Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:33, 14 March 2022

• WT:WTW
• WT:W2W

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Text has been copied to or from this page; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid (history) → Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (words to watch) (diff) Copied Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms (history) → Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (words to watch) (diff) Copied Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words (history) → Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (words to watch) (diff) Copied Misplaced Pages:Avoid peacock terms (history) → Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (words to watch) (diff)

See also related discussions and archives:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid weasel words
• Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid peacock terms
• Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid neologisms
• Misplaced Pages talk:Words to avoid

Addition to Note C suggestion

I notice the {{Like whom?}} template is missing from Note C, which reads: The templates {{Who}}, {{Which}}, {{By whom}}, or {{Attribution needed}} are available for editors to request an individual statement be more clearly attributed. Also, the template {{Where}} is similarly nowhere on the page. Not a big deal I suppose, just pointing this out. 5Q5|

Is "anti-trans" equivalent to "transphobic"?

Does "anti-trans" come under WP:LABEL the same way "transphobic" does?

I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of editors who are not involved in the topic area. Crossroads 06:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Struck since that part went out the window ages go. Crossroads 02:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell "anti-trans" is used interchangably with "transphobic" (example), so I'd say it follows the same guideline. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There is some irony implicit in citing that CBC example in this context, since following the CBC usage, neither transphobic nor anti-trans would be a value-laden LABEL. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Most WTW are commonly used in the media, despite (in this case) being value-laden. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, simply because an RS uses a label word doesn't eliminate it as a label word, we just have a good source for attribution. --Masem (t) 15:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say yes, but what do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Same perspective as Slatersteven on this one. Crossroads please provide some sources where it is used, as well as articles so that the discussion can be of higher quality. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of there being sources about the label in and of itself. I don't think such were required when listing the others as value-laden. But Jochem van Hees linked to one example of it being used. In my experience other usages of it are much the same. If I have time I may look for more sources. Crossroads 07:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a very important distinction to be made here between value-laden labels like perversion, terrorist, racist, cult, versus factual labels which our societal norms cause people read a value into. The words that this guideline is meant to discourage are value-laden ones - i.e. those which contain a value judgement within them. However, the descriptor anti-trans simply describes a general set of beliefs and positions, just the way anti-communist or conservative does. It makes no claim about the motivations or value of the described entity.

In fact, I recall an editor appealing to this same sort of argument on the article on the book Irreversible Damage (I don't recall if it was someone involved in this discussion or not). In that article, we note that the publisher, Regnery Publishing, is politically conservative. The editor argued that it was inappropriate to describe Regnery as conservative because it was a value-laden label intended to degrade the book.

Assuming good faith, it's encouraging from a community point of view that many editors here see anti-trans as inherently a negative descriptor. But that is merely because these editors personally consider anti-trans legislation/ideology/etc. to be distasteful (i.e. they ascribe transphobia to anti-trans activists). Just like conservative, anti-trans is regularly used in sociology and political science to describe a certain political group, specifically one which opposes trans acceptance/recognition/rights. Another example: though I imagine most Misplaced Pages editors consider holocaust denial distasteful, describing Carlo Mattogno as a holocaust denier in wikivoice is not inappropriate under WP:LABEL.

To those in favor of excluding the term anti-trans from wikivoice, I would be very interested to hear – how else we should describe the political movement that sociologists and political scientists call anti-trans? Srey Sros 03:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Answer: "Trans-critical". The prefix/adjective "anti-" means against (e.g. anti-abortion, anti-feminist, anti-government, anti-Semitic, anti-smoking, anti-war). Just because a person or organization is critical of gender-identity ideology does not mean that person or organization is, for example, against transgender individuals being protected against violence and discrimination based on their transgender status. Serious sociological and scientific research/studies may provoke thought, but they don't resort to incendiary terminology. Those that traffic in inflammatory terms should not be taken seriously. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a very strange position to take. You seem to have personally decided that anti-trans is "inflammatory", and then based on that you decide to disregard all reliable sources which use the term, because you think that that traffic in inflammatory terms should not be taken seriously. That may be your POV, but that's not how we evaluate sources on Misplaced Pages. You cannot disregard reliable sources because they use language that you don't like, or, for that matter, because you aren't personally convinced by them. Srey Sros 03:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, it's ironic that you invoke the "people who are critical of gender-identity ideology but who oppose violence against trans people can't possibly be anti-trans" argument, as this dogma is specifically addressed in multiple of the (peer-reviewed, academic) sources in my comment above as characteristic of the anti-trans movement.

• (entitled "The Growth of the Anti-Transgender Movement in the United Kingdom"): Lobby groups who campaign against trans rights are usually at pains to stress their support for trans people. One such group claims: ‘We believe “transgender” people are entitled to their own personal beliefs and should have the same human rights as anyone else’
• : Within the context of backlashes against feminist theory and praxis, one of the most worrying conservative narratives that feminism currently has to face is the accusation of its having developed and spread a so-called ‘gender ideology’... Accusations of gender ideology, which have spread rapidly through Latin-America and Europe are anti-feminist and anti-trans in their intentions.
• (section title "Trans-exclusionary politics and ‘gender ideology’"): In the UK context in which we write, a significant upsurge in public anti-trans sentiment has taken place since 2017... the campaigners themselves... have preferred to call themselves ‘gender critical’... In addition to attacking trans people’s right to access public toilets in line with their sex/gender presentation, ‘gender critical’ feminists have criticised social developments such as LGBTIQ-inclusive school education and positive media representations of trans people. Increasingly, they argue that such developments result from what they call ‘gender ideology’The language of ‘gender ideology’ originates in anti-feminist and anti-trans discourses among right-wing Christians, with the Catholic Church acting as a major nucleating agent.

You can have whatever personal definition you like of anti-trans, but unless reliable sources agree with you, that definition will not be used in Misplaced Pages articles. Srey Sros 03:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The question contains an erroneous premise - that there is a unified and coherent movement that includes everything being called "anti-trans" by some source or other. "Anti-trans" is a vague label that various sources use in various ways, sometimes describing religious conservatives, sometimes describing 'gender-critical' feminists, and sometimes describing anyone who dissents from some specific claim that the one using the term thinks is essential for trans acceptance despite being neither religious or feminist (this one is common in non-academic media). Crossroads 06:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Just curious, Crossroads: would you describe your argument here as OR, or as SYNTH? Newimpartial (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Just like anti-abortion or anti-war (or conservative for that matter), it's a broad label, but it's very commonly used in reliable sources (academic and otherwise) to identify a specific social/political movement. As it happens, both anti-abortion and conservative are also in various ways, sometimes describing religious conservatives, sometimes describing 'gender-critical' feminists, and sometimes describing people who are neither religious feminist. Despite this, anti-abortion is widely used as a descriptor throughout Misplaced Pages: , as are anti-war and conservative. I fail to see how anti-trans is any different from those terms. Srey Sros 21:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Abortion" and "war" are acts, while "trans" is a social category. People can be trans, but nobody is an abortion or a war. Crossroads 06:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be exceedingly inappropriate to exclude mention Wikivoice usage of a well-sourced, notable aspect of an organization or entity because you personally don't believe the movement it is said to belong to is unified enough (or that it can't possibly be because it's against what you see as social categories rather than acts). You have not presented a single source outside of your own opinion to support your argument that what scholars refer to as the anti-trans sociopolitical movement is somehow less of a movement than others which are comparable in terms of both sourcing and wording, and to which we regularly describe membership in Wikivoice.

You clearly have a strong personal opinion that anti-trans should not be used (at least on the article which spurred this thread), but the sourcing and basis in policy that would be required to support your position simply isn't there. Additionally, it's rather ironic to hear you say that being trans is a state of being rather than an action – I agree with you, but I think many editors and anti-trans partisans would disagree, and would see that distinction as evidence of your bias towards a "woke gender-identity ideology". Srey Sros 02:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I never said to exclude mention of it, just that in-text attribution should be used. Crossroads 02:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I should have written Wikivoice mention. I've updated my original comment. Srey Sros 03:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@SreySros: What do you think about terms like "anti-Protestant", "anti-Catholic", and "anti-Muslim"? gnu57 14:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a question of usage in reliable sources. It is not ours to decide what do and do not qualify as political movements, and it's certainly not ours to disregard or euphemize all RS references to a movement because we don't like the name that reliable sources have chosen for it.

Anti-Muslim is a good example; for instance see the lead and talk page for the organization Stop Islamization of America (possibly most notable for running these ads: ). The sourcing behind categorizing the organization as anti-Muslim is overwhelming, and I would be surprised to see anyone here argue that it's inappropriate to denote it as such in Wikivoice. Srey Sros 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

By definition, vegans are anti-meat in their own diets; that doesn't necessarily mean they're carnophobes. Carnophobes are scared of meat; that doesn't necessarily mean they mind others eating it. See the analogy to your question? If not: "anti-" ≠ "-phobic". --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, transphobes aren't really scared of trans people, and do mind other people being trans. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree despite how you and I might be outnumbered. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

"XXXXphobe" is a handy (and somewhat negative) label, it doesn't actually have to be linguistically correct. Today "-phobe" has very little connection with φόβος, phobos, "fear". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Ibid my comment to Jochem van Hees. I pity those who play fast and loose with semantics. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Language evolves, else we would be typing in linear A or something. Yes homophobe or Transphobe does not mean fear in the sense we usually mean it so much as they are seen as some kind of threat to "family values" or whatever.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh come off it. Language does evolve but at a slow enough pace that all living speakers of the language can communicate. When people in their 40s or older are told "language evolves" it doesn't bode well for inter-generational communication. "-phobia" as a fear was well understood 10 certainly 20 years ago and comparing that to c. 3500 years is a tad silly. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

What you say may be true, but people who over-adapt to the language as spoken in their young adulthood can produce problems as speakers or as hearers. I remember being deeply puzzled when older adults would use "hip" as a transitive verb in the 1990s, and my parents were initially quite unable to understand "because + noun" constructions when they came into wide use after 2000. Living speakers of the language may be able to communicate, but they may also be quite able to misunderstand each other. Newimpartial (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Gk. φόβος < PIE *bʰegʷ- 'to run, flee'. The modern English suffix -phobic means 'Having an extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group.' (https://www.lexico.com/definition/-phobic). Hence transphobia (Oxford Dictionary of Media and Communication (3 ed.) Negative attitudes towards transsexuality or transgender people. The term originated in the 1990s. cf homophobia (https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095943403) Negative attitudes towards homosexual people and homosexuality which may be manifested in discrimination, hostile behaviour, or hate crimes.  Tewdar  (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you people say for the plural of octopus? 🤔  Tewdar  (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I would consider the case of "homophobia" here, in that it is not fear of gay people, but fear of the identities, rights, regulations, and other changes that are used to accomodate gay people into society (. I would read "transphobia" the same way, its the fear of what society has to do to accomodate trans individuals. Anti-trans, as I read it, is actively fighting against these changes (like giving trans similar rights) There is a clear overlap between these words (like, 75% overlap of meaning) but I can see cases where they aren't the same. To this end, for BLPs who are identified as one or the other, we should use the term preferred by sources. --Masem (t) 17:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

But what about cases where only WP:BIASEDSOURCES use the terms? Some editors take those as justification for use of labels in wikivoice, and telling them it is clearly biased and that has to be accounted for by not using wikivoice falls on deaf ears. A source like PinkNews even has a statement at WP:RSP that it is not reliable for statements about a person's sexuality, and yet some editors treat it as reliable for statements about being "anti-trans".

It's also not always a direct BLP matter but applies to organizations, which is what inspired this discussion. Namely, here.

Even though the list isn't expected to be exhaustive, the fact that "anti-trans" is not listed and "transphobic" is seems like it sometimes works a loophole for using the former. Crossroads 07:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have never read LABEL to be fully included or exhaustive of label words. Editors are expected to use common sense to recognize other terms as labels to be attributed. --Masem (t) 16:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, I along with many other editors have objected to your argument, Crossroads, that LABEL applies to "anti-transgender", for as long as you have been making the argument. My rationale is not that it happened to be left off the list, but that (1) there is no general principle that LABEL applies to all "anti-X" terms and (2) that there is no general principle that all terms for anti-trans activism need to be seen as "value laden", any more than all terms for, say, anti-democratic activism need to be seen as "value-laden". Some are, and some aren't. So if you want the scope of LABEL extended, again, I think an RfC would be appropriate (as suggested below).

Also, the idea that we are taking about cases where only WP:BIASEDSOURCES use the terms seems like a red herring to me, unless you want to make the argument that BIASEDSOURCES applies to, e.g., the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (outside of sports reporting, that is, where I suppose it might apply and I just wouldn't notice). Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe "anti-trans" is clearly within the scope of LABEL. The term is often used, in a value-laden way, as a negative label synonymous with "transphobic." When used as a pejorative term, "anti-trans" is simply a broad brush that condemns its target as bigoted. More particularly, the term is regularly used to broadly label its target as being motivated by transphobic bigotry or hatred, a motivation which the speaker may imagine or infer. The inference can be based, for example, on the target's specific opposition or skepticism about any given transgender-affirming policy position, even where the target specifically disclaims negative motivations. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

To me, there is a distinction. "Transphobia" refers to an attitude whereas "anti-trans" refers to actions. Of course, the two are very often comorbid as the attitude frequently leads to the actions. Nonetheless the distinction is meaningful. It is possible to imagine a person who is transphobic but who takes no anti-trans actions and it is also possible to imagine a person who takes anti-trans actions unintentionally, without transphobic intent. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's not forget the very real possibility of anti-trans actions that are undertaken cynically (catering to the prejudices of others) rather than out of any active prejudice or malice. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

To put it more simply, my position is that it may not be a LABEL to describe a policy as "anti-trans", but it is almost always a value-laden and pejorative LABEL to describe a person or group as "anti-trans". Lwarrenwiki (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

To quarrel not with your politics but with the "almost always... pejorative" characterization: there are legions of folks who deem anti-trans to be a badge of honor, patriotism, conservatism, etc. rather than as a pejorative label. Regardless of how one feels about trans, I'd say anti-trans is as much a LABEL as pro-trans. As a reader, I want articles to gloss and cite previously published sentiments on the topic, not to evince editors' respective biases on the topic. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I know of a single BLP of that sort. Where the issue comes up is where someone is described that way by some because they, say, oppose gender self-identification laws, but they will also say they are not anti-trans and they say they still support availability of medical transition, etc. These aren't trivial cases. Crossroads 06:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think it's reasonable to describe language commonly used in academic sources to describe the sides of an issue as WP:LABEL. If we go that route that means the guideline effectively instructs editors to substitute that for... what? The self-descriptions people use pose much more serious WP:NPOV issues. Obviously people heavily involved in a culture-war dispute are going to find any language other than their preferred self-descriptions to be POV, but that's not something we can reasonably thread our way through; all we can do is look to the best sources and reflect the language used there. The comparison (as I made on the other page) is pro-choice / pro-life vs. anti-abortion / pro-abortion. Many strident partisans in that debate will insist that the latter is a POV way to describe their views and only the former is the appropriate way to describe them, on account of not being anti- or pro-abortion in all cases, on account of some other aspect of their views being more important to them personally, and so on; but the latter is still the more neutral language, as can be seen by looking at usage among top-quality sources (especially less biased ones.) The same is broadly true here - anti-trans / pro-trans are generally the language used by top-tier sources to describe the dispute, and are therefore the most neutral terms to use. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Commonly used in academic sources" is very difficult to define, since there are very many academic sources, and a lot of junk in low-quality journals and/or articles that other academics largely ignore. So, proportion - whether it is actually common or a tiny minority - can be an issue.

Another thing is that relative quality of sources itself is an issue. Perhaps something/a BLP is never labeled "anti-trans" in academic sources, but is by PinkNews and the like. What then? If only outlets that routinely mix fact and opinion use a term for something, it seems best avoided in that particular case at least. Crossroads 06:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Any definition is going to have difficulties, but "commonly used in academic sources" is at least something solid we can dig into sources on and compare how they use the term. The current inclusion / exclusion criteria for the list seems to be based on nothing beyond editors' gut feelings and personal opinions. Examining high-quality sources to see how and if they use the terms, and removing ones that are widely used as fact in the article or authorial voice in high-quality non-opinion contexts, seems to me to be much better than that. Of course WP:RS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and (when talking about living individuals) WP:BLP will still apply everywhere even for words that are removed from the list, and you could still object to usage based on what you consider weak sources on those grounds; but including a word on this list asserts that it is always contentious in all contexts. If it has significant use in high quality sources that do not treat it as contentious, then that means the assertion that it is always contentious is not true, and it should not be listed here, nor treated as automatically contentious in articles. --Aquillion (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Narrowly speaking, I do not think that "anti-trans" and "transphobic" are equally pejorative. Groups that oppose trans rights generally have no problem saying that they are anti-trans. (This discussion I think originated in whether to describe a list of three websites as anti-trans, among which were "Transgender Trend" and "Youth Trans Critical Professionals", which as you can see both identify themselves as anti-trans in their names.) However, they often object to being called transphobic. Therefore, they're not the same thing.

Does this mean that "transphobic" falls under MOS:LABEL while "anti-trans" doesn't? I can't really say for certain, since IMO MOS:LABEL is written in a way which doesn't match actual practice in most of the articles to which it theoretically should apply. I go more into detail about this below but for now suffice to say that the answer I've gotten when I've complained about this before is that there is no canonical list of loaded terms; which terms are LABELs is not a static property of the word but depends on context. If people are going to say "MOS:LABEL doesn't apply to calling Hitler a Nazi because it's not contentious that Hitler was a Nazi" then logically, calling Youth Trans Critical Professionals anti-trans is not a LABEL either; it can't be contentious since it's in their name. Loki (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Loki, you illustrate my point by saying "...which as you can see both identify themselves as anti-trans in their names", because I don't see that, and neither do you. In their names, what we see is "trend" and "trans critical", and you made an inference from the words in their self-identification. "Anti-transgender" was not how they identified themselves. To infer "anti-trans" from the words "trans critical" is WP:SYNTH. And I'm not saying you are wrong in your WP:SYNTH, because you may in fact be right—but even assuming you are right, it's still WP:SYNTH. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I wish editors would stop invoking WP:SYNTH where it does not apply. If someone, somewhere off-wiki, has said that "trans critical" is a synonym for "anti-trans" (I am confident that there are pretty good sources out there, but in this instance a random tweet would do), then it cannot be SYNTH to make a statement as Loki has done. It may or may not be a correct conclusion, but it cannot be SYNTH - please see WP:NOTOR. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I accept that different people may have different sensitivity to dog whistle phrases, depending on how familiar they are with far-right lingo. What some might be obvious to some people may need to be explained to others. For example, I can see why the "Trend" in "Transgender Trend" might need explaining so some people. It is anti-trans but it is not obvious to everybody until it is explained what the completely bogus "trend"/"transtrender" narrative it is invoking actually is. However, I must say that this understanding runs out at "Youth Trans Critical Professionals". That is much more of a foghorn than an dog whistle. We are not obliged to pretend that we can't hear it. There is no WP:SYNTH issue in pointing out that everybody can hear it and that reliable sources have noted it. It is obviously intended to be read and understood as explicitly anti-trans. If anybody can genuinely bring themselves to doubt this then just swap out "Trans" for some other minority and see how you feel about it. Imagine that there was an organisation calling itself, say, "Jew Critical Professionals"? Can anybody imagine arguing that wasn't obviously antisemitic on its face? Of course not. To infer "anti-trans" from the words "trans critical" is not WP:SYNTH. It is basic literacy. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A caution, though, is we really shouldn't be relying on a single source, even if it was BBC or NYTimes, to take on context and meaning to newfound controversial words, in alignment with WP:NEO. We also want more than a burst of coverage from multiple sources that disappears after a few days. If you can show such equivalence over multiple sources and months, then yes we probably should adapt that meaning.--Masem (t) 18:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

NOTOR is an essay page. WP:NOR is about ideas for which no reliable, published sources exist, so no, random tweets do not satisfy that. If they did, pretty much nothing would be OR since some rando somewhere will be saying pretty much anything. NOR also puts the burden on the person making a claim to demonstrate they are not adding OR by citing RS that support it - so the answer to a claim that something is OR should be to back it up with sources, not go 'nuh-uh, OR is only if no sources exist anywhere', thus reversing the burden of proof and asking someone to prove a negative. Crossroads 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads: (1) NOTOR is an explanatory note, not an essay - I know you get those two classes of page confused, but they are not the same.

Likewise (2) SYNTH is not a synonym for OR, it is a subset of OR - not all OR is SYNTH (I know you have previously been confused about this also).

And (3) if the statement "trans critical" is a synonym for "anti-trans" has not mean made in a reliable source (but I believe it has), it would be OR but not SYNTH.

Capisce? Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, please assume good faith. I don't see evidence that would justify a claim that an editor confuses pages even if the confused the two types in this specific instance (especially since WP:NOTOR starts with, "This essay describes..."). Springee (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have at hand the instance, clear in my memory, where Crossroads previously confused an explanatory note with an essay. But an instance where I corrected him about his extensive (non-policy-based) usage of SYNTH is seen here. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism informs us that terms like "trans critical" or "gender critical" are plainly anti-trans terminology and clearly not synth, ~ BOD ~ 23:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it there and I missed it? Where in that section appears text that confirms ""trans critical" or "gender critical" are plainly anti-trans terminology". What is found within the sources cited that precisely equate "trans critical" and "gender critical" with anti-trans? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Context and way forward?

"Transphobic" was added to the list in LABEL in mid-2019 following a discussion (not an RfC) in which six editors participated. The consensus at the time seems to have been based on the specific terms under discussion being "value-laden", and not on the nature of the claims underlying the use of the terms. Subsequent, much more widely-participated discussions (such as this RfC) have not resulted in consensus that LABEL applies to "anti-trans" or the like. I suspect an RfC with an appropriately broad scope and clearly defined options (discussed in advance) would be the best way forward. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

So, maybe I misread the initial question. Based on your info, let me parse the question: Does "anti-trans" come under the WP:LABEL? Yes. Does "transphobic" come under the WP:LABEL? Yes. Are "ant-trans" and "transphobic" synonymous? If so, I've been misled all of my adult life, or maybe I just need to improve my English semantic skills. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, why did you link to the 2019 MOS discussion before it was completed? You said only 6 editors participated (all supported in your link). But if you went into the talk page archives you would get this . It looks more like 11 editors participated (plus one who closed) it. It looked like most/all editors felt the labels were value laden and thus the rule would apply. The editor who seemed to object most to the actual change to the MOS did so on the grounds of explicit vs implicit. They argued we need to be careful about editors reading the list as an explicit list vs examples of the real intent of the rule (ie any value laded label). This was noted by the discussion closer. While I understand the inconsistency point you are trying to make, please be more careful about mispresenting one side of your argument. Springee (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I linked to the same version of the discussion linked in the edit summary when the change was made to the guideline text. At that time it was six editors, and it may have been 11 editors - with one dissenter- by the time of the close. But, unless the edit summary of the editor changing the guideline was in error, the change was not based on the close, and my comment here (that the discussion involved much less discussion than others relates to the term "anti-trans") isn't affected by the accuracy of the link I found in that edit summary. Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You probably should have made that clear at the time. Your edit at the top of the section leaves people assuming only 6 editors were involved (with no comment on the level of support). Also, when you say 6 editors participated it reads as the full discussion was only 6 editors, not that only 6 at the time of the edit plus another 5 after the edit and all editors considered the terms value laden but not all wanted the edit. To a reader who doesn't investigate further you have significantly downplayed the magnitude of the discussion. :Springee (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Compared to the other discussion I linked above on "anti-trans" (and still other, related discussions) the WT:WTW discussion received scant participation, whether or not I inadvertently downplayed it. I don't think 6 editors vs. 11 really factors into that. Newimpartial (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

How many editors weighed in at the other discussion? I counted about 17 !votes (it's a discussion with a lot of back and forth, my count was quick and would miss non-!voters.). So we are talking about ~17, about evenly mixed on a tangential topic vs 11 who seem unanimous that the terms would qualify per WP:LABEL even if they don't agree they should be added as examples. I wouldn't agree that we have a case of scant vs well attended discussions. I wouldn't agree that the article level RfC negates the MOS discussion. Springee (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Since it has been two years, and whether it's 6 or 11 participation is low compared to most RFCs on the topic, it wouldn't hurt to run another RFC. We could bundle the two words together, perhaps, if there's going to be an RFC on this. I haven't investigated transphobic the way I did anti-trans (for the other discussion), but my position is still that words that are commonly used in academia in a context that treats them as neutral (ie. unattributed and as if they are dry, uncontroversial descriptors) cannot reasonably be said to introduce bias and therefore cannot reasonably be categorized as WP:WTW... and I think this is a more useful standard than "well, I feel like it is a WTW", which I feel has sometimes slipped into discussions about this guideline. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that if an academic uses the term it can't be value laden? Would that apply to academics who are studying racism/racists? Springee (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The context in which it is used matters; if they treat it cautiously then we should reflect that caution. But yes, I would apply it to everything - my feeling is that we should try to use academic language for controversial or highly emotive issues, and that the best way to do that is to look at the way language is actually used in those sources. Otherwise we risk turning MOS:WTW into an unwieldy ball of red tape based on what editors personally find objectionable, which is unworkable (especially because in some contexts - especially the gender disputes that sparked this discussion - there is no language that partisans on all sides would consider neutral.) We should treat WTW the way we treat anything else and base it on the best available sources, rather than editors' personal opinions about language they feel is a value judgment vs. a way to dryly summarize facts. --Aquillion (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Isn't that just status quo then? I mean we have academic sources that would say things like a particular person was a terrorist. We might agree that the academic source was sufficient to justify using the term terrorist in a Misplaced Pages article but that doesn't mean it's not a value laden term. LABEL doesn't say we can't use such terms only that they should be used sparingly etc. Springee (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

        I very much agree with both you and Aquillion, I think. LokiTheLiar, The Four Deuces, and North8000 have made similar arguments below, and I think we're all getting at the same thing here. It seems that standard practice on WP is (and should be) to use what some editors might consider value-laden terms if the sourcing is strong enough (for example, if the term is used dryly in highly reliable academic sources), and to interpret this guideline as advising us to use these terms sparingly and with caution.

        Although the lead of the guideline says ...certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias, the text of WP:LABEL is more restrictive: are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. This leaves no avenue for using the terms in Wikivoice, which to me is clearly contrary to standard and advisable practice (several examples of this have been furnished on this talk page – Adolf Hitler, Richard Spencer, Baked Alaska, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, 9/11 truth movement etc.). I would support modifying the text of WP:LABEL as follows:

        −

        Value-laden labels... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

        +

        Value-laden labels... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case consider using in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

        This would codify the already common practice of using labels when uncontroversial or very well-sourced, while still keeping a guideline basis for using caution, especially when the labels are only present in few/unreliable sources. Right now, the text of WP:LABEL has the guideline functioning as a global Wikivoice blacklist; claiming a word is value-laden allows an editor to try to exclude practically any word from Wikivoice, regardless of how strong or unanimous the sourcing is and overriding any article-level consensus. It seems ridiculous to me that the only policy justification for calling Goebbels a Nazi is WP:IAR. Srey Sros 03:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

        I've been reading this discussion for the last few days, and I would be in favour of this proposal by SreySros. It would resolve these sort of issues across multiple topic areas, and not just gender and sexuality. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

        I would also be in favor of this proposal. I think this small change would be a significant improvement from the status quo I've complained about multiple times, including below. Loki (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

        Nope. The former ("use") is a straightforward instruction for all editors to follow. The latter ("consider using") is a choice left up to individual editors. As has happened time and again in many discussions, one editor's interpretation is challenged by another editor's interpretation, and then discussions disintegrate from this starting point into argumentative walls of text. That will be the result of having value-laden label decisions left up to individual editors (which are nothing more than individual opinions, which are plainly and simply POVs). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

        It is already the case that the decision of whether to use a WP:LABEL is up to individual editors; this is part of the WP:MOS, and therefore is merely a guideline, not policy. See WP:GUIDELINES and in particular Policies are standards all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. If the current wording misled you into believing that it is a policy that must be followed everywhere by all editors then that is an argument for rewording it. (I have generally noticed editors swinging around MOS:LABEL as if it had substantially more force than it does.) In particular a key point is that when WP:V / WP:NPOV come into conflict, the latter always take precedence. (This is part of the reason MOS:LABEL is written in a way intended to minimize such conflicts, since as a guideline cannot discourage editors from accurately reflecting the sources, which is a core policy requirement.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

        @Pyxis Solitary, the problem with "use in-text attribution" here is that we're talking about terms that are "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". In-text attribution is meant to be for things that are not "widely used". Otherwise, proper in-text attribution looks a lot like "He has been called a climate denialist by Alice, Bob, Chris, Dan, Erin, Frank, Grace, Heidi, Ivan, Judy, Mike, Niaj, Oscar, Pat, the 73 signatories of an open letter published in The Times, all three of his previous employers, and pretty much every reputable scientist who has ever been asked", which is a bad approach to writing articles. You want to use in-text attribution when things can realistically be attributed to an individual or a small group, e.g., "Alice Expert famously called him a nose-herb nut-hook varlet during a television interview". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed change to MOS:LABEL. Any ‘value-laden’ label is contentious, and it is not for Misplaced Pages to decide whether the label is suitable. Attribution should always be used. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I oppose it too, as in 2019 discussion re a similar proposal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I also oppose it. It's an invitation to endless wrangling and a red carpet to POV pushing. It leaves us wide open to people cherry-picking a few obscure and biased sources that use a term, calling that "widely used", and demanding we use it in wikivoice or else we're whitewashing, which is a bad enough problem as it is. SreySros seems to be under the mistaken assumption that "Nazi" is a LABEL. It isn't. It is first and foremost a clearly defined and specific term for a specific ideology. Of course we would describe Hitler, Goebbels, Spencer, etc. as Nazis. Crossroads 02:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Do you agree that the term neo-Nazi is value-laden? If you believe that it is, but think that it's acceptable in Wikivoice because it describes a specific ideology and is regularly used in reliable sources to describe that ideology, then you seem to grasp the root of the discussion here (and your responsibility would be to show how e.g. anti-trans differs).

If you think that neo-Nazi isn't value-laden, well, you would be opposing the longstanding consensus that has been encoded in the stable version of WP:LABEL since at least 2017. Srey Sros 03:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for Crossroads. SreySros, editing a posted comment to add a ping is often unsuccessful. See H:PINGFIX. Firefangledfeathers 03:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I could have sworn I checked the text of LABEL already that nothing with "Nazi" in it was there, but it does list "neo-Nazi". I think that is a reason to reconsider that specific term being listed, not how LABEL works. All labels of specific political ideologies could be said to invoke values in the listener to greater or lesser extents - conservative, socialist, etc. - but if they accurately represent non-partisan sources, then they should be used without attribution. These terms represent specific ideologies first and foremost. Normal sourcing rules are sufficient; listing here is unnecessary. Crossroads 07:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned – we seem to agree, more or less: all labels of specific political ideologies could be said to invoke values in the listener to greater or lesser extents - conservative, socialist, etc. - but if they accurately represent non-partisan sources, then they should be used without attribution. There's two discussions to be had here, then.

A) Is your and my opinion (that neo-Nazi is at least occasionally acceptable in Wikivoice) reflected in community consensus? If so, we should change MOS:LABEL to reflect that, as the text of the guideline currently prohibits Wikivoice usage of the term. I think there's a few ways of doing that.

1. Remove neo-Nazi from the list of examples, and assume that value-laden labels is a narrow enough category to clearly communicate to editors that labels for political ideologies/movements are not covered by the guideline. I think the fact that the label has remained in the list for so long indicates against this option.
2. Reword LABEL to change the category it applies to from value-laden labels to something more specific. Perhaps vague value-laden labels, like Loki suggested below, although something like conservative is arguably vague and value-laden but nonetheless acceptable in Wikivoice. I can't think of any wording that cleanly and clearly draws a line between perversion and neo-Nazi, but perhaps someone else can.
3. Relax the wording of the guideline, so that the guideline advises caution but doesn't outright prohibit Wikivoice usage of terms when they express the consensus of reliable sources. This is what I tried to propose above, though I'm very open to alternate formulations/wordings of this option. It passes the buck for outright screening such terms to the reliable sources, but I think this is justified. After all, I can't think of a case where a statement like John Doe is a racist is the consensus of reliable sources, but the statement Charlie Kirk is a conservative certainly is.

B) Is using the term anti-trans in Wikivoice prohibited under MOS:LABEL? Maybe we should put off answering this question until we decide what MOS:LABEL actually says, and what it should say. But the nice thing, now that at least we agree on what conditions merit Wikivoice usage of an arguably value-laden label, is that this becomes a clear-cut academic question. The question we are asking now is: "Do reliable sources indicate the existence of an anti-trans social/political movement, as they do an anti-abortion one or a conservative one?". Srey Sros 00:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the only option of those three that would have a chance of passing is removing neo-Nazi. Regarding "John Doe is a racist" never being the consensus of RS, while that is likely, all it takes is a few lower-tier very opinionated sources saying it to have some editors claiming that it actually is the consensus of RS, as long as there are no RS specifically saying he is not racist - and there often will not be in such cases. This results in wastes of time dealing with tendentious arguments. Crossroads 04:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This here is absolutely a problem on WP nowadays; editors find maybe 2 or 3 sources that use a label in relationship to a topic, and claim that WP:SPADE must apply and we have to say it in wikivoice as fact, which is against against UNDUE if there are dozens of other sources that don't say that. It's one thing that we can factually call Alex Jones a conspiracy theorist as there's no end of sources that support that, but most cases when labels are used, they are often just a handful of sources out of the multitude covering the topic. I've talked about source surveys that should be done to consider how to apply labels (including with specific or broad-based attribution), and that really needs to be emphasized more as steps that shoudl be followed rather than editors feeling it appropriate. --Masem (t) 05:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: If you don't think "Nazi" is a WP:LABEL, then I invite you to add "Donald Trump is a Nazi" to his article and see how it goes. (While it's certainly not the *consensus* of reliable sources, I'm also certain I could find sufficient sourcing to at least mention the possibility absent WP:LABEL.) Loki (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

to LokiTheLiar: I don’t want to insult your intelligence – surely you are aware that if someone says ‘Hitler was a Nazi’ they are referring to the historical Nazi party, and if they say a modern politician is a Nazi, they are making a value judgment? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind another RfC but TBH I have more significant problems with MOS:LABEL and how it's used than just the inclusion of a few words. The way MOS:LABEL is written and the way it's used in practice are very different. For some reason "conspiracy theory" is not called out as a LABEL despite it being very pejorative, and despite several articles having it in the title: see Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, moon landing conspiracy theories, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and so on. And "pseudoscience" is explicitly protected from MOS:LABEL for some reason.

But even with those LABELs we explicitly identify as labels, we often don't adhere to the text of MOS:LABEL, which says even when labels are used to "use in-text attribution" with no listed way to use the label in Wikivoice. But we use loaded language in Wikivoice when well-justified all the time: we call Adolf Hitler a Nazi and Richard Spencer a neo-Nazi in Wikivoice, we call Jim Jones a cult leader in Wikivoice, and we call the Unabomber a terrorist in Wikivoice.

What this conflict between the guideline and practice means is that whenever anyone wants to add a LABEL in accordance with practice there is a clearly written guideline that opponents can bring up to not do that, and consequently it's very difficult to do so. But I challenge anyone to say that it would be better to avoid calling Hitler a Nazi. Loki (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Nazi" is not loaded in the same way, as it is a well-defined ideology, and in the case of Hitler, he literally led the Nazi Party. Misplaced Pages is not consistent with the others. It describes Jim Jones' religious group (the cult in question) simply as a "new religious organization", even in that very same lead. The Islamic State article attributes the claim that it is a terrorist group (which makes it even more authoritative, IMO). Crossroads 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The inconsistency is exactly my point. We do not have a consistent way of handling this situation, because the letter of the guideline is obviously the wrong choice in situations where the WP:LABEL is strongly sourced and a defining characteristic of the subject. I've listed several examples of articles that do not adhere to the letter of WP:LABEL, but in some cases, the article does adhere to the letter of the guideline, and it's at least my opinion that those articles are clearly worse off for it. Even you just described the group Jim Jones led as a cult. Nobody disputes that, the sourcing for it is strong, so why are we calling it a "new religious organization" on its page? Especially when we call Jim Jones himself a cult leader? Loki (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that my point was that because Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, some articles can be suboptimal. And just because I personally think that Jim Jones led a cult (and that ISIS are terrorists) doesn't mean I support that term in Wikivoice. Crossroads 06:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

IMO they are both vague negative terms. "Vague" means both uninformative and open to widespread mis-use, and "negative" means value-laden. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I would support a guideline that says "avoid vague negative terms" over what we have right now. I think that's much clearer as to what constitutes a WP:LABEL and why than the current guideline is. Loki (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, or add it ("avoid vague negative terms") to what we have right now. North8000 (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've written an essay to this effect. (I changed "negative" to "loaded" because strongly positive terms can also be WP:LABELs.) Loki (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Kent Dominic, if you have been mislead about the synonymity of anti-trans and transphobic all your adult life, you cannot be very old.

I agree though that it is a label, just as racist is. That doesn't mean we cannot call someone a racist, just that it requires a good reason to do so. We can say for example that Trump appealed to racists but we cannot call any of his supporters racist. The main article about al Qaeda does not call it a terrorist orgnization, but some other articles may. It depends on context. "George W. Bush waged a war on the terrorist organization, al Qaeda" for example seems fine.

Guidelines are what we should normally do, not what we have to do. Exceptions may apply, but they have to be justified.

TFD (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Trans-related subjects have become A-bombs and the tendency to include "anti-trans" and "anti-transgender" labels because one or the other is used in one or two sources (even if there are more sources that don't) is becoming the norm. I don't think Misplaced Pages articles should use a label to, for example, describe and portray an organization as "anti-trans" or "anti-transgender" unless the preponderance of reliable sources that have published articles/studies about the organization are consistent in using "anti-trans" or "anti-transgender" to define it. But this begs the question: what are considered acceptable reliable sources for supporting the labeling of the organization? An article in an academic journal and an investigative report in, for example, The New York Times, can be considered reliable sources. But what about an opinion published in niche media — if an opinion contains a statement that can be considered slanderous, should Misplaced Pages reinforce the smear by republishing it in its article? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is a source where the use of the term anti-transgender would be appropriate. People who commit crimes against people because they are transgendered and anti-transgender. People who do not think that they should compete in sports are not necessarily anti-transgender. TFD (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly my point. If a source (such as Statista) states "In 2020, there were 52 victims of intimidation hate crimes motivated by anti-transgender beliefs in the United States. A further 76 people were the victims of anti-transgender simple assault in that year.", then this source can be used as a cited reference about "anti-trans/anti-transgender" hate crimes against transgender individuals. But if it doesn't state that "organization XYZ" is "anti-trans/anti-transgender", you cannot use it as a source that defines "organization XYZ" as such. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So do you agree that the use of "anti-transgender" in article space should depend on what what sources actually support and the context of the intended use, rather than an outright prohibition of the term? Newimpartial (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

As a courtesy I will not ignore that you asked me a question. However, since you have a history of trying to dominate discussions and creating walls of text (the "RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead" in the J.K. Rowling talk page is an example), I shall not be complicit in feeding your habit. You can use your imagination about what I may or not have answered. Have a nice day! Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

TFD, regarding trans women in sports, there absolutely are people who consider opposition to trans women in female sports to warrant a label of "anti-trans". (Note that this is distinct from the position that trans women should not be in sports at all.) And a source like PinkNews calls it an anti-trans position, and doubtless a number of editors agree and some may even try to insert this position in an article as fact. This is why these sorts of disputes are so difficult - if we all already agreed that LABELs applied only to certain extreme positions, then we would have no need of LABEL. But in all these situations, some editors are coming from a very different sociopolitical position and argue that not using a value-laden label is whitewashing, and no amount of pointing to WP:BIASEDSOURCES or anything else will dissuade them. Crossroads 02:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call failure to use an un-informative, vague negative term whitewashing, I would call it being enclyclopedic. In the example, it's quite a stretch to call people who advocate organizing sports where male biological sex confers an advantage by biological sex rather than gender identity a general "anti-trans" term, although opponents on that topic would like to do so. North8000 (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• The underlying issue is that MOS:LABEL uses the flawed premise that negative labels are inherently contentious and should be avoided, which makes it prone to misuse. It really plays into the common fallacy that negative coverage violates NPOV. I've seen editors argue that although a label may be supported unanimously by reliable sources, it is still considered contentious if it's assumed the subject would prefer not to have it applied to them or if it's disputed among Misplaced Pages editors ("See? We're arguing about it right now, so it's clearly contentious!")

Of course these types of words should be used carefully, but the attribution requirement violates the third point of WP:VOICE: "Avoid stating facts as opinions". It would be best to tone down the language here and defer to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which already conveys the intended message. –dlthewave ☎ 13:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

LABEL is not based on terms being contentious but subjective, and that includes both negative and positive terms, contentious or not. This can be due to the subjective nature of their definition (eg what is the "alt right" expressly defined as?) or whether the term applies to a topic or no. Subjective assessments of a topic should never be in Wikivoice and should require attribution , unless they are held near universally across sources (with Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist as a prime example). Unfortunately we get cases of editors cherry picking sources to make a claim of a label term applying universally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If that's the intended meaning, then we should replace "contentious" with "subjective" and "... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution" with "... may express contentious opinion and should use in-text attribution unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". –dlthewave ☎ 19:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:VOICE also says, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

Unfortunately, some editors seem to think that an opinion becomes a fact if enough green-listed sources at WP:RSP say it, even though some sources, like Vox, routinely mix fact and opinion. One could call it "opinion laundering". These proposed changes would make that problem worse, not better. If these "reliable" sources say it, it can't be "subjective", they'll say. Crossroads 05:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's why LABEL gives as examples racist, but not white supremacist, homophobic but not anti-gay, transphobic but not anti-trans. The former are almost always expressions of moral judgment, and would remain so even in situations where that moral judgment was universally shared. The latter terms are often contentious in their application, but sometimes are appropriate neutral factual descriptions. Expanding LABEL to cover the latter terms would result in factual statements requiring in-text attribution as if they were opinion, like "The pamphlets advocating criminalization of sex between men were distributed by Doe, an activist described in several media outlets as anti-gay." (Neo-Nazi always seemed out of place to me in the LABEL list. There are literal neo-Nazis who should be described as such.)--Trystan (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree with the assertion above that LABEL is about "subjective" terms. LABEL is about contentious ("likely to cause people to argue or disagree") terms. It might be worth saying that the contention ought to be between sources, rather than individual editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Different sources use different objective senses of the words, under which their usage is correct and others' wrong, allowing a game of source shopping so as to push "anti-X" or exclude it. If X is a category of people (gay, trans, Semitic) the contentiousness includes the choice of definition as well as the subjective question of whether there is antagonism to X people rather than opposition to a political stance that is described as pro X or X civil rights. As an example, the Anita Bryant article describes her as "anti-gay-rights", which is quite a bit better than language like "anti-gay activist" (speaker, celebrity, etc) that might be found in many sources, because it is less ambiguous about what she fought against, without taking a position on what she thought about gays-as-people. Anti-trans is considerably less precise than anti-gay and is used in cases where there are not even specific legal questions in dispute, but vocabulary and unexpressed opinions imputed by others. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I am genuinely confused how anti-gay rights and anti-gay activist are not the same thing. I also am confused as to how anti-trans is less precise than anti-gay. I'd appreciate some clarification on that, Sesquivalent. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC

I am going to add an RfC tag to the discussion above regarding whether anti-trans merits inclusion in MOS:LABEL the same way transphobic does. I am seeing many of the same editors I always see in contentious gender/trans-related articles, and suspect that previous animosity between editors, POV, and local consensus is negatively affecting both the quality of the discussion and the result of it. Other editors are free to respond below before I do so, and I will wait 48 hours to add the tag. I don't really plan on contributing to the discussion, as my perspective has already been raised by Srey Sros and this topic area is quite toxic. I am unfamiliar if changes have actually been implemented to the wording of MOS:LABEL as proposed above, but encourage editors to discuss that in a separate section of the talk page so that that discussion isn't as affected by the contentiousness of this thread.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If it is added, it would be a better look if it were added by someone else. This is because of something you have been partially blocked for previously at ANI (although that has recently expired, I believe?).

As to the merits of whether an Rfc tag should be added or not, when a discussion is free-wheeling, as this one has been so far, the lack of structure tends to attract a multiplicity of viewpoints, sometimes including closely related topics that may have a bearing on the central question, without being o/t or tangential. I.e., it becomes something of a brainstorming session. Rfc's tend to be narrowly focused and provide a limited set of options, and if it seems like that would help the discussion, then I would favor it, but it seems like there's a lot of brainstorming going on, and I kind of like the free-wheeling nature of it so far and I think it better serves the purpose. If it starts to stagnate, and/or the discussion starts to laser in on one sticking point that editors are unable to agree on, then it seems to me that that would be the point to use that as the basis for formulating an Rfc question. I'm not sure that I'm 100% confident that you should be the one to do that, currently.

Finally, if you are thinking about adding an Rfc tag because of the limited response or "same editors always see", an Rfc label by itself is not what changes that, it is the application of WP:APPNOTE by editors (and the Rfcbot) that does that, and there's nothing stop you (or anyone) from adding appropriate notification to a number of WikiProjects right now to attract additional editors to this discussion, and that's what I'd recommend you do at this juncture. If that's not enough, one could notify users selected randomly from WP:FRS without too much difficulty. Mathglot (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

In my view, adding an RfC tag without a new, clearly (and neutrally) formulated question would be directly counterproductive. Given the issues raised by editors so far, I would suggest something based on "should the term 'transphobic' be covered by the existing restrictions of MOS:LABEL?" and "should the term 'anti-trans' be covered by the existing restrictions of MOS:LABEL?", as two separate (parallel) questions. While some editors have questioned the suitability of the existing restrictions, but I think that has to be left to a different RfC that is deliberately made broader in scope. Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

For any initiates or warhorses, save yourself the time and trouble of reading much of the above. Start with User:Newimpartial's immediately preceding post and carry on from there.

@The Four Deuces: If the synonymity of anti-trans and transphobic spans the adult lifetime of a very youthful person, the synonymity must be a fairly recent phenomenon. And so, this thread might not be the ideal forum to determine whether and how far that purported synonymity might apply. But, to Newimpartial's point, that's not the cogent issue here. What he Newimpartial said is the crux of the matter. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Not "he" but "they", but otherwise carry on. Newimpartial (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, Mathglot, Crossroads I have no issues with creating a new thread with a clear, neutral question for an RfC and leaving this thread as a catch-all discussion section. But I do think that the community needs closure for this question that can serve both this particular case and instruct related discussion in the topic area. Not that I'm saying precedent is forever, but good RfC closures are in my opinion the best way to deal with contentious POV issues. I expect this discussion to be referenced in future discussions, at least in the short term, and when there are editors involved with strong POVs or that are personally affected (e.g. trans) leaving it up to editors' interpretation of as loose and/or nuanced a thread as this has been can cause problems.A small note on the ANI block, it is in no way related to RfCs (just CIR with ANI) and expires in two weeks anyways so I don't see the point in raising the issue. I would appreciate if you took that back, Mathglot, as I see it as an unnecessary if unintentional case of poisoning the well. There's a reason why I opened this to discussion before doing anything, and that is to make sure that any action I take is both backed by policy and agreed upon as beneficial to the discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment struck per your request. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated Mathglot ^u^ A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please don't. I agree with Mathglot that this is not the time for an RfC on this. Crossroads 06:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on how User:A._C._Santacruz has handled other RfCs (related discussion at Santacruz talk page), I think someone who has more experience with RfCs should be involved in this matter. Just because an editor wants to be involved in RfC proceedings doesn't mean they should. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you opposed to an RfC being created or just me doing so, Pyxis Solitary. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mathglot. And I repeat, "...I think someone who has more experience with RfCs should be involved in this matter." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by this and would appreciate you rephrasing it, Pyxis Solitary. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's rather crystal clear to understand. I've noticed in many discussions that you have a habit of asking people to explain themselves. Surely it's not difficult to comprehend (as I stated) that I agree with User:Mathglot's comment above, on 23:18, 19 January 2022; and if you cannot comprehend a simple statement such as "Based on how User:A._C._Santacruz has handled other RfCs (related discussion at Santacruz talk page), I think someone who has more experience with RfCs should be involved in this matter." ... I cannot help you. (As tempting as it will be for you to indulge, do not ask me to explain what "I cannot help you" means.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I often ask others for clarification when I ask a question and they give a nuanced response or when I don't feel I understand the full meaning to their comment. I'd appreciate if you read WP:AUTIST as that would improve our interactions, Pyxis Solitary. I understand you are strongly opposed to me starting an RfC but wanted to know if you were opposed to anyone starting an RfC on this or just me, as your previous responses seemed to be more about myself than the RfC.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, that puts a lot of burden on editors, doesn't it? In any event, I am not opposed to someone else starting an RfC. I think right now you need to cool your jets and aspirations about involving yourself in RfC proceedings. An RfC is a serious matter, not just a run-of-the-mill talk page discussion. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I won't comment on the "burden" thing. But regarding RfCs, I believe that the terminology that Misplaced Pages uses in connection to or about trans issues is immensely important, so having a serious if not formal discussion (that is less prone to some of the pitfalls of local consensus) on the matter seems beneficial for our ability to cover the topic neutrally, civilly, and in an encyclopedic manner. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Think of it this way ... if we hadn't had this little convo, someone here wouldn't have been possessed by a compulsion to plaster my talk page with discretionary sanctions alerts. To mimic Oprah the Great: You get a laugh! You get a laugh! You get a laugh! Everybody gets a laugh! Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary I fail to see the connection and additionally as far as I can recall alerting other editors of discretionary sanctions through template notices is a neutral action. "If we hadn't had this little convo" you wouldn't have known you might be dealing with an autist editor and we will now interact better (I hope) so I hope you can look at the bright side of the interaction :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

;-) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

One of my favorite artists, Pyxis Solitary :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see any significant support in the above discussion for removing transphobic from the examples of contentious labels, so I don't understand why there would be a need to launch an RFC about it. While the previous RFC wasn't huge, it established a clear and lasting consensus. Not every RFC needs to be a 200kb battle royale. At the very least, I would suggest that any RFC brought on this question should be brought by someone who is genuinely proposing its removal. Otherwise, there is no issue to settle.

Similarly, I would strongly question whether an RFC on adding anti-trans would be productive. The above discussion is wide-ranging and often thoughtful, with a high participation rate. It's clear that some people would support adding it and others wouldn't, though I think all in that latter group would agree it is a word that requires considerable care and robust sourcing. Is an RFC likely to provide any further clarity or consensus than that?--Trystan (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggested it above, and I don't think the two are really separable. It is inevitable that people are going to discuss its inclusion in any new RFC; and given the low participation in the original RFC, a new RFC is going to override it regardless once that starts being discussed. It would therefore be best to ask the question unambiguously to avoid any dispute over the result. Especially given how frequently that addition is cited, it ought to have a firmer consensus backing it; if you are correct that it is uncontenious then an RFC should simply reaffirm that fact. And since I think an RFC on the main topic here is unavoidable, there is little additional cost or overhead by adding it as an additional question anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, there wasn't an old RfC. There was a discussion with about 14 participants that resulted in a basically a universal consensus that transphobic was a contentious label and a strong but not universal consensus that it should be added to the list as an example. The editor who objected did so on the ground that the list of words is only meant to be examples, not a binary list (on it always = bad, off always = OK). I would suggest any RfC question is arrived at by group consensus rather than who ever asks first. For example, if one just asks if "Transphobic" should be on the list then the question of how to deal with "anti-trans" goes unanswered. If the question askes if both should be on the list then you may find editors who support one but not the other and the answer is confused. Also, some editors may feel that both are subject to the restrictions of a contentious label but, like the objector from the earlier discussion, they want the list to be examples rather than prescriptive. In such a case how do you interpret the results? "No not on the list"!="not a contentious label". Springee (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If there must be an RFC, I don't think one that singles out trans-related language for differential treatment would be appropriate or constructive. The 2019 RFC discussion considered racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic together, and if that consensus is being revisited, let's revisit the whole thing, so that the underlying principles can be considered and applied in a consistent way. Similarly, if we are considering whether anti-trans should be covered, let's also ask whether anti-gay, antisemitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic, and similar terms should also be covered.--Trystan (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Close reading of LABEL

I think we need to come to an agreement about the meaning of the current words in LABEL before we try to change them. This requires setting aside any notion you have of what LABEL ought to say (save that for later) and read what it does say. So reach back to your last English literature class, because we need to do some Close reading. Here's the text:

Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

So we start with "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion". This provides a little explanation of why we're talking about this: the subject "may express contentious opinion" – notice that it "may", not that it "always does". We learn from this that the value-laden label, although always laden with values, may (or may not) express an opinion, and that if it expresses an opinion, it may (or may not) be contentious. (Conclusions: LABEL is not exclusively about opinions, and LABEL is not exclusively about contention.)

Next we get "and are best avoided". This puts a general don't-do-it on the subject, but avoidance is not the same as a ban.

The tricky bit comes next: "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

What does that mean? Well, what it says is that you can do use value-laden labels, including value-laden labels that express a contentious opinion, if and only if:

1. the label is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, and
2. you use in-text attribution.

This means that if you want to write a sentence like "Peter Duesberg was the most prominent AIDS denialist to then-president Thabo Mbeki of South Africa", then you can only do that if:

1. the label is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, and
2. you use in-text attribution.

For the first point, I believe editors have agreed that this label is indeed "widely used", and not merely a couple of weak sources that someone scrounged up.

For the second point, this particular sentence does not provide in-text attribution. Should it? There are no reliable sources that say Duesberg is not an AIDS denialist. What exactly would it look like to provide in-text attribution for the label "AIDS denialist" about someone who openly claims that HIV doesn't cause AIDS?

• At the top of LABEL, "denialist" is given as an example of a value-laden label. So we can't finesse this by saying that LABEL doesn't apply.
• This value-laden label is widely used, so the exception applies. We should include that label.
• But the way LABEL is presently written, if we include the label, then we must also provide in-text attribution.

Are we all agreed that this is what LABEL's current wording say is necessary? Does anyone think that LABEL says (NB: not "is typically interpreted as") something different? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

LABEL says that in-text attribution is required whenever a "label" is used. The "case law" on this of course is quite different - people justify this in various ways, but widespread, largely undisputed characterizations are typically presented in Wikivoice (mostly in situations where attribution seems at least somewhat absurd). Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This is my experience, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This reminds me of your September 2019 thread In-text attribution and the April 2021 thread Widely vs in text attribution. It doesn't seem to me that most participants thought there should be significant change. As for your words "We should include that label.", well, no, I don't agree that WP:LABEL says that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough: I should have written that when the exception applies, we "are permitted" to use that label. It is WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE that says the most prominent AIDS denialist in the world "should" be described as such. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There was basically no participation and it hadn't been announced at a noticeboard. But my main point in that older thread was that this MOS part makes suggestions that are contrary to more established policy that is already more detailed. —PaleoNeonate – 17:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Setting aside any notions of typical usage, I completely agree with your reading here. It seems the text of LABEL establishes a guideline which applies to value-laden labels (regardless of whether they are contentious or whether they express an opinion) and provides a decision pathway as follows:

♢ Is a value-laden descriptor widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject?

↳ If so: use in-text attribution.

↳ If not: usage best avoided.

If anyone disagrees I would be very interested to hear their interpretation. Srey Sros 17:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is the correct reading of what MOS:LABEL actually says. WP:INTEXT seems to be a better explanation of current practice and what people think MOS:LABEL is/should be and would be a good starting point for a rewrite. –dlthewave ☎ 18:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree with WhatamIdoing, SreySros, and Dlthewave's reading of the guideline. I think the critical ambiguity in LABEL’s current wording is its muddled scope. The title is "Contentious labels", but the text refers to "value-laden labels", which is quite different. A label can be value-laden or neutrally descriptive, and independently can be contentious or non-contentious in its application. All combinations of the above are possible:

1. value-laden, contentious: "Theresa May was a great prime minister."
2. value-laden, non-contentious: "Genocide is evil."
3. descriptive, contentious: " is a far-left politician."
4. descriptive, non-contentious: " is a far-left politician."

Read as a whole, I think LABEL applies to 1 and 2, but not to 3 or 4. Regardless of whether they are contentious, value-laden labels should only ever be used with in-text attribution, and only if widely used in sources. That is fully consistent with WP:VOICE (i.e., avoid stating opinions as facts). However, applying the guidance in LABEL to non-value-laden descriptors doesn’t work. For those, we will use them in Misplaced Pages’s voice if they are generally used by reliable sources to describe a subject (i.e., avoid stating facts as opinions).

In short, the title of LABEL is not consistent with the text, and some of the examples are more descriptive than value-laden, but the body of the guideline is reasonably clear and consistent with governing policies.--Trystan (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Contentious and value laden are being used for a mixture of "definition dependent" and "potentially involving BLP and NPOV problems". Duesberg being an AIDS denialist is not definition dependent. Describing him as a crank is value laden and BLP applies. Anita Bryant being anti-gay-rights is not definition dependent (even among those denying those are human or civil rights, i.e., "gay rights" is an accepted term for the position she opposes), calling her "anti-gay" is contentious. Sesquivalent (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you on that's what it says and mean and also agree with the implication that the last bit regarding in-text attribution inherently conflicts with the "widely used by reliable sources" part. If it's widely used by reliable sources, then other than attaching those references as references, any in-text attribution would be reducing the meaning and presentation of that wide use. Because you would be attributing it to a specific use in a newspaper or book or scholarly article or whatever. Which would not be properly showcasing that wide use in reliable sources. And any attempt to be vague in saying "Most sources" just runs up against WP:WEASEL problems. The in-text attribution part is very clearly what doesn't work here. Silverseren 22:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, attribution can be used to cast doubt on factual statements which is something that WP:INTEXT warns against. It would be appropriate for widely-reported opinions such as the third paragraph of Proud Boys#History and organization where we attribute "alt-right fight club", "hate group", alt lite", "overtly Islamophobic and misogynistic", "transphobic and anti-immigration" etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me flip it around to present the issue that we have now, too often which is cherry picking of labels from a few sources but not reflecting a broader segment of sources available for a target. While these are used with attribution, they do not reflect the "widely used" part, but editors are often too far into trying to vilify certain people or topics to care about that and pick whatever they can find as long as it comes from at least one RS. That's definitely not what LABEL says. Labels should only be used if they are the type of thing you can't help but stumble across in doing research on a topic, and as long as they are coming from quality RSes. Otherwise, we're going out of our way to try to include said labels which is a POV problem. --Masem (t) 01:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we all agree on the "widely used" part.

Do you agree that LABEL, as written, requires us to provide in-text attribution for all value-laden labels, even when those labels are actually, truly widely used? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes... but there are ways to summarize the attribution when they are widely used. "X has been called Y by sources, including RS1, RS2, and RS3", or "X has been broadly considered a Y by the media" and using three or four of the best sources for that - even possibly as a groupped referenced leading "For example". What I know we don't want is to have to list out 20+ sources to support that type of statement, but we do want to give the impression that even though we may be only naming 3 or so, this is not the extent of those sources. --Masem (t) 02:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If you write that Duesbergy "has been broadly considered an AIDS denialist by the media", someone's going to demand that you produce reliable sources that uses words like "broadly construed by the media", not merely sources that actually construe him that way. If you say "He's an AIDS denialist", they will not require you to produce sources that say that other sources say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

However, you are now speaking a value-ladened label in Wikivoice which is absolutely against NPOV. (There is something to say that some decades after the person has fallen out of the spotlight or has died and RECENTISM would not apply that we could be less concerned about that, but I'm assuming we're talking current coverage). There needs to be some type of wording to bring the statement out a factual claim. --Masem (t) 03:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. WIKIVOICE has five points. Compared to that list, this statement:

• is not an opinion;
• is not seriously contested (even by Duesberg and his supporters);
• doesn't present this fact as if it were an opinion (on the contrary, labeling it as only what the media says could have the effect of making it sound like an opinion);
• is "judgemental" only to the extent that is reasonably necessary for clarity; and
• is the only viewpoint held by any reliable source (including Duesberg and his supporters, who are proud of him for denying that HIV has any connection to AIDS).

What would really violate NPOV is trying to hide the facts by dressing them up in some wishy-washy euphemism ("an innocuous word or expression used in place of one that...suggests something unpleasant", assuming that we agree that being famous for promoting a particularly deadly form of pseudoscience is considered something "unpleasant" to say about a person).

(Duesberg's been an AIDS denialist for the last 35 years, so you don't need to worry about RECENTISM in this example.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue around points #3 and #4 in general for labels. Labels are, by their nature, contentious, even if there are no reliable sources that describe the opposing view, so we should never treat labels as fact, at least in the short term. Additionally, labels are 100% judgmental more so in the current social climate and ways the media tends to report on things. --Masem (t) 04:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree that labels are inherently contentious. I think we should treat some labels as facts, even in the short term. I do not agree that labels are 100% judgmental.

Maybe you're using a different definition of label than the guideline (or most dictionaries, AFAICT).

This guideline is addressing specifically "value-laden labels". The fact that there's such a thing as a "value-laden label" means that there is also such a thing as a "non-value-laden label". Labels such as student, worker, politician, musician, scholar, and parent are all useful words for labelling people, but they are not inherently value-laden. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been following this thread and the section above, and for what it's worth, I agree this is a huge problem with the current wording of the page. To adapt what someone said above, if the only policy currently allowing us say the Nazi Party was anti-Semitic or that the American Nazi Party are neo-Nazis is WP:IAR, this guideline has to change. I mean, strictly speaking, the WP:NPOV policy to "avoid stating facts as opinions", instead "directly stat in Misplaced Pages's voice", overrules this guideline, but as SMcCandlish has said about other situations, it's better to revise guidelines to not directly contradict policies (than to leave the contradictory text and rely on everyone to continue to de facto ignore it)... -sche (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This is why I think RECENTISM is important. When labels stand the test of time and academic rigor (as in the case of calling the Nazi Party as anti-semitic) then we shouldn't have to worry about attribution/speaking out of wikivoice. But we don't want to be throwing the same type of labels at a person or group that just has become an issue in the news. When the RECENTISM aspect goes away, I don't know, but I think it's definitely on the order of decades. --Masem (t) 04:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Which would then make it impossible to label any of the fringe pseudoscience topics as pseudoscience or similar terminology, regardless of all the sources and major scientific organizations calling it such, because it would be recent. That doesn't seem like the right way to go at all, Masem. Silverseren 05:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"Fringe" in its recent use in Misplaced Pages plays the same role as "national security", a semantically flexible trump card that can be weaponized to override other principles previously regarded as constitutional foundation. The possibility that exploring and applying those other principles ends up inhibiting some of the labelling as fringe, conspiracy, and pseudo is not an argument against them. The current language is using contentious and value laden to mean some slightly different things, and I think the OP is right that this should be clarified, but by no means should that be done by working backward from some all controlling uberprinciple of having to Protect The Children from the Dread Menace. Sesquivalent (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I also said "academic rigor", which is a lot faster to be shown through for topics that have objective means of evaluation, like demonstrating that something is pseudoscience. Ideological labels have less objective means to characterize and thus require time more than anything. --Masem (t) 20:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

But (and this is often a sticking point) there is extensive high-quality academic sourcing discussing modern white nationalists and white supremacists, as well as holocaust denialists and climate-change denialists and so on and so forth, covering most of the labels listed on this page. Is there a point where you would concede that sufficient sourcing exists to describe currently-active real-world groups and even, sometimes, individuals using those descriptors in the article voice, without attribution? Because I feel that once that point is conceded (and such usage clearly reflects current policy and practice, the guidelines on this page notwithstanding), the current wording of WP:LABEL falls apart and definitely needs revising - at that point WP:LABEL is a mere appendage to WP:EXCEPTIONAL (and, for living people, WP:BLP) that adds little to either beyond suggesting a few words that might be considered exceptional and which therefore require strong sourcing to use in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

At the end of the day, a lot of this needs to be common sense about how frequently and from what type of respectable sources that the label is being used. There are editors out there that want to disparage the names of BLPs and other topics, and have cherry picked labels from RSes to include in articles, and that's simply not appropriate, and that's what LABEL tells us not to do. As editors we should not be going out to say "we need to classify this topic as a (value-laden label)", and only conclude after doing research that it was near impossible to avoid that label when reading sources so it is an appropriate term to include and attribute to some degree. Otherwise, wikieditor bias is going to come into play in how that label will be introduced, and this I've seen all over the place, and both in negative and positive connotations. There's a natural tendency to want to vilify people that we think are bad, or to elevate people we think are good, but the whole point of NPOV is to write dispassionately and put those aside, and LABEL is meant to support that. So the problem with labels usually becomes that people include them without doing a survey of sources fire and then have to back up with showing that the label is widely used, rather than doing the survey of sources first to prove the label is actually justified. --Masem (t) 14:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"Common sense" is not how I'm feeling about the way this section is written. Common sense says that when someone is (really, truly, actually) widely labeled as an AIDS denialist, you say that he's an AIDS denialist, in wikivoice, per WP:WIKIVOICE. You don't try to soften that by saying "Alice and Bob and Chris and some other people, who are probably all meanies, called him this value-laden derogatory label just because he actually, publicly, repeatedly, unashamedly, and self-promotionally denied the connection between HIV and AIDS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that we need to use common sense; but that is best achieved by making the requirement for attribution a suggestion rather than a requirement, since that allows us to use common sense in individual cases. And while it is certainly true that there is a danger of people with strong feelings about a topic violating NPOV by presenting something that the sources only justify as an opinion as if it were a fact, there is equally a danger of people with strong feelings about a topic introducing their personal biases by framing a fact as a mere opinion. If high-quality sources universally describe someone as an "AIDS denialist" in their article voice, and an editor who is partial to the subject insists that WTW requires that we downgrade that to "several scholars describe them as an AIDS denialist" (or, worse, "the New York Times describes them as an AIDS denialist" when in fact the descriptor is used universally), that is also introducing bias and is something we need to constantly push back against. This is sort of bias (editors overtly trying to downplay facts they disagree with, are uncomfortable with, or which they personally doubt the sources on based on their own gut feelings rather than anything well-cited) is absolutely something I have seen all over the place myself, and it is extremely important that WTW not provide any support for that sort of WP:TEND editing. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

(this is effectively to both WAID and Aquillon above) However, my experience is that when push comes to shove and an evaluation of what sourcing supposed "widely labeled" proves out that that really isn't the case and that the label is far less than widely used than postulated. Again, in the ideal setting, we'd discover what labels are widely used during the course of research and thus come to use them in that manner, but in reality, editors want labels to apply and try to use research to justify them, which is what WP should not be doing. I absolutely agree that if a RS survey shows the label in use a high percentage of the time in non-opinion articles on the topic from high quality sources, that's far far different from the case where one or two sources solely use the label. But in both, we need to have editors prove out that reasoning on the talk page to show they've done the legwork and the sourcing supports their stance, rather than the reverse to assert the label applies and make others point out the problem. --Masem (t) 23:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

but in reality, editors want labels to apply and try to use research to justify them, which is what WP should not be doing Again, you are presenting this as one-sided, which is absolutely not the case - there are at least as many editors who want to downplay facts that they disagree with, even when the sourcing is overwhelming, and who will therefore continue to argue against inclusion no matter how overwhelming or widespread the sourcing is. Obviously per WP:QUO anyone who wants to make a contested change to an article must obtain consensus for it (which includes establishing consensus on talk by doing the legwork, whether that is to establish that there is widespread sourcing for a new addition or to overturn an existing implicit consensus that there is sufficient sourcing that presents longstanding text as fact), and for WP:BLPs we default to removal; but WTW must acknowledge that when there is a consensus (status-quo or otherwise) that a particular label is well-cited as a statement of fact, then it must be presented as such in the article voice, and cannot be downplayed with an attribution. Otherwise, POV pushers will constantly point to WTW to remove or downplay factual statements they disagree with, even when the citations are impeccable. Setting a one-sided standard (the way you seem to be suggesting) encourages people who want to downplay or omit facts that they disagree with to WP:STONEWALL discussions rather than do their own legwork for changes they are proposing or answer legitimate arguments for including facts that they disagree with. --Aquillion (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion: We should not write a "known wrong" rule just to rein in bad actors.

As for whether it happens: Of course it does. I have certainly seen plenty of efforts to whitewash bad behavior by claiming that "only" mainstream media believes this or that, and that anyone looking "all the relevant sources" (i.e., extremist chat forums) would discover that the label isn't "widely" used at all.

The solution to POV pushing isn't to obscure the subject by refusing to label anyone. The solution to POV pushing is to accept the mainstream viewpoint as being the mainstream viewpoint, and to accept that this will sometimes mean that we have to do some work to figure out whether a label is, in fact, as widely held as some editors claim, just like we accept that we sometimes have to do some extra work to figure out whether a label that is allegedly from a tiny minority actually is a minority viewpoint.

Also: "widely held" is not the same as "universally held", and holding a view does not mean that the exact terminology must be used in every single source. It is possible for Duesberg to be "widely held" to be an AIDS denialist even though some reliable sources don't happen to mention those exact words, or even if some reliable sources don't mention the subject at all. If he were the victim of a car wreck, one might not necessarily expect a local news report to mention his notorious pseudoscientific views in a report about the cause of last night's traffic jam. Not everything is relevant to every source's subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Masem and disagree with Aquillion. Consider the opposing issues here, a laxed LABEL guideline means that we have people labeled as racist, haters, etc undeservedly so per NPOV because an editor adds the label based on their POV and the ability to find at least some supporting sources. Even worse is if, due to cytogenesis a report in the "real world" follows our lead and applies that contentious label in their own report because, well there was "consensus" to do so on the worlds largest encyclopedia. So what's the harm in erring on the side of avoiding labels? We can still present the facts people used to support the label. We can describe the actions rather than the labels. Not long ago we had a discussion similar to this one and it was pointed out that the intro for Adolf Hitler makes it very clear he was racist without ever actually calling him racist. Another reason to err on the side of avoiding labels is it makes our article's more fact driven and less gossipy tabloid. People who want to say bad things about people they don't politically agree with can still do so but would, god for bid, have to do so by presenting the evidence that underlies the labels rather than the often lazily applied labels. In summary, we can get the same information across without labels that may be applied by those (writing here or in RSs) who are not careful and/or neutral in their use. Adding them when they are undeserved does cause harm, not adding them and instead adding the supporting evidence doesn't cause harm. Springee (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A different way to view this: there should be sufficient onus by editors that want to use a label without attribution by showing a source survey and getting consensus on the talk page for that -- once that's established, then 1) you have demonstrated for future editors what the sources are and why there's no need for attribution, and 2) you provide a pointer to those that want to whitewash that information or the like. But there's still should be an onus that to use such value-laden labels without attribution to prove that there's the more than sufficient amount of sourcing to back it up -- otherwise the label must be attributed at the bare minimum. But there's also factors related to RECENTISM, YESPOV and other factors to take into account. --Masem (t) 03:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Masem, it seems like we're all in agreement on the basic principles: Labels that aren't widely used need to be attributed or left out altogether, and ones that have been shown to be widely used among reliable sources may sometimes be used in Wiki voice depending on the circumstances. However the current text of WP:LABEL requires attribution even if the label is widely used. I think the next step will be to discuss ways to rewrite the section to reflect the intended meaning. –dlthewave ☎ 05:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken LABEL says this should be done for "contentious" labels. I don't think we need to use in text attribution for a label like "Senator". Springee (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No, "Senator" wouldn't be contentious, but WP:LABEL currently requires attribution for factual descriptions like "cult", "terrorist" and "myth" even when well-supported. –dlthewave ☎ 13:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Those aren't necessarily factual descriptions though, or at least in the same way. Eg: "terrorist" requires that the crime be defined as "terrorism" by the government, not by the media or other agencies covering it. An alternative medicine idea should only be labeled pseudoscience once MEDRS-meeting sources call it out that way. etc. This is the area of time/academic rigor that we should absolutely be waiting to make sure exist and/or has passed before making these terms into fact, and in the interim treating them as labels with attribution. --Masem (t) 14:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. LABEL requires that a label such as terrorist be widely used by "sources". LABEL does not care whether that label is widely used by the government, in scholarly sources, or in news media.

LABEL says:

• Not widely used? Then don't use that label.
• Widely used? Then use (probably misleading) in-text attribution (so readers will think that it's not actually a widely used label, but instead is only used by a handful of named sources, or by vague groups like "mainstream media").

This is bad. This goes against the principles of NPOV and the rules at INTEXT.

What we should be saying is closer to:

• Not widely used? Then don't use that label.
• So widely used that an article fully complying with NPOV and INTEXT would use this label without in-text attribution? Then use it, with no in-text attribution.

There could be a footnote that says for borderline cases, in which the label is used very frequently but not widely, or in a situation that is relevant to the article (such as "This celebrity feud was sparked by Bob calling Alice a name"), editors can agree to use the label with in-text attribution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Certain terms like "terrorist" are tied to legal factors that we cannot let non-governmental sources make the determination about. Terrorist attacks are typically tried and sentenced far more aggressively than similar crimes that did not have terrorism motives, so it would be absolutely inappropriate to use non-government claims of terrorism on WP. Similarly, we should not use non-MEDRS sources that assert that certain alternative medicine is pseudoscience. (In both cases, we can use RSes that repeat statements made from appropriate sources about these terms, eg the NYTimes reporting the govt' statement that a crime was terrorism-related). But that's not the case of all labels, but a very specific subset. --Masem (t) 17:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No. Terrorist is not a word that's owned by the government (which government, by the way?). I can't imagine why you would even think that a press release from an elected district attorney (which is a governmental source) is better than a peer-reviewed article in a scholarly journal about terrorism (which is a non-governmental source). You must not have thought this idea through completely. Your story leads to acts of terrorism not being even theoretically possible until a law was created that used that word.

We absolutely should not require MEDRS's ideal to declare that an altmed product is pseudoscientific. It absolutely should be possible to describe notable subjects even if they don't get mentioned in medical school textbooks or multiple journal articles.

Your views on this subject seem to be very different from most editors'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We absolutely need to rely on the expert or authoritative sources here, otherwise, we get back to cherry picking in regards to labels that could have legal implications on BLP or related articles, or where laypeople are using science they don't understand to try to pick apart someone's research. But this again gets back to short-term reliance on mainstream media to apply labels rather than following RECENTISM and waiting for long-term, more reasoned-out sourcing that is better quality and reflective of what an encyclopedia should be using to report on these things. --Masem (t) 06:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

My largest issue that is while I agree there is a point where contentious labels are used so much by reliable, high quality sources that we can use them without attribution (Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist being a good example), when that point occurs needs to be a really really high bar that should be demonstrated on talk pages first before implemented. If that bar can't be shown, or hasn't been demonstrated, then the label should be attributed, period. --Masem (t) 14:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

According to LABEL, when that bar can't be cleared, then the label shouldn't be used at all.

The problem with LABEL as written is that when that bar is cleared, no matter how amply, it says that in-text attribution is necessary. LABEL as written says that Alex Jones' status as the promoter of conspiracy theories is something that requires in-text attribution.

What you say here aligns with what everyone else is saying about LABEL needing to change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

But that isn't a hard problem to overcome. Instead of using Wiki voice, "Mr Smith is a racist", we can use a general attribution, "Mr Smith is widely described as/considered to be/etc a racist". That takes it out of Wiki voice by giving a general attribution which can be supported with select references. Springee (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If you want to write that someone or something is X, you need sources that say the subject is X.

If you want to write that someone or something is widely described as X, you need sources that say the subject is widely described as X.

There are far more sources that comment on a subject's X-ness than sources that comment on what other sources say about the subject's X-ness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, NPOV says to actually use wikivoice for many such statements. NPOV does not allow "Smith has been described as X" when all or nearly the sources that mention Smith's relationship to X describe him as X. Sometimes Smith really is X according to sources, and encyclopedias should have the courage to say it forthrightly when that's the case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"encyclopedias should have the courage to say it forthrightly when that's the case." This is the absolutely last thing a neutral work should be trying to do, we are meant to describe conflicts, not get involved. And that sometimes includes taking a side when one side happens to be mainstream reporting that is considered reliable in the short term but doesn't have the impact of time and disconnected reviews from other works that comes from the long term. This attitude is the central problem of wanting to vilify topics that are in the news today, when we really should be waiting to see how they are viewed decades from now before getting into that type of consideration. This is why RECENTISM is extremely central to all this discussion around labels. Once RECENTISM no longer applies, its also less likely that attribution with regards to widely-used labels also applies. --Masem (t) 05:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Accurately summarizing the reliable sources is not "getting involved". If all the reliable sources say that 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks, then we aren't "getting involved" by saying that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks. We should write a neutral, NPOV-compliant statement that "The 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks" and not pretend otherwise with some weak circumlocution like "Most reliable sources say that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks (but Misplaced Pages is not taking sides in this legitimate debate, of course!)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

And if describing a person as X really is DUE, then it should be trivial to find sources directly supporting the idea of 'widely described as X'. Crossroads 05:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This guideline isn't solely about describing people. Consider how you would apply labels to subjects like Time Cube. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, @Crossroads, I wonder if you could find me a source that actually says, in direct and unmistakable words, that other sources say that chemotherapy is a treatment for cancer. NB that I'm not looking for sources that define chemo; I only want to see a source that talks about other sources defining chemo that way. A medical school textbook that says something like "Chemotherapy is widely described as being a treatment for cancer" would do very nicely. Do you think you could find one? Just one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

My argument doesn't apply to non-opinion labels or claims, so chemotherapy has nothing to do with it. And the Time Cube article contains no unattributed LABELs at all, and is much better for it. Imagine how ridiculous it would look if instead we described it as Time Cube is a fringe pseudoscientific and racist conspiracy theory... Some of the leads on Misplaced Pages right now almost look like this, even with LABEL the way it is already. Crossroads 04:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Fringe, pseudoscientific, racist, and conspiracy theory aren't merely "opinions". When someone writes that there is a global conspiracy to prevent anyone from finding out about his ideas, that is objectively a conspiracy theory. When someone writes that racial integration destroys the races, then that is a racist statement, not merely someone's opinion or personal interpretation. There are times when interpreting actions might be a matter of opinion (Did that man avoid looking at a person of a different race because he's overtly racist, or because he hasn't had his coffee yet and doesn't want to look at anyone? Different people could form different opinions about that), but when you actually write, in plain language, that racial integration will destroy the white race, we are beyond the point of "opinions" and firmly into the territory of facts. That is a racist statement.

Also, Time Cube isn't "fringe", because that label suggests that it is on the outskirts of real science, rather than being the paranoid and grandiose thoughts of an old man with schizophrenia.

I think it would be a good idea to remember that the formula of "X is a Y-ist Z" is not the only way to label a subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem with those terms is they have at least some level of subjectivity. When does a pond become a lake, when does a mound become a hill becomes a mountain. At the extremes we have no trouble defining Victoria or Superior as a lake vs a pond. At the same time a bristle when a new subdivision calls their retention pond a lake (lake front home sounds better than pond front home). Of course, a developer has an incentive to call their retention pond a lake just as someone who labels someone else a "racist" might be motivated by creating/pushing a narrative rather than just stating facts. Springee (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There are borderline cases, but there are also clear-cut cases. Presumably in borderline cases, we will see sources disagreeing with each other, or only a small number of sources asserting a viewpoint. The existence of borderline cases should not blind us to the existence of the clear-cut cases. Editors should be using their best judgment to determine which is borderline and which is clear-cut (based on the sources, not their personal interpretations). They should not be saying "Well, I think racist is always a subjective opinionated label with no basis in objective facts, so every single use of this word needs to follow LABEL, even when that would contradict NPOV and INTEXT". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Split

"Labels are, by their nature, contentious..." What do you consider a label? Using the definition of "a word or phrase that describes or identifies someone", applying labels is core to WP's mission of describing and identifying its subjects for the reader. Most labels are not contentious — at least not when widely supported by reliable sources (French, Catholic, gay, politician...). Some labels are value-laden, in that they inherently impart judgment, which we avoid to stay on the right side of the is–ought problem. Others will have negative connotations among large groups of people (convicted murderer, hijacker, Holocaust denier), but are at their core factual claims. All we can do is follow the sources. Editors cherry-picking to advance a certain view will always be a problem, but the solution has to be upholding WP:DUEWEIGHT and crafting an article that reflects what all the sources say collectively. If reliable sources as a whole support describing someone as an AIDS denialist, as a factual description of someone who denies that HIV causes AIDS, it is not compatible with NPOV to substitute a euphemism, impose an arbitrary years-long cooling off period, or require in-text attribution.--Trystan (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be the least intrusive place to make a point I have made in other, related discussions: that a head-count of sources not using a particular term/label should never be used as evidence against the appropriateness/prevalence of that term/label, except for sources that actually use a term editorially that logically contradicts the term/label under consideration or, even better, actually disputes the term/label either editorially or through the presentation of contrary evidence. I have far too often seen editors present head counts of sources that don't use a particular term/label as though that were evidence that the application of the term/label were controversial or contested in a particular case, which is not a conclusion that can be deduced by simple absence of a term. Newimpartial (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Suppose for a BLP 5 sources refer to them as "homophobic", while 50 talk about them without using any such label in their own voice. Is this a good reason to label a person? Sources that are about someone but do not use a term absolutely matter. This is the principle of WP:DUE. Crossroads 06:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It depends. Are those 50 talking about their social or political views? Or are those 50 talking about subjects unrelated to that? Do any of those 50 claim the opposite? It's one thing to balance "He's homophobic" against "He's got a mixed track record for public support of gay rights". It's another thing to claim that "He's homophobic" is offset by "He directed a film about the Vietnam War."

How does the passage of time affect sources? Nobody was an AIDS denialist in the 1970s, because nobody knew that it existed. Would you look at sources from the 1970s and say "Look, I found 50 sources about Duesberg from before the discovery of HIV that talk about him without mentioning AIDS at all, so he's not really, truly, absolutely, 'widely' described as an AIDS denialist"? Of course not. But you could probably find 50 old sources that mention Duesberg without mentioning AIDS.

You can't decide whether a label is widely used until you look at all the facts and circumstances. This is the sort of thing that editors have to settle article by article, label by label.

As for DUE, the NPOV policy says that when a label is widely used, it should be used in wikivoice, without falsely ascribing it to only a small number of named sources. LABEL says the opposite: that when a value-laden label is used widely, it should be falsely given in-text attribution to a few representatives of that wide use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Attribution can take the form of "widely described as", and if that is true, then it will be easy to find sources directly saying that. Anyway, let me rephrase my point: Suppose for a BLP 5 sources refer to them as "homophobic", while 50 talk about them in context of their LGBT-related views or actions, without using "homophobic" in their own voice. Contra Newimpartial, these sources choosing not to use the term do bear weight when it comes to whether we use it. Crossroads 05:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that all the sources addressing the subject (e.g., all sources talking about adoption rights for same-sex parents), whether by:

• using the word homophobic (or very similar words, e.g., homophobia) to describe opposition to civil rights for gay couples
• describing a viewpoint that matches the word homophobic but using only other words (e.g., gay-bashing, discrimination against gay people)
• describing the opposite viewpoint that disagrees but using other words (e.g., supporting traditional family structures)
• using the word homophobic (or very similar words) to deny that opposition to gay rights has any connection to homophobia

should be taken into account. I do not think that sources unrelated to the question of whether opposition to civil rights for gay couples is homophobic (e.g., if there were a source about how politicians voted on a particular law about adoption) should have any weight in this particular question.

I do not agree that if editors are looking at one source saying "homophobic", two sources saying "gay-bashing", and one source that says "traditional family structure", that we have to go with some sort of misplaced majority rule and use gay-bashing in the article. There are many considerations in deciding how to describe a subject, and those include not merely the raw popularity of a word in sources, but also encyclopedic tone (homophobic is more formal than gay-bashing), avoidance of euphemisms (traditional family structure is a modern euphemism for the heterosexual nuclear family; a multigenerational family is the actually-according-to-actual-historians "traditional" family structure), educational value (is homophobic too jargon-y for this part of the article?), and more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• It is important to point out that WP:INTEXT is policy, while MOS:LABEL is just a guideline, so if the two contradict then INTEXT takes precedence (and we should probably start a discussion to resolve the difference by updating the text of one or the other.) I would strongly favor tweaking WP:LABEL to tone down its insistence on in-text attribution to a suggestion, since I feel that always requiring in-text attribution, simply because a word is listed on WP:LABEL, even in situations where it is uncontentious in that specific context, plainly violates WP:NPOV's prohibition on not portraying uncontested facts as opinions. I think the underlying issue is that MOS:LABEL tries to assert that certain words are always and without exception contentious in all circumstances, which is an unworkable standard - if the sources completely unambiguously treat the use of a term listed on WP:LABEL as uncontentious in a particular context, WP:NPOV requires that we do the same and therefore that we use it in the article voice without attribution. I would suggest updating MOS:LABEL to make in-text attribution a suggestion rather than a requirement and to specifically reference WP:INTEXT as the policy that should be used to determine when it is appropriate, as well as perhaps acknowledge the WP:NPOV requirement that if something is clearly uncontested fact then it cannot be presented as opinion. The current wording of MOS:LABEL has lead to the nonsensical situation where people who want to maintain its current wording and application seem to be making the patently absurd argument that "Nazi" or "Fascist" or "anti-Semitic" are not value-laden labels because conceding otherwise would make the conflict between the current requirements of MOS:LABEL and WP:NPOV irreconcilably obvious; but the basic problem doesn't go away either way. --Aquillion (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  WP:PGCONFLICT, which is also a policy, tells us that when advice pages conflict, the correct answer is to make them match. Otherwise, POV pushers will declare that LABEL prohibits common sense and presenting mainstream views as being the mainstream views, and we're relying on everyone to know that NPOV and INTEXT say something different and "outrank" the only guideline that says the opposite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we should probably come up with specific tweaks to the wording, since at least based on this discussion it is likely there could be sufficient consensus to turn WTW's requirement for attribution into a suggestion. I would suggest something like ...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject; if sources using the term are WP:BIASED or opinion-based, consider using in-text attribution per WP:INTEXT. --Aquillion (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a red carpet for POV pushing. The desired label is only in opinion articles or biased sources? Well, just consider using in-text attribution. Crossroads 06:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Obviously the consideration would have to be done according to WP:INTEXT, which is the actual policy governing when to do it; it does require in-text attribution sometimes (and would continue to do so), but only for biased statements of opinion, and it forbids or discourages them under various other circumstances. So we could import that text and say simply that ...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject; for biased statements of opinion, use in-text attribution per WP:INTEXT. But it is unacceptable and unworkable for WTW to set a standard that goes past WP:INTEXT; that invites people to cite WTW to justify POV-pushing in the other direction, since anyone who disagrees with a factual statement that falls under one of the words in WTW could cite it to argue that it must be attributed (and therefore framed as an opinion) with no regard for what the sources say at all. That is to say, if someone wants to push the POV that racism, white supremacy, holocaust denial and so on are not real things and are only some people's opinions and must be expressed as such on every part of Misplaced Pages with no regard for sourcing, they could try and use WTW to support that crusade. (They would fail because WP:NPOV and WP:INTEXT are policy and trump MOS:WTW in that regard, requiring that we eg. describe Neo-Nazis, denialism or racism as such in the article voice when the source is sufficiently overwhelming to establish it as an uncontested fact -- but currently WTW does not acknowledge the relevant policies, which is a problem, and is part of the reason it has lead to interminable arguments on numerous articles, since some people do feel comfortable citing it to argue for attribution with no regard for sourcing.) At the bare minimum it needs to make it clear that in-text attribution is something that depends on the strength of the sources and whether they fall under WP:RSOPINION / WP:BIASED or not; and it should probably reference INTEXT in some form to make it clear that there are also situations where in-text attribution is inappropriate (although perhaps that is a subset of WP:WEASEL and should be covered there instead, ie. weasel wording can be used to obscure who holds a view but it can also be used to present a view that the sources treat as factual as if it is mere opinion.) But either way, even ...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject; if only sources using the term are WP:BIASED or opinion-based, use in-text attribution in accordance with WP:INTEXT would be a clear improvement over the current text.--Aquillion (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that something like this might work better: ...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject; all such uses must comply with WIKIVOICE and INTEXT".

If you wanted to be more explicit, then we could be more verbose: ...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject; all such uses must comply with the WIKIVOICE section of the NPOV policy (which permits the use of value-laden labels without in-text attribution under some circumstances) and INTEXT (which explains when in-text attribution of labels to specific groups or individuals is required)"

However, I'm not sure that the verbosity is necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding WhatamIdoing's question, the solution is not to hamstring WP:LABEL by allowing editors to launder opinions into facts with WP:BIASEDSOURCES contrary to WP:WIKIVOICE, but to remove terms from LABEL's example list that are not vague opinion terms. "Denialist" and "neo-Nazi" are not vague terms that vary widely in meaning based on opinion; they have well-defined meanings that academic sources and people in general would agree on. Many people would consider all sorts of well-defined terms value-laden, such as "socialist" or "conservative", but we obviously won't add them here. Consider the difference between vague opinion terms and well-defined ones:

• "John Doe is a racist..." -> okay, as a reader this tells me very little as to what he actually did. Is this guy an opponent of affirmative action, did he use the N word, or is he a white supremacist? It could be anywhere on that spectrum, and at least some sources will call him a racist.
• "John Doe is a neo-Nazi..." -> oh, this is immediately understandable. He supports the modern incarnation of the ideology of Nazi Germany.

Let's try another:

• "Peter Duesberg is a crank..." -> okay, people have no idea what this is getting at, other than that Misplaced Pages editors consider his views to be wrong. Unsurprisingly, this isn't what it says.
• "Peter Duesberg is an AIDS denialist..." -> easy to understand, he denies the existence of AIDS.

Perhaps here we are focusing too much on "values" - itself sort of vague - has obscured more important aspects, which is that terms that are vague or opinionated should not be in wikivoice. This is in line with the WP:WIKIVOICE policy, Avoid stating opinions as facts, and LABEL's own statement that Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies - note that the issue is that the term is "subjective" and "vague". Crossroads 07:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

My problem with this is that it allows for the situation I outlined above (where someone's personal feeling that eg. "racism" or "white supremacy" or whatever are meaningless value-laden terms can trump overwhelming sources indicating otherwise in a particular context.) Whether a word is specific and factual has to be decided in individual cases based on the strength of the sources, and even when it comes to general guidelines we have to decide by looking at the sources - obviously you cannot simply say "I personally feel, in my gut, that 'racism' is vague and unhelpful", since we have to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. And there are, indeed, overwhelming high-quality academic sources that treat racism as a highly specific and well-defined topic to be discussed as fact and not solely opinion. Along those lines, we also have to be cautious about people trying to launder facts into opinions, especially when it comes to concepts (like racism) that are rejected entirely by many highly-opinionated culture-war groups; regardless of their feelings, WP:NPOV requires that we use terms like "white supremacism" or even, yes, racism in the article voice, without attribution, when the sources are sufficiently overwhelming and one-sided to establish it as fact in a particular context. Obviously that bar is often going to be quite high (because it can be WP:EXCEPTIONAL) and is particularly high for WP:BLPs, but WTW cannot (and does not) place it completely out of reach - it is simply not viable to require that "racism" always be attributed, without exception, every single time it appears in Misplaced Pages, since requiring that without regard for what the sources say is an unambiguous violation of NPOV and therefore unenforceable. If the overwhelming majority of high-quality sources unambiguously say as fact that eg. that Apartheid was racist - and they do - then we must describe it as such in the article voice (as we do, in numerous points on that article.) You can argue that any individual use of the term needs attribution based on the sourcing and so forth, but we cannot and do not universally require it in the general case; and if WTW implies that it is universally required then that is a simple error in WTW. --Aquillion (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a problem but it's one that should be easy to overcome by adding the facts that support the label. If those facts can't be added then we shouldn't have added the label in the first place. Erring on the side of excluding the label or attributing the label does less overall harm to the IMPARTIALity of the article vs erring in the other direction. Using terms similar to yours, allowing someone's personal feelings to cherry pick sources to smear an article subject via their Misplaced Pages page. Springee (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Aquillion, I'm afraid you are misapprehending the situation. Only a tiny, FRINGE minority of editors believe that "racism" or "white supremacy" or whatever are meaningless value-laden terms can trump overwhelming sources indicating otherwise in a particular context. The much more relevant case is anti-transgender activism, which a number of editors (including several participants in this discussion) explicitly believe to be a meaningless and/or emotive term to be excluded regardless of its prevalence in the sourcing. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were only for the neo-Nazis. Newimpartial (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, we are having this discussion because LABEL contradicts NPOV and INTEXT. But did you mean to suggest that this might be a central subject area that prompts support for having LABEL incorrectly contradict the other policies and guidelines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No; I think INTEXT and NPOV get it right and LABEL currently gets it wrong. My observation is an empirical one: that the anomalous language of LABEL is seldom (and almost never successfully) employed by editors to WHITEWASH racist and antisemitic labels, but is frequently deployed as an argument to remove "anti-trans" or require in-text attribution for it, even when the term is well-sourced. Newimpartial (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a parallel issue in both topic areas; I've mostly encountered it on the racism side. A May 2021 RfC resulted in no consensus to include RS-supported attributed labels of racism from Tucker Carlson, with several editors citing WP:LABEL. This isn't the place to rehash that discussion but it does show that LABEL has been used to exclude content. –dlthewave ☎ 21:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the changes proposed here would have flipped the outcome of that RfC? Per the closing a number of policies/guidelines were cited and LABEL doesn't appear to be a critical one even though it was mentioned. Springee (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that this might just be a matter of you being more familiar with discussions you frequent. WP:LABEL is absolutely cited in an effort to try and insist on attribution for things like white supremacy or racism. The implication that it could be used to insist that something like Apartheid cannot be described as racist is obviously more extreme, but our policies shouldn't be written in ways that have such nonsensical implications either way; the point is to establish that large numbers of places do exist where WP:NPOV and WP:INTEXT require that we terms on the WTW list without attribution, and that it's therefore unreasonable (in addition to being against policy) for WTW to imply that it is forbidden. --Aquillion (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, looking at Apartheid, the word "racist" doesn't appear until about 1/3rd into the body. The intro relies on statements of fact and allows the reader to draw their own emotional conclusions. The intro is a good example of using impartial terms to describe a very racist institution. It's an example of what we should be doing instead of trying to apply the labels in question. Springee (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that racist is an "emotional conclusion". I think it is an objective, indisputable fact that an explicit, intentional, systematic separation of people according to their race is racist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it racist to oppose affirmative action? To oppose defunding the police? I don't think anyone should answer these - my point is that there is actually a significant amount of disagreement across society as to whether some things are racist (even while almost everyone would agree that, say, apartheid is racist). The same issue of heavy disagreement applies to transphobia and Islamophobia and every other accusation of bigotry. We should not be making labeling with these sorts of terms easier, as it will lead to more tendentious arguments for certain labels. Misplaced Pages can then be used to advance an agenda that something controversial really is racist or phobic or whatever. Crossroads 04:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how additional tendentious arguments for certain labels would be worse than the current language, that gives policy cover for tendentious arguments against the use of terms that are well-sourved and are not really controversial except for extreme sources and for certain Misplaced Pages editors. The current text of LABEL is easily weaponized in the service of POV whitewashing, which actually happens, in contrast to the hypothetical argument you put forward here. Well-sourced terms that are not in dispute among reliable sources should be in wikivoice per WP:INTEXT, and the current text of LABEL (which rests on a lower CONLEVEL than INTEXT) gets in the way of encyclopaedic writing. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Almost everything you claim can be turned around if we make it easier to apply contentious labels. What counts as "well sourced"? If we make it too low a single so-so source is all we need. The other extreme would be if any RS doesn't say it then we say it must be attributed. You argue this leads to POV whitewashing but why shouldn't we be worried about POV blackwashing? I would argue blackwashing is worse since it gives UNDUE weight to typically negative characterizations that can harm a BLP's reputation if someone does a quick web search and sees just the first 3 sentences of their bio (oh, he is a X-ist!). If they deserve the label then the rest of the article will make that clear with evidence. However, if the label is questionable then we are failing if we err on the side of inclusion. I've seen a number of cases where it's clear editors were trying to get a label into the lead ("far-right, alt-right, provocateur etc) even though the body of the article doesn't really support the label. Other times editors are more interested in inserting the label (source calls Ms Doe an X-ist) but aren't really interested in adding the examples where X-ism was displayed. No, this is supposed to be an encyclopedic work, not a news article, not a gossip column and certainly not a source that should be used to persuade vs inform. Springee (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: I've seen a number of cases where it's clear editors were trying to get a label into the lead ("far-right, alt-right, provocateur etc) even though the body of the article doesn't really support the label - any instances where this problem actually occurs are WP:NPOV problems, not LABEL problems, and run afoul of WP:INTEXT as well. If the justification of the current text of LABEL is to provide a shortcut to avoid actual discussion arriving at policy-based consensus on POV issues based on DUE representation of quality RS - well, to me that isn't really a justification at all. Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, you have said LABEL is a tool of whitewashing but I don't see that you are addressing the reverse, where label is used to prevent blackwashing? Why is it better to allow more blackwashing vs prevent contentious labels and force people to stick with the details/actions that support the label vs the label itself? Springee (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought I had been sufficiently clear about this, so I'll try again: any time what you call blackwashing is an actual problem, we have NPOV and INTEXT to deal with it. LABEL isn't needed for that, and doesn't actually help. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial. If mentioning a value-laden label isn't warranted, then its use is a violation of NPOV. It would be a violation of NPOV even if LABEL had never existed.

The problem this section is meant to address, though, is that LABEL is demanding that some widely used, fully warranted, NPOV-compliant, and (if relevant) BLP-compliant labels always have INTEXT attribution, even when NPOV and INTEXT says not to do it and even when that attribution would be misleading.

The goal here is not to change anything about when/whether you can use a label. The goal in this discussion is only to take out the incorrect advice about always providing INTEXT attribution.

So far, this discussion sounds like this:

• Me: LABEL should give advice about INTEXT that matches what INTEXT says.
• Two editors: People just shouldn't be using biased and opinionated labels anyway.

This sounds like a non sequitur to me.

Is the actual argument meant to be something like "LABEL should misrepresent INTEXT because that will discourage editors from using labels that I don't want them to use"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, any time you feel a label is removed via LABEL+whitewashing the facts that support the label can/should be in the article thus making the label redundant. If the content of the article isn't there then the label certainly shouldn't. As for WhatamIdoing's concern, perhaps INTEXT needs to be updated to match LABEL? If an article is well written the use of these labels really shouldn't be needed. Perhaps we can say, in "sky is blue" cases the label doesn't need attribution? Springee (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Since I believe that, broadly speaking, the language of INTEXT currently gets it right while LABEL gets it wrong, I don't agree with your proposal. I also dispute your apparent premise - that if the article demonstrates through sourced examples that (e.g.) a BLP subject is an anti-trans activist, that somehow it would be redundant for the article actually to say that the person is an anti-trans activist. This is precisely what I am calling whitewashing, and perhaps also illuminates why LABEL issues arise frequently in relation to the lead - in the body, it may be possible to achieve a well-sourced and clear depiction by piling on examples without using a label (though I don't accept that it is preferable, or even encyclopaedic, to do so). But this would never be possible in the lead, which may explain why some of the more eggshell-walking ("because LABEL") lead language can be so tortured and false-balance-ey. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

But you jump to the conclusion that such sources apply the level of scrutiny we should expect before using a contentious label in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. Your position doesn't address the very real concern regarding editors searching for sources based on a few keywords, effectively having a conclusion and then trying to find the sources that support it. Again, you are concerned about whitewashing but ignore the reverse. If we have a situation that is perfectly knife edged, that is, half the sources say a comment shows racism, half the sources say it was not racist. For argument sake, I'm going to assume we have a binary choice, call it racist or apply no label. You are, in effect, saying we should err on the side of saying it was racist because we don't want to let a case where 60% say it was go without being called racist. Effectively you would prefer to accept that we might err on the side of calling a BLP subject racist out of fear that if the rules go the other way, we might not call a racist a racist (or a transphobe a transphobe). I think that is wrong and at least in consistent with the BLP ARBCOM view of avoiding harm. If the racist, transphobic, etc actions can't be adequately described then they shouldn't be labeled. We don't want whitewashing but it doesn't cause harm, blackwashing does so we should always make sure to err on the side of not applying contentious labels. If we can't reasonably describe the issue in the lead then we shouldn't apply a label in the lead. Springee (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

In a case where half the sources say a comment is racist and half actually say it is not, and both sets of sources are of comparable quality, then of course DUE requires a BALANCEd statement and anything we say should be given in-text attribution. Even if the sources for are clearly of higher quality than those against, some kind of attribution is required in instances where there really are two sides DUE for inclusion. And of course, BLP considerations (which are barely unaddressed by LABEL) mitigate for caution where they apply.

But what I have seen much more often than this (essentially hypothetical) case is the real (and fairly common) one where we have multiple, quality sources offering a specific characterization, no independent sources against that characterization (though perhaps a WP:MANDY denial), and a few sources that don't weigh in one way or another. I am not saying that we should go without attribution for cases that are actually perfectly knife edged - and in fact, one of the problems with the current version of LABEL is that it doesn't allow a graduated approach where uncontested labels are given without attribution and contested ones are attribured. So your statement of my position, Effectively you would prefer to accept that we might err on the side of calling a BLP subject racist out of fear that if the rules go the other way, we might not call a racist a racist, is entirely a straw man.

What I am saying is that a guideline that tells people that nobody should be characterized as a "racist" in wikivoice, regardless of the sourcing, because the word itself is too emotive (or whatever) is just wrong, unencyclopaedic and actually works against BLP, NPOV and INTEXT policies. The current text of LABEL doesn't err on the side of not applying contentious labels - if followed consistently, it would prevent the appropriate use of labels where NPOV requires that attribution not be used.

In the cases I am talking about, it is possible (even easy) to reasonably describe the issue in the lead using well-sourced characterizations in terms of racism, or antisemitism, or anti-trans activism or what have you. Actual RfCs on these issues in regard to specific articles actually examine the sourcing and come to a judgement of what NPOV requires. But LABEL is a thorn in the side of those RfCs, by giving a set of editors a pretext to opt-out of source-based discussion by arguing that term X can't be used "because LABEL". Sometimes that argument succeeds, sometimes it fails, but it always uses up valuable time and it never IMO draws any attention to the policy-based, encyclopaedic criteria on which such decisions ought to be based (primarily WP:V and NPOV, and sometimes BLP). Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

We are circling. You feel that subjects that rightly should be called transphobic are not and this is because LABEL offers too much protection. Of course others don't agree else their wouldn't have been a RfC. However, you don't seem to be concerned that perhaps a subject that shouldn't be called transphobic (or some other contentious label) will be if we relax the rules. Why is that not an equal problem? As I've already said, Misplaced Pages should always err on the side of do no harm. We see that in policies like BLPCRIME. If the label is applied the facts may not matter as the reader may take the label as gospel. However, if we err on the side of avoiding the label the reader still has the option to read more and decide for themselves. That seems more aligned with Misplaced Pages principles to me and, more importantly, less likely to be used to push a POV via the words we use in Wiki articles. Springee (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Circling, indeed. My belief is that LABEL in its current form is being used to push a POV by whitewashing articles, and I do not believe that the possibility for unjustified labels to be included would be an equal problem without LABEL, because this is already prevented by the effective use of NPOV, WP:V and BLP policies, which cover these issues both more effectively, and with more nuance, than does the current LABEL guideline. Newimpartial (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, this section isn't about vagueness or opinions. It's about value-laden labels. The fundamental point behind labelling (value-laden or otherwise) is to divide people into a group. When someone gets labelled as a climate denialist, that means that they have been judged as belonging to a particular group of people. It could be a small group ("freedom fighters") or a large group ("men"), but the person is being judged as belonging to that group.

The point behind this section is to say that when the labels in question are value-laden, then we should avoid using them unless they are "widely" (not universally) used. This is the difference between "Paul Politician was a climate denialist who spent his career supporting the petroleum industry" (which we could use if sources widely use that label) and "Paul Politician spent his career supporting the petroleum industry" (which we would use if the label isn't used widely in sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Even if a label is widely used, it is far more informative to summarize what the person actually said. For a pair of hypothetical examples:

• "Paul Politician, who spent his career supporting the petroleum industry, asserted in 2020 that climate change does not exist."

This establishes beyond question that he has denied climate change. It is clear to any reader. Adding the label "climate denialist" would serve no useful purpose.

• "Paul Politician, who spent his career supporting the petroleum industry, asserted in 2020 that climate change is largely caused by non-anthropogenic sources."

This establishes the person's position on the subject, which some sources (and many readers) might call denialism, and others might not. It is more information than the label would provide to the reader.

This gives the reader the significant benefit of replacing a value-laden label with a fact (e.g., a sourced quote from the subject) to which readers can apply their own values. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly how we should be handling criticism geared towards BLPs or other topics when labels can be avoided (in the situation where they are not widely used); explain what exactly the issue is, and assume the reader is smart enough to make the connection, as well as, when it can be sourced, more accurate to the person's views (which is an issue with the "anti-trans" "transphobia" section above). --Masem (t) 06:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with this is that you are essentially asking that editors perform WP:SYNTH using primary sources to imply that the article's subject believes something controversial. That is actually a more serious WP:BLP violation than just citing reliable sources saying what they believe. Now, for BLP specifically the standard to avoid in-text attribution is sky-high, but I would always, without exception, go with "these sources described X as a white supremacist" as opposed to trying to make the argument that X is a white supremacist implicitly ourselves in the article voice. And in cases where the sourcing is high-quality, near-universally in agreement, and where it is a major aspect of their notability, it should, yes, be used in the article voice (eg. David Duke.) Your interpretation invites editors to say basically "ignore all those sources, if you look at his source he didn't literally directly say this", which is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV - and even worse, it invites them to say "here's a pile of everything bad this person ever said, which proves they are a bad person", which is WP:SYNTH. We describe BLPs according to what the sources say (including, as WP:BLP specifically spells out, unflattering things or things that they may not want said about them). The standard for negative BLP material is simply higher-quality sourcing and more weight on it being WP:DUE, not "ignore the sources, WP:SYNTH up stuff using quotes." If someone is described as a neo-Nazi in a significant subset of sources, but not all, and that description is WP:DUE, we should describe and attribute it; if they are described as a neo-Nazi near-universally, we should state it in the article voice. But we should never be saying "here's a bunch of quotes, with no secondary interpretation or analysis, that imply that this person is / is not a neo-Nazi", that is absurd. In fact, I would actively discourage quotes in that situation (vs. paraphrasing and citing secondary sources) because the danger of WP:SYNTH or pulling quotes out of context to make someone look good or bad is so severe. Our articles, especially on such sensitive topics, need to be based on the conclusions of secondary sources and not quotefarms thrown together by editors to guide readers to an uncited conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there's a point that when more than a sufficient portion of sources uses a label that we can use that label and without attribution, but that should be an onus on those wanting to use the label that way to show that the near universality of the label exists in sources about a topic - including past, present, and likely future ones too as to avoid a burst of coverage that changes tone later down the line. And no, avoiding labels to describe a point of view does not fall back to quote farming; we are able to summarize and paraphrase without introducing interpretation as well, though we should be using statements made in reliable sources as the origins for these statements. Most good RSes, even when they apply labels, explain why the label applies, and that "why" is what we should be using, not the label itself, otherwise we're far too much focused on the mudslinging that labels bring. --Masem (t) 13:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

If you'd want any changes to specify that the default position is to attribute, and that the onus is on those who want to leave it out, maybe that's a possible path to come to agreement. In that case, one approach might be to use the wording ...with in-text attribution if in doubt. That would address the violation of core policy in the current wording, while indicating that any uncertainty would default towards attribution. It's also the same language as is already used one paragraph below in the same context. Sunrise (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sunrise, your suggestion of "...with in-text attribution if in doubt" seems reasonable to me.

Alternatively, we could just refer people to the actual NPOV policy and the actual INTEXT guideline, and tell them to follow those. (Presumably they say something about what to do for borderline or uncertain cases?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• No, absolutely not. At least on my end I would never consider a default presumption to attribute to be acceptable - again, I feel that attribution has at least as much potential to be WP:POV; making it the default would encourage NPOV violations by people who could stonewall facts in the sources. Default outcomes need to be handled extremely cautiously because they complicate consensus-building by giving some people in a dispute less of an incentive to come to the table and negotiate or to engage with the sources; the default should always be "we go with what the sources say", outside of very specific situations where there is significant risk of real-world harm. The situations where that would be the case here are already covered by WP:BLP; situations outside of that shouldn't (and realistically cannot) have a default that would potentially allow an editor to frame longstanding text and well-sourcex as mere opinion and eg. insist on extended discussions or an RFC to turn it back. --Aquillion (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Masem, should I interpret your statement that "there's a point that when more than a sufficient portion of sources uses a label that we can use that label and without attribution" as you agreeing that LABEL's current requirement that in-text attribution always be used, even when we are obviously well past that point, is a problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording is a problem. I consider the scenario of "no need to attribute when near-universal agreements of a label" as the exceptional case and if anything were to be written into this page, it should explain that should be when certain conditions are met. It may seem somewhat annoying to present it this way, but for novice editors we want to stress and maintain that labels should never (save for that exception) be used without attribution. I know that some are presenting that the argument should be "labels that have near-universal agreement can be presented without attribution but otherwise labels should have attribution" (that is, in conflict with LABEL) and while that means the same thing but I am afraid of how novice editors will take that. It is better to maintain the cautionary language of LABEL but establish the needed carveout. --Masem (t) 04:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

LABEL doesn't admit of exceptional cases, and editors shouldn't have to invoke IAR over a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying that I think the current wording of LABEL should stay, but add to explain the exceptional case, rather than saying that LABEL needs to be completely rewritten. --Masem (t) 05:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

How about we just take that out of LABEL entirely, and direct people to the actual policy and the INTEXT guideline? We'd never have to worry about keeping them synchronized again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the synchronization problem, though LABLE should include language that says "should not be used without in-line attribution as outlined at INLINE". I think the question is more "when does a label (defined per LABEL) lose its subjective/contentious nature and become a reaonably objective descriptor to be stated in Wikivoice?" which is absolutely a guideline-type of consideration (there's no hard-fast rule) and should be outlined at LABEL where it makes the most sense or perhaps another guideline page "when is a label not a label". --Masem (t) 13:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

INLINE is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Inline Templates; I think you meant INTEXT, which is part of Misplaced Pages:Citing sources.

The problem with "should not be used without in-text attribution as outlined at INTEXT" is that INTEXT says "it should always be used for biased statements of opinion" (with a link to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). INTEXT also warns about the risk of "an inadvertent neutrality violation" by implying parity between majority and minority views, suggesting that a widely held view can be attributed to a single source, and cluttering articles "with information best left to the references".

To compare them, LABEL, as currently written, says:

• Peter Duesberg has been called an AIDS denialist by Alice, Bob, Chris, Dave, and more.
• Time Cube was a website that Alice, Bob, Chris, Dave, and others said espoused a pseudoscientific conspiracy theory.
• JK Rowling has been called as transphobic by several trans advocates, including Alice and Bob.

but INTEXT and NPOV, as currently written, say:

• Peter Duesberg is an AIDS denialist.
• Time Cube was a website that espoused a pseudoscientific conspiracy theory.
• JK Rowling has been called transphobic by several trans advocates, including Alice and Bob.

LABEL should give the same advice, leading to the same results, as the other pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You've repeatedly brought up Peter Duesberg so I did some close reading, of all the sentences in the article that say denier/denialist and have any cite at all ... Chigwedere et al: never says denier/denialist. Nattrass: says "group of AIDS denialists" clearly including Mr Duesberg. Cohen: never says denier/denialist, says skeptic. Kalichnan: says "denying AIDS" clearly including Mr Duesberg. Goertzel: never says denier/denialist, says dissenter and mentions conspiracy theories. Lenzer: never says denier/denialist herself, says he and others have been labeled "denialists". Sithole: never says denier/denialist. Schoofs: dead link. McGreal: says denier/denialist about Thabo Mbeki and about a group that included Peter Duesberg, says dissident. Clifton: says denial of the link between HIV/AIDS. Karon: never says denier/denialist, says skeptic, mentions flat-earthers. JournAIDS (Author Unknown): contains the phrase "AIDS denialists" and says Mr Duesberg is a prominent denialist. Durban Declaration: dunno, paywalled. Corbyn: never says denier/denialist, doesn't mention Mr Duesberg. Goldacre: never says denier/denialist, mentions dissidents. Enserink: says Mr Duesberg is a so-called "AIDS denialist". Miller: dead link. Cartwright: says Mr Duesberg denies that HIV causes AIDS. Enserink: never says denier/denialist. Summary: a small minority of the sources say denier/denialist, an even smaller minority use the phrase AIDS denier/denialist, the Peter Duesberg example isn't simply showing a failure re WP:LABEL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, it's a failure re WP:BLP because in most sentences the contentious label is poorly sourced or unsourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure the article could use some updates. Here's a few sources that might be relevant if you wanted to do that:

• Mbeki was influenced by the AIDS denialist Peter Duesberg
• AIDS denialists like Peter Duesberg
• Peter Duesberg, a brilliant virologist, became an AIDS denialist
• rogue scientists, headed by Peter Duesberg, held fast to failed theories. Although they consider themselves dissident scientists, they are actually denialists
• a Presidential advisory panel, which included Duesberg and other denialists
• Mbeki...assembled a "Presidential Aids Advisory Panel" of 30 people, half of whom were denialists, including Duesberg
• "Duesberg, the denialists’ founding nutjob"
• joined by another HIV/AIDS denialist, the granddaddy of them all actually, Peter Duesberg
• At the top of a list titled "HIV/Denialist Scientists":  "Peter H. Duesberg is the single most important figure in HIV/AIDS denialism...In every respect, HIV/AIDS denialism starts and ends with Peter Duesberg" (ISBN 9780387794761, p. 174)

This is not a minority viewpoint, and regardless of what's currently in the article, it can be sourced to scientific journals, popular magazines, newspapers, and books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

One issue I see is that when one says that LABEL is not consistent with NPOV or INLINE because (for example) they would require attribution of calling someone an x-denialist when that is widely used in sources, is that this presumes that x-denialist is not a label. Even in that case that type of term is still a type of subjective statement, and a label. Broadly WP should never have a subjective statement in wikivoice, and always should be with attribution. BUT there are times where there is near universal agreement on a subjective term that we don't need the inline attribution, and this not only applies to labels but to other things eg "Mozart is considered one of the greatest pianists of all time." Meaning what is at issue is something more at INLINE to clarify when mass-agreement on a subjective matter is had, in how that can be said without attribution. There would still need to be some updates to align LABEL to that but thats the larger issue here. --Masem (t) 21:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Broadly WP should never have a subjective statement in wikivoice, and always should be with attribution. I agree. But we determine what is subjective solely, and exclusively, by looking at the sources. Nothing else matters one iota. If the sources treat something as an objective statement of fact, we must do so, and it would be a WP:NPOV violation to do otherwise. We absolutely must never allow an editor to say "well, yes, the sources state this as fact, but I personally feel this kind of statement is subjective because I don't think racism / neo-Nazism / whatever is objectively definable" - that is an outright WP:TEND / WP:POV argument in which an editor is directly requesting we put their unsourced views in the article text. We must report things the way our best-available sources do, fullstop; my problem with WP:LABEL is that people have repeatedly added words to it based on their personal sentiments and without regard for any sources at all, then turned around and argued that this allows us to downplay or ignore sources that they personally disagree with - again, often without reference to any contradictory sources at all, simply based on their personal gut feeling that "these words are not objective." That is not acceptable - we follow the sources, fullstop. If you feel that something is subjective, and you want it treated as such in the article voice despite widespread sources treating it as objective, you must at a bare minimum find sources of comparable weight that treat it as subjective. Otherwise you're arguing for a violation of WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Subjectivity is a function of language, not sources. Just because lots of sources use a subjective term for X does not make that an objective term, it still a subjective term, just one that is widely used, and I think we do need a mechanism that we don't have to mess too much with inline attribution when it has been shown beyond a doubt the term is widely used. But in this, we still need to keep in mind that that term is a subjective term and there are aspects about its use to be careful about.

That brings me to another point is that a focus of this discussion has been on what I've brought up before, "characterization labels" like "conspiracy theorists", "x-denier", and so on, those that directly characterize their words and actions rather than their attitudes, which are the types of labels that I think can reach the level of wide-spread usage to avoid the need for inline attribution. But unless we're talking a person long day or well beyond their retirement/out of the public spotlight, these must be taken as subjective characterizations, no matter how many RSes use the term. In a situation like this I think we can find a way to use "X is a conspiracy theorist.(2-3 high quality refs)" (note the lack of inline citations) but this 1) first needs to have consensus agreement on talk pages that the sourcing fully supports this and 2) should immediately be followed by context to support this, which stands in place of in-line attribution by providing why they are considered that way. Exactly how to do this, that's beyond the scope here, but I am in agreement there's a time and place where we should be able to do this and details need to be worked out for how to handle this, but key is that this case must be a high bar to evoke, otherwise we need to have editors default to in-line attribution.

These characterizations need to differ from more banal labels, like "evil", "racist", etc. which are far more subjective, can never be taken as fact (at least while BLP/RECENTISM is involved), and which should always be accompanied with inline attribution. But in the cases where there is widespread agreement on these labels from sources, we should be able to adapt language that again helps to make it clear this is a wide-spread opinion from the media. eg "X is broadly considsered to be racist. (3 or 4 high quality sources)" followed by context for why. There's ways to reflect capturing near-universal agreement here in as close to a matter-of-factly voice but without making a subjective term factual in wikivoice. --Masem (t) 02:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Subjectivity is a function of language, not sources. No, this wrong. Per WP:YESPOV, whether a particular statement is fact or opinion, and therefore whether we should present it as objective or subjective, is based entirely on what the sources say. Even when it comes to BLPs: These characterizations need to differ from more banal labels, like "evil", "racist", etc. which are far more subjective, can never be taken as fact (at least while BLP/RECENTISM is involved), and which should always be accompanied with inline attribution - no, that is likewise flatly wrong. If high-quality sources are completely unanimous in calling something racist in the article voice, and treating it like a fact, then we must do the same, even if it would fall under BLP. This is non-negotiable, since it is a central part of NPOV. Neither does it contradict BLP, which is ultimately about following highest-quality sources and erring on the side of caution when there is doubt. Your position here seems to be "sources should never treat 'racism' as something that can be a clearly-defined fact, so if they do, we can ignore that." But that directly goes against WP:NPOV - no matter how strongly you personally feel that racism is far more subjective, it is completely inappropriate to try and impose your feelings in that regard on article content in contexts where the sources unambiguously disagree. I am fine with setting a high bar (especially for BLPs, where it is already high), but ultimately the only thing that matters when determining whether we frame something as a fact or opinion is how it is treated by the sources, which means that absolute statements like you're making here cannot be imposed. And I literally mean cannot be imposed, ie. NPOV directly instructs us on this and is not subject to consensus. Even if you write a policy that directly and unambiguously says "never call any individual's actions or statements racist in the article voice", NPOV will override that in the (rare, but far from nonexistent) situations where the sources are sufficiently high-quality, unanimous and unambiguous. Per WP:YESPOV we are strictly forbidden from treating something as subjective or as opinion when it is unambiguously treated as objective and as fact in the sources, and that cannot be changed or overruled. --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing in YESPOV that says that even with a near agreement of reliable sources assert a subjective statement about a topic in a factual tone, that we must accept that agreement as fact. That would be making a subjective statement into an statement of fact which we absolutely cannot do. In fact, YESPOV includes "Prefer nonjudgmental language" which says exactly not to take that factual tone in such cases. NPOV does say that we should treat that as the majority position and that unless there are reliable sources that present counterarguments to that point, shouldn't play games around false balance or equivalence. But presenting such a situation where there is near-agreement about how a topic is characterized or how a subjective term is used is far different than something that has gained objective, factual stance. In a case where there is near-universal agreement that a person is an "x-denier" as "Y is widely considered an x-denier" or "Y is an X-denier", as long as that is appropriately followed by context to explain that, falls 100% in line with NPOV, neither weakening the position of the majority position while maintaining the fact it is still something that is, implicitly, a subjective term that never should be stated factually in wiki-voice without context. (and of course, after consensus has agreed that there is sufficient universal agreement that the term can be written that way). This works for positive/praise language as well as non-controversial subjective terms too (such as "philanthropist", "savant", etc.), so its not just an issue for how we write for those treated negatively by media, but how we write period to stay neutral as an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 22:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see where WP:YESPOV says that the distinction between fact and opinion is based on "what the sources say". It states, Avoid stating opinions as facts. This even goes so far as For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." And the rule to avoid stating opinions as facts is distinct from the following separate point to Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. So no, an opinion does not transform into a fact simply by being stated in enough sources. Something can be not "seriously contested", yet still be opinion. I know of no source or policy that says the distinction between facts and opinions is just a matter of how widely they are held.

Just saying 'if enough sources say it, it's a fact' is also a problem because sources can be WP:BIASEDSOURCES. They may mix fact and opinion, have political or ideological biases, and so on. Crossroads 05:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

If we can't base distinctions between facts and opinions on sources, what could we base them on? Underlying your reading of LABEL seems to be the idea that the terms mentioned are always to be understood as reflecting the opinion of sources, rather than facts, but this reading is not based on WP policy. Your apparent view goes well beyond what LABEL actually says, namely, Value-laden labels - such as calling an organization a cult, (or) an individual a racist ... may express contentious opinion. The guideline does not state that value-laden terms are necessarily contentious or they they are necessarily matters of opinion, as opposed to fact. What quality sources write about "cults", for example, are typically not A.J. Ayer-style statements of personal opinion but rather (in many cases) claims based on rigorously defined concepts and documented empirical reality. The naïve epistemology that would separate "value-laden" concepts from "factual" statements is, thankfully, not assumed by WP policy, and should not be inserted as a way to overrule quality sources and "win" Talk page discussions, either. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Value laden labels are implicitly contentious by definition so there's no reason LABEL needs to spell that out. And again there is a point well beyond where BLP or RECENTISM would apply, so that we would be fine calling pre 20th century cults as such in wikivoice, for example, but not some group founded in 2021. --Masem (t) 18:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm okay with calling a recently founded group a cult, assuming that there are high-quality sources that say so. There's no reason to obscure this for 100+ years. Misplaced Pages:Call a spade a spade may not be a functional behavior when dealing with a dispute, but it's perfectly good practice for encyclopedia articles. Charles Manson and Jim Jones and David Koresh founded cults, and it is not too recent for us to say so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

RECENTISM tells us not to. And the cases you name fall outside bound that RECENTISM would cover. (20-some years). --Masem (t) 01:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

RECENTISM does not tell editors not to label these men as having founded cults. NPOV and INTEXT does not tell editors to provide in-text attribution for that label in those cases. Why should LABEL tell editors that they must do so? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(I mention those three because you said "we would be fine calling pre 20th century cults as such in wikivoice". Pre-20th-century means 1899 or earlier. We are obviously perfectly fine with calling late-20th-century cults as such in wikivoice.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure this appeal to RECENTISM is valid. We are perfectly fine with calling QAnon a cult in Wikivoice, despite it not existing prior to the first posts by Q in 2017, a mere five years ago. I'm also not seeing anything in WP:RECENTISM about a hard date for when a subject stops being recent. The closest to advice it provides for that is the WP:10YEARTEST, and that is primiarily as a corollary/supplement to WP:GNG. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

RECENTISM has to be kept in mind within context of the amount of coverage and other factors, and yes, there's no hard cutoff date where RECENTISM no longer applies. My point from above is that if a group was founded tomorrow, and the day after we had papers calling it a cult, that's probably not our place to be calling it a cult in Wiki voice, that's definitely where RECENTISM would apply. But the QAnon is a good example where there's vast amount of coverage that connect it to a cult (though a surface examination of the refs suggest a bit better preciseness is needed, as it a group compared to a cult but there's not universal agrteement that is a cult - eg a source survey should be done to verify that that is the case or not). --Masem (t) 05:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Calling Qanon a cult in Wikivoice is a great example of RECENTISM failure, NPOV failure, NOR failure, and of course political bias to accept the statement on incredibly weak sourcing. I searched the web for "Qanon", looked at the first 10 RS, all were major media sites plus one think tank paper, and not a single one states as a fact that it's a cult. Most of the articles do not say "cult" at all, a few had comments on how it is cultlike in various ways. The sources cited for "cult" in QAnon, and for Qanon in cult, do not state that as a fact either. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Moving forward

In the discussion above, there seems to be broad agreement that:

• Labels that are not supported by reliable sources should not be used at all.
• Labels that are widely supported as statements of fact by the majority of reliable sources should be used in wiki voice.
• If reliable sources present a label as an opinion, or if there is significant disagreement among sources, then in-text attribution must be used.
• The current version of WP:LABEL violates WP:INTEXT and WP:NEUTRALITY, which in some cases require labels to be presented in wiki voice.

The main points of contention seem to be where to draw the line between attribution and wiki voice, and how to determine whether a label is widely supported in a way that's not prone to editors abusing/gaming the system.

Obviously a change to MOS will require an RfC, but I'd like to discuss possible ways to word it before going that route. Here's my suggestion as a starting point:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinions and should be used with caution. Labels may only be used in Wiki voice if they are widely used as statements of fact by reliable sources. If sources present the label as an opinion, or if there is disagreement among sources, then in-text attribution must be used. However, per WP:INTEXT, unnecessary attribution can lead to a neutrality violation. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

Again, this is just a starting point, so feel free to suggest changes. –dlthewave ☎ 19:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that there is "broad agreement" about those things, so I feel free to suggest that WP:LABEL should be left alone. If there's an RfC, I suppose participants in prior related discussions should be pinged. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the first one but I think #2 is a questionable summary, #3 isn't correct because in some cases like that the answer is to not use the label. #4 is not something that has consensus above, especially the part about we are "required" to use any label much less in wiki voice. No, we aren't. Springee (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, dlthewave, it's going to be a situation that those who disagree with the consensus will be against your summary and those who agree with the consensus will be fine with it. Thus litigating the discussion all over again. C'est la vie. Silverseren 03:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not at all see "broad agreement" with those bullet points except for the first one. The rest are too in favor of affixing labels. The whole idea of making it easier to affix controversial labels, let alone encouraging editors to do so, is a bad route to go down and will lower our quality and muddy our objective tone. Crossroads 06:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Chiming in with not seeing agreement, except for #1. However, this does not need any change here, as WP:Verifiability policy already requires that *content* that is not supported by reliable sources should not be used at all. I don't see why labels have to be called out as a special subset of content; this is already covered by policy. This just seems like WP:CREEP to me. Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with previous comments that the above "agreement" is flawed, hinging on #2 as being what is really the problematic conclusion. I fully understand the need that when a large majority of sources use a label to describe a topic that it is not efficient to use in-line attribution to ascribe that label to 10-20+ different sources, but whatever way we want to end up presenting it, it still needs to be presented as a subjective label or characterization that is the majority opinion of sources, as long as BLP and/or RECENTISM applies. --Masem (t) 13:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There may be no way to implement this, but if 90% of sources agree with the label, it's informative and fine for Misplaced Pages. If only 70% agree, the it fits the common meaning of "value laden" and is something that is just a statement of somebody's opinion or a concept or neologism that they are promoting and needs in text attribution if even used. So, in "the arctic has a cold climate", "cold" is not value laden (even if someone who lives in Antarctica would disagree) . In "Chicago has a cold climate", "cold" is value laden. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

North8000, that's basically what I was trying to get across. There are times when a label can be used in Wiki voice and times when attribution is needed, and our guideline should reflect this. –dlthewave ☎ 15:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dlthewave, I think there is some level of broad agreement, but I don't think you've quite captured it. For example, "a majority of reliable sources" (i.e., a bare majority) is probably wrong. I think it'd be safer to say that LABELs, if used at all, should be used in compliance with NPOV and INTEXT.

Also, RFCs aren't required to change the MOS, but one might be required to convince editors that this change is needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that given some of the fundamental disagreements above an RFC is definitely going to be necessary here (especially the objections to point two, which I think is a simple restatement of WP:WIKIVOICE and therefore non-negotiable), but it's worth spending the time to make sure we have an ideal proposed rewording. --Aquillion (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I like it! NPOV and INTEXT are the overriding policy/guideline, and simply referencing them would be an elegant solution. –dlthewave ☎ 18:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

A simpler change that might get broader support immediately is to switch the word order in LABEL from "value-laden labels such as .... may express contentious opinion" to "(use of) labels such as ... may be value-laden and thus express (potentially) contentious opinion". This would clarify that the mere appearance of a word on the list is not the thing that is contentious but rather its application in particular cases; that the contentiousness comes from the value-ladenness (whatever the latter means); and would solve or weaken pretty much all the particular examples suggested above where use of a term on the list is not particularly value dependent. Sesquivalent (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that could be a useful change. (I consider it separate from the other points, and unless someone objects to it in the next couple of days, I'd encourage you to make that change soon.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thus the clear statement that some terms e.g. the listed ones are value-laden becomes the unclear statement that they might be value-laden? I object. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan, some of those words aren't always value-laden. Consider the word cult: it might be value-laden (e.g., Personality cult), but it might not be (e.g., Cult (religious practice), Cult following). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the Lauren Southern article is a good example of why LABEL's strong stance on attribution is needed. The opening sentence of that BLP says "Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June 1995) is a Canadian alt-right political activist, and white nationalist YouTuber." Both "alt-right" and "white nationalist" are stated in Wiki-voice. In defense of those labels, a RfC in late 2020 found consensus for inclusion of a sentence saying "she has been described as..." (ie the labels are attributed). This is the sort of area where LABEL is important because it makes it clear Misplaced Pages should not put such claims in wiki-voice. Springee (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

So are you advancing the idea that LABEL in its current form is necessary so that RfCs like the late 2020 one on Southern are unnecessary? If not, I am really not clear what you are arguing. Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the close. The sourcing for those labels are substantial, and I'm sure that there are more sources that could be added if it was needed. While those two terms are contentious, and are often denied by those who receive them, they do seem factual based on what reliable sources have said about that subject. As per the current wording of LABEL, the only reason why this is allowed to be stated in wikivoice, which I believe should continue both per my opinion and also per the closure of that RfC, is ignore all rules. That article lead would not be improved by stating <insert author here> writing in <insert work here> (times eight plus seven) has stated that Southern is <insert labels here> Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting one because although the proposed text included attribution, the closer wrote "As words to that effect are already in the lead, there is (in my view) no need to make edits solely to insert the exact wording below." The lead at the time used the same wikivoice text as it does now, so I'm not sure if the closer didn't notice the difference (since the question was more inclusion/exclusion than attribution/wikivoice) or if they thought attribution was unnecessary based on comments to that effect. In any case the stable version implies consensus to violate MOS:LABEL in that particular example. –dlthewave ☎ 22:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, I misread the close since the question asked included attribution. That said, per LABEL this should not be in wiki-voice. Without reviewing all the arguments made in the RfC I will not claim the close was correct or not. I will say the current sources for white nationalist in the lead certainly would be consistent with the claim but they do not, in my view, rise to the level of wiki-voice, especially since this is a BLP article and as such we must err on the side of caution and attribution. I think only a few specifically state she is a white nationalist (vs makes claims that are consistent with white nationalist talking points). This is exactly the sort of case where we need LABEL (or similar) to make it clear that we always err on the side of attribution when making contentious claims about living people. This is also just the sort of example Masem has warned about. Yes, some RSs specifically call her a white nationalist. Others say she is presenting ideas consistent with (or similar pharsing) but they don't specifically call her a white nationalist. Does this really rise to the standards where we should be able to call her a white nationalist in Wiki voice? Springee (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

How is "white nationalist" a contentious claim? –dlthewave ☎ 23:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? Per Label, "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist," It's contentious because it's value laden. It does not have a clear definition as there isn't an obvious line in the sand definition. It seems we are largely in agreement that if the description is universal and stands the test of time we should use it in Wiki voice. I think (hope) we can agree that "white nationalist" is a value laden label. Has it been demonstrated that the label is absolutely universal? I did a news search for her name and found plenty called her far/alt-right but white nationalist? None said she was though a Guardian OpEd said she made white nationalist claims. In fact this Guardian source said, "Southern, a Canadian film-maker and YouTube personality frequently described as a “rightwing provocateur”, has previously rejected claims of being a “white nationalist”, while speaking out against the “cult” of multiculturalism and criticising Muslim immigration into western countries." So they acknowledge it has been said of her and she has rejected the label. They didn't say it in their own voice. This is exactly the sort of cherry picking use of sources to put in value laden labels that editors have been concerned about. Regardless of where the change is made, we shouldn't allow editors to take non-sky is blue evidence and turn it into Wiki voice, especially when we are dealing with BLP subjects. Springee (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The idea that value-laden terms are inherently contentious is debatable; MOS:LABEL even says "may express contentious opinion" (emphasis mine). Consensus at the Southern RfC was that we can still use "white nationalist" even if the subject rejects the label because of course she would. –dlthewave ☎ 03:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You can take issue with my use of the word "contentious" but I'm not sure how you would reasonably argue that "white nationalist" isn't a value-laden label given that "racist, sexist, terrorist" are on the list. The RfC correctly concluded that the lead could include white nationalist. It is less clear if the non-admin close was correct to say attribution was not required. Non-admins closures are not supposed to ignore policies or guidelines. Regardless, this is a perfect example of a value-laden label being applied in wiki-voice based on sources that often don't apply it directly or in their own voice (see my Guardian example). Per the BLP Arbcom case, , "do no harm" needs to apply. Attribution vs wiki-voice is part of how we "do no harm". Springee (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I never said that "white nationalist" isn't value laden. –dlthewave ☎ 04:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. Do you feel that, as applied in the Southern article, the use of the value laden label, "white nationalist", is in compliance with WP:LABEL? Springee (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not Dlthewave, but the lead of Lauren Southern respects WP:NPOV, the actual governing policy in this area, and that should decide the question per level of consensus, no matter what tortured argument you want to make about non-contentious value-laden labels. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That the lede includes mention of "white nationalist" which is a term/label used in several RSes is reasonable, but the problem is as Springree is trying to point out, and to what my point is, is that it is not a wide-spread term used near universally among sources, and because we are still in a period that RECENTISM would apply, it would be inappropriate to take a smaller subset of sources stating the term as reason to use the term in wikivoice without attribution. The threshold of when we can make that distinction between when attribution is needed and when it is not is what is very much absent from NPOV even though the implication is there that a near-universally agreed on view can be said in such a manner -- having the establishment of this threshold in NPOV, not only to deal with LABELS but for other viewpoints, would help tremendously to prevent the problem with situations like at the Lauren Southern article. --Masem (t) 01:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

As I eventually get around to saying in most of these discussions, it is factually incorrect to construe sources not using a particular label as creating "contention" or dispute about that label, unless they use a contradictory or otherwise opposed label. I don't see any (non-MANDY) dispute about "white nationalist" as a label for Southern, certainly not among reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, we can not assume that sources that don't use the label would disagree with its use. However, you would be incorrect if you claim that sources that don't use the label and don't dispute its use thus agree with the label. That is an informational blank which we just don't have. Furthermore, it does raise the question, is this label widely used? As an experiment I did a news article search for Southern and then looked at the first 10 hits. The Atlantic more or less supported calling her a white nationalist and so did an OpEd in the Guardian. A non-OpEd in the Guardian instead said that others had called her a white nationalist and that she denied it. Note that isn't in Guardian voice so it would never support putting such a label in wiki-voice. Note that most of the sources I found called her either far or alt right in their own voice. This is the problem Masem mentions, yes, when you do a key word search you can find examples that support "white nationalist" does that reach the level of near universal use? Not in what I can see. As you said, we have a gap where sources don't refute but they also don't directly support. This is a BLP (which is a policy equal to NPOV in importance) and right at the top of that policy it says, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. ". That is why we err on the side of attribution or not mentioning a label even if we have sources that say the person is a white nationalist (or transphobe). MANDY doesn't really apply here (not that it should ever apply). First, we have RSs that say Southern disputes the label thus per NPOV her disputation should be noted. Second, MANDY doesn't say anything about putting a value-laden label in wiki vs attributed voice.

So to summarize, BLP is policy and says err on the side of caution. That sources don't refute the use of a label can't be taken as support for use in wiki-voice. MANDY is a crap essay. Springee (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: we have RSs that say Southern disputes the label thus per NPOV her disputation should be noted - what passage of NPOV leads you to that conclusion? It seems rather hasty (as well as flatly contradicting MANDY :P). Newimpartial (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Common sense contradicts MANDY. Fortunately it's an essay and often one used as a last hope when good rational doesn't exist (if it did why would anyone suggest using it?) Using my previously mentioned quick survey of 10 sources I found I think two included a statement that Southern disputed the WN label. I found one that said she was in their own voice (an OpEd thus not a wiki-RS), one that attributed the claim and I think two which talked about her associations with/promoting of tropes that are frequented by white nationalists. So based on that quick survey I would say the sources that support the label are just as strong as the sources that feel the need to point out that she denies it. Certainly we can't honestly say it is NPOV to say "RS say it" but ignore that RS also point out that she denies it.

MANDY is a last hope essay when the sound arguments have left the room. It presumes we are well enough informed to know that a subject is guilty and thus we don't have to given them a fair hearing in the court of Misplaced Pages. For example if female swimmers who are concerned about a trans women swimmer are denounced as transphobes we should take their denial as further proof they are transphobes. Trotsky would be proud. Let's take this to it's slippery conclusion. If I am accused of walking on the moon and deny it that must be further proof that I have walked on the moon. Value laden labels are subjective even if we can agree on the extremes (how may grains of sand in a hill? Where is the racist line? Where is the x-phobe line?) This isn't a case of using ABOUTSELF to report her reply. This is RSs saying she denies it so yes, per NPOV and BLP we should include it. Again, BLP is policy. Springee (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that wasn't my question, though. I understand your source analysis and balance argument (which doesn't seem to relate to LABEL but proceeds quite well without it). But you also said, we have RSs that say Southern disputes the label thus per NPOV her disputation should be noted, and I am not seeing the logic there. We have sources saying "Southern is X" and we have another (smaller) set of sources saying "Southern denies she is X". What is it in your reading of NPOV that would require the inclusion of the latter piece of information? I understand that to be what you want, but I'm not seeing the policy rationale. If we had RS saying "Southern is not X", or course NPOV would require that we present the matter differently, but that is exactly what we don't have in this, and similar, cases. Newimpartial (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

WEIGHT would cover it. Hers is a clear minority view but since sources decided to mention it as such, we should as well. That also complies with BLP since it allows the reader to know this is a claim she disputes. Hopefully we can then provide the evidence sited by sources. Of course it's better if we put more emphasis on the actual things that caused the label to be applied rather than, as is too often the case, trying to make sure the label is front and center. Springee (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

So this is the time on Sprockets when we dance part of the discussion where editors propose that Hopefully we can then provide the evidence sited by sources, in order to second-guess the RS, presumably. Now in the case of Lauren Southern, the sources have very good evidence - she made one of the most prominent white nationalist "documentary" films of the last decade or so - but even in this case it just isn't our job to relitigate attributions that are uncontroversially made in well-established, reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Since I haven't watched the film I will have to take your word for it. Still, NPOV, LABEL, BLP etc don't say we use a value laden label because we know it to be correct. That is the gap here. We are applying a label in wiki voice that most sources do not apply in their own voice but that is OK. Our rules don't need to apply here because she's a bad person. Springee (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, nobody in this discussion is proposing that Our rules don't need to apply here because she's a bad person. That is at least a straw man, and more likely an AGF fail - if not a CIVIL violation. Does anyone besides possibly Southern herself question that she is a white nationalist? I am not aware of any RS going so, but Springee, if you were to point to some, that would move the discussion forward. Sources that simply do not use that term do not, however, call its use by other sources into question.

And while I recognize your belief that MANDY is a last hope essay when the sound arguments have left the room, I don't think the community of WP editors generally agrees with this characterization. The (quite rational) kernel of MANDY is that of course people deny things about themselves that are factually accurate but that might cause loss of reputation to admit, so the denial does not necessarily create a "both sides" situation about what reality is. You can disagree with reality as much as you want, Springee, but as an epistemological realist I'm here to tell you that it is what it is. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone besides possibly Southern herself question that she is a white nationalist? It is not whether anyone questions that, it is an issue of how frequency or common in the sources is she referred to that way, particularly those purported to be factual reporting pieces. If nearly every source about Southern calls her a white nationalist then we're probably right to say it without attribution. But if its only a small fraction,, we better use attribution, or even consider how DUE that might be (which probably still is due in her case). Instead, we have cherry picking of a couple of sources to make the leap to use labels without attribution which is a major problem. See my comment immediately below for where this needs to be resolved first. --Masem (t) 17:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, I am not taking an extreme position here: I agree, for example, that more well-attested terms should be presented in wikivoice and terms that are undisputed but not widely-used should receive in-text attribution. I'm not sure what side "white nationalist" falls on in the Lauren Southern case: to me, a "documentary" that is widely recognized by RS as "white nationalist" provides additional support (re: WEIGHT) for the use of "white nationalist" for its major creator, even beyond the sources that literally say "Lauren Southern is a white nationalist filmmaker" (we do, of course, need the latter kind of sources to avoid SYNTH, but they aren't the only relevant sources).

What I don't ever agree with is comments like Springee's over at Talk:Lauren Southern, where he recently proposed that not only the less frequently used "white nationalist" but also the near-universal label "alt-right" should be given in-text attribution because of an apparent MANDY denial. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You have confused unrelated paragraphs. Please note the difference in indentation and the two signatures. My comment on MANDY was related to the comment immediately above mine. It only related to excluding Southern's reply to her critics. Note the next paragraph is less indented indicating it was in reply to a different edit/editor. It says nothing about MANDY but does cover the question of attribution. If you looking a diff/see changes sometimes the indentation is easy to miss. Springee (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

So then, what is your rationale for deeming alt-right and white nationalist "contentious", if it isn't the MANDY denial? Facts about which all RS agree can't be "contentious" no matter what one may otherwise believe about epistemology. (My interpretation that you were using the MANDY denial as a rationale for "contentious" was one of my frequently off-base attempts to AGF; clearly I should rely on Occam's razor more often.) Newimpartial (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Facts about which all RS agree can't be "contentious" no matter what one may otherwise believe about epistemology. That's not really true, particularly given that we have systematic severed much of the right-leaning sources from being RSes. For example, in the current debate about Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law, nearly all RSes are critical of the bill, but the right-leaning side of America praise it, which is documented in these sources. Any views about the bill from what we have deemed as RSes will be contentious because doesn't consider all possible views. Now, what is important to consider is RECENTISM as in the short term we should not be trying to decide which is the most prevailing view in RSes, but instead documenting such controversies and avoid going too far into opinion and analysis (which usually also means avoiding labels as well). With the passage of time, and looking at the ten-year view, then we can start looking at how the situation around a controversy has gelled in RSes published since then, at which point it would become reasonable to focus on one side of the issue if that's the only major view given in that long-term view. It should onlybe in the long-term view that we can decide it is appropriate to state views (including the use of labels) in wikivoice w/o attribution. --Masem (t) 05:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I'm sorry you confused how talk page indentations work. Again the paragraph critical of MANDY had nothing to do with the paragraph that said "alt-right" and "white nationalist" are value laden labels. Perhaps if I did those as separate edits it would have been more clear? Alt-right and white-nationalist are clearly labels to which LABEL applies. Sadly we are simply spinning and spinning when replying to one another. Perhaps you can re-read Crossroads well thought out reply to your question. They said it better than I was. Springee (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Springee, I do understand how indentations work (and have since before Usenet days); I simply do not understand your logic. LABEL says that valie-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion - not that they necessarily do so - but you wrote (in the diff I linked above): This is a BLP and such contentious claims are absolutely unacceptable in Wiki voice. But you haven't shown any claim to be contentious ... if you are under the missapprehension that repeated assertion is a form of proof, it ain't. Newimpartial (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Again this is getting very repetitive. The labels in question clearly qualify as value laden. Often we will say they are contentious claims for this reason. I probably could have been more clear if I said value laden at that time. They are also contentious for the reasons Masem laid out just a few edits back. I can grant that "Atl-right" might have sufficient sourcing to use in Wiki voice (but LABEL suggest otherwise) but "white nationalist" does not. There is no misapprehension here, at least not on my part. I guess assuming MANDY was related to the value laden labels thing was a misapprehension but following the indentations should have addressed that. Again, this is getting repetitive. Springee (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The labels in question clearly qualify as value laden. Often we will say they are contentious claims for this reason So, if it is value-laden, it is automatically contentious? We cannot say Hitler was a Nazi, we cannot say the Unabomber killed people, we cannot say Putin started a war, we cannot say anything that makes people like or dislike someone except with attribution?

If that is not what you are saying, then you did a very bad job in saying whatever you are saying. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

HG, what brings you to this discussion? I'm sorry that in your opinioin I've done a bad job. The Hitler Nazi example has actually been previously discussed and your argument is actually rather poor since we can show things like Hitler was a member of the actual NAZI party and the Unabomber actually sent bombs that killed people. Your understanding here is quite confused. Springee (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I have been in this discussion since March 2. Please WP:FOCUS.

Hitler was a member of the actual NAZI party and the Unabomber actually sent bombs that killed people It does not matter what is true, only what is verifiable. See WP:TRUTH. But this discussion is about whether value-laden-ness is even stronger than verifiability. If you are right, those things are automatically contentious and must be attributed. In other words, if it matters whether they are true, then you are wrong and they are not automatically contentious. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the comments from editors who wish to discourage the use of labels and who insist that editors must always "use in-text attribution", I think that there is a general theme of equating "value-laden labels" and "words indicating a rejection of political positions promoted by the US progressives/lefties".

The examples given are about calling people white nationalist/transphobic/neo-Nazi. There are no examples given to object to labeling people as holding the opposite positions (e.g., anti-racist, straight allies, anti-fascist). The underlying assumption seems to be that it's disreputable to hold right-wing positions. I do not think we should make right-wing views some sort of dirty secret that can't be mentioned, or that can only be mentioned if the sources are overwhelming, and even then, you need to pretend that it's merely the personal opinion of a small group. That's not my idea of being neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This is an apples to oranges analogy. The latter group of labels are usually proudly claimed by those who hold them, while the former are a mixed bag, but are often or even almost always used as snarl words or by ideological opponents. Crossroads 04:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true in your culture, but in other parts of the world, publicly supporting gay rights can get you shunned or worse, and people who oppose fascism are considered unpatriotic and anti-government. Positions endorsed by US progressives are, in many cases, the opposite of the positions endorsed in all but the richest of countries. Look at LGBT rights in Nigeria: almost everyone in the country opposes gay rights. In a sizeable part of the country, gay men can be stoned to death; in the rest, they are at risk of spending 14 years in prison. I would not be surprised if the tiny number of people who support gay rights want to hide their views. Sixty million Nigerians speak English and are therefore likely readers of this wiki. The words you see as proudly claimed virtues would look like snarl words to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that someone who took a negative view of others supporting gay rights would be unlikely to refer to those supporters as "straight allies". (I have occasionally seen "homosexualist" used as a derogatory label in this context.) Cheers, gnu57 15:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't find it quickly, but does anyone else remember the editor who turned up at one of the dramaboards some years back to demand that editors allow him to put "I am homophobic" on his user page, because he really was homophobic, and he thought it was important for other editors to know that? We don't permit such messages in userspace. It wasn't Sla20va (whose userpage I'll blank in a moment), but I can't find the discussion I'm thinking of. Anyway, the relevant point is: It's a big world. A label you think is derogatory is one that others will proudly claim, and vice versa. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

we have systematic severed much of the right-leaning sources from being RSes So, suddenly, unreliable sources get a vote because almost all American right-wing sources have become unreliable? Here, too, if that is not what you are saying, then you did a bad job in saying whatever you are saying. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No AGF or civil violations here. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that many/most editors when presented with an "on the fence" sort of decision will lean in the direction they subjectively feel is correct. As for MANDY, the problem is you are suggesting we are sufficiently informed to make subjective decisions. When does someone become "tall"? Is anyone above average tall? What about 75th percentile? Do we need to wait for the 90th percentile? Does the answer change if we ask people who are in the 25th percentile vs 80th percentile? Here MANDY is being called when the subject isn't binary. We have a value laden binary label (is or isn't labeled "white nationalist" but is based on a gray scale. You say that shade of gray is basically black. Someone else says it's not black. Per MANDY we can ignore a claim that dark gray isn't black because well, we think it is close enough to black. You are arguing that we can do that even though RSs say "she refutes the label". If this were a case where the line is clear (people who have been convicted of a felony) it would be easier to accept a MANDY like justification. When we are dealing with shades of gray and RSs say she disputes the label, well we should to. That falls nicely in line with BLP's "do no harm" philosophy. Do you think BLP is wrong to say we should use caution? Springee (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I certainly do think we should use caution, and I don't see anything in this section (or in MANDY) agitating against caution, either. But I don't accept shades of gray as a reason to change our WP:V or other core policies. Whether a label is clear or a matter of dubious certainty is a matter for the RS like everything else, and I don't see "caution" in your attempt to promote a rigid version of LABEL while denying the principle of MANDY. If Southern says she is charcoal, not black (to use your awkward gray scale metaphor) that wouldn't be any more germane than if she said she were green: reliable sources (like those about her being part of the "alt right") still get to decide, not the BLP subject.

As far as things that are or aren't binary, let's stick to your height metaphor. If the sources describe, say, a female soccer/football keeper as "tall" at 5'9" (or 1.75m or whatever) and the subject says in an interview, "compared to male keepers I'm not tall", that would not affect either her height itself or the way WP should describe her height, as far as I can tell. "Tall/not tall" employs the same logic as your shades of gray metaphor, so I hope this example clarifies things for you. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Height works as an example but I don't think you really made a point with your example. Yes, "tall" can be context dependent. A "tall" 8 year old is unlikely to be "tall" compared to an adult but more to the point, many of these labels, even ones like "white nationalist" lack a clear, binary definition. Is 1.8m tall, what about 1.85 or 1.9? I think we would all agree that 2.3m is tall and 1.45 is not. That is our gray scale but we don't have a line in the sand when something becomes "tall". The same is true for something like "white nationalist". We can certainly agree when things are going in that direction but the location of the actual line is not clearly defined. Many will say 1.85m is tall but someone who it 1.85m may not agree and say they aren't tall. Is that because they aren't or just because tall isn't exactly defined. Note that tall is typically not seen as a negative but if we were talking about short, well perhaps someone would dispute a claim that they are short. If Tom Cruise says he isn't short should we claim MANDY? Springee (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you grasped the point of my example. Misplaced Pages describes people as tall/alt-right because reliable sources describe them that way, not based on any absolute scale. We don't conjure up an on-wiki contextual filter to decide what is or isn't tall/alt-right; all we do is evaluate the WEIGHT of the sourcing. And re: your final example, if the RS were to describe Cruise as short, then BLP policy would not entitle him to a denial, and attribution for both sides, in article text. In that sense yes, MANDY would apply. Newimpartial (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

We have two topics, MANDY and attributed labels. Yes, when sources describe a subject as tall/short we should as well. However, should we do it in Wiki-voice or with attribution. We have some sources that say, "she is tall" others say "she has been called tall" other say "she". So do we put "tall" in wiki-voice or not? I would say no because sources don't uniformly call her tall in their own voice (1/3 of sources in my example). 2/3rds either make the claim or say others have made the claim. 1/3 don't mention it at all. In my book that means we have enough to make an attributed claim. When a BLP says, "I'm not short" and several sources note they said they aren't short, do we ignore that or say RSs make the statement of fact that the BLP subject has made the semi-subjective claim that they aren't short? Yes, they felt it was important to report her denial of height, we should to. Springee (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, your book isn't Misplaced Pages, and you haven't offered any policy support for your personal thresholds re: attribution. In my book, if one third of sources call a person "short" in editorial voice, another 1/3 gives attribution and the final 1/3 says nothing about height - then the statement that the person is short is, in fact, uncontroversial so we should say "short" in wikivoice. This doesn't change if the BLP subject offers a MANDY denial of shortness - attribution would only be required if the number of sources saying "short" or "said to be short" were much smaller in relation to the total, or if some reliable sources stated that the subject "is actually not short at all" lol. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Fortunately LABEL is part of the wiki book and it says attribute when dealing with contentious claims. That a person denies being short can count as a disputed claim but we would discount the weight we give it since the person is involved (that doesn't mean automatically give it zero weight). Anyway, given the hypothetical height sources I can see you have ignored BLP because you err on the side of putting things in Wiki voice when only a minority of sources said tall/short in their own voice. Consider another case. Let's suppose 2/3rds of sources say "Tom C is often descried as short". 1/3 say nothing about height. Would you suggest that is sufficient to write Tom C is short in wiki voice? It would be logically consistent with your previous 1/3 1/3 1/3 based argument. Springee (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I have more angels on the head of my pin than that: if no sources say "short" in their own editorial voice, then neither should we, but we should say "often described as short" where that follows the clear WEIGHT of the sources - which would also be a LABEL violation if short were considered "value laden", since it doesn't actually provide proper in-text attribution. Which, for me, is yet another place where LABEL breaks but BLP, NPOV and INTEXT have it right. And I don't see any justification in WP:BLP itself for sources not mentioning an undisputed fact being used as a pretext to couch a fact as an attributed opinion. But you seem to have an, err, "unique" reading of what BLP requires.

Lest anyone think my support for "often described as" is some kind of pretext, I have previously argued for precisely this style of language for real cases similar to the hypothetical one at issue here. Newimpartial (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's go back to that 'one third of each' thought experiment. At minimum, if there are just as many sources putting a LABEL in attribution than there are using it in their own voice, then per BLP's requirement to err on the side of caution it is absolutely not proper to then seize on that 'own voice' half and demand that the article side with them against the others. It is against WP:WEIGHT. And how to account for that last third depends on how they discuss the person. If they have nothing to do with the aspects of the person's activity from which the LABEL arises, they can be disregarded; but if they do discuss it but do not feel the need to bring up the LABEL at all, then yes, they must be accounted for.

Sources choosing not to endorse or even mention a LABEL absolutely is a choice and must be accounted for. Disregarding such sources completely rigs the analysis in favor of LABELing and is simply not neutrality.

And WP:MANDY is indeed a crappy essay. Some editors cite it like it's policy, but it is the furthest thing from it. It was only created in November 2019, well after the eruption of the culture wars in the mid-10s, and has been used as a cudgel in service to them. It contradicts actual policy, found at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of Living Persons#Denial. It notes that "Newspapers typically give the subject the last word" but advocates we ignore what these RS say and not include it. This isn't to say that a person's denial must have equal weight in an article - just that 'we can exclude their denial' is not tenable. Crossroads 03:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, your premise appears to be that if an RS attributes a label - even without noting any contrary view or disavowal by the subject - they are somehow contesting the application of the LABEL. This seems to me to be nonsense highly speculative. I don't think there is anything uncautious about adopting in wikivoice any labels that are not contested within RS discourse. If a reliable source, to use the earlier example, provides the precise height of Tom Cruise without referring to him as "short", that cannot reasonably be interpreted as evidence against that descriptor - it is simply non-evidence, the same as a source that doesn't mention his height at all.

As far as WP:MANDY is concerned, I know that the essay is controversial among editors with certain perspectives. However, I have seen much more support for it than opposition on-wiki. Indeed, it would be fun to test the hypothesis - which I find quite plausible - that more editors support the MANDY principle than support LABEL in its current form. Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if half or more of sources mention a label but don't use it - a use/mention distinction - then it is not WP:DUE to use the label in wikivoice. It's cherry-picking. And such sources almost always discuss those who disagree with the label anyway.

Suppose person X is called a transphobe by PinkNews and LGBTQ Nation, but X's comments on transgender topics are discussed in the New York Times, Guardian, Washington Post, and CNN. These four mention that X has been accused of transphobia by such and such LGBTQ advocates, but report all sides in the controversy and never call X that themselves. Should Misplaced Pages contain the text "X is a transphobe"? If not, why not? Crossroads 05:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

In your example, I don't think Misplaced Pages should include "X is a transphobe" because that would under all circumstances be poor encyclopaedic writing, just as we would not say "X is a homophobe". In this instance, I would use "X has widely been accused of transphobia" because this is a factual statement backed up by all sources.

This really does depend on the case, though. If the pattern of (editorial voice or attributed) sourcing was the same but the term in question was "anti-gay activist", I would go with "anti-gay activist" in the absence of sourcing that actually casts doubt on the applicability of the label. To me, personally, the term "homophobic" is more difficult to use objectively (outside the context of psychological analysis) than "anti-X activist" regardless of what X is. Newimpartial (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on the hypthetical (two biased sources making the claim, several neutral sources nothing the claim) I think "widely" would be overstating. "X has been accused of..." is more appropriate. Springee (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I don't accept the characterization of LGBT sources as biased and mass-market outlets as neutral. I doubt that many editors would accept this characterization. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's accept that. You still have the majority of sources saying described as, not "widely described as" thus we can't imply this is a widely held view. Springee (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

While this isn't the first time I have heard the argument that "even if all available sources either apply term Y or note that others apply term Y, we cannot say, 'widely described as' term Y", I have never been able to understand the rationale for this. If all of the RS said either that the earth is flat or that the earth is described as flat, I don't see why we couldn't note that the earth was widely described as flat. Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a simplified example will help. We have 10 people (P1 to P10). P1 says it's a hot day. P2 through P10 say, today was described as hot because P1 said it was. Would you say the day widely described as hot? No because only 1 person described the day as hot. The others simply referenced the first. We don't multiple sources describing what a single or few sources/people said as "widely". The reason is, as an encyclopedia we should never overstate a claim. We err on the side of caution when making claims, even ones that aren't value-laden like Wednesday was a hot day. Springee (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a bad example. How do you differentiate between people who agreed with P1 because P1 simply said it, versus people who agreed with P1 because it is hot and P1 simply said it first? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

That is what makes this a good example. We don't know why P2-P10 said the day was described as hot. They might have done it because they agree. They might be neutral on it and are just passing along the information. They might be doing it to show disagreement. We don't actually know unless they say as much. It's OR on our part to assume and then edit based on that assumption. If the source isn't willing to put the claim in their voice we cannot upgrade it from an attributed claim to one in Wikivoice. In effect we are putting the fact that it was described rather than the fact itself in Wikivoice. Springee (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

(e-c) This is a great example, except that in your example the remaining sources only offer the description because P1 said it was. This isn't true of my flat earth example, though, nor is it true of any of the "anti-X activist" or "Z-phobic" examples we have been discussing. In the set of cases I have been taking about, we have roughly as many sources making the attribution in their own editorial voice as we have attributing it to (specified or unspecified) others. Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

If the source says they endorse "it was hot" then it's no longer P2 reporting on what P1 said, rather it's P2 saying it but that takes more than just saying, "sources described it as hot". With our 10 people what percentage do we need before we describe it as hot in wiki voice? I'm not sure, certainly more than 1 (assuming "hot" were a value laden term vs just a description of the weather) but less than all 10. Springee (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This is an unrealistic, artifically constructed example. If the day was not hot or even the hotness is dubious, then there will be sources among the ten which say that P1 is wrong or dubious. There will also be Misplaced Pages editors who disagree with P1 and find other sources which do. As a result, P1's opinion will definitely not end up being stated in Misplaced Pages voice, no matter how this discussion ends. On the other hand, if it was hot, then there is nothing wrong with stating it in Misplaced Pages voice. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Simplified examples are often an effective way to to illustrate a point. Pick up a copy of Cooter and Ulen's Law and Economics text book and you will find many such examples. You are correct, if "hot" is disputed we should expect a source to specifically dispute it. However, what if hot isn't seen as overly important? What if there is a source that disputes it but we haven't found it? What if "hot" was defined by someone who was used to Norwegian vs Saharan weather? We can speculate why sources chose to attribute vs state in their own voice but we need to be careful we don't tread into OR when doing so. I will grant that "hot vs warm vs cool vs cold" is unlikely to be considered value laden or contentious but, as I said, simplified examples are often helpful to illustrate/discuss a point. Springee (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

But WP:BIASEDSOURCES do exist. So in this matter, which sources are BIASED, and how do we tell? I agree that sources can be BIASED and reliable - but that does affect how we relay their claims. Crossroads 05:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

And this is precisely why we should not change LABEL - it enables this sort of article slant in favor of contentious claims. "X has widely been accused of transphobia" because this is a factual statement backed up by all sources - except none do, as I explicitly noted that 2/3rds of sources say who specifically is describing X as such - LGBTQ activists - and that those same sources "report all sides in the controversy" - i.e. explaining why some disagree with applying the label. The minority of sources using the label in their own voice clearly have an editorial position in line with LGBTQ activists, consistent with the description in the other sources. Widely is therefore 100% unsourced and hence an NPOV and BLP violation, and you supported this instead of an actually accurate attribution to LGBTQ activists. And all this at a guideline RfC where one might an expect an editor to be more careful, let alone in the field. I have zero interest in enabling such edits or disputes and this illustrates why I oppose this effort to water down LABEL. Crossroads 05:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This is actually a strength of your example, because it points out an unexamined assumption of your argument. You assume that sources that report all sides in the controversy and never call X that themselves (your earlier description) therefore explain why some disagree with applying the label (your new specification). In other words, you assume that disagreement over the label is discussed explicitly among these sources. In line with the actual examples underlying this discussion, I did not make that assumption; rather, I specified the absence of sourcing that actually casts doubt on the applicability of the label. I don't think anyone is proposing that the principle underlying LABEL be set aside in cases where there is any debate whatsoever, among quality, reliable sources, of the veracity of the applicability of the label in question. If reliable sources offer a rationale why a label doesn't in fact apply to a subject, then Misplaced Pages should never make that statement in Wikivoice - the problem with the current text of LABEL is that it requires intext attribution even in cases where all sources agree. Your defense of the current text is looking more and more like a slippery slope argument. Newimpartial (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

per BLP's requirement to err on the side of caution it is absolutely not proper to then seize on that 'own voice' half and demand that the article side with them against the others: Not exactly. First of all, you're assuming that the label is at least "contentious", which may not be true at all. It might not even be derogatory. For example: Elizabeth II is kind of short. No sources contradict this. Also, no sources say this is derogatory or a problem in any way.

Should we include it? Hmm, that's a matter of due weight, of course, but I wouldn't usually include height in an article about a head of state (the existence of List of US Presidents by height and a paragraph about Napoleon notwithstanding). It's quite the opposite for an athlete: in those articles, you would usually default to inclusion.

What LABEL currently says, though, is that if you decide that it's due weight to say "She's short", then you have to include in-text attribution for it. You can't just label her with "short"; you have to say "She's short, according to <list of people>". This would be silly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this analogy needs to be put out of its misery. Why would Misplaced Pages start using vague terms like "short" to describe people anyway? Crossroads 05:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

We use that language in hundreds of articles: Mireille Mathieu, Portrait of Isabella d'Este (Titian), Malcolm Marshall, Malcolm Marshall, Abdullah ibn Masud, and more. Why wouldn't we use that language? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

In re: many of these labels, even ones like "white nationalist" lack a clear, binary definition

So what? Nobody ever said that labels can only be used if they have a clear, binary definition. There's no clear, binary definition for lots of labels, such as artist or politician. If the sources use them, then we can use them. If the sources use them widely (e.g., as a primary characterization), then we should present that information as a fact. We might present that fact in different ways (e.g., "Jim Jones was a cult leader" vs "Jim Jones started a cult" vs "Jim Jones founded an organization that is now considered one of the clearest examples of abusive religious cults in modern history"), but there is no rule anywhere that says we can only present facts when all of the words in the sentence have clear, binary definitions.

If we had such a rule, then I'd wish you good luck writing anything about economics. Or music genres. Or at least eight of the 10 articles listed at Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/1. If you think there's a clear, binary definition that separates mathematics from science, or that separates mathematics from philosophy, then you are wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The lack of a clear definition matters when we are trusting that sources were using the same definition/same standards when applying a prejudicial/ negative value laden label. Few subjects would consider it highly problematic to be labeled an "artist" even if the justification was less than ideal. I do some drawing and have produced art. If an art magazine called me an artist I wouldn't protest even though I think most people would find the description innacurate. Would it harm me? Likely no. However, if we stick "white nationalist" on someone's name there is a real concern that, thanks to cytogenesis, news articles may call them a white nationalist because we said so. Such a label most certainly could hurt their prospects of interacting with many mainstream companies. Anyway, like tall/short, white nationalist is not a clearly defined label and some sources may err on the side of using the label because they want readers to dislike the person. They want to scare readers away from the ideas the person is discussing or promoting. As an encyclopedia we should report the facts, not so much the subjective labels in part because those who applied the label may have done so for reasons other than it was a 100% obvious fit. Springee (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should second-guess our sources that way. There are times when we should carefully consider whether a specific source is actually reliable for a specific claim (e.g., if a source labels a religion as pseudoscience in passing, it's probably not reliable for that claim; on the other hand, if it spends some time explaining that this religion claims to be both scientific and factual but it is actually incompatible with the scientific method, then that source could be reliable for the claim that the religion is pseudoscientific).

But: when a label is used in multiple sources that are actually reliable for that specific claim, we should not look at all of these sources and say that my personal opinion is that this is a negative value-laden label, and it's my personal opinion that if this already-widely-used label gets used even more, then it might hurt the person's career prospects , and it's my personal opinion that this definition is unclear, and it's my personal opinion that the applicability of this label hasn't been proven to me beyond any reasonable doubt, so editors shouldn't use this label. That's substituting your personal opinions instead of following the sources, and I know you will agree that this would be unacceptable.

We do have to trust the reliable sources. Trusting reliable sources is part of the deal here at the English Misplaced Pages. If that label is DUE in an article, then you should include it in the article. If INTEXT says that you shouldn't include in-text attribution because that could make a widely used label appear to be just one person's opinion, then you shouldn't add in-text attribution (even though LABEL currently and IMO wrongly says you should). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Even taking that position into account, we still need to be considering the consistency/frequency of use of a label. Take a case of an article where we have 100 sources, all from high quality RSes, which are reasonable in-depth about the person, and that's the exhaustive source search for the person because we're well outside of RECENTISM. If only one source used a label, would we even include it with attribution (per UNDUE?) Probably not. What if 5 do? Then we'd probably mention it, but definitely include attribution. On the other hand, if half those sources mention the label, then we are probably in the range where we can use the label withouh attribution. So at what threshold of sourcing does it take for us to reasonable drop the need to include attribution? We have zero guidance on this at all, and right now, too many editors side on just having to have a few sources to justify this. (Keeping RECENTISM in mind helps to aalso limit disproportionate focus on recent sources). That's what is the issue at Lauren Southern.

And I will maintain that as WP editors we should not be blind to all possible sources, including those we know aren't reliable. We absolutely should know the big picture and general views on all sides, and while we are only going to use sources that are reliable and not create false balance, we need to document those views from the dispassition position and not treat them as "absolutely correct", which is what this stance takes. In time, those views stratify and at which point we have a far better reason to write from the 10-year stance, but we should be tip-toeing around any viewpoint s and not treating any as absolutely in recent events, meaning avoiding such statements in wikivoice and using attribution when necessary. --Masem (t) 04:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of counting the number of sources. Several short news articles that talk about "X" do not outweigh an entire book about "Y". When talking about labels, we have to do the difficult work of evaluating what's DUE in each case – not just count up sources that say X and sources that don't, and definitely not just write zero-exception rules that say every single use of the word neo-Nazi requires in-text attribution no matter what. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This is also where RECENTISM comes into play. A book is likely going to be published some years after an event so it going likely be a more dispassionate coverage, and so if it uses a label, that may carry more weight than news sources written at the time of the event. But if the book is the only source that uses that label compared to all sources, that's still a minor view that we should not include per DUE.

The problem with have right now with this proposed change to label is that there's far too much focus on articles written where RECENTISM would apply and to use the weight of those articles to try to state labels as fact. This is where we should not be trying not to be jumping to these conclusions as fact no matter how much RSes claim to be the case, in the short term. This is the caution that is lacking in NPOV and INTEXT when it comes to expressing views as fact. It obviously makes sense for something that happened 20+ years ago but not something from last week. --Masem (t) 18:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

LABEL doesn't say anything about RECENTISM.

I don't know why you say "there's far too much focus on articles written where RECENTISM would apply and to use the weight of those articles to try to state labels as fact". My focus is on the problem of our advice pages giving contradictory advice. LABEL says that National Socialist Movement (United States) cannot be labeled as a neo-Nazi group unless the editors use in-text attribution for that claim. INTEXT and NPOV say that editors should not include in-text attribution for that claim. Editors should end up with the same result no matter which page they read. Which result do you think is the correct one for that sentence in the lead of that article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not that LABEL doesn't talk about RECENTISM, it is that NPOV doesn't talk about RECENTISM, when that is where it should be a key point. Misplaced Pages should only adapt to accepting these widespread views as attribute-less facts (including if labels should be applied as facts) many many years after events have settled and not in the midst of it. But the steps in how to do that should enshrined in NPOV in the same manner as DUE/UNDUE here. As well as of course making sure some view is wide-spread and not just a cherry-picked stance, label-related or not. Once that is enshrined in NPOV (as it should be) then LABEL automatically follows, fixing the whole issue of this debate. But right now, there is no guidance of when we can make something into a attribute-less fact in wikivoice in NPOV, and that leads to countless problems right now, which fixing LABEL as suggested will not resolve. We need to set the NPOV thresholds first, and then LABEL will naturally follow. --Masem (t) 13:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Masem, you've mentioned several times that INTEXT and NPOV need to be updated. Have you considered starting a proposal for those changes? –dlthewave ☎ 15:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been better to not start this RfC until we had a better idea what a universal solution might be. Springee (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Experience has told me it would be very much inappropriate to start suich a discussion while this one is ongoing as to sploit cthe matter. I'd wait until this one is closed. --Masem (t) 19:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: To be absolutely clear, your position on this matter seems to be the following:

1. You agree that there is a conflict between the texts of LABEL and NPOV
2. You think that LABEL gets it right and NPOV gets it wrong
3. Based on (1) and (2), you think that we shouldn't change LABEL but that we should change NPOV

Am I understanding you correctly? Srey Sros 19:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not correct. My stance: there are times when we can state, in wikivoice without the use of attribution, the near mass-agreement of a subjective viewpoint (including when a label applies), but when this threshold is met, both in terms of the proportion and siognificant of sources, and the recentism aspect of those sources, is not at all documented at NPOV. Because labels can be on-wiki troublesome in their use, it is better to adust NpOV to include this guidance when we can speak in wikivoice w/o attribution first and foremost, which then by necessity must filter to LABEL. The suggested change to LABEL are not addressing this core problem. --Masem (t) 19:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Closer reading of "value laden"

I think the flowchart, as intended and as used in practice, is different than the reading given by the OP.

"Value laden" here refers to whether the applicability and correctness of the label are dependent on value judgements, assumptions or definitions that vary considerably among sources or (importantly) readers of the article.

"may ... contentious" here means likelihood of contention arising from that value dependence.

The running example of "AIDS denialist" applied to Duesberg is not value laden provided that it is accepted as a generally understood term of art. The phrase is not 100 percent clear as to whether it means denying AIDS entirely or the role of HIV in causing it, which the associated Misplaced Pages article resolves by using "HIV/AIDS denialism" as its title. If you accept that bluelinking to the article is enough to resolve the ambiguity then there is no further value (or assumption, definition, culture, language etc) dependence and the MOS:LABEL algorithm as I read it does not stop use of the phrase in Wikivoice.

On the other hand if one tried to label Duesberg with something meaning "responsible for numerous deaths of South African AIDS patients" (whether the exact phrase or a proxy like lethal counselor or angel of death) then even if all sources had such language, it would be contentious by reason of value dependence. Since Duesberg never went out and personally killed people, connecting mass death to him depends on a chain of assumptions and inferences about responsibility, agency, influence, cause and effect; no matter how much the sources may treat the full chain as obvious, a reasonable person or hypothetical reader might not, and the flowchart correctly says to use in text attribution. A wikivoice statement that "numerous sources describe him as..." might also be in the spirit of the current MOS:LABEL wording.

The discussion that ensued here strikes me as discovering an unexploited security hole and then insisting on repairs that create much larger problems. Rewriting MOS:LABEL to allow carte blanche for a consensus of sources to dictate reality where analogous chains of inferences are involved opens a can of worms. It's one thing if sources all agree Duesberg was born in a particular year and quite another if they all agree his actions led to mass death, or that Trump is a serial liar, or other such inferences. The problem is not that these descriptions are negative or necessarily wrong but that they are conclusions which import a lot of logical and conceptual baggage, which I think is what is current summarized as "value laden". Formerly it said "biased" with essentially the same intent. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

What you describe is reasonable enough, but it's not what LABEL is about. The label denialist is called out in LABEL as an example of a value-laden label. The "value" it is laden with is that the view has been judged incorrect. Duesberg is not "the holder of a minority viewpoint", which carries little or no value. He is not a "dissident", which assigns some positive value to him. He is a "denialist", which indicates that his views are entirely wrong, and that he has been judged incorrect to the point of his views being irrational and suggestive of a psychological defense mechanism.

My goal is to get LABEL out of the business of saying when INTEXT attribution is appropriate. We've got a perfectly good guideline over at WP:INTEXT that says when and how to use INTEXT. It happens that what LABEL says about INTEXT does not match what INTEXT says about INTEXT. The simplest solution is for LABEL to just stop saying anything about when and how to use INTEXT, and merely to point to INTEXT as the canonical guideline on when and how to use INTEXT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

LABEL, including the part about INTEXT, is a gloss on some of the instructions from NPOV, mainly the one about "avoid stating opinions as facts" that has an in text attribution directive, so the latter is not logically detachable. The problems you are claiming with "denialist", and what Aquillion is calling a utilized exploit, are based on interpreting "value laden" as (A) an intrinsic property of the words on the LABEL list, and (B) often having something to do with the term being derogatory or "judgemental" as NPOV calls it, so that people can scream about that. My analysis of what LABEL means to say indicates that (B) can be separated from INTEXT by giving it as an additional and distinct reason to avoid words on the list (basically just a pointer to the judgemental part of NPOV); and that (A) should be resolved by indicating that the concept of value laden (or whatever better term might be used in its place) here applies or fails to apply only to particular instances where such a word is used, and is not a property of the word itself. "Denialist", for example, is only used in contexts where it is said that X is a Y denialist/denier, and whether that is value laden depends on X and how well defined is the meaning of "Y denialist". This still leaves a directive to use INTEXT for what NPOV calls statements of opinion, which LABEL calls value laden, and might more accurately be described as "dependent on unstated baggage". Sesquivalent (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Rewriting MOS:LABEL to allow carte blanche for a consensus of sources to dictate reality where analogous chains of inferences are involved opens a can of worm - to be clear, we are required (not merely allowed) to follow the consensus of sources; any interpretation of MOS:WTW that would allow a clear consensus among high-quality neutral sources to be disregarded or downplayed via attribution is incorrect, and any wording that would support such an interpretation is in error, since WP:WIKIVOICE, as part of NPOV, is core policy and ultimately requires that we follow the sources. Even if an editor personally feels that what the sources say is value-laden and therefore does not reflect their personal subjective view of reality, that is not a valid policy argument that would allow us to ignore an overwhelming consensus among sources, and therefore has no weight whatsoever in discussions. The only way NPOV allows us to determine reality is by looking at the sources. And I certainly do not agree that this issue is "unexploited" - many people, in the past, have leaned on the error in this policy to falsely argue that we can attribute things that they disagree with or personally feel are value-laden without presenting any sources to support that reading and without articulating specific issues with the sources that present it as fact. That has to be clearly stopped - arguing that the sources are WP:BIASED is fine; arguing they're not strong enough is fine; showing that there are other sources of equal weight that treat something as subjective is fine (those are the sorts of arguments people should be encouraged to make!) But an argument along the lines of "this is a word on WTW and therefore I'm going to argue that it is inherently subjective and cannot be stated in the article voice regardless of what the sources say" (something that has become unfortunately common recently) directly violates WP:NPOV and is, beyond that, an unproductive way to engage in discussions, both because it has no grounding in policy and because it distracts from examining the sources that we must ultimately defer to to decide article content. --Aquillion (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

NPOV distinguishes opinions from facts and requires they be treated differently, irrespective of the proportion of sources holding the opinion. Whether something is fact or opinion is, for most purposes, a question of fact. Whether something is objective or subjective ("an editor's ... personal subjective view of reality" as you put it) is, for most purposes, an objective question. Questions which are, in most cases, easy to answer. The supposed conflict of in text attribution with NPOV is with the instruction to state in Wikivoice things that are "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions". But the point of value laden as explicated above is that by definition a value laden assertion in that sense cannot be taken to be uncontested fact (e.g., it depends on various inferences or assumptions, as in Trump being a serial liar or Duesberg a killer by proxy), no matter how little controversy it generates in available sources. There is no NPOV problem in using attribution that describes the extent of agreement among sources. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thankfully, WP:NPOV distinguishes between "fact" and "opinion" and not between "objective" and "subjective", which would have been a false dichotomy in this context. I am disappointed to see the assertion here that facts that relate to underlying values (like, for example, historical statements that certain policy initiatives were antisemitic or white supremacist) are supposed by Sesquivalent not to be facts even when (as with much of NAZI policy, or the Jim Crow regime in the US South) their status is essentially uncontested. The idea that such uncontroversial descriptions cannot be made in wikivoice is not supported by actual NPOV policy and strikes me as simply a hangover of unacknowledged Vienna Circle metaphysics on the part of certain editors.

One key aspect that NPOV does identify, which would benefit editors if given more attention in actual discussions about article text IMO, is the injunction to prefer nonjudgemental language. I have the impression that editors frequently appeal to "opinion" or "value"-based objections to terms when their actual objection is that they find a term judgmental, regardless of how well it is sourced. This is presumably how "cult" finds itself on the list at LABEL, for example, since it does certainly not always imply an "opinion" rather than a factual claim.

If we were to be more explicit about the role of judgmental language, I hope we could have discussions that distinguish among multiple terms applied to roughly the same phenomenon and try to evaluate what is more or less judgmental in tone. For example, there might be many instances where homophobic or transphobic appear judgmental to editors in a sense in which "anti-gay" or "anti-trans" do not, in spite of denoting very similar phenomena. I'm not convinced that there are always alternative terms that can be compared in this way, and editors can reasonably differ about what terms are more or less neutral, but if we could shift the terrain to this part of NPOV it might at least allow policy-based discussion. The idea that all value-laden terms are to be avoided or attributed (and the debates I have seen about the inclusion of false or falsely in articles represent an extreme version of this, but correctly reflect that "false" is in fact a value-laden term) is a quagmire into which LABEL would lead us. And the solution cannot be only to carve out areas like pseudoscience where we require that value-laden terms be used when they are, in fact, the correct terms - MOS guidelines should reflect the reality that factual and value-laden statements routinely overlap, according to reliable sources, and get on with making an encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree with this. Words to "watch" are not words to avoid in all circumstances. It's often good to take care when using a term, but sometimes, the right way to represent the facts is to go ahead and use that term. XOR'easter (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That's really a poor poor excuse and shortcut from good encyclopedia writing as to explain why a label may apply to a person or group. That's a major issue with labels in general in that they are terms that may overly simplify complex positions, and using a label without any other context (regardless of attribution or not) is not helping the reader to understand that position. We really should be explaining that instead of someone being, for example, a climate change denier, that they have stated that humans have not contributed to climate change and that current planetary warming is part of a natural cycle. (Assuming we can source this to an RS) That gives far more information than just "climate change denier" does, and is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that we then can't also use "climate change denier" as long as that label is sufficiently used, but using that label alone without further context overly simplifies the situation. And I will say that if we're talking a case that a label like "climate change denier" is used so frequently in RSes, it is pretty much assured at least one or two of those sources are going to explain the person's position, we don't have to go looking for SPS or the like to include that. Its the cases where editors like to cherry pick labels where sources usually don't justify why the label applies, but as LABEL suggests, we shouldn't be using the label in these cases anyway.

Or the tl;dr - labels should never be used without context for explaining the reason the label applies; we want editors to focus on that rather than just outright inclusion of the label and move on from that. --Masem (t) 01:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here. I don't see how anything either Newimpartial or I said contradicts the idea of presenting the context for why a term like "climate-change denier" (or "Holocaust denier", etc.) is applied to a given individual. XOR'easter (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

An issue I've seen far too much in articles is the focus on "well, all theses RSes use this term so we should just present it as fact", but do not address anything about context, which creates the problem with NPOV issues if that context isn't addressed. The whole issue of "a label used by a near majority of sources shouldn't need in-line attribution" could be better answered by focusing more on how we present the context where a label would be used by describing the elements that lead to a label. If we focused more on the label use in the larger context of describing why the label applies, rather than just term-droppping it, it would make more sense what conditions we could present that label without the need for direct in-line attribution. --Masem (t) 02:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• • to be clear, we are required (not merely allowed) to follow the consensus of sources There is nothing that says we are lemmings with respect to mainstream media. We are required to make sure the majority view point is well established per DUE/WEIGHT, but that does absolutely does not mean we take that as fact. Especially in this day and age where the bulk of our sourcing leans left, which is a known systematic bias that we are required to try to work against. This is not saying that the bulk of RS are not reliable, simply that when you put that together with 24/7 news reporting and the rise of accountability journalism that mixes editorial with factual reporting, we absolutely should not be taking every work published by mainstream as fact, we should be able to analyze these sources from a 60,000 ft view of the overall situation to understand where statements are likely opinion rather than fact, and particularly in the case of labels, handle those with care. I'm still of the opinion there's ways we can handle a near-universally shared label among sources to avoid direct in-line attribution listing out 10-20+ works, but the wording has to be clear its not a fact but a consensus derived from multiple sources. --Masem (t) 14:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

    How would you present "a near-universally shared label among sources to avoid direct in-line attribution listing out 10-20+ works"? Cult is in the list. How would you describe Jim Jones in a way that indicates that (a) every reliable source written in the last several decades agrees that he really was a cult leader but (b) you don't want to say that it's a fact that he actually was a cult leader?

    Maybe I'm skipping a step. Do you even agree that it's possible for someone to be a cult leader in actual fact, and not merely as an opinion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

    • Let's start with the fact that the word "cult" in Jones' article outside of In Popular Culture, See Also , and references, appears only 3 times: once in the lead, and twice in the Reactions and Legacy section before the Pop Culture section. We actually do not give any context for why Peoples Temple was considered a cult, or why Jones should be called a cult leader (And Peoples Temple only uses "cult" once.) This is the context issue here. Now we know at the end of the day that yes, Jones and People Temple are templates of how later 20th cults formed and behaved in the US, and RECENTISM doesn't apply at all here, so at some point is likely right that we should likely use "cult" without attribution but that context for its use has to be in the article and its just not there. --Masem (t) 01:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

      You say: We should likely use "cult" without attribution. (I agree with you; especially if those articles were developed to FA-level, this is an obvious use for such labels.)

      LABEL, however, says: "use in-text attribution."

      It is this specific conflict that I want to see resolved. LABEL should not tell people to do something that you wouldn't recommend them to do.

      I think one way to resolve it is to have LABEL demand compliance with INTEXT (and NPOV, too), rather than having LABEL assert "use in-text attribution" in every single situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

      Again, to read NPOV and INTEXT, those do not support converting "mass agreement on the use of subjective language of any type" in "factual statements in wikivoice" either, whether talking about use of labels or other types of quantifications. (WP:SPADE is an essay) Its not an issue with LABEL being wrong, but that we don't have language in NPOV or INTEXT to cover this type of case - but I agree we should. When a significant number of reliable sources share a common opinion about a topic (whether its using a label or other aspect), and this not just from flash-in-the-pan coverage but has been from enduring coverage of that topic (the RECENTISM line has been passed), then there's a good chance we can likely present that in a manner that eliminates the need for inline citation. Whether that can be said directly "X is Y" or alluded to as in "X is commonly said by media to be Y" or some other form is a separate question to be resolved and I am certain there are many possible answers here for this when certain approaches can be used or not. LABEL fits into that but it is not the only part of NPOV or INTEXT that would be effected, and hence why it is a problem at the NPOV/INTEXT level, not a problem at the LABEL level. --Masem (t) 00:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

      Perhaps it is a nature of the discussions I have been involved in, but while I have seen both NPOV and LABEL used as Newimpartial succinctly put above to whitewash certain subjects, I have never seen INTEXT cited as a justification. I have to agree with WhatamIdoing, the problem is LABEL, not INTEXT or NPOV. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

      To take an example that does not involve LABEL, if we have 100-some sources that said "Mozart is one of the greatest pianists of all time", both NPOV and INTEXT state that we cannot simply repeat that in text without some type of in-text attribution because that still is a subjective claim. This is why I say this is a problem beyond just LABEL, because it would obviously and unnecessarily clumsy to have to name drop 100 sources in-line. We should have ways to handle a case like that, as welll as in cases for LABELs where there has been shown to be wide-spread agreement and endurance of the applicability of the label. --Masem (t) 01:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

      Sidewipe9th, the claim of whitewashing is always subjective. Take a case where there is debate if a subject should be called "transphobic" or even be labeled at transphobic with attribution. Newimpartial might view the use of LABEL to as whitewashing. However, other editors, acting in equal good faith, see it as a questionable label. Essentially they would argue it's black washing. Why is one better than the other? How many times has LABEL been used to prevent an article from unreasonably having a contentious label applied in Wiki-voice? Isn't that a good thing? To use a legal analogy, which is better, a legal system that catches more baddies but also captures more innocent people or the other direction, one that almost never falsely accuses or prosecutes but leaves more baddies on the streets? I guess that depends on your own views on morality. Ideally we want a set of rules that "always gets it right" but, often unlike criminal law, this is a big case of gray. If one activist says X is racist, is that DUE? What about when 5 or 10 make the claim? What if 5 or 10 news articles report that the subject was called racist by activist? What if 1 news source says it in their own voice? What if one academic publication says it in the subject is racist? With so much gray which way should we err? I feel in the direction of do no harm since descriptions and justifications can always be substituted for subjective labels assuming the sources actually support it. If the sources don't then we shouldn't use the label. Springee (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

      @Springee: I can think of about 5 or 6 discussions that I have been involved in, where there is sufficient sourcing to state in wikivoice that the subject of the article is transphobic, and LABEL has been used to block those changes. In two of those discussions, it resulted in a truly astounding amount of words being committed on the talk page before participants either left because they were exhausted, or an RfC was opened and consensus was found for that addition. It is not possible to "both sides" this, as that is a false equivalence. If there is insufficient sourcing to establish whether or not the subject of the article is a negative value laden label, then through NPOV and INTEXT it is impossible to blackwash. However because of the way that LABEL is currently written, it is very easy to meet the criteria of NPOV and INTEXT, and still use LABEL to whitewash. That is not a good thing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

      It would be helpful to see those discussions where LABEL is being used to whitewash, both as to judge if "sufficient sourcing" has been shown (more than cherry picking) and how the arguments are presented that say LABEL says not to include. If sufficient sourcing is met (with potentially other caveats like RECENTISM), then the label can be included but attribution should be included. There's also the potential alloways for if there's clearly show near universal use of a label by sources, a potential way to stat that without the need for in-line attribution, but that's the issue we need to discuss with any subjective aspect at INTEXT, not just LABELS. --Masem (t) 17:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

      "Transphobic" is used largely by the gay or trans press with unstated definitions that vary between sources and are much broader than what someone not in the original audience of those articles would normally assume. If past usage of "homophobic" is the average Misplaced Pages reader's mental yardstick then most would interpret transphobic to mean something beyond vocabulary disputes, JK Rowling, exclusion from women's sports, TERF, or a lack of interest in dating trans. If there are cases clearly in the intersection of how all sources and most readers could reasonably interpret the term, such as a violent criminal who exclusively attacks transgender people, then there is no dependence on definitions or value judgements (the dreaded Value Laden), but for things to reach that point there would probably be better options like citing a judicial verdict of hate as a motive.

      Also, because the term is not used in the strict sense of phobia, and its meanings and common usage are still evolving, RECENTISM is relevant not only to particular applications of the label but to the word itself. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

      Sesquivalent, you have repeatedly made reference to sections of academia, medicine and now even the press that you seem to believe are influenced by some sort of LGBTQ movement or agenda and thus are unreliable.

      You have previously argued that we should discount official statements from the world's leading transgender health organizations because you believe they're trans-affiliated and therefore untrustworthy. In that same diff you call for an RS author's transgender identity to be treated as a COI. Here, on an article that provides biomedical information, you argue that we should give equal weight to the opinion of the Stanford chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry (an MD and published expert in the field of transgender health) as we do to the opinion of a freelance conservative journalist with no public health experience or training, because you think the Stanford MD has vested interests. And now in this comment above you argue that we should discount RS usage of a term because you believe those RS belong to some overall grouping of gay or trans press.

      I bring up these past comments of yours because I think they reflect an overall misunderstanding of how we evaluate sources on Misplaced Pages. Evaluations of source reliability are based on community consensus as to editorial practices of fact-checking, journalistic integrity and other factors as defined by WP:RS. Accusing mainstream media, academia, or medicine of a systemic bias and arguing that we should attempt to push back against this reeks of RightGreatWrongs thinking.

      To be clear: the arguments "RS agree that X is Y but I don't think those sources substantiate their arguments enough", "RS agree that X is Y but I don't think they clearly define Y enough in their articles", "RS agree that X is Y but I don't trust the gay/trans press" are not valid arguments against inclusion of a characterization in article space. We follow the sources, regardless of editors' personal opinions.

      As a side note, you may wish to consult a style guide (this is a very commonly used one) for the way you refer to transgender people. In your comment above (and at least once before) you seem to refer to transgender people as trans, as a noun (the plural of "tran", I guess). You've also referred to the state of being transgender as transgenderism. Neither of these are common or accepted terminology, and in the last decade or so the latter has been almost exclusively used by anti-trans activists (see e.g. here). Srey Sros 22:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

      This wall of text does not respond to the comment whatsoever, is totally off topic, and is POVRAILROAD. The summaries of my past comments are extremely tendentious, the attributed positions false, but again, all of that is far off the topic here. Take it to my talk page if it matters so much; it certainly has nothing to do with editing MOS:WTW.

      Personal levels of trust in "gay and trans press" are irrelevant to my comment, and I made no statement about their trustworthiness. The actual claim is that the language used much more frequently in a subculture does not (in this case) share meaning for the same word in the larger population, and Misplaced Pages writes for the latter. Which is a question of linguistics and usage, not bias or politics. Sesquivalent (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

      In re "mass agreement on the use of subjective language of any type":

      Masem, why do you keep going back to this subjective–objective thing? NPOV doesn't. WP:SUBJECTIVE is about "aesthetic opinions", which isn't what LABEL covers. That's the sole use of the word subjective in the whole of NPOV, and it is irrelevant. Whether Jim Jones founded a cult is not an aesthetic opinion. Whether Jim Jones founded a cult is not a subjective question. It is a question of plain hard facts: There are accepted scholarly definitions for cults, there is a factual description of what he did, and either his factual actions line up with the accepted definitions – in which case, he founded a cult – or not – in which case he didn't.

      Every time it seems like we have an agreement that value-laden labels for strictly factual situations should be handled per NPOV, which is unfortunately rather different from what LABEL says, you seem to jump to something irrelevant like "But Mozart might not be the greatest ever" (which is not a value-laden LABEL) and you pound on subjectivity (which is irrelevant). What are you afraid of? Are you afraid that if we say that Jim Jones doesn't need to provide a list of a hundred sources that call him a cult leader, then suddenly WP:PUFFERY will no longer apply to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? That if LABEL says to follow NPOV and INTEXT, then editors might be less afraid of adding well-sourced labels when the policy says it's appropriate? (Not every editor wants that; some editors are think it is rather impolite to call a spade a spade in the mainspace.) What's your real problem? Can you give some examples of articles that you think would be changed for the worse if LABEL said that all articles using value-laden labels should scrupulously follow the directions at NPOV and INTEXT? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

      A significant problem across the board is the trend of editors wanting to rush to characterize a topic rather than write on the objective, neutral aspects of a topic. Characterization of a topic can appropriate but that should be based on sufficient coverage in the sources (eg when DUE is met) rather than the current trend of cherry picking to get the characterization one desires. But even when this basic level is met, characterization should always be presented in a way to take it out of Wikivoice. Now, there can be a point where with the passage of time and near-universal agreement of sources that characterization can become as close to fact as possible (this is the same as a scientific theory being taken as fact despite still being a theory). But there should still be the demonstration of sourcing through a source survey to support that, rather than cherry picking from one or two sources. This is the issue on the Jones pages - the sourcing to call what he led as a cult is nowhere close to impecible to be appropriate for Wikivoice. I don't doubt more sources exist for that, but that needs to be far better documented on our pages rather than being taken as matter-of-fact-ly by giving context to why his group was considered a cult. And no, we don't need a full source list on the page itself, but that source survey should be established on the talk page so that if an editor in the future has a problem, you can point to that. The reason that you should be doing that for Jones is that when we turn to Qanon, as noted above, the sourcing that describes the group as a cult (rather than having cult-like behavior) is not as strong as one may think. A proper source survey would help determine if 1) Qanon should be described as a cult and 2) if so but not by a wide range of sources, which attribution to use.

      Editors think they know what sources say particularly when it comes to labels (including claims 'everyone uses this!', but I've seen analysis of sources prove out differently. Labels are terrible shortcuts from actually explaining to the reader actual events and the like (that can be explained objectively) that led to why a person or graoup is criticized, and we should not be seeking out the use of labels to shortcut that process. --Masem (t) 02:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

      • Writing that a bona fide cult leader like Jim Jones is actually a cult leader is exactly the same thing as writing "the objective, neutral aspects" of the cult leader. Right?
      • You said above that describing Jim Jones as a cult leader should not be taken out of Wikivoice (even if you'd like someone to upgrade the sources on the page, which wouldn't be difficult but which probably is immaterial, because no such upgrade would change the wording here). Right?

      Are we agreed on this much? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

      What is the def of a bone fida cult or cult leader? There is none because it is a value laden term with imprecise, subjective bounds. But in a case like Jones, it should be possible to demonstrate via sources over time that there is near universal agreement that what he ran was a cult and that he was a cult leader, to the point we take that as accepted knowledge. (This is barring the sourcing problems on the articles). But we should make sure that when we state that he was a cult leader it is in immediate context with sources that support these factors, which indirectly serves as attribution for this statement without actually giving that attribution. If it were the case that there wasn't universal agreement about him being a cult leader, but enough to be DUE, then we'd need inline attribution. --Masem (t) 20:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

      The definitions of cult depend on the academic field you're writing for. A sociologist will write in sociological terms (e.g., "threaten the basic values and cultural norms of society at large"), and a theologian will write in theological terms (e.g., "denies one or more of the central doctrines"). They do not necessarily have imprecise or subjective bounds. Many of them have relative bounds, but relative ≠ subjective; you can be taller than your neighbor (a relative statement) without height becoming a subjective factor. But all of the scholarly definitions agree that Jim Jones' organization was a cult.

      You agree that this particular cult leader deserves that particular label, presented in wikivoice as a fact.

      Do you understand that a literal reading of LABEL, as written, says that this particular label cannot be presented in wikivoice as a fact in any article, under any circumstances, no matter what the sources say? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

      What I'm saying is that sufficient time and sufficient dispassionate analysis has taken place since the time of Jones' leadership that while what a "cult" is is still relative or subjective -- and most importantly not objective -- that there is widespread agreement that what Jones ran fell into what nearly all fields considered to be a cult. So yes, this would be a case where we should be able to state that in Wikivoice without having to direct attribute inline. (in contrast, we would have to be careful with Qanon).

      But my point has been is that this is not an issue limited to LABEL, but something that should be addressed at INTEXT to handle a wider set of cases that encompass not only LABEL issues but other cases, such as the "Mozart one of the greatest pianists" cases. Statements that involve language that is not objective but which represented the majority of sources well beyond the period of RECENTISM, where it would be otherwise painful and awkward to have to use inline attribution to support that statement. Limiting it to just LABEL is too narrow a solution. --Masem (t) 05:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think as editors we can be expected to distinguish between clear statements of fact and statements of value in reliable sources. "Mozart was great" and "Hitler was evil" are clearly, on their face, aesthetic and ethical value judgments, respectively. But when it comes to statements that are ostensibly factual claims, but where the language choice may imply a certain value judgment, we have to follow the language use in the sources. It is not compatible with WP:NOR or WP:NPOV to ask editors to second-guess factual claims in sources. If sources truly agree that something is a cult, whether it is Jonestown or Qanon or the Cult of Artemis at Brauron, so must we. If there is significant disagreement in sources as to how to describe something, that should be reflected in the article. But trying to correct for perceived errors in the body of reliable sources as a whole is well into WP:RGW territory.--Trystan (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree that editors can distinguish between statements of fact and value nowadays; we are at a stage and partially here because of editors often cherry picking the use of a label from one or two sources and expressing that must be a fact. Coupled with accountability jounralism that places objective writing on the backburner, we need to be more aware when sources, particularly those close to an event, are speaking in opinion rather than fact. That all said, I am not saying that we shouldn't allow Wikivoice to state as fact a point that nearly all RSes agree on if it came to identifying a topic as a label, but we first of all should make sure that that is what sources in majority say as part of enduring coverage of a topic (the RECENTISM issue) as to make sure we're not capturing heated ideological battles from spur of the moment coverage, and that it should be very much demonstrated via talk pages and reflected in what sourcing is used in the article(s) that this is reflecting a majority of sources through a source survey, instead of editors cherry picking a handful this type of result to claim as fact. --Masem (t) 14:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The antonym of "fact" is "opinion", not "value". If editors really cannot distinguish between fact and opinion even after a discussion, then we should just give up, delete Misplaced Pages:Consensus, protect all the pages, and go home.

You suggest above changing INTEXT. I think that having this information split across on multiple pages leads to drift between the rules. This division is one of the reasons that LABEL and INTEXT give opposite advice for Jim Jones. What I'd like to see at LABEL is that it tells people to follow INTEXT and NPOV, without telling people what INTEXT and NPOV say. Right now, LABEL and INTEXT say different things. If LABEL says to follow INTEXT (no matter what INTEXT says now, or will say in the future), then there will be no discrepancy between the two. I'm here to resolve the WP:PGCONFLICT, not to say that X or Y is the correct approach. The correct approach to INTEXT is something that should be discussed on the talk page for INTEXT. My goal here is only to make LABEL stop contradicting INTEXT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

But again, to stress: INTEXT does not support the idea that if majority of sources claim a subjective statement is true, that WP should report it as true in Wikivoice (regardless if this is a label or not) (only UNDUE covers this type of situation). There is no current conflict between INTEXT and LABEL otherwise. Hence why it would be better to add in cases at INTEXT to handle broadly how we should handle such cases, including what steps should be done before we place such a claim in Wikivoice. Not just to handle the LABEL cases but other situations (such as describing someone that may be speaking of misinformation by a majority of sources, a situation not covered by LABEL but would still fall under INTEXT). I'm talking a broader solution that still gets to a solution you want but also covers a larger similar set of cases beyond LABEL. --Masem (t) 18:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want to start discussions at INTEXT and NPOV about how to improve them, then that's okay with me. My goal here is just to get LABEL out of the business of misrepresenting INTEXT and NPOV. The simplest way to do that is to have LABEL just point to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's use the Jonestown as the example here. I think we are in agreement that (while our articles don't readily include them) there is sufficient enduring sourcing that call it an example of a cult. This is 100% a case that I would agree that PAG *somewhere* should allow us to express this as "Jonestown was a cult" in wikivoice. But INTEXT in context of WP:WIKIVOICE as it currently stands does not allow that since asserting "Jonestown was a cult" still is an opinion - just one shared by a majority of sources as to taken as given. INTEXT should be modified to talk about how to do deal with such "mass agreements vin sources" to avoid having huge in-line attributions. While I understand you think it starts at LABEL, LABEL already points to INTEXT, so adjusting INTEXT to allow this would automatically fix the LABEL issue as well as other cases. --Masem (t) 18:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree that classifying Jim Jones as a cult leader is an opinion. If that's an opinion, then it's also "just an opinion" that that the letter R isn't a vowel in English. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty easy - the definition of a "cult" is not precise nor objective, though there is certainly some core concepts of what a cult can be are reasonably shared. As such, we should wait for both time and critical mass of sources to assure that we're using enduring and near universal agreement that a group is classified as a cult before we take that in wikivoice, instead of just taking a few sources at their word. We can do that for Jonestown but we can't do that for Qanon at this time, for example. Its the same process that scientific theories are taken as fact over time, after mass agreement over time and many many sources. --Masem (t) 20:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The existence of precise and objective definitions is not what makes something a fact or an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

To repeat what was noted above, LABEL is mainly a gloss on a couple of principles enumerated at NPOV. One of those, to avoid stating opinions as facts, says to use INTEXT attribution, so that can hardly be removed here. Both the list of example words and a MOS:LABEL that spells things out beyond merely suggesting to abide by NPOV and INTEXT are necessary. "Cult" is the leading example of a word that should or even must be on a WTW list. Your examples of Jonestown and the like, to the extent they work at all, work because there is a clear and non valueladen (in the sense I explicated above) dividing line, i.e., the leader is able to command the followers to perform murder or suicide, with a nearly 100 percent rate of success. It seems that clarifying what valueladen and contentious are supposed to mean here, maybe by replacing both words with more specific explanations, would solve the problems you are rushing to address by removing material that belongs in LABEL. Sesquivalent (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that cult should be in this list, but I do not agree that the statement that "Jim Jones was a cult leader" is merely an opinion. Therefore – since it is a fact – the bit about avoiding stating opinions as facts (though excellent advice) is irrelevant in this instance.

I do agree that NPOV and INTEXT should be followed scrupulously. I think the better way to approach that is for LABEL to direct say to follow NPOV and INTEXT, and not to say that in-text attribution must be given for widely accepted facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It should not be treated as a "fact", but I would agree as a widely accepted conclusion by most researchers distanced from the event at this point. There is no way to prove that what Jones led was a cult because there are no object tests of defintiions for what a cult is, but we can agree that there likely sufficient sources now that agree it is very much an example of a cult. This is why I keep comparing this to how scientific theory works: we accept the theory of gravity as a "fact" but that's because there's centuries of experiments to show it the most likely explanation and validate it, and there is still a slim chance that there is an alternate theory that may be the true "fact".

It is important that we make this distinction between just saying that we can state a label in wikivoice w/o attribution because its a fact, and we can state a label in wikivoice w/op attribution because it is readily agreed upon by multiple sources is that this then creates the required onus to show that many sources exist to demonstrate this agreement to allow us to use a contentious term in wikivoice. That onus has to be done before this use can be inserted into the article, which currently is not standard practice and instead it is the cherry picking of one or two sources that use a label and thus claim "this must be a fact" that happens way too much. --Masem (t) 06:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay: We have agreed that "we can state a label in wikivoice w/op attribution because it is readily agreed upon by multiple sources" (assuming that these multiple sources represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources", which in the case of whether Jim Jones was a cult leader, they do).

Now: What does LABEL actually, currently, exactly-as-written say about providing in-text attribution for a sentence for which you and I agree can state a label in wikivoice without attribution, like "Jim Jones was a cult leader"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

LABEL doesn't because it points back to INTEXT to tell us that all views should be given in-line attribution. That is what is limiting our hands here, and why INTEXT should be updated to consider cases when there is this near universal agreement for a specific view. --Masem (t) 04:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. LABEL doesn't "point back to INTEXT". LABEL instead "tells us that all views should be given inline attribution", including views that INTEXT says should not be given inline attribution.

INTEXT, as currently written, does not require that we say "Basically every scholar who's written about cults since the 1970s says Jim Jones was a cult leader". LABEL says that. Not INTEXT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

INTEXT still would require inline attribution, because that is still a viewpoint. Mass agreement of a view in sources does not equate to making it fact. (The only place where mass agreement on a view is called out is UNDUE). INTEXT still would require we spell out who made such claims. Which we agree we shouldn't have to, and why INTEXT should explain how to handle cases of mass agreement of a given view without the need for direct inline attribution, whether that is from a LABEL or from other nonlabel facet. --Masem (t) 18:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What sentence in WP:INTEXT makes you believe that INTEXT always requires attribution for anything that can be called "a viewpoint"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Are y'all working towards wording an RfC/wording change or is this just editors trying to communicate their understandings of policy with each other (not that I don't think that's worth doing)? --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

References

1. It is possible for facts to be value-laden. Within medical articles, we see this as the difference between "50% survive cancer" vs "50% die from cancer". They are both objective facts. They are, in fact, both the same objective fact. They both carry values (namely, whether the deaths are more important than the survivals).

RfC: MOS:LABEL

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the first paragraph of MOS:LABEL be changed to the following? –dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and, if used at all, must comply with Neutral point of view and In-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

Current text for reference:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

Springee (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Poll

• Support as nom. This would fix a conflict between LABEL, which currently requires attribution even for descriptions that are widely stated as fact by reliable sources, and INTEXT, which warns against using unnecessary attribution as it can create a neutrality violation by casting doubt on verifiable facts. Best to defer to the P&G here. –dlthewave ☎ 19:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Not a good question It is good to have LABEL, NPOV and INTEXT all align but, what do we do with the output of this RfC? What changes if any would a consensus for support result in here? First, this RfC certainly implies LABEL conflicts with the other two. However, it isn't clear that is true per the discussion above. Certainly if they disagree and to what extent is a point of dispute. Second, even if they are assumed to conflict what should be changed? Should LABEL be updated to match the others or should the others be undated to match LABEL or something in between? I would suggest closing this RfC and formulating a better question. Springee (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  what do we do with the output of this RfC? I'm pretty sure that every editor with your experience level knows exactly what will happen: If there is consensus to change the first paragraph to the proposed paragraph, then someone opens the editing window for LABEL, copies the proposed text, and pastes it in. If there is no consensus to change it, then nothing happens.

  This RFC doesn't imply anything about the two linked pages (and the above discussion states it outright as a view held by many editors, rather than just "implying" it).

  This proposed change sidesteps the question of Should LABEL be updated to match the others or should the others be undated to match LABEL or something in between? by saying that LABEL's going to tell you to go read the other two, which can be changed (or not) by you or anyone else, using the usual processes at those other pages.

  The question for you today is small: Do you personally believe that this proposed text is better or worse than the existing text? It's not trying to solve all the problems for every page. It's just asking if this text might be better. If you think it is even slightly better than the old text, then you should support the change. If you think it is worse, then you should oppose it. This RFC is not asking you what should or shouldn't happen on other pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This makes it much easier to insert contentious labels as claims of fact, and thus abets tendentious editing and the laundering of opinion into "fact" via citing a few opinionated sources. WP:BIASEDSOURCES can be reliable for claims of fact, but opinions do not become fact simply by being in such a source. This is a common issue and will only result in more and worse disputes. When in doubt, it is in actually much better to go with attribution and thus err on the side of caution than to make it easy for opinions that align with editors' biases to be stated as fact.WP:WIKIVOICE is clear: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." This is what WP:LABEL is getting at. If certain terms listed (like neo-Nazi, an example in the discussion above) are widely well-defined free of reference to subjective values, then the issue is their listing in the examples, not LABEL itself.Note that Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts is listed separately at WIKIVOICE; it is not the case that an opinion becomes fact just because no sources bother to specifically contest the opinionated labeling of some factually-reliable but partisan political magazines or similar sources. Crossroads 23:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  The proposal is to defer to NPOV which would include WIKIVOICE, no? –dlthewave ☎ 23:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  The current version of LABEL does not mention that NPOV, including NPOV's WIKIVOICE section, need to be complied with for all articles. If compliance with NPOV's WIKIVOICE section is important to you, then presumably you would support this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, it is much less clear. If this is taken away, POV pushers will simply claim that someone being an X-phobe is a fact and not an opinion. They'd be wrong, of course, but it is much harder to explain, and that gives them more room to deny it and be tendentious. Crossroads 00:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support It is a very good idea to explicitly remind editors about the necessity of complying with NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support the first part, oppose the second. The first is indeed value-laden labels that often are editorializing, but myths should be called myths. Seraphimblade 01:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  The sentence about myths is part of the longstanding consensus version of LABEL. Srey Sros 15:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I will note that NPOV is already linked from the overall page header, while INTEXT specific to the LABEL section, so this would seem to be redundant. However, I am sure that the intent here is more related to how some want to take WP:WIKIVOICE which I have additional comments on later. --Masem (t) 02:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose On the primary grounds that the current text provides a better way to handle contentious labels and it's not clear the current text is in conflict with LABEL as currently written and INTEXT/NPOV. It's arguable that this change is a non-change since it still allows for "best avoided" and "if used at all" could imply the same thing. Fundamentally the issue here is some editors think LABEL is being improperly used to whitewash while others are concerned that without editors will attempt to use Misplaced Pages to blackwash. This fundamentally doesn't have to be a NPOV issue as it hasn't been shown that one can't be both compliant with the current wording of LABEL and NPOV. Without a clear statement why this should be changed and what this intends to fix I oppose the change. Springee (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed change would encourage the use of labels. Labels are uninformative. Encouraging the use of labels encourages editors to think that their purpose in editing Misplaced Pages is to pass judgment, rather than to provide information. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

NB I have deleted an edit by Endwise because I think it violates WP:BLP. Please would other editors review my revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC) @Masem: Please give your view, as an admin, on my revert of Endwise’s edit. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• A couple weeks old, but since this was stylized in a way that drew my attention I checked it out: the supposed BLP violtaion was a hyperbolic hypothetical, so likely not a BLP violation; in any case, it would be better to (a) just remove the BLP violation rather than undo, and (b) not select the specific admin you want to evaluate your action (thankfully Masem is competent as an admin, so didn't take it up). — Rhododendrites \\ 19:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This reads as an attempt to water down defenses against the abuse of Misplaced Pages by those who wish to use the encyclopedia to denigrate people (by calling them racists, perverts, sexists, evil, etc.). The change from are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject to if used at all, must comply with Neutral point of veiw goes from specific advice encouraging avoidance of these opinionated or value-laden labels unless necessary, to advice that is so vague as to be almost meaningless: "comply with NPOV". Okay, but of course replacing specific advice with advice that is meaninglessly vague makes it free to ignore. That is the opposite of what we want – we should seek to avoid the labeling of subjects with opinionated terms like "racist" or "sexual pervert", not encourage it. Similarly, moving from in which case use in-text attribution to must comply with In-text attribution, takes advice which says to attribute opinionated, value-labels to those who are using them, to advice which merely vaguely suggests that perhaps starting articles with "John Q. Citizen (born January 1, 1900) is an American politician, racist sexual pervert and child abuser, and ..." is arguably possibly something you should maybe consider avoiding. That is not the direction Misplaced Pages should be heading. Endwise (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support The current version fails to acknowledge that NPOV requires us to navigate between the Scylla of stating facts as opinions and the Charybdis of stating opinions as facts. It stops us from calling someone a pervert, but also stops us from calling Jonestown a cult. Cleaning up the example list by limiting it to labels that are only ever statements of value and not fact would be one solution, but as the current scope is any label that might be considered value-laden, which may express a contentious opinion, the above change reflects the appropriate guidance.--Trystan (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • We should have, somewhere in PAG, language that says that we can call Jonestown a cult in wikivoice due to the number of sources over time, but we have nothing in PAG that describes how to separate that from using only two or three sources to try to call something out in wikivoice. We need PAG to explain how to make that distinction first and foremost, and that's something above LABEL since it applies to any issue related to viewpoints (such as when we call something "pseudoscience" or "fringe medicine" which is outside LABEL). In other words, the intent here is right, but the solution is not addressing the problem. --Masem (t) 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

    In which case, if we point to those other pages, you can go get those other pages changed to say whatever you think is appropriate, and LABEL will automatically be synchronized with them. But right now, that specific sentence, unlike anything else, says that we can't use any label at all, no matter how well-sourced, no matter how widely used, no matter how obvious the claim, without providing in-text attribution. The old version does not have any exceptions whatsoever to its direct command to "use in-text attribution". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:LABEL supplements rather than contradicts other PAGs and is easy to follow -- if it's true that the label is widely used. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose LABEL is perfectly fine as it is, and making the relation with and references to other policies explicit helps keep them interconnected (an inherently good thing: no Misplaced Pages policy applies in isolation from the others) and avoids misinterpretations from possibly narrow readings of each guideline (as well as avoiding apparent contradictions if either text gets updated without a consequent change in the other). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Support (see previous comment for rationale). Whoever it is that wrote this got me confused and I thought that the proposed text was the one at the bottom... Fixed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Question Am I the only one honestly having a hard time telling the two apart? What, in practice, is the difference between "if used at all" and "are best avoided"? Is the upshot of the proposed change localized in removing the "widely used by" part? On that point, I tend to prefer the suggested replacement, since reminding people about NPOV can't be bad and "widely" is a vague term that can be wiki-lawyered over, but it's genuinely hard for me to tell what the change here is supposed to accomplish. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  The difference is:

  • "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution"
  • "if used at all, must comply with Neutral point of view and In-text attribution"

  The proposed version says that the first sentence of Homeopathy can say "Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine", and the old version says that that sentence is not okay, because even though it is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", it is necessary to "use in-text attribution" always, in all cases. If you read WP:INTEXT itself, you find no such requirement to spam in something like "according to every credible scientist during the last hundred years" while using that "widely used" value-laden label. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  The issue is that no part of NPOV or INTEXT supports the use of wikivoice to make widely-accepted claims to be made as fact without attribution, editors have just assumed that. Not one bit. Attribution is 100% required by a strict read. Of course, there should be cases when we should be able to use wikivoice to make widely-accepted claims as wikivoice fact without attribution, but we need to spell that out first at INTEXT, and then LABEL will fall in line automatically with that. You're assuming a conflict with LABEL when the problem is that you're working on a practice that is not documented at all at this point in the first place that probably should be documented. --Masem (t) 14:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, what? That's nonsense. If it's actually true that no part of NPOV or INTEXT supports the use of wikivoice to make widely-accepted claims to be made as fact without attribution, then we need to re-write every single article from scratch. We'll have to change the first sentence of George Washington to say something like "According to every reputable historian for at least the last two hundred years, George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799) was an American soldier, statesman, and Founding Father who served as the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797", because the current version "uses wikivoice to make widely accepted claims as fact without in-text attribution".

  This is not how encyclopedias work. Facts, including facts like "Jim Jones was a cult leader" and "Peter Duesberg is an AIDS denialist" get reported in wikivoice, not watered down into just someone's opinion.

  BTW, if we don't make the change that you're opposing, then anything you "spell that out first at INTEXT" will not be automatically reflected in LABEL. If you want LABEL to automatically fall in line with INTEXT, then you need to have LABEL say "follow whatever INTEXT says", not "every single instance of the word cult in this encyclopedia requires in-text attribution even if there is unanimous agreement by all reliable sources that this is a fact". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Terms like "soldier", "statesman", or "POTUS" are not points of view. Those are all objective facts and do no need attribution. Whereas what is a cult, for example, still is subjective and is a point of view, but with groups likes Jonestown, we have wide agreement that we should be able to say this without inline attribution, whereas with Qanon, we don't have that and we need to be careful. And that's why INTEXT needs to cover it. LABEL already refers to INTEXT and so if INTEXT is properly updated to account for those conditions then LABEL is already set up to follow already. --Masem (t) 20:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  You wroteno part of NPOV or INTEXT supports the use of wikivoice to make widely-accepted claims to be made as fact without attribution. "Widely accepted claims" is not the same thing as "points of view". "Widely accepted claims" include claims like "George Washington was the fist US president" and "Biden is the duly elected current US president". And it's not difficult to find people on the internet who are willing to argue that the latter statement is merely the misguided opinion of people who aren't in possession of all the facts. Is that "just a point of view" in your books? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  whatamIdoing, ah, so the difference is between "in-text attribution" and "in-text attribution", as it were. Being compliant with WP:INTEXT is more flexible than always inserting explicit attribution, since that guideline counsels against explicit attribution in some cases. Namely, explicit attribution can create a false impression of parity, erroneously suggest that only a single source has made a given observation, and clutter articles with information best left to the references. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  It is not at all correct that "pseudoscience" must always be attributed per current WP:LABEL. It specifically says, With regard to the term pseudoscience: per the policy Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories, the term pseudoscience, when supported by reliable sources, may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science. The solution is not to water down the guideline, but to remove terms that are not opinion but have a widely agreed definition. Crossroads 00:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  But this comment falsely assumes that the problem with terms to which LABEL applies is that they do not have a widely agreed definition, which is not what a reader of either the LABEL guideline nor the discussion so far could reasonably conclude. Many terms that were listed in LABEL even before the last round of additions ("transphobic", etc.) do have widely agreed, even rigorous definitions (e.g., "cult"), but what I think LABEL tried to get at is that they are also used as terms of disparagement, without rigor. However, NPOV (and INTEXT) require that we take uncontested factual statements (which should include certain uses of "cult") out of wikivoice, and LABEL should not allow editors to create friction against this elemental WP principle by pointing to instances where these same terms are also used casually or loosely. This is fundamentally an empirical question concerning the sourcing in particular instances, discissions that should not be sandbagged by editors shaping the rules to fit their own preconceptions. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m puzzled by comments made at various times in this discussion that “cult” can be a factual statement. Cult includes: In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal. This sense of the term is controversial, having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia, and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study. If the Misplaced Pages article on QAnon was to say in Wikivoice that QAnon is a cult, I would not get any information from this – do you mean it’s like Star Trek? or Jonestown? Bear in mind that I’m British, and genuinely know very little about QAnon. This is one of the reasons why I think that the use of labels should be discouraged: they are uninformative. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead of Cult is wrong. It's a word commonly used in modern Egyptology. Cult can certainly be a factual statement. It's also used in modern academic literature, eg Comprehending Cults The Sociology of New Religious Movements by Lorne L. Dawson and published by Oxford Academic Press, among many other publications. There probably are times when we need to attribute when calling something a cult, but there are definitely times when we can say it in Wikivoice. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed – this is another possible meaning of the word. I didn’t mention it because I think that anyone who knows the meaning of the word “cult” in Egyptology would not think that this is the meaning in connection with QAnon. But this is, indeed, another possible source of confusion. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple meanings for many words, but that doesn't make every subject "just an opinion". We usually provide clarification via a disambiguated wikilink (e.g., Cult following vs Doomsday cult) or explain it directly in the text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• A fundamental issue of NPOV is that "uncontested" is taken that to be read "not contested in reliable sources" when it should be based on implicit understanding if the term is a contested term for that situation knowing the situation from a 60,000-ft view as we are from an encyclopedic standpoint. Labels are labels because they are implicitly contestable terms, period, even if you cannot find sources to support specific contested use of that term, and thus should always seek attribution of labels. But, it is absolutely fair to say that, after a significant amount of time and when enduring coverage of the topic is proven out (via a source survey) that there is near agreement that the label is commonly used, that we should be able to use in wikivoice without attribution (as in the case of Jonestown being a cult). The problem is that we have far too many cases when editors say cherry pick a few sources from a recent burst of news and claim that's enough to say its uncontested and make the claim in unattributed wikivoice. That's why there's friction from those defending LABEL because other editors rush to characterize in wikivoice far too quickly. We need a better set of guidance on when we can use unattributed wikivoice first. --Masem (t) 14:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that's true. Labels are labels not because they are contestable, but because some people prefer other labels. Few politicians promote themselves as supporting Climate change denial, but many are happy to call themselves climate change "dissidents" or "skeptics". It's the same fact, just with a made-for-media spin. We put the Misplaced Pages article at the "denial" title instead of the "dissident" or "skeptic" term because that's the NPOV term, even though it's a LABEL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Labels are sloppy shortcuts for actually describing why a person or group is criticized by the media; we should be far more focused on the events and activities as to capture nuiances that the label itself may not actually capture. This is why labels are, def facto, contestable terms and do not require sources to show that there are those that contest them. --Masem (t) 01:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  Labels might sometimes be sloppy shortcuts, but they can often be appropriate, especially when the nuances aren't relevant (e.g., a passing mention to "funded by the conservative Koch brothers" – conservative is as value-laden a label as you can really get, but that doesn't mean its contentious, disputed, or worth explaining exactly how and why everyone says they hold these particular values). Also, labels aren't always about criticizing people. Sometimes they're about praising them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Or more specifically we're missing guidance to judge the balance between the common sense of the "Jonestown is a cult" in wikivoice, and the rush to call Qanon as a cult in wikivoice (instead to document atttributed studies that call it a cult-like groou) based on its recentism. --Masem (t) 14:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  I believe that guidance already exists in NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Not in any explicit form, particularly with respect to enduring coverage and performing source surveys. I've seen far too many BLP/N and NPOV/N discussions run on the basis that since they found 3-5 sources that support a label, we should able to use that label without attribution. That's absolutely the wrong way of going about this, as WP should not be in the business of trying to cram as much characterization of subjectiveness nature into articles over inclusion of objective material that does trip up in NPOV. --Masem (t) 01:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support per User:WhatamIdoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 11:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. "if used at all" is an invitation to come through the 'backdoor' to inject labels in articles. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Pyxis Solitary, the current version encourages the use of widely used labels, saying "best avoided unless widely used" – which, on the flip side, means "use these when widely used". It feels to me like "if used at all" might be slightly more discouraging of using labels like pseudoscience and climate change denialist than the current version.

  The primarily locus of this dispute, however, is over whether widely used labels are always required to say something like "According to scientists" or "According to these 25 sources", or if it's good enough to report the facts as they are. Some (but not all) LABELs are objective, factual descriptions. Jim Jones really did found a cult, and National Socialist Movement (United States) really is a neo-Nazi group. There are no reliable sources claiming otherwise. Do you think that the leads of those articles need to include a line about "according to sources"? That's what the old version of LABEL requires. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support The proposed revision is in line with what WP:INTEXT actually says, while the current version actually conflicts with the nuances described there. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per the reasoning given above by both WhatamIdoing and XOR'easter. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support The change actually properly reflects other policy and guideline pages and reduces conflict over excessive attribution when a label is directly the definition used by the majority of reliable sources. Labels are indeed used all across Misplaced Pages and we need to be clear on when they should or shouldn't be used. And the crux of that usage will always be down to what the reliable sources say on the subject, as is true for everything on Misplaced Pages. Many of those opposing seem to be doing so because of the general editor consensus on other articles that the majority of reliable sources do indeed describe the subjects in a certain way (in this case and with sections above, terms like "anti-transgender") and the opposing editors don't want accurate reliably sourced labeling to be used that might inform our readers of the background of those subjects when relevant to the article topics. Silverseren 20:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This seems like an assumption of bad faith. Crossroads 00:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious how the comment by Silver seren is an assumption of bad faith, yet this comment by yourself minutes later is not? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

the opposing editors don't want accurate reliably sourced labeling to be used that might inform our readers of the background of those subjects when relevant to the article topics. This is assuming bad faith on the part of the ‘opposing editors’(of which I am one). Sweet6970 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And you're suggesting that that is more of an assumption of bad faith than Crossroads' own If this is taken away, POV pushers will simply claim that someone being an X-phobe is a fact and not an opinion? Colour me deeply skeptical. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Crossroads’s remark is not aimed at specific editors: Silver seren’s remark is aimed at me, amongst others. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't think Crossroads' statement, If this is taken away, POV pushers will simply claim... is aimed at specific editors (namely, those Crossroads has previously accused of activist editing within the gender and sexuality area)? It you do not see this as aimed at me, amongst others, then I question your acumen, Sweet6970. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think.... Sweet6970 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC) clarified Sweet6970 (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Huh? The question at hand here is whether use of accurate reliably sourced labeling is valid in articles. Those who support the proposed change believe that, when carefully used in compliance with INTEXT and NPOV (which explicitly prevent any cases where a label encodes a statement of opinion), it is acceptable to use words that some editors consider value-laden.

Those who oppose the proposed change agree with what is currently encoded in LABEL, i.e. they believe that accurate reliably sourced labeling is always invalid in articles and should not ever be used, even when compliant with INTEXT (not expressing an opinion). The only editorializing Silverseren inserts here is arguing that labels can be informative to readers, which to me doesn't seem to be that bold of claim. Srey Sros 15:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Simply because RSes routinely use a label or any other type of characterization for a topic does not mean we must state that as a fact in wikivoice without attribution. There are reasonable conditions where this would be reasonable, but this should after thoroughly demonstrating that this usage is throughout sources, not cherry picked from a handful, and a product of enduring coverage of the subject and not something from a recent burst of coverage (eg the case for calling Jonestown from decades agos a cult but not the very recent Qanon). The problem is that we don't have any such guidiance on how this should be evaluated or considered in any PAG (its not in NPOV or INTEXT), and it is the fact that we lack this type of guidance is why we have issues around cases like with the anti-trans section above. This is stuff that needs to be considered at NPOV or INTEXT, because it logical to have this allowances spelled out once demonstrated through a thorough source survey, and to make it a bar that must be met so that we still default to requiring attribution. --Masem (t) 02:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, though I do think the proposal could benefit from some copyediting/rewording. I am perplexed by arguments made here that the proposed text will allow for the laundering of opinion into "fact", to quote one of the several accounts making this sort of argument. Anything of this sort would be explicitly prevented by INTEXT, which the proposed change cites as a restricting factor: should always be used for biased statements of opinion. If the argument here is that having a restriction in one guideline isn't enough, we can explicitly spell out the restriction in LABEL, for instance "...must comply with the neutral point of view and in-text attribution policies. In-text attribution should always be used for biased statements of opinion."

A confounding factor here is that nobody here seems to agree on what is or isn't a value-laden label, and so we keep getting into these circles in which people who support the change argue that LABEL prohibits usage of some word in articles, and then people who oppose the change say "oh, but that isn't a LABEL". A great example of this is neo-Nazi, which has remained on the blacklist in the stable version of LABEL for years yet is used all over Misplaced Pages when it matches the consensus of reliable sources.Srey Sros 16:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@SreySros, I think that an example in the RFC itself might help. At the risk of Godwinning the RFC, I think this is clear enough:

1. The first sentence of National Socialist Movement (United States) says, and should say, it's a neo-Nazi organization. That's a fact, not an opinion. It is the overwhelming view of all reliable sources, and it can be stated in WP:WIKIVOICE without WP:INTEXT attribution, exactly like the article has done for the last 15 years.
2. The first sentence of National Socialist Movement (United States) says, and should say, that it's a neo-Nazi organization. However, that sentence must include WP:INTEXT attribution to explain who, exactly, assigns this value-laden label to that group (e.g., "According to political scholars and mainstream media"). Editors at that article have been wrong for the last 15 years.

The current version of LABEL requires that every single use of value-laden labels, explicitly including neo-Nazi, cult, denialist, pseudoscience, etc. be provided with INTEXT attribution. The current version – unlike NPOV and INTEXT – admits to no exceptions to its rule requiring in-text attribution. Anyone who actually supports the current version, as it is written, in practice is an editor who supports changing the first sentence of the article about National Socialist Movement (United States). And if you think you oppose this change to LABEL, but you think the first sentence of National Socialist Movement (United States) is okay without in-text attribution, then I suggest that you review the exact wording of both versions again.

@XOR'easter, would that clarify "the difference is between "in-text attribution" and "in-text attribution"," as you mention above? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is a clarifying example. XOR'easter (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The current text explicitly allows for use of "pseudoscience" in wikivoice. I explained this above. And terms like neo-Nazi that are well-defined should simply be removed from the list; this isn't justification for removing all caution against other terms. Crossroads 00:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The current text of WTW says nothing about terms being well-defined or not – if you wish to propose such a criteria be added feel free to do so, but no reasonable reading of the old (current) version of MOS:LABEL would support a conclusion that "well-defined" terms are somehow exempt from the restriction. Srey Sros 00:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, though there is some room for improvement and I would prefer to summarize those policies here rather than just link to them. It is important to understand that downplaying things that the sources universally treat as fact is another way in which people can introduce their own opinions into articles, and is a common problem on articles that cover topics with broad academic consensus but which individual editors have personal objections to; WP:INTEXT and WP:NPOV are careful to thread this needle. MOS:WTW currently fails to do so, effectively encouraging people to insert their own perspective when it comes to downplaying widely-accepted academic consensuses on eg. racial or cultural issues simply based on their personal gut feeling that there is something wrong with those conclusions. The people opposing also need to grapple with the fact that WP:INTEXT and WP:NPOV already trump MOS:WTW, since core policies have more force than the MOS - in situations where top-quality sources are essentially unanimous in eg. calling an organization neo-nazi or denialist in nature, and there is no reason to think that is controversial among them, we are required to do so in the article voice ourselves, and strictly forbidden from using in-text attribution in a way that would imply it is merely an opinion. WTW is currently incorrect in its implication that it is ever acceptable (let alone required) to use attribution in a case like that. That will not change regardless of the outcome here. Also note that many of the opinions expressed above opposing this change do not actually present a valid rationale - obviously if the sourcing is insufficient to establish something as fact, then WP:INTEXT / WP:NPOV would not support usage in the article voice; that is not a valid reason to allow editors to argue that we must downplay the sources without regard for their quality or what they say, simply based on editors' person objections to the language they use. If you feel the sources are POV or too weak or not unanimous, by all means make that argument; but "we cannot use the term neo-Nazi in the article voice ever, regardless of the quality of the sources regardless of how unanimous they are" (which is what the current wording of WTW falsely implies) is plainly contrary to WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Like. This is very well-put and concisely sums up both the issue at hand and the argument for/implications of the proposed change. Srey Sros 00:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, while noting that most of the Oppose notes either deny that there is a conflict between LABEL and NPOV (and INTEXT, which aligns with NPOV) or imply, if there is in fact a conflict, that the current text of LABEL should establish the preferred principle. Both of these positions seem absurd to me - WP:NPOV has it right and represents a high level of site-wide consensus. LABEL, on the other hand, was expanded in scope during a short discussion of a dozen or so editors, to reach its current form, and has subsequently been used as a shibboleth on behalf of partisan, "my side is NPOV (because I can't see my own biases)" editing. Let's go back to agreed-upon principles, here. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • • I will point out that NPOV does not actually explicitly state that when a majority of sources through enduring coverage of a topic agree on a view, that we can present that view in wikivoice without attribution; INTEXT doesn't call to this at all, and requires attribution for all statements that are taken as views from sources. I know it is taken as practice that in such a case we can do this (eg Jonestown as a cult) and we really should actually document when this practice is appropriate, so that we do not have editors cherry picking a few sources and claiming that represents a majority of sources. This is not prescribing new policy but describing what is already done but in a manner that cannot be gamed by those that would want to use LABEL to whitewash away well-established labels but also to prevent overzealous use of labels coming from but a few sources. --Masem (t) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

      You might want to read the bit in INTEXT that says When using in-text attribution, make sure it doesn't lead to an inadvertent neutrality violation. For example, the following implies parity between the sources, without making clear that the position of Darwin is the majority view: That is explicitly stating that we can present majority views without attribution. INTEXT says this, but LABEL contains no such language. We wouldn't be here today if LABEL didn't require INTEXT attribution even when INTEXT says not to use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, as it would encourage viewpoint-laden labeling. We already have too much of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Sure we could remind people of NPOV, but it's a rather squishy constraint compared to what's in the current statement, which is more objective bar for when it's OK to use negative labels. Dicklyon (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd by objective you in fact mean "arbitrary", I agree. But I don't see anything remotely "objective" about it, in any other sense of that term. Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Which is why I've stated that it would be far better to have either NPOV or INTEXT establish when and how it is appropriate to state a widely-held view in wikivoice without attribution (including for laberls)( that would help tremenmdously. --Masem (t) 13:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• As I have said over the course of the prior discussions, I will support any change that fixes the suggestion that certain terms can never be used without attribution, which is incorrect as a matter of core policy. Any term that is treated as factual by the consensus of the reliable sources must be treated as factual on Misplaced Pages, as described in e.g. WP:WEIGHT and WP:ASSERT. To use in-text attribution in such circumstances is a violation of neutrality. We, as Misplaced Pages editors, cannot retroactively decide that the term in question is an opinion, when the sources have already spoken on the matter. If we have sources to say otherwise, that would be another matter - but which statements are opinions and which are facts, for anything even mildly controversial, is something that only seems easy to distinguish when considered from our own perspective. Facts exist, of course, but our method of identifying them is based on the sources, and the current text is saying that some terms cannot be used in wikivoice regardless of what the sources say. Furthermore, this type of universal conclusion necessarily involves original research, because the sources are being set aside in favor of our personal judgement.

The current wording, of course, has no force as written (with respect to attribution) because it cannot override core policy. For that matter, it isn't even consistent with other advice on this same page, such as the use of less absolute wording only one paragraph below in the same context - and then there is also INTEXT, and probably other pages as well. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be cautious, to the extreme if necessary, when a term may be controversial. However, describing this in terms of an absolute prohibition is simply mistaken. Sunrise (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sunrise notified the Fringe theories noticeboard so per WP:APPNOTE ("... It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself ...") I am leaving this note. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, I'd forgotten and I agree this is a case where having a note is probably better. Sunrise (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• OpposeSupport. (Changed to support in principle since I'm reassured wording snits can be cleaned-up later. I appreciate the intention, and agree a fix to the MOS:LABEL would be nice, but this proposal is not the answer. We currently say that David Icke is a conspiracy theorist (without attribution) in the first sentence of his bio because that's right, and in compliance both with NPOV and BLP. As I read it, the proposed wording requires in-text attribution without exception for any apparently contentious label. It would of course be ignored, but drama would increase. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC); amended 02:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn: I think reading all of this again has made my brain ache. I'm not clear about your argument differs from those made byUser:Aquillion and User:WhatamIdoing, who have voted support. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Me also. But as a fresh pair of eyes what I see in the proposal is this: "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and, if used at all, must comply with Neutral point of view and In-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." So maybe it's just poorly drafted if the intention was to convey otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn: and see below, another support with the intention similar to your own, if I'm reading correctly. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think my trouble is the requirement to "comply with" WP:INTEXT. WP:INTEXT isn't a provision (more, a description of something), so cannot be "complied with". To me, this reads as "in text attribution must be used". Whatever, it's a mess. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: It's the other way around. It's the current version that requires in-text attribution without exception (in which case use in-text attribution), and this proposal is attempting to change that. The proposal to "comply with" WP:In-text attribution does not have such a requirement, because that page explicitly allows for cases where no attribution is used. It is probably not the best wording (perhaps a phrase like "the guidance at" could be added), but I think that can be fixed afterwards, and since this is a relatively minimalist change it is less likely to raise additional issues in a way that derails the RfC. Sunrise (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn, it really is the other way around. The old wording orders editors to "use in-text attribution", with no exceptions for articles like the one you mention. ⌘ Command+F on this page for the word Godwin and read the example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm in wonder you think I'm cool enough to be using a Mac! I can now see the intent, but the drafting implies 100% the opposite; "comply with" WP:INTEXT to me means "use the mechanism described therein". I could get behind the proposal if that was ironed-out. Alexbrn (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support.It is an unacceptable situation that on one hand, all reliable sources (reliable for climate science) agree that Paul P. is a climate change denialist, and on the other hand, we cannot write "Paul P. is a climate change denialist" but need to say that Naomi O. and a few hundred other experts called him one, just because some Misplaced Pages editors, whose only "knowledge" about climate science may well come from denialist outlets like Wall Street Journal, have done WP:OR in their armchairs and decided that 1. "denialist" is a label, that 2. labels are subjective, that 3. subjective terms must be attributed, and that therefore 4. "climate change denialist" must be attributed, QED. This is dogmatic agnosticism, and agnosticism is a POV. And it is a POV closely related to ignorance. If we have to attribute a fact because some Misplaced Pages authors do not know it is a fact, because they believe it is just an opinion, and because they demand that it be called an opinion and attributed in articles, then the policies WP:NPOV and WP:OR are violated by POV-pushing agnostic editors using this malformed guideline. The guideline needs to stop circumventing policy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  On second thought, even if this RfC does not pass, we can ignore MOS/WTW in all the cases where it collides with OR and/or NPOV by saying "policy beats guideline". That would unmask the sentence as a paper tiger. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Editors can, but they shouldn't have to. Conflicts between policies and guidelines are meant to be resolved, not left for the wikilawyers and POV pushers to selectively enforce the one they agree with in each situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ideally, in the case where there is near agreement in the claim that X is a climate change denier, we shouldn't be able to say in wikivoice "X is generally considered to be a climate change denier." With sourcing to 3 or 4 high quality RSes for that to demonstrate. It keeps the label out of a factual tone, but reflects the universal nature of the association without attribution. Problem is that INTEXT requires that attribution, hence why I think we need to focus how to amend INTE T to cover these types of cases where we don't need attribution for near universal agreement on views. --Masem (t) 15:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far too many editors are already far too keen on using labels, apparently to disparage individuals with the intention of righting great wrongs. The current text permits the use of labels, but only when the case for doing so is utterly clear, and this clear restriction should be retained. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  apparently to disparage individuals with the intention of righting great wrongs You are casting aspersions. I cannot speak for others, but my goal, for example, is to accurately reflect what reliable sources are saying, without having to write something like According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening. as in WP:INTEXT. Some people are very clearly deniers. Of course it is only clear to WP:CIR users.

  The current text permits the use of labels - but only with attribution: are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose removing the requirement that it be used widely by reliable sources. The addition of NPOV is possible, but not removing the text regarding wide use... That's still a majorly important part of this guidance. --Jayron32 17:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Jayron32, the main point of the discussion is to stop requiring editors to use INTEXT when INTEXT says not to use INTEXT. Do you have a view on that point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Conflictual "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", sure, "in text attribution" then matters more on policy including WP:GEVAL/WP:YESPOV. In fact, the current text of the MOS also conflicts with policy in this way, as I have previously pointed out at times. Adding "comply with" doesn't help. —PaleoNeonate – 18:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support some change to "in which case use in-text attribution". LABELs do not always express contentious opinions, so insisting that in-text attribution is always required, even when we've already decided that it's appropriate to use one, (e.g. "According to some historians, Mussolini's ideology was "fascist" and "antisemitic".") would make for less neutral and clunkier writing if applied unilaterally. It seems acceptable to use a contentious term either with sufficient attribution (e.g. "Jack Reporter, a media analyst from The Credible Times, characterized President Smith's statements as misogynistic and bigoted.") or when the label so widely and consistently used to the point of being non-controversial (e.g. "The Jonesboro Church of Homeopathic Racial Diagenics was a fundamentalist pseudoscientific neo-nazi death cult founded in 1978."). I don't like the proposed instruction to just "comply with WP:NPOV and WP:INTEXT"; it implies the need to read two other P&Gs to actually understand the advice being given by this one. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 21:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)\
• Oppose Trying to characterize someone or describe their beliefs in a single word can be very tricky. Any such use in controversial or fringe matters can be oversimplified or misleading. We have no right to do so without sources, and even the use with sources tends to be cherry-picking or selective quotation. To say "almost every thinks" is a research project, not NPOV encyclopedia writing. Such characterizations are dangerous even when applied to beliefs, and a grave BLP hazard when applied to people. The best way is to avoid such characterizations altogether. They are never necessary: if it applies, the article should make it immediately clear. If the articles and its sourcing does not make it clear, then either the article is poorly written or the matter is not obvious. Using any such one-word description is an open invitation to bias. It is also, in a direct practical sense, and invitation to endless argument here about whether it applies. Instead, if we just describe wwhat someone does or says, the reader will interpret. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC) �

  But, on the other hand David Irving is a holocaust denier. Swerving actuality with coyness isn't "NPOV encyclopedia writing" any more than over-egged labelling is. Alexbrn (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Of course we can and should use characterizations. We use them all the time. Historian, Christian, anti-vaxxer, holocaust denier, pseudoarchaeologist. Avoiding them makes Misplaced Pages less encyclopedic and can often mean that we avoid saying in plain English what makes the subject most notable and what they are best known for. And of course we need good sources and to treat them carefully from an NPOV viewpoint. We can and should do this, although we sometimes fail. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  What the problem is on WP right now is that editors tend to want to rush to apply these labels when at least a handful of RSes are using them, as that helps to serve a role in the current cultural conflict to make sure that those people and groups are documented that way when RSes support that. Someone is called a far-right extremist by sources? Editors are going to make sure that's included. That's not necessarily an issue by itself, but what is the current problem, and why this RFC change is not well-thought out, is that we have far too many rushing to insert such language on the first sign of its usage (when we should wait for RECENTISM to pass and make sure that such labeling is an enduring part of how the media cover that person or group), and that we have editors often stretching and cherry-picking for sources rather than waiting for labels to fall out "naturally" from broad and enduring coverage about a person or group. That's the logic why we can fairly call Alex Jones a conspiracy theorist or David Irving a holocaust denier, because we have the volume of sources with enduring coverage to support those labels, and in a manner that we should be able to say those in wikivoice without attribution (though we should of course explain why that is the case in some depth). But I've seen cases at BLP/N where only two or three sources are the only ones to support a label, and some editors feel that's enough to state that in Wikivoice, which is a major problem. We need far better guidance of when enough sources exist to use a label in the first place, and then when both wide-spread and enduring use of a label can be considered to be sufficient to be said without attribution, similar to other widespread commonly held viewpoints. --Masem (t) 16:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Then the pasage should refer to WP:RECENTISM in the way you just explained it and not bluntly demanding those words must be attributed in text. If we followed LABEL as currently worded, Irving would not be a holocaust denier in the article, he would be "called a holocaust denier by Alice, Bob, and so on". Fortunately, people ignored that specific rule when writing the Irving article.

  Even the examples on when to use in-text attribution in WP:INTEXT point in that direction. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's why this is still an issue at a higher level. NPOV or INTEXT should explain how and when we should treat masa agreement on a viewpoint as a statement in wikivoice w/o attribution. Using labels is one example of this stance, but there's other viewpoints that are beyond label that would apply as well (eg Mozart being one of the greatest pianists). Sure, LABEL can be more explicit, but the change needs to be really higher up for broader considerations. --Masem (t) 05:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Shouldn't this have been publicized at CENT? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the reasons cited by Masem, the proposed language is the wrong way to go with a revision, and it is more likely than not to have undesirable effects. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Crossroads and Masem and others. Nearly all of the "support" arguments are strawmen, describing imaginary "problems" that don't actually exist; a couple of the supporters have been honest about why they want this change, and I strongly oppose allowing those courses of action. A few points. 1. Most of y'all (with exceptions) don't seem to fully grasp the difference between "fact" and "opinion". These categories are not fluid. Climate-change denialist, Mussolini being a fascist (the man INVENTED the word, for crying out fucking loud!), Hitler being a nazi, the American Nazi party (nazi is short for national socialist, so national socialist party is by its own name NAZI), are not opinions. They never could be nor ever will be. Sexual deviant, pervert, extremist, racist, X-phobe, anti-X, 99% of the time wicked, righteous, etc are opinions, and even if every last person in the entire world were to agree on an opinion, it will still be an opinion. 2. All of this polemic grandstanding about now the current guideline does not allow under any circumstances for us to say that, say, Mussolini is a fascist, or whatever, is pure hogwash. Like every single policy and guideline, this one says at the top to be used with common sense, and exceptions apply. So, it sounds to me as though (and this is speculation, so I may be wrong), the REAL problem is WP:POINTy editors in various articles ("If we can't call qanon a cult, then neither can we call Jonestown!" or maybe "if we can't say that these BLPs are X-phobic, we can't call Hitler antisemitic"). If that is what's going on, then a better solution would be for admins to grow a pair and start blocking editors for being POINTy. POINTiness is disruptive, and it's not difficult to spot, and AGF has limits. Instead of making new rule upon new rule, start enforcing the rules that already exist. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A0B5:D795:64C8:8B8A (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Re: Most of y'all (with exceptions) don't seem to fully grasp the difference between "fact" and "opinion". These categories are not fluid. - among all the claims made in this rather wide-ranging discussion, that one is very clearly simply one editor's "opinion", or even expression of feeling, unsupported by evidence of any kind. The idea that "Fascist" could be a factual statement while "antifascist" is necessarily a matter of opinion - and that these distinctions are not fluid} - could only be proposed by someone inexperienced in 20th-century epistemology (and, arguably, little acquainted with consensus reality itself). Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Good thing nobody has actually proposed such a fascist/antifascist asymmetry. Crossroads 05:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • You must read anti-X, ahem, differently. It was an element in the dichotomy the IP proposed. Newimpartial (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Okay. It came right after "X-phobe", so I only thought of the "anti-trans" example which kicked off all this, "antisemitic" as they mentioned, and other "anti-immutable-characteristic" type labels, not major political categories. I guess they could clarify this. Crossroads 05:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Don't analyse my choice of examples too deeply :P. Tbh, when I wrote that, I had inferred based on what I had read thus far on this page that the impetus for this proposal was widespread POINTiness by tendentious editors preventing things like Jonestown being called a cult or Mussolini being called a fascist because LABEL prevented them from being able to apply their choice smear to the BLPs of their ideological opponents. Now that I've read more (and it does take a while to read through these mountains upon mountains of text), I understand that all of that discussion about Jonestown was all academic, i.e., apparently no one has any problem with that article itself, only with the fact that the guideline isn't written to accomodate every single use case for every article. (To be fair, I DID say I was making an interference and that I could very well have been wrong). But 99% of this discussion has veered off into academic philosophical debates that have nothing to do with the actual disputes that prompted this in the first place, which I am not so sure that most of those voting "support" here would actually support in those specific cases. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:60F7:9667:FE24:3EE (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Contrary to the aspersions you're casting, I don't think Support !voters are all WP:ACTIVIST WP:DIVAs aiming to WP:POINTedly WP:RGW and WP:BLUDGEON WP:BLPs with WP:POV MOS:LABELs without WP:MOPs WP:BPing them for WP:DE. I can only speak for myself, though. My grandstanding hogwash polemic strawman is an argument that when obvious exceptions to a rule exist, the rule should give clear guidance on when to break it (and therefore, when not to). The main concern here is updating the MOS to reflect actual community consensus on when to use in-text attribution. Wikivoice should consistently state facts as facts and opinions as opinions, regardless of whether they contain contentious labels, therefore MOS:LABEL should be consistent with the guidance given by WP:INTEXT and WP:NPOV.

  I don't think the proposed change is the exact right way to do this, but I don't think it actually impacts whether to include contentious labels, which is what the Oppose !votes you cited seem to take issue with. As I see it, "if used at all" still strongly (and rightly) advocates for doing so only when it is due and neutral. Therefore the Real Problem you're discussing here ("Won't somebody please think of the POV-pushers?"), while valid, seems unrelated to the outcome of this RfC.

  The argument you've raised is actually equally effective for both sides: since you agree that there are "common sense" exceptions to the requirement for in-text attribution, an WP:ACTIVIST could just as easily argue that "We can call Jonestown a cult, therefore we can call Qanon a cult. Facts are facts, so WP:IAR." Bad-faith editors will push POV no matter what. That's all the more reason to actually nail down when to apply "common sense". RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 00:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sort of support in principle but couldn't this be accomplished by simply changing in which case use in-text attribution to in which case follow best practices for when to use in-text attribution or something along those lines? Whether in-text attribution is absolutely required seems the central point of the change, but opposition seems to be reading more into the proposed text (perhaps rightly). If there are 50 sources about a subject, and 49 use a given label, I think there's broad consensus that Misplaced Pages should use that label without naming the 49 sources or creating the appearance of disagreement on the applicability of the label. As Whatamidoing and others point out, a style guideline should not fall out of step with core content policies like NPOV. And yet it happens frequently that people cite this style guideline as though it trumps policy -- and who can blame people for doing that, when it says right there "use in-text attribution"? So yes, something should change. — Rhododendrites \\ 19:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that would remove the problem. If it is written like that, David Irving can stay a holocaust denier in Wikivoice without violating this guideline. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'd strongly support a smaller change along these lines. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 00:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I really like Crossroads analysis of this topic. This change would be utilized by POV pushers to try and place contentious labels for people, particularly in the leads of BLP's. Labels are vague and have mixed meanings, and that's why we should be highly cautious when using them. They should only ever be used when the subject is explicitly labeled with those labels in many RS. That's what the current longstanding text of this guideline says, and that's the way it should remain. Guidelines are supposed to be helpful explanations of policies and this proposal would only be unhelpful and vague for contributors, by saying labels must abide by comply with Neutral point of view and In-text attribution. It's not clear what that entails. We should not be trying to make it easier to use contentious labels, and that's what this does. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, per numerous others above, especially WhatamIdoing. This seems rather straightforward to me. The current language conflicts with higher-order PAG. That creates confusion. The confusion should be cleared up. The OP's suggested language is an improvement in that regard. Folks who are worried about what unscrupulous POV-pushers will do should devote their energy to countering the work of unscrupulous POV-pushers, who will continue to unscrupulously POV-push regardless of what is written here. The MOS should be geared toward good-faith editors looking for good-faith advice on how to write articles. Generalrelative (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

In a nutshell

Surely 'this page in a nutshell' violates the very rules set out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:9063:1100:DC72:8553:40FC:E65D (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

What makes you say that? RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 21:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders:, I can't read their mind, but am guessing it's a failed joke on the pejorative "nuts" for someone with mental health issues. IP 2A02: if that wasn't your intention, feel free to weigh in again; and if it was, well, it kinda fell flat. Mathglot (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"In a nutshell" is a metaphor, and it shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia article per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Clichés and idioms. (Also, that section probably ought to be renamed ==Clichés and metaphors==.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment