User talk:Jimbo Wales - Wikipedia

I started a discussion here Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Conspiracy_theorist_in_lede_2 as it was the first time I have seen the term "conspiracy theorist" used on an article relating to a current member of an elected government. I don't follow the article subject but I have seen the term used a lot, and seems to be increasing.

According to Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_and_usage that the the usage of the term is "always derogatory". However, WP:BLPSTYLE says "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." I thought I would post here about this as it might attract more non-political editors to comment to the above RFC. I wonder if we are using derogatory terms in an increasing manner as society uses them more in an increasing manner. Shall wikipedia follow that trend? I suppose we will, but thought it an interesting point to discuss. If some RS (normally we dont need more than ten sources to create a WP:CITEBUNDLE and the resulting appearance of vast quantities) use derogatory terms, will we follow that? Shall we also use terms racist, rapist, sexist, pervert, etc? Where do we stop? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think this is an excellent question well worth some thoughtful chewing. The first thing that I'll note - just as a starting point mind you - is that at least "rapist" is actually pretty well defined and objective in the case of criminal convictions. We might compare 'fraudster' in the case of Bernie Madoff as a potential model. That is, I think that in general we probably don't call people 'fraudster' without pretty serious reliable sourcing which is normally grounded in a conviction.

But 'conspiracy theorist' isn't generally a crime and therefore it may be much harder to pick apart 'this is a reliable source but with a partisan agenda' (quite common these days) from 'this is just an obvious statement of fact by a reliable source'.

I should add, for completeness, that in ordinary speaking I personally have no problems with calling MTG a "conspiracy theorist" without qualification. But I do agree with you that it is a valid question whether Wikipedia should. It's worth reminding ourselves that there's a wide range of ways that we can handle this, many of which stop far short of Wikipedia asserting that she's a conspiracy theorist. ("sometimes described by major newspapers and political opponents as a conspiracy theorist" is a quick first thought.)

And finally, I'm taking no position on this issue as it relates to MTG - I'm just agreeing with you that this is an important discussion for Wikipedia to have.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have spoken at lengths about the mentality of how we go about readily dropping terms like "conspiracy theorist" or "far right extermist" or others all related to the current cultural conflict since 2016, and it does come down to two major issues. First is making sure the term is due to include based on a source survey to determine how often the term comes up. Too many of these ledes often come down to cherry picking from a few sources and not proving (on a talk page for example) that the term applies that much to make it necessary to use the term in the lede. This is not the case for MTG since there's a good deal of sources to support "conspiracy theorist". The second is simply the ordering of information in the lede, as unless the only thing they are known for is what the negative term applies, we should never lead off in the first sentence with that term. Later in the lede, and ideally with build up or explanation of why the term applies, absolutely is appropriate, but instead we have too many articles that stick this term in the first sentence (with the justification that they're notable for that so it must be in the first sentence) and when those terms are added, immediately turns the tone of the article negative and into an attack-like one, no matter how neutrally the rest may be written. Holding back a sentence or two with the added explanation helps to significantly improve tone and impartiality of the article even while keeping the negative terms in place. We can write about a person that is frequently seen in a negative light in the sources (like MTG) without adapting those sources' stance on the person. --Masem (t) 12:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

"And has been described as a conspiracy theorist by X" in a reliable source deals with this. David Icke also hates being described as a conspiracy theorist, but if you say that the world is run by an inter-dimensional race of reptilian beings, it is going to lead to doubts and criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

certainly keeping these terms out of Wikivoice helps, though convincing editors this is a saf, conservative option is difficult to get agreement on, as editors are often letting their own opinions on these figures show through. But it is also still about placement and not pushing these points as early as possible in ledes that still we have problems with. --Masem (t) 13:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe Dave doesn't like it because he's actually a Superconspiracy theorist? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

On behalf of all inter-dimensional race of reptilian beings I find it quite repulsive and very much a conspiracy to believe we rule the world (tongue in cheek). It is a super thought though. --ARoseWolf 15:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ah yeah, certainly cheek. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! It is obvious we have some raving lunatics in politics and they promote all kinds of strange theories. Today we have fox news on one side and cnn on another side, both at times promoting false narratives. I too dont have a strong opinion either way of this MTG subject (hadn't even heard of her until this Late Show incident where I guess they were breaking in to interview her), just thought I would raise it here from a higher level perspective and start some longer term dialogue on the matter. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

• We have policies that cover this issue. If numerous reliable sources describe someone as a conspiracy theorist, or as a promoter of conspiracy theories, then it is appropriate for Wikipedia to do so. It's non-neutral to present a widely understood reality as if it were simply the opinion of "critics" or of "some commentators". For whatever reason, a lot of editors understand this principle in the abstract, but are unwilling to apply it specifically to right-wing US politicians.Perhaps it's just difficult for many of us to accept that the promotion of false or bizarre conspiracy theories is no longer disqualifying for elected office—in fact Republican politicians are essentially required to parrot lies about the 2020 Presidential election (at a minimum) as the price of their candidacies. But that shift in US right-wing politics doesn't alter our basic policies and editorial responsibilities. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  The attitude behind this comment is part if the problem, it is based on a WP:RGW idea that we need to expose on a pedestal politicians, advocates, and other individuals who are typical outside the typical norms seen by a left-leaning media by assuring the negative tone found in the media is repeated on WP articles so that readers are assured they know they should not trust these individuals. Which is nowhere close to NPOV policy or BLP standards.

  I don't call for whitewashing away well-established criticism, but we absolutely need more decorum of how to determine when it is appropriate to include these types of terms, how to include them, and balance that with otherwise basic and consistent facts you'd see on a comparable article. Eg Just reading on the MTG talk page there is a clear and wrong effort to hide away the fact she is an elected member of Congress and instead devote the article to her apparent right-wing leanings and conspiracy theories. As an encyclopedia, our focus should be on what can be said objectively about her and her Congressional career before trying to build up the case of how the media sees her. Instead, we have a proverbial witvh hunt to expose as much negative traits as can be dug up. And this is not the only article with these problems.

  I appreciate that many editors are angry and furious at people like MTG for what's been happening in politics and other events, and that us their right to be upset at them, an issue since 2016 at least, but this cannot enter into how we write articles. Editors are more and more failing to leave their emotions at the door to be able to write neutral articles in both content and tone. Masem (t) 18:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  It's not based on a "RGW idea", and I find RGW misused as a thought-terminating cliche in a lot of these discussions. It's based on the idea that we represent reliable sources accurately, honestly, and proportionately, even if they say things that upset our personal sensibilities. There is an "RGW idea" here, but it's yours—it's the idea that regardless of how clearly reliable sources identify these things, we are somehow obligated to water down and bowderlize their language. It's a complete misunderstanding of what encyclopedic writing looks like, and what our policies require.I also object to your framing. You're using the calm-down-you're-too-emotional gambit ("many editors are angry and furious" etc.) to suggest that the people you disagree with are driven by irrationality and emotion while you are the voice of reason. That's lazy, cheap, and fundamentally an incorrect reading of the concerns here. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Many reliable media sources are WP:BIASED and use phrasing intended to please their audience and cast aspersions against those they are biased against. I think Masem's point is that we should account for that and that yes, it absolutely is our responsibility under WP:NPOV to "water down" their language (or at least attribute it) when they are clearly demonstrating their bias. Le Marteau (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I think Masem's point is that we should account for that ? The very wording of WP:BIAS is that we do not account for that, you're gutting your own point here. ValarianB (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Thus isn't about systematic bias (which we actually do try to minimuze) but the policy WP:BIASED which does say we account for bias in individual sources, stating what they say in attributed form. We can't pretend that across the board most sources have become more emotive and passionate in reporting, but that does not change their overall reliability. We just need to be more aware that these news pieces are not speaking in a neutral voice, and attribute claims rather than blindly accept things as facts. Masem (t) 20:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  We can't pretend that across the board most sources have become more emotive and passionate in reporting - you seem to be pretending exactly that, though? I think you meant to put a "not" in there, but if so then I strenuously disagree in strongest possible terms. That is your personal emotional reaction to reading sources you disagree with on a gut level, not something based in any sort of policy or fact; you need to focus on reading sources impartially rather than reflexively labeling anything you disagree with as emotive and passionate. To the unclean all things are unclean; it is your own strong emotional feelings on these subjects (and on the media as a whole) that has tainted your views and led you to these sweeping denouncements of high-quality sources. You need to reassess how you view coverage and our responsibility to accurately reflect it. And if you refuse to do so, and believe you can support your sweeping claims of bias in high-quality sources, WP:RSN is that way; as far as I know you've repeatedly failed to get a consensus behind the gut reactions to neutral, high-quality sources you are expressing here. -Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Accountability journalism is well established in RSes thanks to the AP, an d encourages journalists to inject personal feelings into news reporting as to hold the people and groups they write about accountable [1] That is an inconsistent approach with NPOV. It doesn't make those sources unreliable, but it does expose potential bias that we absolutely must factor for. We can use these sources and accurately reflect them without the emotive part of accountability journalism entering in in wikivoice. But instead we get editors seeing this accountability pointed out by RSes and jumping on that as fact. Masem (t) 20:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Again, if you feel that the AP should be considered generally biased, you know where WP:RSN is; but I see nothing in the link you made that is inconsistent with NPOV. Is your argument that we cannot cite sources that discuss the "how" question referenced in there? Your objection seems to be to the term accountability journalism, which presumably evokes an emotional reaction of distaste on your part; but we cannot weigh your gut reactions equal to the reputation of the associated press. If they say that this sort of reporting - the "how" question, more specifically - is a central part of coverage, we have to take that seriously; we cannot say "oh well that wording pisses Masem off, better be careful about citing the AP in the future." Neither do I see, in a quick search, any indication that this focus on accountability journalism is in any way controversial or treated as evidence of bias or unreliability in other reliable sources - numerous high-quality academic sources seem to be praising it and describing it as essential for neutral and accurate coverage. If necessary (especially if this would genuinely put the matter to rest), I will start an RSN question over whether the article you linked is enough to consider the AP generally biased... if you feel the bias you're alleging is more specific, specify so I can specify in the RFC. But I would expect you to generally drop this line of argument in the future if said RFC conclusively found that the AP can generally be treated as unbiased... and if you object to my proposal for an RFC, I'd like a specific explanation as to why and what question you feel would do better at settling this. You've been making this unworkable argument over and over again with no conclusion, and an "is the AP generally biased?" RFC seems like a good way to put at least part of it to rest. --20:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bias is not equal to unreliability, I never equated it with that.

  Accountability journalism is absolutely a real thing [2] and has moved past just the AP as a value desired by major papers (NYTimes, WAPost). But it is also important to understand there are long-term financial motives behid accountability journalism as to find other forms of digital journalism [3].

  Accountability journalism is not necessarily bad in of itself. It is a form of investigative journalism to find who is accountable rather than to focus on post-event news. Eg from The Nation, using accountability journalism to point fingers at governments not doing their effort to fight climate change. But with accountability journalism is the need to better connect stories to readers and that means more persuasive language and ways to engage the emotions. That is something WP cannot do, as that is effectively RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The media may want to press blame at those in high level positions like MTG that help feed the far-right-wing extremism views though accountability journal rather than just say far-right-wing extremism has risen. PER RGW, Wikivoice cannot take the position that MTG fed the far-right, but we can add facts (such as often repeating stories propagated by QAnon), and we can say with attribution that she is seen as far-right and as a conspiracy theorist, if those are not UNDUE facts. But we can't say the latter as fact in Wikivoice.

  And this is where RECENTISM also comes into play. We should be writing from the 10+ yr view, focusing more on sources far distance from the events reported. Academic works ten years out generally can be presumed to be impartial and thus if they end up summarizing MTG then as a far-righter , then that's a good reason for us to follow in WIkivoice (though UNDUE still applies). What happens on an article like MTG and with accountability reporting is that there's a scortched-earth approach to the media that doesn't care how "bad" they make people (within the limits of defamation case law), as long as they are associating with their audience, they are happy. That's not our goal, and thus why we should be absolutely taking short-term media reports with a grain of salt (using attribution rather than wikivoice) until we have longer-term sources that will give us a more impartial picture that we should be working from to stay impartial ourself.

  And yet to further add, our systematic bias has downselected the majority of "good" RSes to those that are on left and almost none on the right. We need to be aware that this overall bias greatly influences how editors writes on figures like MTG. We need to be more neutral than the bulk of most sources to meet NPOV, and hence why we have to be fully aware of what issues exist with even the best RSes and simply avoid stating subjective statements in wikivoice. --Masem (t) 00:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  All I'm reading here is your personal feelings and opinions on the media. The sources you're citing don't back you up at all - the CJR piece specifically criticizes the Associated Press for not adhering to its accountability journalism standards by wording coverage of an attack ad in a wishy-washy way that obscures the truth. Likewise, the 2016 paper you cited says literally the precise opposite of what you claim - it is about the fact that accountability journalism is more expensive to produce and requires people willing to pay for it due to its higher quality and commitment to factual reporting on complex subjects. You would have seen that if you'd so much as read the first sentence of the abstract - The declining supply of high-quality accountability journalism, also referred to as investigative or watchdog journalism, can be viewed from an economic perspective as a pricing problem. This costly journalism has never paid for itself. Accountability journalism is, per the CJR source you provided, about ensuring accuracy in complex situations even when there are many competing claims and counterclaims, not about trying to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Likewise, per the 2016 paper, the commitment to it among high-quality sources (despite it consistently failing to pay for itself) is about their commitment to standards, not about the sort of money-chasing you (emotionally and baselessly) speculate about. Clearly you have passionate feelings about the media and its coverage, and you see Wikipedia as a place where you can WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in cases where high-quality sources have stated facts that you disagree with on an emotional level; but that is a completely inappropriate way to approach sources. The people you are arguing against here are, on the whole, dispassionate editors who leave their feelings at the door; you are the one who is bringing their feelings into it again and again, raising baseless, emotionally-charged appeals to your personal opinions about "accountability journalism" and your gut feelings about the high-quality media landscape in order to argue that we can downplay what the sources say. In any case, we can, at least, find a consensus about whether the AP News commitment to accountability journalism renders it biased (WP:RSN is frequently used for such RFCs), so I'll open the relevant RFC and we can hopefully finish this. Finally, I will point out that in most of the cases at hand, academic sources are if anything more firm in their wording than breaking news ones; you are far more likely to see someone described flatly as white nationalist or a conspiracy theorist in an academic paper than in the New York Times or the Associated Press. --Aquillion (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Its exactly that editors are angry and upset with what is happening in the news, and that sources support this anger on how they report it, that is at the heart of this problem. It is very very easy to take the word of reliable sources aligned with one's ideals as plain fact, and present WP content in the same tone and approach, but that's not an encyclopedia is written.

  I will say that near every case where I have seen problems in the neutrality of the article, they can resolved with reordering of information and putting more statement that are pulled from RSes out if Wikivoice, without losing that information. That MTG is seen as a conspiracy theorist isn't something that can be downplayed, but in terms of tone and impartiality, it should be stated without explaining why she is called one by the media, and that requires a build up of information before it is introduced. But I know too often when it is suggested that certain things be moved or put into attribution/out of wikivoice, editors get passionate that calling out the BLP in those negative aspects must be the priority of the article, and that's not good. The tone of you earlier statement is right along those lines. There is a difference between that, and what we should be doing by include aspects that clearly are DUE to include but respect out NPOV need to write that impartially and dispassionately. That is easily done if one steps back, leaves their feelings at the door, and look at the big picture about how we approach most articles. Masem (t) 20:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I think it's similar to how we deal with criminals. We don't (usually) refer to them as felons, but as X who was convicted of X. We can do the same here. If RS says that someone espouses some theories, we can put that in, but not necessarily label that person as a CS, unless perhaps that person is only notable for the CS and not for anything else. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  There are cases where sources overwhelming support nonattributed uses of terms, like Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist, though when and how to apply is a wholly separate discussion. But as to continue on Jones, he is also factually a radio show host and other, more objective career aspects. We shouldn't come out of the gate to say Jones is a conspiracy theorist but can build up to that after establishing how he got to be considered as one, that's a tone issue. Masem (t) 20:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  How we word it is based on the sources; and for Jones, it is extremely well-cited. The problem here is not with the sources or with how we use them, but with your own fundamental belief that most high-quality mainstream sources are biased and your desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by downplaying things they say that you personally find particularly objectionable. --Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, I think the opposite is true. MastCell is saying that we should cover what the sources say, in an accurate and neutral manner, according to our policies. To me, your argument strikes me as saying that you want to WP:RGW by "correcting" what you, personally, feel is an inappropriate use of language in the sources. You constantly make this argument and constantly push us to ignore or downplay sources based on your personal feelings, and it's never going to be accurate or convincing - our responsibility is to go with what the sources say, without judging or trying to "correct" them. No matter how strongly you feel that the sources are wrong, and no matter how severely they differ from your personal gut assessment of the subject, it's inappropriate for you to constantly push for them to be reworded based on your opinions like this. And more broadly, you've repeated this over and over and over across multiple venues without convincing people - perhaps it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK already and accept that we have to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE even in cases where that goes against your gut feelings, and even in cases where you feel the sources are committing some great wrong that you personally wish to use Wikipedia to right. I appreciate that you are are angry and furious at sources that you personally feel cover their topics unfairly or which mistreat people like MTG, and that's your right, but you must stop trying to push that emotional response into articles - you, more than any of the people you're discussing, are showing a consistent inability to leave your emotions at the door. You need to base your arguments on what the sources say, not on how you feel about them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

• MastCell, you wrote: "Perhaps it's just difficult for many of us to accept that the promotion of false or bizarre conspiracy theories is no longer disqualifying for elected office—in fact Republican politicians are essentially required to parrot lies about the 2020 Presidential election (at a minimum) as the price of their candidacies." (bold added)

Daniel Dale, CNN's chief fact-checker, has written an insightful article about this requirement for Trumpian GOP politicians to lie. It's a political litmus test, a shibboleth: Lie as litmus test: Arizona governor candidate Kari Lake calls it ‘disqualifying’ for rival not to declare 2020 election ‘stolen’ If a GOP politician tells the truth about the election, they are too reality-based and thus disqualified to win GOP votes from the deceived Trump base. This situation is now seen as a serious national (and international) security threat. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Neutrality means information should be presented in the same way as the body of reliable sources. Articles don't say for example that George W. Bush is is a politician and Christian fundamentalist, Obama is a politician and African American, or Elizabeth II is Queen of the UK and a great-grandmother. All those statements are true and significant to the topic and they may be referred to that way in some articles in some reliable sources. But I believe it violates weight when they are described in that way unless that is how they are usually described in reliable sources.

I would reserve the term conspiracy theorist for people whose notability derives from being conspiracy theorists, not otherwise notable people who happen to believe in or promote conspiracy theories.

The tone does suggest to me RGW. The article Adolf Hitler does not describe him in the first sentence as a conspiracy theorist and murderer, because there is no need to discredit him. A polemical tone might actually make readers question the fairness of the editors.

TFD (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well... we also don't have editors routinely arguing that reliable sources are biased against Hitler. We do, however, have a bunch who predictably argue that reliable sources somehow become unreliable, or at least in need of editorial massaging, when they report unflattering things about US right-wing politicians. We've literally had dozens of versions of the following dynamic:

• [REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN]: <does something widely considered racist>
• [RELIABLE SOURCE]: A Republican politician did something widely considered racist.
• [MASEM]: See, reliable sources are biased against Republicans!

(I'm using Masem as a stand-in here, but there are plenty of others who can be counted on to take this exact approach to sourcing). MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would likely argue along those lines (not as aggressively) but only to the point of saying "so do we need attribution and or how should provide it, and has that action had significant impact on their career (is it due or just cherry picking?)" In other words how to neutrally include that information, which is policy.

There are other editors that take what is the problematic next step saying "its biased so we can't use it!" And that is something I agree we can't question. Bias doesn't change reliability unless it is a long term issue (fox news). And those editors do not help the overall discussion on such articles. Which can inflame those trying to write as best they can. Masem (t) 22:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The reason that "conspiracy theorist" is such a charged term is because many people live in the simulacrum#Philosophy. At some level, many people understand that living in unreality is wrong. Yet they keep doing it. So they need to deflect the guilt onto someone else. Conspiracy theories by definition are independent worlds of simulacra. Even true conspiracy theories (such as Oswald conspired to kill Kennedy) also become a form of simulacra or escapism since the vast majority of people who study them participate in the escapism. Those who believe untrue conspiracy theories are a perfect scapegoat for people who live in the simulacrum to deflect their guilty and shameful feelings. They externalize their feelings on the target. The disingenuous character of the externalization can be felt by the tone of the writing, similar to Shakespeare's The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Wikipedia has the potential of being a half-way house to rehabilitate people who are living in a simulacrum and get them to come back to reality. Deflection and externalization fall short of its potential.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Mastcell, I do not want to misrepresent you, but doesn't that come down to we don't need to discredit Hitler, because that is no longer an issue, but we have to discredit modern right wing extremists, because they have followers? That to me is advocacy. I think the best approach is to relate the facts in a dispassionate tone, explain what experts (not journalists) say and hope that readers exercise critical thinking. TFD (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, again, I think you have the RGW polarity reversed. We are free to accurately convey what reliable sources have to say about Hitler, because he has no apologists among the (serious) editorial core here. On the other hand, we are not free to accurately convey what reliable sources say about current US right-wing politicians. We are constrained by their apologists among the editorial core, who have a fixed idea of the "right" way to describe these people and who discount any sources that go beyond as "biased".It's really simple: accurate reporting that reflects negatively on a Republican politician is not evidence of bias. Nor is accurately conveying such reportage evidence of bias among editors here. Some people are really invested in pretending otherwise. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

We can accurately summarize from reliable sources but we cannot adopt their tone. Except that's what happens in this race to include every slight that the media calls out against a person. That's the RGW issue at play. WP can't take a stance that we need to call out nor apologize for these people. Masem (t) 17:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

We are required to mirror the content, context, and "tone" of reliable sources. That's editing 101. Substituting our own personal ideas of appropriate "tone" for those found in reliable sources is a textbook policy violation, and a form of tendentious editing—yet that is exactly what you advocate. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Content and context yes. But NPOV is clear we do not mirror tone, via YESPOV. We are to write impartial and dispassionately, and that means we cannot adapt the tone taken by sources. We can respect what the tone that exists ("MTG is frequently crotized by media for her beliefs") but we cannot write with that tone. Masem (t) 19:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think Masem is right. We should adopt the tone of encyclopedias, textbooks and other unbiased sources. We would also be constrained by WP:LABEL. In a case that I think takes LABEL to beyond reason, Osama bin Laden is not even referred to as a terrorist, even thought that was what established his notability.

But even if Mastcell is right, we would only refer to someone as a conspiracy theorist if that was how they were routinely referred to in reliable sources. And that is only the case for people like David Icke or Alex Jones.

Also, while it's clear that Qanon is a conspiracy theory, the term tends to be used more loosely in journalism than academic writing. It has come to mean any accusation that goes against mainstream opinion, even when the main criteria of a conspiracy are not met. By current standards for example, someone who thought that Saddam Hussein might not have had weapons of mass destruction and based their claim on reasoned analysis, would have been labelled a conspiracy theorist.

TFD (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Politics aside, what is she “best known for”? What significant things has she done or accomplished in the House? Doug Weller talk 20:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

That has nothing to do with tone. Just because MTG may be best know for supporting conspiracy theories, doesn't mean that must be the first thing said about her, which is where tone comes into play. I absolutely expect that to be included in the lede and body, and likely a major portion of the article at the end of the day, but leading with that as if everything else about her is fringe is not how to write a neutrally-toned article. The fact that she is a Representative should be the priority, and then after that, building into why she may called a conspiracy theorist and why she is disliked by the media. No policy requires lede with the.mist notable thing about a person, only that should be clearly introduced in a neutral tone. Masem (t) 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

You may agree with each other, but as the RfC in question is to be swinging towards inclusion, I'm sorry to say but you two may be out of step with current trends around here. The reality of 2022 is that major figures in a mainstream American political party have embraced viewpoints that are widely and broadly held to be conspiratorial fantasy. You can't hide behind neutrality when discussing these sorts of things anymore. ValarianB (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I do not have any trouble with saying she promotes conspiracy theories, my objection was to saying she is a conspiracy theorist. My reasoning is that our description should reflect how she is normally described in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is where a source survey needs to be done. I know there's a FAQ on the talk page there, and points to about 8-10 sources that explicitly use "theorist" rather than just "promotes conspiracy theories", but given how many sources talk about MTG (GNews gives me 400k+ sources), this is potentially cherry picking. There needs to be a better justification that a good fraction of the RSes covering her routinely use "conspiracy theorist". (Here, Gnews gives less than 4k for "marjorie taylor greene" "conspiracy theorist", which I would say means that is not a routinely used term, but this is a quick and dirty evaluation). Masem (t) 00:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Doug Weller:, she is best known for her jail inspection report, secondly, she is known for being one of the best in the House currently at fundraising, thirdly, she is known for proposing bills that others would probably be afraid to propose because they are too controversial. But once she proposes them, others co-sponsor them. None have become law yet, but things could change in the future. Fourthly, she is known for co-owning a large construction firm, and that she previously owned a fitness gym business. Fifthly, she is also known for being one of the most harassed members of congress at the present. Some people think they can get away with messing with her or her office in ways they don't do to the others, because it would get them prosecuted.

Media about Greene divides roughly along the local / national lines. Local oriented media focuses on fundraising, details of primaries and elections, and bills. National oriented media focuses on a lot of stuff that is covered in detail in the article, and overall she is not portrayed so well in national media as in local media. Most if not all editors to the article are not from her district or the surrounding area, so they are exposed to the national media.

So what kind of readers should articles be for? National or local? Or what balance between the two should be reached? On lower-volume days, I expect most readers are local. During controversies that make national media, most readers are national. This is an issue relating to a lot of articles, not just this one.

I expect that readers who voted for Greene attribute the article's slant to xenophobia. It is against the good faith rule to directly accuse xenophobia unless it is really serious, but there is no way to make readers assume good faith. When readers see the emperor wearing no clothes, they are like the child, while editors are so sophisticated with their internal culture.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Epiphyllumlover I'm not sure how you are measuring best known. I also think we should pay attention to sources, not where the readers live. I doubt very much she is best known for her jail report on the Jan 6 rioters, or any of the others you mention. That looks more like your opinion than a survey of sources and we should try to keep our political opinions out of this. I don't understand you comment about xenophobia although I know she's been accused of it. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

...one of the most harassed members of congress at the present.. and the rest of your opening paragraph there is absurd, and demonstrably false. What we have here, now exposed, is a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS editor. ValarianB (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I thought it was an opinion question, because "best" is subjective in this context. If I broke a rule with my last post, I expect the talk page's owner will join you in rebuking me. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

In line with what ValarianB wrote about your first paragraph, it's pure Spin (propaganda), ergo "reframing or modifying the perception of an issue or event to reduce any negative impact it might have on public opinion." Maybe you should seek a job working as her spin doctor. Unfortunately, it's not in line with NPOV or RS as it very carefully and selectively ignores so much and flies under the radar with the rest. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

NPOV also says we don't take the tone or spin of RSes in how we write neutral content. We can discuss with attribution when the media calls people out in negative terms when that falls under WEIGHT, but we should not be framing it the same negative stance by these sources, which is what is happening here. We are to write objectively, impartially, and dispassionate, but that doesn't mean we also whitewash. PUBLICFIGURE us clear on that. Masem (t) 14:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's a term that is always used to disparage an allegation or the person making it. More importantly, it is commonly used for cases where there is no allegation of a conspiracy. And also selectively on what superficially appear/ can be claimed to be allegations of fact but are really matters of opinion/take (e.g. "Big pharma is out to overcharge us"). With the Walter Cronkite era being over, we can no longer blindly rely on "sources" (who are now actually combatants) for baseless choices of disparaging terms. Thirdly embedding a an established fact as a noun-ification of a person in a prominent place in Wikipedia is a wiki-editor action to say that that is the main defining attribute of the person. I.E putting in "Joe Biden is a plagiarizer" can be claimed to be just a statement of a sourceable fact but in reality is the wiki-editor converting that mere fact to being the defining attribute of the person. The problem can also be reduced by focusing on putting content in articles rather than characterizations. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's worth reading the article Sagan standard. This is usually quoted as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" or "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". David Icke's claim that the world is run by interdimensional reptilian beings is undoubtedly an exceptional claim that requires exceptional evidence. QAnon, Pizzagate etc also fall into this category. The term "conspiracy theorist" may be seen as lacking NPOV, but to comply with WP:FRINGE it has to be made clear that some theories are widely regarded as either unsupported by evidence or discredited.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The rule about fringe content posits a minimum standard for labeling conspiracy theories/theorists, but what should the maximum standard be? This is what the people writing on the Rep. Greene article's talk page are figuring out. I'm not sure there is any general rule at all for this, so the outcome could set a precedent for other articles. Maybe when this is all said and done, WP:FRINGE could be expanded?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

A way I would consider what's happening on MTG's page is that the amount of effort to go into trying to spell out how much of a conspiracy theorist is is far outweighing the effort to document the fundamental data about her that should seen as the base, objective data that any Wikibio should be including. Which is where that becomes a RGW problem, because regardless of how much is written about negative traits about a person, our goal should not to overemphasize this over the basic encyclopedic information, and lead into why these negative traits about a person exist. Masem (t) 16:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The lead has 331 words, 267 of which are negative. After the lead, but before the notes and references are 9,812 words, 6,135 which are negative. Early life and education has 96 words, none negative. Early career and activism has 390 words, 205 which are negative. U.S. House of Representatives has 2,365 words, 907 which are negative, Political positions has 6,146 words, 4,607 which are negative. In popular culture has 369 words, 347 which are negative. Personal life has 173 words, 69 which are negative. Altogether out of 10,143 words for both the lead and the rest of the article, 6,402 words (63%) are negative. The Adolf Hitler lead has 670 words, 180 words are negative. For the rest of the article with 12,677 words, 3,132 words are negative. Altogether out of 13,347 words for both the lead and the rest of the article, 3,312 words (25%) are negative.

Going over it makes me compare the Wikipedia Hitler article with one from an older print encyclopedia I read some time back. The Wikipedia article is nicer to him than it would have to be, especially near the beginning and middle of the article. By percentage of negative content, the most negative part is at the end, following Masem's goal of leading into the negative traits. In contrast, the print encyclopedia article described him as "evil" at the top with no qualms about making a moral judgement. I suppose an older encyclopedia, written close to the events at hand, is going to be less distanced and neutral than an encyclopedia written long after the events. That could also explain why a present day politician gets an article that is 63% negative, while a politician who has been deceased for 77 years gets an article that is 25% negative. Another factor is that this is an English website instead of a German website; the German Wikipedia article on Hitler is considerably more negative than the English article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

You missed the main reason which is pervasive in Wikipedia. Hitler is not involved in / considered to be on one side of American Politics.North8000 (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

While the problem is pervasive in US politics, you can find similar issues with application of contentious terms in bios/blps of people associated with it. Eg I've seen it on articles related to Poland and what happened there in WWII, I've seen it in the Israel/Pakistan issue, etc. Just that its far easier to find sources on how US politics is reported. Masem (t) 20:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, the general case statement is that where there is a real world contest/dispute, and the combatants think that they can further their cause by what gets in Wikipedia, there is an unsolvable (under current policies and guidelines) conflict at Wikipedia to make the article biased one way or the other. So there are many such cases in Wikipedia, American Politics is just the largest scale of them. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The idea that Marjorie Taylor Green's article is more negative than Adolf Hitler's is frankly idiotic. Treating this nonsensical claim as a starting point for serious discussion emphasizes the extremely poor quality of dialogue here. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are ignoring the tone aspect here. Yes, broadly, MTG is nowhere close to the negative aspects of Hitler, but the Hitler article approaches the topic in a far more neutral, dispassionate manner due to language choice and wording without downplaying the crimes against humanity. MTG's article presently is written to highlight her negative traits above anything else. This is something that can be fixed through tone adjustment and language reordering without losing the media's criticism of her. It just can't be WP's position to treat her as a "bad" person. Masem (t) 19:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Except that all mainstream RS treat her as a loony bad person because that's what she is. No accomplishments but outrageous controversy. We just document what they say because they are reliably telling us the truth about her. It's really that simple. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Except of course we are not supposed to write anything about BLP or topics in general in a disparaging manner regardless if the tone that sources take. It is absolutely possible to take a neutral tone in writing such an article but that does require keeping both personal and sourced-based emotive perspectives out of the writing process. Masem (t) 21:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict, responding only to previous post) Masem made the distinction between including negative coverage that was in sources and an wiki-editor decision to tilt/spin the article in the negative direction, and there are a lot of discretionary ways to do the latter. You seem to be arguing that the latter is also OK based on the editor's take on the sources overall. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, sorry, I'm not going along with this line of assumptions, which are bizarrely out-of-touch even by the standards of Jimbo's talk page. Adolf Hitler's article says that he was responsible for the murders of over 6 million innocent people. For genocide. In the lead, in the first paragraph. If you think the "tone" of Marjorie Taylor Green's article is somehow more negative than that, I think we lack a foundation in a shared objective reality and further discussion is pointless. MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Its the establishing tone. Hitler's article starts out with objective statements, and then quickly gets an overarching summary of his rise to power as to establish why he was reasonable for those deaths. All without engaging in any negative terms. It is a dispassionate introduction to one of history's most resented figures without including an ounce of that resentment in the statements. Whereas MTG's article is basically immediately leading with calling out her conspiracy theory and far right associations without building up to those those points. It is immediately hostile to the topic and shows full on resentment for her. WP can't show that type of hostility (Moreno for a BLP) even if that's the only way sources present that. It is absolutely possible to write a lead para that still ends up talking to her conspiracy theory and far right aspects while being objectively neutral to those elements. Masem (t) 22:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Just as Hitler's article says he was responsible for the murders of over 6 million innocent people, so should MTG's article say she is known for conspiracy theories. But just as the Hitler article does not call him a murderer, so the MTG article should not call her a conspiracy theorist. In fact, Hitler was a bigger conspiracy theorist than MTG having created the Big Lie of the Stab in the Back and many other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories which had catastrophic consequences and received most of his income from his book that promoted them, but the article does not call him a conspiracy theorist or an anti-Semite for that matter. I don't see why we should use emotional wording when it comes to modern U.S. politicians. TFD (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes @The Four Deuces:, I agree with all you said! -- Python Drink (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well Jimbo. Due to years of observation on many topics? I very much know how this discussion will end. Gonna keep an eye on it, to see if I'm correct. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

• ...Did this devolve intoGodwin's law? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

• That is generally the fallback when one gets frustrated and loses the argument, yes. ValarianB (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The reason Hitler's article is brought up is that Hilter himself is considered one of the most "evil" persons in humanity's history, and yet the article represents a dispassionate, neutral tone that still covers the atrocities he did under his rule and why many academics would classify him as one of the most "evil" persons, and yet never uses wikivoice to disparage him. That's the standard we should be going for for any topic, including bios and particularly BLPs of still active persons. I've explained how it is really easy in these real-time conflicts to allow personal thoughts and alignment with the same from the media to make it seem like simply repeating what the media says is "right", but one needs to step back, think about ten or more years out, and how the article looks to someone well outside that real-time conflict. Masem (t) 12:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Godwin's law states, "As a discussion on the Internet grows longer, the likelihood of a person/s being compared to Hitler or another Nazi, increases." That isn't happening here. It is constructive however to compare the tone of MTG's article with that of another politician, whose actions were the most evil in history. Furthermore, he is on of few politicians who have no supporters in mainstream literature. If I had used Stalin as an example, someone could argue that we use a neutral tone because some academics still defend him, at least in part. TFD (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agree with TFD above, we dont need to be labeling people regardless what they did. We can simply be encyclopedic about what they did, and the reader can make up their own label (for those readers that need labels, not everyone needs labels to understand a concept). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

So what PAGs will be used to justify a ban on the use of certain common English words, even if many RS use them to describe certain people? You're pushing a very radical idea. Will Wikipedia use bots that instantly block editors who mistakenly use these forbidden words, like when Facebook instantly blocks users? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf that doesn't seem to comply with NPOV, at the very least. Doug Weller talk 07:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Its a great point you make, and I am glad you make it. You raise what I consider to be a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. We dont call people names to create some false balance, we report on the events that have happened and readers can do their own name calling in their heads. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf that's not how I understand NPOV. Doug Weller talk 09:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

NPOV WP:VOICE clearly says Prefer nonjudgmental language Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is a huge gap in using wikivoice to identify people with negative, subjective terms, even when many RSes use the terms freely, and using attribution of some sort to say that that has what they have been called. The latter is fully in line with bot the content part and tone part of NPOV. Masem (t) 12:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is what we are discussing here, if there is a place for this judgmental language. You are arguing if the judgmental language is used in RS it is kosher to use in the article and I am saying it is not. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

We go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

In Wiki terms, that broad common statement has many possible meanings, some are encyclopedic and some aren't, some are things prescribed by Wikipedia's prescribed uses of sources and some aren't. IMO going with the latter is a common contributor to bias/NPOV problems. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, but thems is the policy. If enough RS say it we have to say it, to not do so violates NPOV which is clear, we represent what RS say. We do not give equal weight to non RS views. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nothing about equal weight here, but all about presenting the correct tone, and using attribution rather than wikivoice. WEIGHT does not say we give up impartial writing to include something widely said in RSes. Masem (t) 14:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Slatersteven, the beginning of your post seems to imply that that overly broad statement is policy; I don't agree. The rest of your post was a complex blend of interrelated things and implications that some establish the others....too hard to respond to.North8000 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Sigh… there are times when I think we should have simply adopted a “NO BLPs” policy early on in WP’s history. Would have saved us a LOT of headaches. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've often thought to myself that there is a set of topics (maybe 2% of Wikipedia) which we are not equipped to get right, are the sources of unsolvable drama, which aren't trusted and which tarnish the reputation of the other 98% of Wikipedia. And that it's tempting to think about giving up on covering those.North8000 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

What I see happening here is a failure to clearly communicate nuances. "Labels" can also be very precise and accurate "descriptions", and we don't avoid/forbid the use of the proper and accurate descriptions used by RS just because someone calls them a "label". Of course we don't add unsourced or poorly sourced negative labels, but that's not at issue here. When labels are used as accurate descriptors by the majority of RS, we can use them in wikivoice because they are the most accurate descriptors. When they are controversial (among RS), we attribute them as the opinions of the sources. This is already policy, so why the push to forbid the use of common English words just because someone thinks they are a "label" when they are also accurate descriptors?

So back to "nuances". If you're talking about "wikivoice", say it and we can agree. If you don't say it, then you seem to be pushing censorship and advocating refusal to use the most accurate descriptors/labels used by RS, and that attitude violates a whole host of policies, especially NPOV.

This push just smacks of censorship and protectionism. We go by what RS say. Censoring or neutering words used by RS because they might offend someone's sensibilities violates our NPOV duty to avoid "editorial bias". Note it is editors, not sources (and thus content), that must be neutral and unbiased in our editing. Don't get in the way of what RS say. Don't launder it through your personal opinions and biases before placing your interpretation of what RS say on the page. Don't take flavorful and accurate descriptions and turn them into flavorless, uninformative, and unnuanced blah content. Tell it as it is in the way that RS do. Use attribution when in doubt. This is NPOV101 newbie stuff. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is generally all correct but the one issue that come up is that bolded line about using attribution. Using attribution should be considered the default for nearly any use of a label or term with subjective or contentious or have negative connotation but instead we often see editors racing to use WP:SPADE to use these terms in wikivoicd (as the case for MTG) just because they found a few sources to support it. There can be a point where a significant fraction of sources use the term that SPADE would apply and we can state it in wikivoice without attribution, like with Alex Jones and conspiracy theorist, but that should be only after a source survey is done to verify this, and not because editors have found two or three source. (Which on that case if the opinions of the RSes meet WEIGHT, they can be.included with attribution). Masem (t) 16:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

As I pointed out before, reliable sources do not routinely label MTG a conspiracy theorist. See for example, "Rep. Greene questions whether July 4 shootings were 'designed' to get Republicans to back gun control." (NBC News, July 7, 2022) They merely refer to her as a Representative, even though the article is about her pushing a conspiracy theory, although they do not call it that. Labelling people is considered politically incorrect. See for example, "Why It's Time To Stop Labeling Ourselves And Those Around Us" or "Why It's Dangerous to Label People." This is the type of behavior we expect from people like MTG. We should show respect to others, even if they hold irrational views, not sink to their level. TFD (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Heads up, Jimbo; okay I'm not completely sure about this, but I think some editors are trying to make Mick Jagger into a featured article, or maybe about to. So if any inside connections (like what happened in the past) contacts you about anything negatively, you'll know why. (Again, sorry about the previous time.) Also, The Rolling Stones discography#Singles now appears to be deprecated, as vandalism appears to be persistent. I have been working on this on my own (please see here User:Discographer/Various–Music#The Rolling Stones), so hopefully this will get fixed up in the future. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok - that seems highly unlikely but sure. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have a notification, but don't know where. Do you know if somebody is able to check it to see where it is from, it seems java script doesn't actually work on my device that well. It making me go nuts, I should be enjoying my video game time but I can't let this go! -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 18:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@L10nM4st3r try Special:Notifications — xaosflux ^Talk 18:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Xaosflux: I did, on 17 different wikis, even in languages I don't understand. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 18:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Based on Special:CentralAuth/L10nM4st3r it's likely enwikibooks or metawiki. There isn't a way for someone else to read your echo notifications. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Tried there. I think I'll ask my mum if I can borrow her phone for a minute and see that way. She herself is not an editor, but I think she might understand. Maybe. Hopefully. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 19:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could somebody ping me please? I want to see if I can remove the notification without risking the above. Thanks. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 19:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

So, they were welcomes in wikis in languages I don't even know. Now I have two more notifs... I'm gonna go back to my mum, but not right now. (Damm you welcome bots!) -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 16:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Fuck welcome bots. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 17:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@L10nM4st3r, perhaps you have the same problem that I have. I have described it here: mw:Topic:Wbnqf9bb8xtcbs3s (and mentioned a hacky and ugly workaround). I would argue that this is a bug in the small-screen versions of the adaptive skins, but I haven't been able to get anyone to listen to me. —Kusma (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kusma: that workaround doesn't seem to work for me at all (I'll double check I wrote it correctly). I'm irritated they ignore it though. You have a point. And I'm not the only user with limited hardware/software capabilities. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 18:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply