Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion. State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]]. Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here. Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question. Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context. It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format. Sections older than 21 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: Guidance on making articles conform to the neutrality policy can be found at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, use the No original research noticeboard instead. For a review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Click here to start a new discussion

Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96

"Human shields" section at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

• War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The section War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Human shields is being frequently crafted by a couple of editors to:-

1) Treat allegations by Ukrainian civilians as facts.[1]

2) Ignore any allegations made by Russian armed forces.[2][3][

3) Ignore any allegations made against Ukraine by foreign civilians.[4]

This source is being used to claim "source reports it as fact. See WP:ALLEGED", but the source appears to be quoting and summarizing statements provided by Ukrainian civilians, mainly a Ukrainian schoolteacher named Svitlana Bryhinets.

I believe the allegations by the Russian armed forces, covered by reliable sources,[5] should be preserved since Azov Battalion's claims are being mentioned for alleging Russia of using chemical weapons.[6]

Civilians from South Africa and Bangladesh have said that they were used as human shields by Ukrainian forces. This has got coverage from undoubtedly reliable sources like:

• "Desperate dash for safety as SA students flee Ukraine war zone". TimesLIVE. 2022-03-06. Moodley said she witnessed first-hand Ukrainian soldiers and police using black and Indian people as human shields while they were under attack by Russians, shouting that their lives meant nothing. “They were using black people as human shields,” she said.
• "Kept as 'human shields' in Ukraine camps, say stranded Bangladeshis". The Daily Star (Bangladesh). 2022-03-05. We are being used as human shields. They don't even give us enough food to eat," lamented Malik.

This Washington Post article provides details on the use of civilian-populated areas as battlefield by Ukrainian forces. It quotes Canadian academic William Schabas, Human Rights Watch researcher Richard Weir and others.

At this moment, the section is clearly not complying with WP:YESPOV which says "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them'" and failing to maintain WP:NPOV by keeping it one-sided. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Georgethedragonslayer that a number of editors are pov pushing by deleting all details and references that are negative to Ukraine. My last major edits to the Human shield section is contained in this version here and the current version is here. Note that all references that are negative to Ukrane have been removed. Also note that the "The neutrality of this section is disputed" template has been removed, even though we are along way from consensus.

I have tried to engage the other editors in Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Human shields to reach a consensus, to no avail. Note that my latest attempted compromise at 08:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC) (ie simplifying the section and transfering the complex legal issue to a small summary in the Legal section at the bottom of the article, with a direct link to Human Shields (law), which could be expanded to cover the issue and how it effects the Russian / Ukraine conflict). Unfortunately it appears other editors interpretation of "simplifying" includes deleting all information negative to Ukraine.

Also note that this issue has now spilled over to the Human shields article, where all details negative to Ukraine have been deleted, compare this version of the "Russo-Ukrainian War" section with the latest version, with the section renamed "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Again, all details that are negative to Ukraine have been removed. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. However, disruptive editing and POV pushing have affected not only the "Human shield" section but the whole article.

• "Mistreatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters" section was removed ([7] [8] [9]) with no clear consensus (2 against 2) and has not yet been restored. It was backed by reliable sources and arguably relevant. See the discussion.
• Substantial changes to the lead section were made with no consensus. E.g. references to torture and killing of Russian POW were first replaced with references to their "ill-treatment", notwithstanding unequivocal sources [10], and later entirely suppressed [11]. See the discussion. The current version is "The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos of intimidation and interrogation of Ukrainian prisoners held by Russian forces, and videos of interrogation of Russian prisoners by Ukrainian forces", with basically no source in support - the quoted source doesn't mention the Monitoring Mission nor does it deal with intimidation and interrogation of Ukrainian prisoners.
• The BRD cycle has been repeatedly disregarded, talk page turned into a battleground and editors who have spent dozen of hours describing the atrocities of the crimes committed by the Russian army have repeatedly been accused of whitewashing the responsibilities of the Russian troops. Cooperation among editors has become difficult.
• Yesterday I solicited the participation of interested uninvolved editors with this OP. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Speaking only on the initial comment at the top of the thread... 1) yes, these "allegations" are essentially a matter of fact that have been independently confirmed by international organizations and journalists, 2) all official claims by Russian Ministry of Defense about it should be treated as intentional disinformation after so many lies they said; 3) one needs to look at the sources, I am not sure they are good enough to include such "exceptional claims". My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Just reporting by media outlets isn't enough, but they need to offer verifiable evidence. Have they? Ukraine has also made the claims like "Ghost of Kyiv", so according to you they must be "treated as intentional disinformation after so many lies they said", right? You need to get consensus from WP:RSN to treat Russian Defense Ministry as unreliable. Shankargb (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Going thorugh Georgethedragonslayer claims.

  1. Two reliable sources regarded claims of human shields usage in Yahidne reliable enough to assert it without attribution. Trying to frame it as mere allegations by "Ukrianian civilians" (sic) is most blatant POV pushing.

  2. Russian army has indeed made allegations, including a completely ludicrous 4.5 million human shields claim. But multiple scholars have rejected Russian claims as mere attempts to shift the blame for civilian deaths.[12][13]. So if we include Russian claims, we also need to include their rebuttal. Additionally I would note that currently the section also doesn't include claims by Ukrainian government officials, so if we add Russian government claims then Ukrainian ones will also have to go in.

  3. As far as foreign civilian claims go, Bangladeshi case was already discussed in depth at talk page and is frankly blatant case of UNDUE, as the single person making human shield claims also made other highly hyperbolic claims, like "The whole of Kyiv and Kharkiv have been burnt to ashes."[14] South African case is behind subscription making evaluation problematic. As there are certain UNDUE smells here too, I would like to see a full article before commenting further.

  Additionally I would note that Washington Post article does not claim that Ukraine is using "human shields".

  Btw, I am in favour of removing Azov's chemical weapons claim, it does seem quite UNDUE.--Staberinde (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Do any of those "two reliable" provide verifiable evidence or do they take responsibility for the allegations? I don't see that. I only see them reporting the allegations and quoting Ukrainian citizens. Some corrections: There is not just a "single person" from Bangladesh who is alleging Ukraine of human shields but one more person "who requested not to be named". As for the South African issue, you can find the full article here and it verifies the provided quotation. Bangladeshi and South African eye-witnesses are absolutely more WP:DUE than the claims made by Ukrainian citizens since we can assume that they don't have any direct conflict of interest in the conflict. Washington Post article says that Ukraine is using civilian neighborhoods for placing arms and it is putting civilians in danger. This is yet another form of using human shields and is called "neighbor procedure". Shankargb (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Both reliable sources clearly state that people were held as human shields with no additional "X claimed" or "Y alleged". Your wish to separately verify their evidence is irrelevant. About Bangladeshis, the "one more person "who requested not to be named"" does not blame Ukrainians, in fact the relevant sentence starts with "Yesterday, Russians took over this city...", so if anything it is blaming Russians. I also find it amusing how one can think that someone calling while being held at detention center has no "conflict of interest". Also your original research about "neighbourhood procedure" is irrelevant, the Washington Post article about Ukraine is very clearly avoiding making claims about human shields.--Staberinde (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Staberinde: If the source offers no empirical evidence then it needs to be entertained only as an allegation. Of your two sources, ABC article has been already evaluated above that it is only summarizing statements provided by Ukrainian civilians, mainly a Ukrainian schoolteacher named Svitlana Bryhinets, while Economist provides only a statement from a Ukrainian civilian Nadezhda Tereshchenko to explain about human shields. I wonder why you are using a different approach for assessing thedailystar.net. Sure another person starts the quotation with "Yesterday, Russians took over this city" but the quote ends with comments on Ukrainian forces that "They imprisoned us with the sole purpose of using us as human shields." Washington Post is explicit about "Ukraine’s strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes". I am not saying that this report should be included but it at least verifies claims from Russia that Ukraine is using civilian areas and putting their lives in danger, this is why it is not sensible to reject any Russian claim just because Russia made them. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  No. Reliable sources don't need to provide "empirical evidence" for Georgethedragonslayer to personally verify. ABC journalists visited the site, clearly interviewed multiple people and regarded the evidence sufficient to make statement about human shields with no "alleged", "claimed" etc.. Additionally we have a second reliable source to back up their assessment. That is totally sufficient. Thedailystar article uses "human shields" only in quotation marks, making it clear that it is merely reporting claims and not taking its stance on them. Difference is very clear. Also "but the quote ends with comments on Ukrainian forces" is your personal original research, there is no clear indication in the article for comment being about Ukrainian forces.--Staberinde (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  It is necessary for them to provide empirical evidence that how they got the information. It needs to be clear that what they "regarded" as "evidence sufficient to make statement", and so far there are only quotes from Ukrainian citizens so it can't be considered as anything more than allegation. The quote clearly ends with comments on Ukrainian forces and it is not a personal original research because the person is talking about "detention camp in Mykolaiv" and Mykolaiv was under Ukrainian control that time. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  No. It is not necessary for them to provide "empirical evidence". Please show which wikipedia policy requires reliable sources to provide "empirical evidence" for wikipedians to evaluate. I can already tell you that there is nothing in WP:RS about "empirical evidence". Good luck in your search. And no, there is nothing clear about the quote commenting on Ukrainian sources. Only forces the quote mentions are "Yesterday, Russians took over this city..." The rest is your original research. So in addition of RS policy, your are also advised to familiarize yourself with WP:OR.--Staberinde (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  It is very necessary because we can't do it without analyzing where the information came from. Your post shows you are ignorant of WP:RSCONTEXT which says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." But here, upon checking the information we only find the claims from your "two" reliable sources to be based on the quotes provided by Ukrainian citizens, so they need to be properly attributed. You are similarly misreading the quotation by ignoring the sentence that "They imprisoned us with the sole purpose of using us as human shields," as the source is clearly talking about the "detention camp in Mykolaiv" which has been under Ukrainian control. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure what are you trying to argue with this WP:RSCONTEXT quote. There is nothing there to back your "necessary for them to provide empirical evidence" claim. Do you think ABC and The Economist don't have enough people "engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing" or what? Also there is nothing clear about detention camp being under Ukrainian control in the source, this is all your personal synthesis.--Staberinde (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Context is important that where did the information come from. You haven't disputed that ABC and The Economist' article is based only on statements by Ukrainian eye-witnesses, which means that our article must not state them in WP:WIKIVOICE but attribute properly. And if "there is nothing clear about detention camp being under Ukrainian control" then you are indirectly suggesting that it could have been under control of Russia. Do you have any evidence of that? If you don't have it, then absolutely it was under Ukrainian control, since the article is about Ukrainian forces being alleged by Bangladeshis to have used them as human shields. If they meant something else, then that would be clear. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  • This thread makes me feel I was wise to stop editing this article when I did. I have however gone through it several times recently, and have closely followed the events of this war. I feel compelled, in case somebody reading this thread does not know better, to agree that the Russian Ministry of Defense is absolutely not a source of information that anyone should be taking seriously. The OP forgot the one where the Azov Battalion was supposedly holed up in the maternity hospital in Mariupol, holding hostages, and blew the hospital up because they are Nazis. No really, that was the official Russian version of events for a while, and be damned to the AP photographers who documented the patients being evacuated while in labor. NPOV does not require us to act as stenographers for such a disdain for the truth.Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  May be we should have an RfC that official Russian versions can only be mentioned in the context of disinformation. They are not just lying all over the place (which has been documented in reliable sources), they also sometimes add a bit of truth so that we can not claim they are ONLY lying, but this means that what they say is just random and has no connection to reality. Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  If this kind of nonsense continues this may indeed become necessary. Volunteer Marek 01:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  What is interesting about the Gerasimov doctrine is that apparently he believed that this was being done to Putin, so clearly he should respond in kind. And also, Putin's information bubble is possibly restricting his own access to information. But as to the RfC idea, I predict that users would come out of the woodwork to cry Russophobia. Yes, I do despair of Wikipedia these days, but can you blame me? I have just had to document that life under Stalin was not "dandy". I am currently kind of broken and am going away for a while now. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with Ymblanter because otherwise all Ukrainian claims should be discarded too due to disinformation incidents like Ghost of Kyiv. Let us not forget that academics have also described that Ukraine used human shields in this conflict since 2014:

  • Chinkin, C.; Kaldor, M. (2017). International Law and New Wars. Cambridge University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-107-17121-3. Some protestors from the Maidan formed a predominantly female self-defence unit known as Unit 39, while in Eastern Ukraine there is reported to be a 25-member all female battalion based in the town of Krasny Luch. Some have suggested that the women have been recruited on the Eastern side as human shields; a Kiev news agency reported Donetsk leaders as saying 'no one will shoot at separatists if they are women'.
  • Darden, J.T.; Henshaw, A.; Szekely, O. (2019). Insurgent Women: Female Combatants in Civil Wars. Georgetown University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-62616-667-7. Women played a key role in providing supplies to family members who were effectively trapped on Ukrainian military bases in Crimea. Some went so far as to act as human shields, protecting Ukrainian troops during the invasion.

  When allegations about Ukraine using human shields were correct as the history has shown, then it is incorrect to assume them as baseless this time too. Shankargb (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. Your item 1: female combatants are not the same thing as human shields. Also would Eastern Ukraine be Donetsk? Your item #2: Voluntarily remaining with a military unit is not the same thing as being held hostage. Russia unquestionably lied about its actions in Crimea, and reportedly held the parliament there at gunpoint until they passed a bill calling for a referendum. Bonus item: Ukrainian villagers have claimed to have been involuntarily used as used as human shields by Russian soldiers, including a 16yo who says she was raped. And that soldiers wrote "children" on the outside of the house. Bottom line, there would have to be some very very good sources before I believed an organization that has provably lied so much and so often Elinruby (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I added some quite in-detail information about the mistreatment of perceived marauders, but it was removed, without a clear explanation. The "Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers" section was also removed while the "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers" section was never even discussed (later removed after I brought it up, even though I think both sections should have stayed), which falls pretty squarely under WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. A few editors have been repeatedly removing every single mention of Ukrainian war crimes; I'm glad you brought it up here because the level of back-and-forth editing and reverts on that page have become irritating. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about TimesLIVE (what used to be a free tabloid from South Aftica) but I wouldn't call The Daily Star "undoubtedly reliable". It publishes a lot of sensationalist stories and garbage. Maybe not up there with DailyMail but maybe something like Express UK. Regardless, both of these sources "report" on claims that have not gotten coverage in any other main sources. If you search for "Russia Ukraine human shields" (or "Ukraine Russia human shields") you have to click through like 15+ pages of search results of "Russia is using human shields" before you find these stories. Someone (the editors trying to add this nonsense) went to a lot of trouble to find *something*, anything, that would serve as an excuse for them to write "both Russia and Ukraine are doing it". It's textbook POV pushing with false balance.

And in fact the story in the Star is just dubious. The individuals involved were in some detention camp "ran by the European Union" (sic) in the town of Zhuravychi which is... in Western Ukraine close to the Polish border nowhere close to where any fighting took place. Yet they are making claims that "Russians have taken the city" or "Russian tanks rolling by" and are calling on "Russian authorities to come rescue them" (!!!). They claim to be "human shields" but... like I said, there's absolutely been no fighting happening where they're at. It turns out that they're in the camp because they entered Ukraine illegally after... confusing Ukraine with Russia and crossing the border, and it seems Ukraine didn't know what to do with them ([15]). It seems efforts were being made to repatriate them but it's not like you can just let a bunch of foreign dudes go wandering around a country that just got invaded and there's a war going on. Apparently these efforts weren't taking fast enough to to their liking. The claims about being "human shields" are pretty obviously hyperbolic exaggerations at best.

If you think that the above is on par with putting carriages with children on your tanks as you launch attacks then YOU are the one with a POV problem. In fact, this gross distortion right here illustrates nicely what the actual problem is on the article, and how desperately some people are trying to "both sides" the stories of war crimes that are coming out (sad truth is that one side is responsible for overwhelming majority of war crimes that've occurred and saying anything other than that fact is a clear breach of WP:NPOV and even WP:NOTHERE). Volunteer Marek 01:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The sentence "Since the onset of Ukrainian-Russian war (2014–present), both Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of using Human shields" is well sourced and accurate. There's no reason for omitting the claims made by the Russian authorities. If their claims turn out to be false, lies will be exposed, but the fact that they've claimed something is already a notable fact that deserves to be reported.

With regard to the stranded Bangladeshi, let me repeat what I've said on the talk page: the info should be given, but not in the human shield section. On this I've found this authoritative source (HRW) and this one (Infomigrants). They make clear that it's not a case of using human shields (probably the Russians don't even know about the migrants, or don't care) but rather ill-treatment of civilians in the context of war. The migrants were held in a detention facility supported with EU funding – "ran by the European Union" is perhaps inaccurate but not false – and Human Rights Watch said that "Whatever the original basis for their detention, their continued detention at the center is arbitrary and places them at risk of harm from the hostilities". The info could fit in a self-standing subsection entitled "Ill-treatment of irregular migrants in detention camps" within the general section on " Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

TimesLIVE is not a "tabloid" and The Daily Star (Bangladesh) is also an established reliable source. You can't call them unreliable just because they disagree with your personal views. Google search results and SEO rankings have nothing to do with WP:VERIFY. You seem to be finding loopholes to keep the content out but none of your explanations fails to justify your content removal. If the article gives impression that "both Russia and Ukraine are doing it" with reliable sources, then it is called WP:NPOV not false balance. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not familiar with TimesLIVE but I am with The Daily Star. And it is indeed a tabloid. And no, it is not "an established reliable source". Care to support that claim? Here is an old discussion from 2014 which basically points out problems with it [16]. And I've just pointed out a myriad of problems with the story as presented. The UNDUE problem, of relying on idiosyncratic sources dredged up from the bottom of search results to present a false "both sides are doing it" narrative is IN addition to the fact that it's not RS. NPOV and RS are not "loopholes" but rather our policies. Volunteer Marek 05:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Daily Star Bangladesh is not a tabloid and the RSN discussion you linked hasn't said that it is unreliable as a source. The page in question Bangladesh Liberation War still use about 6 different references from this website. On historical subjects like that, it is absolutely better to rely on academic sources over news sources but the information we are discussing here hasn't been disputed by any other source and it comes from a established outlet like Daily Star Bangladesh which is running for decades. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Star quotes recently Russian Ambassador https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/diplomacy/news/some-bangladeshi-media-outlets-echoing-wests-anti-russia-campaign-russian-ambassador-2981986. Does it quote Ukrainian or neutral sources?Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• While there is definitely something to be said about taking anything said by Russian media with extremely high doubt, we should be aware that there's a lot of general unintentional misinformation going around in favor of Ukraine's position here as well, in part due to the lack of actual neutral third-party eyewitnesses able to confirm these stories. This is not to say we should have the same level of doubt in terms of Russia media stance, but we should be also wary of taking anything said in cases like this as 100% factual, at this stage. This is probably a situation that will take years after the events cool off and researchers figure out what had happened before we have something factual to be said about it. --Masem (t) 01:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Alright Masem but here are my two questions:
• If Ukrainian claims about Russia using human shields can be included, then why Russian claims about Ukraine using human shields cannot be included?
• If Ukrainian eye-witness accounts about Russia using human shields can be included then why accounts from foreigners, namely from South Africa and Bangladesh, cannot be included about Ukraine using human shields?

  I see no dispute about WP:VERIFY here, only WP:UNDUE or WP:DUE. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  There are disputes about WP:RS as well as WP:DUE. WP:VERFIY is a necessary not a sufficient condition for inclusion - it is the bare minimum. Volunteer Marek 05:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  There is no dispute about WP:RS because you are alone with calling TimesLIVE and The Daily Star (Bangladesh) unreliable when they are undoubtedly reliable sources. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Asserting and repeating something is not the same thing as supporting it. These are not "undoubtedly reliable sources" no matter how many times you say it. In fact, they're hardly reliable at all. I've already linked to one discussion where other editors expressed concern about The Daily Star in particular. I've also pointed out how the story in The Daily Star omits lots of key details - reported in another source - which makes it sensational garbage. Volunteer Marek 15:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  The discussion on the reliability of the sources seems to me no longer necessary since we have Human rights watch reporting on what has happened. Notwithstanding what the Bangladeshi thought and said, theirs was not a case of being used as human shields but of being subjected to ill-treatment related to war. As such we can account for it in an appropriate section to be created. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Keeping in mind that we are still in middle of an active event with barriers to some information transfer, I would still make sure to take any statements from Human Rights Watch as inline attributed ones. We definitely don't have to treat what they say with the level of doubt as anything out of state media from Russia, just that it should not be taken as 100% conclusive. --Masem (t) 15:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that's entirely correct and is what we've been doing in that article since the beginning. Apart from undisputed facts, everything there is "according to", "X said", "Y claimed". From time to time there are always editors who eliminate an "allegedly" or "reportedly", implicitly or explicitly claiming "we know all the truth about this" (e.g. image of victims in Bucha, recently), which I find a bit annoying, but I'm afraid there's nothing to do about this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Gitz6666: That is what this discussion is really about that we should be providing coverage to allegations from both sides and properly attribute the allegations. I don't see what is exactly wrong with that. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Who misnforms? One example. Ukraine has allegedly inflated number of dead Russian soldiers, but some Russian sources confirm similar numbers. Russia pretends to not participate in a war (but a special operaration), which is a bad joke. So Russia is obviously less reliable.

  Western people generally do not understand totalitarian propaganda, they belive that the truth is somewhere inbetween. No, the truth is 'the war' not half-war, half special operation.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Russia has staged humanitarian help for Ukrainian people, alredy probably forgotten. European Union helps the civilians, not Russia. The scam included hundreds of participants. The Ghost of Kyiv belongs to a comletely different category. Any oppressed population needs a hero.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There are no 'undoubtely reliable sources'. The NYT controversies have been documented and described, the NYT is under continuous critics and surveillance of millions, including mine. I am not sure if the Daily Star has so many critical readers like the NYT has.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: section seems to have been fixed and now includes terms such as "reported" and "alleged". GTNO6 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Actually the issues number 2 ("Ignore any allegations made by Russian armed forces") and 3 ("Ignore any allegations made against Ukraine by foreign civilians") of @Georgethedragonslayer opening post are still open. After a period of apparent consensus, the section "Human shields" is once again controversial among editors, and the article would benefit from other editors' inputs to this thread on the talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  The section also talks about allegations made by Russian forces and foreign civilians. What are you talking about? And keep in mind that even if they were not mentioned, we can't just add original research and we need to write what reliable sources say. GTNO6 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• That entire article is a WP:TNT waiting to happen. Far far too much POV by editors trying to include every claim of a war crime regardless of the soruce as such. Whether something in the Ukraine/Russia war is a war crime is going to be a matter of international oversight and review, not what even the NYTimes or other high quality mainstream sources say. We should not be writing to this level yet, under NPOV, NOTNEWS, and many other policies. --Masem (t) 16:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Dictator and kleptocrat ?

I posted the text below at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and User:Galobtter was kind enough to comment eight minutes after my posting on that page that the more appropriate venue would be this talk page so I am re-posting the text here:

The lead sentence of the Ferdinand Marcos lead paragraph states, "Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr. (/ˈmɑːrkɔːs/ MAR-kawss;[5] September 11, 1917 – September 28, 1989) was a Filipino politician, lawyer, dictator,[6][7][8] and kleptocrat[9][10][11] who was the 10th president of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986."

And the last sentence of the lead paragraph states, "One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was infamous for its corruption,[15][16][17] extravagance,[18][19][20] and brutality.[21][22][23]"

The lead sentence of the Imelda Marcos lead paragraph states, "Imelda Romualdez Marcos[4] (locally [ɪˈmelda ˈmaɾkɔs]; born Imelda Remedios Visitacion Trinidad Romualdez; July 2, 1929) is a Filipina politician and convicted criminal who was First Lady of the Philippines for 20 years,[5] during which she and her husband Ferdinand Marcos stole billions of pesos[6][7]: 176  from the Filipino people,[8][9][10] amassing a personal fortune estimated to have been worth US$5 billion to US$10 billion by the time they were deposed in 1986.[11][12][13]"

The last sentence of the lead paragraph of the entry for their son Bongbong Marcos states, "He is the second child and only son of former president, dictator and kleptocrat[8] Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and former first lady and convicted criminal[9][10] Imelda Romualdez Marcos.[2]"

Wikipedia policy has been that individuals should be described as they are described in WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and it is undeniable that authoritarian and totalitarian leaders have engendered strong feelings against them.

Even taking into account that WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS and that one authoritarian / totalitarian will not be described in the same manner as another (the lead sentences of the entries for Josip Broz Tito and Ho Chi Minh describe each as a "statesman"), the use of such terms as "dictator", "corruption", "extravagance", "brutality", "stole billions of pesos from the Filipino people", "convicted criminal" and "kleptocrat" in lead sentences of articles seems unique. In fact, no other head of state appears to be described as a "kleptocrat" and certainly not in an article's lead sentence. The lead paragraph of the son's article uses such terms to describe his parents.

Between December 2020 and March 2022, there have been three discussions — Talk:Ferdinand Marcos/Archive 5#Discussion on improvements to the lede per the WP:BRD process — Talk:Ferdinand Marcos#Consistency with Wikipedia's use of the term "kleptocrat" — Talk:Ferdinand Marcos#RfC for the use of the term "kleptocrat" in Wikivoice on a political figure, but all of those discussions have been held upon Talk:Ferdinand Marcos and that specific talk page may not be watchlisted by a large number of editors. Perhaps a notice posted here may elicit additional responses. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pretty accurate. They were exceptionally corrupt, so we follow what RS say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not true that "the use of such terms as 'dicator'... in lead sentences of articles (is) unique.

The opening sentence of Manuel Noriega's entry outright calls him a "Panamanian dictator, politician and military officer". In many other cases, such as for Fujimori and Suharto, the description appears in the second sentence of the opening paragraph.

So it's certainly not unprecedented and well within common practice. Sparryx (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that we are going to describe these people as "dictator", etc., WP editors tend to try to force these subjectively negative elements (even if they are reasonably true) as early as possible in the lede, which does not help with neutral, impartial or dispassionate tone, and instead make our articles look like massive amounts of finger pointing of blame, which is not neutral even if the content ultimately is. To take Ferdinand Marcos as an example, the lede paragraph could be written to say Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr was a Filipino politician, and lawyer who was the 10th president of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986. He ruled under martial law from 1972 until 1981[12] and kept most of his martial law powers until he was deposed in 1986, branding his rule as "constitutional authoritarianism" under his Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (New Society Movement). One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was considered a dictatorship and kleptocracy, and was infamous for its corruption, extravagance, and brutality. No information has been lost, but by simply waiting two sentences in the lede to introduce the subjective facets, that reads far more neutrally and impartially as we are not rushing to judge him out of the gate. --Masem (t) 03:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent! Install that version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I join Valjean in complementing Masem for constructing an encyclopedia-worthy rewrite. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FIRSTBIO states: "The first sentence should usually state: (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". These terms are the key descriptors that an overwhelming amount of reliable sources refer to Marcos as, and thus they belong in the lead sentence. -Object404 (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how old you people are, but president, dictator and kleptocrat are the 3 things Ferdinand is most famous for in history if you were old enough to actually be alive during his regime. Globally. These are supported by SO MANY reliable sources that we've had to cull a lot of them to prevent citation overkill. Since these are the things he is most known for, supported by an overwhelming amount of reliable sources, they belong in the lede, and lead sentence/paragraph. Though you people may have strong feelings about those terms, these are simply neutral, impartial, objective facts and descriptors about the subject. -Object404 (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I somewhat use what I call the 'Hitler comparison': if a biography's lead (living or dead) seems more loaded, inflammatory, or reactionary, than that of Adolf Hitler, then something probably isn't quite right. Terrible deeds and awful people can and should be described in a dispassionate language and tone. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, and not disregarded, just that the lede, importantly, should move from most objective facts to more subjective ones. Only if the person was known only for something in the negative, like a serial killer, would we write the lede leading with the "negative" because there's no way to write around that. I know some have argued "but you have to explain why a person is notable in the first sentence" but that advice is nowhere in policy - the lede paragraph should explain that but that doesnt' require stuffing it into the lede sentence. --Masem (t) 03:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

A well-written article should have in the first sentence the main reason why the subject is notable. See MOS:FIRSTBIO for advice on well-written bio openings. Alexbrn (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It also says, re the lead sentence "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." and "However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead section". Again, there is zero requirement that what the person is notable has to be in the first sentence, only the first paragraph, and all of that must be balanced with neutral writing, which is a requirement per NPOV. --Masem (t) 03:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Very few things on Wikipedia are "requirements". The is also "zero requirement" that the first sentence of a bio omits the reason why the subject is notable. To the contrary, Wikipedia's style guidance is that it should normally be included. To write a really good bio, I recommend heeding MOS:BIO and not Masem's quirky rules. Alexbrn (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not a "quirkly" rule, and MOS:BIO tells one to write neutrally even in the lede. We're an encyclopedia, not a finger-pointer for blame and dislike on BIOs and BLPs that we know are typically seen in negative light in historical terms. We can write neutrally and impartially and still cover those negative facets in a lede paragraph easily (as I showed above), and that makes a drastic difference on tone for the whole article. Remember, I'm not proposing whitewashing of information, simply reordering. --Masem (t) 04:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, and I think it's a problem that you haunt noticeboards continually offering your quirky "proposals" as though they represented established consensus. There is no tension between MOS:BIO and WP:NPOV, and if you think there is you should raise it elsewhere. Meanwhile, I'd suggest it would be more helpful to point people to existing well-crafted consensus-based advice on how to write bio openings, rather than proposing your own maybe-incompatible formulations. Alexbrn (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:FIRSTBIO. "The first sentence should usually state: (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)" These 3 impartial, objective and neutral key descriptors supported by an overwhelming amount of reliable sources are what make Marcos particularly notable: president, dictator, and kleptocrat. Divorce yourself from any emotions you may draw from these terms. These terms are objective and accurate and what an overwhelming amount of reliable sources say, and that is that. -Object404 (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FIRSTBIO: "(4) One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." -> These terms are neither subjective (they are objective fact), nor are they contentious (they are what most reliable sources state). -Object404 (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Well put. He did this to his own legacy and RS document it. We report what they say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

For comparison, here are fifteen (analogous ?) Wikipedia lead sentences with text as it currently exists [names listed in chronological order]:

• Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin[g] (born Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili;[d] 18 December [O.S. 6 December] 1878[1] – 5 March 1953) was a Georgian revolutionary and Soviet political leader who ruled the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death in 1953.
• Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (Italian: [beˈniːto aˈmilkare anˈdrɛːa mussoˈliːni];[1] 29 July 1883 – 28 April 1945) was an Italian politician and journalist who founded and led the National Fascist Party.
• Hồ Chí Minh[a] (born Nguyễn Sinh Cung;[b][3][4] 19 May 1890 – 2 September 1969[c]), commonly known as Bác Hồ ('Uncle Hồ')[7] or simply Bác,[d] also Hồ Chủ tịch ('President Hồ'), Nguyễn Tất Thành, Nguyễn Ái Quốc, Người cha già của dân tộc ('Father of the people'), was a Vietnamese revolutionary and statesman.
• Josip Broz (Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic: Јосип Броз, pronounced [jǒsip brôːz]; 7 May 1892 – 4 May 1980), commonly known as Tito (/ˈtiːtoʊ/;[2] Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic: Тито, pronounced [tîto]), was a Yugoslav communist revolutionary and statesman, serving in various positions from 1943 until his death in 1980.[3]
• Mao Zedong[a] (December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976), also known as Chairman Mao, was a Chinese communist revolutionary who was the founder of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which he ruled as the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party from the establishment of the PRC in 1949 until his death in 1976.
• Juan Domingo Perón (UK: /pɛˈrɒn/, US: /pɛˈroʊn, pəˈ-, peɪˈ-/,[1][2][3] Spanish: [ˈxwan doˈmiŋɡo peˈɾon]; 8 October 1895 – 1 July 1974) was an Argentine Army general and politician.
• François Duvalier (French pronunciation: ​[fʁɑ̃swa dyvalje]; 14 April 1907 – 21 April 1971), also known as Papa Doc, was a Haitian politician who served as the President of Haiti from 1957 to 1971.[
• Kim Il-sung[d] (/ˈkɪm ˈɪlˈsʌŋ, -ˈsʊŋ/;[2] Korean: 김일성, Korean pronunciation: [kimils͈ʌŋ]; born Kim Song-ju[3] (김성주); 15 April 1912 – 8 July 1994) was a North Korean politician and the founder of North Korea, which he ruled from the country's establishment in 1948 until his death in 1994.
• Robert Gabriel Mugabe (/mʊˈɡɑːbi/;[1] Shona: [muɡaɓe]; 21 February 1924 – 6 September 2019) was a Zimbabwean revolutionary and politician who served as Prime Minister of Zimbabwe from 1980 to 1987 and then as President from 1987 to 2017.
• Pol Pot[a] (born Saloth Sâr;[b] 19 May 1925 – 15 April 1998) was a Cambodian revolutionary and politician who governed Cambodia as Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea between 1976 and 1979.
• Idi Amin Dada Oumee (/ˈiːdi ɑːˈmiːn, ˈɪdi -/, UK also /- æˈmiːn/; c. 1925 – 16 August 2003) was a Ugandan military officer and politician who served as the third president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979.
• Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (/ˈkæstroʊ/;[1] American Spanish: [fiˈðel aleˈxandɾo ˈkastɾo ˈrus]; 13 August 1926 – 25 November 2016) was a Cuban revolutionary and politician who was the leader of Cuba from 1959 to 2008, serving as the prime minister of Cuba from 1959 to 1976 and president from 1976 to 2008.
• Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti (/hʊˈseɪn/;[3] Arabic: صدام حسين عبد المجيد التكريتي, romanized: Ṣaddām Ḥusayn ʿAbd al-Majīd al-Tikrītī;[a] 28 April 1937[b] – 30 December 2006) was an Iraqi politician who served as the fifth president of Iraq from 16 July 1979 until 9 April 2003.[8]
• Mengistu Haile Mariam (Amharic: መንግሥቱ ኀይለ ማሪያም, pronunciation: [mənɡɨstu haɪlə marjam]; born 21 May 1937) is an Ethiopian former army officer and politician who was the head of state of Ethiopia from 1977 to 1991 and General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Ethiopia from 1984 to 1991.
• Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi[b] (c. 1942 – 20 October 2011) was a Libyan revolutionary, politician and political theorist.

WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS, but none of these men was apparently a dictator (at least not in the lead sentence or not at all — two of them [#3 and #4] are described as "statesmen" in their lead sentences) and certainly none is described as a "kleptocrat", a term that does not seem to have been used by any other encyclopedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, searching for "kleptocrat" on Wikipedia, besides discussion and definition of the term, turns up many articles using the term to describe Marcos, often with very similar wordings. Of the just 75 results for "kleptocrat", 22 come up when searching for "kleptocrat Marcos", or just under 30%. Though kleptocrat is indeed an English word that can accurately describe the Marcoses, it is clearly not a commonly used one in general (cf. "oligarch" at 2,424 results, "dictator" at 13,401). Moreover, even though the reliable sources cited in the article (correctly) identify him as a kleptocrat, there is fundamentally little about the Marcoses that make their claim to the term "kleptocrat" uniquely stronger than anyone else who could be reasonably described as such, including many of the names above. Unless the term kleptocrat is regionally popular in the politics of the Phillippines, there is little justification for its use as a specific and unique description for the Marcoses that makes up a significant chunk of its overall uses on Wikipedia. Pinguinn 🐧 11:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Marcos is most remembered for plunder, for the number of years he managed to hold on to his authoritarian powers, and for the various Human Rights abuses which allowed him to hold on to that power. I can't think of words other than "dictator and kleptocrat" that cover those items concisely, and so I think they should stay in the first sentence. - Thundersub (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We go with what reliable sources say. The following is just a tiny slice of reliable sources that categorize Marcos as a kleptocrat: historians, political scientists, economists, and journalists all call him a kleptocrat, and I'd say that's pretty definitive as to what Marcos's notability is. Would you like me to go on and citation bomb this thread? I think that is uncalled for and is highly unnecessary. -Object404 (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We of course incorporate material that is frequently reiterated in reliable sources, in the case of Marcos, it would be complete failure of UNDUE to not mention his rule as a dictatorship or kleptocracy. That is a requirement. But nothing in UNDUE says that this has to be incorporated in the first sentence of the lede, which is the misguided problem here. NPOV and BIO combined tell us that this should be mentioned early in the lede, but we still need to write the topic in an impartial, disinterested manner, and that means we should not ever be coming out the door in the lede sentence to throw subjective terms, even if well-backed by RSes, at the reader, since that immediately sets a tone for the whole article. The first sentence should be stating the plain basic facts, common for nearly all BIOs and BLPs, in a near mechanical manner. After which then switching to more subjective assessments (eg the nature of Macros' rule) within the first lede paragraph. That just makes for an article lede that is far less about throwing blame and dislike at a topic as we should be doing for an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 16:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, we should note the final sentence in Masem's proposed paragraph above, "One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was considered a dictatorship and kleptocracy, and was infamous for its corruption, extravagance, and brutality."

There is a key semantic difference between the individual being described as a "kleptocrat", which none of the reliable sources does, and the administrative apparatus being described as a "kleptocracy", per reliable sources as reflected in Masem's paragraph construction.

As another example, a number of sources refer to the current Russian leadership as "dictatorship", "tyranny" and yes, "kleptocracy". However, none of that appears in the article phrased as Wikipedia voice and especially not in the lead. When it does appear, it is immediately reverted since Wikipedia has to maintain its neutrality and avoid accusations of becoming a propaganda tool. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

"that means we should not ever be coming out the door in the lede sentence to throw subjective terms" -> Dictator and kleptocrat are neither subjective terms. They are quite clearly objective, factual and neutral in the case of Ferdinand Marcos. They best describe him and his regime, and are the most accurate and succinct terms to describe him. Neither are they contentious as the majority of RS use those terms to describe him. There is NOTHING in Wikipedia that says they should not be used, in fact, MOS:FIRSTBIO dictates that they should be used: "The first sentence should usually state: (4) One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)" -Object404 (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct, the word kleptocrat accurately describes the Marcoses. In fact, kleptocracy is one of the distinguishing characteristics of his administration. Good idea to keep it in the lede. - Crisantom (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I still come back to Masem's important point made above ("No information has been lost, but by simply waiting two sentences in the lede to introduce the subjective facets, that reads far more neutrally and impartially as we are not rushing to judge him out of the gate.") There is no censorship by just moving those words. Masem's version, as proposed above, is a good one:

Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr was a Filipino politician, and lawyer who was the 10th president of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986. He ruled under martial law from 1972 until 1981[12] and kept most of his martial law powers until he was deposed in 1986, branding his rule as "constitutional authoritarianism" under his Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (New Society Movement). One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was considered a dictatorship and kleptocracy, and was infamous for its corruption, extravagance, and brutality.

I support Masem's version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Masem's version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• I fully agree with Masem’s take on this, and support his rewrite. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree - As per my argument above that the subject is best known for the dictatorship and kleptocracy. Better phrasing can be developed, but we shouldn't be downplaying the mentions of those characteristics. - Thundersub (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree - Was Marcos a dictator? Clearly yes. Was Marcos a kleptocrat? Clearly yes. Marcos was best known for his dictatorship and human rights abuses as well as his kleptocracy. No matter what emotions you personally draw from these terms, these are quite objective, factual and neutral terms that succinctly describe Marcos. They are neither subjective nor contentious, they are simple laying down of facts, which is what Encyclopedias are all about. Edit: disagree with removal of the non-contentious, objective and historically factual terms dictator and kleptocrat from the first sentence. -Object404 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • They are not neutral terms, even if there's general RS agreement about them. They are contentious terms (simply by virtue of their meaning), which per FIRSTBIO says to avoid including in a lede sentence. You're trying to focus all the facts into a lede sentence, but that's not a requirement nor helpful for a reader nor appropriate per NPOV's requirement on a neutral tone. Instead you can build up to those terms in two-three sentences without losing that information. ---Masem (t) 23:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but no. These are factual and neutral terms. There are no RS that say Marcos was not a dictator, neither are there RS that say Marcos was not a kleptocrat. Call a spade a spade. -Object404 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Please read this story on the debate on the use of the terms Strongman vs. Dictator when referring to Marcos by the CNN Philippines newsroom. There is NO COLOR in calling a dictator a dictator. Call a spade a spade. Anything else may be tantamount to whitewashing and historical negationism. That is the end of that. -Object404 (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
      • The "call a spade a spade" / "strongman v dictator" has nothing to do with this - both terms are contentious terms in NPOV eyes and should be treated the same way. Importantly this is not soft-pedalling to try to find a different term that means "dictator" in less contentious language. This is not about eliminating terms like dictatory or kleptocrat, but recognizing that no matter how much they are backed by RSes and thus considered factual, they are still contentious forms of language by their very definition (that link supports that) and should not be present immediately in the lede sentence when trying to objectively define a topic, particularly not without building up to why those terms are used (the nature of the back half of his leadership), per FIRSTBIO and NPOV. --Masem (t) 00:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
      • And by way of example of how we shoudl be writing, EB uses this as their lede: Ferdinand Marcos, in full Ferdinand Edralin Marcos, (born September 11, 1917, Sarrat, Philippines—died September 28, 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.), Philippine lawyer and politician who, as head of state from 1966 to 1986, established an authoritarian regime in the Philippines that came under criticism for corruption and for its suppression of democratic processes. [17] I do note that that short entry overall does not use dictator or kleptocrat but we have more space in our article's body to include the sources to support that, but they clearly do not write otherwise favorable about Marcos overall; that lede is not buring the main issue that his rule was considered corrupt. --Masem (t) 00:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Where is the contentiousness in what is clearly established fact? There is no contention that Marcos was a dictator and kleptocrat. WP:NPOV states: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." -> Are the terms fair? Yes. Are they proportionate? Yes. Do they have editorial bias? No. Are they the significant views published by reliable sources? Yes. Dictator and kleptocrat are neutral, objective and succinct terms that summarize Marcos's notability, hence they belong in the lead sentence as per MOS:FIRSTBIO. You are putting meaning and interpretation on where there is none. -Object404 (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
          • But that's still ignoring the other factors of NPOV on tone and writing style, reflected in FIRSTBIO (and BIO in general), that inheriently contentious terms like dictator (in this case because it associated with a negative perception of how one ran a country) should not be included in the first lede sentence. The insistence of putting these terms that have negative connotations before explaining why the term fit is the whole blame game/finger pointing problem with ledes like this. Yes, its in RSes, etc. I don't disagree with any of those assessments, but the terms are not factual, objective statements that we should lede off articles with an impartial dispassionate statement. Those are terms the lede absolutely should build up to once the factual groundwork is laid out, otherwise you have to write to backtrack those statement or flood the lede with unnecessary citations to try to justify that. --Masem (t) 01:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
            • Again, let me repeat. Is there any contention that Marcos was a dictator? No. Everyone agrees that he is a dictator. Is there any contention that Marcos was a kleptocrat? No. Everyone agrees that Marcos was a kleptocrat. Therefore, dictator and kleptocrat are not contentious terms. They are merely objective, neutral, statements of fact. Let me repeat the consensus that the newsroom of CNN arrived at: There is NO COLOR in calling a dictator a dictator. If the terms are good enough for historians, economists, political scientists and journalists and for academic use, then they are good enough for us. -Object404 (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
              • Terms can be contentious even if RSes agree on the use of the term; one has to look at the term's definitions to know if it paints the topic in a given way. It is not about agreement in sources, but the use of words and their meaning. Eg while I did a quick google scholar search to confirm that there's >500 sources that seem to use "kleptocrat/kleptocracy" in relation to Marcos, the term is still an indiciation of corrupt use of power in the first few sources I could review. Which is fine, there's academic agreement that there was corruption from Marcos' rule. But that's a negatively-loaded term regardless how much agreement there is about it, and does not objectively describe what Marcos' actually did as a profession (which was being a politican and a lawyer, terms which are wholly objective). So we should not be rushing the lede sentence with those negatively-loaded, contentious terms, though everything else still says, absolutely get to those terms in the lede and ideally lead the reader to understand why they apply so that you don't have to rely on reference overloading. Putting these types of terms before any buildup does not make for a impartial or dispassionate article since it tells the reader that the topic is going to be treated hostily from the start. We are fully capable of writing about topics that have recieved predominately hostile coverage (ala Marcos) in a manner that does not propagate that voice of hostility into WikiVoice, which is all that I've suggested with moving the terms to a latter part of the lede, still where they are DUEly appropriate so that a skimming reader will not miss them. --Masem (t) 05:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
                • Is there any contention that Marcos was a dictator? No. It is uncontested. Is there any contention that Marcos was a kleptocrat? No, it is uncontested. Therefore, these two terms are non-contentious. These terms are cold, hard, unbiased, impartial, historical factual descriptors of Marcos. Why does there need to be a "build-up" before we can state these unbiased descriptors of Marcos? Which Wikipedia rule says that? Please point out this Wikipedia rule for everyone's benefit. Good class article Al Capone states that he was BOTH businessman and gangster in the opening sentence. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't use the cold, hard, unbiased, non-contentious historically factual terms "dicator" and "kleptocrat" that scholarly, academic, and journalistic reliable sources use in the opening sentence of Ferdinand Marcos. -Object404 (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
                • Also, there is nothing "hostile" about using the terms "dictator" and "kleptocrat". Their usage is merely statement of cold, hard, non-contentious, unbiased historical fact. -Object404 (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

                  I don't think you are understanding Masem's point, he isn't advocating for the removal of those terms, he's simply just saying that they should be moved as the lead sentence should list professions. I mean, look at Adolf Hitler, Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 until his death in 1945. Everyone knows he was evil, but the lead sentence merely states the basics. That is what Masem is advocating for, the decluttering of the lead sentence. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 09:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

                  • I perfectly understand what Masem is advocating for. However, MOS:FIRSTBIO says that: "The first sentence should usually state: (4) One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)" -- hence, the cold, hard, unbiased, objective, non-contentious, and historically factual terms for which Marcos is most notable for (being a president, dictator, and kleptocrat) belong in the first sentence. I hardly think 2 short words constitute clutter for the first sentence. -Object404 (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
                    • Let's put it another way. There are "facts" and then there are "facts". There are core, objective facts that require zero interpretation from events to state, eg Marcos was president of the Phillipines, and that his latter years of rule were under martial law. That happened, and it would not be any type of OR to incorporate. Then there's the other types of facts that are statements that require some type of expert sourcing to classify. In this case, asserting that Marcos was a dictator in the absence of any sources would be an OR violation in Wikivoice, and thus we are required to rely on expert sources to state the case why the term applies so we can use it. That clearly is true for "dictator" and "kleptocrat" here, there is absolutely the sourcing. And while there's still academic agreement that we are going to take that as a fact, it's not a "cold hard fact" because it did require expert analysis to use that way. It is why both of those terms are contentious because without the sourcing it would be a problem to include. That's the type of language lede sentences should avoid because they also incorprate systematic bias on the matter (elsewhere it is pointed out that the "kleptocrat" may be a Western viewpoint and not one shared by pan-Asian sources, for example). This is the type of awareness we need in writing our ledes to avoid introducing such terms at inappropriate times. --Masem (t) 23:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
                      • Please point out to me where in Wikipedia's rules are your "facts" and "facts" rule is stated. Or is this another one of your "quirky rules" as @Alexbrn: describes? MOS:FIRSTBIO is quite clear: "The first sentence should usually state: (4) One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". NOBODY disagrees that Marcos was a dictator and kleptocrat. Therefore these terms are non-contentious. These are also objective terms: they are used by the HUNDREDS of academic, scholarly and journalistic sources. Moreover, these 2 descriptors: dictator and kleptocrat are particularly what make Marcos notable as a president - they are what made Marcos famous GLOBALLY and what makes Marcos particularly notable. Wikipedia's rules are very clear: dictator and kleptocrat belong in the lead sentence. -Object404 (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
                        • A key word in FIRSTBIO that you are overlooking is "should". It is not "must". It is not a requirement. So stop stating that this is. Second, this is what a combination of FIRSTBIO, NPOV, and BLP all state that these elements need to be written impartially, even IMPARIAL states, as I have been pointing out "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized." And if you cannot understand how those terms are contentious by their meaning alone, not by the lack of RSes that contest the terms, then that's a good sign you may be too deeply invested in trying to assure those terms must be in the article to see the issue. --Masem (t) 04:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
                          • I think you have "should" confused with "may" or "can". "Should" indicates a strong directive to do so. There is nothing partial about using the terms dictator or kleptocrat. They are merely cold, hard statement of non-contentious objective fact. I am deeply invested in keeping Wikipedia factual, thank you. It is you who put meaning to those terms as there are no other way to go about using those terms - they are very succinct descriptors of what made Marcos actually notable globally. Otherwise he would have been just another Philippine president with no global fame. -Object404 (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

                    • Should is not equivalent to must, regardless of directive/connotation, it is not imperative. I am also highly inclined to think you would have to reach local consensus to make such a significant change as to adding "kleptocrat". I am going to be very frank with you, looking at the Kleptocracy article, it's poorly maintained, the list of notable figures is by en large developing country leaders, to me it's an archaic term. There are several good essays which detail the subtle introduction of bias within articles, and whilst I'm sure you are acting in good faith, I believe you are inadvertently adding an undertone in the lead sentence with the inclusion of kleptocrat. I think it needs to be reiterated: We are not advocating for the removal of your content; we simply would like to move it where we can give the reader more background and explanation as to why he was labeled as a kleptocrat. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 11:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
                      • @Alexbrn: summarizes it eloquently: editors that continually don't do what they should are known as bad editors. As for the term "kleptocrat" being "archaic", how come modern journalists and scholars still widely use the term to this day so it's hardly archaic. -Object404 (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

                        I personally thought it was archaic, "to me it's an archaic term." Nowhere did I imply or explicitly state that was the view of the journalistic world. Alexbrn's quote is a very broad term, and again if we look at multiple articles of controversial figures, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Ceaușescu, Théoneste Bagosora, the lead sentence merely lists their profession (and actually in Théoneste Bagosora's case, what is most known for is mentioned in the second sentence). Are you accusing the editors of those aforementioned articles of being bad editors for consistently ommitting the fact that many of those leaders were bad in the lead sentence? Again, I am simply pointing out the consensus on articles is to merely present a basic foundation in the lead sentence, then expand later on in the lead paragraph. Springee said quite eloquently: any article that makes someone who wasn't Hitler sound worse than Hitler is probably poorly written. I mean, look at Vladimir Putin's article. I'm no fan of the bloke professionally speaking but even his lead sentence shows restraint, despite endemic corruption in Russia akin to what Fredinand Marcos is guilty of too. I think that you'd be met with stiff opposition if you tried to insert words like "dictator", or "autocrat", despite him being referred by both in various media. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 21:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

                        The following are Good-Class Wikipedia articles with the following descriptors that you might say "sound worse than Hitler" in their opening sentences: Seung-Hui Cho - "mass-murderer", Terry Peder Rasmussen - "serial killer", Ted Bundy - "American serial killer" who "kidnapped, raped, and murdered", and Al Capone - "gangster". All of these are neutral, objective, uncolored non-contentious encyclopedic statements of plain fact. All of these people I mentioned had less bodycounts and committed less atrocities than Marcos, and yet these are considered Encyclopedic descriptions worthy of being considered "Good Class Articles" on Wikipedia. Perhaps it is the Hitler et al articles that need fixing, not the Marcos opening sentence, because dictator and kleptocrat are mere uncolored, unbiased, objective, non-contentious, plain statement of encyclopedic fact. Moreover, Marcos's dictatorship and kleptocracy are what make Marcos particularly notable - not his being a Philippine president, as his dictatorship and kleptocracy are what gave him global fame. Were he not a dictator and a kleptocrat, he would be just another obscure Philippine president, forgotten and largely unknown to the rest of the world. -Object404 (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

                        When the person is only known for a criminal activity, it is pretty had not to start such an article with "Soandso was a serial killer..." These are 100% factual terms (they were convicted and thus there is no further interpretation to be made. I'd have to consider the gangster aspect a bit more". In the case of Marcos, while there may have been criminal activity but he was also known to be the president of the Phillipines, so using the semifactual terms of dictator and kleptocrat would not ovrrriden the 109% factual role as president. --Masem (t) 15:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

                        Good sir, dictator and kleptocrat are 100% factual terms when referring to Marcos. In fact, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has judged his rule to be a kleptocracy. The Philippine government itself 100% acknowledges that he was a dictator, and have set up bodies like the Human Rights Victims' Violations Memorial Commission which categorizes him as a dictator. The Official Gazette (the official journal of the Republic of the Philippines) of the Philippine government officially calls his rule a dictatorship, so does the National Historical Commission of the Philippine government. Historians, Economists, Political Scientists and Journalists -- the exhaustive list of pertinent experts on the subject - call him dictator and kleptocrat. There are no RS that denies he is otherwise. I don't get where you got your "semi-factual" term from, but that Marcos was a dictator and kleptocrat are objective, undeniable, non-contentious uncontested fact. Also, Capone was also known for being a businessman, not just as a gangster. -Object404 (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

                        You have cherry picked articles to suit your agenda. Zero relevance as none of those people were state leaders, and they're exclusively known for the bad things they did. Hitler was not exclusively known as a mass murder despite the Holocaust, Hitler actually had numerous positive effects on the German nation. He rescued it from the Weimar, embarked on antismoking and anti alcohol campaigns, introduced pensions for mothers with lots of children (although that's probably linked to the whole Ayran business, it's besides the point), paid vacations, the creation of one of the largest modern passenger car companies, Volkswagen, none of which outweigh the negative effects the Holocaust had. I do not understand what is so hard to comprehend or why you feel the urge to put this in the lead sentence, you can cite all the FIRSTBIO or other relevant policies or whatever, but the fact is on large traffic articles like this bold changes need consensus. Its always been like that. Consensus takes priority over whatever policy you can dig up. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

                        Hitler article states that he was a dictator in the opening sentence. Tell me why it should be there and why it shouldn't be in the Marcos article. I hardly think there was "editorial bias" in stating that Hitler was a dictator in his opening sentence, much the same with Marcos. They are merely objective, non-contentious neutral statements of fact. Marcos was also the greatest kleptocrat of his time - he is known more for that globally than for being a president. As per MOS:FIRSTBIO, these 2 descriptors should be in his opening sentence. Also, you are quite factually and unequivocally wrong in your last statement. WP:NPOV states that "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.". Consensus does not take priority on certain Wikipedia policies. -Object404 (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

                        Again, you fail to understand me (I do not want to put this down to lack of reading comprehension as that's quite frankly discriminatory, but you do seem to have a habit of twisting my words). I did not mean that consensus superseded policies (and plus by introducing kleptocrat you're technically breaking NPOV but whatever), consensus takes priority in the sense that you cannot make a decision (such as whether kleptocrat belongs in the lead) without consensus. When reaching a decision consensus editors look at the policies and see how they can amend something to incorporate & suit the policies. You are getting nowhere restating FIRSTBIO, when several other editors have provided plenty of other leaders who are also known for heinous crimes but have very simple lead sentences. Again, see Vladimir Putin's lead sentence, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (/ˈpuːtɪn/; Russian: Владимир Владимирович Путин; [vlɐˈdʲimʲɪr vlɐˈdʲimʲɪrəvʲɪtɕ ˈputʲɪn] (listen); born 7 October 1952) is a Russian politician and former intelligence officer who is the president of Russia, a position he has filled since 2012, and previously from 2000 until 2008. No mention of "kleptocrat", despite common knowledge that Putin has very, very deep pockets. It's literally mentioned at the bottom of the lead: Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding and a shift to authoritarianism. Putin's rule has been characterised by endemic corruption, Dictator is because he held absolute power, this is literally true. Kleptocrat is a very fitting description of Marcos, but it requires an expert analysis to say so since it's a subjective term (it is NOT objective however you want to phrase it), it is not a "fact" in the sense that holding a position in a state that gives absolute power literally means you are a dictator (person who holds absolute power). Yes, many sources agree with you, yes, most experts agree that Marcos was a kleptocrat, but that still makes it a subjective opinion, it just happens to be that many people agree with this opinion, including well-informed experts. Hitler has dictator in his lead because he held absolute power. Please read WP:1AM. I am not going to reply to you any further as quite frankly this is a waste of time, you seem to be hell-bent on the inclusion of this in the lead, whilst the determination is admirable it is simply just a waste of time, we've already shown you, other leaders who engaged in similar activities do not have those adjectives. WP:SILENCE dictates that the way we write lead sentences in other politician's articles is the way to go. You win. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 22:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

                        I'm sorry, but Marcos also held absolute power legally and by excercise. By your own words, dictator should also be in Marcos's lead sentence then. Please read MARTIAL LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES: The Makings of a Constitutional Dictator from the Martial Law Museum:

                        "The Philippine government is generally divided into three branches: the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. Following the same principle of checks and balances, the President (executive) must thus approve laws passed by Senate and Congress (legislative), while the Supreme Court (judicial) may judge the constitutionality of the President’s actions.

                        Toward strengthening his dictatorial powers, Marcos made sure to disrupt this democratic setup. While he already had control of the executive branch as the President, he proceeded to take over all other functions that the government had mandate over. In effect, Marcos gave himself total control over the nation.

                        In General Order No. 1, signed September 22, 1972, Marcos declared:

                        Now, therefore, I, Ferdinand E. Marcos, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, do hereby proclaim that I shall govern the nation and direct the operation of the entire Government, including all its agencies and instrumentalities, in my capacity and shall exercise all the powers and prerogatives appurtenant and incident to my position as such Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

                        By taking control over the entire government, Marcos put himself in a position of absolute power over the laws of the land, with no legitimate body in existence to hold him in check. He personally appointed every provincial governor, city mayor, and municipal mayor throughout the nation. Throughout his term, he issued 1941 presidential decrees, 1331 letters of instruction, and 896 executive orders. His word was law."

                        -Object404 (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

                        I refuse to discuss an issue with a reader who literally has the reading comprehension of a Western middle-schooler. Cite me for WP:NPA, but despite the fact that every time I bring up a point you manage to obfuscate it into something totally irrelevant shows me you are too, too passionate. My words: Dictator is because he held absolute power, this is literally true. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 10:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

                        On Hitler, we actually have it defined that he ran a dictatorship by law: "The Act passed by a vote of 444–94, with all parties except the Social Democrats voting in favour. The Enabling Act, along with the Reichstag Fire Decree, transformed Hitler's government into a de facto legal dictatorship." Hence the term appropriate there. Macros rule has been judged by Rses to have been a dictatorship, but it was never legally one. Hence why uts a term to be used carefully there. --Masem (t) 22:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

                        Ahem. Good sirs, please see Proclamation No. 1081 which legally and officially turned Marcos into a dictator. Also please see the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruling which labeled the conjugal dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos a kleptocracy -> https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/54791. Ergo, Marcos was legally and officially BOTH dictator and kleptocrat. -Object404 (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

                        I see a pretty good case here for treating Marcos differently than any other dictator or kleptocrat. Most of them don't codify their status into law. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

                        I will grant that P1081 probably is good reason to include dictator earlier, but in contrast to Hilter, he still also was president for many years before that proclaimation, so unlike Hilter, where we say outright he was "dictator of Germany" directly, we should be careful.

                        "conjugal dictatorship" is an unofficial phrase which we should not use.

                        As to kleptocrat, that's a post-event finding which I would handle in a more "lay out the facts" way; P1081 did not create the kleptrocacy as that arose from the corruption that happened after P1081 and was only formally stated by the SC in 2018.

                        To go all the way back to what I wrote above, I would revise it to say

                        Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr was a Filipino politician and lawyer. While elected to serve as the 10th president of the Philippines for two terms from 1965 to 1972, he declared himself the dictator of the country under Proclamation No. 1081 to extend his rule, implementing martial law from 1972 until 1981. He kept most of his martial law powers until he was deposed in 1986. His rule has been branded as a "constitutional authoritarianism" under his Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (New Society Movement). One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was infamous for its corruption, extravagance, and brutality, marking it as a kleptocracy.

                        Now, the reason this works (for the most part, my wordsmithing could be better) is that there's enough details to understand why we can call it outright a dictatorship right there, as well as the latter part of being a kleptocracy. We are not outright coming out the door to say "dictator" without laying out a few basic facts (to be expanded on in the body) that quickly get from point A to point B. Key is that it very awkward to have both "president" and "dictator" in the same line without explaning that. Masem (t) 00:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

                        Your structure is the exact opposite of the guideline WP:PYRAMID which suggests "placement of important information first, with a decreasing importance as the article advances". I also fail to see how Marcos's ongoing presidency before 1972 invalidates the emphasis on his dictatorship as Marcos is known globally and is more notable more for his dictatorship and kleptocracy than his presidency. I am unfamiliar with your "laying out basic facts/explanation before labels" rule with regards to Wikipedia writing style, as opposed to calling spades spades. Can you point us to any Wikipedia guideline or rule which favors this writing style that you espouse to enlighten us? Thanks. -Object404 (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

                        PYRAMID is an essay, and in fact says "Encyclopedia articles are not required to be in inverted pyramid order, and often aren't, especially when complex." Which is very clear in a case like Marcos.

                        While NPOV is a policy, which includes WP:YESPOV ("A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity.") ,WP:IMPARTIAL ("The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.") and MOS:FIRST ("Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."), in addition to the essay WP:MORALIZE ("Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.") and essay WP:LTRD ("If an editor knows that a POV statement would be true, they should instead use neutral statements backed up by reliable citation and let the reader make the conclusion. For example, an editor does not need to say that Adolf Hitler was a genocidal maniac hell-bent on killing all the Jews. If they provide enough cited statements about his books, speeches, and concentration camps, then the reader would likely draw that conclusion.")

                        The short answer is that you have an entire lede (and even the first para of the lead) to hit the main points of notability. No policy, guideline, or essay requires us to include what is notable in the first sentence. Masem (t) 01:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

                        There is no moralization nor bias in stating that Marcos was a dictator and kleptocrat. They are plain cold, objective and uncontentious facts, even backed not just by all the relevant experts: historians, economists, political scientists, and journalists, but also by the letter of law. They do not disparage Marcos, they merely state plain facts of who he is. There are no heated disputes about Marcos's dictatorship nor kleptocracy: all the authorities acknowledge that he is. Clarity is what we are after here, and clarity is what those terms bring. Call spades spades. There are no moral judgements here, just laying down of basic facts.

                        The fact of the matter is, we are strongly urged by guidelines to include what is notable in the first sentence. The leaning is "towards" putting dictator and kleptocrat in the first sentence. You still have not shown any guidelines or rules which defend your insistence on a "build-up" structure of laying down predicates before we state facts.

                        Your main defense is that "it's not required", but it is the directed guideline. Your main argument for not doing so is "it's not required!", which is a very weak defense on why we shouldn't. -Object404 (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

        • Both terms (particularly "kleptocrat") are terms that have use cases where we cannot use in Wikivoice due to that involving some interpretation and original research (thus not plain objective facts), compared to saying something like "president of the Phillipines" which requires no interpretation. That is a plain objective fact. We can use those terms once we know we have RSes in majority using those terms but because we cannot directly use those terms without sourcing or attribution, it makes far more sense to explain why the terms apply before using the terms, which all can still fit in the lede para as I've demonstrated. There is also the moralization issue because when you come out the door in the lede sentense with those terms but without backing up why they apply, you are placing blame directly up front, which impact the whole tone of the article. The whole insistance that these terms are front and center is trying to make sure to call Marcos out as a bad person first thing, when we are to let sources and the reader actually make that determination. That's moralization and far too common on many articles today. We are required by NPOV to write impartially and dispassionately about topics (by policy), when everything else you're arguing on are essays and guidelines. --Masem (t) 06:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

      If these are not neutral terms then these should be removed altogether. However, both dictator and kleptocrat are terms that describe matters of fact and should be kept. You are correct that these terms are supported by reliable sources. - Crisantom (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

    So long as these are supported by reliable sources, then it is absolutely due to include these terms. It is actually very helpful to include these descriptions in the lede since these accurately describe the subject in a factual and neutral manner. - Crisantom (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not only is dictator a common description of Marcos, he fully met the classical definition of an individual who rules by decree during an emergency, which Marcos did through Proclamation No. 1081. I would not call Marcos a kleptocrat however because the term is not clearly defined or evenly used. TFD (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, kleptocrat is clearly defined by the Cambridge Dictionary: "a leader who makes himself or herself rich and powerful by stealing from the rest of the people". Marcos was the textbook definition of a kleptocrat, and the term in reference to him is found in an enormous amount of reliable sources. -Object404 (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That describes lots of government leaders. In fact, only some corrupt leaders are called kleptocrats. So it's not a complete definition. TFD (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's augment it with the Oxford dictionary definition: "a ruler who uses political power to steal his or her country's resources". Again, Marcos falls squarely into this and epitomizes it. Let me repeat too: an overwhelming amount of scholarly and journalistic reliable sources categorize Marcos as a kleptocrat. -Object404 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Former Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi was convicted of stealing millions from the people, but we don't call him a kleptocrat. None of the numerous U.S. mayors and governors convicted of theft are labelled kleptocrats. It is a term that is selectively used, depending on the political bias of the observer and exclusively applied to third world leaders, after they have fallen out of favor with the West. TFD (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but Marcos was the quintessential kleptocrat - he held the Guinness World Record for greatest robbery of a government for decades! He was only overtaken by Suharto in a list because Suharto outlived him. That's what makes Marcos exceptional and unique, hence the appropriateness of the kleptocrat mention. -Object404 (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is the lead sentence of Suharto's entry: "Suharto (/suːˈhɑːrtoʊ/; Indonesian pronunciation (help·info); 8 June 1921 – 27 January 2008) was an Indonesian army officer and politician, who served as the second and the longest serving president of Indonesia." No mention of "dictator" or "kleptocrat". In fact, no other public figure is described as a "kleptocrat" in Wikipedia, to say nothing of being so described in the lead sentence. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This is important to point out. I will add that Marcos is also considered a kleptocrat by critics of neocolonialism and scholars and investigative journalists identified with the global south. Crisantom (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is the description from a Filipino journalism professor, Sheila Coronel: "Ferdinand Marcos and his First Lady, Imelda, presided over what has been called a conjugal dictatorship. Thousands of dissenters were tortured, killed and jailed during their reign. Theirs was a world-class kleptocracy. They amassed an estimated 10 billion dollars — that’s 1980s dollars! — of plundered wealth. Some of that, they used to purchase Manhattan real estate. A lot of it, they hid in Swiss bank." This is just one of many examples that shows just how significant kleptocracy was in defining the Marcoses' rule. https://www.kenyon.edu/news/archive/venturing-into-unknown-skies/ Acknowledging that there have been many kleptocrats. But Marcoses' rule wasn't just any kleptocracy. Mr. Marcos was the biggest kleptocrat in the country's history. He presided over a world-class kleptocracy and that is best included in the first sentence of the article about Mr. Marcos. - Crisantom (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Masem's version. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree Marcos was a dictator according to reliable sources. He was also a kleptocrat according to reliable sources. Dictatorship and kleptocracy were defining characteristics of his rule and should stay. These are neutral terms and there is nothing controversial in applying these terms to Marcos or his administration. These are distinguishing features of the subject and as such need to stay in the opening sentence. -Crisantom (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• ALERT!. Keep in mind that Masem is NOT suggesting that we lose any content or remove the words. They are just getting moved to slightly later. It's all there, so there is no censorship, whitewashing, or attempt to bury these facts. They still figure prominently in the lead. Crisantom and Object404, your comments are notable for ignoring these facts, so please stay on-topic by NOT discussing the inclusion/exclusion or use of the terms. We are keeping them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, edited. I disagree with removing the terms from the first sentence. Crisantom (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Crisantom, you are not getting my point. Masem is NOT suggesting we remove them from the lead, so many of your protestations should be stricken or revised, as you're off-topic. You're fighting against a straw man of your own creation, and that just creates confusion. The third sentence of the lead is this: "One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was considered a dictatorship and kleptocracy, and was infamous for its corruption, extravagance, and brutality." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
      • As Alexbrn says, "a well-written article should have in the first sentence the main reason why the subject is notable". MOS:FIRSTBIO dictates that the opening sentence use the objective, factual, non-contentious terms "dictator" and "kleptocrat" as these are the things Marcos is most notable for. -Object404 (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
        • You're selectively reading FIRSTBIO as there's other lines that say that there should be things avoided in the first sentence too. It absolutely does not dictate this approach and in fact cautions against it. But we still absolutely want to hit those terms in the overall intro lede para. --Masem (t) 05:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
          • I am not doing selective reading. Do you mean this? "However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead section."? Two non-contentious, objective, factual and neutral terms used to refer to the subject by academics, historians, political scientists, historians and journalists -- two simple words -- are hardly "overloading". -Object404 (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
            • Yes it is, because if the reader only reads the first sentence, they have no idea why those terms apply. A good impartial tone is going to briefly explain why those terms apply (that he imposed martial law, and that under this there was widespread corruption, and hence why his term was seen as a dictatorship/kleptocracy). That's stuff you can't fully build into a single sentejnce, and as it is, stating that term without the background just makes the sentence accusation and adversaliar, which is out of alignment with the NPOV tone we are trying to achieve. If you build up from undisputed facts of history (the martial law and existance of corruption), then you are hanging the terms of dictator and kleptocrat on a solid foundate that is not adversial but still within the lede paragraph, meeting all requirements of NPOV and FIRSTBIO. --Masem (t) 05:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
              • Please refer to Wikipedia's "inverted pyramid" recommendation (not a hard and fast rule): "The main feature of the inverted pyramid is placement of important information first, with a decreasing importance as the article advances". Marcos was a president, but what made him particularly notable as a president were his dictatorship and kleptocracy, which are very important information about him. Ergo, these 2 objective, factual, non-contentious, concise and succinct terms (dictator and kleptocrat) are stylistically very appropriate in the lead sentence. Again, the terms dictator and kleptocrat in reference to Marcos are non-contentious, undisputed, objective, and neutral factual statements of history. I fail to see how they are in any way "adversarial" if we are merely laying down cold, hard, undisputed facts. Do you also mean to say we need to lay down that he was elected in preceding sentences before we can state that he was "president"? No. There is absolutely no need for a "build up" before Wikipedia states the cold, hard, uninvolved, neutral and undisputed historical facts that Marcos was a dictator and a kleptocrat. -Object404 (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Masem's version. My reasoning is as follows: As evidenced by the results of the recent presidential election in the Philippines, many Filipinos are completely taken by Bongbong Marco's historical distortions of his father's 20 year rule over the Philippines, which he has spread very effectively on social media platforms over many years. This makes NPOV all the more important to adhere to, as if our article is too loaded with what Masem calls the subjective facets, then we may lose neutrality and credibility in the eyes of some wayward readers, who will then become reluctant about reading rest of the article and sceptical about the sources selected - and that is the majority of Filipinos right now 😔😒. We do ourselves a great disservice by frontloading the lead with these facets, no matter how factual and accurate they are, and whether they are objective or subjective. I have created a section below about the BongBong Marcos article lead, where I feel this is all the more important, as also noted by editors there. CutePeach (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, we have to remember that the lead sentence speaks in Wikipedia's voice and when such voice states directly in the lead sentence that a public figure is a "dictator", "despot", "bloody tyrant" or "kleptocrat", we risk diminishing Wikipedia's prestige as an encyclopedia. We are not a partisan newspaper or magazine and we should not be seen as a propaganda organ. No encyclopedia uses such terms and neither should Wikipedia.

For the most part, Wikipedia remains neutral and impartial, as confirmed by the stylistic form used in the above 15 lead sentences of articles delineating despotic rulers in the 20th century. However, past the lead sentence or lead paragraph, Wikipedia text should proceed to state that "sources have described Joseph Stalin, etc as a dictator responsible for the deaths of millions, etc". The understanding should be that it is the sources that describe the public figure as a "dictator" and not partisan Wikipedia editors who are writing the article. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, but Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear: MOS:FIRSTBIO states: "The first sentence should usually state: (4) One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". MORE THAN being former president of the Philippines, Marcos is most famous globally for his dictatorship and kleptocracy. Re: Kleptocracy - in fact he was Guinness Record holder for Greatest Robbery of a Government for decades. These, along with his record of human rights abuses are what he is mainly known for GLOBALLY. Neither dictator nor kleptocrat are contentious terms as NOBODY (except for Marcos fanatics) disagrees that he was a dictator or kleptocrat. That he was a dictator and kleptocrat is also OBJECTIVE fact, supported by HUNDREDS of scholarly, academic and journalistic reliable sources: historians, economists, political scientists and journalists all classify him as such. Let me repeat the consensus that the newsroom of CNN arrived at: There is NO COLOR in calling a dictator a dictator. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia guidelines are very clear, dictator and kleptocrat belong in the first sentence. -Object404 (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's the fundamental problem - you are clearly invested to make sure the Marcos are blamed as much as possible for what they did to the Singapores. I can understand that you may be fighting a handful of devoted editors that want to whitewash the crimes of the Marcos but you have several vocies here that I very much doubt support this idea that still see the neutrality problem introduced by forcing "dictator" into the lede sentence. That's moralization, which WP cannot do in Wikivoice per WP:NPOV (see the essay WP:MORALIZE for example). It may be very tempting when you have a huge body of sources that all place blame on them, but that blame can be made by way of facts (that he ruled under martial law, that there was corruption during his rule, etc.) such that the conclusion of RSes fully follows, at which point there is no moralization of the issue. We're supposed to be writing dispassionately and that may mean stepping back and recognizing when a point - fully backed by RSes - may be pushing wikivoice out of a dispasionate mode. Nothing in FIRSTBIO requires notable facets to be in the first sentence, only that it should, whereas adherence to NPOV is a requirement in all spaces in mainspace. --Masem (t) 04:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The argument that editors shouldn't do what they should is odd (write COI articles for example). Editors that continually don't do what they should are known as bad editors. Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No, that's a twisted view of the NOT#BURO aspect of content policies. FIRSTBIO saying "should" provides good initial guidance, but that also means other policies and considerations may be controlling. None of the content policies are behaviorial ones, where we would value the importance of "should" and editors repeatedly going off track from that. --Masem (t) 03:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That is correct. The description should be in an impartial or dispassionate tone. Kleptocrat and dictator do that, describe the subject in an impartial/dispassionate tone. The words are precise and concise and as such are perfect words to to describe Mr. Marcos in the lead sentence. These are backed by reliable sources and adhere to NPOV requirements perfectly. These words are not used with the intent to promote hate or moralize. These are merely descriptors, supported by academics and the mass media. Fact checkers support the assertions. Law professors support the assertions. Historians support the assertions. These are facts that speak for themselves and are not contentious. There is no need to remove the terms from the lead sentence. - Crisantom (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Role Dege31 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• "Dictator" is fine & necssary (I notice the BBC uses it here[18] as the sole descriptor in reminding people who FM was). But "kleptocrat" is not a top-level descriptor and would a little odd in the opening sentence. Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • "Kleptocrat" is a top-level descriptor of Ferdinand Marcos in this recent Chicago Tribune article. Dictator and kleptocrat are what make Marcos notable globally and gives him international fame. Otherwise he would just be another Philippine president no one would know in international cricles. Marcos is very famous for having held the Guinness record for greatest robbery of a government for decades. Not only was he a kleptocrat, he was an internationally exceptional kleptocrat. -Object404 (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree - I'm inclined to agree towards a rewording, but I believe that it has to be clear that Marcos was a Dictator and Kleptocrat. The thread so far seems to agree on the backing of research that marks him as such. While I find myself agreeing with Alexbrn that the word "Kleptocrat" may be too technical (or unique), it is the only word I can find that accurately describes what has been recognized of Ferdinand Marcos globally. "Dictator" can still be kept on the lead line considering (1) the plain definition (in the lead sentence of its own wiki page) refers it as "a political leader who possesses absolute power", and (2) that Marcos is recognized globally to have used such powers from 1972-1986 (Pro-Marcos sources do not argue that he wasn't a dictator in the plain sense, so we could "call a spade a spade" as Object404 puts it).

The concerns raised by CutePeach for NPOV do also have meaning. The talk pages of Ferdinand and Bongbong Marcos have both been flooded with claims that Marcos was the best president of the nation and that Wikipedia authors are "black propagandists" for presenting the facts. But I think this is par for the course, as there is a large historical distortion campaign being undertaken by the Marcoses to whitewash their image (See Historical Distortion regarding Ferdinand Marcos and Ferdinand Marcos's cult of personality ). Attempts to discredit Wikipedia as a platform, regardless of us upholding the best standard of NPOV etc., will still persist as long as there is at least one inch of the page that criticizes the Marcoses. The encyclopedia still has to present the facts regardless of how it is subjectively interpreted. Immaterial Chicken (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Just because nothing is omitted but simply re-arranged or moved does not mean it won't alter the truthfulness of the page. We all know that the alteration suggested is easily called "burying the lede," something that a prestigious or credible encyclopedia would and should never do, and therefore Wikipedia and its editors should also never resort to. It has been stated over and over among various credible and international sources, throughout decades, that the actions of Marcos qualifies him to definitively be a "dictator" and a "kleptocrat" and therefore the words are not used here subjectively nor controversially. A credible encyclopedia also has to be precise with their definitions. If words that best describe a subject and their notability do exist, i do not see why their usage should be relegated elsewhere other than the opening sentence. Channahnocturne (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

As I've pointed out Encyclopedia Britannica does not use either term in describing Marcos, though clearly spend time on his martial law and corruption during his rule.. Does that make eB an uncredible work? this is the issue when there us excessive focus on terms rather than outlining the facts to let them speak for themselves. --Masem (t) 13:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus EB is reliable, and is not bound by Wikipedia's WP:PAGs. I'd hope editors here aim a big higher than EB! Alexbrn (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO there aren't really any articles on Wikipedia that aren't noticeably worse than their counterpart on Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia is, in general, extremely bad. So aiming for a standard similar to EB would be shooting for the stars compared to the standard of most articles on Wikipedia. (There are probably like 2 or 3 exceptions in a couple of featured articles like climate change.) Endwise (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The key is not about EB's reliability, but its editorial process that works to make sure articles are neutrally written. That's the goal we should be striving for as a tertiary source. --Masem (t) 03:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise you don’t mind the lack of sources? And your evidence? Doug Weller talk 18:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise See [19] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 364#Britannica: a "strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?] Doug Weller talk 18:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an RSN discussion, I don't think we need to dig into the weeds regarding evidence of the reliability of EB for use as a source on Wikipedia articles; we can both disagree on this without it being a tragedy in need of rectification. Endwise (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Support something along the lines of Masem's suggestion. When articles read like we are trying to pull at a reader's emotions we have an issue. This is an encyclopedia and we should use impartial and the opening sentence should start with the concrete then move to the subjective. As was mentioned above, any article that makes someone who wasn't Hitler sound worse than Hitler is probably poorly written. Note: I'm not rehashing all the good arguments made above just a few. Please do not assume that this is the total extent of my views on writing with an encyclopedic tone. Springee (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment - After perusing new arguments presented above, I still believe both Dictator and Kleptocrat should be retained in the first sentence, where it provides essential information about the subject which a reader should be able to see immediately. However, I do believe Dictator is the much-more essential of the two descriptions, such that even as we discuss keeping "kleptocrat," the question of retaining "dicatator" ought to be something we discuss separately. - Thundersub (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Those who continue to insist that "dictator", with or without "kleptocrat", must appear in Marcos' lead sentence, should once again (or for the first time) glance at the above 15 lead sentences of the Wikipedia entries for Stalin, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh, Josip Broz Tito, Mao, Perón, Papa Doc Duvalier, Kim Il-sung. Mugabe, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Saddam, Mengistu and Gaddafi, none of whom has a lead sentence that uses the term "dictator". In fact, no one in English Wikipedia has an entry that starts with "X was / is a [name of country] dictator" and, if an entry using such a form is found, the term "dictator" has been unilaterally inserted in that particular lead sentence and should be moved to a lower paragraph of the entry. The Wiki-voice lead sentence must remain objective and encyclopedic. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, I repeat. The terms dictator and kleptocrat as descriptors are neutral statement of fact. The following individuals have these descriptions in their opening sentences and these articles of theirs are of Wikipedia "Good article class": Seung-Hui Cho - "mass-murderer", Terry Peder Rasmussen - "serial killer", Ted Bundy - "American serial killer" who "kidnapped, raped, and murdered", and Al Capone - "gangster". Neutral facts are merely being stated in all of these cases. All of these descriptions are uncolored, objective, non-contentious neutral statements of fact. Also, all of these people had less bodycounts than Ferdinand Marcos. Yes Ferdinand Marcos was president of a country, but what made him of particular note and gave him global fame was his dictatorship of human rights abuses and exceptional kleptocracy/corruption/governance by theft, so exceptional that he held the Guinness World Record for greatest robbery of a government for decades. Take away the "dictator" and "kleptocrat" descriptors, and Ferdinand Marcos would be just another Philippine president, largely unknown and forgotten to the entire world. Dictator and kleptocrat are what give Marcos notability, moreso than his being just another Philippine president. Hence, they belong in the lead sentence. -Object404 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Masem's version. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 04:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• I don’t think anyone is arguing that we should not mention that Marcos is resoundingly referred to as a dictator and a kleptocrat… the issue is how and where to mention this fact. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Manuel Noriega, Augusto Pinochet, and Adolf Hitler all have "dictator" in their lead sentence. Marcos was the greatest kleptocrat of his time and famously held the Guinness World Record for Greatest Robbery of a Government for decades. MOS:FIRSTBIO says this strong guideline to editors: "The first sentence should usually state: (4) One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". Marcos is known globally more for being a dictator and kleptocrat than for being a president. There is also WP:PYRAMID which suggests "placement of important information first, with a decreasing importance as the article advances". There are legal declarations on the use of these terms as pertaining to Marcos, making them objective by the own standards of many commenters here: Marcos was legally a dictator via Proclamation No. 1081 and General Order No. 1 as well as legally declared a kleptocrat via Supreme Court ruling G.R. No. 189434. There is no contention that Marcos was dictator and kleptocrat, ergo the terms are not contentious. Therefore, there is no reason why we can't use "dictator" and "kleptocrat" in Marcos's lead sentence. -Object404 (talk) Object404 (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hitler aside, Noriega and Pinochet had "dictator" unilaterally added to their lead sentence. It is natural and understandable to be aggrieved at authoritarians and totalitarians and such despots should be so described in appropriate sections of their Wikipedia entries. Terminology to the effect of, "historians such as A, B and C have described X as a dictator and a kleptocrat" would be certainly appropriate in the second paragraph or even at the bottom of the lead paragraph.

However, it cannot be repeated enough — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and no encyclopedia uses the un-encyclopedic terms "dictator" and especially "kleptocrat", a term which cannot be found in an entry for any other head of state or national leader. Virtually all authoritarians and totalitarians were dictators who have taken money from the state treasury for personal use, as evidenced by Saddam, Gaddafi, Papa Doc, Baby Doc, Mengistu or Idi Amin, to say nothing of Stalin, Mao, Broz Tito, Fidel Castro, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un or Lukashenko and yet none is described as a "dictator" or "kleptocrat" in the Wikivoice of their lead sentence and to use such terms discredits Wikipedia's standing as a neutral and objective resource. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "unilaterally added"? Augusto Pinochet has had "dictator" in his lead sentence over a decade now. Next, please explain to everyone in clear and unequivocal terms why the terms "dictator" and "kleptocrat" are not encyclopedic, especially when "dictator" and "kleptocracy" have their respective encyclopedia entries outside of Wikipedia. -Object404 (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Such is the nature of Wikipedia — individual editors make their own personal edits and, if no one challenges that edit, it will stay for years until someone does challenge it. Since Pinochet has been widely described as a "dictator", no one bothered to challenge it. However, the Wikivoice in lead sentences of articles delineating national leaders is not about any one person, but about WP:CONSISTENT in presenting an encyclopedic style.

The terms themselves are encyclopedic, but their use in lead sentences of articles about national leaders is not encyclopedic, unless the encyclopedia is the Great Soviet Encyclopedia or Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Encyclopedia or the North Korean Encyclopedia, etc. As Masem already explained, we do not deny despotic national leaders' status as dictators and kleptocrats, but we do not state it in Wikipedia's voice and certainly not in the lead sentence which is expected to be neutral, dispassionate and expressed in a style analogous to the style used by standard encyclopedias issued in the English-speaking world. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Masem's version or something along those lines. I don't think it is a big deal either way, but as Roman Spinner says we should be dispassionate and consistent. The Marcos article comes off as having an axe to grind. It's not necessary and is not how these type of articles are generally handled. Object404 responded to a long list of analogous articles that aren't phrased like this one with the defense that one article, Pinochet, has used the word dictator for a long time. That is not a compelling argument. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Masem's suggestion, likely with minor adjustments. Tone issues relate to both neutrality and maintaining a professional encylopedic style. It's not really possible to separate the two aspects, as when an article isn't written in an encylopedic tone, it often results in it appearing to be emotive, or urging a reader what to think. Masem's suggestion brings the lead into line with other encylopedic entries on dictators, and the terms dictator(ship) and kleptocra(cy) are maintained. This is not a case of whitewashing or censorship, but consistency. Outlining factual information before moving onto historical assessments is standard practice within article leads, particularly biographies. From a scan of the conversation above, I note that the majority of experienced editors are broadly in favour of Masem's adjustments, while those against it tend to have less experience; this doesn't mean their objections are invalid, but it does suggest they are more likely to be emotionally invested in this particular issue, or unfamiliar with the difficulties of treating controversial content objectively on Wikipedia. I'd prefer to slightly strengthen some of the wording of Masem's proposal (e.g. widely considered, or his rule was noted for [the scale of state theft] etc.), but the principles are correct. Jr8825 • Talk 11:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree. While I could somewhat agree with moving the word "kleptocrat" (or "kleptocracy") from the 1st sentence to later in the lead (though I would prefer not to), my view is that "dictator" must still be placed on the 1st sentence. Marcos's authoritarian regime is the most-defining feature of his life and therefore simply stating in a sterile manner that Marcos is a politican, lawyer, and president as the first sentence is kinda distorting what Marcos really is. I don't really care about how other dictators' articles are written because there's no guidelines or policies that says that biographies of autocrats have to be written in a certain way. And looking at recent news articles from Time Magazine[20], The Guardian[21], BBC[22], and WaPo[23], the word "dictator" is used to describe Marcos on the news article title or the 1st sentence. If these reliable sources can state with confidence that Marcos is a dictator upfront, why shouldn't Wikipedia? —seav (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is a fair point. "Dictator" is a common primary title in a way that "kleptocrat" is not, so can fit naturally in an opening sentence (e.g. "X was a politician who was dictator of Y-land from 1900-1901"). I still think that "kleptocracy", and assessments about the brutality of his reign/scale of theft belong further down the lead. Jr8825 • Talk 15:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support with great obviousness. The openers for the articles on bin Laden and Hitler are milder than the current opener for Ferdinand Marcos. That's a problem. ValarianB (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Sex differences in intelligence

Sex differences in intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dealing with some WP:BLUDGEON issues at this article's talk page. In terms of content, the dispute hinges on how much nuance we should be conveying to the reader. See in particular this thread. A third editor (whom I regard as neutral) has been called in but the bludgeoning has not stopped, and at this point I think it's too much to put on one person to arbitrate. More eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Uncivil, misleading posts aside, what we need our neutral editors willing to assess the resources at play and giving their thoughts on whether using qualifying language that is not found in the resources and misreports the research, especially for findings that remain consistent, is acceptable. GBFEE (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

^This is the type of behavior I'm referring to. Apologies in advance, it's kind of a shit-show over there. Generalrelative (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

^It is that type of show over there, but not for the reason you claim. GBFEE (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• From a quick reading of that thread, I agree with GBFEE, and your insertion of qualifiers not found in sources reads to me like original research. We should stick to what the sources actually say; nowhere in WP:YESPOV can I find an invitation to insert OR. Past the sourced cited in the article, GBFEE referenced additional sources which introduce the verbal/spatial sex differences as "recent studies consistently find a reading advantage for girls"[24], "The male advantage in mental rotation... emerges consistently across cultures... Men exceeded women in mental rotation ability in every country",[25], "Women consistently score higher than men on tests of verbal ability... whereas men consistently score higher on tests of spatial ability,"[26], etc. Your insertion of the qualifiers that these differences are "sometimes" found on "some" tests doesn't really seem to be supported by anything but your own POV on the matter, or at least it is not supported by any sources you've found, as it appears the only source you mentioned on the talk was one about mathematical ability, which is not relevant to the article content you changed. So TLDR the previous version without all the OR "sometimes" and "some" qualifiers is better. GBFEE's posts were long, yes, but Brandolini's law applies; it requires less text to merely assert something than to substantiate it with reliable sources. Endwise (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  And indeed, it takes even more space to explain how each of those citations has been misrepresented, which is why responding to a wall of text is so often unfeasible –– and why producing one can be rightly described as disruptive. "Some" and "sometimes" are certainly supported by the sources; you just have to actually look. For example, I wrote that females have been specifically found to perform slightly better on some tests of vocabulary and according to one of the sources trotted out by GBFEE of all people By later childhood, however, sex differences in vocabulary generally disappear. [27] So the previous language females have been specifically found to perform slightly better in vocabulary (recently restored by Crossroads) is flatly misleading. In any case, if anyone else happens by and would like to engage in some good-faith discussion over at the article talk page, that would be appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Endwise, Generalrelative quotes that sentence from this[28] resource as though I didn't see it. The page divides verbal topics and then it has a reading and writing section. See what each say. If you review what resources say about males and visual-spatial ability/mental rotation, it's not unclear that this shouldn't have a qualifier such as "on some tests of". With this edit,[29] where I'm dressing up my post, you can find where I said "these resources do not oversimplify this information. They offer caveats, etc., while pointing out what the consistent and less consistent findings are. When something is inconsistent, or a 'small' or 'small to moderate' difference, the resources will say this." For how the sentence about the review was presented, I've also addressed that at the article's talk page. In any case, what another resource says is no reason to use qualifiers for what a 2012 review says when those qualifiers aren't in the resource. Adding contextual information from different references, which is an acceptable option, is different than changing the wording for a reference to include qualifiers that alter its finding. GBFEE (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  I also suggest adding more from that[30] resource for contextualization. We have sections in the article devoted to reading and verbal skills and spatial ability already. GBFEE (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Japaneseism: Hoax?

Copy pasted from the talk page:

The wording in this article is extremely suspicious.

Anti-Japaneseism radicalized this argument by claiming that even communist revolution could not redeem Japan because the Japanese themselves possess an inherent "aggressive nature". Proponents of this theory believe that the only way to redeem oneself from the "oppressor and criminal Japanese race" is to fight against all Japanese interests until the "Japanese" archipelago has been purged of anything Japanese. The so-called "final solution" of Anti-Japaneseism is to wipe the nation called "Japan" from the face of the earth and exterminate the Japanese race. A section titled: Strategy to extinguish Japanese ethnicity There's a genuine possibility this could be neutral but I'm going to use my Occam's razor here and say that either:

This is a hoax. This is an ideology that is so radically fringe, with so few members, that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards. It is, in some way, being inaccurately represented. I have full confidence that, considering this article is only linked to by eleven actual articles that are, for the most part, obscure topics themselves, this article is not going to have enough traffic to be source-vetted by a native Japanese speaker. Despite this, it seems to have been linked to or cited on numerous online sources where some degree of political discussion, however immature, is bound to take place. For this reason, I'm going to copy-paste this message onto the NPOV noticeboard so someone more knowledgeable than me can take a look at the issue.

96.55.212.210 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Reviving earlier post that received no responses. I agree with the original poster that there is a strong likelihood that Anti-Japaneseism is not suitable for a Wikipedia article and requires a native Japanese speaker to do some combing through the sources and verify that this ideology is genuine, held by a signficiant number of people and is being accurately represented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.192.168 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Ringette

There are loads of issues at Ringette, and this report could probably be at some of the other noticeboards (BLP, OR, ...) as well. I tried to clean up the most serious issues, but have already had one revert by user:CheckersBoard who has a long history of similar problems (see their talk page). This is the revert (which I again undid), you can see in the edit history the many other bits I removed or rewrote today. Some additional eyes and input on this article are more than welcome! Fram (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Tim Hayward and Syria and Ukraine disinformation

There's some discussion taking place at Talk:Tim Hayward (political_scientist)#Students at Edinburgh have accused Hayward ... about whether it's appropriate for that article to cover claims made about the subject in a recent BBC Radio documentary and some related press coverage. Input would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Joseph L. Lewis

I left a brief description of the problem on the talk page, but given this page has low visibility and the content was added by a university IP 12 years ago, I thought it would be helpful to bring the issue here so that more eyes could examine it.

The content over at Joseph_L._Lewis#Modern_scholarship seems incredibly strange to me. The book cited has nothing to do with Lewis or atheism, yet the point seems to be based on using the book as a coatrack to attack Lewis as anti-Christian. I don’t have access to the book so I can’t check the veracity of the cited claim, but it raises several red flags for me. Could someone look closer at this and find out what is going on? Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

www.strugglingteens.com

I'm trying, and failing, to bring balance and rewrite the page regarding CEDU, and the various offshoots of the " troubled teens" boarding school industry, but have persons claiming that this is a valid wiki source for information. i would like guidance or assistance to help me learn more about sourcing controversial pages.

thank you

98.225.27.171 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Samrat Prithviraj

Samrat Prithviraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chain of events as I understand.

• There is an ongoing dispute among historians if the Indian king Prithviraj Chauhan is a Gurjar clan or Rajput king.
• Someone added Rajput as an unnecessary qualifier 2-3 times at the film article, Samrat Prithviraj. The film does not make any reference to Rajput or Gurjar.
• Wikipedia article Samrat Prithviraj was cited in Delhi High court case by one Gurjar org, claiming misrepresentation of history by film.
• Film makers said they have not shown him as Rajput and do not control what others write about movie.
• Gurjar group agreed to withdraw case since the movie is caste neutral according to the filmmakers claim.
• I noticed this discrepancy and removed the unnecessary qualifier mention of Rajput from the film article.
• Now IP users want to add Rajput back see Talk:Samrat Prithviraj

References

If Wikipedia users like (Sajaypal007 and IP users) are going to make a WP:BOLD claim that the film depicts a Rajput King, despite the film makers stating clearly that they do not depict a Rajput King, then they need to provide some very strong arguement and sources. in My opinion a claim that the historical person is Rajput or Gurjar hence his film article needs to say this is not sufficient for the film article to say the same. So I believe the film article should not call the king Rajput. Venkat TL (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no such dispute among historians, leave everything and just give name of a single historian who states that Prithviraj Chauhan was a king from Gurjar caste. After reading all the news sources and court proceedings it seems that some organisation of Gurjar caste made a claim that he should not be shown as Rajput because he belonged to gurjar caste, court dismissed the plea after producers said the movie doesn't show whether he was a rajput or a gurjar. Stop assuming things, historians have not stated any such things. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007 if you have a conflict of interest in this dispute by you belonging to the Rajput group, (as your username suggests) then you need to make it clear. I dont belong to either goups and have no dog in the fight among historians over his clan. Venkat TL (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any conflict of interest and stop judging people based on their username and focus on the matter at hand. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007 You are commenting here and at the same time, edit warring [31] [32] to add the disputed word into the article. Would you please stop edit warring and wait for the consensus before adding it? Venkat TL (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: This user in his very first line claimed that there is ongoing dispute among historians whether Prithviraj Chauhan was Gurjar or Rajput ?? When which historian state that he was a Gurjar ?? Quote them Mr. Venkat. Do mind that historian must have reputation of learned scholar not their own roadside historians whom even local publications wont recognize. If you don't have anyone, let me add those esteemed scholars here:- (Please read history from authentic sources not Caste pushing organizations)

Extended quotes from sources on the historical dispute

Sugata Bose, a historian and scholar:- Sugata Bose (2004). Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy. Psychology Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-415-30786-4. It was a similar combination of political and economic imperatives which led Muhmmad Ghuri, a Turk, to invade India a century and half later in 1192. His defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan, a Rajput chieftain, in the strategic battle of Tarain in northern India paved the way for the establishment of first Muslim sultante Here is another one from Marck Jason Gilbert Marc Jason Gilbert (2017). South Asia in World History. Oxford University Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-19-066137-3. In 1192, one of Mahmud's lieutenants and eventual successors, Muhammad of Ghur, defeated the chief opponent of the Muslim raiders, the Hindu Rajput Raja Prithvi Raj Chauhan, outside of his capital at Lolkat Here is one more source from historian Peter Robb:- Peter Robb (2011-06-21). A History of India. Macmillan International Higher Education. ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2. Muhmmad of Ghor was another Afghan Turk invader. He established a much wider control in North India. The Rajputs were unable to resist him, following his defeat of Prithviraja III, king of Chauhans, a Rajput clan based southeast of Delhi One more from David Ludden:- David Ludden (2013). India and South Asia: A Short History. Oneworld Publications. ISBN 978-1-78074-108-6. In 1190, he occupied Bhatinda, in Punjab, which triggered battles with the Rajput Prithviraja Chauhan, whom he finally defeated in 1192 Beside this let me add a source from Dr. Upinder Singh who in her book published in Oxford University press, quoted Minhaj Siraj a near contemporary historian, who narrated about Battles of Tarain and presented Prithviraj as Rajput king Rajput. Upinder Singh (1999). Ancient Delhi. Oxford University Press. p. 98. ISBN 978-0-19-564919-2. Minhaj us-Siraj's account of the defeat of Prithviraja in Second battle of Tarain narrates that The Rajput king who was riding an horse Barbara D. Metcalf a professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Davis. Barbara D. Metcalf; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2012-09-24). A Concise History of Modern India. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-53705-6. Page no. 4:- Like these states, including that of that celeberated Rajput Prithviraj Chauhan, the Turks and Afghans sought above all military succeses in order to secure Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermond:- Hermann Kulke ane Dietmar Rothermond (2004). A History of India. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-32919-4. page no. 117:- Even proudly claim to belong to the lineage of Prithviraj Chauhan, the great hero who valiantly defended India in 1192 against the Muslim invaders at head of a Rajput confederation My point of concern is not that remove the term or not, This user deliberately pushed claim that Gujjars somehow were victorious in the case citing bloggers like Chetna and Live.in, I added better sources from Indian Express and Ndtv NDTV:- both sources nowhere states this line that they added:- If your project is being depicted in relation to a Rajput king, which he is not, why should you remain silent? Clearly, this line isnt quoted in Indian Express and Ndtv source:- References

In any case, Are politically motivated Indian courts important in deciding a scholarly matter ?? Justice Sanghi ? Is he a trained historian to decide who he is ?? To rest my case down, I only want this article to be neutral that Gujjars claimed the king as one of their own but court dismissed their plea quoting film producers. Against, Venkat, quote historians who state him as Gujjar. Thanks. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:8260:8B9A:494B:A78A (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a film article, not a biography of a historical person. These scholarly WP:HISTRS compliant articles are relevant in Prithviraj Chauhan article, not here, It should be treated as such. If the filmmakers do not want to mention the titular character's caste, then so be it. Films typically come with a disclaimer 'fictional work... based on real events'. I didn't see the film, but expect it to have something like this as a disclaimer. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Yes film maker didnt want to show him belonging to any community, but the line was about the person himself and film-maker do not own their respective wikipedia page and it wont matter what they wanted to depict him, anyway if all agree for removal of the word rajput, then so be it but one line regarding justice Sanghi in litigation portion as you yourself said in the comment below is poorly sourced, and what the hell is that source "chetanamanch" that seems to be more like some blog new site rather than a reliable news source. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should remove Gujrar and Rajput and leave it blank because the filmmakers said that this film is cast neutral. Grabup (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear Fylindfotberserk Was the subject of the film not a historical figure ?? I just added few of this peer reviewed books to make it clear that almost all historians state him as Rajput. Please see the section and this statement:-

The court asked the film makers why they should not be directed to issue a statement clarifying that Prithviraj Chauhan was not a Rajput King. Justice Sanghi asked, "If your project is being depicted in relation to a Rajput king, which he is not, why should you remain silent?

Firtly this statement is not sourced in more reputable outlets like Indian Express and NDTV, but taken from two bloggers. This clearly seems that there is push that he was not Rajput. Secondly, How this Judges who don't have any practise in history claim that Prithviraj was not Rajput ?? This is disdain to scholarship of scholars I cited above, I can cite atleast 50 historians who mentions him as Rajput but this won't head anywhere. Just bring me a learned historian who state him as Gujjar ?? I don't have much issue in removing Rajput to be fair, but this overdue weightage to basless claim of Gujjar which no historian ever backed is given unnecessary due. My suggestion will be to revert Venkat TL edits in these sections where they used bloggers to push him as Gujjar. Leave it apart, this user even take this blog to Prithviraj Raso a historical article, and ask to add him as Gujjar there as well. Don't you know how history related sources work on Wikipedia. This makes me doubtful of their intentions. Nonetheless, No historian ever backed their claim, they even claimed on other Rajput clans over the years. If you add that Justice Sanghi said this statement I pointed above (try to find better source first then this two) then we have to add this scholarly viewpoint as well which states him as Rajput. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:556A:2EA7:C776:C734 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

A historical dispute is between scholars, not Caste organization claiming on historical figures of other community. You are giving over due weightage to claim which is not backed up by any historian. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:556A:2EA7:C776:C734 (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Try to differentiate between a historical biography article and a film article. Caste should not be mentioned in the film article per recent developments. See News18 source -

“The film is caste neutral and the intention is to showcase the titular character as an Indian King. There is no mention of King Prithviraj belonging either to the Rajput community or the Gurjar community. The film is only centered on glorifying the Indian warrior and king – Samrat Prithviraj,” the producers’ counsel made the statement.

I find the above a neutral stance of not mentioning caste in a work of fiction (despite based on a historical character) absolutely perfect. This film article saw a lot of edit wars from Rajput and Gurjar POV. It is about enough. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I want to make it clear that my concerns are about the lead section and not the Samrat Prithviraj#Litigations section. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk Here is Times of India source and I can't find any statement from this Judge where it says that Prithviraj was not Rajput. Let me again make it clear, neither this News 18 outlet mentions anything about Judge statement that he was not Rajput which Venkat TL pointed and which is my main issue. Please remove this bit and remove term Rajput as well to take neutral stand.

Venkat TL I am still waiting for your response on alleged debate between historians on who he was, Please soon cite scholars like I do from peer reviewed journals or by renowned Indologists who states him as Gujjar. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:556A:2EA7:C776:C734 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with comments by @Fylindfotberserk and @Grabup. I have already said everything I had to say, in my first comment above. I have nothing to say now. I will let other users share their opinion. Venkat TL (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: This line → If your project is being depicted in relation to a Rajput king, which he is not, why should you remain silent ← is supported by only this source. Don't we have other WP:Independent sources for this? I find that much detail to be unnecessary if teh quote is not widely sourced. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I do agree with their stand on lead already, but you can't get away with your biased edits. As Fylindfotberserk pointed out using News 18 source, even that source nowhere states that statement from Judge:-

The court asked the film makers why they should not be directed to issue a statement clarifying that Prithviraj Chauhan was not a Rajput King. Justice Sanghi asked, "If your project is being depicted in relation to a Rajput king, which he is not, why should you remain silent?

Since you add this statement which isn't found in any more relable outlets like Indian Express, NDTV, News 18 & Times of India, but you selectively took two extremely fragile outlets which makes such comment. My post regarding scholarly source were in the regard that how a politically motivated Judge can declare a historical figure as not Rajput for whom all learned scholars used the term. You did the same at Prithviraj Raso, you took this claim of a Caste Organization and pushed to add it there that the text depicts him as Gujjar. Don't you know how history sources work ?? This makes me doubtful of your intentions. That's why I asked you to bring sources (reputable historians not their Caste pushers) which states him Gujjar, If not such a fringe claim by a community should not be given overdue weightage. That's it. Fylindfotberserk You seemed to me best of the lot, Please take a look at that section and didn't this user uses extremely low quality sources to push for Gujjar POV which no historian backed. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:A278:264A:60C1:7217 (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Livelaw is an independent reliable source. All other sources are saying the same thing but in summary. Venkat TL (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: No don't bring original research as it suits your POV. I can't see any other source even saying anything which states this statement of this bureacat. How trained historian he is BTW to make such claims ??? 2402:8100:2183:61D6:A278:264A:60C1:7217 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I looked briefly again at it, I can't find even one other source which cites this statement, Here is from Outlook. I further looked at other sources not that reliable these days like Zee News, Times now hindi and no one of them even remotely mentions this. 2402:8100:2183:61D6:B1B5:4525:40F9:FCB0 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Slavery skin color bias and bias links as references not just pertaining to slavery but politics and economy.

107.182.211.86 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)After reading a large amount of material from Wikipedia. I have noticed a huge bias according to skin color. "Whites" are very apparent as slave holders but skin color is invalid as the Spaniards had different skin color as did the Arabs as did the people from the Kanem–Bornu Empire. It makes information inconsistent. On one page you read lighter skin color slave and in another section that same "lighter color skin" would be considered a white slave owner. Ethnicity is by far a better use of description vs white skin color as it is very suggestive. I do not know why race is being used vs ethnicity in so many articles. This is a major problem as it causes issues with misinformation in societies. You have black Arabs that owned slaves. For example do we state the skin color of Mai Idris Aluma before presenting the name? What is the relevance to pointing out skin color vs ethnicity? I would like to refer to an article

In addition, We have north East Africa where Riffian ethnicity are located. Race distinction needs to end, because ethnicity is more accurate by a large margin and skin color doesn't matter. Unless Wiki has agree on shades of skin color. A Nubian skin color is not the same as Wolof, Fulani or the Igbo. Skin color if we were to take the route of science suggest no difference to in the ability to be racist, angry , selfish , kind , honest, ect........... Additional evidence is ancestry dna results. All emotions negative and positive belong to all skin colors. this link is about skin color.

I think there needs to be an easy way to submit inaccuracy, bias and decrease opinionated material.

I had tried to change something myself but i lack the knowledge and programing abilities to achieve corrections. I am not even sure i did this right. I believe this to be very important problem to correct. 107.182.211.86 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You need to provide examples. TFD (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move of Living with COVID-19 article

I have proposed to move the Living with COVID-19 article to Endemic management of COVID-19. Please see the related discussion, more input would be appreciated. SmolBrane (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

People have been arguing with one editor for 5 years! Please fix

Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy is clearly full of problems, but apparently one user treats this article as holy and reverts changes. This includes talk page info. User has multiple accounts (as you can see that one user edited the other user's user page) which he uses to spread his agenda. Here's someone complaining about not having the endurance to keep fighting with the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy&oldid=786509167#Non_neutral It's from 2017 and the issues persist. We have many people attempting to fix the mistakes of one person—you know, the way wikipedia is supposed to work. But, this guy has been getting away with a spin on the article for ages--2604:2D80:DE11:1300:5D41:23B2:3C8B:39DC (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Which user and what changes in particular? General Motors streetcar conspiracy hasn't seen an edit, reverted or otherwise, since December 2021. Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that IP believes "5 years ago" is same as "For 5 years". 122.170.45.106 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Turkey in NATO

I found this article on a list of articles needing a copy edit, and indeed, one or more of the authors was clearly not a native English speaker, based on a lot of minor idiomatic tells. It wasn’t so bad that an original was needed though, nor did I find one. I think I have taken care of the English, and have removed that tag.

It does seem however to have been written from a Turkish point of view, particularly with reference to Cyprus, and in a couple of places it refers to “terrorists” (Kurds? Greeks?)

So....I think it could use some attention from people more familiar than I with the geopolitics and history of the region. I myself have no horse in this race and was merely there as the machine translation whisperer. Nor does there currently seem to be a particular dispute. It’s a new article, and obviously a notable topic.

User:Elinruby I did: [33], [34], do you approve? --StellarNerd (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think those are improvements, thanks. Don’t know much about this geopolitical piece; am fine with whatever people think. “Terrorists” just seemed like something that might need more eyes Elinruby (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd: Elinruby (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Quick looks shows "terrorist" being correctly used with attribution to Turkish government. It is a common refrain of theirs towards enemies. Slywriter (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Depp v. Heard

• Depp v. Heard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is inherently quite controversial; for those who haven't followed the news, actor Johnny Depp won a defamation case against his ex-wife, actress Amber Heard, where she was found liable for making false statements that she was the victim of domestic abuse. Distilled, the main dispute is as follows:

• GregKaye has been quite active on the article. His general point of view is that news sources are severely biased against Depp, and, moreover, that a summary of the trial's effect on MeToo and related movements should not be included in the Reactions section (as perceived by various sources).
• There-being, among others (including myself), wants to include some of this criticism, including direct quotes. See Special:Diff/1092860415, Special:Diff/1093039733
• There are other editors somewhat involved as well, such as RandomCanadian, who reverted There-being's additions due to WP:ONUS concerns.

Overall there are walls of text to wade through on the article talk; the most recent section heading, Talk:Depp v. Heard#Coming to an actual consensus for the "Reactions" section, gives a reasonable taste. Resolution through bludgeoning seems unlikely. Ovinus (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• • I was not actually the original author of most of this text, most of which I think was initially penned by User:Starship.paint. (Also, I am originally the IP editor on that page.) My position here in favor of un-blanking the section is that while the text could perhaps be improved, much like the rest of the article, it is clear that the reaction section of an article on the Depp-Heard trial should include statements on the potential effects on MeToo, domestic abuse claims, and women's rights, as concerns of this nature were a major theme of the reactions to the verdict and trial. There are countless reliable sources where expert opinions are shared on this topic. However, a minority of editors such as Greg insists on blanking any such reference as "biased." I might add I have significant concerns that the volume and tenor of Greg's irrelevant diatribes, such as that seen directly below (he has also created 6 new talk page sections in the last 5 days to complain of matters such as that the article is "whipping up controversy"), as well as direct misrepresentation of sources, are making editing the article difficult to impossible. Pinging User:Gtoffoletto, User:TheTimesAreAChangingand User:TrueHeartSusie3 as others who have been involved in the discussion. There-being (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The article talk page has previously contained three complaints about bias in the article[35][36]Biased.

A large section of text was developed that was titled Other reactions, including effect on #MeToo [37] was repeatedly removed from the text by other editors.

On the issue of WP:Due (saying: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.") I conducted searches google news searches for an appropriate period, from June 1 (the day of the verdict) to June 12 (the day before the search) which now display:

• 29,900 results for Depp Heard trial
• 5,720 results for Depp Heard trial MeToo

that's a ratio of 25,600:48 - 533:1

The content was expanded[38] which I welcomed but I also think that there are proportional limits.

GregKaye 06:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

In writing the above I revisited my searches and found some different search result reading and have added note on the Depp v. Heard page to say:

Full disclosure, the results for the news searches on google for June 1-12 that I'm now finding are: 29,900 results for Depp Heard trial 5,720 results for Depp Heard trial MeToo This is on the same stated methodology that I mentioned earlier that, "On the results page you can only see the result numbers by selecting the text around and under the date and copying and pasting somewhere else." Something somewhere has glitched but my search based argument for WP:Due seems to have dissipated.

This search methodology was something that we regularly used when working with the Islamic State pages but I hadn't previously come across results variations, not least like this.

GregKaye 07:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• This is a classic case of WP:RECENTISM. An article on a very public trial like Depp v. Heard should have a section that discusses the aftermath of the trial… but it is too soon to properly assess that aftermath. Coverage immediately after an event tends to be full of hyperbole and over-reaction (OMG, can you believe this happened? This is the best/worst thing ever!!) and speculation (This is going to change everything!!). What we should be looking for is more reasoned reaction commentary from legal scholars and historians, not cause advocates and media talking heads. Be patient. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  I was going to say, between our position on NITNEWS and on gossip related to BLPs, it is likely best to avoid trying to develop any type of reactions to the trial, sticky mostly to the facts, and wait for some time to determine how to apply UNDUE as to what analysis and criticism is appropriate to include. The rush to include positioning this soon after the trial is a major problem. --Masem (t) 14:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Those are some good points I didn’t consider, especially Masem’s. I agree that for an actual understanding of the trial’s aftermath it will take a lot of time. What about reactions that don’t make a conclusion about the importance and future effects of the case, like data from public polls? And what about reactions from highly notable individuals, such as the founder of #MeToo herself? Anyway, respecting y’all’s experience with this stuff (this side of Wikipedia is foreign to me), I’m no longer opposed to shortening the section to a handful of sentences, but I expect it to be expanded once more retrospectives have been written. Ovinus (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  How about just posting a summary of the verdict ? There is a legal determination here, and Wikipedia can just summarize it. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  • To be frank, this proposal makes no sense. The article for every major news event has a reaction section. Even films have a reaction section. For trials of similarly large cultural importance, there is literally an entire article tiled Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial. You are merely speculating when you say that it will be considered irrelevant later down the line, as we have no evidence for that conclusion. I'm certainly fine with replacing quotations from journalists with more quotations from academics and legal professionals (we already have some and more are easy enough to find) once the section is restored and unblanked, but the problem at hand is that the section is being repeatedly blanked and deleted in its entirety. Moreover, "just posting the verdict" implies that Wikipedia is treating the verdict as somehow binding on it, as if Wikipedia were a court of law. Obviously this is not the case, and where reliable expert sources react to a verdict with criticism, or praise, or fears or other analysis of its effects, there is no good reason to omit that information. No other public trial which received as much coverage of this one omits any mention of expert and public reaction. There-being (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Reaction sections to breaking news events are against WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM; this is a trending problem for the last several years. A proper reaction section takes time for us to figure out how to work out what is DUE or not, and that cannot at all be done in the first few weeks after a event. On the other hand, reviews to film all come out within days of the film's release, meaning we can figure out the criticism and commentary of the film in the immediate time frame - and we're rarely fighting ideological factors that come up from major news events.
    • I don't think anyone is saying that zero reactions to the verdict can be included but it should be very highly selective and not trying to fill the entire shape of the criticism or commentary like it. Particularly when this involves two major BLPs. --Masem (t) 04:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

      "I don't think anyone is saying that zero reactions to the verdict can be included" Actually, the poster above me literally said that: "How about just posting a summary of the verdict ?" If you find this ambiguous, on the comment page, they opined "I don't see why a reaction section is needed at all." Also, the section as a whole under discussion was blanked, so this is not merely a theoretical problem. (Likewise, some of the same editors blanked the entire testimony section as well, but this is a problem for another day.) Finally, this is no longer a breaking news event. Even if later analysis turns out to diverge from the initial analysis of academic, professionals, media analysts, etc, the initial reaction to the verdict will remain notable. Kicking the can down the road doesn't help anyone. I think the fact that nearly all major cultural/news events include a significant reaction section (note my citation showing that in some cases, including the last U.S. trial to have such wide public cultural interest, there is an entire article solely dedicated to reactions to the verdict-- this is how notable our editors consider such reactions) indicates that the consensus interpretation of editors on WP:NEWS is that sections of this sort deserve inclusion. There-being (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

      What I'm saying is that if you are going to try to summarize initial reactions, you should be using "tertiary" sources, ones that do some of that summarizing for you, as your main sources, because this close to an event it is hard without engaging in NPOV or NOR to actually determine what are the most significant views or the like. That means focusing less on individual talking heads (unless they are noted by these sources) and more on broad strokes. I know this story touches on a few controversial areas like #MeToo, etc., but you do need to keep in mind that this is a celebrity-driven story and you will have more sources from entertainment pages rather than the main news sections covering it, and we do not want to engage in the gossipy areas that entertainment pages focus on. That's probably what makes this trial a bit more difficult to cover. --Masem (t) 12:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

      Also if you look at the OJ trial reaction page, not how many of the sources are well past October 1995, most seem to be 2000 or later. There might be that type of analysis on this trial, but that article is using the later sources that retroactively cover the reactions in a proper way that is consistent with NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, using later sources that better summarize opinion in a neutral manner than the immediate results. --Masem (t) 12:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

      • • Let me put this another way. We have countless citations to articles quoting law professors, sociologists, criminologists, attorneys policy professionals saying some kind of variant of "we fear that the verdict and the misognystic treatment of Heard on twitter, youtube, and tiktok will have a chilling effect on domestic abuse claims." There are fewer, but some, experts we can cite who've disagreed with this claim-- such as Prof. Alexandra Lysova https://theconversation.com/depp-v-heard-verdict-is-a-turning-point-in-discussion-of-intimate-partner-violence-184424. However, even these experts acknowledge that most of the initial expert reaction was to claim a backlash to MeToo, and a chilling effect on abuse claims, and a setback for women's rights. Whether these claims are incorrect or not, they will remain notable and it will remain a notable fact about the trial and verdict that a wide swath of relevant experts reacted by claiming a potential "chilling effect." I promise you that I am not citing or intending to cite gossip rags. This can all be presented strictly using attributions from tenured professors. So I'm not really understanding why WP:NOTNEWS would forbid this. I don't think simply looking for sources and quoting them directly constitutes original research, and I would be happy to ensure that every citation stays scrupulously close to the original source if we could simply the section un-deleted or un-blanked.There-being (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

          • Speculation/concern that the trial might have a chilling effect is really not appropriate… what we need are sources that demonstrate that it did/does have a chilling effect. Those probably have not been written yet (as the event is to recent for us to have data on its effect). Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with the view that we should minimize/hold off on reactions per NOTNEWS and RECENT. It is way to early to assume any of the commentary/speculative claims that this has any impact on MeToo etc is simply too early. If we have sources that talk about how the media responded to this initially it may be OK to include those as a summary of the pattern. Quotes from individual reactions are simply too soon at this point. It's entirely possible that public sentiment with regards to this case will change after all the post trial interviews are over. Springee (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• • By talking heads, do we mean journalists, or are you saying that law professor reactions, sociologist reactions, NGO/advocate reactions should also not be in the article until some indeterminate amount of time has passed? I can agree we don't really need a quotation from what a random journalist from the Guardian said about the verdict, and I would like to replace all such quotations with reactions from relevant experts and analysts, but I'm not seeing why a source (such as we do have) that gives quotations from several legal scholars, attorneys, policy professionals etc on potential effects of the case would be unwelcome. I also add that removing the reaction section would (as far as I know) make this article unique among cultural events of this stature. I don't know of a single major news or cultural event that does not contain a reaction section of this sort, though others may obviously better know the answer to this.There-being (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Defendent's plea (sorry), I know that along the way, a blunder that I made was, I think, taken the wrong way. I'd like to start with the context. I'd previously made an edit[39] "Legal experts considered that Depp's chances of winning in the US were weaker than in the UK citing strong freedom of speech protections in the US." Later, when edit the internal link into I'd put this text, I had a real brain fart and mixed up the US and the UK with the result of the following edit edit[40] and, in the same text as I'd previously written, it then said "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK." I do my best with editing, try to scrupulously keep my edits to NPOV and have done things like being the first to edit back a #MeToo reference into the article after another editor had blanked content with all the others. I think that the lack of diffs being presented here is suggestive that the accusations are nonsense. GregKaye 11:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I brought up individual concerns here, it was inappropriate. There-being (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I absolutely agree that the original section was way too extensive, however I don't think it is reasonable to completely omit these reactions. It will of course take more time and analysis from experts to know what the exact effects of the trial are, but a summary of media and DV experts' & organisations' reactions to the verdict has been so widespread and fairly uniform that there is no reason not to mention it in some way, e.g. a 1-2 paragraph subsection. I would understand the reasoning that it should not be included if the verdict had just come out yesterday, but it's been two weeks – definitely enough time to know what the overall themes discussed by media and experts in reaction to it are. I'd also like to point out that there's even a whole section on Camille Vasquez, a previously unknown lawyer who got her 15 minutes of stardom through this trial and is unlikely to be prominently remembered 10 years from now; yet we shouldn't mention the reactions and statements of the likes of New York Times, #MeToo movement and RAINN to the verdict? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

If you avoid sources that are singular stances/points 9f view, like an open piece, and instead use sources that work to summarize multiple views, the it is fair to write a reaction section that way. Eg you want a source like the NYTimes that is effectively "Person A said this, Person B said that, Person C said the other thing..." since now you have that source identify what they think are major opinions in the short term.--Masem (t) 17:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment

Over the past couple of weeks there has been a large amount of information added to Anti-Russian sentiment by a single user. Everything appears to be sourced, but I'm not convinced it's presented neutrally. I'd like to solicit the views of this noticeboard to let me know if I'm over-reacting. A collection of the edits (several difs) can be seen here, here, and here.

A few lines which concerned me:

• Biased media coverage, as well as Russian actions such as the Second Chechen War, a Russian reaction to eastward NATO expansion and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections contributed to anti-Russian sentiment
• United Kingdom limited how much Russian nationals are allowed to save on bank accounts. Banking industry considered the restriction to violate UK equality laws, which forbid discrimination by nationality.
• A mismatch between U.S. rhetoric about promoting democratic reforms in Russia and actual U.S. actions and policy has been said to cause deep resentment among Russians, helping Russian propaganda to construct a narrative of U.S. malign interference.

— Czello 21:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify, the diffs at 1st and 2nd link include a few changes done by other editors. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree there is no way this sentence is justified by the underlying sources: "Biased media coverage, as well as Russian actions such as the Second Chechen War, a Russian reaction to eastward NATO expansion and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections contributed to anti-Russian sentiment}}" The 2 sources mentioned never say the word "biased" which, one would think, is a minimum requirement for saying that media coverage on something definitively is biased. The sources only refer to "Western rhetoric", reinforced by western journalists, as having some effect here - in the view of the analysts quoted. I would think that you should split up the bit about Western rhetoric/media coverage from the rest of the sentence describing Russian actions, as the sentence is very difficult to parse when wildly different things like "Biased coverage" and "Russian actions" are being thrown together as being posited as having some effect.There-being (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@There-being: thank you for highlighting the difference about rhetoric vs bias! Changed it. Do you have a suggestion how it could be phrased overall? My big challenge writing this, and splitting media coverage and events, was that I couldn't find a source that would say that "Russian actions" had effect on the sentiment, which resulted in this cumbersome sentence. PaulT2022 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

One more thing, there are two more sources for the media coverage criticism that are referenced in the article body: [41], [42] PaulT2022 (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that does make it a bit more difficult and we need to take care to avoid introducing something that is not exactly said in the sources, if we do not actually have sources that directly say that anti-Russian sentiment has been increased by Russian actions (whether the Russian invasion of Ukraine, interference in the U.S. election, etc). Maybe the closest I see in the initial 2 sources you linked (i havent looked at the 2 you just posted a moment ago) are sentences like the following (but indeed these don't quite say that recent upsurge in anti-Russian sentiment is caused by Russian actions, either): "This is not to deny that there has been a great deal to condemn in many aspects of Russian behavior over the past decade, the war in Chechnya being the most ghastly example. But justifiable Western criticism has all too often been marred by attacks that have been hysterical and one-sided" That article is also very old btw (2001) and is primarily talking about Chechen I believe, though it presents a very nice analysis and remains a good reference. I guess I would try to hue somewhat closely to the general approach that author takes there and try to say something of the sort "Some analysts have argued that official Western rhetoric and journalism about Russian actions abroad have contributed to anti-Russian sentiment in recent years, despite justifiable criticism of Russian actions such as the invasion of Ukraine, interference in the 2016 election, and the war in Chechen." This version of the sentence is still kind of awkward and I'd prefer to split into two if we can, and the sentence could probably be filled out with more detail from the sources, and a more recent analysis would be useful to reference in making this claim. There-being (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this could work? @There-being: @Czello:

Some analysts have argued that official Western rhetoric and journalism about Russian actions abroad have contributed to anti-Russian sentiment after the dissolution of Soviet Union in 1991, besides justifiable disapproval of Russian actions such as the Second Chechen War and reaction to NATO expansion. More recently, Russian interference in the 2016 United States election was proven by the investigation, however the press has been criticized for repeatedly covering unconfirmed and later discredited allegations of collusion between Donald Trump and Russia for years. --PaulT2022 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Astrology

There is a current RFC on Talk:Astrology regarding the neutrality of the lede. 5.151.22.143 (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo

A dispute has arisen over the use of a totalitarian-era source used to claim the demographic primacy of one ethnic group over another [43] [44]. This is a high visibility country level article. Khirurg (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide whistleblower interview

Does this sentence in Uyghur genocide meet weight: "A former Chinese police detective, exiled in Europe, revealed to CNN in 2021 details of the systematic torture of Uyghurs in detention camps in Xinjiang, acts in which he had participated, as he had feared his own arrest had he dissented." ["Chinese whistleblower exposes torture of Uyghur prisoners in CNN interview", 5 October 2021.]

In the interview with CNN presenter Wolf Blitzer, a man using a pseudonym, dressed in the uniform of an inspector (3rd class) of the People's Police of the People's Republic of China, and disguised with a covid mask and dark sunglasses, claims to have participated in torture at the instructions of his superiors.

The interview was reported in The Times and The Telegraph, but I could find no coverage in other major mainstream reliable media, or any follow-up stories on CNN.

Given the lack of attention paid to this interview, I don't think it is significant to the topic, which has received widespread coverage. There are lots of red flags here: the lack of widespread coverage, the lack of corroboration and the fact that the disguise would not actually work.

TFD (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Due. As I noted on WP:RSN, CNN is WP:GREL on WP:RSP and multiple international news organizations have provided coverage of the whistleblower, including The Times and The Telegraph, as well as Sky News, and Taiwan's Central News Agency, Business Insider, and China Digital Times.
  Most importantly for me, the revelation was important enough to include in the To Make Us Slowly Disappear, a 2021 report from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum that focused on the Chinese Government’s attack on the Uyghurs as an ethnic group. The coverage in that report does something very similar to what the Wikipedia page does: it contextualizes the whistleblower within the context of torture and ill-treatment. Perhaps the torture section can be written to include more detail on the specific techniques that the Chinese government has used to torture Uyghurs, but I don't see this as a barrier to including a one-sentence mention of the Xinjiang police whistleblower. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I've fixed the grammar issue that was present. The sentence now reads:

  A former Chinese police detective, exiled in Europe, revealed to CNN in 2021 details of the systematic torture of Uyghurs in detention camps in Xinjiang, acts in which he had participated, and the fear of his own arrest had he dissented while in China.

  — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum tends to have some... let's just say idiosyncratic views on modern events. They authored a study which whitewashed the actions of the Obama administration in the Syrian civil war, later retracting it after criticism. Hundreds of historians also signed an open letter criticising the USHMM for its rebuke of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for describing detention camps along the US border as "concentration camps"; the historians said that the USHMM's claims were ahistorical, and "taking a radical position that is far removed from mainstream scholarship on the Holocaust and genocide." (unpaywalled version). The USHMM's views on modern, politicised events, particularly ones in which the United States has a stake, are not at all ones I would find to be the "most important" factor for WP:DUE concerns. Endwise (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  The USHMM is one of the most respected institutions in the world with respect to the the topics of genocide prevention, Holocaust memory, and Holocaust education. The most sharp criticism that the museum receives is its hard line on the Holocaust uniqueness debate, which while currently an open and passionate debate among Holocaust scholars has seen some movement away from an academic consensus for uniqueness. With respect to its report on Syria, there's a difference between its relative lack of competence in providing summaries of complex socio-military analysis (which was at the core of the criticism) and its extremely well-established core competence in documenting modern crimes against humanity and genocide. It is that competence in documenting crimes against humanity and genocide upon which their report's reliability rests. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  And, as a fun fact, they did wind up releasing a revised version of the Syria report. The big issue was the four-page executive summary in the initial release; much of the remainder of the content itself seems to have been praised by academics within the relevant fields. If you'd like to read the Syria studies, the first five documents available here are free for your perusal. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

In fairness to the USHMM, they had no reason to disbelieve that Jiang was an actual Chinese police officer, since they accepted the reliability of CNN. The claim is not central to their article. The fact they mentioned it does not however establish noteworthiness. The Uyghur genocide is a major ongoing story in the media and we would expect ongoing coverage in most major media. For example, Adrian Zenz's claims were reported in ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and major legacy media in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, France and in many other sources both when they were made and on an ongoing basis. TFD (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Undue: The problem with the proposed sentence is that it treats the report from the exile in wikivoice as an established fact ("revealed [...] details"). The sources (including the USHMM), from the US, UK, and Taiwan, might be completely reliable for most things, but they generally follow their government's line on China. Relations between those countries and China are at a new low, and during a "cold war" it's common for every false or exaggerated report from a refugee to be reported as news. Maybe this report is accurate, and maybe it's not. NightHeron (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • It has been pointed out at the parallel RS/N discussion that the wording to introduce the information must make sure it is stated as a claim in the whistleblower's voice, which is fixable. That doesn't address whether its DUE or not, but we can make sure that we aren't presenting it as fact. --Masem (t) 12:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, but whether it's an established fact (as asserted in hawk10's wording above) or an unsubstantiated claim has a bearing on whether it's due or undue. If the wording is fixed so that it's clear that the accuracy is open to doubt, then the question arises of why we include it at all. NightHeron (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

      Absolutely there is still a question of DUE, just that DUEness related to our phrasing making it seem like fact should not be a factor since we can making the wording clear these are claims if the whistle-blower, yet corroborated by other evidence. Masem (t) 13:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

size of states

Wikipedia says that both Hawaii and new jersey are the 47th largest state. That can't be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.134.112.215 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Hawaii's lead says it's the 8th smallest state, and New Jersey's lead says it's the 5th smallest state. Schazjmd (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: there is a rank field in the infobox that has 47. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, StellarNerd, I didn't know where the OP was seeing the mistake. And thanks for fixing it as well. Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

fixed. Per List of U.S. states and territories by area, they are actually both 47th, NJ is 47th by total area and HI is 47th by land area but 43rd by total area. So it depends what area you use, HI's water adds much volume to its total area. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)