Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

The phrase "Holy Bible"

I can't find any guidance on this. Is it acceptable to refer to the Bible as 'the Holy Bible' when this is not the actual titles of a published version? Is this in fact covered at MOS:ISLAM which says "Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgement that is inappropriate to Wikipedia."? I presume it is. I can't find it on any of our MOS pages. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's every bit as acceptable as "Holy Quran". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
And MOS:ISLAM makes it clear that "Holy Quran" isn't acceptable, that's what I just wrote above. Dougweller (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I would tend to say that Holy Bible is a value judgement. No its not NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. "Holy Bible" or "Holy Quran" may well be appropriate to be named as alternative names mentioned in their respective articles, but not as a general name of the books in the editorial voice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Either 'Holy Bible' or 'Holy Quran' should definitely be used... after we can conclusively verify the existence of a deity, and which scriptures are divinely inspired. Until we're able to know that for sure, we should refrain from taking sides by putting 'holy' on any of them. After all, it might be Thor, and then where would we be? Inaccurate, that's where. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, what's needed is not proof that God exists, but only that the term "Holy..." is the most common. The Bible says "Holy Bible" on its binding, but most folks simply call it "The Bible". Similarly, while many Muslims may call it the "Holy Quran", the most common name you're likely to find is "Quran" (or even "Koran"). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
"The Bible"? Do you have access to the official master copy (no doubt written in the language of Jesus and Moses, early 17th century English ;-)? I've seen many different bible editions, with widely varying texts on the cover. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The same applies just as much to Holy Bible Its not 'the offical name' either (perhaps we should just say the book dedicated to my darling Candy). At the end of the day all religeoous texts are holy to those who subscribe to wahtever Cloister they follow, and its just as equaly not holy to those who don't.Slatersteven (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
"Holy Bible" is another way to say "Holy Book". That's the title of the book chosen by its publishers, at least in some cases. But since "Bible" is the commonly used term, that makes more sense for the article - with the caveat that "Bible" is a commonly used term by Jews to describe what Christians call the Old Testament. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Are we talking citation, or in-text description? "The Holy Bible" appears to be the actual title of some publications, e.g., ISBN 9780840700414. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I am talking about in-text description. Just as MOS:ISLAM says we don't say 'Holy Quran, where it isn't a title we shouldn't say 'the Holy Bible', just 'the Bible'.

Comment adding Holy is more than just a value judgment as it implies that it is the Christian Bible, and not just the Hebrew Bible. While "The Old(Jewish) and New(Christian) Testaments together are commonly referred to as "The Holy Bible" (τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια). " the Hebrew Bible and is not commonly referred to as the Holy Hebrew Bible/Holy Bible. Since the Christian Bible is sometimes known as the Holy Bible:
Christian Bible lead sentence:
...Christian Bible (sometimes known as the Holy Bible)...
it can be used in a non POV way to differentiate it with the older versions of the Christian Bible that do not contain both Testaments(Like the Hebrew Bible). It also is not Wikipedia making the value judgment, but rather reporting on how it is commonly referred to as(like referring to the The Boston Massacre as "the Boston Massacre" is not making a judgment on it as being a massacre, but referring to it by how others refer to it).--AerobicFox (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotal POV in lede of controversial topic article

In the introduction of English Defence League the following sentence currently stands:

However, some EDL members have chanted "We hate Muslims" at pro-Palestinian demonstrators in London on 13 September 2009.[1]

On December 20 a section was opened on the talk page, Talk:English Defence League#Opening lines and anti EDL sentiment, taking issue with this on NPOV grounds. Some editors are adamant that having this sentence in the lede is unproblematic while the issue is being discussed. I have stated that on the contrary, this sentence is really bad POV and should be removed promptly. __meco (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

A discussion opened up before Christmas to agree a modified text. All participating editors are agreed that we need to improve it. User Meco has taken no part in that discussion. The sentence has been there for a fair period of time, no one is going to come to harm if we discuss a change on the talk page. If Meco feels so strongly he should take part in that discussion then we can resolve the issue and get the article unblocked.--Snowded TALK 10:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I see no problem with the wording. TFD (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


The full wording of the rest of the sentence from the Guardian article should be included for sure ("Muslim bombers off our streets"). As well as the words uttered or on signs from those opposed: Pro-Palestinian protesters held up banners with slogans including 'Justice for the murdered children of Gaza', 'We are all Palestinians', 'Boycott Israel' and 'Judaism rejects the Zionist state'. in order to gain context. Single slogans cited out of context may be cute, but do not convey the thrust of the full article. Also the term in the article is "supporters" and not "members" as no one checked membership cards it appears. Collect (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I say remove the sentence. Here's why, and I think my idea may be novel. Yes, some said "I hate Muslims." However, we need to look at the context. In the heat of a demonstration regarding a certain limited issue, they shouted "I hate Muslims". There is no evidence that they hate Muslims generally. There are many, many Muslims in the world and all of them cannot be put into the little box that represented those involved in the demonstration. So by putting what they shouted at a demonstration against a relatively limited few in the lead paragraph without proper contextualization, the implication is made that they hate all Muslims, not just those involved in the demonstration, and that would violate various Wiki policies. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
See the BBC article, "Welsh Defence League links with neo-Nazis are unmasked".[2] The national co-ordinator for domestic extremism said of the various defence leagues, "I think it's a very significant threat. It's one I know the police service are taking very seriously, together with the Home Office and local authorities." The example of the demonstration is not anecdotal but typical of the EDL. TFD (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
"Typical" requires very strong sourcing - the case presented here, however, requires that the full context of the incident be presented accurately as in the article, lest WP inadvertantly cause readers to assume more than is in the actual source (such as a claim that "members" said something, which is not ascribed in the source to "members"). Collect (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
It would be "nice" if you would insist on the same high standards of sourcing for mainstream organizations (e.g., UAF, PBS) that you use for groups normally described as racist and anti-Semitic. TFD (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I apply uniform criteria everywhere on WP. Including use of quotes ascribed within full context, rather than removed from a context clearly present in the source. Nor do I defend "racist and anti-Semitic" groups - I wonder why you inserted that aside. Lastly I do not recall ever commenting on PBS sourcing -- might you refresh my memory where I said something regarding PBS? :astly - this is a section on a specific issue - not on any editors, so I am uncertain why you choose to comment on me rather than on the issues raised? Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
It was an appropriate critique in an inappropriate place. no sense continuing it here, but you'd do well to take it to heart. --Ludwigs2 23:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresenting one source and ignoring all the others?

In the lede of Climate change denial, there is a source that says,

Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science. Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, "sceptics". But almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the "big" debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change.

— Christoff, Peter, Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect, The Age Company Ltd

This is being used to support the text, "Climate change denial differs from skepticism which is essential for good science." There is another source that says,

We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.

— Peter J. Jacques; Riley E. Dunlap; Mark Freeman, Environmental Politics, The organisation of denial, Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism

There is a long discussion on the talk page that has debated whether these two uses of the word 'skeptical' are equivalent - the one that is essential to good science, and the one that is a political tactic. I would say that the present text not only misrepresents the source used, which goes on to say "There are now no credible scientific sceptics" in this area, but totally ignores the existence of other points of view per NPOV. I have tried to correct this but my edits have been reversed wholesale. I wonder if anyone here can help clarify the best way forward? --Nigelj (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify the premises for this inquiry. Are both of the sources (represented above with boxed quotes) used to reference that sentence in the article? Also, are these quotes the only parts of the respective referenced texts that discuss skepticism vis-a-vis climate change science? __meco (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
To save you going through the history of the article, I made changes to use both sources, so that part of the lede read, "Peter Christoff, writing in The Age in 2007, said that "Climate change denial differs from skepticism which is essential for good science". He went to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."[1] Jacques, Riley and Freeman concluded in their 2008 paper the organisation of denial that "scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection."[2]"[3] This has been reverted so that the article only uses the first source again, like this: "Climate change denial differs from skepticism which is essential for good science.[1]"[4] (Oops, I now see that in my version, the words I put in quotes from Christoff were not actually his but from an earlier paraphrase in the article. That is a minor point, which could have been easily fixed and is not related to my question here.) --Nigelj (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm quite confused. Your orthography used to demarcate your argument and the text you are quoting appears to be ambiguous also. __meco (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I am a native English speaker, but I have no idea what you're talking about now. --Nigelj (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted Nigelj's change because they seem to be on a crusade to say all skeptics except scientific skeptics are deniers. They are quoting from a publication about environmental skepticism above. Environmental skepticism is a name for those opposed to any control over pollution etc - basically the sort who press on the accelerator of their SUV's when anything like control is mentioned and say it is an infringement of their freedom and liberty. A climate change skeptic on the other hand is a description, some who describe themselves as skeptics are certainly deniers but I believe the vast majority have come to a rational decision given the way the denial industry has bombarded them with misinformation. The clue is in the difference between environmentalism and climate change, being against things in general is is indicative of a non-rational basis, improved communication might convince a climate change skeptic but is likely only to make an 'environmental skeptic' dig their heels in. Use of the term environmental skepticism does not mean the meaning of skepticism has changed. Dmcq (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is another aspect of this that may be getting overlooked, the use of "skepticism which is essential for good science". While this is true in a strict sense, I have been seeing it used to justify climate skepticism as "essential for good science", which is not true. This kind of usage is a subtle non-neutral POV, a continuation of the effort to attribute certain kinds of "skepticism" with more respectability than warranted. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, that's what I was saying about some who call themselves skeptics are deniers, deniers like to call themselves skeptics. However the implication does not follow like Nigelj seems to try and imply that most climate change skeptics are deniers. Also 'environmental skepticism' is a name for a crowd who definitely veer on the side of being deniers but that does not imply that skepticism has changed its meaning in other contexts or that people who are skeptical about climate change without being climate change scientists are deniers. Dmcq (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Dmcq, you need to be aware of two things: One, we are not here to discuss me or my beliefs so please quit all the aspersions about me 'crusading'. Secondly, I have never said, here or anywhere else that skeptics are deniers and whether they are or not is not under discussion here. We are discussing sources and NPOV article text - please stick to that alone or you may create other problems. --Nigelj (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Whether climate change skeptics are in general deniers is very much the question here and I would appreciate you giving a straightforward answer which you have refused to do. The article is about climate change deniers and the discussion was about summarizing the bit about the relation to climate change skeptics in the lead. Have you a citation opposing what is there besides one about 'environmental skepticism'? Dmcq (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not here to answer questions, I came here to ask one. I'm still hoping for some assistance from uninvolved encyclopedic experts. --Nigelj (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally I am unable to approach this as this section stands, simply due to how my mind works and doesn't work. Could you start anew, open a subsection below and present the problem once more without any references to what has been written here so far? That is my suggestion to you now. __meco (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I would say that the debate on skepticism vs denialism likely belongs elsewhere than that page, I would also say that a discussion on the matter should likely not be in wikipedias voice while sourced to an oped. If that particular source is going to be used it should be as part of an inline attributed quote, and most likely include "There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change.". un☯mi 22:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Dmcq: sorry, but it appears that you do not understand what I said. In the context of climate change the entire discussion on the nature (and contradistinctions) of "skepticism" is a red herring, a tempest of only teacup proportions. Those who originally denied the existence of global warming, and then its anthropogenicity, and then its consequences, are now backpedalling, claiming that they are "only" skeptics, and that this is a good and respectable scientific/societal function. In general terms, yes, but in this specific case, no. As the first quote says (and Unomi quoted, in part): "...the 'big' debate is over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics...." To ignore that part, and only cherry-pick the "skepticism is essential" distorts the quote, even misrepresents it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection to including that bit provided the bit about skeptics in general is included. That was two separate things that Peter Christoff said and the bit about climate change scientists was after saying the bit about skeptics in general. What I object to is just sticking in a bit that implies all skeptics are deniers which is the opposite what Peter Christoff or other people have said. Now are you saying that you want to just say skeptics are deniers? Here is what nigelj said repeated "there are at least three groups of people: deniers (whom this article is about), 'climate skeptics' (who are following a teach the controversy political agenda to try to keep the political discussion blurred and prevent any US government action from being taken) and climate scientists (who, of course, maintain a sceptical eye on whatever they and others publish in the peer reviewed literature)." Now when a can of food is described the main ingredients are listed and this particular can has as a major ingredient members of the general public who are quite rightly skeptical after reading all the newspaper reports of climategate and the way the newspapers 'balance' issues and the misinformation from 'think tanks'. The main ingredient is missing from the list of contents. In fact it implies most skeptics are deniers even though the real direction is that many deniers describe themselves as skeptics. Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
@meco and @Unomi, thank you both for your contributions so far. I think we are getting somewhere. @meco, how about if you just re-read the two boxed quotes above (both from citable sources and unadulterated here), and think how you would summarise the place of 'Climate skepticism' in the article about 'Climate change denial' (if at all). My own suggestion, having slept on this for a few days, would be to write a new section into the article called something like "Relationship with 'climate skepticism'" and go into some detail. If other contributors here want to help find usable quotes from other refs, that may be useful. The new section could also discuss the rise in 'skepticism' among the general public following the organised denial that the rest of the article documents, as well as other potential factors like the CRU e-mails, newscasters insisting on 'balance' by always bringing on a contrarian when they interview a scientist, etc; provided all this could be properly sourced. Then, of course, we summarise the new section in the lede, as normal. Or not: maybe we decide that there is no connection between these two things and leave the relationship out of the article, but I think the connections are well enough documented to warrant some coverage, and maybe more than can be squeezed into a sentence or two in the lede with no supporting article section. --Nigelj (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
How about we simply follow the sources that talk about climate change denial instead of trying to make the article into something else of our own devising? That newspapers try to 'balance' things is not denial. That all those leaked emails caused trouble is not denial. And more to the point for Wikipedia sources do not discuss them in the context of denial. And no we shouldn't be just sticking things in to the lead without a bit of backup in the main article for an article of this size. The section 'meanings of the term' already discusses wehere the terms have been linked and that is what should be summarized in the lead. Dmcq (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not really familiar with the sources, and I desperately want to stay out of more contentious articles, that said, there seems to have been a historic skepticism which was scientifically constructive in the sense that it challenged models - and this skepticism as a matter of history could deserve attention in this article or another - but that this article is specifically about denialism. And that according to notable commentators, as I assume Peter Christoff to be, contemporary "skepticism" is without credible support in the scientific community. Just my 2 cents. un☯mi 11:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Please leave personal statements about yourself out. What you say about scientific scepticism is true but not particularly relevant. The lead already definitively asserts the scientific consensus on climate change in the lead a couple of times. The bit being summarized is in the section 'meanings of the term' which does not discuss scientific scepticism. The problem being addressed is the number of people who come along expecting a description of climate change scepticism who really should be directed to global warming controversy instead. Dmcq (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Climate change denial now has both statements as discussed above. I removed the stuff about environmental skepticism - it wasn't about climate change denial and why can't people develop the body first before changing the lead. The paragraphs in the lead now all go on about that the scientific consensus is right and nobody who has any sense is skeptical. Have a read an see how bombastic and driven it all seems now. It is not how I believe a encyclopaedia article that summarizes the sources should be written but I'll leave it for others to fix. Dmcq (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
That is better; thank you. We could have more debate about the relationship/distinctions between "climate skeptics" and "climate deniers", but for the purpose of this discussion on this noticeboard: is the current issue satisfactorily resolved? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks again to all who have contributed here. I also think that a well-rounded coverage of the relationship and distinctions would go well in the article, and that that can be something for the future. --Nigelj (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Scientific scepticism is peripheral to the topic, the bit inserted about it in the lead isn't even in the meanings of the term section where the other bit is discussed. I don't feel happy with the clunkiness either but at least it now has something in the lead which should deflect some of the people who keep coming along saying the title should be climate change skepticism and then that it is very biased when describing skepticism. Dmcq (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
That is something we can (and likely should) work on — at the Talk page. As long we don't get too stiff-necked in our views I think we don't need to hash it out here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
So you and Nigelj are going to back each other up there eh? So you can push a big polemic about the scientific consensus and nobody is a proper skeptic on a page which should be about climate change denial? and you do this on a page about neutral point of view? How about following 5P and developing an encyclopaedia rather than pushing an agenda. Dmcq (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
How about you have a look at WP:AGF and more especially Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Casting aspersions. This thread is finished; we had some valuable input from uninvolved and experienced editors; the article was improved; please leave it alone now. --Nigelj (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved? On a quick look at your most recent contributions I see you are both on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming at the same time. So you just refuse to deal with the points of a person on the talk page and here but defer to the experts here eh? How about you think about developing an encyclopaedia rather than turning an article into a coatrack to push the truth of climate change over and over and over again in the lead? Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to point out that the title and original topic of this section is "Misrepresenting one source and ignoring all the others?" Which I think is resolved (in part with your participation, thank you). But now you want to discuss something else, like — Nigel and I are conspiring against you? (Ridiculous.) That we refuse to "deal with" your points on the talk page? Well, sorry, I haven't been following Talk:Climate change denial, and I don't see that you have raised any points recently on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, so it is unclear what your complaint is (aside from general belly-aching and throwing of aspersions). If there are any points you wish to discuss, please raise them at an appropriate venue. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Well I'll just quote Nigelj above "I'm not here to answer questions, I came here to ask one. I'm still hoping for some assistance from uninvolved encyclopedic experts." His 'uninvolved' support just happens to work on a related subject with him at the same time and this just happens to be your first time on a policy noticeboard. Now in future may I ask that both of you invest a little time in actually engaging in discussion rather than considering Wikipedia as a battleground for a holy war? Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
You are being tendentious, sounding like a broken record; you do not seem to have anything to add to this thread. And if you want to discuss any of your other bellyaches or innuendos of conspiracy and "holy war" (wow) you should find a proper forum. What part of this do you not understand? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought I was being pretty direct without innuendos. I consider you a meatsock rather than an uninvolved expert in NPOV. Dmcq (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Operation Ore

It might be worth adding the above article to a few watchlists. There are some single purpose accounts operating in this article about a British police operation against alleged downloaders of child pornography at least some of whom were convicted. The SPAs are active on both sides of the argument.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

United States and state terrorism

This article has become a coatrack for presenting critical views of US foreign policy. We need editors to help repair this problem by:

  1. Moving and merging excessive content to the relevant history articles, which will help reduce the excessive length of this article.
  2. Balancing negative views with positive views in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources. I am quite sure the positive views exist, but it appears that they have been systematically excluded.
  3. Establishing a consensus to end a very severe edit war. (added)

Thank you for helping. Jehochman Talk 12:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I should also note that the article was protected for a month until Jan 29 due to edit warring. I was not involved in the protection nor the edit wars. Jehochman Talk 12:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a clear "advocacy article" by its very nature. [5] show the way this article is being used by some. [6] shows that even asserting that a POV problem exists is met with reversion. [7] asserts that the use of the atomic bomb was "state terrorism" etc. The entire edit history is rife with POV-pushing. Collect (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you are reading something else into it than I am, the article contains attributed arguments regarding specific actions or tactics constituting state terrorism. The diffs you show seem to show that the POV tag did not have a reason attached, and presumably nothing was raised on the talk page. The section regarding the atomic bombings allegedly constituting state terrorism is full of notable commentators and historians arguing that case. It is obvious that there are editors who do not agree with the premise of the article or the sourced views therein, but that is certainly the case with many of our articles for various groups of readers. un☯mi 15:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not disputing the verifiability of the information. My concern is that a peculiar set of facts have been cherry picked with the apparent intention of casting the US in a bad light. For several years a number of agenda driven accounts seem to have been involved in an attempt to spin this article to their favored world view. That spin needs to be removed. Jehochman Talk 18:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jehochman, there are serious WP:WEIGHT issues with this article, there needs to be something to balance the information critical of the US; the only section I see any such response is the Atomic bombins of Japan and even that section has a clear anti-US bias. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Then prodivide the balance (properly sourced of course). I have seen the self same argument (in reverse) in the anti-american page. If you don't like the balance either adjust it or accept that there is no imbalnce to adjust.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, agree with that stance. I can see NPOV issues within the article (including its title), but it is not clear what remedy is being sought for what specific problem. --FormerIP (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven I don't understand the purpose of your statement, are you disputing that there are balance and POV issues with the article, or are you saying that one editor should just go fix the problems created by dozens of editors over the 4 years the article has existed? Jehochman, seems to have clearly stated the steps he feels are needed to improve the article(and I agree) he was just looking for help. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that if thre are issues with NPOV then adress them. Yes that would mean dealing with any percived probloms. Raise a specific issue and then we can discuse it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman has repeatedly been asked to provide reliable sources with contrary viewpoints that he doesn't feel are being included, and has so far failed to do so. He and another user are repeatedly making claims that "contrary views are being excluded", but have failed to provide any such views or examples of where they were excluded. I would ask that their unfounded allegations of censorship stop, unless they can substantiate them. Repeated allegations of "anti-American bias" are also meaningless without reliable sources presenting contrasting views to the ones used. All of the editors involved have welcomed the inclusion of such views, and have stated willingness to include them if they are presented. The real problem is that the users making the complaints have consistently refused to substantiate their allegations with reliable sources, or to make specific suggestions for changes other than deleting the article. In Jehochman's case, he says he isn't going to provide sources because he doesn't have the time to research the content. I find it perplexing that he believes something is biased when he hasn't researched it yet, but all of the editors at the page are willing to include anything he comes up with. But specific suggestions actually need to be made before anything can change. That said, I agree that there are serious problems with the article, which I was actually working on fixing before the recent protection came into effect. I welcome any specific suggestions that anyone might have for improvement. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This article, which has obvious POV issues is a has been jealously guarded to preserve it's content. Attempts to include contrary information that I have been a part of have been reverted and blocked. The article itself is a WP:COATRACK. It serves as a Petri dish for WP:FRINGE opinions to be collected and WP:NPOV to be given WP:UNDUE weight by WP:ACTIVIST editors who have it as a WP:SOAPBOX. Any attempt to improve has been blocked by the same editor who is now asking for specific suggestions on how to fix it. Really, the thing should be deleted and the relevant content that isn't duplicate or triplicate should be moved back to the specific articles that it refers to. V7-sport (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is obvious except tha when asked to provide soures the attitude has been 'don't want to' (at least recently). It might help if yoou could provide diifs of wehre4 yout sattempts to provide balance have been delted or blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with V7. There's little to no chance of creating a decent article under this title. This isn't the way to write the history of international relations. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you have an alternative sugestion for the articel title?Slatersteven (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I know User:Jehochman has opined on his talk page (where he advises User:V7-Sport to RfC the article into naught) that the article is “anti-American POV pushing.” So that’s the other POV side of the charge of “Coatrack.” There is a whole Category:Terrorism and something tells me there are many examples of things editors could call “coatrack.” Let's face it, articles about any kind of "terrorism" are bound to be replete with criticism. No one is saying any terrorism articles should Not be "Balancing negative views with positive views" as User:Jehochman wants and as he is perfectly free to do.
  • However, a State terrorism article exists and a relevant category and more articles about various states that engage in state terrorism should be created. The state terrorism article does need to define the difference between “state terror” and “war crimes” a bit better and earlier on, which would help this article as well, but certainly WP:RS calling a “war crime” state terrorism as well (or even alternatively) should be sufficient for such articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Its not as if this is the only such articel. I agree that we could perhaps do with more such artice4ls.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, sir! I should have checked State_terrorism#See_also and there are several. And there's even a category Category:Terrorism_committed_by_country - though a couple of big nation states are sorely missing appropriate articles. Not to mention the article State-sponsored terrorism, another article which needs better sync-ing with this one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you may be right and that maybe an admin should take a look at this situation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by Admins should look at, unless you mean the End Disruptive Editing comment I just left on the article's most recent RfC. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The accusation that a user has attempted to encourage oterhs to disruopt an articl for a start.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
That is in general the type of thing I was referring to in that link above, but I would leave it to others who are more familiar with the article's history to do something about it. I'm just encouraging them, since it looks like there is a problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Watch out for flying, crooked sticks. I am familiar with the article's history. It's been haunted by sock puppets of User:Giovanni33 for years. Some of the accounts currently involved there are most likely him. If matters don't get sorted soon, I will be revisiting some of that history. Jehochman Talk 18:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The pages history (in this instance) are irrelevant. They do not (assuming the accusation is true) justify encouraging others users to use RFC's to break pages. Your accusation just makes me bleive that indead we now need admin intervention. We have accusation of Sock puppetry, lieing, Personal attacks, POV pushing, Cherry picking, and encouaging contentious editing (as well as accusations of contentious ediintg). There is no longer (it seems to me) any good faith being shown on this page. I think sanctions are in order.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, you weren't specific enough for me to know what you were referring to. Obviously I felt that was problematic and should be brought here and to the talk page. I'm not sure if it needs to go further. The Arbitration idea is a good one. I have another one I'll broach at talk page in near future. If you and others do complain elsewhere about it, put a note on my talk page and I may or may not chime in. I think the bottom line is that we have shown the original posting of this thread was is not just a disinterested one from an NPOV editor. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no requirement for an editor to be disinterested to post here. Obviously I am interested in improving the article, as you seem to be. We might disagree about what that means, but at least neither of us is socking! Much of the content in this article was put together by User:Giovanni33. He was banned in 2008, but the article was never properly cleaned up. Jehochman Talk 14:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Trafigura

Could a few people have a look at Trafigura. An IP editor has been removing lots of negative information and slanting the rest in a more positive light [8]. A couple of editors have reverted, prompting some long posts on the talk page - it's currently back on the IP's version. The article may well have too negative before, but now it's gone a long way in the opposite direction. Trafigura have tried to improve their image on wikipedia in the past (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-21/Trafigura); this might be good faith editing but I think more experienced eyes are needed.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

1953 Iranian coup d'etat

[9] is presented as (edit summary) undoing User:Collect's major edits, for which he has no WP:Consensus

Is the change in lede back to the huge version (which, by the way, was not removed from the article) an advance to NPOV? Was the shorter lede more NPOV in any event? Does the article have significant POV issues? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your shorter version is a good start to the general housecleaning needed at that article. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is an open RFC and an ongoing discussion about the Lead. One user, be it User:Collect or anyone else, cannot just take matters into his own hand in the middle of an ongoing process, and unilaterally re-write the lead, in order to bypass the RFC/Consensus-building process. This is not how Wikipedia works. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD has not been repealed. Collect (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Just got a level 3 warning for my edit at Indus Valley Civilization

I've just been given a Level 3 warning for presumably this edit: [10]. The editor, Wangond (talk · contribs) removed the entire sentence (not just my edit) and a citation request of mine at [11] . There been a brief discussion at the article talk page and I certainly didn't expect this, although I note that he removed a citation to Sharri Cla earlier claiming it wasn't in the source, which was I believe just plain wrong. He appears to think that any suggestion that disagrees with h about mother goddesses is a " minority views npov violation". I don't want to get involved in an edit war (see his talk page, he's had a couple of warnings recently about 3RR), but Clark has a number of interesting things to say about the figurines - see [12] which should be in the article. The whole mother goddess issue is also not cut an dried as I've pointed out at Talk:Indus Valley Civilization#Religion and mother goddess.

Editor's first edit was [13] which removed a cited claim that the Indian Ocean was named after India (no edit summary). [14] was a basic change in the etymology of the article from what looked like a well cited claim that the origin was generally thought to be Sanskrit but might be Tamil, removing the Sanskrit paragraph and asserting it was Tamil. So we may well have an NPOV problem but I hope it's not on my part. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The violation was made by you. According to wp:npov, such sentences are not allowed to have prominence like the majority view. Furthermore, Clark doesnt contenst the majority view, but giving stimulus to other views. The addition of Clark have thus no basis for inclusion, especially not in a dispute way. The word Malaysia is not thought to be from Sanskrit. This is not referenced by any source, the editors have given in the Malaysia article. The sources say only, that there is a Sanskrit work, which references to Sumatra as Malayadvipa. Etymology is about the sorces of words, not references from works to this word.--Wangond (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems there is an issue with sanskrit, among other things, see here where the editor altered a disambiguation to say that it was a sanskrit loanword. I'm not sure it's appropriate for a disambiguation page either. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I put a fact tag asking for references for what you claim to be the majority view, and you removed it. You don't appear to understand NPOV if you think Clark's viewss don't belong in the article. The sentence you removed, "However, this view has been disputed by S. Clark who sees it as an inadequate explanation of the function and construction of many of the figurines." doesn't violate NPOV, in fact I'd say it's required if we are going to have "In view of the large number of figurines[3] found in the Indus valley, it has been widely suggested that the Harappan people worshipped a Mother goddess symbolizing fertility." I've said that that claim worries meas it is cited to another work by Clark [15] which does not make this 'widely suggested' claim and could be read as suggesting that Clark has made that claim. As for Malaysia, right or wrong, your edit summary "vandalism no source for the claims made" not helpful. I agree with what you say about etymology but it was neither vandalism nor unsourced, although the sources might be being misused. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
As for Sanskrit, I've just reverted an edit by Wangond where he changed cited text[16] with the edit summary "there is no "sanskrit writing system")"- my edit[17] hopefully conforms with the cite now which mentions Sanskrit inscriptions.
Thanks for your support on Malaysia. I have talked to chipmunk about this, and he still doesnt understand the matter. However on IVC, are you still contesting a majority view about mother goddess worship requiring a source? even after I told you to look in google books on the talk page? --Wangond (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I am saying it needs citing and you should not have removed the fact tag, but more importantly I easily found sources making statements such as " Given our current knowledge, we are unable to understand fully the position of a Mother Goddess as a fertility deity or, for that matter, the role of other female divinities in the religious fabric of the protohistoric societies of India. It is uncertain if the Harappan population had any idea of a single supreme Goddess with or without a male counterpart or if they were governed by magician-priests or even if they had a highly developed religion."[18] and the comments in this book [19] eg "At one time scholars tended to use the "Mother Goddess' label for all female figurines found at sites. This largely because of the belief that the worship of fertility goddesses was an important part of agricultural society. In the light of such problems the term "Mother Goddess" should be replace by the longer but more neutral phrase — 'female figurines with likely cultic significance'... " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
this is nothing else than pov pushing.--Wangond (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Manila hostage crisis

An editor added this note to one of the Chinese gov't response to the incident. I just want to know if this violates WP:NPOV.—Chris!c/t 01:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please offer an opinion? Thanks.—Chris!c/t 18:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It requires your intervention

The article is devoted to criticism of theory. But in fact protects theory against critics by hiding the facts.

There are others views:

But authors of articles do not want to see them. Пуанкаре (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

:This is a piece of Forum shopping. The user has already started a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What is it?, and all comments should go there, rather than fragmenting discussion of the question. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

He was instructed there to come here to the NPOVN. Lambanog (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Lambanog is correct, this is the correct venue. The discussion required no administrator involvement at all, so he was directed to the appropriate noticeboard, which is this one. --Jayron32 05:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Perfectly true. It was a very careless mistake on my part. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega problems

This article is dominated by one user named User:Barnstarbob pushing a pro-Vega agenda. The Chevrolet Vega is widely considered to have been one of America's worst cars, but criticisms are shunted to bottom paragraphs and overwhelmed with positive detail. The article dominator deletes inline citations, reverts "COI" tags by other users, is uncooperative and doesn't participate with WP:AGF. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that article's got issues. BSB obviously dominates the talk page, and the main page itself is very much fixed in the early 1970s, with all mention of the Vega's historical significance buried at the bottom. I mean, it's there, which is something, but the article very clearly leads with the positive whenever possible, and burying the criticism section changes the character of quite a few earlier quotes. For instance: Car & Driver picked it as one of its 10 most collectible cars, with the comment "We're talking about historical significance here." But that appears at the end of a long list of awards won by the Vega and before any mention of its legacy as a "black eye" for Chevy, which makes the historical significance seem positive to somebody who doesn't already know what they're talking about.
Also, I never thought I'd ever run across the phrase "pro-Vega agenda" unless it involved Street Fighter. ShaleZero (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer, I generally agree with the characterization of the Chevrolet Vega article which you and ShaleZero have provided. On the other hand, it's also important to note that other editors have given a barnstar and other praise to Barnstarbob for his work on the article, saying it is more detailed and well-researched than the typical car model article. What do you propose be done? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't propose to delete any of the content Barnstarbob added to the page, but to reorganize it. The Vega's one of the best-known cars of its decade and definitely deserves a comprehensive article; it just needs to stop dancing around why the Vega is so well-known. If I had free reign of the page, I'd move the "reception" section much higher and add either a third subsection or a subsequent full section on the car's popular reception, to examine how the car went from best-seller to discontinued in the space of seven years. Either way, the article needs a full "Legacy" section on how the eventual failure of the Vega line (a) affected Chevrolet as a company and (b) led to its sitting alongside the Pinto and the Yugo as one of the all-time bad cars in popular culture.ShaleZero (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Those changes sound good. In addition, I think that Awards and Comparison to competitors belong in the Reception section. But I should have made my question more specific. I was actually looking for how you intend to deal with Barnstarbob's de facto control of the article and his likely opposition to the type of changes you have proposed. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Asatric/Vanatric (Germanic) Christiantiy

Resolved

Germanic Saints?

Are there any official Germanic saints?

Grevenko Sereth 122.49.167.49 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you think? Which religion? What article does this pertain to?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This is not the place for this kind of question - you can find help for this at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk. When you do post this question there, please elaborate on what you want to know. You cannot give to much information. I am marking your question here as resolved because there is nothing more to be done here. Please post again if you do not understand what needs to happen next. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

Resolved

I would like to dispute the neutrality of the article on this man, specifically one sentence in the first paragraph. This is what I stated on that page's discussion board:

Putting aside that evolution itself requires a belief that a creator DOES NOT EXIST (as pointed out by some prominent evolutionists,) the statement, "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" is a blatant POV violation. First, the footnotes to that sentence link to talkorigins.org, which is a pro-evolution site so it is clearly not even a POV source. Second, the footnotes in question from talkorigins misrepresent their sources. In reponse to Hovind's claim that the geological column does not exist anywhere except in textbooks, they state, "John Woodmorappe, a young-earth creationist, has admitted that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines!" However, that statement by talkorigins is contradicted by Mr. Morappe himself who had this to say in an article titled, "The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?" : "Sometimes the motives of creationist researchers are challenged in an attempt to defend the concept of the geologic column. Consider, for instance, Glenn Morton’s tale of how I ‘set out to prove that the geologic column did not exist’, and then was forced to admit that it did. This fantasy has been picked up and repeated by other anti-creationists on the Internet without first checking what I actually wrote. The fact of the matter is, I in no sense tried to prove that the geologic column did not exist. The truth is that I already knew it didn’t! Nor was I in any way surprised to find that there are some places where lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found. I had known that long before. So had other informed creationists,[9] as pointed out earlier. In fact, I said so plainly on the first page of my article."

Morappe also goes on to say towards the end of his article, "There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field. " The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?


Talkorigins then goes on to cite as another peice of evidence a second-hand relay of a phonecall between Edward Babinski and Glenn Morton. the same Glenn Morton who Morappe disputed in the paragraph above. So to say that this is research and scientific evidence is TOTALLY not accurate and clearly point of view. The proper sentence in the first paragraph should read, "Hovind's views, not surprisingly, are challenged by evolutionists," which is a factual and objective sentence.

The page has been locked and the original POV sentence has been retained. Therefore, I would like a POV tag placed on this article until a proper substitute sentence is placed. Thank you. — Dimestore (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The information which you are stating is in the first paragraph is not currently in the lede, and I see no other problems with the lede. Besides that, an administrator unlocked the article today so anyone can make any changes or put any tags on it as they like. Thanks for trying to talk this through on the article's talk page. If you have any further problems, continue to discuss them on the article's talk page and if that is not effective then post on this board and someone from here will join the discussion on that talk page.

Because the information you opposed is gone and because tagging the article is possible now that it is unlocked, I am marking your request for help as resolved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

American Israel Public Affairs Committee

Resolved

A new editor is making some very problematic changes to the lede of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Specifically, he's adding information to a reference that doesn't appear on the website referenced (that: "AIPAC traces its history back to 1951, the date its founder left the employment of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in New York." and is replacing some general lede-appropriate summary information with a very specific reference to an FBI file that is mentioned elsewhere in the article. I am particularly disturbed that the editor chose to include a quote about an allegation made against the organization while leaving off the part of the quote that stated the allegation was "unsubstantiated". Here is his latest edit. (removed by Bluerasberry). GabrielF (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your link seems to not work; I think this is what you wanted to show. There is another user discussing this problem on the article talk page, and this person seems to have good ideas about solving it. Be bold and fix the problem and work with other editors on the talk page. If you have further problems then please state them here and propose what you would like done in response. Since you did not state any specific action which you wanted done, and since you have the attention of another user on that page anyway, I am marking your statement as resolved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Guidance requested re use of the word "claim"

Is the use of the word "claim" perjorative in the case of longevity claims about living people? I think it is. Especially when the "claim" may or may not be made by the person whose lifespan is in question. It could be a relative, government, or sloppy reporter making the claim. The World's Oldest People WikiProject could use some outside guidance here. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Would a simple answer of "no" suffice?
This seems a bit silly. Are you suggesting that "merely" claiming something is some how more perjorative than a strong assertion of the same claim? Or did someone say that with a certain tone of voice? With a quick glance at the talk page, I think you all haven't really tried to discuss it; you need to work on it some more before coming here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry it seems silly. I guess I haven't stated it well. I apologize. I'm concerned that a living person will be perceived to have made an untrue claim. But in many cases, the claim is by a reporter, a relative or a government agency. I'm trying to find wording that indicates the info is not verified without attributing the info to the person it's about. The person in question may not have claimed anything of the sort. If the info is not true, the living person ought not be tarred with attribution of a false claim. David in DC (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
See WP:CLAIM. We normally avoid the word since it does, indeed, carry a slight connotation of doubt or skepticism. I'll reply a bit futher on the relevant talk page. – OhioStandard (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. David in DC (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:CLAIM lumps "Assert" in with "Claim". But OS suggested footnotes rather than references to solve the problem. With guidance at WP:FOOT I've avoided "Claim", "Assert" and and another editor's concern about aesthetics. Please review the talk page discussion and my solution on the actual page and opine. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Just use whatever word is supported by sources and is correct. We shouldn't avoid using a word because someone decided it sounds like it carries doubt or skepticism. We're not supposed to move the meaning of articles to suit ourselves, but to suit our sources (and hopefully a dash of common sense). In the case of the oldest person, if there are records supporting the claim, then you can say "according to the blah blah archive, Ellie Mae is 102 years old." But if the best source is just old Ellie Mae and no one can support her story, then it is simply her claim. We're not besmirching Ellie Mae by saying "Ellie Mae claims to be 102 years old, and her recount of events and vivid recall of Theodore Roosevelt visiting her at age seven lend a striking validity to her story."
I agree with Avanu: a dash of common sense. Important these days. That's my claim. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a list. some of these birthdays are "claimed" by the person. But more often, it's family, local merchandiser/coupon-type press or, if Brazilian, a gov't agency. We're looking for a word that covers all of these cases without imputing negative intent to a living person. WP:CLAIM warns against "claim" and "assert". Reported seems best. For each entry, there is (or should be) a ref explaining who's doing the reporting. David in DC (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a list. If the claim is suspect, either attribute it directly to the person who made the claim (so that it's not wikipedia's problem) or mark it as 'unverified'. --Ludwigs2 23:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The word "claim" is fine. It is value neutral and casts no aspersions whatsoever on the claimant. If one puts a "claim" on a gold find, they may be successful in the claim or they may be not. It is just a "claim". Cam46136 (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)cam46136

Follow WP:CLAIM and avoid that word. If its necessary, for some reason, to qualify the statement, then attribute it to the person or source, in the text, so that the reader knows its not a widely held fact and can make their own judgment as to its relative merit. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hamid Karzai

The intro of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai seems to be full of POVs. I don't know if that's how it is done with all other articles on Presidents or someone has with an agenda is at work. Thanks.--Hkrclu (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree the first paragraph is POV-ish. Maybe the controversial material should be moved into the body of the text?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It's already mentioned in the body of the article. The Wikipedia articles should not be written like a news article. In the intro it states "half brother of the prominent drug trafficker and CIA contractor Ahmad Wali Karzai," and right there I find a contradiction because I don't think the CIA is a drug mafia. One would be arrested by the CIA if he/she was a prominent drug trafficker. It then states "Many members of the Karzai clan have engaged in criminal conduct and assumed positions of power and greatly enriched themselves under his regime." I don't see any media reports about the Karzais committing crimes, they became equally rich like all the other Afghans in the country and that's because they hold high positions in the country and are involved in the rapidly growing business sector. For example, one Afghan who was a taxi driver in New York in 2001 now owns one of the largest phone company called Afghan Wireless. There are plenty of other examples who struck it rich in Afghanistan in recent years. I don't see a point in adding this kind of irrelevant information in the lead intro of Hamid Karzai's article, who is reported to having about $20,000 dollars in his bank account and making less than $500 a month. While some people are becoming rich in Afghanistan some are also getting assassinated or being blown up by bombs, it's a risky place. The IP editor who added this info should go live in Afghanistan and he may become a millionair too.--Hkrclu (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the lead shows clear POV and needs to be revised, specifically the two sentences you have mentioned above.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Tibet

I recently found out that there is simply no mention of Tibetan politics on the main article of Tibet. All articles of regions and territories around the world contain the mention of politics in the main article along with other aspects. It has been claimed by a few editors that the main article should only consist of ethno-cultural Tibet while there are separate articles about Economy of Tibet and Tibetan culture on wikipedia. I would request administrators to intervene. The present political section which was recently added still does not give due weight on politics and recent events. There have also been attempts to retain Chinese history on Tibetan article which clearly represents bias.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree somewhat. I found there is a discussion of politics in one section, but it's disturbingly short. There is mention of the ethnic conflict and controversy in the lead paragraph. My sense is the section on Tibetan politics should be expanded. Maybe the article needs an NPOV tag?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is this version was horribly biased. --Reference Desker (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The issue is complex, because the term "Tibet", when used colloquially, has a variety of different meanings that are controversial, mutually exclusive, and split into different articles on Wikipedia—you can get a taste of the different definitions of Tibet by looking at the map at the top of the main Tibet article. UplinkAnsh's complaining that Tibet-the-ethno-cultural-region does not have enough of Tibet-the-political-region's politics is akin to his complaining that Macedonia (region) does not have enough coverage of the Republic of Macedonia's politics. Tibet, as a cultural region, is much larger than the area of the political region that has been recently the site of conflict. For example, while it is sometimes said that China in 1950 "invaded Tibet" when PLA forces crossed the Yangtze River, that is only true if we are only considering the "independent" half of Tibet. But if we are talking about the historical cultural region, then before the "invasion" China was already inside and already governing half of Tibet. During this time the histories of Tibet and China were intertwined, and mentioning the history of all of the regions of Tibet and their governments, including the parts governed by China, is clearly not bias but balance and comprehensiveness.
The issue of what is Tibet is further confusing because what the Chinese government considers "Tibet" is not what the anti-Chinese government-in-exile considers "Tibet", and a more expansive or diminutive view of Tibet is often switched by both parties for political expediency. The article shown by Reference Desker's diff was determined by years of consensus to take a broad, ethnographic view of Tibet, in which excess coverage of recent events would be inappropriate in the context of the bimillennial history of the region. Full coverage of the ancient and modern politics of the most important political subdivisions of Tibet were fully covered in their respective articles, and were duly summarized and linked to by the overview provided by the Tibet page. The page after UplinkAnsh's changes (compared to Reference Desker's diff) served to exaggerate the territorial extent of the various Tibetan dynasties; downplay the role of the Muslims, the Chinese, and the British in the region; and promote shoddily-sourced polemics and political arguments. Quigley (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a significant simplification to say that eastern Tibetan areas were ruled by China prior to 1949. In practice, in the period immediately prior, they were ruled by a complicated interaction between local Tibetan elites and Chinese warlords, with additional influence from the central Chinese government and the Tibetan government. The warlords mostly had the upper hand. The most notable warlord in Kham was Liu Wenhui and in Amdo, Ma Bufang. Phüntso Wangye reports an interesting story at the beginning of his autobiography in which Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang government sends a Tibetan agent, Kesang Tsering, to Bathang to try to start a popular uprising against Liu Wenhui, despite the fact that Liu Wenhui is nominally loyal to Chiang Kai-shek. This inspires Phüntso Wangye' dream of an independent eastern Tibetan republic. Prior to the Republican/warlord period and the Zhao Erfeng atrocities of the very late Qing, I think the eastern Tibetan areas were mostly run by local elites under the supervision, often minimal but continuous in principle, of Chinese ministers and magistrates.
I don't think that the Tibet article should focus primarily on politics, but I do think there should be some coverage. There are pan-Tibetan political issues, more so than in, for example, the region of Macedonia. For one thing, the 2008 protests occurred throughout the Tibetan areas, with protesters in and outside of the TAR making essentially the same demands and using the same flag.
I don't have strong opinions on the other content issues, but I definitely agree that the article should not promote shoddily-sourced polemics and political arguments, which can sometimes be a tendency among certain Tibetan-exile-friendly writers.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Coconut oil

I'm in a content dispute with some editors at coconut oil. Could people here give an assessment as to whether I'm being pig-headed or the other parties are being unreasonable? I'd probably accede to the wishes of the other parties more readily if their edits didn't overlap so much, if the article was being improved before I took an interest in it, and I got the feeling they're going to build it if I left it to them—but I don't.

They say I'm pushing a POV but in my defense I'd say the tone and POV of the version of the article I'm working on isn't substantially different from what one sees in this New York Times article: Once a Villain, Coconut Oil Charms the Health Food World. Moreover I'm backing up my additions with detailed sources that contain discussion and I've brought a great many of them to the RS Noticeboard where some were supported; and while others received no comment, IIRC I don't think any I kept in were rejected. The sources I am adding are then being removed wholesale at the article with little productive discussion and my edits reverted with seemingly little critical thought. Detailed sources supporting their position are not being provided by them, therefore there is an imbalance of material to work with, and that is used as a pretext to remove information I have added.

Here is a comparison of the article versions: (current) (my preferred version) (diff).

Thank you for your comments and suggestions on the correct way to proceed. Lambanog (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm partly involved but don't think I'm under the 'opposition' category. My reading here is that for medical claims about the actual scientific consensus we have to rely on MEDRS strictly, and although it's begun to change in the last year, is still pretty strongly in the coconut oil=saturated fat=bad camp. There might be some room for addressing the recent changes in literature, especially if they mention coconut oil specifically. There is a socio-cultural aspect, however, which is separate from that, which we can report on as well albeit in a different area. It might be the case that scientific consensus is still that coconut oil should be limited or avoided due to saturated fat content--but it also might be the case than many natural health advocates and consumers have turned on to it, believing the saturated fat link was overstated. What we can't due is equate the natural health popularity with a change in scientific consensus. And whatever we say about changing scientific consensus should be pretty conservative and sourced directly to meta-analyses and literature reviews which discuss any changing consensus specifically. Ocaasi c 13:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm confuse by this notice. Perhaps Lambanog can explain better? He seems to be saying that the only (main? predominant?) pov for the article should be those expressed in a single NYTimes reference? --Ronz (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I can see non sequiturs creeping in that could confuse the issue. So here is a bit of background to the debate that people can follow up if they choose: Over the last couple of decades, researches that have bothered to re-evaluated the literature to try and square the contradictions that changing diets have brought to light, and have came to realise the fear of saturated fat was largely the invention of the oilseed rape industry. There claims where not simple over-statements (were that phase comes from I don't know) but untrue comparisons and poor science. Obviously, oil is a high energy source and one should not over consume. It is good science that should be sifted out from the bad and the bad identified for what it is, rather than a summation of decade old studies that still swamp the literature. Whilst I've seen many outlandish claims emanating from the health food sector, they are correct in the case of pointing out that saturated fats are better to fry with -if one insists on frying. They ought to be pointing out as well, that frying is not a good way to cook food in the first place. This is also based on science, it encourages the formation of harmful compounds in the food. The NYT is hardly a good reference though, as what standing does its author hold? It might be better to look for references that compare the suitability of fats for cooking with. --Aspro (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Ocaasi sums up pretty accurately the situation that I can see here (hey O - remember this next time we disagree :)). Statements as to what is backed by actual research should be sourced to nice, standard, reliable reviews, following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Check out CONSORT for more. To Aspro's statement I would add that some care is necessary when trying to determine the level of controversy on a medical topic. If the dissent in the literature stems solely a few primary reports in low-tier journals, a few research groups citing each other as a walled garden, or proposed study outcomes that are not borne out by the data, then the article should make minimal or no mention of it. If more recent reviews in top notch journals are mentioning some facet that older reviews missed, it is probably apt to mention the effect as an emerging development without taking a stance regarding the ultimate outcome. There is also a place for discussion of what other people say about coconut oil - its cultural impact, if you will. This latter section must tread very carefully around undue weight, provide explicit in-line attribution for specific statements, and provide necessary context where indicated. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The issue seems to be most editors would like to reflect the current consensus that coconut oil is a highly saturated fat, which has been associated in the past with heart disease and premature death. Several authors have noted that this may not be the case. Both these points are found on the coconut oil page. Lambanog seems to want to include a fairly detailed summary of all the reasons why coconut oil might not be bad for you - it's the same fats found in breast milk, it's medium-chain fatty acids, it has antibacterial properties in vitro, and more. I don't believe the inclusion of primary research articles and popular books should be used to source these sorts of statements, which strongly suggest coconut oil is a health food for humans and will prevent/treat disease/disability. I particularly object to including articles that don't mention coconut oil at all, but merely talk about some of the fats found in coconut oil, I see that as a synthesis (i.e. Medium chain fatty acids are bactericidal in vitro. Coconut oil contains medium chain fatty acids. Therefore coconut oil is an antibiotic). I am not opposed to the idea that coconut oil is good for you - I think that the research base and scholarly consensus is still equivocal and preliminary, and though investigations are starting in that direction, they have not yet arrived at that conclusion.
The Talk:Coconut oil#NPOV tag section was started yesterday with a purpose of figuring out what was non-neutral about the page - essentially three editors agreed to see what Lambanog's issue was. Lambanog instead posted on this noticeboard. I would prefer this discussion continue at talk:coconut oil since there is an active effort to describe and resolve the dispute and this simply scatters the discussion across at least two different pages. If it can not be resolved there, at least we could agree on what the core dispute was, and then we could bring it up here for outside input. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
WLU, I'm not opposed to a few more opinions floating in. If I can conjecture, Lambanog wanted to make sure it wasn't a biased sample, if you will. I'm also more in the camp of 'attribute and explain'. If there's a minority/fringe view that lauric acid=antibiotic=antiviral=cures aids, I'm happy to include that in the context of saying the theory has no mainstream support. It's just interesting to describe the theory, and in this case where there is actually 1 clear minority opinion, mainly coming from the Price/Pottenger/Enig/WAPF/Fannon camp, it's not unfeasible to do. Maybe it needs to be made clear that that fringe idea doesn't even appear in literature, it's just bandied around natural health websites and communities and some popular science coverage in newspapers. I think you and 2/0 see that as a MEDRS/Weight violation, but I've never been opposed to sourcing those types of claims if they are represented as minority/fringe explicitly or included in the sociocultural section rather than the consensus literature section. That might also vary depending on the article, and those fringe ideas are more appropriate on pages more proximate to them, like Mary Enig. Anyway, I'm more concerned that if we cover the fringe theory at Coconut oil that we just describe it obviously as the fringe story that's gotten recent of predominantly non-academic buzz or some graduated version of that for the different levels of attention for respective parts. MEDRS-loyalists tend to avoid that approach, but I find it encyclopedic, too, if done carefully (2/0, are we still chummy?). Ocaasi c 18:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Chummy like Chum Chum chumming chum in a chum. I generally see that sort of thing as a big red flag indicating extra caution to make sure that proper context and attribution are provided. Sometimes we need to dial the weight down to zero (mentioning David Icke at Elizabeth II would be a canonical example), but I actually like reading about weird stuff as long as it is not misrepresented. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
You mean her majesty is not a reptile god?... I've thought about trying to propose a section related to ALTMED in MEDRS explaining how to handle alternate/fringe theories in serious articles, as either criticism of widespread consensus which has become socially notable or notable within altmed circles--or as fringe theory that can be explained without being endorsed. Despite the ahbvious benefits of such an approach, many scientifically minded editors respond to that idea like sharks in a chum-filled sea. Ocaasi c 20:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not even sure what the dispute is over anymore. Looking at the health section of Lambanog's "preferred version", there's only one real sentence I would outright remove (the importation of the saturated fat dispute using an article that doesn't mention coconut oil at all), and I'd move the information on breast milk to another part of the page, but otherwise there's some minor wordsmithing and reference checks that need to be done but that's about it. This is again why I would like to see a clear statement of what the problem is at talk:coconut oil rather than bother discussing it here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You as good as warned me on my talk page not to edit the article. Are you saying now that you will no longer prevent me from updating my preferred version? Lambanog (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I object to you updating "your version". I have no problem with you or anyone else making or proposing changes and then accepting the input of other editors to arrive at a consensus. I'm still not sure why you haven't stated what you think are the relevant issues on the coconut oil talk page so we can remove the NPOV tag. A variety of long-term, dedicated editors have engaged on the talk page, let's use all of our experience to produce an improved version rather than edit warring over what appear to be minor disagreements. The whole idea of one person having a preferred version is contrary to the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia. I, along with the other editors, are happy to discuss changes in order to arrive at an acceptable version - but I don't think we are prepared to grant any one account sole custody of a contested page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on the article to improve it, make it more informative. That's my reason for editing it. Now tell me, what's your reason for editing the article? Are you there to improve the article? You've apparently been monitoring that article for a considerable time and I don't see you adding to it and improving it unless pressed. So what is your purpose there and in contesting my edits? My objection to the edits I see from others is the obstructionist nature of them and the apparent fixation on a narrow POV not reflected in sources that cover the whole subject. Looking at the article history and archives I notice there have been efforts to add information to the article in the past but they were reversed by you. Maybe you had good reason to but it does not seem clear to me you explained yourself and you aren't explaining yourself sufficiently now. Your consensus is composed of editors who have similar profiles patrolling overlapping pages and ignores statements by other editors made in the past; forgive me if I'd like input from a broader spectrum of editors to determine that there is as much consensus as you say there is especially when you speak in terms of granting custody of a page—it comes off too much like ownership. Lambanog (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Lambanog, the problem was replacing the article wholesale with your version, effectively alternating the mainpage between two different drafts. It's hard to follow, confuses the article history, and doesn't actually lead to fusing the proposed changes. No one is stopping you from developing a proposal or keeping an alternate draft in your userspace or the article talkspace so others can see it and compare and comment (in fact, I'd like to see it). We just can't jump back and forth between two completely different drafts. Ocaasi c 21:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Your argument doesn't make sense to me. By editing as I have, you see the incremental improvements I am making step-by-step. That is the opposite of the wholesale change you suggest is taking place. Indeed, if I was to follow your advice and edit in a subpage then dump it into the article history when done—that would be a wholesale change. As for we just cannot jump back and forth between drafts—why not? I've been able to improve the version I'm working on just fine. As I've explained to you already it's actually much easier this way: easier to access, easier to update, easier to assess, among other benefits. Lambanog (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The idea is that after completing your alternate version, you would propose it for discussion. Also, you are not self-reverted consistently, leaving your version up on the page, which is some form of a slow edit war. I don't wish to track two separate articles. Please propose specific individual changes in specific individual sections. Or create an entirely separate draft not in article space and then propose it for review or RfC. This is just not how articles are edited. Imagine if I had my preferred version and WLU had a preferred version. We don't just rotate around multiple drafts. I'm going to move your version into a talkspace draft where you can edit it. I'll place a link on the talk page. Talk:Coconut_oil/ExtendedDraft. -- Ocaasi c 14:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This kind of pre-emptive action and instruction that has been characteristic of edits on the talk page and article is not conducive to getting me on board with your wishes much as your tagging the article NPOV and saying it is done for me without my input was not optimal.

Could you explain your purpose in tracking the versions? Comparing selected revisions via diffs generated from the article history is much easier than comparing current version to a version in a subpage.

The version I am working on pretty much highlights all the areas where I see improvements can be made. You and WLU could just as easily comment on them instead of asking me to repeat myself on the talk page. I note from the preceding comments above it seems that WLU did not even look at my improvements to see what he could agree with before reverting them and you have not commented on the particulars of my edits either despite saying that you are tracking them. Lambanog (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV tag reflected the NPOV dispute. It is localized to that section primarily. If you don't have an NPOV dispute, then remove the tag. If you intend to replace the article with your version, then the NPOV tag has to stay (and possibly be moved to the top of the page) or your version-replacing has to stop, since it is an NPOV dispute.
If you want to propose changes to an individual section, do it on a paragraph by paragraph basis. That is the most efficient way to compare edits. WLU and I are not commenting because specific changes or proposals have not been mentioned rather than the entirely updated version. For controversial articles especially, proposing individual changes is typical, whereas making wholesale revisions to the entire article is almost reverted on sight by practice. If you want to highlight the differences between the entire versions, wait until your proposed draft is finished and then post a diff on the talk page. There's no reason that functionality should be achieved while confusing the edit history and alternating between to different mainspace versions.
If you think the current version does not have consensus, you can seek dispute resolution or page protection. Any of those options are fine, but not just switching between the two drafts without specific proposals to specific sections. Ocaasi c 17:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
You mention the difference between how we approach edits by other users. Before I revert another editor's work I generally check to see if there is any improvements made that should or can be retained. It appears you and WLU do not, but simply revert. The practice does not promote article improvement; I suggest you avoid it in the future.

If we're interested in efficiency, I think it is simpler to start from the version I'm working on since it has more to work with. It has more information backed up by more sources. Please identify the areas you think it isn't better, the nature of the problem, and suggest modifications. Lambanog (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a simple courtesy to other editors to make changes in manageable chunks so that they can be reviewed. Pick a single section, propose or add the change, then leave a note on talk explaining the differences. Dumping an entire draft in against other editors' objections is a good way to have it not looked at. Since I agree that many of your contributions are worth examination, I've requested you do it in a more manageable way. If you mistake that as dismissing your draft, you are confusing a preference for a manageable process with disregard. Ocaasi c 22:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have incrementally added to the version I'm working on, "manageable chunks" as it were, yet each time that was done despite tracking the article you said nothing and others reverted uncritically. You are also suggesting to work on a draft in a subpage first, but that will eventually lead to the same situation seen now in which you still seem unsatisfied. I find your advice contradictory and confusing. Lambanog (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Lambanog, if you want your edits to have any lasting impact on the page it would be best to simply make your changes or suggest improvements on the talk page. Trying to determine who is in the wrong isn't helping anyone, and since the original disagreements seemed to consist of different interpretations of the same policies, there's almost certainly not a single correct answer. Based on a partial comparison of "your" version with the current page, I've made a variety of edits that incorporates information that was missing from the main page. Feel free to make more. You can keep trying to identify the wronged party and convince everyone else of it, or you can put that time and effort into improving the coconut oil page. You may be surprised at the reception your changes get, no-one here seems to have a personal grudge against you, merely disagreement over what appears to be relatively minor sections of text. Even those who disagreed with you in the past assumed you meant well, and are now trying to resolve the issues. An olive branch has been extended, let's just pick it up and move on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
WLU, I have made my changes; what is lacking is your reasons for reverting them. I brought this to NPOVN because discussion on the talk page didn't seem serious in resolving problems and I find the warning you made on my talk page an unnecessary and questionable impediment. If an olive branch is truly extended, please retract that warning and stop impairing my efforts at improving the article; I will become more amenable to discussing on the talk page. Lambanog (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of the edit war warning was to get you to stop alternating between your version with another version. If you stop updating a version other than the one on the main page, there is no issue. Warnings aren't withdrawn, the behaviour is changed and the warning therefore becomes unnecessary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm pretty much done here, these general discussions don't make any sense when the specifics are what need to be addressed on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Robb Thompson

This BLP of a minister of a suburban megachurch keeps getting prettied up by a series of s.p.a. editors, to such an extent that one suspects them of being either admiring members of his congregation or press agents. The latest of these is determined to add anything and everything that the guy does, and generally treats this as a hagiography of his Dear Leader. Could we get some fresh eyes on this? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted. — e. ripley\talk 18:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sheldon Chumir

This article about a dead politician has a problem with a succession of s.p.a.s (User talk:Chumirethics, User talk:Chumirethicsfoundation, User talk:Publicengagement, User talk:Buffalomaverick) who keep trying to put back in the same worshipful language sourced to the website of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation (not exactly an NPOV source), complete with firstnaming and fulsome praise. When I revert one account a few times, a new s.p.a. takes up the cudgel. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A sockpuppet investigation might be called for as well; unless it's meatpuppets. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV issue on Rosie O'Donnell

The discussion at Talk:Rosie O'Donnell#Does the "Chinese language parody" merit inclusion or not? needs fresh uninvolved eyes so a more clear consensus might emerge. The RFC is not that complicated or long I promise! Jnast1 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff

I boldly put this article in chronological order. Initially it was just a matter of having a clear timeline instead of jumping all over the place. But I got in up to my wrists in potential WP:UNDUE weight issues. I would appreciate a second pair of eyes on it, to clean up any further issues, and prevent anyone pushing this away from a WP:NPOV chronology. Dzlife (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Kutless emo?

For a while the debate seemed closed (the debate can be found here), but then a new editor brought up the subject, and discussion is at a standstill, so I think it would be a good idea to mention it here. The basic discussion was at the List of Christian punk bands, and was over whether the band Kutless should be included.

The main problem is an Allmusic biography of Falling Up]. In this biography, it discusses the similarities and differences between Falling Up and Kutless, and says quote: "But where Kutless is a fairly standard-issue Christian gloss on metal-tinged emo, Falling Up..." Now, emo is a punk rock style, and if a band is emo it should be on the punk list. The problem is, Allmusic is the only solidly reliable source that calls the band emo (there are one or two less reliable ones), and as such WP:UNDUE has been invoked, partially because the editor feels the reference is too vague. This has in turn been questioned, as there are no sources that contradict this statement, there are just more that call the band a host of other styles. I was the one who originally protested the WP:UNDUE invocation but I went with it, but now a new editor has revitalized the discussion.

So I guess the basic question is, how clear is the reference, and is one reference in a very reliable source, plus one or two in more questionable sources, enough to qualify the band for the list, or is it a case of WP:UNDUE?--3family6 (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pov entrenchment at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Resolved
 – No POV issue with editors here, just some disagreement over the POV of mainstream sources. Which is not something Wikipedia can fix. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have edited many controversial articles and BLPs but this is the most difficult in terms of entrenched pov bias (the pov being that this matter's "truth"(that Obama was born in Hawaii) is obvious and must be reflected in the article's title, section titles and general content). This is also the first such article where consensus seems unwaverable for retaining the pov in the title,section titles and content

There are 3 npov issues that I think need addressing;

  • 1: Respect for the pov tag. Three different Editors have attempted to place a pov tag on the article 5 different times in the past 12 hours only to have the tag summarily removed. [20][21][22]
  • 2: The section title "Release of the birth certificate" is misleading in its povishness and incorrect terminology, yet again, multiple efforts by multiple Editors to correct the title have been quickly reverted. Its really a matter of a single, albeit important, word distinction. The image, and what was released, is a short form,computer generatedcertification; yet the section title keeps getting reverted to misapply the term for the more detailed long form "certificate", which applies to something quite different in the State of Hawaii as shown here:
from the article; source #35[23]"Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth."
  • 3:The article title is inherently pov as our own article on conspiracy theories states the term, "conspiracy theory", is perjorative. Also, it is even more pov because it does not apply as WP:COMMONNAME nor with any sense of logic (who are the alleged conspirators). I am attempting a move to substitute controversy for conspiracy theories but the comments thus far generally and openly display the entrenched close minded pov I am referring to. There are a couple of other Editors trying to pry open the discussion and insert some NPOV into the article but we have been overwhelmed in that regard.

Here are the links o the talk page discussions.

[24][25] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break number 1 (responses)

I agree entirely. It's impossible to edit objectively there. There is a group of POV folks there who simply won't allow anything that attempts to neutralize the POV. They take the position that the opposing POV is a fraud and must be identified as such. Any neutral phrasing of any contrary information is immediately reverted (usually on the ground that it was discussed long ago and an agreement reached).
The underlying issue isn't inherently a "conspiracy theory" (as defined in WP) but the entrenched majority insists that it be called such - so that it sounds more dismissive (with no rationale... just that it's the consensus).
I've never seen an article that it more appropriate for NPOV intervention. John2510 (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Wait - Do you acknowledge that claims that Obama isn't a natural born US citizen is a WP:FRINGE theory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
It's impossible not to notice that you started a request for comment on the talk page yesterday and today the count of heads stands at 12 to 1 against you, or perhaps 14 to 3 if you count comments. The issue is obviously one of very strong consensus. Only when the strong consensus is against one does one ever characterize it as entrenched. Admit that you are in the minority and move on. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors should be aware of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Maybe we need to notify some editors about this. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Notified the OP, others may need to be notified but as the OP has been told by another editor they are getting close to edit warring there is a particular need for the OP to be clear about the probation. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Assuming the OP is acting in good faith and is simply unaware of the history of the matter, but this board is not an appropriate place to deal with this kind of thing. The OP needs to realize that when a bunch of experienced editors advise them not to add POV tags accusing Wikipedia of "liberal bias" for failure to give due credence to false conspiracy claims about the US president, they ought to listen and try to understand the situation instead of jumping to a knee-jerk conclusion that everyone but them is acting in bad faith. The article and subject are a sock / troll magnet as it is, and edit warring to insert POV tags because you don't agree with long term consensus on the article is not going to help. I'll probably avoid participating here b/c as I said it's not the right place, but allowing POV tags to stay up on articles like this has been consistently rejected, and encourages tendentiousness rather than resolution. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, the OP has made what's sometimes called a "perennial proposal" that has the effect of drawing a false distinction between the birth certificate Obama released and a "real" (but nonexistent) form of birth certificate that some conspiracy theorists claim he's hiding. It also attempts to recast the fringe claims as a "controversy" rather than a conspiracy theory. As a content matter both are contradicted by the sources, and have been rejected by a long term consensus of many editors. The Obama articles in particular, and other high traffic articles that are the matter of partisan politics, have seen a lot of "drive by tagging" by disgruntled editors (in many cases, persistent socks and trolls, hence some sensitivity and refusal to be dragged through repeated bureaucratic process on the matter). Language on the tag saying it shouldn't be removed doesn't make it so. The editors have reasonably decided not to allow tags denigrating the article and its editors from those unhappy because consensus runs against them. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I assume I am the OP. I don't think I ever accused anyone of "liberal bias" and challenge Wikidemon to show that diff. I think Wikipedia is an organic and growing entity wherein perennial proposals,especially with the new Arizona legislation and Trump's involvement, are not a reason for dismissal, and the statement, as if it is fact, that a "real" form of birth certificate (which I believe in this case would be the original long form Certificate of Live Birth), is nonexistent is not supported by any of the Reliable Sources that I have read, some of which state that Hawaiian officials have seen such a document. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The digital short form is today's official version of the long form and is sufficient in Hawaii to establish birth. That makes it a "real" birth certification even though it is demonstrably not a birth certificate of the old long form. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with all of Mr.Grantevans2 claims above, but he is certainly right that there are some WP:OWNERSHIP / entrenched POV issues with this article. A few editors reject every substantive change, citing "long-term consensus", regardless of how many potential editors might come along and disagree. I made what I thought to be a couple pretty reasonable suggestions (as you can see on the talk page), and they were either ignored or rejected immediately. On the requested move, my first comment on the matter included the statement "I understand the desire to not legitimize the topic in the title, but conspiracy theory doesn't really fit", and yet I was dismissed without much thought. Never a "hmmm, yeah, maybe we can come up with somebody better than conspiracy theories that we all agree on". –CWenger (^ • @) 17:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break number 2 (redirect ?)

The entire article should be deleted as a WP:BLP violation and redirect to his bio article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Agreed. It's a serious POV fork. The subject is already covered elsewhere and given more than the weight it deserves, which is about 2 sentences. The OP's complaint that Obama's Hawaiian birth is merely a "POV" is disingenuous. He (as well as the other "birthers") are essentially labeling Hawaii's record keepers as liars. That's a BLP violation in wikipedia, and theoretically libelous in the real world if anyone cared to dignify it enough to take action on it. And in fact it's a conspiracy theory... and it's a fact that conspiracy theorists don't like being labeled conspiracy theorists. Nothing new about that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    I am not a Birther (I just read the definition). I am not a proponent of any theory about Obama's birth and have no opinion about it at all. I actually like Obama. The pov I am referring to is semi-hysterical and name calling reactions to attempts to improve the article, not to mention rapid reverts of tags and content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. It seems necessary to emphasize that the "birther" POV is (as AQFK noted above) WP:FRINGE in terms of facts or truth. But the "birther" phenomena seems real enough, and just as we have articles about flat earth, Moon landing conspiracy theories, etc., an article about the birther theory(?) seems acceptable, and even desireable. But NPOV and WP:WEIGHT would require recognizing and reflecting that it is a fringe view. (Although that probably requires addressing why half (?) of the Republican party can't be wrong.) At any rate, such an article cannot be allowed as a WP:SOAPBOX for championing a fringe POV. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • A redirect could point here. But I'm not convinced that a redirect would be the best way to go. The issue is pretty big, and no other article is devoted exclusively to it. A better approach might be to try and make it NPOV. Some liberal Democrats, such as Chris Matthews, have urged release of the document. But the editors at this article refuse to mention such things, and prefer to suggest instead that there is nothing more to release, that only nutty fringe Republicans seek release, et cetera. Also, as you can see from the potential redirect location that I just suggested, the eligibility issue also involves something unrelated to conspiracies: whether your father has to be a US citizen to qualify you as "natural born" under the original meaning of the Constitution as written in 1787 (I personally think the answer is "no"). My point is that this article is trying to deliberately slime anyone and everyone who has eligibility concerns or who seeks release of documentation, as fringe right-wing conspiracy theorists. There are fringe right-wing conspiracy theorists here, but that's only part of the story..Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break number 3 (comparison with George W. Bush)

What do you mean by "editors"? There are thousands of editors; I would be stunned if at least some of them didn't think so. Presumably you mean the very specific editors who offered that opinion above.
I'm an editor who doesn't happen to think either article is a BLP violation or a POV fork. They both are about issues that have been covered extensively in the press, thus there are tons of reliable sources, so I don't see how any sourced statement would be a BLP violation.
Clearly, if the article said "Hawaii's record keepers are liars", that would be a BLP violation, but it does not.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Specifically, the editors above that said they think the Obama article is a BLP violation or POV fork. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. There is no BLP issue here and it's not an improper fork since it's only tangentially about Obama, and much more about birtherism, IOW about the conspiracy theories of Obama's enemies. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if it was called "George Bush miltary service conspiracy theory" we'd have some parity in balancing POV. Your example actually proves well the point some of us are trying to make.John2510 (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break number 4 (Living Persons and Reliable Sources)

The only "POV entrenchment" I see on that article is the desire to actually follow Wikipedia policies. People who think it is pushing a POV to not give equal validity to the birthers' fringe views just do not get how encyclopedias work in general. DreamGuy (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of the proposed changes would give equal validity to birthers. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly several of the comments in this section encourage actions that would have that end result. DreamGuy (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that several editors have mentioned that the article is a BLP violation. I would suggest that they haven't a clue what that means. They should reread the WP:BLP policy. Any information, even the most offensive, is not a BLP violation IF PROPERLY SOURCED. There may be other arguments against using such information, but BLP isn't one of them. It must not only be properly sourced, but framed correctly. If framed as a notable opinion, it's still okay. BLP should not be used as an argument for censorship and whitewashing. We're already seeing plenty of that on all the articles related to the Koch brothers, where even articles by notable prize winning journalists published in RS like the LA Times aren't being allowed by certain entrenched tag teaming editors, in violation of NPOV. They too claim anything negative is a BLP violation, so those articles are hagiographies. That mustn't happen here.

As to redirecting, that's not appropriate because this isn't an improper fork. It's more about birtherism (IOW Obama's enemies) than about Obama, and a tweak of the title might be in order for that reason (not sure to what though ). Per FRINGE the phenomena deserves short mention in the Obama article, but that's all. The article deserves its own life as documentation of a very notable political phenomena, just like other ridiculous beliefs that are also documented in RS. It's notable enough that some statistics show that over half of the Republican membership are fooled by it. We can't ignore something that notable. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The BLP violations, aside from those aimed at Obama, are also the ones aimed at the Hawaiian officials. Those officials have stated that a proper BC exists. The birthers are calling them liars. Wikipedia does not need to be in the position of aiding and abetting BLP violations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Any "unsourced or poorly sourced" addition of such opinions would be a BLP violation. Any "properly sourced" addition that was framed as if it was true would also be a violation of FRINGE and UNDUE. The difference between fact and fiction should be made plain, and there are myriad extremely reliable sources that do so. The fringe POV pushing editors don't understand our policies and one seems to think that just because Trump is pushing the issue gives it more credence. That's a hoot! If anything, that only.....nah, better not say it here.... ! As always, if we stick to RS, we're safe. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
So, using the process of elimination, it seems as if BullRangifertalk is saying that properly sourced additions which are framed simply as having been reported (as opposed to being "true") would be acceptable? The Trump view adds notability to the "questioning" group because he is polling #2 in the Republican party and #1 in the Tea Party. In terms of credibility of the person referenced, I don't think that's for us to deal with as it is another word for path towards "truth" discovery. Its the credibility of the Reliable Source which I think is more important to us? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
In principle and in practice that is often the case. It isn't Wikipedia's job to determine truth. Editors aren't allowed that freedom, because that would violate NPOV by editors taking sides in their edits. They are welcome to have personal opinions, but that mustn't cause them to engage in censorship or whitewashing, either by inclusion or exclusion of RS. We document what RS say, even if the opinion might not be true. We have whole articles devoted to documenting nonsense, such as the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. It documents numerous false and libelous statements, but they are properly sourced and the fact they are false is made clear by using other RS. That's how to frame things properly.
One of our most important policies is the WP:Verifiability policy, and it is very clear there that we are concerned with "verifiability, not truth". That doesn't mean we don't care about truth, or don't consider it, but that when we discover something isn't true, we frame it properly by making sure it isn't allowed to stand alone and deceive readers. It's not allowed to stand alone, as that would violate WP:Undue. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Its clear that there are at least 4 groups covered by Reliable Sources involved in this subject matter. The Birthers who are proponents of the view that Obama was not born in the USA, the "fightthesmears" group itentified in the article who say Obama was clearly born in the USA and the topic is not open for discussion, the agnostic but questioning group, which Donald Trump seems to belong to if one actually listens to his inteview [26]backup[27] on the Today Show, which want more information. And the fourth group, like myself, who don't have an opinion and don't really care whether he was born in the USA or not. Virtually all of the discussion on the article talk page by the more experienced Editors of this article ignores the possibility that Editors may belong to either the 3rd. or 4th.groups and thereby forces on the discussion page a false dichotomy which by the nature of dichotomy leads to non-constructive stalemate and/or bickering.
  • And I do not understand why experienced editors would actively edit and vote on articles covering subject matter which they are highly opinionated about? To me it seems to be a direct hindrance to the whole effort of creating NPOV content in Wikipedia. Baseball Bugs comments above about "lunatic fringe" is the kind of opinions I am talking about as well as his assumption that I am a "Birther". If the "probation" designation means anything, it is exactly that type of commenting, if any, which I think should call for sanctions; although I personally am philosophically opposed to these types of article editing differentiations. (except for semi-protect). I personally have the opinion that any support for non-universal health care in any civilized society in 2011 would be coming from a "lunatic fringe" group. So I do not edit articles related to health care. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That's odd. There's a discussion on the article talk page about this proposal, where it belongs but is opposed by fairly overwhelming consensus, and as I said I do not wish to participate in a process fork here or yet another blustering attempt to accuse editors of bad faith for being resistant to bad / biased birther content about Obama. True, four (or so) positions are reliably sourced, and it is also reliably sourced that one of them is correct, namely that Obama was born in the United States and is a US citizen, eligible for the presidency. Not caring and not being convinced about the accuracy of fringe theories and political smears to the contrary is not an unbiased opinion, it's giving a fringe theory credibility, and neutrality of the encyclopedia does not require that the encyclopedia sit on the fence as to the accuracy of every untruth that gains currency in every corner of the world. Please don't start calling for sanctions against editors you disagree with - we have some memory of that kind of battleground mentality in the articles, one of the reasons for article probation, and it does not make for constructive editing environment. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The entrenched majority at the subject page continue (there and here) to confuse: 1) giving an unbiased description and analysis of the birther position; with 2) giving validty to the position. Mocking it, as opposed to describing it, is not encyclopedic. Cubby-holing it as a "conspiracy theory," etc. contributes nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. I haven't edited there in a while. I figure it's so blatantly POV that it stands as a monument to the POV reality of Wikipedia when it comes to political subjects. John2510 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW... I observe that the WP articles on Yeti and Bigfoot are given a much more NPOV than is the subject article. Perhaps the editors find them less threatening... John2510 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe because almost no one really takes them seriously. The birthers are Grade-A "conspiracy theorists". There is no getting around that. When confronted with statements by Hawaiian public officials, they say it's a lie. If they were shown the actual birth certificate, they would say it was a lie, a fake. The true conspiracy theorist never accepts the facts. It is not wikipedia's place to cater to those looneys. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
John2510: Your point is well-taken. And I agree that it's not encyclopedic to mock a fringe theory (as tempting as it may be). However, I read through the first third of the article (I got bored by the time I got to Campaigners and proponents and quit reading - sorry!) and the article seemed fairly well-balanced all things considered. I thought some of it was a bit redundant so I made a few minor fixes only one of which was reverted and is now being discussed on the article talk page per WP:BRD. What specific part(s) do you think descend into mocking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs mocks things on talk pages. I think he's just acting in character. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It's like deja vu, as a few years back we had the exact same thing going on at the Apollo hoax page. And it's the same style of fanaticism. It is the conspiracists who are "entrenched", as they will never abandon their viewpoint regardless of any facts presented. They are like the "flat earthers" that way. That's why I call them "looneys"... on talk pages, as you note. I don't edit-war over this nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you should try refraining from using terminology like "looneys". If I'm able to do it at 9/11 Conspiracy theories, so can you. :) 17:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Or "moon-bats" as they were called at the Apollo hoax page. Predictably, when the recent lunar orbiter transmitted photos that showed the moon landing sites from straight above, the moon-bats said they were fake. Surprise, surprise. And if you were to take the leading "birther", whoever that might be, directly into the state archives and show him the Obama BC, he would declare it a fake. Guarantee ya. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like the article may have been cleaned up a little since I was last there. The term "conspiracy theory" is unduly loaded, dismissive and inherently mocking. I note the article gratuitously uses the term numerous times within the first few paragraphs. As I've argued on the article's talk page, theories about his citizenship (none of which, BTW, I believe) don't necessary involve a "conspiracy" and certainly don't meet the WP definition of a "conspiracy theory" - in that they don't require, "...conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning." I'm told the use of that term doesn't need to be consistent. I disagree. Simply calling them "theories" and describing the arguments pro and con would allow the reader to draw his own conclusions - which one would assume are that the theories are invalid. If they really are absurd, the appropriate treatment would seem to be to treat the arguments with all due care and deference, and then explain briefly why they are almost certainly false. I note also that the article has grown to a ridiculous size and is poorly structured. John2510 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
To call them just "theories" without the "conspiracy" qualifier would be misleading. It would give undue weight. If you prefer "fringe theories", maybe. But they are not proper "theories". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Calling something a "theory" or a "claim" doesn't give it any weight - due or otherwise. That's the point. There's nothing good to be gained by slapping on a POV qualifier in front of the label. John2510 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, a reasonable compromise to achieve NPOV in the article as a whole would be to drop the "consipiracy" label, reference them as "fringe" theories in the opening paragraph, and then go on to address the arguments on both sides in as fair a manner as possible. The reader will presumably conclude that the theories are invalid and somewhat kooky... but he'll do that without WP ramming it down his throat. I seem to recall the article used to call them "false claims," which was even worse from an NPOV perspective than the current version. John2510 (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I've always believed in following the sources. If reliable sources call it a "conspiracy theory", then it's proper for Wikipedia to do so as well. OTOH, I have sometimes noticed a tendency towards always inserting the word "conspiracy" before every single mention of the word "theories" which can sometimes become repetitive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break number 5 (outside opinions of fringiness)

These claims are baseless. The facts are, reliable sources describe the Birther claims as "conspiracy theories"(these just in the last week or two). It is not POV to describe them as such, and there are a plethora of reliable sources that describe them both as conspiracy theories and fringe views. In fact, the claims by the OP and a couple others here that wish to give "equal weight" to fringe views is the real problem. Both by Wikipedia guidelines and reliable sourced reality. I was reading but ignoring this thread, hoping an uninvolved Admin would just close it and the requested move down, because we have to go through these hoops and ladders in what seems like every other month or so. Many times with the same editors chiming in to declare the article POV. Perhaps we need a more detailed FAQ for the page, these claims are made way too often. Dave Dial (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a detailed FAQ would be helpful. In the RfC, several editors mentioned past arguments but an uninvolved editor will have no idea what those arguments were. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no 'POV Entrenchment', the is a WP:Fringe theory that is not accepted as mainstream consensus and will never be without better evidence to the contrary. It may be a pain to go back in the archives and discover all of this, but that doesn't change this fact. SeanNovack (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And how many articles describe the theories without using that judgmental label? The fact that some articles choose to make judgment calls doesn't mean WP must or should. A lot of reliable sources say that the New York Yankees are the greateast baseball team ever. Maybe they are, but I don't think WP needs to take a stand on that. As I said, WP seems reasonably objective on the Yeti and Bigfoot. I think it can let the reader draw his own conclusions here. WP tries to set a particularly high standard for objectivity, and there's simply no reason to make an exception here. Some people use FAQ's to intimidate editors and inappropriately suggest that an issue is closed to discussion. What new information would you see being added to "a more detailed FAQ?" John2510 (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The "birthers" are indeed the entrenched POV-pushers. If evidence emerged that Obama was not in fact a natural born citizen, it would be accepted by the mainstrem. So far, no such evidence has emerged. And in the opposite case, if new and further-solid evidence were provided that should satisfy most doubters, the true "birthers" will continue to claim that it's a lie, just as the Apollo moon hoax believers and the flat earth believers do. It is not wikipedia's purpose to aid and abet their crusade. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
John, the bottom line is that we have to follow the sources. If they are calling this a conspiracy theory, then it's against NPOV to call it something else. We don't introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources. To answer your question about what I would like to see in the FAQ, in the RfC, several editors mentioned past arguments but an uninvolved editor will have no idea what those arguments were. I'd like to see a good paragraph or two explanation summarizing these past discussions. Can FAQs be misused to stifle debate? Sure. But we're supposed to assume good faith. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Quest, maybe I did it wrong but it looks like "Obama+birth+certificate+controversy" pulls up 973,000 while "Obama+birth+certificate+conspiracy+theory" pulls up 391,000.[28][29] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Great minds must think alike, I just did a google hit count for the article talk page, and got 6.8 million hits for "Obama + citizenship". Probably "eligibility" is the most general concept, but not the most used term. The birth certificate is a part of it, but not the whole issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
US Google, no sets of terms in quotes unless noted:
  • Obama citizenship controversy: 1,960,000
  • Obama citizenship conspiracy: 2,110,000
  • birther: 3,100,000
  • birther controversy: 404,000
  • birther conspiracy: 477,000
  • "where's the birth certificate" controversy: 297,000
  • "where's the birth certificate" conspiracy: 230,000
--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Grantevans2: This is the type of argument that would impress me. However, the problem with Google hits is that it returns web sites that don't qualify as reliable sources. When you limit it to sources which are reliable, I get:

  • Obama birth certificate controversy - 383 hits[30]
  • Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory - 217 hits[31]

Another metric I like to use is the Google News Archive Search.

  • Obama birth certificate controversy - 551 hits[32]
  • Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory - 519 hits[33]

NapoliRoma: There's a flaw in your first search string. "Obama citizenship controversy" returns hits on other topics such the controversy over the citizenship of illegal immigrants. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Plus, many of the results from the "Birth certificate controversy" hits are from non-reliable sources concerning this issue. Two of the top hits are from DavidDuke.com and WND. Google News is the search that should matter most, and the results speak for themselves.
The Google counts vary from minute to minute, but using the above as a model I tested another choice:
Unlike "conspiracy theory", these would not include hits based on religion conspiracy theories, and are less likely to be inflated by hits to the Wikipedia article or its clones and mirrors. It's also more concise, already deemed widespread enough to be a redirect to the present article, and arguably no more POV or deprecatory than the current title. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow... This really cuts to the core of WP objectivity and standing behind NPOV. Who officially defines "reliable sources" in your search engine? Sources generally don't support the current POV of the article. We're apparently now getting into weighing "reliability" or, as you would have it, deferring to an oracle of reliablity. Does WP want to trust that source? Doesn't it make more sense to have a free exchange of ideas and let the listener decide? I guess that's a uniquely American and obsolete approach I have. John2510 (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Search engines are a tool but used this way all they can do is show notability and NOT "reliability". There are "tags" you can use to eliminate the garbage. For instance in the books section of google you can use "inpublisher" to limit the search to only know reliable publishers. THis is what is needed to sort the wheat form the schaff--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Received opinion is that Obama was born inside the United States. Deviant opinions should not be presented as if they had parity. TFD (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
John2510 seems to not understand about WP:WEIGHT, especially in regard to fringe theories, and that WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX for the trumpeting of little discredited views. It is a disservice to the readers (listeners) if unequal views are given "equal" status. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
John2510 has received several warnings and advice on his talk page about these matters, and was also informed that the article is under probation, so he's not ignorant about this. If he doesn't change his approach here, then the probationary sanctions may need to be enforced with a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Brangifer (talk), with respect, I don't see where John2510 has really done anything wrong here nor has he been as assumptive,ad hominem and combative as Baseball Bugs or Wikidemon,imo, (but I don't think either of them have done anything here to warrant sanctions either); since you bring this sanction matter up, could you please clarify specifically why you think John's approach is more worth mentioning here than Baseball's, for example? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
That's utterly unwelcome and uncalled for, Mr.Grantevans2. Please desist from broadside attacks on other editors here. We've had a lot of trouble on these articles, and as someone new to this it would be better to jump in on the side of improving the encyclopedia instead of championing the troublemakers. Take a step back, and try to comment on the substance of the conversation or the content of the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
ok; plus, the more I looked at this, the more I have come to the view that the pov pushing is emanating almost entirely, if not entirely, from the RSs rather than from the Editors. If so, this might negate the existance of a NPOV issue altogether. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
No reliable source can possibly claim that Obama was born anywhere besides Hawaii. They can, of course, report what the "birthers" are saying. Consider this,[34] from USAToday.com yesterday, which discusses the birther junk and also points out that the full BC that the birthers keep yelping about is confidential and cannot be seen by anyone who's not authorized, not even the person whose BC it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Nobody can say for sure what RSs are going to claim in the future. I just read the USA article and it just raises more skepticism of the claims being made by Reliable Sources. The main one being that the President himself can not get a copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth; USA Today includes this about the original long form certificate which Hawaii has; "But those documents are state government property that can’t be released to anyone, even the president himself." Most everyone knows that is utter bullshit. The President could do it by executive order, or, much more likely, by picking up the phone and calling the Governor. Then as a source they have a former health director who says, in part; “It should not be an issue, and I think people need to focus on the other bad things going on in our country and in our state and figure out what we’re going to do about those things.” as if the citizens care about the political views of a former state employee. Then, why is the grandparents' address used? Didn't Obama's parents have their own place? Then there is the misleading statement; ... “certification of live birth” released by the Obama campaign three years ago, the only type of birth certificate the state issues". which seems misleading by intent (by leaving out the word "currently" and giving the impression to some Readers that there exists no other type). Then I now see from our BLP on his mother that she appeared in Washington state with Obama when he was 1 month old and did not return to Hawaii for over a year. Anyone who has had a baby knows its unusual to be relocating and travelling that distance within a month of giving birth. All of this is to show why I disagree with Baseball about his view that no reliable source can possibly claim (in the future)that Obama was born anywhere besides Hawaii. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
My goodness. I think you should just stay away from conspiracy theory articles. There is a conspiracy in every corner for you, and that can't lead to reasonable editing of those types of articles. Dave Dial (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I just know when something is utter bullshit, and for USA Today to say, or give the impression, that the President of the United States can not get a copy of his own original long form Birth Certificate (which currently exists within Hawaii State records) is insulting the intelligence of every one of us, imo. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
So, I don't know or have an opinion whether there is any conspiracy at all regarding this matter; but I do think that its not unreasonable for Trump and others to be asking questions and that it is incompetent and/or biased the way those questions are being dealt with by main stream media. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Lawrence David Kusch said in the NOVA program "The Case of the Bermuda Triangle" that all that is needed for something to get into the mass public mind is to ask the question. Let's face it as far as Occam's razor goes, there is no more credibility to the Obama is not a US citizen claim then where was for Kusch's examples of Rhett Butler living in Ohio somewhere or aliens kidnapping a parrot to teach them human language.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
No reliable source right now can be claiming that Obama was born anywhere in Hawaii, because the only credible evidence says that he was born there. And by what magical authority do you imagine that Obama can override the state laws of Hawaii? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Baseball, you may be correct about "right now".Also, I have concluded that I made an error in judgment by thinking that the article's Editors are being substantially non-neutral in their editing of the article. I don't believe that anymore...if I may borrow an old phrase,bastardize it, and address it to myself : It's not the Editors, "it's the Reliable Sources, Stupid!" Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, what I'm saying is that if a source seriously believes the birther stuff, then that source is not reliable. Reporting the phenomenon is a different matter. Obviously, plenty of legitimate sources are reporting the fact that there is such a group as "birthers". Like legitimate sources that report on believers of flying saucers, bigfoot, etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
ok, I think we are together on the important aspects of this article's development; and in terms of what is a Reliable Source, that,fortunately, is not for me (or you) to determine unilaterally. It will be interesting to me if a copy of his long form, more detailed birth certificate is officially and publicly released(perhaps by Obama himself) sometime and to see what it actually does say. Just from a historical perspective. If you are correct, then it might do a lot to give these types of theories less oxygen in the future. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to Baseballbugs,Wikidemon,Looneymonkey,Ravensfire etc. You were right all along, both in fact and (in retrospect) in approach. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break number 6 — and closure?

In that this discussion went totally off the rails in regard of any identified NPOV issue, and that publication of the the "long form" certificate seems to have taken some of the wind from the participants, perhaps this would be a good time for closing this discussion? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

New Century Foundation

I'd like other comments on this organisation's article, in particular the opening sentence "The New Century Foundation describes itself as "a 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1994 to study immigration and race relations so as to better understand the consequences of America's increasing diversity. It sponsors publications and books, and holds occasional conferences."[1] From 1994 to 1999 its activities received considerable funding by the Pioneer Fund.[1][2][3]" and the reversion of the category Category:White supremacist groups in the United States for which I can find several sources in Google Books [35] [36] [37] and many in Google News [38]. American Renaissance (magazine) may also be relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Amway Australia

I'd appreciate some third+ opinions on the Amway Australia article. WP:STRUCTURE indicates that "controversy" sections should be avoided as they can be inherently POV. In my view that's exactly what is occurring here, with two issues which engendered pretty much no "controversy" at all in their sources, and one having no secondary sources at all, being labelled as "controversy" in the article. I rewrote the article by "folding in to the narrative" as the policy suggests, however another editor Financeguy222 disputes this approach. Diff of the versions here.--Icerat (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Defamatory BLP on Vito Roberto Palazzolo by "Mafia expert" Don Calo

A BLP exists on Roberto Palazzolo, written by Don Calo, which is defamatory. Palazzolo has a case to answer, of which there is no question; aspects of which I have tackled in many places; see at Reliable Sources Noticeboard and Palazzolo Talk and User Talk Fircks and ANI 679 and ANI 684.


It is difficult to know where to go to in Wikipedia to resolve this very urgent matter, and I have made no progress to date. My apologies if I have been barking up the wrong trees, increasingly frustrated, but a few of the editors concerned appear to be more concerned with the letter of the law (Research, or Advocacy or Wikipedia as a court source or Verifiability or What constitutes a legal threat) while forgetting that a living man is being defamed by Wikipedia. And we all know that Wikipedia exists and thrives because it provides, or promises to provide, a Neutral POV. Roberto Palazzolo is anything but neutral. It is scurrilous and, given that I have pointed out it's errors many times, it is dishonest.


The existing BLP fails to note his side of the story, which has been distorted for many reasons, primarily by the Media. There is now a "given" version of his story, promoted by the Media, who then make weak disclaimers like, "Palazzolo denies all allegations". But the fact is that this is a long (running since 1982) and complex story, and Palazzolo claims he is the victim of a conspiracy. So it is not a BLP an amateur can simply churn out, using newspapers for sources. What I am saying therefore is that this article goes against Wikipedia's central tenet, which is to have a Neutral Point of View. This POV is biased.


It has been difficult to get my point across to Wikipedia. Don Calo merely excised my revisions to the article, as well as those put in by one of Palazzolo's lawyers, so an edit war began. Any interventions I made were treated by Wikipedia as if I had broken into someone's house. I came to warn that the house was on fire (one of your BLP's was defamatory) and was treated, in some cases, like a thief. Someone called [Quabar] on 9th Feb 2011 posted my "abuse" to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/fircks and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. See at Ongoing Vandalism.


There has been some ineffectual slander where, because I had posted Palazzolo's lawyer's presentation to Wikipedia (at http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/?page_id=1983), which was ignored, I must also be a "Mafia guy". Whoever wrote this paragraph failed to sign, with good reason: I'd also like to add that this mafia guy doensn't make the fact that he isnt happy with this article a secret ( see http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/?page_id=1983 ). Id like to point out that the IP (41.182.20.179) that helped vandalize this article is from namibia, and fircks claims that he is a 'friend' of palazzolo. In my opinion there is a big possibility that both firks and the ip are sockpuppets of palazozolo. ill look into the history of the article and see what else i can find. 109.160.184.79 (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


Meanwhile, Don Calo's defamation continued.


Suffice it to say that I went to the ANI, where you will see that I was advised on many aspects of Wikipedia law including Wikipedia as a Court source. Which was helpful to a degree but what I needed was to research is Wikipedia using court docs as a source (i.e. primary sources). Not the other way around. Palazzolo's case rests on what the judges in 4 countries have said about him, over nearly 30 years. His case does NOT rest on what the newspapers ascribe to him. Least of all the tabloid press. Hence my enquiry, again: Why would someone allow newspapers as the source for a BLP, but not a High Court judge or an internationally acclaimed lawyer? All that anyone can tell me is, in effect, "those are the rules". Allow me to draw your attention to Ignore All Rules, which is the 5th of Wikipedia's 5 pillars, filled with wisdom such as: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." etc


Well, there is a BLP out there, written by a man who knows nothing about Palazzolo except what he reads in the Mail & Guardian in South Africa. Therefore it is heavily slanted and, given that often the courts have said the opposite, highly defamatory.


I look forward to bringing Palazzolo's case to you. Not his innocence, which will be established in good time in court, if he is innocent, but his side of the story, which is not only compelling but will raise issues that will resonate for many years to come. All he must be allowed to do is match the charge or allegation with the explanation and the court judgement.


This is where everything to date has been written: Vito Roberto Palazzolo; and Reliable Sources Noticeboard and Fircks and Archive 679 and ANI re: Palazzolo


Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.

Fircks (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Fircks (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi there - what happen's now? Will someone look at this and adjudicate? Thanks - Fircks (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this article 10 days ago, hoping that wikipedia will stop to consider both sides of a BLP. Any news? --Fircks (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Julia Goerges

In the article about women's tennis player Julia Goerges, the title misspells her last name as "Gorges", with an umlaut above the "o". This should be changed immediately if not sooner, as Goerges is the actual spelling of the woman's name. Also, anytime "Gorges" is used inside the article, it should be changed to reflect the correct spelling. There are many sources that can be used to verify the correct spelling of her last name, including her own website, so I won't go into that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.47 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Julia Görges#Move? for the previous discussion. You can use the Requested Moves process if you wish to start a new discussion. -- œ™ 12:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Just looked at this article for the first time. First of all the title does not misspell her last name as "Görges", that is clearly the correct spelling, as contrary to the claim, it (not Goerges) is what is used throughout her official website.[39] The only exception there is in the domain name, which is understandable as international domain name support is still not widespread. I suspect starting a new move discussion (barely a few months after the old) would be a waste of time, nevertheless still an option if you choose --Icerat (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Russell

In an article about the actor Kurt Russell, I added several factual sentences about his minor-league baseball career, most of which is verified by BaseballReference.com, but the content was deleted. In editing the article, I noticed that several facts already in there used BaseballReference.com to back up their content. If the editor(s) had bothered to check the information for Russell in BaseballReference.com, they'd have noticed that I was correct and factual about the added content and it should not have been deleted. My additions included the fact that Russell played for the team that his father, Bing, owned (from 1973-1977), called the Portland (Ore.) Mavericks, a single-A short-season Northwest League independent team (no major league affiliation). Wikipedia even verifies the fact that Bing Russell owned the team in its own article about Bing, which means that deletion of that was highly inappropriate. I also included a fact about a story he told on "Late Night with David Letterman" regarding his days in Portland as a player, a fact that could easily be checked by contacting Letterman's production company, WorldWidePants, but editors failed to do so. Rather than simply deleting the accurate passages from the articles, the editors shouldn't have checked Bing Russell's article, BaseballReference.com and contacted WorldWidePants first to confirm whether they were true. This to me, was lazy and irresponsible editing. Wikipedia's editors must do a much better job in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.47 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at both edits and agree that a blanket revert is a bit heavy handed, however it appears that the text you added was not sourced. Is that correct? Remember that unsourced content on a BLP can be challenged and removed. All of that said, I think you should post something on the talk page and discuss the issue with the other editor. I have a feeling that with some discussion you could come to a compromise and a summarized version of the content you proposed could be added back in with proper sourcing. good luck!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on it being heavy handed, but as noted you failed to provide any sources for the claims. It's not up to other editors to go and research and try and find where the information came from, it's up to you to include the sourcing information in your edits. See WP:CITE for help on how to do this. With proper sourcing I think there's a fair chance a version of your edits would be accepted --Icerat (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionism

1. Evolutionism

2. diff

3. Some users insist on describing evolutionism through the term "belief". I tried to replace it because the term has religious connotations, being used in this way in the well known creationism-evolutionism disputes. The second phrase is "The belief was extended to include cultural evolution and social evolution" which implies that cultural and social evolution are also beliefs, so the first two phrases sound ridiculously and are obviously biased. This specifically breaks WP:LABEL. Also the article in it's whole focuses on the use of the word in the English language by religious groups, a rather irrelevant aspect which is inexistent in all of the top dictionaries in different languages that I have consulted, while the main meaning of the word and topic is almost ignored. This breaks the rule that articles should have a global point of view.

4. Talk:Evolutionism#Evolution.3Dbelief.3F --ANDROBETA 22:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I see serious problems with this article as it fails to clarify the process itself (heritable changes in a population spread over many generations) with methods of that process.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet & Abortion / Pro-Life Articles

Over the past few days it has come to my attention that Binksternet has been deeply involved in Pro-Choice POV pushing in a number of Abortion / Pro-Life Articles primarily through elaborate gaming the system. I have seen this on both the Pro-life feminism and Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute articles. It primarily involves writing information in such away as it intentionally casts all any pro-life view in a negative or unscholarly light, removing sourced information that would cast it in a positive light, and removing page tags that would alert anyone to ongoing problems in the article. Any attempts at making the article more neutral are thwarted until interested editors just go away. I realize he is a very involved editor and administrator and his positive contributions are nearly countless but sometimes bias is present on a particular topic. POV runs high in these types of articles and it my hope that perhaps at least some neutrality can prevail with more involved working on behalf of neutrality. Personally I think I may be getting a bit too frustrated with it to continue. PeRshGo (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No pro-choice advocacy from me, I'm afraid. What has been recently upsetting to PeRshGo is that the opinions of pro-life activists have not measured up to the findings of scholars on the subject, and it does not seem fair from the viewpoint of the pro-life people. Per WP:NPOV, we do not give parity to sources that are unequal. Since the scholarly view about Susan B. Anthony and pro-life feminism is the mainstream one, and the pro-life view is unsupported by any scholars at all, it does not deserve parity. Far from it! Presenting the pro-life opinion as equal to the scholarly opinion would violate NPOV. The NPOV guideline is being followed in spirit and to the letter. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I cast my eye over some of Binksternet's edits on Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute. I can't really see anything I'd call blatant POV pushing. PeRshGo, can you provide specific examples? NickCT (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Most of it is subtle, and looking over this noticeboard it does seem that this is the place for actions far more blatant but this has been going on long enough to significantly change the article's tone, and turn it into a very lopsided article. He isn't doing things like removing sources, as much as subtle things like adding a picture of Sarah Palin to the article which if anyone is honest with themselves will realize does little more than add “guilt by association” to the article. The best place to look would be the talk page, where I feel it can be clearly seen that any attempt at consensus has been thwarted, and a “my way or the highway” approach has been taken. But at this point I do wonder if attempts to clean up the articles are even worth the effort. He has more people on his side, and anyone who still cares has been long run off. PeRshGo (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Palin is in the article because of her outspoken support for SBA List, so that photo was first and foremost about the topic of the article. Palin's connection is celebrated by many pro-life feminists, making the image a positive one for those who like Palin and pro-life feminism and a negative one for people who do not like Palin for whatever reason. I don't care so much one way or another whether an image of Palin is in the article, but I put it in originally because it was pertinent—because it supported relevant article text—not because I was trying to skew opinion one way or another.
The only thing frustrating to other editors is my insistence that the scholarly view trumps the politically motivated view which is not at all supported by scholars. Any in the latter camp are "run off" not by meanness or spite but by sticking to Wikipedia guidelines regarding reliable sources. Sorry you have not been satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Amina Bokhary

Amina Bokhary was speedied for being an attack page. The article has been userfied by the deleting admin for rework, and is now in my userspace. I would appreciate any ideas/help for cleaning it up. One idea I have is to transform the article into one about the incident causing the 2010 controversy. Some elements appear insane, but I believe this is more of a reflection of the rather unhealthy body politic of Hong Kong and the tabloid nature of the press than a deliberate attempt to attack the subject. The attacks are at a political and societal level, and I feel the article reflects the sentiment on the ground. That is not to say the article cannot be improved. Most of the sources used in the article are reliable conventional sources. There are no "tabloid" citations. Any help or suggestions would be most appreciated. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thor (film) Idris Elba

We're trying to work out what to do with the Thor (film) page. Basically, there has been some controversy stir about Idris Elba and a very, very small minority of white supremacists threatened at the time to Boycott the film.

What I am suggesting is that, it is not neutral, it gives far too much weight to this controversy stir. There is no mention whatsoever of anything except Idris addressing the controversy stir. Compare the character cast to all the others in this article and you can tell that there is something clearly wrong. I have attempted to rectify the issue, but have been unable to get through. I suggest only the following is needed on this section about the controversy stir:

  • News of Elba's casting was met by online complaints from some comic book fans and white supremacists who saw it as inappropriate for a Norse deity to be played by a black actor. Kenneth called the controversy stir "daft".

or

  • News of Elba's casting was met by online complaints from some comic book fans and white supremacists who saw it as inappropriate for a Norse deity to be played by a black actor. Idris called the controversy stir "ridiculous".

The rest of the article should not address the controversy stir at all, but how Idris felt playing the part, based on WP:NPOV. Therefore the following should be deleted: "In response Elba said, "We have a man [Thor] who has a flying hammer and wears horns on his head. And yet me being an actor of African descent playing a Norse god is unbelievable? I mean, Cleopatra was played by Elizabeth Taylor, and Gandhi was played by Ben Kingsley".[4] At the moment, there is NO mention of how Idris feels, or his thoughts about playing the part. It's all just addressing this blown-out-of-proportion controversy stir. It's too weighty in my opinion. For the past week or so I have tried to get this through but to no avail. And just to clarify what Wikipedia policy says: "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. " KN→ talk • contribs 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Mention of this controversy stir is even mentioned on the Heimdall (comic) page, which I have left a comment about: see here. KN→ talk • contribs 11:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont want to get into another drawn out discussion here but will offer a single rebuttal to the above and leave it at that. The current version is only two sentences; one stating the boycott and other is Elba's response. This is fair weight. Reducing Elba's response to a single word, unbalances the issue and reduces much of Elba's defense, that he so craftfully articulated. Unfortunately due to the media attention that the boycott has received, Elba statements have been mostly confined to addressing this issue and has not offered much information of any substance regarding the role itself. So any lack of content is not fault of Wikipedia or any bias, we work with what is available. Conficutus did suggest the following comment from Elba, "But Kenneth hadn't even given that a thought. He just needed an actor who has presence and command, and felt that I fitted the bill...It was so refreshing – and a testament to [Kenneth] as an actor and director that his casting was genuinely colour blind. I feel very proud of being part of that movie." Myself and couple of other editors stated that this particular quote offers no insight to the role itself. Elba here is simply stating that he was hired because he was right the person for the job (as is everyone else involved) and expressing his gratitude towards director Kenneth Branagh for hiring him (again not notable). The length of some of the other sections are longer because they do offer more insight (i.e. preparation, inspiration/influence, interpretation, etc.).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
To me, the issue isn't how to balance opinions about the controversy... the issue is whether to mention this so called "controversy" at all. I think mentioning it in the first place blows the idea that there really is a "controversy" way out of proportion, and gives undue weight to minority opinions. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought so too originally, but it has received significant media coverage and is notable per WP:N. This was also discussed on the talk page, others have suggested to create an entire section detailing the "controversy" but we agreed a simple mention in its current location is fair weight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Blueboar of course, and disagree with TriiipleThreat. WP:NPOV states "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.", which is what exactly what is occuring on this article. In regards TriiipleThreat mentioning of what has been discussed, I disagree. The talk page shows very few and far between talks about this. If, this controversy should get a mention, it should certainly only be restricted to a sentence, or two maximum. As it currently stands, the Idris Elba Heimdall cast section describes nothing about Idris Elba's role and everything about the controversy stir. If that isn't WP:UNDUE, what is? As I wrote on 15:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC) WP:NPOV says: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.""An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." and "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view .". If this has been any other article, it would have recieved a [undue weight? – discuss] template a long time ago, and no doubt been deleted.
  • WP:FILMCAST says: "Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose. There are several ways to provide such information: Halloween contains "Writing", "Casting", "Direction" and "Music" subsections within the "Production" section, which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles, and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film ". The Idris Elba section completely contradicts this policy. Currently the section is devoted to highlighting a small controversy stir. It's a contradiction of WP:UNDUE and WP:FILMCAST KN→ talk • contribs 19:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
And just to add, a recent development on the Thor page was a third opinion offered, which resulted in another dead end solution. [40] and of course User:TriiipleThreat's flawed reasoning [41]. KN→ talk • contribs 19:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have concluded that if the WP:NPOVN decide that the controversy should be mentioned, it can be addressed in one sentence: ""Online complains about Idris casting for a Norse god were passed off as "daft" by Kenneth and "ridiculous" by Idris." that would be WP:BALANCE and wouldn't be so WP:UNDUE. I would like some input from others on the board though. KN→ talk • contribs 20:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Despite User:TriiipleThreat's claims of little information to put in the WP:FILMCAST section of Idris, I have compiled this: information suitable for filmcast section I would appreciate opinions, thank you. KN→ talk • contribs 17:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I'm only now seeing that this conversation has begun on the Notice Board, I'd like to weigh in as one of the editors working on Thor (film) and commenting on its talk apge.
First, I want to say that Conflictus, or KN, has been bombarding the talk page for several days and seems unable to accept consensus. He has made unwarranted, easily disprovable accusations of tag-teaming and unclean hands, without backing them up, and has shown bad faith in general. Most recently, he appears to be trying to circumvent consensus by putting his version of the article on the talk page.
The contention here, remarkably, is over a single two-sentence passage. The current page reads: "Elba's casting prompted a boycott by the Council of Conservative Citizens and a debate amongst some comic book fans, insisting it was wrong for a black man to play a Nordic god. In response Elba called the debate, 'ridiculous'.[30][31]" This plainly worded two-sentence passage has nothing WP:UNDUE about it. Conflictus believes we should not name the organization; other editors feel it would be irresponsible not to attribute the issue to a named organization when that organization is publicly known.
Conflictus shows an extremely high level of interest in Elba and in no other aspect of this film, leading me to feel, from past experience with publicists and others who come to Wikipedia and who have behaved in similar manner, that perhaps this interest is professional. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
To me it looks like a relatively minor matter to get all excited about. Still if it was up to me I'd reduce it to a single line or two, one stating the call to boycott and another in response, then add information related to Idris playing the character unrelated to race issues. As it currently stands the wording could be interpreted as much a promotion for being a racial friendly film as white supremacist hate. Also is the film out already? The wording for the boycott is in the present tense. Lambanog (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. This is what I'm saying. Why is the boycott mentioned in present case and why has it stayed this way for months? Well whenever I ask these questions, I get told that I'm going against consensus. ":*News of Elba's casting as a Norse deity caused a small racial controversy which Idris called "ridiculous" and Kenneth called "daft"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conficutus (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It was released already in Australia; I think it's this weekend for the U.S. Not sure about anywhere else. From some blogs I follow that have pointed out the controversy, I gather that the race-based objectors are still actively trying to encourage/organize their little boycott so present tense may be appropriate (hard to tell since it's blog tag in sites reacting to the stupid). Millahnna (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The mention of the boycott on the Thor (film) article has been up for one year and yet no boycott has even happened. I am calling for this non-notable issue to be deleted. But TriiipleThreat is still insisting on it being included At the very least delete until we know the legitamacy in this whole thing. It's not the first time the CCC has misled people. KN→ talk • contribs 10:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Where's the Birth Certificate?

I have some concerns that the new article Where's the Birth Certificate? does not reflect a neutral point of view, in its claims relating to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - as the book has not been published, and due to concerns regarding sourcing that I've stated on the talk page. I think it would benefit from more people checking it over.  Chzz  ►  06:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

For a start, it makes this claim as fact: "The book also notes that that Obama spent millions in legal fees to avoid having to provide a long-form birth certificate to the courts". I also note that the reference is to an 'overview', not a 'publisher review' (the publisher is WorldNetDaily, not Barnes & Noble, in any case). Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
RE: Dougweller's comments: I agree that the sentence beginning "The book also notes that..." can be better worded -but must note that it was and is a new article, and that language had not been pointed out to me by Chzz as POV, or by anyone at the time you made this remark here on the NPOV noticeboard. I see now the verb has been changed from "notes" to a more neutral "claims". I am not sure who changed it or when, and the change is all right with me. IOW, there was and is no dispute here. Further balance can be added or might be needed, which is something I can see now that this has been pointed out to me for the first time. I thought article development was supposed to be a collaborative effort, but apparently that may not be the case here. As for your comment about a reference being titled "Overview" rather than a "Publisher review", at best that is a small factual error in the references section that anyone could correct by changing just one word - and it does not affect NPOV. Further, the reference was used only once. Someone, I think Fat & Happy, substituted another reference with no objection from me or anyone, so this is all moot anyway. It seems to me that the main thing going on here that is non neutral is the nitpicking or a new article. I would also like to note that Doug completely and mistakenly accused me of some sort of violation of copying rules on the same day and regarding this same article - he later apologized, apology accepted. KeptSouth (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Changed "notes" to "claims".Griswaldo (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm worried that a lot of the referencing actually originates from the publisher (when you dig down), and hence it really is promotion for a yet-to-be-released book.  Chzz  ►  10:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I started this article and I am responding to Chzz's initial complaint about 2 days after he started it here because I just learned of it on May 6. I do not believe I was given notice by him until May 6. At the point he began this post here, there were about 10 references in the article as well as text which established notability. Since that time, though I did not know of his complaint here, I have added approx 5 more references to unimpeachably reliable publications such as the Daily Mail, NBC News, the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, Fox News, and Time magazine. The sources in the article are both in favor of the book and critical of it, so I do not see how they could be "actually originat[ing] from the publisher"...and hence really a promtion" as Chzz claims here.KeptSouth (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the NPOV complaint, Chzz never, let me emphasize, never, raised this issue with me on the article talk page, on my talk page or in an edit summary. Nor did he ever add a NPOV tag to the top of the article or any section of it. I believe in good faith this is a violation of dispute procedures to raise this in a noticeboard for the first time - if it is not, it should be.
I will provide, when I have time later, convenient links to the sections where I discussed other issues Chzz is raising here; and/or a summary of the discussion and response. But for now, I would like note that I gave numerous on point responses to his concerns and in return usually received a non answer or a very vague and indirect response. KeptSouth (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

One specific issue: The article claims that it was/is on the list of Amazon 'best-sellers' before it actually goes on sale. That is supported by refs, [42] [43]. However, looking on Amazon itself, the book does not appear on their list [44]. Therefore, I removed the claim [45] but my edit was reverted [46].  Chzz  ►  12:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I started the article and was never informed until today, 2 days later, that Chzz, had started a noticeboard complain. Amazing. However, in the meantime, I had much discussion with Chzz on his talk page, and on the article page. I also provided detailed edit summaries. In response to Chzz's issue with the book being on Amazon.com's bestseller list, I had posted one RS that said it was, then added one more following his expression of concern that the RS was wrong, and recently added a third, because I perceived from my discussion with him and his vague indirect answers, that he still might be disputing this. I do not have more time for this now, but will respond more fully tomorrow, if this is complaint is not closed by then for lack of merit. I certainly hope it is, because for one thing, I don't see how it was necessary, and I do not believe off hand that Chzz followed proper dispute resolution procedures. KeptSouth (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary and Request to Close—This claim should be closed. NPOV was never discussed on the TALK page itself prior to Chzz starting this claim. The claim is stated in very general terms by Chzz with no diffs linked, as suggested by the directions "Before posting a question". The questions stated by Chzz here are mainly not NPOV issues. The result, after four days on this board, is that one editor, an experienced admin, Dougweller, has found just one word that he thought was not NPOV. That does not mean the article is perfect, of course, but it certainly does show that NPOV issues can be handled on the talk page itself and that a non specific posting on this venue was and is unneeded. Therefore I am asking that this claim be closed. KeptSouth (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't formally "close" discussions on this noticeboard, we simply let them die out for lack of further participation (at which point they will slide into the archives after a few days). Your summary is helpful however. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate any others assisting with this. Above, KeptSouth wrote,I do not believe off hand that Chzz followed proper dispute resolution procedures - I'm worried by that, and if I have done anything at all wrong, I would like to know what, so that I do not make similar errors in the future.

I'm finding it very challenging to discuss any of this with KeptSouth, so perhaps input from others might help. Best,  Chzz  ►  21:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking

This method is being misrepresented by Wiki in the opening sentences. Changes to remedy this are being constantly reverted. Editors are either clueless or have an agenda. As for example a reversion for the same change with these three comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fractional-reserve_banking&diff=428548788&oldid=428547389

  • "money borrowed by the bank is not "the bank's property"
  • "Confusing and unclear way of saying the same thing"
  • "Please try not to add misleading phrasing"

It is just simple accounting that the customer money becomes the banks asset and it would be fraud to say otherwise. The ordinary depositors are unsecured creditors in a private firm who are last in line behind higher ranking more knowledgeable investors.

Additionally, the relending model of fractional reserve banking is presented on the page with paragraphs highlighting limitations in how banks can create money. Meanwhile I have provided endless citations from central bankers and specialist economists who say this idea of limitations is false.

Which famous economists support the idea in the simplistic mechanical fashion shown by wiki? Surely a reliable economist has heard of the expression 'extend credit'? Or has heard of lending and borrowing of excess reserves at LIBOR? None of these basic things can be explained on the page because they have been described as being fringe beliefs that do not support the relending model. As a result, the Wiki page is misrepresenting how banks really operate.

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

It is stated Wikipedia policy that peer reviewed journal papers trump textbooks. Yet on the FRB main page, acres of coverage is devoted to ideas with textbook references only. Views that contradict the "textbook" description, backed up by higher quality references, are being repeatedly undone/removed/suppressed. Why is this? Reissgo (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have not looked at the desired edits, so this is a question rather than an accusation ... but could one reason be that the way the views have been expressed constitute original research? For example, is an editor trying to include their own analysis or conclusions based upon what the journals say... something not overtly stated by the journals themselves? Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No. The desired edits have been exactly described by the federal reserve and others since at least the 1960's Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
The issue of views expressed in peer reviewed journals being rejected in favour of textbook descriptions was discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard here. At that time there seemed to be a consensus the the quantity and quality of papers was not quite sufficient to win the day. The situation now is completely different. andrewedwardjudd has compiled a formidable collection of very high quality references to support his intended edits. His detractors have come up with nothing at all to counter his references other than to repeatedly insist that if his views are not in the textbooks then they are not mainstream and therefore do not deserve space on the FRB page.
What would be extremely useful is if a neutral editor could comment on what weight should be given to competing views if peer reviewed papers contradict textbooks. Reissgo (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, Reissgo is being disingenuous that his papers "trump" the references of the current article. Academic references have been provided.
Perhaps more importantly, NO ONE in the economics community has any mistaken illusions about the viewpoint being tendentiously pushed by User:Andrewedwardjudd. It is WELL-ACCEPTED that the viewpoint in his edits has NOT been widely accepted in the academic economics community --- even his own sources indicate the the viewpoint is meant to challenge the vastly more prominent view.
As they are the editors attempting to add information into the article, User:Reissgo and User:Andrewedwardjudd have taken on a burden of proof. They have been invited to meet the burden of proof. They insist on granting nearly equal validity to the viewpoint described in their edits, so they have been asked to provide reliable sources that "document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance".
They have NOT met this burden (nor provided anything persuasive that their view is outside of a small minority), so their attempt to radically rewrite the article from a different point of view has been opposed by numerous editors. BigK HeX (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That text in yellow is a typical piece of gamesmanship by this editor. Large numbers of high quality citations have been produced.
The page has been written to distort what the available references are actually saying. The page has paragraph after paragraph talking about limitations to money creation and all attempts to get a truer record of the references has been reverted. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
User:Andrewedwardjudd has been informed on numerous occasions that people may not continue to engage him, so long as he persists in his presumptions of bad faith at every opportunity. To wit, see how he framed the issue in his mediation request: WP:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking#Who_is_involved.3F (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Readers will note that this editor keeps repeating how people have failed to satisfy him, and yet has provided zero references to counter the views expressed in my references that banks extend credit rather then relend existing money.[User:Andrewedwardjudd|Andrewedwardjudd]] (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
Re: "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance". We could pose this question the other way round. Where is the evidence that the views you support are "accepted"? Given that fact that there is a sizeable collection of very high quality peer reviewed papers plus a collection of opinions of extremely senior central bankers suggesting that your position is plain wrong, then surely there should exist somewhere a document saying words to the effect of "Those people attacking our textbook view are wrong and here's why." The fact that no such document appears to exist would suggest that the textbook description is known to be just a simplified "teaching aid", like "electron shells" in chemistry. You would never expect to find a peer reviewed paper stating "It is widely accepted that the behavior of electrons is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics but a description involving electron shells is used as a teaching aid in chemistry", so why are you insisting I find the equivalent with regard FRB? I actually emailed the author of an unpublished paper which denounced the textbook FRB view and he told me it got rejected by a journal on the grounds that everyone knows it already!
Re: "Firstly, Reissgo is being disingenuous that his papers 'trump' the references of the current article. Academic references have been provided.". Please give a single example of a reference used to support the textbook description which isn't simply a textbook itself.
Re: "It is WELL-ACCEPTED that the viewpoint in his edits has NOT been widely accepted in the academic economics community --- even his own sources indicate the the viewpoint is meant to challenge the vastly more prominent view." - IIRC this was simply a case of an expert on money stating that amongst non-experts its is widely held that.... I would suggest that amongst experts on money (e.g. central bankers, and specialist monetary economists), the views being put forth by andrewwardjudd and myself are the majority. Reissgo (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
FWIW I've been researching in this area for the last 3 years, said research having been partially instigated by the wide variety of opinions being expressed in the Talk page. What follows is strictly imho. The textbook presentation (which is essentially the wiki page), is certainly misleading, but only if it is taken as a general example of the entire system. I don't think it was ever intended to be that. At this time though there is no accepted replacement for that description though, and I doubt there will be for many years. I personally like the mild act of subversion of showing actual monetary statistics next to a model that predicts asymptotic convergence, and its nice to have the link to the original Macmillan report as well.
There is no consensus currently, central bank or otherwise on what the actual behaviour of the system is, nor has there ever been an accurate one. This is a complex system, and Economics hasn't really put the whole thing together yet. You can find a lot of papers pointing out individual issues with it - the problem is sorting out the subset of papers that provides the correct set of issues - some of the academic papers are wildly inaccurate even on the basics. I think a large part of the problem too is that there isn't a single fractional reserve system. Historically there have been multiple regulatory frameworks, quite often substantially different from each other, and with widely differing behaviours. For example, a lot of people assume that the gold standard successfully regulated bank deposit expansion, but there's actually no evidence that it did. The textbook example is itself a highly simplified model purely of the deposit expansion process, it doesn't included lending or loan default, nor does it include capital requirements which appear to have often acted as a regulatory factor in conjunction with reserve requirements, and in most Basel regulated systems have completely replaced them.
Some of Andrewedwardjudd comments are correct for a Basel regulated system for example, but incorrect for the gold standard/reserve regulated system which appears to be the context Andrewedwardjudd uses. The question of whether banks extend credit rather than recycle existing money for example, I would personally say is tautologous within a strict interpretation of the textbook system, might be somewhat useful in a system that allows banks to sell loans to non-banking entities (securitization), and in a gold reserve based system to some extent reflects the issue that economists of that era did not regard bank deposits as money. It is a complex system - and there is a huge amount of confusion about it - viz the talk page.
Where that leaves Wiki I don't know, since original research clearly isn't part of the mandate, and that is unfortunately what a lot of commentators are de facto trying to do whether they realize it or not. Perhaps a summary should be added specifically addressing known issues with the textbook model, and a summary of the research that is currently being conducted into it. A common misconceptions in FRB wouldn't be a bad idea either come to that. Mischling (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Mischling, I do not know what you mean by your suggestion I am getting confused between Basel and the gold standard. If you want we can resolve this using high quality references on the talk page. Please do not confuse original research with well documented banking practices Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Are there "well documented banking practices?" Isn't one of the problems that the different banking systems don't document their regulatory frameworks very well, if at all? Wrt to the Basel comment - gold standard systems had required reserves, most current Basel regulated systems do not have reserve requirements or have minimal reserve requirements. This is because the Basel framework shifted loan regulation to capital controls. Mischling (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Perhaps a summary should be added specifically addressing known issues with the textbook model". I'd be much happier with that rather than the current state which is presenting the textbook model as fact and presenting the known issues as fringe. Reissgo (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It think it might be the best approach. It's very easy (imho - and obDisclaimer - i'm presenting a paper on this next month) to demonstrate that the textbook model's failure to include loan defaults, loan repayments and inter-bank lending makes it less than adequate to its task shall we say. Then creating a section where different current theories could be detailed would be very beneficial to researchers, although possibly stretching wiki's mandate a little.Mischling (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Western betrayal

Title NPOV issue. We should surely be using a more neutral title here, even if this is a term some parties use to discuss the matter. Eyeballs? FT2 (Talk | email) 02:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a bad title. it's very parochial. I tried working out which particular betrayal it meant before going there, it was on the list of possibilities but it would be better as the Yalta betrayal I'd have thought. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree with FT2 and Dmcq. Needs better title.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily. We're just supposed to use the most common name in English. If "Western betrayal" is the most common name used in English, then it doesn't matter whether it's neutral. Proper names which incorporate non-neutral terms - such as Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Reign of Terror, Bataan Death March, Intolerable Acts, Great Leap Forward, etc. are all legitimate article titles. Try finding some standard reference history texts which cover this subject. If they're calling it "western betrayal", we should to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I did a newspaper search for the term "western betrayal" -- major papers in the US & Britain and worldwide -- and I did not get any kind of sense that the term western betrayal had some coherent meaning. Rather, it sometimes referred to criticism of foreign policy actions of nations such as Britain and France towards eastern Europe on the eve of WW2; but there were many other senses too -- it's been applied towards policy towards Afghanistan in recent years, Iraq. The time frame -- 1919 to 1968 -- too huge. You see, Bataan Death March refers to a specific event; ditto your other choices above. But Western betrayal is so vague that, in my view, is practically meaningless, and may be a catch-all term for original research. My sense is the article has major issues, including the title; perhaps it should be broken up into separate articles about foreign policy?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pure blood theory in Korea or Korean ethnic nationalism?

There is continuing controversy on whether the title Pure blood theory in Korea is appropriate. The disagreement is whether the title Pure blood theory in Korea is NPOV, and whether the reliable sources referenced in the article cover this subject under the term Pure blood theory or ethnic nationalism. In my opinion, the current title is offensive and keeps many editors, including myself, from providing constructive contributions to the subject matter, and much of the article's contents were written by a selective group of editors with a history of anti-Korean bias, and should the current title be maintained, it will remain so for the foreseeable future. The current debate is largely limited to a few non-neutral editors, so I'd like to ask neutral editors to drop in their opinions on this matter to put in some fresh perspective. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Racism in Korea would be in line with Racism in the United Kingdom, Racism in the United States, etc. Notions of "purity" are common in racism and xenophobia throughout the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Template Talk:Rescue

You are invited to join the discussion at Template Talk:Rescue. Rescue Tag guidelines are often not followed. Do the instructions for the Rescue Tag need to change, or does the wording for the tag need to change? Avanu (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Discussion should take place at Template Talk:Rescue, not here.
There's nothing about this request that's actually relevant to the purpose of this board: suggest archiving. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Unlike your shooting down of this at Village Pump, which may or may not apply, it is *very* relevant here, Sarek. The archives and current use of the tag suggest it is being used as an 'uber-Keep' vote, rather than tagging and providing an improvement plan, as per the tag's own guidelines. This means that it is being used in a way that is not neutral, and therefore a notice appropriately belongs here. -- Avanu (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The tag itself doesn't have a neutrality problem -- your issue is editor conduct, which is not within the remit of this board. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This board isn't about attacking other editors either, Sarek. Specifically, the tag says "flagged for rescue". The wording is crafted to sound urgent and important. Additionally, rather than simply directing people to the AfD, it says "Please review the deletion discussion and help improve". This is phrased as an "imperative sentence" rather than a "declarative sentence", which also indicates it is not neutral. I have suggested minor changes that would address these points, and editor Sarek has generally been in opposition. For any further discussion, I suggest it be placed at Template Talk:Rescue. -- Avanu (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This board is about the neutrality of articles, not tags. It says so at the top. Also, your claim of it attracting uber keep votes has no evidence to back it up. And your claim that The wording is crafted to sound urgent and important is absolutely ridiculous. Since this isn't an article but a tag we're discussing, I don't believe this should be mentioned here at all. Dream Focus 19:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This noticeboard deals with neutral language, and as such, it seemed appropriate given the concerns. The editors here might help in proposing neutral language or improvements. Incidentally, I never said the tag *attracts* uber-Keep votes. I said it is being used as such, a cursory look at its use in articles will show that it is being used outside of its own guidelines and many times, a person who !votes Keep will add the rescue tag, but not provide the 'rescue plan' as requested in the tag guidelines. This is why I characterize it as uber-Keep, because it attracts other editors who are more likely to vote for Keep. -- Avanu (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC: NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network

Main page: Talk:National Broadband Network § RFC: NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network

RFC was called about the NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network. —[d'oh] 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Lia Looveer

The following claims have been made in the article talk page:

We had a discussion on the WWII talk page and came to a conclusion that "Nazi Germany" is more common in English literature than Third Reich. "Nazi Germany" is as common as, e.g. "Soviet Russia". To use just "Germany" is somewhat confusing and may be uncomfortable for German audience.
However, taking into account that this radio station was located in the Nazi Germany occupied Gdansk, it was natural to suggest that that station (as well as all mass media in the totalitarian Nazi Germany) was under a strict control of the Goebbels' ministry, and the propaganda was the Nazi propaganda. If that was the case, then it should be said. However, if Looveer's work was purely technical one (and the latter is highly likely) than it would be quite sufficient to write "worked on the German radio", because, independently of the language of the broadcasting, the radio was German both geographically and physically. The opposite was simply impossible in the totalitarian society, which strictly controls mass media.
If a person moved to Nazi Germany and worked for the radio station there, one can speak about collaboration with Nazi Germany independently of legality or illegality of some Soviet actions.

All this arose as I noted that "Nazi Germany" should not be used to deliberately attaint any person as being a "Nazi collaborator" (the person initially had asserted that "Nazi Germany" was the actual name of Germany -- "Nazi" is quite relevant. It is the name of this country during that period , but appeared to back down and now just asserts that moving to Nazi Germany should be noted as making the person a collaborator. No source aserts that Louveer was a Nazi, by the way. Is use of "Nazi Germany" in order to promote the implication of any person as a Nazi Collaborator in line with WP:NPOV? Lastly, is all this subject to Digwuren sanctions? Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of this person, but what do the majority of sources say in reference to this person? Do they say "Germany" or "Nazi Germany"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The actual sources say "Germany." One editor says the "agreement" on WWII articles is that the country name is "Nazi Germany." I suggested that consensus there can not affect what is done on other articles. He did, moreover, state on the article talk page: However, if you do not want some details to appear in the biography of a person who worked in Nazi Germany during WWII, do not dig deeper, because that may reveal not only the details you want to show, but also something you want to hide. which, for some odd reason, I found a tad insulting. Collect (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
@ Collect. It does not matter how the sources about Looveer describe Germany. The more important question is what majority sources say about this country. The name of this country during this period is the Third Reich or, less officially, Nazi Germany (similar to "The USSR" and "Soviet Russia"). Therefore, to write "Nazi Germany" is completely correct. In connection to that, since we discuss the war time events, that have a direct relation to the history of Nazi Germany, not simply "Germany", it is desirable to use a full name, although I do not see a need to repeat it every time in the article. BTW, by saying that I do not "back down", as someone thinks, but simply explain my position. In future, please, be more careful in your interpretations of the viewpoint of others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Paul -- the question was asked. I answered the exact question posed. That you feel the wording used in the source is irrelevant appears to be your opinion only. The "name" of Germany was never "Third Reich". The name at the League of Nations was .... get this .... Germany. The US declaration of war was against ... get this .... Germany. When a source does not use a phrase - it is an interesting reversal of WP policy to say the wording in the source is what should be ignored <g>. The proper terms for the USSR are, indeed, USSR or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (hence "Soviet Union"), "Soviet Russia" was not a country name - although "Russia" is certainly correct (one of three UN members - the others being historically Byelorussia and Ukraine). I wonder just what WP policies you are thinking of to make the assertions you make. Collect (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wasn't Gdansk (Looveer's first broadcasting stop where the Estonians had set up a radio station) Nazi-Germany occupied Poland? Prior edits at the article had POV-stated Looveer "defected" (i.e., Soviet defector to the ranks of the Nazi enemy as Estonia had been annexed by the Soviet Union and then occupied by Nazi Germany at the time Looveer and tens of thousands of others fled the Baltics to escape Soviet re-occupation)—hence the source of Collect's concern, that any Baltic refugee fleeing the Soviet onslaught to "Nazi Germany" is made out to be a sympathizer, after all, they prefer Nazis to the anti-fascist heroes of the Great Patriotic War come to "liberate" the Baltic states. If they could not be fingered as a Nazi accomplice, they wouldn't need to flee, etc., etc. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
{EC}IMHO, if the sources say "Germany", then we should say Germany. I don't think it makes sense for the consensus reached at the WWII article to be enforced on a mostly unrelated article. Sure, if this were the Battle of Stalingrad article, then it makes sense. But it doesn't sound like her life was defined by the part that happened to occur while the National Socialists controlled Germany. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
@ Collect. Yes, it wasn't, and the official name of Britain was never "The United Kingdom" too. However, the "Nazi Germany" was the most common colloquial name of this state during 1933-45, similar to the "United States" for the USA, "Soviet Union" (or "Soviet Russia") for the USSR, etc. To write "moved to Nazi Germany" instead of "moved to Germany" is as correct as to write "moved to Soviet Russia" instead of "moved to Russia", or "moved to the United States" instead of "moved to America". Re "Soviet Russia", this term is used extremely widely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
@ A Quest For Knowledge. Taking into account that she worked for German radio in the German occupied city, I am not sure the word "Nazi" is completely irrelevant. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
@ Peters. To say that someone escaped to the Nazi Germany does not automatically mean that he was a Nazi supporter. However, although the fact that he was not a Nazi supporter does not change the fact that this person voluntarily moved to the Nazi Germany and stayed there until German defeat. The word "Nazi" is relevant here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Nation name is actually "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." The name is not "Great Britain." The name as used at the UN for normal purposes is, indeed, "United Kingdom." When correcting folks, try to be correct <g>. That you aver a term is "used widely" does not mean it can be substituted for the term used in the reference given. Wikipedia uses the words used in the source, not what we know the source ought to have said. We use the cards that are there, now what we wish the source said. BTW, try Google scholar -- "Soviet Russia" has 87K hits, "Soviet Union" has 1.2megahits. The UN name for Russia was, and is, "Russia." (The seat holder is "Russian Federation" currently.) Collect (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear. UK is a state, not a nation. The nationality is British and of course the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland includes four nations. To the extent that "race" has any validity, it can be used for any of these five nationalities, but of course we're a mongrel breed, and all Jock Tamson's Bairns. . . dave souza, talk
Neat cavil - but the UN calls it a "nation." BTW, the UK also includes some most odd pieces which are not part of the four nations - such as the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, etc. Moreover calling a person from Northern Ireland "British" might be a problem. The point, moreover, is clear - the "correction", wasn't. <g> Collect (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
These furriners, don't get things right. Probably a majority of people from Norn Iron are "British" and identify as such as well as being Irish, a large minority only identify themselves as Irish. Calling a Catholic from there "British" might cause a stushie. As for the main point, if the best sources say "Nazi Germany" or "the Third Reich" we can go along with that, but emphasising the Nazi connection if that's not in the sources would be synthesis and a Bad Thing. If it's contentious and unclear, we could always just say "Danzig in the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia" and let curious readers follow the link. A diplomatic outcome? If we really want to follow sources saying "Germany", unfortunately Germany links to the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, so a piped link to Germany would be appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 21:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul "@ Peters. To say that someone escaped to the Nazi Germany does not automatically mean that he was a Nazi supporter. However, although the fact that he was not a Nazi supporter does not change the fact that this person voluntarily moved to the Nazi Germany and stayed there until German defeat. The word "Nazi" is relevant here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC"

There you go, using "voluntarily" as if people had a choice. The only two places boats were going were Sweden and Germany, and the only place where Latvians would know the local language and have a better chance of fending for themselves was Germany, most educated Latvians being polyglots (Latvian plus either Russian or German, or both). To characterize becoming a refugee, fleeing likely deportation if not death by Soviet hands, as "voluntarily" fleeing to Germany (and as if there were more choices!) is both provocative and grossly offensive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Voluntarily" means "not by force". If you believe that was not true, feel free to report me. This person made a choice between two totalitarian regimes, and this choice was made absolutely voluntary. In addition, if she preferred the totalitarian (Nazi German) regime over the democratic (Swedish) regime just because of the language barriers, that also speaks for itself. I do not want, however, to discuss all of that, because we simply have no reliable sources on this subject. However, the fact was that Lia Looveer escaped to Nazi Germany, lived there relatively comfortably and worked for the radio station that was affiliated with Nazi German radio. I believe you will not question the fact that all mass-media in Nazi Germany were under strict control of the Goebbels' ministry of propaganda, therefore, had Looveer worked as a doctor, or as a nurse, or as a postmaster, etc, we would have no reason to speak about her in a context of Nazism. However, by virtue of her profession (work in mass media), Looveer simply cannot be mentioned not in a context of Nazi Germany (I mean the period of 1944-45).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you asserting that a person had the simple ability to flee to Sweden in 1944? I did not see any source making any such claim at all. I did find a non-RS source for 72,000 Estonians fleeing to Sweden and Germany combined in 1944, but that does not indicate how Sweden determined who would be allowed in. The WP article on Estonian SSR says 80,000 fled by sea to Sweden and Finland. "Finlandization" was the result of the armistice with the USSR (1944-1945 war), and I suspect many who fled the USSR's occupation of the Baltic States likely left Finland as well. [47] says 3% of the Estonian population fled to Sweden - which would be somewhere on the order of 30,000. Which implies that most Estonians actually fled to Germany as being the easiest and safest route away from the USSR armies. Still nothing to indicate that Looveer had any real choice in the matter, however, as many of those going by sea to Sweden lived in fishing areas with access to boats. [48] indicates that 40,000 went to Germany in 1944. And again I note your unfounded assertion that she worked for "Nazi radio" and elide that fact that all workers in "Nazi Germany" were not "Nazis" by any stretch of the imagination. This smacks more of "she fled the USSR, and must perforce be a Nazi if she went to Germany" sort of argument which is wildly afoul of ArbCom decisions. In short - your cavils have remarkably little weight in this discussion. Collect (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul and "This person made a choice between two totalitarian regimes, and this choice was made absolutely voluntary." No it was not. Because of the Nazi Germany invasion a week after the first Soviet mass deportations, the next Soviet wave of mass deportations was interrupted. Those deportation lists were left behind. My mother was warned not to go home and avoided deportation with the rest of her family; however, both my mother and father were listed for subsequent deportation. Staying and not fleeing would mean definite deportation and likely death to stay. Of course Looveer was forced to flee. Your contention of "absolutely voluntary" choice between two evils is uninformed and insulting. Really, have you not yet scraped the bottom of the barrel in tarring Looveer? As for the choice of where, there were far fewer boats heading to Sweden, many were also small and many lives were lost in the crossing. When the Soviets are coming to take you away, you don't ask where the boat is heading as long as it's away. You get on the first boat you can and leave and hope the Soviet bombs dropping all around you don't sink your boat. (In Looveer's case the last boat to get out of Tallinn before the Soviets retook the city and ripped down the Estonian flag.) I'm disgusted by your morally grotesque "preferring the Nazis to the Soviets" line of reasoning. You should not be allowed to participate at any articles having to do with Soviet or Nazi actions or legacies regarding WWII in the Baltics.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that by telling about Looveer's achievements you will inevitably have to say something that tars her. Therefore, the less you tell about some details of her biography the better. For instance, to write:
"Escaped to Nazi Germany occupied Danzig."
would be quite neutral, and has neither negative nor positive connotations.
However, if you want to tell anything about the essence of her duties during the WWII (for which she got an award from the President of Estonia), it will be absolutely necessary to write that she worked for radio in Nazi Germany occupied Estonia and then for the Balti Raadio, which was a Nazi German radio affiliated radio station. That is necessary to say, because the Balti Raadio content was obviously approved by the Nazi Ministry of propaganda, and it would be incorrect to ignore the connection with Nazi regime in this case.
I am not insisting on the second option, my choice is #1: to tell as little as possible about Looveer during the WWII. What I oppose against is to tell about her as about the national liberation activist, and to simultaneously carefully avoid any mention of Nazism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion makes my head hurt. If you want an uninvolved opinion (which should be the reason this was brought to NPOV/N), I think we should just follow the source. Much of the arguments above seem to be based on original research, The Truth and the desire to set things right. The bottom line is that we should be following reliable sources. If the source doesn't see a need to specify "Nazi" before "Germany", then neither should we. I'd also like to add that this dispute is rather WP:LAME. The average reader is never going to give a second thought as to whether the article says "Germany" or "Nazi Germany". It will never cross their mind. You guys are veteran editors and you're wasting too much time on this. And if you don't like my advice, how about we just flip a coin and move on? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
You're missing the morally grotesque part about "absolutely voluntarily" choosing Nazi (occupation) over Soviet (occupation) as if it wasn't clear what the Soviets were going to do to the peoples of the Baltic states upon reinvading—that is, once again unleash a campaign of terror, murder, and mass deportations of innocent civilians. This isn't about who occupied Danzig/Gdansk at the time. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In a spirit of tact and diplomacy, I've looked at the one online source (in Estonian) which doesn't seem to mention Germany, just Danzig, and not having access to the cited book (in Estonian) had a look for better sources. Oh look. That follows the English language source, while using piped links to be historically correct. So this is what readers see. Let the wild rumpus commence :-/ . . . dave souza, talk 18:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh woe, having implemented this sensible compromise, I now find Paul Siebert trying to argue that it's ok to have synthesis to push in his wording about German occupation. The discussion is at Talk:Lia Looveer#I would like anyone to explain me what is wrong with this so wiser counsel would be appreciated. Bedtime here now. . . dave souza, talk 23:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Christoff was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Jacques, Peter (June 2008). "The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism". Environmental Politics. 17 (3): 349–385. doi:10.1080/09644010802055576. Retrieved 27 December 2010. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Photos: http://www.harappa.com/figurines/index.html
  4. ^ McClintock, Pamela (2011-03-04). "Black 'Thor' Actor Blasts Debate Over His Casting". The Holywood Reporter. Retrieved 2011-03-04.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_23&oldid=1144894271"