Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 21 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104

Ayacucho massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are diverging views regarding what NPOV might look like in this article about recent political violence in Peru. Issues are currently being discussed on the talk page here and here. More eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm the one who added the name of "Ayacucho riots" since the name of "Ayacucho Massacre" is too reductionist and biased. Not all media nor a majority refer to the event as a "massacre". The repression by the police and the army happened in the context of violent protests when protestors tried to reach and take a whole airport, event that is barely covered in specifically the English Wikipedia but good sourced in the Spanish version. Reliable source and even some articles sourced in the page to call it a "massacre" also describe the prior events as riots or protests that led the "massacre" to happen, or the attempt to take over the airport
Sources already used in the article to call them "massacre" that also refer to the events as riots/protests/violence:
- [1] "El día más sangriento fue este jueves. La violencia se desató en Ayacucho, la región más golpeada por el terrorismo entre los años ochenta y noventa. Un pueblo que convive en un eterno fuego cruzado y al que le es muy difícil respirar paz."
- [2] "La presidenta Dina Boluarte declaró el estado de emergencia por 30 días frente a las manifestaciones y disturbios de los últimos días en distintas ciudades de Perú.
- [3] "De acuerdo con el informe, el día más sangriento fue el jueves pasado, primera jornada de vigencia del estado de emergencia (sitio) en todo el país, con nueve defunciones. Ese día, la mayor violencia se desató en Ayacucho, la región más golpeada por la acción de los grupos remanentes de la organización terrorista Sendero Luminoso." (Note that the article refers to the Shining Path as "terrorist" instead of guerrilla, like the original author of the page doesn't want to include because POV)
- [4] "Entrada la tarde, se registraron actos vandálicos y disturbios mancharon las movilizaciones pacíficas que realizaban los ciudadanos en Ayacucho. Atacaron e incendiaron el local de la Corte Superior, en plena plaza de Huamanga y que recién había refaccionado el ingreso. También incendiaron el local de la Sunarp, Ministerio Público y Telefónica, dejando un saldo de 8 heridos"
The original author of the article also like to distort some sources cited while also cherry-picking sources that fit his POV while omitting others that are essential and used in the Spanish Version of the article. For example: the source [5] from Infobae, page that is cited a lot in this article, is sourced in es.wikipedia in the following sentence: "The next day, the consequences of what happened and the lack of a police and military presence in the city led to acts of vandalism, such as looting and burning several unprotected public buildings (traslated)", but @WMrapids uses the same source for claiming the following: "The following day, the repression by the police and military led to new acts of vandalism, such as looting and burning of various unprotected public buildings". Another example is with [6] and [7], source which @WMrapids source to claim the following "During the presidencies of Ollanta Humala, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski and Martín Vizcarra, the right-wing Congress led by the daughter of the former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori, Keiko Fujimori, obstructed many of the actions attempted by those presidents". The inclusion of "right-wing" in the first source is never mentioned and in the second source is only used to refer to Bolsonaro (not even Peruvian) or the candidate to presidency Keiko Fujimori. Term is never mentioned to refer to the congress. Other of those fake claims are "On that day, demonstrations took place in Ayacucho and the situation intensified when the military deployed helicopters to fire at protesters, who later tried to take over the city's airport, which was defended by the Peruvian Army and the National Police of Peru". Neither of the sources claim that the protests intensified after the army deployed helicopters, and in fact, sources cited in the article while recognize the protests started peacefully [8] [9], neither of those claims that the protests intensified after the army deployed helicopters. In fact, one of the sources used by the editor claims that the helicopters appeared during noon "Todos los que estuvieron en Huamanga ese día escucharon los helicópteros y el incesante sonido de las balas, desde el mediodía hasta el anochecer." [10].
Now my concern is that when I tried to add information directly extracted from the Spanish Wikipedia, the user called @Generalrelative deleted all the info I added without any reason except "POV-Pushing", but when @WMrapids added tons of distorded information, he just stayed quiet. Each time I want to add at least some words to the article, this user, which have no authority over me, reverts each of my edits, like if I was blocked or something (and he even doesn't let me post in his talk page since he deletes any talk I want to make to him). Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: About the last point, he keeps reverting every single edit I've made even tho he just claimed that there's only one point that concerns him, not all my edits should be reverted Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) It's not only me. Two other users have recently alerted you on your talk page about the impression you're giving of editing with a strong POV about this and related topics.
2) It's not just "one point", but rather the broad tenor of your edits that concerns me. As I said on the article talk page, the content you are seeking to add "contains many elements which appear to be geared toward altering the POV of the article". That would be fine if the status quo was somehow inconsistent with sources, and you were bringing it into line with them, but instead I'm seeing what appears to me to be a highly selective reading.
3) Not a huge deal, but I use they/them pronouns, not he/him.
Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you're going only focus on my last point? The POV used in the page. About "1" Ponyo reverted because I deleted the whole "history of Ayacucho" section, which then never complained about my other edit. About "2" most of my edits were literally corrections of the sources cited (As I said in my second point) or added more data information like quantity of military troops deployed and harmed in the infobox. Didn't pretend to change POV. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This really isn't the place for me to debate you. It's a place to invite others to weigh in. Whether or not you "pretended" to change the POV of the article, it is evident that you did. The question for the community to decide is whether those changes are WP:DUE. Generalrelative (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we are discussing the article title, multiple sources called it a massacre while the The New York Times plainly stated "[Protesters] were unarmed and, as stipulated in military protocols, posed no 'imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm,' to officers or anyone else when they were shot". So, the title seems pretty concise, unless you want to describe it as "Peruvian Army's killing of civilians in Ayacucho" (though not as concise because that has happened before) or something similar. The main story here is not that protesters tried to occupy an airport where helicopters were deployed to fire tear gas at them; the story is the army shot dozens of civilians. There is no question if this was justifiable; the shootings were not only morally reprehensible, but were also illegal under Peruvian law as specified by The New York Times. So, it can be understood why neutrality could be an issue in this situation. Regarding the events at the airport, we can add more information if they are properly sourced and I will take a look at the Spanish article myself to see what is applicable.--WMrapids (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the point that it was not a massacre. The context where they happened were directly violent protests, even if they started peacefully. Occupying an airport is far from being peaceful and it should be reported like it was in the Spanish Wikipedia. Here is reduced as a if it was common or something unimportant. Yes, the police also had a violent reaction but the POV in This Just blames the Army. In that case at least add the infobox of civil conflict since it reports the organizations that promoted the protests and the PNP, and the number of soldiers harmed, which, again, is ignored in the version 2800:4B0:441E:5FA:C51:750D:A4E2:1BEE (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After reviewing the Spanish article, the English article is much better. The Spanish article has no information about the investigations, the introduction does not mention anything about the use of force or any deaths, if anything, there are more neutrality issues with the Spanish article. The Spanish article oddly mentions a method of transporting protesters by vans, though this is only mentioned in a source in a quote that is mentioning a rumor. Also, no mention in the Spanish article that the protesters did not have firearms. Anyways, whatever was useful in the Spanish article has been placed.--WMrapids (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not surprising that some of the Spanish sources, if they're politically aligned with those who took power in Peru, would report on the official version of events and not seriously question its veracity. Such sources are not RS for this article, although they might be for other purposes. In contrast, The New York Times, as far as I'm aware, has no political alignment with either side in the dispute and is an independent reliable source.

There's a long history of horrendous human rights abuses by the Peruvian military, especially during the long counter-insurgency of the 1980s and 1990s and especially in Quechua-speaking regions like Ayacucho. The Ayacucho massacre is consistent with this history. NightHeron (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that it's not just this article that has a "biased" point of view, the issue is that ALL or most of the articles dedicated to the subject do. To give an example, one of the users mentioned by Alejandro created an article titled "Fujimorist propaganda, which was labeled after a few days as violating various policies and guidelines. And if you don't, by reading all these articles in a row, you are creating a pro-insurgency and anti-government narrative (and I'm not a supporter of Boluarte, but clearly this stopped being peaceful protests a long time ago). Another example I could give is the article on Peruvian protests in 2022-2023, which until I added the IACHR source did not contain any mention of the violence of the protesters. Just compare that with what the Political Crisis in Bolivia article says, which in my opinion is one of the least biased that Wikipedia has and the difference in dates is not very long.
Also, another thing that I have noticed is that they try to link everything to Fujimorismo, which in the Peruvian context is exactly the same as linking anyone to Sendero Luminoso or MOVADEF; it is a political accusation. Since Fujimori fell, this political sector has always been marginal and they have never had a majority in Congress at any time (that is another insinuation in which the current articles lie), they have always had the judiciary against them. And at the population level it has had the same rejection as the left. If you want, soon we will talk more specifically about that. In other words, to say that power and the establishment are Fujimoristas is to understand nothing of the history of Peru (or to be too involved in left-wing propaganda).
This would be in summary what I would comment on the matter. And just compare this with for example the articles dedicated to Venezuela. It's not just a problem with this particular item. Armando AZ (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Armando AZ: Bold statement with assuming the motives and methods of people protesting (and of Wikipedia users). Also, thank you for the false equivalence with this: "they try to link everything to Fujimorismo, which in the Peruvian context is exactly the same as linking anyone to Sendero Luminoso or MOVADEF; it is a political accusation". If you were to look at the sources (or even the Constitution of Peru), you could see that the current economic and political systems of Peru were developed during the Fujimori government. Another statement you make: "Since Fujimori fell, this political sector has always been marginal and they have never had a majority in Congress at any time (that is another insinuation in which the current articles lie)"; the Associated Press states "Fuerza Popular (Fujimorists) captured a majority in congress. ... its legislators have earned a reputation as hardline obstructionists for blocking initiatives popular with Peruvians aimed at curbing the nation’s rampant corruption". So, should we believe you or the Associated Press?--WMrapids (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't believe me, believe the elections. Fuerza Popular only got 13% of the votes in the first round Armando AZ (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, you are very clever in ignoring the matter of judicial persecution against Alberto Fujimori, or the conclusions reached by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Here I leave the source of the first thing:
The implications that you are giving make no sense with the recent history of Peru. Only recently has broad sectors of society opposed Pedro Castillo, and Congress has always opposed all presidents, count PPK or Martín Vizcarra for example. Armando AZ (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Generalrelative: Wanted to let you know that the user(s) pushing this have been banned due to using socks and pushing POV WP:Fringe info.--WMrapids (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aha, thanks for the heads-up. Generalrelative (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Generalrelative: Also, the other user POV-pushing in this article was indefinitely blocked due to WP:NOTHERE. So both users who were mainly involved in this discussion have now been blocked. WMrapids (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I was sorry to see that you were harassed. Generalrelative (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the concern, I appreciate it. Just have to trust the process… :) WMrapids (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reality check: KosovoEdit

No disputes in progress afaik. I came across the following in the above article, which seems pretty non-neutral, but I don't know enough about the topic to assess the neutrality of the text, or know how to fix it. Input appreciated.

Due to very high birth rates, the proportion of Albanians increased from 75% to over 90%. In contrast, the number of Serbs barely increased, and in fact dropped from 15% to 8% of the total population, since many Serbs departed from Kosovo as a response to the tight economic climate and increased incidents with their Albanian neighbours. While there was tension, charges of "genocide" and planned harassment have been debunked as an excuse to revoke Kosovo's autonomy. For example, in 1986 the Serbian Orthodox Church published an official claim that Kosovo Serbs were being subjected to an Albanian program of 'genocide'.[93] Even though they were disproved by police statistics,[93][page needed] they received wide attention in the Serbian press and that led to further ethnic problems and eventual removal of Kosovo's status.

Elinruby (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing unneutral about it. It's similar (in fact it's almost a complete match) to the white genocide conspiracy. Long story short, the Serbian orthodox church falsely claimed that there was an ongoing genocide against Serbs in order to rile up the Serbian population against Albanians. We'd be remiss to say it any other way.

2601:18F:107F:E2A0:384A:8E5C:1142:F274 (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you're saying that this is nothing but the truth and there was no genocide? Elinruby (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reference used has some pages available via google. See page 216 and the notes on page 227. I feel that more could be gleaned from 215, but it's not available. The work has reviews and appears reliable. The current text is poor and I'm guessing the bolden text is more hyperbolic than the original, but the source does state the 'genocide' didn't happen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 19:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both. Apparently I need more reading in this topic area; glad I asked. Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


User @Crows Yang has recently added the following statement to the Sino-Soviet border conflict: "On the other hand, China did succeed to show its ability of deterring Soviet Union with the conventional military capabilities.".

As I have stated on the talk page,

This statement obviously doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.". Deterring somebody from something implies that one wanted to do something in first place which is not really a proven fact.

In my opinion this statement belongs to the article's Aftermath section and should be rewritten to display that is is an opinion of particular author. Instead of participating in discussion user @Crows Yang tried to remove the template. I tried to do the change myself but it was reverted by the same user. I would like to hear the opinion of community on whether this statement constitutes a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy or not and whether my edit should be implemented or not.

Thanks! DestructibleTimes (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, User @DestructibleTimes has recently accused of my edition of leaving the following statement to the Sino-Soviet border conflict :"On the other hand, China did succeed to show its ability of deterring Soviet Union with the conventional military capabilities". He said this statement does not satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias beacuse it was someone's personal opinion, which could not be taken as fact. Please allow me to explain,first of all, this statement is cited from a very reliable source published by University Press. According to Wiki's policy here, editors are not disallowed to cite someone's opinion as long as the source is reliable. Second, all the sources displayed on the article and even entire Wiki at large actually consist of opinions. User @DestructibleTimes used two sources to prove that the victory of the conflict should belong to Soviet Union. There are big flaws with these sources. One flaw is that the sources he listed there do not specify the victor of the entire conflict. On other flaw is that the statement of these sources claiming Soviet Victory is also someone's own opinion. There are a lot of other sources that contrarily claim Chinese victory, indicating at least one fact, the result of this conflict is highly contraversial, and thus should not be concluded as either side's victory. In this sense, I don't see any difference between the source I cite and the sources used by user DestructibleTimes. Third, about "deterring" itself, user @DestructibleTimes insisted on saying that "deterring sb from doing sth" was not a proven fact, thus should not appear at where it is located now. First of all, if "deterring sb from doing sth" can't be viewed as proven fact, nor is "Soviet Victory". Second, "deterring sb" could have been fact, like the US successfully deterred Soviet Union in the Cuban missile crisis, Soviet Union successfully deterred Japan from invading Far East with the battle of Khalkhin Gol. Why could these two been taken as facts? Because the enemies did not end up doing anything further to achieve its original goal. In this case, China's deterring Soviet Union could be a fact because Soviet Union did not attack China's nuclear facilities in Xinjiang, did not launch a nuclear strike on China. We all know there's a fact that Soviet Union was known to be a extremely agressive empire with its invasion of Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia (1968), Somalia (1977), Afghanistan (1980s). There was no reason for Soviet Union to tolerate China's aggressiveness in Sino-Soviet Conflict, but eventually it did. Why? Can Soviet's tolerance of China's altitude be explained by China's huge military capability? I won't be certain, but there's a strong posibility, China was unlike the nations such as Poland, Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan. So in this sense, I don't see any problems to list it as one of the results of the Sino Soviet conflict. They can stay where they are now, but user DestructibleTimes insisted on removing it (including the template) to aftermatch, which does not make any sense. Dear Community, I do need your help to uphold the justice. Thank you very much! Crows Yang (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV - Ultra-processed foodsEdit

I have added a NPOV-template to Ulta-processed food. This is a very controversial topic in some food/nutrition discussions, and being neutral is therefore quite difficult. The article however is written in a way to largely ignore criticism and indeed dismiss it in a way that might not be helpful ("Most published criticisms of NOVA has come from authors associated in some way with the manufacturers of ultra-processed food, their representative organisations, or organisations they support") as it is more complex. Even authors who fall into this category might have sensible arguments and should be represented. Ggck2 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my understanding it's quite complicated because initially the term was a bit fringe with just a few researchers using it and making some over-startling claims; but over the years it went more mainstream. Without a source providing an overview of this transition it's gonna be tricky. Good luck! Bon courage (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks - I think a problem is that there is no source that both "sides" would agree on to be neutral. One reason is that most food scientists don't like the term as it is too unspecific and many nutrition scientists who have been involved in processing are also sceptical (but they have usually been involved with industry). I'm sure this is not the only article with such a problem - how does one solve this? Ggck2 (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrick Moore (consultant)Edit

There is a discussion at Patrick Moore (consultant)#The adverb "falsely" is biased language.

Is the following text consistent with Wikipedia:TONE: "[Moore] has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change."

TONE says, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published."

In my opinion, reasonably informed readers know that there is scientific evidence for climate change and don't need continual reminders. Not only is it patronizing and unneccessary, but the polemical tone could make readers question the neutrality and accuracy of the article.

Also, there is a long sentence at the end of the lead of Patrick Moore (consultant), explaining why his opinions are wrong. None of the sources used mention Moore. Is this an example of synthesis? TFD (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the sentence is poorly sourced, which is the issue I brought up on the talk page, then it should be removed and tone won't matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is whether the wording is biased, not whether it is accurate. If one could find the exact wording in a reliable but biased source, the issue of tone would still have to addressed. TFD (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t see a tone problem. We say similar things about a lot of people for a wide range of issues. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion re: the E. Jean Carroll verdict at Talk:Donald TrumpEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. — Shibbolethink ( ) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV:Talk:Arvind Kejriwal (Assistance needed)Edit

Requesting users to have a look @ the article Arvind Kejriwal (recent article history). Edit difs by @Kridha checkout edit history of user kridha . Seems stripping the article of all the well sourced critical parts failing WP:NPOVHOW* , the response from other side looks like WP:STONEWALL effectively leading to obscurantism. Requesting inputs and help in sorting out the issues so as to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV


    .. Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. ..

@Kridha isn't replying in consensus.he didn't participate in DRN consensus also.checkout discussion on talk page and DRN request.

@Kridha is removing controversies or negative parts from the article and he is giving reason for removal is general format of article for politicians.

He is trying to justify again and again. there are many criticism section examples of politicians like

Public image of Narendra Modi#Criticism and controversies, Amit Shah#Criticism, Lalu Prasad Yadav#Criticism, Mamata Banerjee#Public profile and controversies, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar#Controversies, Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Controversies, T. Rajaiah#Controversies, Mulayam Singh Yadav#Controversies, Manohar Lal Khattar#Controversies, Pinarayi Vijayan#Controversies, Yogi Adityanath#Controversies, Himanta Biswa Sarma#Controversies. 

And @Kridha's past activity in this page also mostly removing negative views. checkout edit history of user kridha

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that requires all content to be written in a way that is unbiased, accurate, and free from personal opinion or advocacy. This means that controversial or negative information about a subject should not be removed solely because it is unflattering or inconvenient.criticism with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Nyovuu (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it sound from an NPOV perspective to scrub David Bowie of any mention of alleged rape on the basis that sources be damned the women are liars? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this the NPoV noticeboard, or the 'put the maximum spin on a question without including any specifics or informing those you are in dispute with' noticeboard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the "I can't believe I'm actually had to say this" noticeboard... Context is self evident, I just want more eyes. If I was going to write paragraphs or get people sanctioned I would be at ANI but I don't I just want a single other human being who isn't a David Bowie Superfan to weigh in because I am exhausted. Shockingly thats also only light spin, that is genuinely the argument being made, well actually it was more florid... Not just lies but "confabulates or lies"[11]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, frankly I'm surprised to have to say this, but from your comments on the talk page, and the misunderstanding of policy evident therein, I'd have to suggest that 'more eyes' might very well see things differently from you. You are wrong about WP:OR, you are wrong about WP:CoI, and you seem not to actually understand a key purpose of talk page discussions - which is to assess the credibility of sources. Then again, I would say that, because I've bought a few Bowie albums over the years, and I watched him perform live once (Earls Court, 1978, I believe).
If you want a serious discussion, I suggest you drop the hyperbolae, and address the point being made there - that there seem to be legitimate reasons to question the credibility of the person behind the allegations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And our personal beliefs about the credibility of the person behind the allegations has absolutely no bearing on whether coverage of the allegations is due or not... We don't make that call. If reliable sources say that there are legitimate reasons to question the credibility of the person behind the allegations then per NPOV we can say that, its the same as if reliable sources say there aren't legitimate reasons to question the credibility of the person behind the allegations... Its the coverage of the viewpoint that makes due weight not whether or not we agree with the viewpoint. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even without reading the talk page discussions there, I had a feeling that this was going to be the Lori Mattix allegations. Honestly there is a lot to be sceptical about with regards to Mattix's allegations. Without going into too much detail that's better elaborated and sourced in Mattix's article, there's a lot of inconsistencies with her stories as she has told at least two very different accounts of how her first sexual encounter with Bowie happened, both of which have been disputed by other groupies who were present at the time. It's also disputed, including by what Mattix has said herself, whether her first sexual encounter was with Bowie or Jimmy Page.
I don't think sources be damned the women are liars is a fair and accurate description of either the allegations by Mattix against Bowie, nor the discussion on the article talk page. Even within just Mattix's retelling of the events, there are at least two radically different versions of how she came to be in a hotel room with Bowie. And even if you want to discount the disputes of those versions by Sable Starr and Pamela Des Barres, you still need to reconcile whether Mattix was in a hotel room with Bowie because Bowie's bodyguard brought her to him, or if Mattix was in the hotel room because she snuck into it uninvited. When you by necessity add on the well documented and evidenced relationship between Mattix and Jimmy Page, which also contradicts parts of Mattix's allegations against Bowie, the entire thing becomes a mess of "she said X, which is contradicted where she also said Y, all of which is contradicted by this other person who said Z". Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't need to reconcile anything, that isn't what we do on wikipedia... Sources are allowed to, and often do, conflict with each other. "she said X, which is contradicted where she also said Y, all of which is contradicted by this other person who said Z" would be WP:OR unless we have a source which says that so I'd say the risk of that occurring without a source is about zero. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I've already pointed out on Talk:David Bowie, WP:OR explicitly states that his policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. It states that for a reason: because we very often have to have discussions as to whether a source is credible. Which may very well involve looking at multiple sources, and drawing our own conclusions if they seem contradictory. If our assessment is that a specific source lacks credibility, we can then chose not to use it at all. And there seem to be very good grounds to question Mattix's accounts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which source's credibility has been questioned? Mattix is not one of the sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. Mattix is the original source of the claim that Bowie committed statutory rape on her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But she is not the source for wikipedia's purposes, that would be The Guardian, Mic, etc. Whether or not the allegation is true or not it was made and received significant coverage from reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK then using your argumentation, of the two versions of Mattix's allegations, the version she Thrillist in 2015, and the version she told Paul Trynka circa 2011, both of which have different dates for when she and Bowie allegedly first slept together (Thrillist recounting states March 1973, Trynka recounting states October 1972), which do you wish to use as the basis for including the allegations in Bowie's article? How are you making that determination without engaging in original research? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would we choose a version? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because otherwise you need to state in our summary of the allegations that there are at two different and mutually exclusive accounts of Mattix and Bowie's first sexual encounter. Which you've already ruled out doing because that would be original research. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a source which says that there are multiple versions, that was mentioned in the removed text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also there is I believe a third version of this allegation, which Mattix recounted to Peter Gilman in 1986, though that one is much harder to source, but also conflicts with the events of the other two recountings. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Why would we chose a version'? We don't. If they contradict each other, we are under no obligation to assume either is reliable. And not use either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, are you saying that the source's aren't reliable or that the stuff covered by the reliable sources isn't due for inclusion? Nobody else has yet made that first argument, those are some pretty darn reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree and that is what I'm trying to demonstrate to HEB. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then we can include all three versions, thats what you do when multiple viewpoints on an event appear in WP:RS. I notice you've only addressed part of the content, do you have an opinion about the Nichols info? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nichols info? Before this message I don't see the word/name mentioned here or on the article talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The entire first paragraph... The very first thing you would have read if you had reviewed the text[12]... The first paragraph is about Nichols, the second paragraph is about Mattix, and the third is about the impact of both on Bowie's legacy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aah, apologies. It's late and that paragraph had slipped my mind as it hasn't been touched on in the discussion about this section. I've no opinion on it at this time, I might have one tomorrow after I wake up. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not just use a modern, reasonable quality source like:

  • Kelefa Sanneh (2022). Major Labels: A History of Popular Music in Seven Genres. Penguin. ISBN 9780525559610.

which has

... Lori Mattix, who has said that as a fifteen-year-old, she had sexual encounters with David Bowie and Jimmy Page. In a 2015 interview, Mattix confided no regrets, describing her experiences with Bowie as "so beautiful", and saying that she felt "blessed" by Page, even though he had broken her heart. But three years later, amid growing awareness of sexual abuse, Mattix told The Guardian that she was starting to rethink her relationship with Page. "I never thought there was anything wrong with it, but maybe there was" she said. "I don't think underage girls should sleep with guys."

It's in the "Cock Rock" section of Chapter 1 ("Rock") but I don't know the page number. Bon courage (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The problem here is that this is a question of due weight and framing, two editorial decisions that run smack into the wall of editor bias. No one is seriously disputing the face/premise that Mattix had sex, underage, with rock starts. There is plenty of evidence and reliable sourcing to those allegations and the artists in question. The issue is how much due weight should it deserve in their articles, and how it should be framed. The editorial bias here kicks in in that its a fact having sex (in the UK) with someone under 16 is rape. It doesnt matter if they consent or not, you can be prosecuted even if the person under 16 consents and doesnt want to make a complaint. The only defence is if you have a genuine belief they were over 16 and can make a credible argument for that in court. And it will almost certainly be in court today. 40+ years ago? Not so much. So editors want to frame it as rape. Which is a reasonable enough attitude. We have declared that children under 16 cant consent, so thats the hand we have dealt. The other side of the argument is that its a violation of NPOV to take a strict interpretation of today's current moral and legal framework to justify putting it in the harshest possible (although legally correct) light for incidents that happened decades ago in a cultural mindset where this behaviour was permitted. (Although if anyone thinks that 15 year old girls are not interested in sex these days, I hope you dont have daughters, as you have some nasty shocks coming.)
And this is where taking a neutral approach, leaving personal views aside and taking an analytical look at the references, in detail, *should* inform how the material is included and the due weight applied. Its clearly a fact that to everything regarding consent etc, Mattix is an extremely unreliable witness. Most of the better reliable sources are clear on this, and even the ones that are not give contradictory accounts. This doesnt mean it shouldnt be included, it just means that putting a particular spin on it is problematic. For someone who has a very long career in the public eye, who has never even had a whiff of being prosecuted legally over it, this is a one sentence inclusion with a couple of the better sources at the relevant point in their career timeline with a suitably neutral non-judgemental wording. "At this time X was alleged to have had sex with Y who was Z years old" and thats it. Because there will never be any agreement on the consent, absent any legal case there will never be any justification for a stronger label, and its a footnote in their career of absolutely no lasting impact. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Only in death: a minor is incapable of consenting to an adult, thats the whole point of statutory rape. It doesn't matter what Mattix says, if the act occurred it was nonconsensual by definition. The legal framework hasn't changed, the articles say that it was illegal at the time not that it was legal then but currently illegal. You've also only commented on part of the allegations, only one of the allegations was of child rape, the other was of the rape of an adult woman (and he in fact almost got prosecuted for it, "who has never even had a whiff of being prosecuted legally over it" is just a false statement). Also just to be clear nobody is framing it as rape, we've been very clear that these are alleged rapes which is the neutral wording. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if the act occurred it was nonconsensual by definition This is the crux of the matter, at least for Bowie's article. Due to the inconsistencies in Mattix's story, with three possible dates and locations for their first sexual encounter, along with the disputed nature of it by other groupies active in the same scene at the time, it is unclear whether or not the act between Mattix and Bowie actually occurred. This is content that I think can be covered in sufficient detail in Mattix's article, but because of the uncertain nature of the allegations cannot be sufficiently covered in Bowie's article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is plenty of evidence and reliable sourcing to those allegations and the artists in question. For Mattix and Jimmy Page, I would agree. For Mattix and Bowie however, even leaving aside the three variations of Mattix's recounting of the event in question, other groupies (Sable Starr, Pamela Des Barres) who were active in the scene at the time dispute that Mattix had any sort of sexual relationship with Bowie. While this is content that can be covered in sufficient detail to account for all of the factors that call the allegations into question in Mattix's article, I don't think this is content that can be adequately summarised in Bowie's article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do they "dispute that Mattix had any sort of sexual relationship with Bowie"? I haven't seen a source which says that, all of the sources presented for their statements so far are from before 2016 so it wouldn't be possible for them to dispute an allegation first made in 2016. It would be especially hard for Starr who died in 2009. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The allegation doesn't originate in 2016. That is just Mattix's most recent and possibly most widely known recounting of it. There's at least four different accounts for their alleged first sexual encounter, with the earliest that I'm aware of being published in 1987. In order from oldest to newest:
  1. A 1986 interview with Peter Gillman, published in the 1987 book Alias David Bowie: a biography, pages 334-335. In this version, Lori, and Sable Starr, had a chance meeting with Bowie at the Rainbow Restaurant on 9 March 1973. In this version, she and Bowie had their first sexual encounter alone that evening, after being invited back to Bowie's hotel room.
  2. A 2010 VH1 documentary called Let's Spend the Night Together, no longer available online. This version is similar to the 1986 interview with Gillman, but omits Starr's involvement entirely. It also alleges that during the concert in Long Beach on 10 March 1973, Bowie shone a spotlight on Mattix and thanked her for being in attendance, though this does not match with any contemporary recordings of that concert.
  3. Paul Trynka's 2011 book Starman: David Bowie - The Definitive Biography, page 209. In this version, Lori and Starr sneaked into Bowie's room at the Beverly Hills Hilton, in October 1972, after having previously been thrown out of Mick Ronson's room. According to this version, Bowie was initially tired, but eventually gave in to the advances of Mattix and Starr and had a threesome with them that evening.
  4. The 2015 Thrillist interview. In this version, Mattix alleges that she first met Bowie in late October 1972 at Rodney Bingenheimer's English Disco, that Bowie asked to take her back to his hotel room, and she refused. Then when Bowie returned in March 1973 for the concert at Long Beach Arena, Bowie's security guard invited her to dinner. Mattix invited Starr to join her, and that they both had sex with Bowie later that evening in Bowie's hotel room.
In answer to your question of do any dispute that Mattix had any sort of sexual relationship with Bowie, the short answer is yes. In the 1997 book Please Kill Me: The uncensored Oral History of Punk (page 137-138), Sable Starr gives her account of when she first met and had sex with Bowie. In this retelling, Starr and Mattix first met with Bowie at the Rainbow in March 1973, but only Starr had sex with Bowie. Mattix was not present at the time, and Starr did not know where she was. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, Mattix herself has given conflicting accounts for whether Bowie or Jimmy Page was her first sexual encounter. In an interview with Stephen Davis for Davis' 1985 book Hammer of the Gods: The Led Zeppelin Saga (pages 170-173), Mattix stated that her first sexual encounter was with Jimmy Page during the Led Zeppelin North American Tour 1972, with the encounter happening sometime around 25 June 1972. According to this interview, Mattix was then in a secret relationship with Page for the remainder of 1972, before it became public and for which photographic evidence exists in 1973. That relationship then continued until 1975, when Page started a relationship with Bebe Buell. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, that looks like some pretty significant coverage to me... But none of it is a response to the Thrillist allegations which are what we cover in the article. We go with what the more recent reliable sources say, it really doesn't matter what a softball pop biography said in the 1980s. As far as NPOV is concerned it doesn't matter whether the stories are contradictory because it doesn't matter at all whether they are true. We cover all important points of view, we don't have any discretion to exclude significant points of view just because we personally disagree with them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We go with what the more recent reliable sources say I don't know if that's the case here, and I'm fairly certain that's not what NPOV or RS states. If there is a policy that supports this, could you please link/quote from it? In this content, we're not writing about something like Bowie's sexuality, or gender identity, or health issues, or some other subject that is time relative and where more recently published sources are likely to be more representative of what was occurring in his life at that time. We're discussing something that allegedly happened in either 1972 or 73. If anything, one could I think successfully argue that more recent interviews, like the 2015 Thrillist interview, are less reliable than those given earlier, as the passage of time has a known and measurable effect on the reliability of a person's memories.
It would be a mistake to use the Thrillist account as the one true accounting of this. If Bowie's article is going to include the allegations from Mattix, then to meet the describe disputes, but not engage in them requirement in WP:VOICE, it must contain at minimum an accurate recounting of every version of the allegations by Mattix, because as can clearly be seen she has disputed her own retelling of this several times. Alongside that, that Sable Starr gave a different recounting of the version that Mattix told Gillman must also be included as juxtaposition. However to do this would be exceptionally lengthy in an already lengthy biography. This is I believe content that is best detailed in Mattix' article alone, as in that article sufficient space can be given to detail this in its entirety without putting Bowie's article into WP:SIZESPLIT territory. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like sideswipe says, if we were to include Mattix in Bowie's article, we would have to contain at minimum an accurate recounting of every version of the allegations by Mattix, because as can clearly be seen she has disputed her own retelling of this several times. Yet you clearly disagree. You seem to have an obsession with needing a source that explicitly says "these claims are false", when in this very specific instance, that just won't happen. You need a whole bunch of other sources to justify why her stories don't match up, yet all that does is create burden (or as you say, "tangental" and "pointy"). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note, this is in reply to my message at 05:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC). Putting it here because of the outdent.
With regards to the first paragraph, that is better sourced. It is a matter of record that Bowie faced a grand jury hearing in November 1987, and that the jury did not find sufficient evidence to indict. Paul Trynka did cover this briefly in his biography of Bowie (note, book is available for borrowing on, so it might be due for inclusion, especially if any of the other biographies of Bowie also touch on it. Do any of the other biographies of Bowie touch on it?
On the third paragraph, I had a hard time tracking down the source for Tony Zanetta's quotation, it might be this book by Dylan Jones, but the {{sfn}} doesn't give sufficient info to actually identify the book, as it doesn't actually have a corresponding anchor in the bibliography. Otherwise it seems like an OK paragraph, but it should only be included if, at minimum, the paragraph on the Nichols allegation is included, as it doesn't make sense otherwise. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its in the text, "In an interview with journalist Dylan Jones, former MainMan employee Tony Zanetta argued: "No one talked about the age of the girls at the time. and it wasn't an issue at all. You can't judge 1972 by 2017 standards. There was a magazine called Star that was completely devoted to these girls, prepubescent groupies. It was as common as mud and nobody batted an eye." sourced to the article by Jones but the actual link to the article appears to be missing. You're almost certainly right that Jones's bio of Bowie is the source, but I can't find a digital copy to confirm. Perhaps @Zmbro: who added it[13] in can fill us in? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only Bowie biographies I've found that touch on Mattix are Paul Trynka (casually brought up in a sentence with Sable Starr) and Dylan Jones, which is where I found the Tony Zanetta quote. I do not own Wendy Leigh's biography so I can't confirm if that has any info on either Mattix or Nichols. Trynka does have a few pages about the Nichols lawsuit; I added what he said in this edit. David Buckley also has a paragraph on the matter in Strange Fascination (2005, p. 382). He actually says that the lawsuit damaged his image briefly. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difficulty on searching for biographies that contain content on Mattix is that, depending on the author she's listed under several variations of her name. Gillman's 1987 biography (linked above) and Trynka's 2011 biography has info on Mattix under the name Lori Mattix. In Stephen Davis' 1985 biography of Led Zeppelin (linked above), she's named as Lori Maddox. In McNeil and McCain's book (linked above) she's Laurie Maddox. In Pamela Des Barres memoir, she's named as both Lori Mattix and Lori Lightning. There may be other variations I've not found. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So all of these bios talk about Mattix and yet our current article doesn't contain even a single mention of her? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but only for a page or two at most, sometimes it's only a couple of sentences spread over two pages. In the sum total of Bowie's biography, the Mattix allegations are I'm afraid pretty inconsequential. The Nichols' lawsuit (the one that went to a grand jury) seems to have had a larger impact, both on Bowie and on those writing about Bowie. In my comments above I've linked to copies of the books that are freely available for borrowing through the Internet Archive library, along with the relevant page numbers, so you or any other editor can read what the various journalists have said. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I should also clarify because it's not instantly obvious. Des Barres memoirs do contain more info about Mattix than the other sources, but most of it is about her more widely publicised relationship with Jimmy Page, and broader involvement in the groupie scene during the early 70s.
The content that relates to Bowie amounts to three paragraphs on pages 178-180 (there's a large photo on page 179 that takes up most of the page), which are all quotations from Mattix. This version has some similarities to the version Mattix recounted to the Thrillist, however the order of some events are changed, particularly surrounding how Bowie, Starr, and Mattix had a threesome. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More proof that we can't really trust what Mattix says since her story changes so much. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why does it matter from an NPOV perspective whether we can trust Mattix or not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zmbro: What Nichols lawsuit? Do you mean the criminal case brought before the grand jury and declined or was there a lawsuit after it? You also don't appear to add any text in the linked edit, you actually remove text and change the source. You trimmed Bowie, who was 40 at the time, denied the allegations, calling them "ridiculous" and a "ploy for attention". down to Bowie denied the allegations. and swapped the Philadelphia Enquirer for Trynka. Is that really all Trynka said? Was it just "Bowie denied the allegations" repeatedly for multiple pages? And why remove the The Philadelphia Inquirer? Did you confuse it for the National Inquirer? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure the criminal case. And well, if you had read my edit summary and looked at the actual url you would have seen that the Inquirer source linked to the newspaper's home page and not an article discussing the case. So, I removed the quotes as Trynka did not have those and changed the info to match the updated source. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does Trynka call it a lawsuit or a criminal case? I'm curious as to what is in those "multiple pages" because "Bowie denied the accusations" summarizes a paragraph, not multiple pages. As for the PI it looks like it should have been an additional cite to the Mic feature piece "In 1987, 30-year-old Wanda Nichols accused Bowie of forcing himself on her after a concert tour stopover in Dallas. Bowie, who was 40 at the time, vehemently denied the allegations, calling them "ridiculous," and a "ploy for attention," according to the Philadelphia Inquirer." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does Trynka call it a lawsuit or a criminal case? On page 409 of Trynka's biography it says [Bowie] had something much more threatening on his mind - a lawsuit from a woman named Wanda Lee Nichols who accused Bowie of sexually assaulting her in a Dallas hotel room on October 9, 1987.
The multiple pages in Trynka's biography about the Nichols' lawsuit amount to three paragraphs in total, spread over two pages. Most of the content is discussing the emotional impact the lawsuit had on Bowie at the time, through interviews and recollections of those who were close to him, and how as a result of this he found a much-needed confidante in the form of Sara Terry, press agent for Glass Spider.
As I've said a couple of times now, I've provided links to each of the books which are freely available for borrowing through the Internet Archive's library. You can read it yourself if you desire. Honestly, I would highly recommend you read at least the pages numbers I've provided in my previous replies, as I think it would help immensely with your understanding of the content as a whole. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now we're back to the original question... Is there both a lawsuit and criminal case, not a criminal case at all, or is Trynka an unreliable source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From reading the UPI source that was originally in the article, there was both a criminal lawsuit and a civil lawsuit. Trynka appears to cover the criminal suit, as the third paragraph on page 410 mentions the grand jury's failure to indict. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nichols sued, meaning lawsuit. You obviously confused me with your neglect to do what sideswipe suggests and to read the source that's available for free online. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What confused me was that the original language added ignored the lawsuit completely. I think you're wrong and Sideswipe9th is right, there is both a criminal case and a civil case not just a civil case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps this is a lack of familiarity with the US legal system but there is no such thing as a "criminal lawsuit." Lawsuit means civil. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Criminal lawsuit that might be technically incorrect, insofar as a formal name. However informally criminal lawsuit does seem to be used in reference to the US legal system. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a student created entry, notice how if you click on it you go to [14] which doesn't use the term even once. Ok so we have coverage of two cases here, do you think that either is due for coverage on wikipedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you prefer, I can also point out several US based attorney offices ([15] [16] [17] [18]) that also use the term on their respective websites.
On whether Nichols' cases are due for inclusion in Bowie's article, I'll need to review the biographies again (too many threads in this conversation to keep everything in my mind), but on memory I'm tending towards no. The only biography that seems to have gone into any depth about it focuses more on the impact it had on Bowie's relationships, than on the case itself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you keep talking about what's in the popular press biographies? Due weight is based on coverage in all reliable sources, not just popular press biographies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's for much the same reason why we prefer journal articles, and university level textbooks over content published in newspapers and magazines. Biographies like the ones we're discussing, tend to represent some of the highest quality sources available about a person. When we measure weight, we do so not only against the breadth of sources on a topic, but also the depth. Biographies by their very nature go into a lot more depth than almost any other sort of source, and the amount of detail they devote to a subtopic naturally informs how much detail we should devote, even if we wind up presenting it differently based on the sources we have available. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Popular press biographies are at the same level or lower than regular media coverage, unless I'm mistaken none of these bios were published by a university press. So you're saying that based on breadth of sources its due but on depth of sources its not? I don't believe one of those trumps the other, we have feature coverage in the press not passing mentions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you're saying that based on breadth of sources its due but on depth of sources its not? No. I'm saying that I think you're making an argument based solely on the breadth of sources. I never said that I agreed with it.
With respect to due weight, I believe I've better elaborated my thoughts on the issues relating to this content in Bowie's article over here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If my argument was based on breadth and not depth I wouldn't be repeatedly emphasizing the feature articles... These are full length, thats not passing coverage it is significant coverage. We've certainly got depth, the question is actually whether we have breadth if thats how you choose to phrase it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zmbro: only just remembered about this, Leigh's biography is also available for borrowing through the Internet Archive's library. There's a couple of sentences on Mattix, under the name Lori Lightning on pages 161 and 162. And there's a short paragraph on Nichols on page 228. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had wondered if Leigh did. Reading the paragraph, it seems to support the notion that yes, Bowie slept with Mattix first, then had Sable Starr join in. I wonder where she got that quote from Mattix. Reading on, I also notice that amounts of sex with groupies Leigh attributed to "massive amounts of cocaine", although I'm not sure if that's accurate. I might have read once that Bowie's cocaine addiction started during the Ziggy tour, but did not take real shape until the Diamond Dogs era. I wonder where she got that too. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect Leigh got the info from Mattix. From what I've read elsewhere, Starr was very unlikely to have given an interview on this to Leigh, with the McNeil and McCain book being one of the few interviews Starr ever gave on this subject, and I don't recall seeing Starr mentioned in the thanks/sources for Leigh's book. There's a few other anachronisms that seem to have cropped up in other versions of Mattix' story, like Bowie having removed his eyebrows when they met in October '72, which based on photos didn't happen until late in '73, or Lennon and Ono being present in March '73, which according to other more reliable sources said happened in September '74. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leigh certainly paints the Nichols situation in a more negative light towards her. Yet Leigh also says the dispute took two years to resolve, which I find hard to believe, as according to UPI, it was resolved the same year (1987). So Leigh helps but at the same time should be taken with a grain of salt; at the very least paired with other sources. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source says the criminal case was resolved the same year, the civil case appears to have continued into '88 [19]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm surprised no one commented on this, so I'm posting this here as well as on article talk:

This comment by Horse Eye's Back on the NPOV thread pretty much sums up what we're dealing with here:
"Why does it matter from an NPOV perspective whether we can trust Mattix or not?"diff
That is shocking, and reveals what we have here. Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is A tendentious, disruptive editor, a WP:POVPUSHer who has an agenda that is not based on the truth. This user wants to smear this bio subject, and does not care if the the charges are true. I don't think anyone here "hates" Lori Mattix. But by her own words, and the words and photos of her contemporaries, she's not a reliable witness. But that doesn't matter to this user's agenda. This user has no consensus to continue this. This is well past the point of absurdity. It's been going in circles since it started. - CorbieVreccan 19:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(same response as article talk page) We publish that which has been previously published by reliable sources, we explicitly do not publish the "truth." See Wikipedia:Verifiability "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[a] If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This lost content dispute should have never been brought to the NPOV.
No, you are WP:Wikilawyering and obfuscating. She's not reliable, due to all the conflicting versions she's told, and the fact that women whose stories haven't varied wildly have stayed consistent in contradicting her. She is the base source, so nothing that comes from her is either WP:RS or WP:V. WP:DROPTHESTICK already. - CorbieVreccan 19:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On reading through this BLPN post and the talk page (which shows that this thread is mostly rehashing stuff from the talk,) I think the answer to the question asked is yes, it's sound editorial judgement to exclude the alleged rape based on the preponderance of sources and the coverage therein. This smacks of tendentious forum shopping because Horse didn't like the answers they got on the talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are two women who have made allegations, which one are you talking about? @David Fuchs: same question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lori Mattix - CorbieVreccan 19:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what about the other woman? Do you think she should be mentioned? We appear to be approaching such a consensus on the article talk page. See Talk:David Bowie#Should Wanda Nichols be added?. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should be done on article talk, not here - CorbieVreccan 19:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section is about the exclusion of both alleged raped, not Mattix's allegations in particular. Do you think it is NPOV complaint to exclude all mention of all of the alleged rapes? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you are being an aggressive jerk both on that page and here. The entire process would clearly be a lot less fractious if you weren't involved. So take it down a notch. Reread WP:BLUDGEON, assume some good faith, and stop acting like there's a grand conspiracy of Bowie fanboys and girls out to get you. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need not imagine it. "Good work stepping up on the WP:ICANTHEARYOU user ignoring the sources. Let me know if you need help with that, as well. My email is also open." [20]

Responding on some points made, just meeting wp:rs means meeting some minimal criteria. RS noticeboard is a place that help determine the strength in the context of the text which it is supporting. And in this case that and editor discussions address whether it meets the special higher bar of strength of sourcing for putting such a thing into a BLP. North8000 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the OP, I think that even Andy's strong criticism was being kind. The OP reads like saying that the editors who think differently are doing so on the basis of "that sources be damned, the women are liars" North8000 (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't have a single source which says that these allegations are true or false they just say they exist and most likely can never be resolved but regardless have had a significant impact on the legacy and perception of the accused, multiple editors have asserted that these allegations (by two living women against a dead man) are false. How would you phrase that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have the depth of knowledge on the coverage and subject to answer. If you want me to I'll take a deeper dive there and then answer. North8000 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take as deep a dive as you want, I kicked a bigger hornets nest than I thought I was kicking. Consider that I was in your position vis-a-vis Bowie depth of knowledge less than a week ago and go from there. My opening here is definitely phrased poorly, look at the timestamp... Its as much tequila as Horse Eye talking. I thought "allegations against a dead guy" I've done that before, I verified the stuff at Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi when I spit the page off... Forgot that while Gaddafi is almost universally despised and has almost no fans on wiki David Bowie might be the exact opposite... Allegations should in theory all be handled the same no matter who makes them or who they're made against, but theory is theory and consensus is consensus. I'm not sure why its a surprise that dispassionate editing is apparently easier with mass murdering dictators than rock stars but here I sit surprised and apparently deeply naive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well in your explanation about your OP, that is the coolest response I've ever seen. I wonder if there is a barnstar for that?  :-) North8000 (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! There has been an RFC at the above page (link to section) concerning the page's title—specifically at issue is whether "conspiracy theory" adheres to NPOV and the merits of other alternatives.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Communications from government of India to Wikimedia Foundation regarding content about maps depicting the borders of IndiaEdit

Hi all,

As some users may be aware, India (as well as several other countries) has a number of laws making maps that do not match the Indian government’s national border outline illegal. While this has been a known potential issue for many years, in 2023, the Indian government’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) sent the Foundation several direct complaints about specific maps. This has led to them sending an overall list of 81 URLs on the Wikimedia projects (primarily English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons). In India, MeitY has overall enforcement authority over website hosting companies and has indicated to the Foundation that they would block access to Wikipedia in India if nothing is done in response to their demands.

As is usual for our response to government demands, we explained the community-governance processes for the Wikimedia projects and that content and editorial decisions are made by volunteers. We have been clear throughout our interactions that the Foundation would not perform any changes, nor is there an expectation for the community to do so. MeitY agreed with this and has clarified that their request does not involve deleting any content on the Wikimedia projects.

Instead, they have made two requests to us. One is that we notify users (which we understand to mean editors) about MeitY’s demands, and the second is that notices be added to pages noting where maps do not comply with Indian law. On the second, they also requested a pointer to the official Survey of India map, which they recently agreed to release into the public domain and which was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

The Foundation Legal Department’s opinion is that the first request to inform the communities about the notices to the Foundation is reasonable and in line with our transparency principles, and we are therefore making this post.

For the second request, we understand MeitY’s concern to be around readers misinterpreting a map’s depiction of the disputed border. We believe that it may be possible to address some of MeitY’s concerns in line with current content policies, adding language to some image captions mentioning the dispute in normal encyclopedic prose. Where possible, we defer the question of making these changes to community processes and are here to provide transparency on this situation and our perspective on options.

After a manual review of the 81 received URLs, we developed a list of twelve maps of India (on eight pages) where there is both no indication of the border dispute (in the map or caption) and where mention of the dispute may be beneficial in providing due weight in context.

Unedited list of URLs provided by MeitY

This list is unedited. Wikimedia Foundation Legal understands that some of the links are broken.

  58. https://upload.wikimediaorg/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Population_density_of_countries_2018_world_map%2C_people_per_sq_km.svg
  59. https://upload.wikimediaorg/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Pakistan%280rthographic_projection%29.svg
  60. https://en.wikipedia.orgap.jpg/wiki/Chambal_Rver#/media/File:India_relief_location_map.jpg
Manually-reviewed list of pages and files  
Number in unedited list Page link Page section(s) Presumed file(s) affected
3 India India#Administrative divisions File:Political map of India EN.svg
78 Foreign relations of India Diplomatic relations of India.svg
Foreign relations of India#South 2 Members of BIMSTEC.svg
Foreign relations of India#South 2 Map of India WV.svg
Foreign relations of India#Border disputes Indus river.svg
Foreign relations of India#Policy Diplomatic missions of India.PNG
73 India–Pakistan relations File:Pakistan India Locator 2.png
66 India–Iran relations Iran India Locator.svg
62 India–Uzbekistan relations File:India–Uzbekistan Locator.svg
21 Bhutan–India relations File:India Bhutan Locator.png
22 China–India relations File:India China Locator.png
25 1998 Wandhama massacre File:India location map.svg

The Wikimedia Foundation stands by the community’s editorial decisions and processes. If the community decides not to take any action, we will inform MeitY of that decision and, in the event Wikipedia is blocked, attempt to challenge it.

Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.  Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for bringing this to us; we appreciate the work WMF Legal does.
Some of the maps, where it might be appropriate to include details about the dispute, already appear to depict the location of the disputed border. For example, File:Political map of India EN.svg and File:India location map.svg appears to match commons:File:States of India (Survey of India).pdf, with both of them depicting India's claim? Can you give us more information about MeitY's objections to these maps; do they want us to depict the territory as Indian, rather than merely claimed by India?
For most of the rest, particularly maps like File:Indus river.svg on pages like Astore River and File:IPhone 3G Availability.svg on iPhone I don't think including the fact that India disputes the border would be relevant, and I feel that doing so across the encyclopedia would provide WP:UNDUE emphasis to India's claims; for other countries with disputed borders we don't mention them every time a map involving those borders is shown, and we shouldn't make an exception because India is issuing legal threats.
In regards to the specific proposals presented by MeitY, I think that adding notices is a non-starter, and adding a pointer to the official survey map isn't much more likely to be appropriate or succeed. BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for this well written summary, Jacob (and Legal more generally). It's probably is worth taking a look at each of the map uses that doesn't note the dispute to see if they should be more prominently marked. I can't imagine we will be adding the notices. As to the pointer, again, it would be odd to add that to every single instance of the map (marked as disputed or not), but there may be some cases where it's worth adding to the see also/ext links section. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi BilledMammal. Thank you for your comments. We understand MeitY’s concerns to be focused on noting that the territory is disputed, not to portray the territory as undisputed in their favor. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. However, that does mean I don't understand their objection to some of these maps where that already appears to have been done. BilledMammal (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference in list size between "81 URLs" and the list above does suggest that...quite a few of them will be flawed, even with the most generous of interpretations. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they want the disputes to be noted rather than removed entirely, why is Pakistan on this list? The light green part is land that is claimed by both countries – does India want us to ignore Pakistan's claim?
Also, and more to the general point, what would we do if we received a similar complaint from the government of Pakistan? Or Bhutan? Or China? I'm concerned that this sets a very dangerous precedent. By all means we should be going through these articles to make sure they are accurate and well-represented, but we should not be bending over backward to placate an overzealous government. – bradv 23:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Bradv, thanks for your comment! In the interest of transparency, we thought it necessary to bring this to the attention of the community. I want to clarify that we are not proposing any specific changes; rather, we’re hoping to communicate our understanding of the situation for consideration by the community. I think the standard you articulated: “By all means we should be going through these articles to make sure they are accurate and well-represented, but we should not be bending over backward to placate an overzealous government” is a great way to review this. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On this map it's unclear to me what the difference is between "Pakistani territory claimed by India" and "Indian territory claimed by Pakistan". Current control? I feel like this phrasing is not sufficiently precise in that case. Loki (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the difference between the land that India actually controls and the land they claim. The red line is the de facto border, the hashed areas are what India and Pakistan respectively claim. (Same on the east side of the mpa, with China). Obviously it wouldn't be NPOV of us to draw these maps according to either country's wishes, but it would be perfectly reasonable for us to colour the claims differently and make note of the dispute (as we do on most of these articles). – bradv 00:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would suggest changing it to "Pakistan-controlled territory claimed by India". Unfortunately, this overflows the existing legend, so it will take more significant editing of the SVG to fix. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this. Loki (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be appreciated if when citing the desire for transparency that the WMF could give a fuller picture of this. It is presented here as a new incident which was merely a "known potential issue" in the past, however it includes Bhutan–India relations for which we have news reports of previous official communication to the WMF. It would be clarifying to know what specifically the WMF means by "the border dispute" in this request to the community. As the WMF has carried out a manual review, it would also be appreciated to know what considerations were taken when doing so. For example, did this review take a similar perspective that it would be "beneficial in providing due weight in context" to add into the maps and captions notes about related disputes? It was particularly eye-catching to see China–India relations included in the manually reviewed list of pages "where mention of the dispute may be beneficial". I hope the WMF takes another look at this situation. CMD (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The complaint about China–India relations is interesting, as both of the India/China maps on that page seem to be drawn in India's favour, with no mention of China's claim. (It doesn't mention India's claim on Pakistan's land either, but if we're going to fix one we're going to fix the other too.) – bradv 00:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't see a way this can be resolved that does not involve Wikipedia being blocked in India. Deleting all maps that show the territory that India actually controls is simply too fundamental a compromise of the neutral point of view to seriously stomach. The only way I could seriously see this being resolved without Wikipedia being blocked is having the maps replaced with one's the Indian government approves of only when viewed from India, like Google maps does it, but the technical implementation of that seems challenging. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only way I could seriously see this being resolved without Wikipedia being blocked is having the maps replaced with one's the Indian government approves of only when viewed from India, like Google maps does it, but the technical implementation of that seems challenging. I believe the technical implementation already exists (it is often used for banners), but I would oppose that as an NPOV violation.
However, what may be acceptable is for us to include a banner on those pages, viewable only in India, that reads something along the lines of "The Indian government has required us to inform you that the maps included in this article reflect control, and do not reflect India's claimed territory". However, I don't think that would be necessary - I doubt India will actually block Wikipedia. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This sounds like a headache, but not for us. I'd say the less the community engages with this sort of Dr. Evil style blackmail the better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone who's often critical of the WMF, I have to give props for how this is being handled. If the government of India has an issue with our content, they are more than welcome to make a post here at the neutral point of view noticeboard like anyone else. If the government of India blunders its way into blocking Wikipedia over a few maps, then I hope the people of India will loudly oppose such a decision and see it quickly reversed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could we just create a new template warning people that a given map might be illegal in some countries like we already have for communist symbolism etc? User1042💬✒️ 12:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we do, it would be better to do alongside other countries with similar laws. CMD (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not all of them, in my opinion. I believe that the Russian territorial claims against Ukraine (including Crimea) are just as good as ISIL's in the context of widely documented war crimes of such exceptional intensity, that now the ICC has an arrest warrant for Putin: in said case, there is no case for a territorial dispute warning template. --Minoa (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. I meant a universal template, like we have for communist symbolism. User1042💬✒️ 20:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree thanks for this thoughtful summary and reasonable stance by the WMF. I suggest we review it and discuss ad nauseum simply to prove that we can before taking any action, IF any is taken. Andre🚐 17:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remember an earlier similar thing with some media coverage[21], it was discussed at Talk:Bhutan–India relations and other places. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notified: c:Commons:Village pump. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Inquiry is the complaint at India about File:Political map of India EN.svg (where the in-image caption is perhaps less clear than desired, but seems broadly fair), or other images such as File:South Asian Language Families.png (which makes no attempt to convey a disputed border). Walt Yoder (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good question, thanks for flagging! I believe it's both, and I think that presents a good example of the varying quality of the list they sent us, given that one is at least related to the political borders while the other is quite clearly different. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Due to the way Wikipedia works, it will always contain errors. That's not something we can change. I'm not inclined to start caving in to demands from this government or that. I'm more sympathetic to India than I am to (say) Russia, which doubtless thinks we are breaking numerous laws with our coverage of the war. But I think we have to draw a line in the sand here. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also worth mention is India's Democratic backsliding. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wikipedia will always contain errors, especially if the errors can be verified and the facts can't. That's following our policies and guidelines. But that doesn't excuse, for me, our obligation to try to get things right nor does it excuse our obligation to uphold a neutral point of view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Jrogers (WMF): Other issues aside: Having File:States of India (Survey of India).pdf is good, but have the govt. of India released it as an SVG, or better as a data file? If not, please could you ask your contact there to do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Noted. We can try, though the Survey of India themselves have been the slowest responding part (like, it might take them months to respond to a request). If anyone want to make it into an SVG, please feel free to do so. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jrogers (WMF) @Pigsonthewing: I've converted the PDF to File:States of India (Survey of India).svg, but it's not great quality because of the limitations of the original file. If anyone can create a better version, I'm absolutely fine with mine being uploaded over. Huntster (t @ c) 20:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I presume there is no problem about detecting the country of origin when nothing like VPN is being used. For those cases I fully support a country specific banner appearing for specific pages when they are displayed. Plus an option for people to display all banners if they wish. And if Russia wants such a banner for bits of Ukraine being displayed in Russia, well I've no objection and we can all see what they are saying if we want. NadVolum (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think a reader-facing warning is appropriate here. No objections to someone making a template about this as information, and dropping it on associated talk pages - then future editors can decide if they want to adjust things or not. In some cases, something may be inaccurate and this could spurn legitimate improvements. — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We would also need a new Commons template similar to c:Template:Georgian boundaries (for misprepresentations of Georgia's borders) to be attached to Commons files. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 06:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We should seek always to act reasonably, and where we think the edit request is reasonable we should act upon it. In my view, border disputes are usually notable, and I think should be communicated in a proportionate manner (e.g. outlining or shading territory on a map, plus a key). It would not be proportionate to have a big flashy warning about a map being illegal in India. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a recurring (Talk:Pit_bull/Archive_9#Nipper_should_not_be_listed_in_'Notable_pit_bulls'_section/Talk:Pit_bull/Archive_11#Nipper) and somewhat deadlocked discussion on if this dog should be mentioned in the pit bull article, Talk:Pit_bull#Notable_pit_bulls. If you can help, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that the article Hitler's Grave seems to be written with a positive bias towards the film. If anyone can help out and remove said bias from the page, please do so. Thanks! RteeeeKed💬📖 03:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The more basic problem is that there's nothing there that supports WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I realized that after I posted. It's already been nominated for deletion. RteeeeKed💬📖 23:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]