cites the biographer Pierre Azoury who notes that Chopin did not use such expressions in correspondence with his other friends - "the only convincing answer is that Chopin's feelings for Tytus were different and exclusive to him."

Two editors have objected to this - one politely (User:Nihil novi) by discussion on the article talk page, another (User:Crossroads) by consistent deletion of the passage, which I reported to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, as a consequence of which the Chopin page is at the time of writing protected for 24 hours.

Both these editors seek to prevent any mention of Chopin's letters to Woyciechowski. In the case of User:Nihil novi the excuses are that a) the material is WP:UNDUE and b) Nihil novi's own translations/interpretations of the letter contents (which I would regard as WP:OR). I have no complaints whatever about Nihil novi's courtesy or conduct (although in this matter I profoundly disagree with him). In the case of User:Crossroads it appears to be that he cannot accept the opinions of the authorities cited, and he has taken upon himself judgemental conclusions about the RfC which were not made by the editor who closed it. He insists on the matter as WP:UNDUE and that my contribution in some way contradicts the resolution of the RfC. He also accuses me of WP:ADVOCACY.

My reasons for introducing the passage under discussion were simply that all modern authorities on Chopin discuss this issue and that it is accordingly correct to report it. Similar content has existed in the article Tytus Woyciechowski, without comment by other editors, since January of this year, contributed by a third-party editor. I have no personal view on the matter one way or the other. I have asked on the talk page for any potential citations that would counter the passage I included - none have been forthcoming. I personally believe that it is relevant to post on Misplaced Pages the opinions and conclusions of appropriate authorities, regardless of whether people like or don't like them. Suppression, or attempted suppression, of the opinions of recognized authorities on this (or any other matter) seems to me to be a clear case of non-neutrality - on this basis, both Nihil novi (courteously) and Crossroads (aggressively) are seeking to impose a non-neutral point of view. I believe on the other hand that the text I have supplied on this matter is WP:NPOV. I should be grateful for the opinion of this noticeboard.--Smerus (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• -Smerus, I fully support your position. Perhaps a formal Rfc is required? Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you. It is my intention to introduce an RfC about this on the article talkpage - possibly following the outcome (if any) of this discussion. The previous RfC on Chopin's sexuality and accompanying discussion (which can be seen on the talkpage and archive) included a welter of irrelevancies which I believe pertain to the NNPOV attack on article content. I would hope that a future RfC could avoid these and concentrate on the issue involved.--Smerus (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Smerus' description of the situation assumes bad faith, engages in personal attacks by accusing his opponents of nationalism or anti-homosexuality, and poisons the well of discussion by doing so. He accuses me of edit warring, but it takes two to edit war, and he was the one contravening WP:ONUS (the onus is on him to get a consensus for inclusion).

Here is the relevant discussion on the talk page where the problems have been discussed: Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Woyciechowski. I noted there that his recent addition was POV compared to his own proposal from the RfC. Note how much more cautious that text is, in both describing Walker's views and in adding other relevant views: According to Niecks, Chopin had two passions: his love for Gładkowska and his friendship for Woyciechowski, while he expressed his friendship for the latter sometimes in words a lover would use towards his beloved. Zamoyski considered the letter of 4 September consistent with how feelings were expressed in the Romantic era -"The spirit of the times, pervaded by the Romantic movement in art and literature, favoured extreme expression of feeling ... Whilst the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely, it is unlikely that the two were ever lovers." Walker considers that the passage in the letter of 4 September 1830 is undeniably erotic, and that Chopin transferred what he was feeling for Gładkowska to Woyciechowski. Insofar as such expressions could be perceived as homosexual in nature, they would not denote more than a passing phase in Chopin's life. Kallberg, writing in 1994, says that concepts of sexual practice and identity were very different in Chopin's time, so modern interpretation is problematic.

In the talk page discussion, Nihil novi noted: "Smerus, you could begin by citing the above Zamoyski quotation, that Chopin's epistolary expressions of affection for Tytus Woyciechowski "carry no greater implication than 'love' concluding letters today.""

I then added: "Exactly. Replying to Smerus: The RfC was about whether there should be a separate section on sexuality. No, it is very clearly about how, if at all, such material should be included, not a mere technicality like if it should have a heading, and was spurred on by a POV pusher whom you appear to be surrendering to for no reason. It was not about censorship - removing UNDUE and POV text is not censorship. In no way does the text you have deleted (and which I have now restored) say that Chopin was bisexual - a statement that he was attracted to a male friend implies just that (since sexual orientation isn't a "phase") and is the very matter which we just overcame POV pushing about. all reputable contemporary biographers (Walker, Zamoyski, Azoury) cover this issue - all of them conclude, as does Walker, that it must remain an open question. As noted above, Zamoyski states it carries no special implication. Does Azoury say it definitely was sexual feelings and towards Woyciechowski? You may not like what the reputable authorities say, but that is tough - WP is here to report what they say....any argument that suggests, without justification, the deletion of the opinions of reputable sources, is itself a clear WP:NNPOV - not about me. What I don't like is WP:UNDUE WP:ADVOCACY material which we just got done spending tons of time overruling, but which has returned from the dead for some reason. And we do exclude sourced material if it is WP:UNDUE. If you find a reputable authority who says that there was no way that Chopin ever had any non-heterosexual impulses - you're asking me to find a source proving a negative, which is impossible. If it was due that Chopin was non-heterosexual than I am all for it. But this sort of cherry-picked source speculating this or that historical person is gay or bisexual is not encyclopedic material. I think this has ended up being an end-run around the RfC above which found no consensus for any of this 'was he sexually interested in Woyciechowski?' material. We should be respecting that and the enormous amount of time sunk into it. It should only be added if there is a clear consensus for it, per WP:ONUS, and for NPOV would need to include Zamoyski's clarification and possibly Niecks' view from your draft as well. But I prefer not to cover that question at all per the RfC finding no consensus for change; we should stick to known and due facts, not speculations."

In an earlier statement, I wrote: "Either his sexuality is ignored entirely (my preference) or it gets a balanced treatment." Note from both that and the above that I stated willingness to compromise in including the matter but insisted on NPOV in doing so.

Smerus has yet to reply to either of those comments. I think to move forward we need to two things. First, Smerus, do you agree that if this matter is covered in the article, NPOV requires that we also give balancing perspectives like Zamoyski? And second, once the proposed addition is made balanced, I guess we have to do another RfC on whether the whole speculative matter is WP:DUE for inclusion or not. Crossroads 20:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Zamoyski does not 'balance' this text. He concludes that "whilst the possiblity cannot be ruled out entirely, it is highly unlikely that thw two were ever lovers." He gives no rationale for his conclusion that it is "highly unlikely"; and indeed there is no concrete evidence one way or the other on this, as the citation from Walker makes clear. I.e. both Walker and Zamoyski discuss the texts and conclude that they could be interpreted in this way. All modern authorities conclude that this is a possiblity, and none state that is is not. Sso my prorposed text, which makes clear the ambivalence of the situation in the view of these authorities, is hardly WP:POV. Ironically, what Crossroads fails to appreciate is that the more detail and nuancing is given about this matter, the more the content would become WP:UNDUE in proportion to the article. What he does fails to explain is why he is so anxious to hide what Walker, Zamoyski and others are perfectly happy to discuss openly, and why he feels that WP users should have it hidden from them. WP is here to report what authorities have to say, not to conceal what some editors don't like in what they say. There can be no excuse for wielding WP:DUE as a pretence for censorship, and as a coverup for WP:NNPOV. --Smerus (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Zamoyski gives his rationale for that conclusion in your own text when he says the wording of that letter is consistent with the style for the Romantic period. While no author is obviously going to be definite on the matter given what little there is to work with, there is no way that excluding that view (that attraction was unlikely) is NPOV while including Walker's view (that attraction was plausible but was "a phase"). I think arguing that Walker's view alone is neutral is absurd. Your old version also includes Walker suggesting that "Chopin transferred what he was feeling for Gładkowska to Woyciechowski", which is also now absent for some reason. Regarding length of material, some could be put in a note, but what exactly to include can be discussed. Regarding the rest of your comment, where you frame this as being about "hiding", I could just as well ask why you are so eager to include such inconclusive material in an article that's short relative to a book, based on just a few pages of said book. The fact that this keeps being framed as "erasure" and "hiding", and others accused of censorship and "dontlikeit", does not assuage my concerns. Crossroads 03:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Many of the past five months' advocacies for including, in the "Chopin" article, homosexual or bisexual interpretations of Chopin's sexual orientation – nearly two centuries after his penning of a few letters containing a few passages of unclear import, sometimes mistranslated from the Polish into English – have been redolent of a poor-quality gossip column. Such speculative matter would not serve well the world's Misplaced Pages readers who expect solid, substantial, meaningful information on a subject – especially from a Featured Article.

Indeed, it is a question whether, for some years now, it should have been a featured article, having for example been tendentiously censored of even the mention (only belatedly restored by Smerus on 30 March 2021) of Chopin's first known love, the teen opera soprano Konstancja Gładkowska, whose singing is thought to have contributed to inspiring Chopin's invention of important musical devices in his compositions.

Similarly, if not quite as radically, downplayed (and a little less so since I myself restored previously deleted information) has been the second known love of Chopin's life, his fiancée Maria Wodzińska, the talented teen portraitist who, according to Tad Szulc, painted the best portrait we have of Chopin, besides Delacroix's portrait which Chopin hated.

In lieu of genuine, indubitable aspects of Chopin's love life, we have been offered ersatz speculations – whose own authors acknowledge to be speculations – about a few passages, in a teen's private correspondence, lacking in adequate context for establishing their import.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References for discussion on Chopin (see above)

1. Walker 2018, pp. 156–158. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWalker2018 (help)
2. Walker 2018, p. 156 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWalker2018 (help)
3. Azoury 1999, p. 90 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAzoury1999 (help)
4. Walker 2018, p. 158 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWalker2018 (help)

AstraZeneca vaccine

I noticed over the past week there are a couple of editors in Astrazeneca article who are rather defensive of the vaccine (which is fine - debate creates better articles) but are adamant on no reference being made to AstraZeneca being the only Covid-19 vaccine which so far has been associated to Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events as is reported by the latest government and medical sources. My sourced edits have been outright deleted or heavily editorialized with confusing language so as to minimize or downplay potential risks with edit summaries on the lines of "it wasn't suspended it was a temporary pause(!). I have of course complained about this slant in the talk page but have been met with insults (stoking anti-vax fears a euphemism for being a nutjob and threats) "Tread very carefully or you will be forcibly stopped". My main complain is that we are dealing with two highly POV editors who are not being balanced about this particular vaccine and are using WP:MEDRS as a catch-all non-argument ironically for censoring statements by medical agencies. I have tried to add some balance but its still a mess. I do not want to get into an edit war since hostility is ongoing so I seek other Wikipedians to look into this and give their outside opinion. Hopefully this will help improve a very important and visible article on wikipedia which no doubt gets tens of thousands of daily views. --Huasteca (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's actually Huasteca who is pushing a POV here - they seem to want to push a claim that the AZ vaccine is "bad" because it "caused" these things, when there's no proof of this at all. I recommend a minimum of a topic ban from COVID-19 vaccines (under COVID-19 general sanctions which this user was notified of officially before, and reminded of by myself today), and I think a WP:NOTHERE block is also likely to be warranted here. This user is violating WP:SYNTH to push their point of view that the AZ vaccine is definitely the cause of these deaths, when no such thing has been suggested or proven by any reliable medical source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's see User, the sourced text which you have deleted here followed by a flurry of threats , , does not say AstraZeneca is bad. It does not say anything but what the sources say - that AstraZeneca vaccinations have been associated to thrombotic events and a number of deaths. Exactly 45 deaths according to the latest EMA update. A fact, which is sourced and which is rather uncontroversial and which sets AstraZeneca apart from other vaccines and explains why they are being suspended in multiple juridisctions. It was deleted as POV-pushing and I am starting to find this systematic and highly suspicious. Huasteca (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Huasteca, sure, but what it implies, by using words such as "association" (without including a sentence clarifying that it hasn't been proven to be causation), and saying that it "led to a number of deaths" without clarifying that those deaths have not been proven to be caused by the vaccine, is not appropriate. You leave out all of the other information but only include the "damning information" - which is a clear case of being here not to build an encyclopedia but to "right great wrongs". You also refuse to mention that, of the jurisdictions that have suspended its use in some/all people, most have resumed use in all patients, or at least in most patients - so why do you refuse to accept this and mention it as well? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't care what the term "association" conveys to you or others emotionally. It is the term that is used by sources so we can't edit it out infantilizing wikipedia readers. The EMA also specifically use the term "safety signal" which means there is potential causation requiring fast track investigation according to the EMA's own definition. 45 deaths from cerebral thrombosis are a core component of this safety signal and, again, we can't hide this from the public out of concern that "we might scare them". Misplaced Pages is not censored and it certainly should not behave like government PR management. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-review-very-rare-cases-unusual-blood-clots-continues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huasteca (talk • contribs) 22:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

And yes, as I mentioned in the article talk page "Associated" implies correlation, not causation. So it is the correct term. I do think there is a causal link personally but we don't know that yet. We will know soon enough...Huasteca (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Huasteca has been aggressively pushing a scaremongering, anti-vax POV by misrepresenting sources, in about the worst possible way for the topic in question given the state of the news. Since COVID-19 topics are subject to GS, and Huasteca is aware of these, I think some admin action to remove them from the topic would be to the Project's benefit. Alexbrn (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• By fortuitous coincidence, I am an admin, and I also happen to be the creator of the COVID-19 vaccine article (and a handful of other vaccine-related articles), so I know enough about the subject matter to know that Huasteca is pressing a viewpoint that lacks scientific support for causation. The UK's medical regulatory agency (which should count for WP:MEDRS) basically says all that can be said – review is ongoing (i.e., conclusions have not been reached) and the risk is extraordinarily low. BD2412 T 06:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  The OP regards what they call "British government" medical sources as unreliable though. Note in that diff they also falsely say "We now know the mechanism whereby this thrombosis occurs with Astrazeneca". This almost looks to me like a deliberate misinformation-spreading account. Alexbrn (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Huasteca: Less than 24 hours ago you started a section at article talk. That's good although an aggressive heading ("Continued POV pushing") is not suitable. At any rate, your statement included "There is no longer any doubt on the causal link between Astrazeneca and the clots". Do you still believe that? I ask because your comments there a few hours later are quite different. Again, that is not a suitable approach for a topic like this—more care is needed in what is written, particularly when following an aggressive heading. What is your current proposal? What is your response to the "We now know the mechanism..." comment just above mine? Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Alexbrn Look, scrutinizing my statements is not conducive to anything. Its about the article not about me and I honestly don't care that much. I just want more wikipedians to have a look at this article and ensure it is balanced and does not conceal basic information about AZ and its relation to Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events. It currently doesn't even link to this article, let alone mention any deaths. As long as the bias doesn't jump at your face with a cursory glance, I'm happy. Huasteca (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Ok... other editors have been notified of your concerns. That is the most you can do. Suggest you take a break and wait to see what happens next. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  In fact Huasteca this is about you. About your asserting demonstrably untrue things both on the article's Talk page, and in article space, on a topic for which General Sanctions apply. Whether it's malice of incompetence, it's a problem with your editing and, one way or another, it's got to stop. Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution