Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Gun show loophole endless discussion over NPOV

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

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

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

From this...

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

To this...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even encyclopedias cover this..

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources do not always describe the term as controversial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Cheers. DN (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"controversy surrounding this term."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mudwater, Fenharrow, Iljhgtn, Springee...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tools for determining title

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

Break

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

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

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

1.Why GSL as an article title is inaccurate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RM started

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pre RfC discussion

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

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

Here's what I have proposed...

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

Or

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

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

Pornography addiction NPOV lead concerns

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

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

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

Tasawar_Hayat

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

How can pornography addiction write an article about itself? Flounder fillet (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

How do we handle Pubpeer comments?

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

The paper is strongly accepted as a fair description for when a field would likely publish false papers, though the title is fairly more eye-catching than it needs to be.

• In biology, it remains fairly useful as a paper, for describing a situation under which a scientific field could publish a high percentage of false positives (i.e. highly speculative hypotheses, publishing only positive results, etc.)
• The paper is also significantly cited, nearly 14k results. I strongly suspect such a foundational paper with such an inflammatory title would remain discussed for a long period of time after, including healthy criticism.
• I know Ioannidis has since had a falling out due to his increasingly bizarre COVID theories, but the paper came out before much of that, I think.
• Most scientific fields still do alpha=0.05, though it depends. Astrophysics, I think, may do 1e-6 or something else insane, while some poor journals allow alpha=0.10.
• The criticism you pointed out can be dealt with by including the exact statistical situation under which a scientific field would publish high false positives, and when changing the parameters of statistical analysis would rectify the situation.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

In terms of what the paper claims, it should be attributed, like most primary research. We cannot use it to claim, say, that x% of science is wrong, without attributing and describing the exact conditions that would produce such a percentage. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Luckily Wikipedia isn't based on "research findings" (i.e. primary sources) but seeks to relay accepted knowledge as mainly found in the secondary literature; Ioanndis' paper is actually an articulation of good reasons why Wikipedia is right in this approach. As to Pubpeer it's not useful as a source for Wikipedia, but the feedback there can sometimes be useful for evaluating sources. Bon courage (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  agreed. even in scenarios where earnest, non-fradulent research is published by independent groups in highly peer-reviewed journals, by the pure mechanics of the underlying statistics, and due to failure of all scientific fields to publish negative results, some fields will generate primary research that will not be necessarily true. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump and Fascism Talk NPOV

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

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

Talk:2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence#Article protected

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

The discussion has recently been renewed at Talk:2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence#Disinformation in Introduction of the page and would benefit from more input there. Thank you so much! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC regarding Different revisions of a History Article

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

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

Page on Osteopathy not nuetral

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

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

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

Rfc Whether the accusation on US goverment should be added?

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

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

As I mentioned at article talk this is a topic where news articles are entirely unnecessary. [66] Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

What do you mean Freedom House is a garbage source? It has regularly been endorsed for various sourcing throughout reliable sources noticeboard, though it should be attributed. [67] [68] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

That's why what it says should be attributed but itis not a reason to consider it garbage. And I don't think it is worse than the American press in general or certainly not as bad as most of those political think tanks. NadVolum (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

There are both far-left and far-right conspiracy theories about Freedom House and alleged manipulation of its reports. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I opened a new Topic for more clearly what I mean. Please reply for that on the talkpage of Transnational repression. Thank you a lot.--MINQI (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Rfc: Should the case of Assange(the written or reported) be added?

Sorry for not clealy expressing before. I have opened a new Rfc and writed more clearlier (I hope so). So whether these information/point should be add in that entry？ Please reply on the talk-page of "Transnational repression". Thank you, MINQI (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Requesting comments in regard to WP:NPV in Russo-Ukrainian War

I claim, that the article Russo-Ukrainian War as written violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy (WP:NPV), i.e. 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. Please note, that I do not insist on adding anything about Douglas Macgregor's and Scott Ritter's views (although I support others, if they want to write about them), but I cannot disregard John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt and several other political scientists (as well as of journalists such as Gabrielle Krone-Schmalz (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pZKTbgftHQ) I wrote this section: “Analysis of the causes and results of the Russo-Ukrainian War by political scientists”, which can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Walter_Tau/sandbox . I originally posted this section into the article Russian invasion of Ukraine in ca. 2024-10. I was conviced by other editors to move this section to the article Russo-Ukrainian War. But when I posted the text of “Analysis of the causes and results of the Russo-Ukrainian War by political scientists” on page Russo-Ukrainian War, I was told, that this question has been discussed on Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the issue is closed now. You can find more details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War . (added unsigned by Walter Tau)

@Walter Tau:, this post violates your topic ban. You should remove it. Schazjmd (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Eugene Lipov

(Note: I received significant assistance in writing the material below from a M.D, who chooses to remain anonymous rather than publicly attacking another doctor. Any errors in the following are mine.)

Our Eugene Lipov article uncritically presents stellate ganglion block therapy as if it was a well established medical treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. It appears to be an experimental treatment with very little support from the medical community, yet Dr. Lipov is selling these treatments for PTSD ( https://stellacenter.com/treatments/sgb-dual-sympathetic-reset ) and Long COVID ( https://stellacenter.com/treatments/long-covid ) at 22 locations in the US.

The American Psychological Association strongly recommends four interventions for treating post traumatic stress disorder, and conditionally recommends another four. See [ https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/treatments ] Stellate ganglion block therapy not on the list.

The list of publications cited by Dr. Lipov to support the use of Stellate Ganglion blocks for the treatment of PTSD ( https://dreugenelipov.com/publications-2024/ ) is rather unimpressive. Dr. Lipov has been using this technique since 2008 and has given thousands of injections but there are no references to any long term outcomes data for his own patient population on his list of citations. There are ZERO references which specifically review patients treated with the "Dual Sympathetic Reset" technique.

Despite the claim that, "Stella aims to heal the injury, instead of just managing the symptoms", one of the papers listed as a citation on the Stella Center web page concludes that "stellate ganglion blocks are NOT a "cure" for PTSD... but have the potential to significantly reduce symptoms as part of the treatment plan for combat related PTSD".

Although one of the cofounders of the Stella center is a PhD psychologist and the website has the tagline, "Highly effective evidence based mental health care", there are no studies from the psychiatric literature referenced on the website.

Insurance companies won’t pay for Stellate ganglion block injections because published studies documenting their effectiveness are lacking, and because long term effects are completely unknown. A well controlled randomized and double blind study published in 2016 concluded that:

"Although previous case series have suggested that Stellate Ganglion Block offers an effective intervention for PTSD, this study did not demonstrate any appreciable difference between Stellate ganglion blocks and sham treatment on psychological or pain outcomes." [ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27187898/ ].

Approximately 125,000 veterans are currently diagnosed with PTSD, and both the Veterans Administration and the department of defense are highly motivated to find and implement reliable treatments for the devastating condition. However, the official 2024 VA position statement on Stellate ganglion blocks was:

"Stellate ganglion blocks may have short term benefits for some individuals with PTSD, but it is not an established treatment at this time because the evidence is not conclusive. Stellate ganglion blocks have not been fully researched in Veterans with PTSD and the long term effects of stellate ganglion blocks are currently unknown"... "Currently, individuals with PTSD should be strongly encouraged to try established, and recommended treatments such as trauma-focused psychotherapy and medications. For Veterans that don't benefit from these traditional treatments, alternative interventions such as SGB might be considered". Source: [ https://www.va.gov/HEALTHPARTNERSHIPS/resources/SGBforPTSD_508.pdf ]

In my opinion, the Eugene Lipov article should present SGB as an unproven experimental procedure, and we should consider creating a Stellate Ganglion Block Therapy stub article with Dual Sympathetic Reset redirecting to it. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there any meta-analyses of experimental data for this one? Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find one. Certainly not for Long COVID; nobody but Eugene Lipov seems to believe that sticking a needle in your Stellate ganglion is a reasonable way of treating Long COVID. For PTSD, the best that I could find was https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/ganglionblock.pdf which concluded

"SGB for PTSD is currently supported only by evidence from uncontrolled, unblinded case series which was neither confirmed nor refuted by a single RCT with imprecise findings, moderate methodological limitations, and which did not directly focus on clinically relevant outcomes. In currently used evidence grading systems,62 such evidence is considered “insufficient” for estimating an effect."

but that was published in 2017. It could be that the answer has changed in the last seven years. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at rolling back the WP:MEDRS / WP:PEACOCK violations in this edit. Generalrelative (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Circularity and interviews with wikipedians regarding allegations of bias in wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Circularity and interviews with wikipedians regarding allegations of bias in wikipedia

This discussion at RSN may be relevant to the topic of this board. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Template:Shehbaz Sharif sidebar to Allegations of rigging in the 2024 Pakistani general election

I am requesting input from a volunteer editor on this forum to determine whether adding the Template:Shehbaz Sharif sidebar to the Allegations of rigging in the 2024 Pakistani general election article violates the NPOV policy. The relevant discussion is available at Talk:Allegations of rigging in the 2024 Pakistani general election#Shehbaz Sharif. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Zionism RFC

Please share your thoughts on the RFC here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionism#RFC_about_a_recently_added_claim_about_Zionism Bob drobbs (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)

There's a discussion at Talk:Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)#Reverts about whether "bombing Palestinians in Gaza" is more emotionally charged and POV than "bombing the Gaza Strip". The article in general could also use more eyes if possible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Journal of Indo-European Studies

In order to avoid an edit war I am starting a topic here for this. The article for the Journal for Indo-European studies has throughout the years been given undue weight consistently to make it look like its a journal of poor standing when its not. The content places far too much focus on Roger Pearson, its founding publisher,and not enough on the journal's actual content in order to make it look 'racist' when it is not since it is clearly a linguistic journal. The article currently reads more like a mini bio on Pearson rather than anything to do with the actual content of the journal itself. More over, edits go unchecked on that article for over a month that remove info that makes the journal look reputable yet edits that take out all the mostly irrelevant bio info on Pearson and alleged negative aspects of the journal get scrutinized quickly and reverted. There is clear POV pushing and an anti-NPOV campaign going on here. Other editors have flagged it as being largely unbalanced and given undue weight. I am asking here for help in order to better remedy the situation as right now there is a stalemate and the way the article looks and reads right now is a mess. Geog1 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you list plainly the sources you have that you feel paint a balanced picture of the journal? Remsense ‥ 论 22:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The only source that has anything remotely balanced to say about the journal in that article is this:

Tucker, William H. (2002). Jazayery (ed.). The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund.

Nearly everything else entered in that article is meant to make the journal basically look like neo-nazis literature which it is not. It is simply a linguistic journal that focuses on linguistic matters concerning the Indo-European language family. Hardly any of the content of the journal itself is presented or discussed in the article. Surely that is problematic in and of itself. The journal isn't about Roger Pearson yet the way the article is written would have you believe its all about Pearson and that the journal is racist which it can't possibly be since its a linguistic journal. Geog1 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm asking you about what you have. If you could collate the bibliography from scratch, what would it cite? Remsense ‥ 论 22:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The only other texts I can think of that would maybe counter balance things are actual articles from the journal itself which shows its not racist:

https://www.jies.org/DOCS/jies_index/mainindex.html

I think the problem though is the content in the wiki article itself does not focus on what the journal actually has in it. Its all literature being used to paint it as racist. Geog1 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, this is pretty quickly revealing itself as the unavoidable core issue though, right? We don't write encyclopedia articles based predominantly on primary sources—and in this case, what the journal itself contains is a primary source for claims about the journal itself—but on secondary sources, and so we're going to be first and foremost balancing what independent, published, reliable sources have to say about it. This is a pretty basic restatement of our core policy on neutral point of view and our guideline on reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 00:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, I understand the issue here between primary and secondary sources. But I really don't think the secondary sources are necessarily reliable, Arvidson for instance has a political ideology that lends an inherent biased against what the journal is about. I suspect the same applies for probably other sources there as well. But it all seems at the end of the day unbalanced and against NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we don't exclude a work from an academic just because they're Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The context in which Arvidson's ideas presented here within the article (too many one sided views) coupled with how the ideology creates a biasing effect against the topic per the author's book is problematic. There are quite a few claims in the Arvidson book that shows he really just doesn't care for the study of Indo-European linguistics and mythology per his political stance which is bias. Question: are opinions derived from books written by authors with a strong right leaning political ideology allowed here on wikipedia and considered 'reliable sources'. Geog1 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally yes, unless the strong right-leaning political ideology gets into WP:FRINGE beliefs such as pro-eugenicism or other racist / supremacist opinions and assuming they're operating within an area of specialty and would not, otherwise, be considered unreliable regardless of their personal politics.

I'll be honest, when dealing with academic sources, I don't generally look up the ideological position of the author unless it's somehow actually relevant. And I don't believe it's at all relevant here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that is rather naive and not very reasonable that an author's background or ideology wouldn't be relevant and that due diligence shouldn't be given to an author's background when choosing sources that would write fairly or reasonably on a subject. I don't think a book Sean Hannity would write on socialism would be received well in a wiki article pertaining to said subject and would raise editorial ire fairly quickly. We are dealing with much the same situation here. Geog1 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Sean Hannity is not an academic and does not write academic books. As such he's rather irrelevant to this discussion and the context of my response which was specific to the review of academic books and journals. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Academics do not represent completely neutral views. Certainly not Arvidsson. Just like Sean Hannity doesn't. Separating the two is not as useful as you think. Both entities are capable of publishing highly skewed views on any position. You're essentially discouraging due diligence here. I don't find that very academic and suspect in its own right. Geog1 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean that a source must be neutral. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Bringing up the highly biased and skewed Arvidsson text as not within the many guidelines within Wikipedia's NPOV is fair game. You are trying to set your own perimiters here. Geog1 (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem that needs to be resolved. Anyone familiar with Indo-European studies is aware that the Journal of Indo-European Studies is a major, respected, and influential peer-reviewed publication in the field. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. There really isn't anything wrong with the Journal itself, especially if you read it, but the sources presented have a peculiar bias against the journal. Geog1 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, you're free to think there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm genuinely not sure what we're meant to do while writing an encyclopedia article about it? Are we supposed to adopt a totally novel process than when writing about anything else? (To the best of my ability, these aren't rhetorical questions.) Remsense ‥ 论 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

In short, we just need to build out the article more regarding its reception, especially with discussion from individuals who actually have a background and standing in historical linguistics. For example, a quick look at the editor-in-chief since 2020 reveals quotes that actually reflect how the journal is perceived in for example philology and historical linguistics (eg. "a long-standing journal with a stellar reputation and a global reach"). :bloodofox: (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There are opinions about the journal expressed in secondary sources that have questionable merit. Especially when you compare these opinions to what's actually in the journal. This is indeed very problematic and presents a rather unique problem here. I don't know the best way to remedy this either other than through continued dialogue. Perhaps maybe we can strike a harmonious balance. At the moment, something is very wrong here. Geog1 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I see some edits made over at the JIES article but to me it seems making a whole subsection about Pearson does more to draw away what the journal is about. The journal is not Pearson. Contributors and editors like Mallory, Polome, Adams, and Kristiansen made the journal by and large what it is today. Not Pearson. We still have some ways to go here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog1 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the solution is to simply build out the rest of the article and then return to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The secondary sources in the article clearly indicate your opinion - that the presence of a known white-supremacist as a founder of the journal is irrelevant to the reputation of the journal - is not universal among academics. I concur with bloodofox. If you're concerned about how the journal is depicted then you find sources that support it being described as not an armature of Mankind Quarterly. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The limited secondary sources that are highly biased in the wiki as it stands does in no way represent a universal opinion among academics in and of themselves. The journal is simply not being represented fairly based on the texts available. Pearson's involvement is vastly over stated and the idea that its an extension of himself somehow is completely unfounded. Geog1 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok this is getting repetitive. I'm sorry you haven't got the response here you hoped for. But the advice to improve the article by finding additional academic sources is good advice and would serve you better than suggesting we should never treat the criticism of a journal with a white supremacist founder as due because said criticism came from a Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Again you're discouraging due diligence and whether or not a source can be viewed as reliable or not. If you would just read the journal yourself you would see its not at all what Arvidsson is trying to paint it as. Geog1 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but do your own research isn't appropriate in this case. Arvidsson is reliable because he's an academic writing about the topic that is at the literal core of his academic domain. He is, flatly put, a WP:BESTSOURCE for criticism of Indo-European studies. As such it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude him. However that does not mean that Wikipedia should treat his position as privileged in some way. If other WP:BESTSOURCES disagree with him then they would be due inclusion too. This is why you've been told to find other sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Ardvisson as a 'best choice' in this is simply your opinion. You're a socialist after all, so apparently he seems reasonable to you. Many others would not feel the same way you do. Sorry if you do no understand that. But feel free to continue the 'repetive' conversation here. At the end of the day all I see is due diligence being discouraged and a lack of NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And now we have reached the point in the conversation when I ask you to read WP:NPA. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. My tone was the same as yours. For all intended purposes that would mean you should read that yourself. If you would like to end this conversation cordially, now would be fine. We simply don't agree. Geog1 (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You're a socialist after all... is, in context, a personal attack as you're suggesting my own, openly stated, politics makes me incapable of recognizing whether an academic is operating within his specialty - which he did his doctoral thesis on - and are trying to dismiss my advice accordingly. I would kindly ask you to strike that comment. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I said politely that we should end this conversation as its turning out to be very, very unproductive. We don't agree on anything apparently and I don't take very well to people discouraging due diligence and setting their own standards on how wiki guidelines should be viewed. Please, stop. Geog1 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• I mean, if that's what sources say about it, then that's what sources say about it. The sources we're citing there are largely academics with at least some degree of expertise in Indo-European studies, race science or far-right movements. Also, we're really only devoting a few sentences to the matter, which are roughly balanced in terms of focus - two for scholars who criticize it; one noting the existence of the boycott, and two from Tucker and Mallory defending the journal (and the defenses are given slightly more text!) Having them exactly balance out like that isn't necessary of course, but it makes it harder to argue that they're being given undue weight - aside from the fact that the page says almost nothing else about the journal at all, which is solved by finding other sources covering other aspects. (I will say that I did a quick search right now and found only a few passing mentions, all of which were about the race science connection to one degree or another. That really does seem to be the only aspect of the journal that has received meaningful external coverage. See eg. [69]: Although Duranton-Crabol (1988: 148), fifteen years ago, pointed with alarm to his involvement, [Bruce] Lincoln appears to be the first US-based Indo-European specialist to openly comment on the worrisome background of Roger Pearson, the publisher of the prestigious Journal of Indo-European Studies since its founding in 1973. Notable mostly because it's a secondary source describing such concerns, which lends additional weight to at least mentioning them.) ...also, they point out that Bruce Lincoln, who we cite in the article, is actually an Indo-European specialist; we might want to look at what we're citing him for and see if there are more details there. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• @Geog1: You must notify other editors involved in a discussion (i.e. me) when you post it to this noticeboard. There is a big red notice instructing you to this at the top of the page. – Joe (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• I don't really get what we can do here. "Neutral" specifically is a technical term meaning in proportion to what the independent, reliable secondary sources have said on the topic, and the limits of editorial discretion do not extend to excluding the what seems to be the views expressed by the majority of those sources, as indicated by the participants here. If the sources say that the earth is flat, then we can only report that that is what the sources say. Wikipedia does not have the resources to conduct original research, and it would be disallowed by policy even if we were able to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Just one other thing I have to bring up here. I noticed the Tucker quote had the text about Pearson's involvement regarding published material in JIES flagged as dubious for a while. I don't know by who. Eventually it was removed because someone (not sure who) did research noting Pearson had published 3 articles in the journal. That would seem to be original research. When we look at the Berlet and Lyons quote being used in the article, they claim the Journal is 'racialist' and 'ayranist' but it is a linguistic journal not 'racialist' or whatever. This can be seen by just reading a few entries from the journal which can easily be found online just like the Berlet and Lyons quote was easily pulled for online yet we see that characterization of the journal persist. This appears to present some inconsistency on how editing policy is being used.

I see the comment by Aquillion mentions how if 'reliable' sources report the earth is flat, then according to wikipedia policy, its fair game to put into an article and discuss. While I understand this is a policy, I'm not entirely sure if its serving us well here. This could open the door of Pandora's box for all sorts of misinformation to be presented in wiki articles.

Finally, I took a look at the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society article. I see an entire section with no sources entitled 'discussion papers' which essentially relates to the journal's content. No one for some reason seems bothered that its not sourced but I have doubts that a similar section in the JIES article would go without scrutiny if we were to say flesh out what the content of the journal is actually like. Again, it would appear inconsistencies are presented here regarding wikipedia policy being applied to two different journals.

I don't know what can be done here, but like I said before in the JIES talk page, I'd welcome more information that could help balance out the article a little more. However, I also feel this is a situation where wikipedia policy is failing a particular article and I doubt this is the only one. In the future, it may be useful to revisit wikipedia policy and see if changes could be made to help prevent or better remedy situations like this.

Best,

Geog1 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Geog1Thank you for bringing up these important points. It's clear that there's a need for careful scrutiny and consistent application of Wikipedia's policies to ensure accuracy and neutrality in our articles.

Regarding the Tucker quote and Pearson's involvement, it's essential to rely on verifiable sources and avoid original research. If a reliable source supports the claim that Pearson published in JIES, then it can be included. However, if the source is questionable, it should be approached with caution.

The characterization of the JIES as "racialist" and "Aryanist" is a serious allegation. It's crucial to base such claims on solid evidence from reliable sources. Simply reading a few articles may not be sufficient to make such a sweeping judgment. If there are specific examples of racist or discriminatory content in the journal, they should be cited and discussed in a neutral manner.

The Aquillion comment about the "flat Earth" scenario highlights a potential limitation of Wikipedia's policies. While it's important to be open to diverse viewpoints, it's equally important to maintain a high standard of quality and accuracy. In cases where there is a clear consensus among reliable sources, it's important to prioritize that consensus over fringe theories.

The issue of unsourced content in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society is a valid concern. However, it's important to consider the context and purpose of such sections. If these sections are intended to stimulate discussion and debate, rather than present definitive facts, then they may not require strict adherence to sourcing guidelines. Tattipedia (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

notability concerns

• Gonna skip all the conversation above and ask an honest question... can we just delete it? [70] states it has an h-index of 10, and [71] states an impact factor of 0.2. It doesn't seem like it would survive WP:NJOURNAL. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Did AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Indo-European_Studies Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Open Orthodoxy & David Bar-Hayim

Some IPv6 has opinions about Open Orthodoxy & David Bar-Hayim. Can someone who knows about such things please take a look? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Confusing language from a Mark Biondich source related to Balkans

"In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans.": https://books.google.com/books?id=gt8SDAAAQBAJ&q=Muslims+casualties+millions+Balkans&pg=PA93

Why would Mark Biondich add those "killed or expelled" to those Muslims who emigrated to mean deaths as is stated in the Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction article. As I see it from a neutral viewpoint, he refers to the reduction of Balkan Muslims as "casualties from the Balkans".

I would like to get other viewpoints and advice related to these. Theofunny (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Theofunny, the way I understand your interpretation, when Biondich says "the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million", you think this includes those expelled, right? So you think the word "casualties" do not mean only deaths. Is this correct? Bogazicili (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Like even in a war, the term casualties is quite flexible and is a source for confusion as it could mean all who are dead or all are dead as well as injured. Theofunny (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Later in the page he uses the term "victims" for "dead, wounded, and refugees". I don't think the term is as flexible as you think. Bogazicili (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally "casualties" includes dead and wounded. Including refugees is a bit novel but I don't think it's unduly confusing provided it's described with care. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The question is, is my rewording in the article Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction correct? The historian Mark Biondich estimates that, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, more than three million Muslims from the Balkan area died, and around two million Muslims were displaced. Bogazicili (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Those numbers don't seem to line up with what the OP posted as a quote from the source. Can you please elaborate? Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I had interpreted the quote from the source as how Biondich calculated the number of deaths (casualties). Bogazicili (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans." He says 2 million left between 1878 and 1912. He says more than another million ("When one adds...") left or died between 1912 and 1923. (The number who died or left 1912-1923 is added to the number who left 1878-1912 to equal "far exceeds three million".) The source does not support any number that died because he groups those who left in the same estimate. Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah my concern is that the two figures seem to be divided chronologically but not by type. So we can't determine what percentage of the three million were killed rather than expelled or wounded. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Theofunny+1 Tattipedia (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Looks like I was incorrect in this one due to my misinterpretation of the word "casualty".

I was also confused because McCarthy and Kaser give much higher number of deaths, around 5 million, in Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction. So 3 million made more sense.

Now I see that it has to do with dates. It should have been clear from the quote actually, but looks like I missed it.

The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence since 1878 is available through Wikipedia Library. Page 94:

When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans.157

Source 157:

157. Mazower, The Balkans, pp. xxxvii–xxxviii; and McCarthy, Ottoman Peoples, 149–62

Biondich gives same numbers and sources in The Routledge History Handbook of Central and Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century Volume 4: Violence chapter The Balkan Wars, page 1:

The road from Berlin to Lausanne was littered with millions of casualties. Between 1878 and 1912, millions of Balkan Muslims emigrated or were forced from the region. When one adds up those who were killed or expelled between the Balkan Wars (1912–13) and Greco-Turkish War (1919–22), the number of Balkan-Muslim casualties may have exceeded three million. By 1923, fewer than one million Muslims remained in the Balkans.1
...
1 Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History (New York: Random House, 2002), xxxvii–xxxviii;
Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire (London: Arnold, 2001), 149–62.

I don't have Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire. But the book seems to cover 1912-1922 period of Ottoman Empire [72]. So this aligns with the quote from Biondich.

This is what Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History says, pages xxxvii–xxxviii

Christian Europe’s blindness to Muslim victims overlooked the huge movements of populations triggered off by Ottoman decline. “People often talk in the West about transporting all the Turks, in other words Muslims, to Asia in order to turn Turkey in Europe into a uniquely Christian empire,” Ami Boué had written in 1854. “This would be a decree as inhumane as the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, or of Protestants from France, and indeed scarcely feasible since the Europeans always forget that in Turkey in Europe the Muslims are mostly Slavs or Albanians, whose right to the land is as ancient as that of their Christian compatriots.” Yet, according to one estimate, nearly 5 million Muslims were driven from former Ottoman lands in the Balkans and the Black Sea region in the century after 1821; from the Balkans themselves between 1.7 and 2 million Muslims immigrated voluntarily or involuntarily between 1878 and 1913 to what would later become the republic of Turkey. The Turkish language declined as a regional lingua franca, urban settlements were taken over by Christian incomers and Ottoman buildings were deliberately demolished or left to rot. The dynamiting of mosques and other architectural masterpieces in Bosnia-Hercegovina in the early 1990s was thus the continuation in an extreme form of a process of de-Islamicization that had begun decades earlier.19

So the general confusion we had in Talk:Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction#Death_toll_and_casualty_figures: has to do with dates and geographic areas (Balkans only or including other areas). Whether from 1820 to 1920, or 1878 to 1912, or 1912 to 1923. Mark Mazower only talks about displaced, but the 5 million displaced after 1821 is also in other sources.

I'll fix the wording in affected articles in Wikipedia. Bogazicili (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You should add the displaced figures by Mark Mazower in the article and and a displaced section in the infobox too with the other sources and Mark M. Theofunny (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't do everything today, but I'll make some of the changes later. I already changed the wording in the article [73] Bogazicili (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)