Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:50, 9 May 2021

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

Rent control: "on consensus among economists"

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

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

The sources used to support this claim are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you SPECIFICO. More evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There is a consensus among economists"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. I am against the proposed version of the sentence because there is not a consensus on that either. The claim is false, and the references and arguments have been provided above by some users. 83.33.129.185 (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC). (Self-described block evasion struck) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party here, though a few sources to consider:

• A 2018 review report written by a professor at the London School of Economics states that In some circumstances, e.g. if information to both landlord and tenant is improved, contracts are made more transparent and easier to enforce, then risks may be reduced for both parties and/or constraints on investment may be overcome. It is possible that both landlords and tenants may gain from the intervention. In such cases supply will increase and rents may be lower (or there may be additional demand for the better product). However, in other circumstances, the effect of regulation is to control rents below market levels and/or to provide greater security of tenure or other benefits to tenants which reduce returns or increase risks to landlords. In this case the result will be a reduction in supply; there will be pressure to avoid or evade the regulation; immobility and under-occupation of poor-quality, ill-maintained properties; and higher rents and worse housing for those excluded from the market. In other words, if the rent control binds rents to under what the price would be in a market, quality of units would suffer and supply would be reduced. On the other hand, if the rent regulation provides better information to landlords and tenants then both could be better off due to relatively lowered risks associated with renting.
• A 2007 study published in the Journal of Urban Economics found that Massachusetts rent control was associated with the quantity of rental housing stock and the quality of rental housing stock. The study also found that rent control may have caused individuals to substitute away from renting and towards homeownership and that there were (small) effects on the non-controlled rental stock that resulted from imposition of rent control.
• A 2019 study published in the American Economic Review found that rent regulations in San Francisco reduced rental supply and that reduction in rental supply likely increased rents in the long run. The study noted that landlords substituted their stock away from rental units and towards condos in response to rent regulation.
• A 1985 paper that took a hedonic approach found that after standardizing for quality, rents in the uncontrolled sector were significantly higher than rents in the controlled sector but also that uncontrolled rents likely exceed the rents that would have occurred in the absence of controls.

I can give more input, but these seem to be very typical results on the topic that have occurred over time. Generally, economists have found that the rents of uncontrolled units rises due to rent controls, which negatively affects quality (utility/cost). They also have found that oftentimes rent control results in the reduction of housing stock. Some economists suggest that this is because rent control regulations have been poorly written and that there might exist some rent control regulations that would be helpful, but that rent controls that bind the rental stock to a lower price than the market price would tend to decrease quality of the uncontrolled stock and the quantity of rental stock overall. I'm also aware of some work that has been done on the optimal maintenance rates for a landlord that is facing new rent control regulations (and that the answer is generally to decrease maintenance if the rent controlled maximum price is set below the market price for a unit), though I am unable to recall the paper at this time. I might try to find a textbook if that would be helpful.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Thanks for the sources and discussion! I think a textbook would be helpful, as it would speak to what the CONSENSUS in the economics field thinks about rent control, as that would be what is being taught in schools. I've heard multiple times that rent control is used in Econ101 as a classic lesson, but I don't have an Econ101 textbook, and don't know how to find what (or how many) colleges use which open-source Econ101 textbook. ---Avatar317 22:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The idea that supply and quality of units goes down with rent control is supported by at least these two texts, Springee (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I've been able to get my hands on a few microeconomics textbooks, and I found two that explicitly talk about rent controls (within the context of legally imposed caps on the price of units). The first one, notes that markets with a typical supply and demand curve (upward-sloping supply curve, downward-sloping demand curve) will underproduce if the price control is below the unregulated level in general. It then moves to specifically use rent control as an example of this, saying that there will be an "excess demand" caused by rent controls when those controls lower the price of housing, and the source also says that "excess demand in the housing market is commonly referred to as a 'housing shortage'" and that this would result in the market having fewer houses than in an unregulated market. The second one doesn't go in as much detail on the derivation itself, but it agrees with the first textbook regarding the reduction to the quantity of housing that will result from rent controls. Regarding housing quality, the second book also states that since sellers face excess demand for their products, each will be able to make sales even if their products are not as good as those of competitors. As a result, sellers have too little incentive to maintain or enhance the quality of their products. For example, a common complaint about rent-controlled apartments is that they receive little maintenance and no renovations. In context, "to little incentive to do x" is more of a positive description that x won't be done as much (as opposed to a normative description saying people ought to do x more), so I believe that the second textbook is a source that can be used to back the claim of scholarly consensus with respect to decreases in the quality of rental units. Both books are from right before the great recession really got going, though from my understanding there hasn't been any sort of general shift on this belief reflected in relevant literature since then. (On a side note, the copyright dates on the books are both 2008, though online sources say the books were published in late 2007. I went with the dates printed in the books in making the citations.)— Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you are ignoring all the arguments given above by many users. You cannot use two or three or four books, or a survey, or a think tank study to substantiate the claim. The claim is false since there are economists who think differently . More references have already been given, there is still no consensus on this page and the claim is still on the article page without consensus. The page is not even marked as having a conflict of neutrality.83.33.129.185 (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC) (block evasion by blocked sockpuppet WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pedrote112 struck) ---Avatar317 21:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The statement that The claim is false since there are economists who think differently doesn't really give an argument against WP:RS/AC. Consensus is not equivalent to unanimity; there can be disagreement by small numbers of scholars and yet a scholarly consensus might be present. When we have textbooks (which are often considered tertiary sources) that are providing a sense of academic consensus on the rent control, I think that the consensus is sufficiently well-sourced. As always, the different views on rent control should be presented in the article relative to their prominence in published, reliable sources However, they should not be given equal weight with the consensus views in the article's description of the academic debates on rent control. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is NOT sufficiently well-sourced. There is not a single credible and reproducible study that verifies such a claim. There is no consensus among the users of this site to support such a claim. The claim was introduced without consensus recently, it remains on the page and the page is not labelled as

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

. If the proponents of this claim had any respect for truth and neutrality, they would remove the claim first, label the page appropriately, and continue debating here.83.33.129.185 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC) (block evasion by blocked sockpuppet WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pedrote112 struck) ---Avatar317 21:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

When Econ text books use this as an example of how artificially limiting prices impacts a market I think we can say there is consensus among academics in the field of econ. Springee (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Many econ macro textbooks teach IS/LM curves, which compare a stock quantity with a flow quantity. I don't think there can be many thoughtful economists who would defend plotting a flow quantity and a stock quantity on the same graph as a principled and entirely coherent practice, and yet the idea is considered something that most undergraduates should become aware of. It is certainly the case that there are many case histories where poorly constructed hard rent caps can be very bad for a city, and undergraduates should become aware of this. This does not mean there is a current consensus that the generalisation given in the article, "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of rental housing units" is true, especially since the definition of rent control given in the lead is a quite broad one, covering practices some mainstream economists actually endorse. I think this conversation should continue on Talk:Rent regulation, since the matter is quite technical, not the kind of high-level issue this noticeboard is best suited for. I am considering putting together an RfC on this point, and if I do I will advertise it here and elsewhere. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have seen a number of scholarly articles directly stating that such a consensus exists. In the face of this, unless and until I saw an equal or greater number of scholarly articles directly stating that this consensus does not exist, I see absolutely no reason to entertain the argument that this consensus does not exist.

Note that I'm making no comment on whether this consensus is entirely (or necessarily) accurate, as economics is a highly complex field of study. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just to check I understand what you are saying: if it turned out that a survey showed 60% of economists believed there was a consensus that P, 20% disputed P and a further 20% were inclined to believe P but thought the contrarian 20% had raised important arguments that needed answering, you would say there is a consensus? To be clear, I think there would not be. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You can change those numbers to 98%, 1% and 1%, and it would drastically alter your point. Pulling numbers out of thin air for the purpose of making a point is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

And for the record, what I have seen (and you may note that these are estimates; not numbers pulled out of thin air) is 100% agreement that there is a consensus, with about 10% suggesting that said consensus is wrong, while acknowledging that it nonetheless exists. Hence my second paragraph. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, my point with those figures was to show narrowly that your criterion for claiming there to be a consensus would allow us to infer the existence of a consensus when there isn't one, and hopefully broadly that showing a consensus for a claim is harder than showing general support for that claim.

The most recent high quality survey of economists says 93% of believe that P, where P is the somewhat specific claim about quantity and quality of housing (this is specific about consequences of rent control, but not about what constitutes rent control). That is just the kind of figure you expect to see if there is a consensus. However (i) at the time there was already a substantial, well-cited contrarian empirical and theoretical literature arguing for the positive effects of some rent control measures that would not see a reduction in the quantity and quality of available rental accomodation, so it may be that there were many economists who believed P but thought that not P was a perfectly reasonable position in view of the available theory and data, and (ii) this survey was from the beginning of the 1970s; the opinion of the economics profession to the kind of marginalist theoretical argument that is most commonly put forward is greeted with a bit more scepticism in the economics profession than back then and if you go back to the 1950s, there seemed to be general support for rent control measures among the economics profession. I don't think the degree of support for P has ever reached the level you indicate: which would be 99% (98%+1%). — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can't understand on your own how your claim that "if the numbers were different, there wouldn't be a consensus" is neither particularly insightful nor relevant to my initial comment, then I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to enlighten you.

The question is whether or not there is a consensus. Literally 100% of economists I've seen who've discussed the issue explicitly agree that there is, in fact, such a consensus. This includes economists who insist that this consensus is incorrect. I've said already that, unless someone can dig up a similar number of sources -again, explicitly- claiming that there is no such consensus, there's nothing to argue here. And that is not my own personal feelings on the matter, it's one of the most fundamental precepts of Misplaced Pages. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

your claim that "if the numbers were different, there wouldn't be a consensus" - this is a straw man, and one I have explicitly rejected. I was showing that the argument in your comment of 21 Apr rested on an apparent fallacy, not making any assertion as to what the current support for the position was. To misunderstand this point once suggests I have not articulated myself well. But when you repeat the mischaracterisation of what I have said after I pointed it out, I no longer think the fault is mine.

In any case, the right place for this discussion is on the article talk page, not on this noticeboard. Please respond there, and please to do not misrepresent what I say yet again. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I find it hilariously ironic that you would accuse me of claiming your argument was asserting a certain set of number as factual in the same comment in which you accuse me of straw manning your argument. It's a straw-man-ception: You straw man my response to accuse me of straw-manning your argument. Brilliant. I'll be chuckling about this for minutes to come. Well, maybe seconds. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Idk anything about rent control,we look for what a balance of sources say and go with that. If the issue is controversial, then a minority view ought to get a mention with due weight.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Part of the challenge with expressing a minority view, is that you need SECONDARY sources (or tertiary sources) that say that the minority view exists, as well as what % hold the minority view, and that it is not WP:FRINGE. But we currently have secondary sources like this one: Conor Dougherty, an economics reporter at The New York Times. He previously spent a decade in New York covering housing and the economy for The Wall Street Journal. He grew up in the Bay Area and lives with his family in Oakland. - who recently wrote this book: GOLDEN GATES: Fighting for Housing in America, saying in 2018: And yet economists from both the right and the left are in almost universal agreement that rent control makes housing problems worse in the long run. ---Avatar317 20:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Avatar317, the claim of Dougherty that you cite appears to be his personal judgement. He might be right, but if he is not citing, say, a study that surveys the views of professional economists, then it is a primary source. — Charles Stewart (talk)https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=2 07:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I join this discussion late. There is indeed a strong consensus among economists on the negative effects on rent control, to the extent that it features prominently in many introductory textbooks to the field of economics. For example, the negative effects of rent control in Stockholm has been a key example in Swedish textbooks about economics for decades (to add an additional example to the mainly anglo-centric discussion). Claiming that there is a consensus for this is perfectly in line with NPOV and it would appear the IP who first object mainly argues from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While rent control may be a complex topic in politics, it is a very straightforward one in economics. Jeppiz (talk)\

There is not a single serious and reproducible scientific article addressing the question of how many economists argue that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing. Not one.193.52.24.13 (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Baumol, William J; Blinder, Alan S. (1994). Economics Principles and Policy (6th ed.). Dryden Press. p. 92-93, 379. ISBN 0-03-098927-2.
2. Cooter, Robert; Ulen, Thomas (1997). Law and Economics 2nd Edition. Addison-Wesley. p. 32-33.
3. David A Besanko; Ronald R. Braeutigam (2008). "10.5". Microeconomics (3rd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 374–377. ISBN 978-0470-04924-2.
4. B. Douglas Bernheim; Michael D Whinston (2008). Microeconomics (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill Irwin. p. 565. ISBN 978-0-07-290027-9.
5. Dougherty, Conor (12 October 2018). "Why Rent Control Is a Lightning Rod". The New York Times. Retrieved 26 March 2019.

"Person X was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize"

Every year, hundreds of people are nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize because thousands of people have the right to nominate anyone they want (Hitler was nominated for one in 1939). Often the media cover these nominations, in particular the controversial ones. Should Misplaced Pages articles cover these nominations, which misleadingly confer clout and false praise upon the nominees? I keep seeing this in articles and it strikes me as a form of puffery which shouldn't be in WP articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

18 Republican lawmakers nominate President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize Heh! Nominations by interested parties aren't worth a whole lot.Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is indeed puffery and should probably be excluded under WP:NOTNEWS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

NOt really, being awarded one yes, being nominated no.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think it could be mentioned, but only if it was clear who did the nominating, and if there was more than routine coverage surrounding it. There's a world of difference between "President Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize" and "18 Republican lawmakers nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize." Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)0
• Generally noteworthy and worthy of inclusion. As Mackensen says, attribution to the nominator is a necessity. Cambial foliage❧ 14:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Cambial Yellowing, it's worth noting that the nominators are kept secret until 50 years later (unless they reveal themselves)... Aza24 (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Not appropriate for inclusion; we're not talking the short list of final contenders here. Its like for Oscars: we know hundreds of films are sent in for consideration, and some of that may even be well-documented, but it is only the 5-10 films announced in each category - those selected by the larger jury prior to voting - that matter. Basically, its like a lack of "peer-review" for these Nobel Prize nominations - the peer-review only becoming the shortlists that are revealed 50+ years after the award per Aza24. --Masem (t) 16:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• It's a POV problem because of how it can be misinterpreted. People probably do see being nominated for a Nobel as akin to being a finalist for an Oscar. It should not be included on any page, unless they win the Nobel. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's likely because there's a fallacy or misunderstanding that "nominated for Nobel" is not the same step of the award consideration process as "nominated for Oscar". Technically, all those "nominated for Nobels" should be "submitted for consideration for Nobels", and in that frame, it is definitely inappropriate since anyone can do that, but obviously some groups or people that do that submission or who are the person that is getting the consideration think it is a big deal. We know much better and can reject those arguments. --Masem (t) 16:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It's not the case that anyone can make a nomination. Only individuals in certain recognised professions. Cambial foliage❧ 18:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Still broad and open enough of who can make the "nomination" as make trivial (eg Trump being named by GOP congresspeople shows the lunacy of the process). There's no checks and balance at the Nobel side at that point. We only care about what the Nobel committee shortlists and names as the winner at the end of the day. --Masem (t) 04:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • The categories are certainly extensive: university professors/associate professors in several fields; members of legislatures; nobel laureates (or board members); members of the ICJ, PCA and Institut de Droit International — but this is hardly sufficiently to be considered "open". The idea that the length of the list automatically renders nominations trivial does not really hold water. The Trump nomination is a perfect example of notability, even if in that case it serves only to illustrate the absurd tactics employed by Republican members of the US congress. Stupid ≠ trivial. Cambial foliage❧ 14:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would say it's not automatically noteworthy but that it depends on the degree of coverage - especially whether it's WP:SUSTAINED and how it compares to the prominence of the individual in question. Whether it directly relates to their existing points of notability also matters. For example, the standard to mention President Trump being nominated is higher (given how much coverage he gets for anything related to him), compared to eg. a botanist getting nominated for their work, where that might be one of the most heavily-covered aspects of their biography in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • But even in the case of Trump, that's not really a "nomination", that a submission to be considered for nomination. Trump and the GOP may make a big deal, and because of how the US media works, that gets echoed there, but its definitely a RECENTISM/NOT#NEWS issue that we don't have to repeat on WP especially knowing how the Nobels work. If it were truly the case that Nobels gave a shortlist of nominees prior to naming their prize winner, and Trump was on that, absolutely we should include that, but this is just effectively self-serving, echoed by the media, and a systematic bias we can rightfully ignore. --Masem (t) 17:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• There should be no blanket treatment of this. We should not post contextless statements to the effect of "so-and-so was nominated for a Nobel Prize", however, we should also NOT erase every such mention from all Misplaced Pages articles. Instead, we should consider each such event in context, and make an individual decision on each individual article how, and in what context, and with what wording, such nominations should be covered (if at all). This is way too variable a situation to make overall pronouncements of "how we should do things". How we should do things is consider each article and situation in its own context, and arrive at a decision that is best for that one article, without extending that discussion or decision into other unrelated articles where it may or may not be appropriate for any number of reasons. --Jayron32 17:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with above comments suggesting it should be generally advised against. It's trivia at best, misleading at worst. Potentially some particular instances might be noteworthy, but are probably unusual enough to leave as exceptions/IAR to a guideline. CMD (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• If someone was in the top contention for the prize and was actually seriously debated by the Nobel committee, then maybe, if it's just a random nomination that wasn't under serious consideration then probably not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Question: Is being nominated for a Nobel other than the Peace Prize (say for Physics or Literature) something that is more selective (and thus, potentially more noteworthy)? Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• This lists who can nominate someone. It's a bit more selective, but some of the categories are slightly arbitrary, so I would say it varies but isn't automatically noteworthy by default - it looks like it still only requires one person to back them, so I could easily see eg. a tenured professor in the physical sciences but in a totally different field nominating someone with extremely WP:FRINGE views to make a point, which we wouldn't want to cover uncritically. People familiar with the issues we ran into in the past in articles on evolution, young-earth creationism, and climate science will know how that sort of thing works. The world is big enough that if only 0.01% of academics support something that's still going to be enough to nominate someone utterly unqualified in an effort to push patiently fringe theories if they want. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• In general, it's puffery, of zero importance. I can't really think of an instance where "nominated for a Nobel Prize" is of more importance than "ran for middle school class president". Except perhaps in the context, "He often bragged about being nominated for a Nobel Prize." --jpgordon 22:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• The key here is WP:DUE. If the nomination receives significant coverage in reliable sources, then it is due even if the person isn't ever in serious contention. If it does not, then it shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages articles, regardless of if it's true or not. This has nothing to do with NPOV - this is a WP:DUE question at its core and needs to be framed as such. It is not puffery to report on nominations for awards that are due weight, nor is it "point of view" to exclude nominations that are ignored in reliable sources. For those that are borderline, or those that reliable sources rebut, it should be acceptable to include a qualifier that it was a "nomination that was not seriously considered" or similar - but beyond that, WP:DUE guides the inclusion of these awards. NPOV is an editorial decision - DUE is not - and this is a DUE issue, meaning editors opinions are less important than that of reliable sources providing coverage to this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Being nominated for a Nobel prize is never WP:DUE in a biographical article. It's trivial (as hundreds of people get nominations every year, often for political reasons), and mainly used as part of POV-pushing to make the person who received it look good. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would think that it would be reasonable to include this in a separate article (if one already exists) listing awards and honors for an individual. For example, some pop stars and similar entertainers engage in a great deal of humanitarian work, and if they have a page listing both their awards from the entertainment world and those received due to humanitarian work, a sourced Nobel Peace Prize nomination identifying the nominator should be includable on such a list. BD2412 T 04:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, once the fact of their nomination has been made public by the Nobel Committee, per WP:V. This happens after fifty years has elapsed, which should be enough time to dissuade its use for mere puffery. Anyone can claim to have been nominated (and almost anyone to have nominated someone else), so unverifiable claims like that should be ignored unless the claims themselves are notable. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Like any other fact it should be based on WEIGHT in context of the article in question. We should not have a blanket designation that it is or is not. Springee (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Snopes: the bar for being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is lower than many American voters might imagine, and the list of nominees is typically neither a short nor exclusive one. It has in the past even contained the names of some of the most reviled and controversial figures in 20th century history ... Joseph Stalin ... Benito Mussolini ... Josip Broz ... Rafael Trujillo ... The total number of individuals eligible to nominate someone else for the Nobel Peace Prize is therefore likely to be greater than half a million, though this is only a rough estimate ...

In 2019, Olav Njolstad, secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, summed up the dynamics of the nomination process, telling the AFP news agency: “There are so many people who have the right to nominate a candidate that it’s not very complicated to be nominated.” Geir Lundestad, Njolstad’s predecessor on the committee, added: “It’s pretty easy to be nominated. It’s much harder to win.”

Per above, in general we should not be accepting Nobel Peace Prize nominations as notable. Even the Peace Prize committee members acknowledge that it is relatively easy to be nominated. starship.paint (exalt) 01:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Specific example: Jared Kushner

The specific case that motivated the request for clarification on the matter is the recent edit-warring on the Jared Kushner where editors such User:Davefelmer, User:Springee, User:Malerooster and User:Mr Ernie insist not only that (i) Nobel Peace Prize nominations belong in the body but also seek to obscure that Kusher was (ii) nominated by Alan Dershowitz and (iii) that Dershowitz is himself prominently involved with the Trump administration (Trump's attorney in his impeachment trials). Nobel Peace Prize nominations have bugged me for a long time though (see my complaints on the BLM page a few weeks ago) so I'm glad to see that many editors agree with me in the abstract that these nominations are tosh of no encyclopedic value. My principled position is that nominations do not belong at all. If the community does decide they do belong in articles, then at the very least, any conflicts of interests between the nominator and nominee should be clarified (just as the media often does with controversial nominations). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Dershowitz has been a high profile and vocal advocate for Isreal for most of his career. Check out his books The Case for Israel and The Case for Peace. It is weird to sneak a note in about the Trump impeachment when Dershowitz is far more notable for his advocacy Isreal, which is what Kushner's nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize was about. Please don't state that I'm obscuring anything, as I have no opinion on your (i) or (ii). Mr Ernie (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue that Snoosanssoogans is bringing up, and the general problem with recognizing these Nobel Peace Prize nominations, is the possible conflict of interest here - Kushner and Dershowitz are strongly connected through Trump, and while Dershowitz's nomination of Kushner may have been made honestly without that considering, it, like most other of these nominations, still have the air of being a result of favoritism or conflicts of interest. Add that "hundreds" of these nominations are made each year (per Nobel's site), and basically its not really a distinguishing factor (unlike being on the shortlist or actually awarded the prize, where the conflict of interest is eliminated) that we should focus on. --Masem (t) 15:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

To add, this is basically the same logic around why we ditched porn star notability; the bulk of those were based on industry awards but it was found there was too much inside basis for those that made them effectively non-independent types of awards. Same factors around the problems of covering cryptocurrency today. --Masem (t) 15:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This nomination was mentioned by a RS and in the Wiki article it was in context of Kushner's involvement with the Abraham Accords. It was not a stand alone fact added randomly into the article. Snoogans' claim that Dershowitz was involved with the Trump administration is misleading. Dershowitz did defend Trump during his first impeachment but I don't believed he represented Trump outside of that and in that case it was because he felt the legal grounds for the impeachment were wrong. Dershoitz has also worked with other presidents and has defended a very large range of people. Certainly he was well known as a legal scholar and for his legal views long before Trump was in office. Springee (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I reverted this material once because it looked like there was a dispute and I started a talk page discussion. I commented that it possibly belonged, but without the extra "commentary". That's all. Whatever the consensus is, in or out, is fine with me. --Malerooster (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Because the fact of having been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is in itself completely non-notable for reasons stated above, it doesn't matter at all who made the completely non-notable nomination. --jpgordon 03:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Should be excluded from the Kushner article, per discussion in the #"Person_X_was_nominated_for_a_Nobel_Peace_Prize" section. Trivial / puffery from a PR effort. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Include in fifty years' time, once the fact of the nomination can be verified (or otherwise). Daveosaurus (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Starship.paint removed the content from the article. I disagree with the removal as I think in context the nomination, reported by a RS, is DUE. A lot of the above discussion is if a nomination is automatically DUE. Those who say "no" are correct in my view but I think most editors also agree that local consensus on specific examples takes precedent over general views/dispositions. Also, when presented as a random factoid I think the removal case is much stronger. When presented in full context, as was the case at the article, this makes a lot more sense to include. Also, Kushner's nomination has received quite a bit of press coverage ]]]]]]]] (some of these are opeds saying Kushner should/shouldn't). Give the RS coverage and it was in the article in context, not as a stand alone factoid, I think it is DUE. Springee (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I cannot read the entire NYTimes article you included there but by its headline alone "Nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize? Wait Until You Receive It to Brag" (in addition to what I can see before the ad-cutoff), that article supports the very principle that Nobel "nominations" that aren't from the shortlist of the award are bits of puffery. I can agree that there may be context for when the nomination may be mentioned, but it should be more than just one line as at Kushner's page. If the peace deal made by Kushner and the three others was considered significant by politicians and other analysts (I'd assume it was), a paragraph to talk about how the deal was praised would be reasonable, and ending that "Dershowitz nominated Kushner for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the peace deal." would make a lot more sense with that context. But as it stands as a single line alone, it looks like the type of context-less puffery that the NYTimes article is warning about and that the above discussion raises concern. --Masem (t) 16:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Masem: starship.paint (exalt) 01:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I usually stay well clear of AP but Messrs Trump, Pompeo and Kushner have all been milking these normalization agreements (they are not really peace agreements) for all they are worth. The Nobel stuff is all to do with that I expect and the fact that Kushner is going to write a book about it all has nothing whatever to do with it.Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

WaPo - - almost certainly won’t win it ... while a Nobel Peace Prize nomination is a bit trickier than simply sending a guy in Norway a postcard with someone’s name on it, it’s not much trickier than that. A nomination is, in essence, as serious as the person doing the submitting — who is a member of a not particularly rarefied group of people .... numbering no more than in the hundreds of thousands

CNN - Being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize is a LOT different than actually winning it. Mostly because a whole lot of people can nominate you to be in the running ... Save your outrage until Kushner or Abrams actually wins. Which is very unlikely.

Guardian - The bar for nominations is low, as they are are accepted from thousands of people, from members of parliament to former winners and heads of state.

NYT - Unlike major Hollywood awards shows, where it really is an honor just to be nominated, the Nobel Peace Prize accepts submissions from a potential pool of thousands of nominators

Reliable sources above (all of which mention Kushner's nomination) do not value a nomination. Neither should we. starship.paint (exalt) 01:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you tell me where that is part of DUE? If they are discussing it then why wouldn't we? Springee (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

They're discussing that in the context that it isn't a huge honor to be nominated. That's exactly why we wouldn't include it. starship.paint (exalt) 07:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hundreds of instances of "nominated for Nobel Peace Prize"

Per Google, there are 263 results for Misplaced Pages pages that say "nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize" and more than a thousand that say "nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize". This seems highly problematic Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

From one of those hits I see there's a page that you can search all the nominees , which reports over 18,000 "nominees" (those submitted to the committee) up through 1966; expect the total number today to be close to double that given time frames. And there are only 962 total Laureates. Hence more evidence that "nominated for a Nobel X Prize" is mostly puffery, its only if they get on the shortlist or actually win that we should document. (I can't see to find an easy way to find their shortlists though). --Masem (t) 14:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the identity of the nominator, when disclosed, may also matter. Although the pool is broad, there are certainly more and less consequential possible nominators. BD2412 T 15:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Too open to subjectivity.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

If multiple secondary sources explain that after nominee X did such-and-such a thing (that is discussed at length in their article) that led to nominator Y (who should be a significant person involved/tied to the actions that were taken) to nominate X for the award, so that the nomination is not without context, that might be something to include, as I was suggesting for Kushner above if more was added. But if we just said Y nominated X for the prize, that's absolutely puffery with no context for inclusion and should be removed. --Masem (t) 16:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

These inquiries may well be subjective. If, for example, a figure of relatively minor notability is nominated, that nomination may itself constitute an item of greater significance to their biography. An example, I think, would be celebrity chef José Andrés, whose article notes his 2018 nomination, which was itself covered in an Esquire magazine piece. Elements of that nomination that I think make it suitable for mention in that article are the media coverage, and the fact that it came in the wake of the subject actually receiving several humanitarian awards. BD2412 T 16:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Congressman John Delaney of Maryland nominated Andrés for a Nobel Peace Prize - while Delaney was a candidate for president of the United States. I think a publicity scheme (this time on the part of the nominator) was the reason for the nomination being publicized and there's no need to mention it (though the article might be a source for other information about Andrés). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Like anything else, inclusion depends on the extent of coverage relative to the overall coverage of the person. TFD (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

"Propaganda" as the introductory description for Radio Free Asia

There is currently a dispute on Radio Free Asia (RFA) about whether to describe the network as "propaganda" in the opening sentence (eg). This has been discussed at Talk:Radio Free Asia#Recent back and forth editing.

Specifically, the word "propaganda" is being supported through the citing of this 1953 CIA document and this 2000 Senate Subcommittee hearing. Neither of these sources apparently actually describes the network as propaganda, but it is argued that based on those sources RFA "bears all the hallmarks of a propaganda outlet regardless if the issues it does report on are factually reported correctly". One of my objections is that, per WP:DUE, the lead should describe the network in line with how reliable sources describe it (eg. BBC). This was rejected, under the argument that "There is no precedent for using journalistic phrasing as-is to fill for Misplaced Pages lead descriptors nor is it regular that any label must be expressis verbis repeated in multiple journalistic sources to be used". Another objection I made was that describing it as propaganda was not only using primary sources but interpreting them, which should not be done per WP:PRIMARY. This was rejected, with the argument "it is not interpretation to use words that describe at short what is described at length in a primary source", supported by an analogy to a imaginary terrorism incident that was not reported as such. It was also separately asserted that "the word propaganda is not considered a Value-laden label", which seems dubious to me, as it seems a clear example of WP:WTW.

Given that this goes beyond content into questions of policy and guidelines, and discussion has come to an impasse, it would be useful to have further community input into the matter. Thanks, CMD (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the specific word "propaganda" specifically is used in reference to RFA's 1950s iteration in the CIA document you have provided ("The programs are principally anti-Communist propaganda" to quote; where the CFA is the handler agency of RFA as stated in the same source). I believe the other editor involved was invoking this as a historical precedent in the case. Specifically the argumentation used by myself wrt. your WP:NOR claim is that examining the material background of a phenomenon to then ascribe a term to it does not constitute original research as this interpretation causes, for example, the use of exact synonyms to terms used by journalistic sources to be considered OR whereas one would consider this a natural feature of language itself - there is no attempt to construct a new thesis or narrative based on the sources. As for the value-laden label claim - propaganda is certainly not a term exclusively associated with what we would now refer to as "disinformation" or even "fake news" - see citation for (specifically RFA) example. As an aside, why NPOV noticeboard? NPOV was never brought up in the course of the discussion, only an IP editor mentioned it in one of the edits in the last week. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

1. ^ Manning, Martin J.; Romerstein, Herbert (2004). Historical dictionary of American propaganda. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. p. xlvi. ISBN 0313296057.

I put it on this board because of WP:DUE, although it wasn't a strong preference. CMD (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunkdavis here; "propaganda" is a loaded term and it brings to mind doubts in journalistic reliability. If there are sources that call RFA propaganda (and it looks like, per WP:RSN, that there is a community consensus that RFA isn't of poor journalistic quality), then we would need to explicitly cite them. I don't really think there's a way around the egregious WP:NPOV issue that calling a news agency "propaganda" would create. You'd think if it were legitimately a propaganda station, then the New York Times would

I see that instead of responding to me addressing this point (yet again) in the article talk page you take this here instead, restating what was already refuted therein. As discussion continues unabated on the article talk page I see no reason to use this noticeboard as of now - it only introduces chaos. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This would violate WP:NPOV, and there are no reliable sources that call it such. Oranjelo100 (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and it is WP:OR too. It clearly violates the principles at MOS:WTW. Crossroads 05:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It is quite obvious to me that both of you have not read the relevant talk page as this is being addressed there. I would suggest that this noticeboard entry ceases activity for the time being and that discussion instead moves over to the article talk page, as I see no point duplicating information that I have already provided there, and that clearly discussion there has not come to a standstill. I welcome you to contribute there, with reasoning behind your assertions. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Could you please describe which part of the proposed edit corresponds to your "original research" accusation and how did you come to the conclusion? I am afraid I can not see it. Furthermore, as many people have said both here and on the talk page, propaganda is not a value-laden label, evidenced by many literary works using the word without any problem. Or do you argue that academic research is now compromised by "contentious labels"? As of now, the word "propaganda" is used in 33 840 articles on the English wikipedia, does not seem to me like the majority of the editors see this issue in the same light as you two do. Concluding, I would like to ask that Oranjelo100 familiarize themselves with the issue before parroting things that have already been said before and debunked. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

With regards to it violating principles at MOS:WTW, how so, exactly? The word 'propaganda' was only added under the contentious labels category after this discussion had already began (and is currently removed as there was no discussion pertaining to its addition). It's used in many other articles without contention, as the above user has noted. OED, Cambridge & Merriam-Webster don't consider it to be an inherently loaded word (I understand dictionaries are not always favoured as sources on Misplaced Pages but given this is about the meaning of a word I don't see my using them in this instance as a cardinal sin). ToeSchmoker (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

To point to an earlier discussion I raised on the WTW talk page, there are some terms like "propaganda", "conspiracy theorist", "philanthropist" and so on that aren't necessarily value-laden labels, though represent characterizations based on behavior rather than objective descriptions, and have potential for misuse. They aren't improper terms when they are clearly used regularly in the reliable sourcing, but they should not be terms introduced into articles by editors when no other sources use it, or when the sourcing to support those terms are weak (one or two sources, or weak or non-reliable RSes); we should also consider RECENTISM factors that may cause these terms to be thrown out in the short term but don't stick in the long term. (eg: Fox News is frequently compared to propaganda in how it handles some stories but the term doesn't stick). --Masem (t) 13:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I have a few questions however. You said that there are some terms like "propaganda", "conspiracy theorist", "philanthropist" and so on that aren't necessarily value-laden labels, though represent characterizations based on behavior rather than objective descriptions, and have potential for misuse. which I am not really sure I understand, specifically the represent characterizations based on behavior rather than objective descriptions isn't the behavior of an organization more descriptive than its "objective description"? As for the sourcing issue you mentioned, I cited literary sources, articles and primary sources both on the talk page and my on article edits, you can find some of them on the Talk page of RFA and in my past edits. Also, no offense, but I feel that comparing Fox News' situation of being sensationally called propaganda outlet to an organization with US-government funding is a bit absurd. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether the characterization of an organization is more notable than its more objective definition is something to review under UNDUE or other factors. But from a neutrality standpoint, anytime we get into judgement of a entity, we should start being careful about how to word that in Wikivoice, and unless it is strongly established by a wealth of sources over time, the term should still be used with attribution if its coming from RSes, and avoid it if its not being used by RSes. And from the RFA talk page, I'm seeing the issue of original research and synthesis coming up that I alluded to in these terms; just being backed by a state government does not equate to being "propaganda" unless you clearly have the proper sourcing that explicit speaks to "propaganda", though there certainly are numerous examples of this in the past (eg like RT.com) --Masem (t) 16:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The crux of your argument lies on the presumption that "propaganda" cannot at any point be an objective descriptor rather than subjective characterization - I think this in a way contradicts what you said yourself regarding "propaganda" not being loaded/value-laden, because if it isn't an objective term then its subjectivity must lie in some sort of judgement that the speaker exerts onto the subject being discussed. I have always stated, from the beginning of this discussion, that the term "propaganda" - as described in many dictionaries, as described on this very Wiki itself, in fact - does not imply journalistic ineptitude, disinformation, or any kind of failing on RFA's part - while I have my disagreements with some of RFA's reporting practices this is absolutely not an expression of them and I am seeking to represent truth as much as any other editor involved here. Many sources have been brought up here re. RFA's "editorial independence" or quality of their reporting or about how they are a "news agency", "uncensored" etc. - apparently to contradict what I and other editors are putting forward. I repeatedly insisted, and still insist, that the term being suggested is not in contradiction with any of those terms - they are all simultaneously true and the concurrent truthfulness of the other labels has not been in any meaningful way disputed by myself and (I'd like to believe) the other editors standing besides me in this dispute. The term has an objective meaning, which can be ascribed by examining RFA itself. Coming back to the very start of this conversation, the SYNTH allegations I find somewhat misdirected as at no point are we creating a new thesis or narrative using the primary sources we provided - examining a longer bloc of text regarding the issue at hand and ascribing a single word to the nature of the issue described - a word that does not occur within the text itself yet reflects its meaning accurately - is a form of summery, not recontextualization. As for sources, they surely exist, both in journalistic and academic contexts. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

These terms like "propaganda" do have objective definitions compared to value-laden labels, but at what point does bias and favortism in writing become propaganda is still a subjective line (in the same way as when does donating to charity become philanthropy?), and hence why we want to see RSes using those terms before we adopt them. --Masem (t) 19:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

To respond to the media source, the RSP entry for Salon notes that there is no consensus to its reliability (and the piece itself is actually a republication of FAIR). People's world is an advocacy publication closely affiliated with the Communist Party of the United States that does not appear to have a retraction policy or a reputation for accurate reporting. And, while there was concern for a brief time under the Trump administration that he would attempt to turn VOA, etc. into propaganda outlets, the administration failed to do so (see the on Radio Free Asia's reliability for use in articles for more details on that). In any case, I find that it's odd for us to say that RFA is propaganda when reliable sources describe it as a news group and praise the quality of their detailed reporting so often, never mentioning the "propaganda" label. The label should be applied to the source in the article only when there are a good number of reliable sources that are actually applying the label; especially in the face of so many reliable sources describing them as a "news" and not "propaganda" the mention of it as "propaganda" seems WP:UNDUE.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Round and round it goes. I never precluded attribution and insisted on Wikivoice - the claim may be attributed and it perhaps should be, but - yet again, perhaps with emphasis: the quality of the source, the quality of the journalistic work, its status as a news group: none of those things preclude the proposed label as has been explained, multiple times, within the scope of both this discussion as well as the talk page. Please internalize this argument or contend with it, either way as of now you are orbiting the discourse instead of engaging with it. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

All those factors pretty much apply in evaluating whether one or two sources are sufficient to introduce the word within the scope of UNDUE or FRINGE. If the only sources supporting the use of "propaganda" are coming from poor or weak RSes, while the multitude of other sources do not express anything along the lines of propaganda, then that's a FRINGE view and one we do not include even with attribution. --Masem (t) 14:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

To be fringe, it would have to contradict the majority viewpoint - which it does not, as we've established, it coexist with it. There is both scholarly (as of yet completely unquestioned, by the way) and journalistic support for the idea and its relative absence in what is considered "major sources" puts it in a significant minority position, not fringe. Since it also reflects on the overarching character of RFA it should be mentioned. I myself think CCPEnjoyer's position of including it in the lead sentence is undue, but leaving it out completely is ignorance of a significant viewpoint. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no requirement that a fringe view needs to be contradicting, simply that it is held by a fringe minority. But key here is whether you have sufficiently good sourcing relative to those that do not state RFA as propaganda to include it, hence why questions about sourcing quality are important. --Masem (t) 15:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I haven't really read the entirety of the above discussion, but a quick search of academic journals finds slightly older but high-grade academic sources describe the current iteration of Radio Free Asia as propaganda:

  • Patterned after Radio Free Europe, RFA began broadcasting to China in September 1996, and now airs programs for North Korea, Tibet, Vietnam, Laos, and Burma. The stated mission is to broadcast truthful information to countries where governments censor information and ban freedom of the press. RFA proponents then explained that its broadcasts would be entirely in the native language of targeted countries, and that the goal of its journalists and "information specialists" would be to destabilize government control. In other words, RFA would function primarily as a propaganda operation.
    — Snow, Nancy (1998). "The Smith‐Mundt Act of 1948". Peace Review. 10 (4): 619–624. doi:10.1080/10402659808426214. ISSN 1040-2659.

  • America's taxpayer-funded global radio and TV services--Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, and many others--are pumping out propaganda to the world around the clock. Under the current system, there is much duplication of effort among many different services, including the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Marti, Marti TV, and Worldnet. The U.S. is propagandizing the world with a jumble of wasteful, redundant radio and TV programs--Voice of America, Radio Free This-and-That. Brookings Institution Asian scholar Catharin Dalpino says, "I do think Radio Free Asia is propagandistic. "
    — Hopkins, Mark (1999). "A Babel of Broadcasts". Columbia Journalism Review. 38 (2): 44. ISSN 0010-194X.

  • in a separate category, the ‘non-profit, grantee corporations’ Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and Radio Free Asia (RFA). Although it is claimed that this arm’s-length structure acts as ‘a firewall, protecting editors and reporters from government and congressional censorship’ this is something of a fiction as the broadcasters are funded by Congress and expected to serve clear foreign policy purposes-which they do, in the case of the surrogates in particular, with missionary zeal. Catharin Dalpino of the Brookings Institution has called Radio Free Asia ‘propagandistic. It focuses on dissidents who articulate western values and democracy'
    — Smyth, Rosaleen (2001). "Mapping US Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century". Australian Journal of International Affairs. 55 (3): 421–444. doi:10.1080/10357710120095252. ISSN 1035-7718.

  — MarkH₂₁ 20:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

With the multiple high-quality scholarly sources by experts in relevant fields (Communications, Foreign Policy, Asian Studies etc.) provided, I think we can discount this theory that the proposed change is FRINGE, and therefore undue. I can sense this dispute is slowly but surely coming to a resolution. I think the sources provided conclusively prove a significant (although, from the looks of it, non-majority) viewpoint among scholars as to the nature of the current iteration of RFA. I would recommend also locating some scholarly sources that explicitly contend with the propagandist character of RFA (as claimed by the sources here; I'm sure they exist) in order to include both viewpoints from a scholarly perspective. This (to me) seems fitting for a "Some scholars suggest although many others points to " - and so on - reference. With the topic being hotly contested I'm sure with oversight from both sides of this dispute we'll be able to work out a way to incorporate this viewpoint into the article in a way that is DUE. If any editors have any objections as to the scholarly sources provided by both myself and MarkH211 please do voice them - as of now all of the major policy objections (OR, SYNTH, UNDUE/FRINGE) seem to resolved to me. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The only thing with those scholarly sources is that if you do ID RFA as propaganda, you should also include mention of the other agents (like RFE) that are also considered propaganda by the same sources, as they appear to talk not specific to RFA but the class of stations. They aren't calling out RFA separately from those. --Masem (t) 13:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The article is for RFA and I don't really see the significance of grouping them together for the purpose of this article specifically, although the findings do reflect on other such entities under the USAGM - so at the same time, I don't really see why not, either. If you really think that way then "RFA, among other news agencies under the USAGM" would be acceptable, yes. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the way those academic sources present it, they are not isolating RFA but any of several state-backed news agencies that they consider as propaganda, and that suggested language is fine. Omitting mention that RFA was grouped with others from these studies would be a small NPOV issue since it would make it appear RFA alone out of any state-backed news agency was propaganda. --Masem (t) 15:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

A user has gone forward and edited the article to include this section's findings. I myself am satisfied with this state of the page, I want to see what all the (thus far) major opponents of the change think of it - Chipmunkdavis, Mikehawk10 - but also what the other major proponent makes of it, CPCEnjoyer, as I understand none of them had the chance to reflect after the new sources uncovered by MarkH21. Unless there's any major objections I see a clear way towards closing this dispute. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Although I still feel like there is some room for improvement, I am fine with these changes so far. Perhaps when more reliable sources are found or published, we can talk about editing it further. I am happy we reached an agreement. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I would avoid labelling something a propaganda outlet, since the meaning is ambiguous and often subjective. While common usage of the term is for fake news with an ideological agenda, the term is usually used to refer to outlets that concentrate on stories that support an ideological narrative. For example, U.S. Cold War networks might broadcast positive news about the U.S. and avoid negative subjects such as racial unrest. But every news outlet decides what weight if any to apply to stories based on its own ideological perspective. TFD (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Since Mikehawk10 is already aware of the edit (having contributed to it) and Chimpmunkdavis has seemingly moved on, with no challenge to the newly established state of the article for days now, I will take the liberty of marking this dispute as resolved. If some editor has a meaningful objection to this they may re-open before the discussion is archived, but seeing as clear support has been established in multiple scholarly sources I don't see where they might come from. Thanks to everyone for their input in reaching this consensus. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

References

1. "Coronavirus conspiracy theories go from the margins to the mainstream". Salon. 20 April 2020.
2. Wright, Kate; Scott, Martin; Bunce, Mel. "Voice of America struggle for independence highlights issue of state role in government-backed media". The Conversation.
3. Renken, Daniel (16 September 2020). "Media narratives about China endanger world peace". People's World.
4. Manning, Martin J.; Romerstein, Herbert (2004). Historical dictionary of American propaganda. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. p. xlvi. ISBN 0313296057.
5. Snow, Nancy (2003). Information war : American propaganda, free speech and opinion control since 9/11. New York: Seven Stories Press. p. 43. ISBN 1609802446.

Interligne (organization)

Interligne (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to need a major rewrite, but I'd prefer to stay uninvolved as I have blocked the major contributor. A simple revert won't work, as there seem to have been factual corrections as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree, I did some rewriting and pruning.VikingDrummer (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey VikingDrummer, thank you very much! :) I was afraid noone would deal with it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to oblige.VikingDrummer (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"Philanthropist" in the first sentence of Sheldon Adelson.

A few months ago, an IP added "philanthropist" to the lead of Sheldon Adelson, cited primarily to obituaries shortly after his death. While there are certainly sources that use the term, most of them only use it in passing; none of them present it as central to his notability, and several of them are careful to note that the donations in question were intended overwhelmingly to “strengthen the State of Israel and the Jewish people”". I feel that it's inappropriate to characterize him solely as a philanthropist (a term with clear emotive weight and one which should therefore require extremely strong sourcing) with no further detail in the first sentence of the lead under those circumstances, and that it's undue to make his philanthropy a focus in the first sentence of the lead in any case when it is at best secondary to his actual notability. I also have concerns about relying so heavily on obituaries to establish weight for the first sentence of the lead; they are, after all, often focused more on eulogizing the dead than on strict neutrality. I objected when the word was added, and have raised several objections since; but it has been repeatedly reverted back in, so I figured I ought to raise the question here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The IP was not the one who originally added it in. "Philanthropist" had been in the lead up until Jan 12. before someone removed it: Special:Permalink/999891172. The IP placed it back here. I have already provided a plethora of sources that 1) describe him as a philanthropist and 2) mention what charitable causes he donated to. See: the talk page. And, once again, I find the argument, "He only donated to Jewish/Israeli causes so he's not a real philanthropist" quite dubious. Why does it matter which causes he donated to? Is someone not a philanthropist because they support a special interest? For the record, the Adelson Foundation donates heavily to medical research too. Per the Forward: "And their philanthropy extends far beyond the Jewish sphere. The Adelsons, whose fortune stems from a casino empire headquartered in Las Vegas, also funded the Adelson Medical Research Foundation, which gave nearly $38 million in 2018, according to the most recent annual filing available online, to causes like the Boston Children’s Hospital Trust, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, the John Wayne Cancer Center and universities in Israel and the United States. (Miriam Adelson is a doctor.)Through yet another nonprofit, Adelson, whose son Mitchell died of a drug overdose in 2005, also quietly funded a drug treatment and rehabilitation facility for opioid-addicted patients." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not a matter of whether we think the fact that his philanthropy was heavily focused on strengthening the state of Israel "disqualifies" it or not - the point is that almost every source that discusses his philanthropy at all focuses on that point, which makes it inappropriate to separate those points out and present him as a nebulously-defined philanthropist in the lead; a word with such heavy emotional meaning shouldn't be stripped of its context in a way that implies that his philanthropy was broader, more general, or more apolitical than it was. (Yes, he did donate to other causes as well, but even those sources specifically note that this was a small portion of his giving - a footnote to something that is already just a footnote to his notability.) And beyond that, none of your sources establish that his philanthropy is his primary point of notability - in fact, outside of one or two of the obituaries, the fast majority of them are worded along the lines of "hey, you know that guy who is famous for this? Well, you probably don't know this, but he also donated money to these causes!" That's exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't go in the first sentence of an article's lead. Almost everyone who has a lot of money gives some of it away to advance their favored causes; we don't normally describe them as a "philanthropist" in the first sentence of their lead unless that is specifically a major part of what they are notable for. Otherwise we risk turning articles on wealthy individuals into hagiographies, since any donations by a wealthy individual at all will attract some coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

George Soros is labeled a philanthropist in the first sentence. I find it really wrong to discount someone's philanthropy based on the target, and I note that Adelson didn't just donate to Jewish or Israeli causes and in fact he continued to pay payroll for his company during the pandemic and his medical foundation is religious agnostic. Sir Joseph 22:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly Adelson was a philanthropist in that he contributed substantial funds to charity. The determinant for what we say in the first sentence is how often it is mentioned in reliable sources. The late Glen Davis, who spent most of his time with charities, is routinely referred to as a philanthropist, and I would expect the description to be used in the first sentence of an article about him. TFD (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• As the RS points out, "His philanthropic giving surpassed his political contributions." Sir Joseph 22:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Pointing to my comments in the ""Propaganda" as the introductory description for Radio Free Asia" section above, "Philanthropist" should be something clearly sourced to RSes to be included as such, not because its a value-laden label but it can be an inappropriate term to be applied due to improper SYNTH by editors (one or two donations != philanthropy) From what Sir Joseph and Aquillion have stated, it appears that a source review on his death clearly shows the term used by RSes and thus appropriate for us to use. If there's additional issues about the solitary focus of the donations that are documented in sources within the scope of UNDUE, that can be brought up, but that doesn't seem to be the case. --Masem (t) 22:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• What Masem said. We should characterize the subject as RS characterizes him. And if they don't lead with philanthropist, neither should we. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Call me cynical, but in general the use of the word "philanthropist" is generally a good indication of COI/UP editing, and seems to have become a puff word often used merely to stand for "somebody who gave some money to charity". I do think if somebody is really to be described as such to be put alongside Andrew Carnegie et al, it's kind of an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and needs very strong sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It absolutely should be (a good source survey should be done to make sure the term is used frequently enough by high quality sources before we use it) since it can be misapplied and be used for puffery by dependent sources, absolutely. In this case, it seems that all those checkboxes are met. If "philanthropist" is used, there better be a section of the body that expands on this (what type of donations/philanthropic work they did) and inclusion of the sources that used the term, if those cannot easily be summarized in the lede. --Masem (t) 12:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Update/shameless plug of WP:UPSD, a script to detect unreliable sources

It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).

Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.

The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Mundane "organizational chart"-type content on police depts and businesses

Misplaced Pages pages on police departments have a systemic problem of copy-pasting mundane "organizational structure"/"organizational chart"-type information from the websites of the police departments. I believe this type of content is a flagrant violation of WP:WEIGHT. Not only is the content of no interest to most readers, but it fails WP:RS and fills pages to the brim with filler that diverts readers from actual substantive encyclopedic information. For example, here is just some of the content that I tried to remove from the Los Angeles Police Department page (all of which is sourced to the LAPD itself) and all of which was immediately reverted:

• "The Chief of Staff is responsible for coordinating the flow of information from command staff to ensure that the Chief is fully informed prior to making decisions, performing and coordinating special administrative audits and investigations, and assisting, advising, and submitting recommendations to the Chief of Police in matters involving employee relations. The Office of the Chief of Staff is composed of the Board of Police Commissioners Liaison, the Public Communications Group, the Media Relations Division, and the Employee Relations Group"
• "The Information Technology Bureau is responsible for providing Information Technology services to the department. The Information Technology Bureau is composed of the following subordinate units: Information Technology Division (ITD), Application Development & Support Division (ADSD), Emergency Command Control & Communications Systems (ECCCS) Division, Innovation Management Division (IMD)"
• Every subdivision of the "Office of Support Services"
• All the subdivisions of the "Detective Bureau"
• An enormous list of the dozens of types of awards that the LAPD gives to its staff

I noticed that this problem is also somewhat common on pages for businesses, but it is generally easy to remove it without any pushback (there are no passionate defenders of keeping the organizational chart of the subdivisions of the accounting department at McDonalds). The police department pages are more problematic because (1) the "organizational chart"-type content appears to have been systematically edited into the pages in the first place, and (2) There is pushback in removing it. Surely it fails WP:NPOV (in particular, WP:WEIGHT) to keep this kind of "organizational chart" copypasta content? While there is value in basic information about the organizational structure, surely there is no encyclopedic value in the "Office of Chief of Staff and has four subdivisions which have the names ABCD"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above, with a few comments: My take is that most of the org structure and medals sections are of interest to only a small subset of readers and that unless these are sourced with Independent Sources are generally WP:UNDUE detail.

I'm not an expert in "standard" or "normal" police rank/department structure, but unless an Org's structure is NOTABLY unique, I would say that there should be little detail discussing it. Some articles on large churchs/denominations have one or two paragraphs of explanation on their structure, but not as large of sections as in the LAPD article. I have seen the same list of medals/insignia/rank structure in other PD pages as well, and think that it shouldn't fill the page, as anyone interested can get this from the Department's website. ---Avatar317 05:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the Oakland Police Department article is a good example of how this type of content should look, but it could use a lead that better summarizes the article. ---Avatar317 05:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Do other encyclopedias include rank structure and organization (beyond the "top of the chain" and obviously like main groups/departments within)? Remembering that we are not limited by space maybe it is encyclopedic, but if they don't include it I think we should strongly consider that maybe this sort of information isn't encyclopedic in the first place. Certainly a table of ranks is not encyclopedic in nature - it's trivia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, this kind of straightforward factual material is exactly the reason that WP:ABOUTSELF exists. Misplaced Pages is meant to be a general reference work, not a newspaper. Organisational details aren't exciting and they're not going to be written about in the New York Times, but that doesn't mean that they're trivia. Misplaced Pages provides context. Whereas the media quotes Assistant Commissioner Jones or states that Officer Martin is a twelve year veteran with a Medal of Distinction, an encyclopedia should explain what an Assistant Commissioner and a Medal of Distinction actually are. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, to address the elephant in the room, Snooganssnoogans, I feel that you're making an error when you see organisational information as a distraction from police misconduct. I don't know if you're familiar with Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch reports, but they typically include a chapter laying out chain of command of the groups involved. May seem mundane, but its an crucial part of establishing institutional responsibility. Explaining the structure of a police force is complimentary to detailing the scandals, not detrimental. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• My view is much more in line with RaiderAspect (full disclosure: this thread was opened regarding my revert of the OP). There is a thread on that talk page: Talk:Los Angeles Police Department#More removals. As I said there, I agree that there may be some excessive detail in there; however, claims of it being unencyclopedic and of no interest "to anyone" are 100% subjective....we have to keep WP:PRESERVE in mind regarding material for which better sources likely exist. WP:PRIMARY sources also are not banned. There are many sources that talk about policing in detail, how it's done and how it's organized, and not just from a perspective of focusing on brutality. WP:TE is editing in a partisan and skewed manner, which I believe applies to editing police department articles only to add stuff about brutality and corruption and removing other stuff. We should be editing so as to speak of the good and the bad per due weight, not all one or the other. Articles on major American police departments absolutely need more eyes from editors focused on upholding NPOV. They get very little attention except that over the past year, there's been a big push to add stuff about police misconduct to the leads of these articles, most of which are very short, while at the same time attempts are made to gut other material. See New York Police Department, Los Angeles Police Department, Chicago Police Department, and Philadelphia Police Department, among others. Yes, we should of course cover misconduct with WP:Due weight. However, this is happening at the same time that almost no attention or effort whatsoever (and literally zero on the part of some editors) is going into editing any aspect of law enforcement other than misconduct, except to remove material on it. Any of those articles' histories and talk pages show this. How is this NPOV? Crossroads 20:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• I don’t see this as a WEIGHT/NPOV issue. However, we should not be simply copying the language directly from a PD website and pasting it into WP. THAT has potential COPYRIGHT problems. The organizational charts are beneficial, but need better summarization. Simplify, don’t omit. Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

World language

There is disagreement about whether the current version of World language is neutral. Suffice it to say that talk page discussion at Talk:World language has reached an impasse. I'll let the editor who raised objections—Dajo767—explain the issue as they see it. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

TBAN, maybe? –Austronesier (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Issues with this article

1. French is not given equal position with English as a World Language, despite French fulfilling the criteria of a World Language as much as English. The article gives the position of the World Language only to English and lists French among potential World language. French deserves equal status with English as the World Language. But this article declares English as the sole World language.
2. Languages such as Japanese, Dutch, Malay, Hindi, and Swahili are among the languages listed as potential World languages when they are not widely accepted as such. The number of potential world languages can be limited to only Spanish, Arabic, Russian and Chinese. Dajo767 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussions can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:World_language#No_special_importance_given_to_French,_and_other_major_issues_with_the_article. Dajo767 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks to me to be a fairly clear-cut case of an editor trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Dajo767 appears not to have produced a source that backs their POV that French is a world language of the same importance as English.

The argument they're making appears to be that we must ignore all sources that do not adhere to their POV. Most editors will doubtless not need it explaining that WP:NPOV and WP:V do not allow this argument. Note also the Nazi comparison in that message.

Ultimately, this needs to come down to the WP:WEIGHT given to each point in reliable secondary sources. But it seems fair to me to say that if Dajo767 is not willing or not able produce sources backing their POV, it's fair to assume that that's because there aren't any. Kahastok talk 21:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It might depend on context, too. The article is I think talking about general usage, but there is a least one other context https://ask.un.org/faq/14463 Selfstudier (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Kahastok, if you go through all edits for the past eight months, and all the talk page bickering, I believe you'll find two editors righting great wrongs back and forth, back and forth. The rest of us just had to drop out at some point because the constant fighting at the article is exhausting. Just take a look at how many edits Dajo767 and TompaDoma each have. On the positive side, I believe them both to have good intentions. On the negative side, both are part of the problem. Dajo767 is of course wrong we should put truth before sources, that's not how WP functions. TompaDoma is wrong to OWN the article to this extent. The current version is nothing short of parody and could be useful for an example of WP:CHERRYPICKING. Unfortunately, the toxic back-and-forth scares away all other user. Jeppiz (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

− As someone who has followed the discussion for many months, I should point out the issue runs much deeper than some comments above seem to assume. The article is a complete mess, although I don't think neutrality is the issue as much as rampant original research. In 2020 and 2021, different users have fought hard for their own definition, often producing ludicrous results (the article in its current form is an example). The problem is that almost anyone can find some to include to support their own preferred version. This gives rise to downright silliness such as the current version grouping together languages at very different levels under the same heading. I wouldn't agree with Dajo767 that French is at the same level as English - although that is no less silly than the current version of the article putting French at the level of Dutch. Last but not least: after months of following the discussion closely, I dare say it would be wrong to point finger at any one user in particular. Jeppiz (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be fair to say I was looking fairly narrowly at recent exchanges.

I can perfectly accept your point that the problem may be POV caused by OR. In my experience, POV problems and OR problems often go together on this kind of article, because there's no way to judge what WP:WEIGHT to give original research. And I guess the correct way to resolve that is to get rid of everything whose weight can't be justified based on secondary sources on the topic at hand. Even if that's more than half the article, as it probably would be in this case.

(And, of course, if there are not sufficient secondary sources to make a judgement on WP:WEIGHT, then we have to start asking whether the article should exist at all.) Kahastok talk 22:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have come to the same conclusion. Perhaps a short article about the concept but without examples, as the examples are what people fight over - what language to include or not to include. The current article is the opposite of that: very little about the actual concept, and more than 95% dedicated to examples of language X, Y, Z etc. Having done my PhD on this, I know that the current article would draw smiles (for all the wrong reasons) but ai do not think solution is to change how we describe language X or language Z (as all the fighting is about). Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I've made a WP:BOLD attempt to solve the issue and bypass all the brinkmanship and back-and-forth of the two users (Dajo767 and TompaDompa) by removing the examples as WP:CHERRYPICKING and keeping all information on the concept. My edit can be found here and my explanation on the talk page here. I won't revert back to it if someone reverts my edit, but I do hope neither Dajo767 nor TompaDompa is the one to revert. The idea of the article should be to explain what the concept of World language means, not to argue over "My language is bigger than yours" as much of the examples boiled down to. Jeppiz (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I rather object to your characterisation of my actions as WP:Righting Great Wrongs. I don't particularly care what the article says, I care that it accurately reflects what the sources say. To this end, I have removed material that failed WP:V and/or WP:NOR and tried to locate additional sources (with some, though surely incomplete success). I believe my track record on both the article itself and the associated talk page demonstrate that sourcing has always been my main concern.I would like to note for the record that I suggested that one option could be to not list world languages at all, but instead having the article only describe the concept back in September. I still consider that a valid option—and while I was writing this, it was implemented by way of a WP:BOLD edit—but I think that it would be even better to expand the article based on additional sources. The only problem with the latter option is that we have yet to locate the additional sources that would allow us to do so—if there are any important sources that have been missed, please do add them (or point them out, at least).With regards to WP:NPOV, I think the version prior to your WP:BOLD edit was policy-compliant—sources disagree, and we described their disagreement without taking sides. The main point I'm unsure about is WP:WEIGHT, which is not altogether easy to assess (especially when we have a comparatively small sample of sources that may not be entirely representative). With regards to WP:OR, I wholeheartedly agree about that being the main problem until mid-February—which is why I rewrote basically the entire article then—but I honestly don't see what you're referring to when it comes to the version prior to your WP:BOLD edit. Perhaps you can give examples as to what about that version was WP:OR? The same thing goes for WP:CHERRYPICKING.The issue of whether and how to group languages hierarchically from a world language perspective is something that I, LiliCharlie, and DLMcN discussed at some length over at Talk:World language#Two categories? about two months ago (after the discussion last year at Talk:World language#Spanish language is also a World language failed to resolve the issue and after some additional sources were located and added to the article). Having Dutch and French in the same category was even specifically mentioned—by me—as something that would be a problem. We didn't end up coming up with a grouping that we were happy with, so the status quo of simply listing the languages in alphabetical order was retained.Finally, I really don't see how you arrived at more than 95% dedicated to examples. By word count, it was (prior to your WP:BOLD edit) about two-thirds, with the last third being dedicated to the concept itself. TompaDompa (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

TompaDompa, you're right and I should have said nobody is righting great wrongs; my reply was more about this not being the case of one disruptive user but rather a (too) long back and forth between two users, both with good intentions. Apologies if you took it as me questioning your motives, that was not the intention. I do think the article reads a bit too much of "Person A says this, person B says that" ; it still does. I can see why, as academics from different fields will approach the topic differently. Perhaps that's an avenue we could take the article, more looking at how linguistics treat it, how political science treats it? Grouping the academics in question into topics instead? Again, apologies if my earlier comments came across as in any way casting doubts on your intentions; that was not my intention. I believe the last month in particular has been too much back and forth (and I have deliberately stayed out) but I do not doubt the good intentions of anyone involved. Jeppiz (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It is going too far to have absolutely no examples. Right now, English is the dominant international language. It is relevant to at least discuss certain others which do not quite "make the grade" - say, French, Spanish, Russian, Standard Arabic (and possibly Mandarin Chinese and Portuguese). --DLMcN (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I quite agree with DLMcN that having no examples is not the right way to go about this. The status of English as a world language features so prominently in the literature on world languages that not mentioning it would be a highly conspicuous omission, and I frankly think it would be counter to WP:NPOV by not giving it WP:Due weight proportionate to its treatment by the sources. The issue then becomes what to do with the other languages. We have to come up with a method for determining what languages to include based on the sources, otherwise we are just arbitrarily picking and choosing which viewpoints to represent in the article—in clear violation of WP:NPOV. TompaDompa (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Rwandan genocide

I'm concerned that this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/Rwandan_genocide_denial) states as fact at the end of the first paragraph that authors who don't entirely embrace the Rwandan government's narrative are "disputing reality".

To be clear... there is a world of difference between genocide-deniers and those such as Susan Thomson (who is cross-referenced in that paragraph) who state that atrocities were carried out by both sides.

That paragraph doesn't mention the Rwandan government, it mentions the "scholarly consensus". The second paragraph states that people who disagree with the Rwandan government's narrative may be accused of genocide denial, but doesn't state that they are denyong genocide. - Sylvester Penn _{Stuff I did} 18:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sorry, I should have made my point clearer.

I think my concern is the use of the word "fringe" in the first paragraph here. Although it's probably technically right to use that word, "fringe" gives the impression of a small group of lunatics.

And given that the Rwandan government is the biggest proponent of the alternative view, calling those writers "fringe writers" unjustly dismisses them as being potentially extremist.

2021 Jersey dispute

There is a debate at Talk:2021 Jersey dispute to determine if the article 2021 Jersey dispute should use {{Infobox civil conflict}} or {{Infobox military conflict}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Could we have some eyes on the Julian Assange article, where talk page discussion has repeatedly rejected UNDUE coverage of a certain bit of content regarding his imprisonment and where a minority of editors has laid out their support of such content at considerable length. Thanks. The talk page threads are Health and Less is more. The associated article content is referenced in them and can be seen in a recent string of reverts of my trimming some of the disputed text. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, $DEITY yes. It's WP:OWNed by a handful of Assange cultists. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Please strike this aspersion. It would also be best if you would delete your own BLP-violating comment at Talk: Julian_Assange. I think you know exactly what comment I'm talking about. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, that's a great example of the problem. The article is dominated by obsessives who give every appearance of believing that Assange is the Messiah. But he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This looks to be yet another case where if we asked editors to write towards the 10/20-year view of things, we would have a far better article. There is no need for this level of detail this soon after events even though it may be possible to document it from RSes. Editors need to write like these events happened 20 years ago and take a broader picture of his career/biography. Obviously there will be points necessary to slow down and detail coverage, but the fact much of the article is written in PROSELINE tells me no one has attempted a summary approach yet.--Masem (t) 14:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your wise counsel Masem. The immediate need is some more editors on the article page and talk page to break the logjam of revert warring and refusal to accept any cuts whatsoever. Nobody's proposed entirely eliminating the Melzer bit, but from the 20 year or now even the 2 year vantage point, it is indeed just a bit. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC on sourcing decisions in the R&I topic area

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

Are the sourcing decisions described here compatible with WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV? --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Background

On May 1, an RFC was opened at the RS noticeboard raising a pair of sourcing issues that have resulted from the decision to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory (that is, the hypothesis that variation in average IQ scores between racial or ethnic groups has a genetic component). This decision has resulted in about 45 otherwise reliable sources being removed or excluded from Misplaced Pages articles, and in Charles Murray's and Heiner Rindermann's entire bodies of work related to this topic being declared unreliable sources ( ). It also has required articles to include material that several editors consider to misrepresent the sources it cites. Two days after being opened, that RFC was shut down as improperly formatted.

Immediately following the RFC's closure, a discussion was underway about opening a new RFC at the NPOV noticeboard which would properly address these sourcing concerns. However, before that could be done, a new RFC was opened on the article's talk page which reiterated the question of whether or not the hereditarian hypothesis is a fringe theory, without addressing the underlying issue of sourcing. The goal of the present RFC is to address this issue of sourcing that some editors feel needs to be addressed, as was suggested in the other RFC: "If there really is a fundamental issue not addressed by this RfC, then this RfC does not prevent someone from opening a proper RfC to address it." --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Views

Add your signature, with an optional comment of 1-2 sentences, under one of the two options below. All non-vote comments, including threaded discussion and replies to another's vote, should be posted in the "discussion" section.

Option 1: Yes, these sourcing decisions are compatible with the named Misplaced Pages policies.

Option 2: No, these sourcing decisions are not compatible with the named Misplaced Pages policies.

• WP:SCHOLARSHIP says, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Declaring an author's entire body of work about a topic to be unreliable sources regardless of where it's published, as has been done in Murray and Rindermann's case, is not consistent with that policy. --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

If the current RFC concludes that this approach to sourcing is incompatible with WP:RS, WP:V and/or WP:NPOV, but the separate RFC on the article's talk page concludes that the hereditarian hypothesis is a fringe theory, it will mean one of two things: it will mean either that the decision to classify the hypothesis as a fringe theory should no longer require these outcomes with respect to sourcing, or that the community will have to make an exception to these policies for articles about race and intelligence. In other words these two RFCs are asking two separate questions, which may have two separate answers. --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Because it is implied in the above that I endorse opening this RfC, I would like to observe that the implication is totally dishonest; that this RfC is obviously tendentious; and that the closure is appropriate. --JBL (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify something about the decision here. In the past two months, the issue of sources being misrepresented and/or declared unreliable has been raised at three different noticeboards: at the NOR noticeboard in March, at the RS noticeboard earlier this month, and most recently here. All three discussions were shut down within a few days, before the community could decide whether these sourcing decisions were compatible with policy, and the reason given for the closure was different in each case. In your comment that I quoted above, you initially made it sound as though you had no objection to these sourcing issues being addressed in a separate RFC, but now it's clear that you object very strongly to this being done.

My understanding of these decisions, taken together, is that editors who think that these sourcing decisions are incompatible with Misplaced Pages's policies cannot be allowed to raise that question to the broader Misplaced Pages community. Is that correct? And will any future noticeboard discussion that attempts to raise these issues also be quickly shut down? --AndewNguyen (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

AndewNguyen, A better interpretation of these decisions would be that starting discussions with nonneutral opening statements is just going to get them closed down early, no matter how many times it is attempted. MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That isn't a reasonable interpretation, because having a non-neutral opening statement was not the closure reason given in discussion above, nor was it the closure reason given in the discussion opened by Stonkaments at the NOR noticeboard. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Has it not occurred to you that you should have asked my opinion before attributing a view to me? The previous RfC question was not proper, so an RfC whose question is "" also is not proper. To pretend that a person who opined against the propriety of the previous RfC would support this one is evidence of either serious dishonesty or serious incompetence. I am frankly very close to starting an ANI thread asking for you to be indefinitely blocked over this obviously shitty behavior. --JBL (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) @AndewNguyen: As usual, you are posing the issue very tendentiously. Sources that promote racial hereditarianism are included in the R&I article, but they're cited in a context that makes clear the fringe nature of that theory, in accordance with last year's RfC. For example, the fervent racial hereditarian Jensen is cited 6 times in the article and Jensen-Rushton is cited 5 times. Per WP:FRINGE, such sources must not be used as reliable sources for "balance", and so opponents of last year's RfC would have to overturn last year's RfC in order to achieve your objective. The current RfC at the R&I talk-page revisits last year's RfC. After five days we see 3 editors arguing to overturn last year's RfC, and more than 30 arguing to endorse it. NightHeron (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Andew cannot even be bothered to do 150 edits worth of productive editing or vandal fighting to get ECP says it all, really. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

After almost a year-long hiatus, Andew popped up on Ferahgo's RfC with this comment: Okay, THIS looks like the thing that I've been waiting for over the past year. Depending on the outcome of this RFC, perhaps it's time for me to become active again. To me this looks like an admission of being an WP:SPA. They do not currently appear to have any other interests on WP besides overturning the consensus on race and intelligence. For this reason, I would suggest that the best response to their shenanigans would be to WP:DENY recognition as far as possible (until such time as their disruption rise to the level of a sanctionable offense). Generalrelative (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the list of the 45 excluded sources? There are no Jensen sources on the list, and the Jensen & Rushton 2005 paper is not on it either. I've looked through most of the removal diffs. The list seems to be completely accurate.

Every time someone has tried to raise these sourcing issues, you've accused them of "beating a dead horse" and tried to get the discussion shut down as quickly as possible. If you want to ensure the broader community cannot discussing the sourcing issue, so be it. I just want us to all be honest about what's actually going on here. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It's funny how the person opening this read my comment and read it completely opposite to what I intended.. I thought I was clear. This should be discussed among editors to form a good RfC before any RfC is opened. I have the same problem with this one as I do with the one currently active - neither provides information on the topic area and there is no good summary available anywhere, leading to many !votes based solely on opinions/beliefs/politics, not based on reliable sources. Until a good summary of reliable sources that are out there exists, a useful RfC on this topic cannot be had. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your comment. I'm not going to start another RFC about this issue, but if you wish to make an attempt at starting one yourself (and are confident you could prevent it from being closed immediately), I'd be glad to assist with collecting sources for it. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Salomon Morel

I have been locked out of editing for Salomon Morel, who was a Jewish man whose family was murdered in the Holocaust. The information on his[REDACTED] page is provided by Polish nationalists, and one of the sources cited is the many citations in that article is from the "Institute of National Remembrance", which is an anti-Semitic organization known to spread anti-Jewish lies and propaganda since inception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genealogykid82 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution