Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcut:
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52

Ukraine conflict

Almost every time I have attempted to edit articles related to the conflict in Ukraine, my additions have been removed. Certain users are constantly involved in edit warring over this issue. User:Volunteer Marek seems to be the most aggressive.

The main issue is the removal of well sourced material.

My recent edits (April 2015): diff, diff, diff diff

Removed (April 2015): diff, diff, diff, diff

This disruptive behaviour has been going on, and on, and on, and on... diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff. Diff speaks for itself (other editors, User:MyMoloboaccount, User:Leftcry, User:Herzen, User:Haberstr, and User:HCPUNXKID seem to agree with me)

And, of course, there is a blatant double standard: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff

For example, I've tried to add the latest Crimean public opinion poll, but was reverted by User:Volunteer Marek and User: RGloucester (see diff, and diff) − "not adhering to NPOV". And User:Tlsandy joined here − "Poll in wrong article because article about annexation exists".

Bloomberg article says:

"Ukrainian political scientist Taras Berezovets, a Crimea native, recently started an initiative he called Free Crimea, aided by the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives and aimed at building Ukrainian soft power on the peninsula. He started by commissioning a poll of Crimean residents from the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK. The poll results were something of a cold shower to Berezovets."
"The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation." —Bershidsky, Leonid (February 6, 2015). "One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia". Bloomberg News. 

Everything has been discussed here, and clearly no consensus was reached.

I am not a big fan of Putin / his authoritarian rule or Soviet / Russian imperialism (see some of my past edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), but neither am I suffering from Russophobia.

Everything is not always black and white, and WP:NPOV says clearly include fairly all significant views published by reliable sources. This means the article should not be trying to argue for one view or another, but simply representing them proportionately.

I completely agree with User:Herzen: "It is impossible to avoid the impression that some editors of Ukraine related articles are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to avoid any mention in articles of anything that puts Ukraine in a bad light, and to insert anything into them that puts the rebels or Russia in a bad light. Editors are not even trying to maintain any appearance of being interested in trying to maintain NPOV." [17]

Thank you for any help you are able to provide. — Tobby72 (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your great efforts in gathering up this huge mass of evidence. I agree on Volunteer Marek, obviously, though unfortunately there are about three other editors at the Ukraine-related articles that have a very similar perspective and are equally resistant to compromise, discussion and NPOV. He/she is the most ill-mannered, though. Hopefully we can eventually create balanced Ukraine-related articles that reflect all RS-based perspectives on the conflict/crisis. It's embarrassing to leave out key facts like the Crimean opinion polls and the alleged role of the US and Victoria Nuland in what transpired, just because that does not fit a preferred POV narrative.Haberstr (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This is more forum-shopping by tendentious editors. Ignore it. RGloucester 13:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What RGloucester said. There was an extensive discussion about the proposed changes here [18]. These were overwhelmingly rejected by consensus. Tobby72 and Haberstr then moved onto another, but related article, and tried to cram these same (or very similar) changes, which had already been rejected into that one (2014 Ukrainian Revolution). When they were reverted there as well they started running around forum shopping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What RGloucester and Volunteer Marek said +1. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point, there is ample evidence that Russia is both providing material support to the rebels as well as engaging its own regular troops. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Reliable sources report on Russian objections, but take the assumption that the overall conflict is driven by Russia as the ground truth. [25] [26] [27] [28]. Given Russian admissions of false denials and false flag operations [29], along with the well-known unreliability of Russian-controlled media [30], there is at this point no justification for any ongoing complicity of Wikipedia with Russia's maskirovka campagin. Any passage not specifically pertaining to conflicts between points of view should dispense with any qualifiers like "disputed" or "according to some". That Russia is involved with, controlling, and responsible for the conflict in Ukraine should be assumed and asserted.

That said, Russian denials are a significant point of view that we have a responsibility to report proportionately. Any editors that have an issue with the way in which that PoV is included, such as its wording or whether it belongs in a different section or different article, they should endeavor to WP:PRESERVE reliably sourced content and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. If they feel unable to do this, they should present the problem and recommendations on the talk page rather than removing the material. Rhoark (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this and the fact that Russia denies involvement is mentioned and discussed in these articles (the question as to whether this also needs to be in the infobox is a bit more tricky). But this is not enough for the editors above, who want to present "all sides" (sic). I.e. they want the articles to use Wikipedia voice to reflect the Kremlin point of view.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
So long as the "Kremlin point of view" refers to public pronouncements by officials and not outlandish fringe theories, the articles should reflect those views, along with the changes over time, rebuttals, etc., in context.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's already in. Although putting in "rebuttals, etc." would violate WP:UNDUE. There's only so much space and time we want to attribute to these views, which is in proportion to the space and time they receive in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Exceedingly well-put. I would have a problem with Russia's official pronouncements being deliberately excluded from these or any other articles where they are relevant, but that doesn't mean we need to treat Russian state media as a reliable "counterweight" to media outlets in the rest of the world; in fact, based on their verifiable unreliability and lack of editorial distance from the Kremlin, we shouldn't. And Russian denials of involvement should not be treated with credulous and undue weight, considering that the preponderance of reliable sources weighs against them. I find WP:GEVAL to be a very good guideline in situations like this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Tobby72 tells that some materials were not included. What materials, exactly? For example, the Crimean opinion polls are currently included in a number of pages. I agree with Rhoark that annoying repeats "denied by Russia" should be removed from boxes on many pages. It is enough that denials are currently described in the body of these pages. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What materials, exactly? For example:

For his role of a "super hawk" regarding the Russian military intervention in Ukraine NATO's top commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by European politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by Europeans."Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine". Der Spiegel. March 6, 2015. 

Removed, Restored, Removed – "Kremlin point of view"?

On 24 July, Human Rights Watch accused Ukrainian government forces and pro-government volunteer battalions of indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, stating that "The use of indiscriminate rockets in populated areas violates international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, and may amount to war crimes." Human Rights Watch also accused the pro-Russian fighters of not taking measures to avoid encamping in densely populated civilian areas."Human Rights Watch: Ukrainian forces are rocketing civilians". The Washington Post. 25 July 2014."Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians Stop Use of Grads in Populated Areas". Human Rights Watch. 24 July 2014.

Removed, Restored, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

Crimea is populated by an ethnic Russian majority and a minority of both ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, and thus demographically possessed one of the Ukraine's largest Russian populations.

A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it."Bershidsky, Leonid (February 6, 2015). "One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia". Bloomberg News. Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. "Социально-политические настроения жителей Крыма" (PDF). GfK Ukraine (in Russian). Retrieved 12 March 2015. 82% крымчан полностью поддерживают присоединение Крыма к России, 11% - скорее поддерживают, и 4% высказались против этого. Среди тех, кто не поддерживает присоединение Крыма к России, больше половины считают, что присоединение было не полностью законным и его нужно провести в соответствии с международным правом "Poll: 82% of Crimeans support annexation". UNIAN. 4 February 2015. Retrieved 12 March 2015. A total of 82% of the population of the Crimea fully support Russia's annexation of the peninsula, according to a poll carried out by the GfK Group research institute in Ukraine, Ukrainian online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda reported on Wednesday. Another 11% of respondents said that they rather support the annexation of Crimea, while 4% were against it.  Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages."

Restored, Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

The poll determined that 33.3% of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine had considered Ukraine's interim government of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be legitimate:Babiak, Mat (19 April 2014). "Southeast Statistics". Kyiv International Institute of Sociology; Ukrainian Policy (Kiev). Retrieved 20 April 2014. 

Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

Mykhailo Chechetov, former deputy head of the Party of Regions, committed suicide by jumping from the window of his apartment in Kiev."Ukraine's former ruling party hit by spate of apparent suicides". The Guardian. 23 March 2015.

Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

On 10th February 2015, Amnesty International reported that an Ukrainian journalists called Ruslan Kotsaba was jailed by Ukrainian authorities for 15 years for "treason and obstructing the military" in reaction to his statement that he would rather go to prison than be drafted by Ukrianian Army. Amnesty International has appealed to Ukrainian authorities to free him immediately and declared Kotsaba a prisoner of conscience. Tetiana Mazur, director of Amnesty International in Ukraine stated that "the Ukrainian authorities are violating the key human right of freedom of thought, which Ukrainians stood up for on the Maidan” .In response Ukrainian SBU declared that they have found “evidence of serious crimes” but declined to elaborate."Ukraine: draft dodgers face jail as Kiev struggles to find new fighters ". The Guardian. 10 February 2015.

Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

Relevant images - Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

-- Tobby72 (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As you well know, because this has been explained to you before, you have a habit of mixing in very controversial changes with fairly innocuous ones, such as adding in images. Someone who's stock of good faith has been exhausted might suspect that you're trying to sneak in POV edits under the radar. Most of the images are fine and if you were just adding them in, that'd be one thing. But you try to use them as a cover for slipping in POV stuff, such as this "Kosovo precedent" or other unsourced, non-reliably sourced or UNDUE material. For example, the stuff about Ruslan Kotsaba was just inappropriate in the article it was being added to. There might be another article where it's relevant, but there's no reason to spam it into every single Ukraine related article. Etc. These changes have already been mostly discussed on talk and rejected, likewise for other venues. As stated above, here, you are just forum shopping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
But you try to use them as a cover for slipping in POV stuff, such as this "Kosovo precedent" or other unsourced, non-reliably sourced or UNDUE material.
Where? Addition - 5 April (added link, source), Removal - 5 April. - Tobby72 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not have time to examine all these diffs, but in general, the justification for such removals (your first diff) is very simple: these polls are not particularly relevant to the military intervention, which is the subject of the page. I agree that some results of the polls should be included in more relevant pages, and they are included. In fact, they are included in too many pages, for example, here, where I think they do not belong. And speaking about your last diff, I would not mind to include some of that after discussion, but there was no consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek continues his rampage: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. What can be done to prevent such behaviour? -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72, you seem to have forgotten that this is not the ANI. While you're about it, please desist from personal attacks. He is not a rampage, but is following consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
There is hardly any consensus. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it most surely is. Discussions died in the arse a month ago. Stop gaming the system by throwing in another bit of bollocks in order to prevent these sections from being archived. This is the NPOVN, not a voodoo doll. Jabbing it when your contentious POV is being frustrated and obstructed by consensus doesn't make your subjective problems with NPOV real. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Continued POV-pushing – May 2015

Tendentious editing continues unchallenged. Same POV pushing, removal of sourced material: diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

And, of course, blatant double standard: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

Further discussion here: Talk:War in Donbass, and here: Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine.

Excuses for POV-blanking: diff, diff, diff, diff.

No clear consensus was reached. See examples here: MyMoloboaccount: Restored, Tobby72: Restored, Darouet: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.

and here: Tobby72: Restored, Anonimski: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.

Thanks for taking a look. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree that "Tendentious editing continues unchallenged": Tobby72 keeps on posting the same cherrypicked content on multiple pages, over and over again, regardless of how many times the problems have been pointed out by other editors; and the same old lengthy arguments on talkpages - and this noticeboard. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Tobby72 here. These are highly reliable sources, with noncontroversial information. There is no reason for them to be removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death. Consensus is against inclusion. Both Toby72 and MyMoloboaccount know this as they participated in these discussion. Now they're just playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, wasting everyone's time and behaving disruptively in general.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Here we go again. Am I getting big whiff of WP:GAME here, or do Tobby72 and MyMoloboaccount keep cropping up with a comment per section each time the sections are ready for archiving in order to create the illusion that it's still something being hotly disputed. Notice when the sections were opened? Notice that any activity here (or above) died out here weeks ago? Notice how they pop up each time they try to resurrect the impression of disputed consensus when they suddenly pop up in numerous articles surrounding events in Ukraine on a fresh battleground crusade to POV push deploying their skills, or lack thereof, at cherry and synth? Time to drop it. Seriously: drop it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment on content, not on the contributor, please. I'm still waiting for a response to my question:
Please explain how my additions specifically violate Wikipedia policies on neutrality. Otherwise, this is just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

NATO's top commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by European politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by Europeans."Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine". Der Spiegel. March 6, 2015. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO. 

Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed.

A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year."Bershidsky, Leonid (February 6, 2015). "One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia". Bloomberg News.  Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation."

Removed, Removed.

The poll determined that 33.3% of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine had considered Ukraine's interim government of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be legitimate:Babiak, Mat (19 April 2014). "Southeast Statistics". Kyiv International Institute of Sociology; Ukrainian Policy (Kiev). Retrieved 20 April 2014. 

Removed.
Relevant pictures – Removed
Every one of these issues has been addressed on the relevant talk page for editors interested in scrutinising the rationales behind consensus decisions made. As regards the 'relevant' pictures, several gratuitous images of the Black Sea Fleet, Euromaidan, unreliable self-sourced graphs and maps, etc., were creating image clutter. What is the point in treating a lengthy and convoluted article as if it were a high school project and slapping in an image per subheader? Also, perhaps you'd care to elaborate on how it is pertinent as opposed to pointy to plonk a stamp featuring Khrushchev bearing a description of "Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from Soviet Russia to Soviet Ukraine" in this article? There is already an article specifically dealing with the history of Crimea: which happens to be called Crimea. The text carrying exactly the same information is right next to the image. Please explain what you appear to feel is being censored by the removal of image clutter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, there is NO CONSENSUS !
Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine – Breedlove, Soros, Der Spiegel
Talk:War in Donbass – POV blanking of sourced material
Talk:Donetsk People's Republic – POV tag re-removed

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Tobby72: Please explain how the diffs you've provided - pointing to one-off IP WP:BATTLEGROUND changes, followed by further refactoring of content, followed by a clean-up of content flying in the face of WP:WORDS - somehow reflects WP:CON? While we're about it, I'd be interested to have you clarify how this latest entry by you qualifies as being a response (according to your ES) to my response directly above. Are you simply ignoring my observation that the discussions are taking place on the relevant article's talk page, and/or are you ignoring the fact that you haven't responded to my query regarding the pertinence of the images removed that have riled you so? This 'discussion' smacks of being one-sided in your favour. Either you discuss the issues you are presenting as being problematic, or this is a completely disingenuous use of this noticeboard. You'd like to have your cake and eat it, too... but that's not quite how consensus or the NPOVN work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy is just trying to divert attention from the POV deletion of cited text and dishonest, intellectually disgusting anti-Russian propaganda (diff, diff). Pictures, though relevant [31], [32], are only secondary issue here.
"All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting." – George Orwell
AGAIN, there is NO CONSENSUS for removal of well-sourced material.
At least 12 editors: MyMoloboaccount, Tosha, Anonimski, Darouet, Buzz105, Jirka.h23, Herzen, Haberstr, HCPUNXKID, Leftcry, KoolerStill, Lunch for Two, seem to agree with me.
I find the -huge- double standard incredibly irritating :
Kudzu1: I disagree because it is reliably sourced.[33] Volunteer Marek: However, again, this got lots of coverage in reliable sources which is why it's in here.[34]
Kudzu1 – Removal of reliably sourced material – diff, diff, diff,
diffrv - then find another source. RT is not reliable in this field.,
diffRv - Kyiv Post is a reliable source.
Volunteer Marek – Removal of reliably sourced material (May 2015) – diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
"Iryna Harpy is just trying ... dishonest, intellectually disgusting anti-Russian propaganda". For someone who was just whinnying about how Iryna should "discuss content not contributors" you've managed to jump to making offensive personal attacks in record time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, I can't vouch for all of Tobby72's edits, but the repeated removal of their edits, often with nonsensical or highly dubious edit summaries, repeats Tobby72's vices in even greater excess. The immediate reverts that Marek themself describe as almost reflexive are a demonstration of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and they breed and perpetuate it on all articles relating to this conflict.
To be honest, looking through many of the edits discussed here, it doesn't seem to me that Tobby72 is editing from a "pro-Kremlin" perspective. Often, their edits are qualifying or simply represent the "other side," without removing material. By contrast, RGloucester, Marek, raynor, Tlsandy appear to view the mere inclusion of other perspectives, including from major politicians, news sources, or even public opinion polls, as intolerable. All of us have responsibility for maintaining a neutral point of view and a friendly editing environment. I'm afraid that by repeatedly sanctioning this kind of editing we've enabled behavior that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else on this encyclopedia, and encourages only the most partisan editors to enter into the fray. That is *not* the decision we need to make. -Darouet (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Comment on content not the contributor" - Toby72. Toby72, when an editor behaves so disruptively that they end up wasting endless amount of other people's time, it is impossible NOT to comment on the contributor. This has been discussed. Consensus was against inclusion. You are ignoring this consensus and trying to cram this stuff into multiple articles in order to push a POV. And you freakin' wonder why you get reverted? And you're trying to blame OTHERS here? Stop. Playing. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.

Darouet, what are you talking about? What "themself describe" (sic)? You are also insulting several other editors like RGloucester, raynor and Tlsandy without any basis by accusing them of trying to exclude "other perspectives". The exclusion of opinion polls was discussed. What's intolerable is the sheer tendentiousness of Toby72's (and a few other) editing style, as well as the not letting go of the POV pushing. There's no need to encourage and enable more of that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I should also point out Toby72, that all that your diffs above show is that you are constantly edit warring against multiple editors. You might want to stop that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


There is definitely a issue in these articles being edited by dedicated users who have certain POV. Tobby72 is right that this violates NPOV and other guidelines. There have been numerous examples where reliable sources and information has been removed time and time again under flimsy pretexts, and attempts to present a more nuanced view with neutral description have been opposed, at times very aggressive and with use of vulgarisms.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Double standard at Deaths in 20xx

There's a controversy at Talk:Deaths in 2015 that may interest some watchers here. In a nutshell, those called "Sir" or "Dame" are having their listings piped from the article name to include their title. Those with military, political, religious or medical titles are not. It's a longstanding practice, but seems unfair to hold one select group in higher esteem.

Had an RFC, opinions were split and it seems we've defaulted back to the way it was. Your input may help get a decisive answer, whichever one it is. Weigh in here or there, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

KEEP it as it is. It is a significant cultural difference. An honor bestowed, as opposed to a position attained. There is no equivalent in the US, but highly revered in the UK. It is inherently "unequal" in that sense - but I respect their right to have it. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
In all cases, someone has to attain a certain position to have a certain honour bestowed. Joe can't just unilaterally declare himself General Joe or Doctor Joe after putting in a certain amount of work. He likewise can't just do good for the kingdom and call himself Sir Joe. Always relies on a superior. Fine for individuals to consider one superior superior to all other superiors (I think my Queen's better than my Prime Minister), but when a global encyclopedia does it, it seems silly.
Not that silliness is terrible or anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
As someone who does not live in a place where such honors are bestowed, I guess I would be affected more by the "inequality" of my culture not being included in this exception. Yet, somehow, I remain unoffended by it. A general earns his rank; a private can earn and have a Medal of Honor bestowed upon him; these are things that would help define a person on my side of the pond. We don't use titles in the same sense. But we Yanks are an interesting lot, exceedingly casual as a rule, but taking far too much pride in accomplishments. We are often both amused by and enamored with the pageantry of royal affairs - we are full of anglophiles waiting for the next royal baby, yet steadfastly insisting upon the equality of individuals. I am more than willing to allow the cultural difference to explain the exception in this case, and let those who have been given that honor be treated in the way that their culture most deems fit. Let these notable individuals have their "Sirs" and "Dames" - and choose to be content that there will always be some inequality somewhere. ScrpIronIV 17:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely low on the list of offensive inequalities in the world. That royal babies can't vote is slightly more of an outrage. Just an annoying oddity, in my books. As fun as the British system is to explore (I like checking out Barons' estates), it just seems a rather antiquated one to base a guideline on, in 2015 Earth. Meh.
Congratulations on your new signature, by the way. Quite spiffy! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
I think we should either use everyone's title (Mr., Ms. etc. are titles too) or just ignore them. Since the tendency is to not use titles such as Mr., I would ignore them. I disagree that titles are highly honored in the UK. In general they are only used where one would otherwise write Mr., Ms., etc. So if your list has "Mr. Richard Roe", then if John Doe is a knight, he is referred to as "Sir John Doe." TFD (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
And for some reason, even accomplished knights call young boys "Master". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the difference here. Use them consistently or don't use them at all. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 13:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuation of Souther Strategy Neutrality Dispute

All, Sorry I was unable to post for a while. The neutrality issue associated with the Souther Strategy article is still on going https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Southern_Strategy_-_removal_of_sources_which_don.27t_support_opening_section.

I would like some moderation input from others. It's clear that we have some who are not happy about adding a more balanced POV to the article as can be seen in the above link. How do we bring this topic back to the front page? Thanks Getoverpops (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the archived discussion is much too long for non-masochists to read. Would you care to *briefly* summarize the reliable sources which state that the Southern Strategy was not racist, and explain why you believe these are not fringe views? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Every peer reviewed reliable source that was provided spoke to the racist nature of the Southern Strategy. Some emphasized other factors, but still ultimately admitted that an appeal to racist attitudes played a part in it. Even the peer reviewed sources that analyzed other factors in the south admitted that the mainstream view of the Southern Strategy was one that acknowledged an appeal to racism.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Good and accurate summary. No support has developed for the POV that is being pushed by one editor. The purpose of this board is to bring other people's eyes to an article that they don't normally watch. Thanks for participating. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
That is a dishonest claim and you SHOULD know it. If you can't be honest please don't bother posting.

Sadly, Scubby seems unable to provide a non-baised review of the information that was provided. Sammy, please forgive me but your opening remarks sound biased from the word go. I will leave it at a few things. The article and the editors who are trying to protect it are unwilling to add a section which disputes several claims associated with the article. The biggest issue is the idea that there was some racist southern plan that is why the southern states changed from blue to red. Many of the pier reviewed articles I provided show evidence that the transformation was not related to any racist appeal but instead based the socio-economic outlook of many southern voters better aligning with the GOP. The "racist" part appears to be the notion that the GOP wanted to avoid offending moderate souterners rather than appealing to hard core racists. Scooby, a come lately editor to the article, refuses to allow such information into the article. He also seems to demand a high standard for any source that doesn't fully embrace yet is perfectly OK with low quality material in other parts of the article. Getoverpops (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't lie: that does sound like revisionism to me, and it's obviously a minority view. So you can call me biased. But what are the reliable sources that articulate this idea, which you would like represented in the article? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You got that right. The previous discussion generated no serious support for GetOver's position. It's really time to end this. Everyone who wanted to comment had ample time before. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of biased editors... I can see why people don't want to fight with editors like you who are interested in maintaining liberal biased articles regardless of the facts. I'm sorry that real life kept me away for a bit. We did have some voices of reason who were supporting my arguments. It's not surprising that you would try to forget those. I have to admit, I don't blame others for wanting to stay away. I fear that I will put effort into this and biased editors such as you and Scooby(never posted before I came to the article)dunk.
The specific articles were previously mentioned. I would simply cut and paste the articles. If you read the original dispute request, you will have filter through those who seem to want simply block anything that mitigates the racist telling of the story, you will find that a number of credible sources dispute the claims that the success of the GOP in the south was due to a plan to appeal to racism. Note that on a some level racist claims were made but this would likely be true for both sides at local levels (when you expand the scope too all politicians of either side who have said something dumb, both sides look really bad). Also, the article seems to go back and forth on the extent of this southern strategy. Is it just a short term thing for the Nixon years or all the way through H Bush? It's true that some of the peer reviewed sources I presented said that yes, some appeals were made with the intent to not alienate mildly racist people (there are specific notations about hard core racists) but none said it was a master plan that lasted into the 80s. The reputable sources on the other side also don't support that claim. Part of the issue is the soft, fuzzy nature of what they claim are racist "code words". Is a "code word" really proof or simply a convenient way for one political side to "prove" the other side is racist?
Anyway, I believe the wiki article should have a section that disputes the claims that this was a wide spread strategy that lasted over a number of election cycles. Those are claims which can be backed via the academic articles and writers I have cited. I also think the claims of the other side should be subject to the same level of scrutiny that is expected of my sources. If opinion articles against don't count then opinion articles for shouldn't count either. Getoverpops (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Nothing new here. Three people have responded and you have insulted all of us. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Getoverpops: After looking over some of what was written in the original discussion, it seems like you rely heavily on opinion pieces. Can you clarify whether you want the article to state that some individuals have this opinion, or whether you want Wikipedia's voice not to assert unconditionally that the Southern Strategy appealed to racism? The latter requires a reliable source, such as one with editorial oversight, to dispute this idea. For the former it would also be better to have a reliable secondary source discussing these individual opinions. Can you point to such sources? --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sammy1339: Thanks for taking a look. Perhaps I was to quick to assume you were one sided. Three comments: First, the article seems to cover the strategy as a proven fact and as something that had a wide ranging impact on elections. Thus I would like to call into question some of the assumptions that previously the article took for granted. Prior to my earlier edits the article was getting a number of facts out of op-ed articles. I've tried to clean that up but the "what it was/is" stuff still reads like a conspiracy theory. Very questionable statements are taken as proof. At the most basic level we (the article) should be able to tell us what the strategy was, in precise term (specific examples of how it was used, over what time period etc). Currently we have a Nixon aid who claims it was a thing and another who disagrees. It's hard to judge why each feels as they do and what there motivations were for speaking. But the article and some sources imply this was a strategy that was used through H Bush. Well where is the proof? That's were we get a conspiracy theory type answer. It was "code words". These code words included things like welfare reform. If wanting welfare reform is the "proof" then we need something better since it's possible one wants reform to harm minorities who use the system or because they feel the system wasn't working well. If that is an issue important to southern voters is it racist or simply appealing to the voters? The point is the article needs to be more concrete about what is alleged so that the reader can better judge the facts. The articles I've found seem to suggest that Nixon's aids did talk about crafting a message that would avoid offending conservative southern voters but it's not clear there was a racist message. Thus is that a "racist southern strategy" or just a "southern strategy" that was sensitive to the voters but didn't promise anything racist?
Second, things get more confused when you factor in local and state elections vs nationals. At the local and state level it's harder to say if some state GOP'er didn't say or promise something that was directly or obliquely appealing to racist voters. Thus if a sources says, "yes there was a southern strategy" can we really take that to mean a racist one or just a plan to be sensitive or what? What is the scope of the thing the writer is talking about? Does it mean when Regan talked about welfare reform he was actually using Nixon's "racist southern strategy"? Basically the vague claims need to be replaced with some concrete statement around which the article can hang it's hat.
Third, my sources are largely from academics in the field (thus expert opinion) or peer reviewed articles. Much of the "pro" work is based on opinion articles and really is no better in quality. I've tried to police the article to some extent by demanding page numbers for some sources and asking that opinion articles in the media be cited as such. I've had some luck with that. Anyway, I feel that my list of references is at least on par with the quality of sources used in the existing article as "proof". Note I'm not evaluating the long and unnecessary section of the article which discusses the rise of the solid south etc. It's an excessively long history section but aside from too many words (a flaw I sometimes share) it doesn't detract from the quality of the article. (ASIDE NOTE: I will be gone starting tomorrow through the end of the week. That doesn't mean I don't want to continue with the improvements to the article, like before sometimes we have lives outside the web). ThanksGetoverpops (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The sources in the article are mostly aligned with the academic consensus among peer reviewed literature that the Southern Strategy was an appeal to racism. Your sources are not aligned with this mainstream consensus and your peer reviewed sources actually support the narrative of an appeal to racism discussed in the article. It is very clear that there was a racial message and here are diffs with direct quotes from peer reviewed reliable sources that discuss the appeals to racism and racial attitudes utilized by the Southern Strategy. [35][36]Scoobydunk (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


You don't even understand the point I'm making. As someone who was never an editor before I posted here why are you even in this discussion? So on to your "points", some sources say the points were appeals to racism. Other peer reviewed sources say the points were attempts to avoid upsetting voters but were not appeals to racism. Furthermore, you need to scope the duration and extends of this souther strategy. If one politician does something that could be seen as racism is that enough proof for you? I addressed your references last time. It seems your intent this time is to again so muddy the waters as to make this neutrality dispute all but unreadable. That was the extent of your contribution last time. Please don't try to cloud the issue as was your previous strategy. Getoverpops (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

All of the peer reviewed sources discussed the racial aspects of the Southern Strategy and none of them claimed that it was not an appeal to racism. It's not our responsibility to question reliable sources and to try and refute them with our own arguments, which is what you're trying to do with questions like "If one politician does something that could be seen as racism is that enough proof for you?" It doesn't matter what's "proof" for me, what matters is what strong reliable sources say. So it's actually questions like this that "muddy the waters" because they are irrelevant when considering what reliable sources say. Also, providing and quoting peer reviewed sources is not "unreadable" for most people with an interest in the perspective held by scholars. Lastly, I ask that you cease with the false accusations and personal attacks.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
This is not exactly true. They all state that at some levels appeals to racism were used. It is not clear that at the presidential level they were used. For example the current Wiki claims even Reagen used appeals to racism. However, the quoted Atwater interview is truncated in the southern strategy article. If we look at the Wiki entry on Atwater that contains more of the interview we see something different [[37]]. Atwater says Regan, " But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. "
So currently the Wiki entry is trying to imply this was a policy that extended into the H Bush years yet one of the key references that "proves" the strategy says it was not a strategy later. Also, even as he states it, we are talking about something that anti-GOP people will try to spin as clear racism yet a reasonable reader can see as political reality, capturing votes by avoiding inflaming and the like. Getoverpops (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Talk about "muddying the waters" you assert that the Southern Strategy didn't appeal to racism, were proved to be incorrect, and now try and shift the argument to which Presidents used them and to what extent. This is the type of red herring argument you previously made and, by definition, red herring arguments detract from the actual conversation/argument.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Getoverpops: You seem to be arguing a position, which is not what this noticeboard is for. NPOV is about proportionally representing the positions of reliable sources, not being right. Having looked through your references from the previous discussion, I did not find any reliable secondary sources which endorse the idea that the Southern Strategy was not an appeal to racism, or address your other concerns. You cited Gerard Alexander, who is an academic, but you only cited his opinion pieces, not his peer-reviewed publications (and you pointed to WP:NEWSORG as saying that these should be taken as the reliable opinion of an expert, but the policy only says "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.") If you think there is something I missed, please bring it to attention here. To your point about the article's existing references being low-quality: that's a good reason to clean them up, but not a good reason to introduce more low-quality references. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue I have is that the liberal biased editors who are guarding the article have been unwilling to add references that, as I have shown ARE the views of peer reviewed authors and experts in the field. A number of these authors have stated that the "southern strategy" was not responsible for the defection of the south from the Dems to the GOP. That information isn't in the current Wiki and should be. I think several of the objecting editors, certainly the vocal ones, fail to see what I want to add thus they are arguing from a false position. I have made this clear but to little avail. I also would like to note that several editors have been critical of this article in the past but I think few want to fight a group of liberal biased editors who want to undo any edit that doesn't fit their narrative. Getoverpops (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
To answer your earlier question, this diff [38] represents what GetOver wanted to add. The problems are (1) this is the article lede and the body of the article does not discuss the minority/fringe opinion (2) there is a WEIGHT problem -- GetOver wants to treat the minority/fringe opinion with the same weight as the majority/consensus (3) the sourcing (i.e. Pat Buchanan and a book review rather than the actual book) and (4)he reverts a well documented apology for the GOP pursuing its Southern Strategy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I wish you would stop lying about what you THINK I want to add. While I previously added that text you have convinced me that it wouldn't be correct. What I want to add, and ask if you agree, is a section covering the views of historians who say that the scope of the "racist appeal" was not as wide spread as some sources claim and that it's impact was not significant. Do you agree to adding something along those lines? As for your claim of weight, that would be valid if I wanted to replace the current view with a new one. Instead I am insisting that the second view be represented in the article. Currently that is not the case. Sadly I feel I will have to edit the article, put up with you trying to revert those edits then return to dispute resolution to get them to stay. Remember I am basing my views on peer reviewed sources and expert opinions (I established this previously)Getoverpops (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
If there are reliable secondary sources which take this position, then yes. "Peer-reviewed authors" are not sufficient. Peer-reviewed articles are what we're looking for. (Of course there are other types of RS's as well.) It would also be helpful if you could list here the sources you would like to use, as this discussion is much too abstract. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, several of the sources I linked to were books published by university presses and peer reviewed articles. I listed a number of sources later in the original neutrality dispute. Getoverpops (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you list them again? --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


@Sammy1339: Sorry for the delay.

  • Dan McLaughlin, [1] This is clearly an opinion article. However that puts in on the same footing as the Herbert articles mentioned above. This is a blog quality source reviewing a book (mentioned below). The book in question "The Lost Majority: Why the Future of Government Is Up for Grabs - and Who Will Take It" by [[39]]. The reviewer contends the book first supports the notion that pandering to racism was not the reason for the south to move the GOP. This is consistent with several other articles and probably should be mentioned in the southern article as a point in and of itself Given the detail in the Wiki entry it would seem appropriate to include sources that discuss the reasons voters changed parties. If the evidence is the majority didn't move for racial reasons then that undermines the significance of any southern strategy to appeal to racism elements.

Gerard Alexander: [2] This is an opinion article by an academic researcher in the field. The article questions the GOP's need to court southern voters at any cost. Thus the same candidates who were fighting for civil rights in the late 50s and early to mid 60s were unlikely to quickly change their tack to appeal to a segment if the need wasn't as critical. This supports the claims by other sources that claim the GOP was race sensitive to the south but did not (at least at the presidential level) play to racist fears or make promises that would specifically target racists (the general thrust of some tellings of the southern strategy).

Wallace voters ended up supporting Nixon, Reagan and other Republicans, but much more on the national GOP's terms than their own. The Republican Party proved to be the mountain to which the Deep South had to come, not the other way around. This explains why the second assumption is also wrong. Nixon made more symbolic than substantive accommodations to white Southerners. He enforced the Civil Rights Act and extended the Voting Rights Act. On school desegregation, he had to be prodded by the courts in some ways but went further than them in others: He supervised a desegregation of Deep South schools that had eluded his predecessors and then denied tax-exempt status to many private "desegregation academies" to which white Southerners tried to flee. Nixon also institutionalized affirmative action and set-asides for minorities in federal contracting.

Sean Trende: [3] Author is opinion writer. Includes the claim that McGovern was too liberal to get strong southern support and hence Nixon got much of the vote by default. This again supports the notion that a southern strategy was one which avoided antagonizing rather than appealing to racial feelings.

Kevin Williamson: [4]Another article supporting the theory that GOP successes in the south started prior to '68 and during a time when the GOP was pushing for more civil rights protections than the Democrats. This is yet another source that says the shift wasn't based on race. That doesn't prove no racist plans were laid but again, it supports the idea that the GOP was more likely to try to walk a fine line (not antagonize) vs appeal to. Note that in searching the reliable source archives I've found that NR is considered a reliable source even though it is a right leaning source.

Gerard Alexander: [5] I have been accused of cherry picking from this article. However, if the wiki article is about presidential campaigns only then, no, no cherry picking here. The author (same as WP author above) says that the repubs in the south had to engage in nasty politics to win elections, that was political expedience.

The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It is not at all clear that the GOP's policy positions are sugar-coated racist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became the South's dominant party in the least racist phase of the region's history, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.

The bolded text (my emphasis) hits the key point. What ever the "southern strategy" was the key point of the strategy towards the south at the time, according to a number of authors, was not to appeal to racism. It seems instead they were racially cognizant and crafted a message not to offend. This also aligns with the previous comments that Nixon was not interested in offering much to southern politicians in exchange for support.


[Later in the original discussion Neutrality dispute] Here is a peer reviewed article that denounces the idea, http://miranda.revues.org/2243, Michelle Brattain, Foretting the South and the Southern Strategy (Published in Miranda, author is Department Chair of History at Georgia State University)

Wrapped up in this narrative of party realignment is the most “modern” article of faith behind Southern exceptionalism: the Republican “Southern strategy.” Richard Nixon and his advisors, the story goes, stole a page from the Goldwater and Wallace playbooks and wooed white Southern voters into the Republican party with appeals to festering racial resentments.

... Thus contributors to The Myth of Southern Exceptionalism frequently turn their gaze elsewhere—reminding us not only that whites rioted against housing integration in Pennsylvania, but that segregation (of the Chinese) existed out west, and that NY prisons could be as brutal as Mississippi's notorious Parchman Farm. ... To those who are tempted to draw a straight line from Goldwater, through Wallace, to Nixon and beyond as evidence of Republicans manipulating white Southerners through carefully coded appeals to their racism, the new critics of Southern exceptionalism point to other, less-well-known forces working at the grassroots of Southern politics and culture—namely, moderation. This was true, as historian Joseph Crespino shows, even in the “most Southern place on earth”: Mississippi. ... By 1970, Lassiter argues, white Southerners preferred moderate policies and candidates who employed a language of abstract principles over open defiance and political extremists—a lesson that Nixon learned the hard way. One of the few “genuine” incarnations of the Southern strategy, Lassiter argues, was Nixon's decision in the 1970 midterm elections to lend his support to the Southern Republican candidates who represented the most extreme racial backlash to court-ordered school desegregation and busing. In theory (Kevin Phillip's theory to be precise) such a strategy would have hastened Southern partisan realignment. However, centrist Democrats triumphed over race-baiting Republicans in several key gubernatorial and Congressional elections. ... The national success of Nixon's appeal to middle-class whites who disdained social engineering in the name of racial equality is an extraordinarily important historical insight that challenges myths about American racial innocence. The similarity of white responses to busing across regions, for example, and the hypocrisy of Hubert Humphrey and other non-Southern Democratic liberals who resisted the application of integrationist remedies in their own backyards has newly exposed the emptiness of distinctions between de jure and de facto segregation (Crespino 178-180).

And another book that doesn't agree... Matthew Lassiter, "The Silent Majority" Princeton University Press. Page 232:

The three-way contest allowed Nixon to stake out the political center, by design and by default, as the respectable choice for middle-class voters who rejected the Great Society liberalism of Hubert Humphrey and the reactionary racial populism of George Wallace. In the first national election in which suburban residents constituted a plurality of the electorate, the Nixon campaign reached out to disaffected blue-collar Democrats but aimed primarily at white-collar Republicans and moderate swing voters in the metropolitan centers of the Sunbelt South and West and the upwardly mobile suburbs of the Midwest and Northeast. Nixon forfeited the African-American vote to the Democratic party and conceded the Deep South to the Wallace insurgency, in recognition that the Goldwater debacle of 1964 had reversed Republican trends in the high-growth states of the Outer South.

Melvin Small, "A Companion to Richard M. Nixon", John Wiley and Sons.

This "Southern Strategy/civil-rights retreat" thesis became the first, and thus the orthodox, interpretation of the administration's policies. It would be sustained in the years immediately after Nixon left office, by two groups of writers. The first were those who used the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal as their points of reference for understanding Nixon's presidency. ...

This claim that Nixon's policies rested on liberal words and conservative deeds was exactly the opposite of what later scholars would argue.

...

There was other evidence that Nixon was not very interested in civil rights - he devoted ten pages of his nearly 1,100-page memoir to the subject. Yet, what he wrote suggested statesmanship, not sacrificing civil-rights enforcement for southern votes. Nixon expressed "justifiable price" in "peacefully desegregating schools in the South".

Many of Nixon's advisers agreed and emphasized the desegregation of school in their memoirs. "Nixon inherited a dual school system declared unconstitutional fifteen years earlier," the speechwriter Raymond Price noted in "With Nixon, "He quietly engineered its dismantling." With respect to politics, Price reiterated a line used by Nixon, that the administration had no Southern Strategy but a national strategy that included the South and that it had desegregated schools "cooperatively rather than punitively". In Before the Fall, another speechwriter, William Safire, described the president's approach to desegregation as genuinely moderate and extremely skillful - a policy of "make-it-happen, but don't make it seam like Appomattox."

...

In Nixon Reconsidered, Joan Hoff warned against "aprincipled behavior by purely ambition-driven politicians" in the United State, with its toxic mix of powerful government and superficial "media politics." In this setting, Nixon was no worse and , according to Hoff, a bit better in terms of what he achieved than other recent chief executives. She even insisted that, "most of his lasting achievements are in domestic, rather than foreign, affairs." Civil rights was a case in point. In a rejoinder to the orthodox school, Hoff defended Nixon's record as superior to that of Dwight D. Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ during the 1950s and as better than any candidate he ran against, save Hubert Humphrey in 1968. She dismissed Nixon's Southern Strategy as "short-lived"; praised his effective, albeit, "reluctant," desegregation of Southern schools; noted that it was Nixon, not Kennedy or Johnson, who put the "bite" into affirmative action; and chronicled the administration's efforts to expand opportunities for women, especially with respect to employment, despite the fact that Nixon's support of the Equal Rights Amendment was never terribly strong.

[some important points here]

The scholarly literature on the Nixon administration and civil rights has evolved in two directions. At one level , early students of this presidency established an orthodox interpretation of his policies , one that stressed the administration's conservatism and shortcomings in pursuit of a "Southern Strategy." As time passed, and as documentary evidence became available and passions cooled, scholars revised this argument and depicted the Nixon administration's civil-rights policies as complex, in terms of motivation, accomplishment, and affect. At another level, understanding of specific aspects of Nixon's rights policies has deepened , as they became the subjects of articles, book chapters, and monographs. As a result, the historiography on this subject has reached a high level of maturity and sophistication . And, yet, much remains to be studied.

So what is the bar to show that the "southern strategy" was an appeal to racism? Is being anti-bussing racism or people who feel like they put their tax dollars into their local school and they don't want to pay for kids who's parents didn't pay the local taxes to attend nor do they want their kids sent to a distant school? If we think Nixon's plan was to use racist policies can we point to any under his watch? Part of the Southern Stategy wiki article talks about the impact of the "strategy". The sources I've cited generally disagree with the idea of a southern strategy. They don't argue that some things said or done by the administration were based on race but if that is the standard do we really think any campaign is 100% clear? They also argue that the overall objective was to play the middle ground. The articles are far stronger in their idea that it was the average southern voter who's views were better represented by the Republicans and less by an increasingly progressive Democratic party that was the real cause of the shift. Hence any discussion of the "Southern Strategy" would, if they are correct, reach the conclusion that the strategy had at best a minimal impact.

Regardless, there is a clear body of evidence that does not support the telling in the current Wiki. I'm not saying the wiki needs to be changed to this version of events, only that we have enough to state this version of events should be included. --Getoverpops (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)



I think the article should handle this topic in two parts. First, we should have the Nixon era information. That should be followed with information supporting the claims of later elections. For example, as I mentioned earlier, Atwater talks about the GOP NOT using a "southern strategy" during Regan's election because it wasn't needed. Regan's message was the same as he would deliver to the southern states, a message he was using previously to win the governorship in his state. The article suggests this was a "strategy" that was carried on past the 80s but offers no real evidence of such. Even the claims that Nixon used such a strategy are questionable. Not that such a strategy was considered but when Nixon's records are reviewed (see my references above) it's clear he was not bending over to appeal to the racist voters. Note, one reference did say that the GOP did try a few racist appeals during a mid-term election during the Nixon presidency.


Finally, it should be noted that we are talking about a political topic. What is the motive for many of those who promote the "GOP won the south through appeal to racism" narrative? It would seem obvious that they are trying to taint the political waters. It also appears that they have some success. This is perhaps one of the largest flaws of the article. It seems to take the most negative telling of the narrative as gospel without acknowledging the motives of those who are telling the tail. This is why it's important that the article give space to reliable sources which argue the scope and impact of the claimed southern strategy was not what popular mythology has created. One last thing, I would ask that so long as this is an on going conversation, SD and NS refrain from provocation such as removing the article dispute tag.Getoverpops (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of these sources are useless opinion pieces that don't stand up to the peer reviewed sources that confirm the Southern Strategy was an appeal to racism instituted by Republicans. The rest of the sources have basically been copy and pasted from the previous discussion and have already been refuted. Getoverpops is just rehashing the same arguments a second time and, again, is cherry picking information from those sources. The information he bolded doesn't even support his claim that the Southern Strategy wasn't an appeal to racism. At most one source says that it wasn't "sugar coated" but that's not a denial of its existence. Furthermore, in my refutation I quoted multiple parts from each source that showed that the authors recognized the Southern Strategy's appeal to racist attitutdes which directly contradict the implications Getoverpops makes from his irrelevant quoted/bolded material. Read it here[40] Scoobydunk (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This was the same opinion you had last time. It was wrong then and hasn't improved. I find it questionable that you are so particular about the quality of my sources yet you are OK with many of the low quality sources otherwise used in the article. That, like your unprovoked attacks on me when you randomly decided to join a conversation about an article for which you had never contributed does draw your motives into question. Anyway, I already addressed your claims. Some of the sources are peer reviewed. Others are expert opinion (academics in the field). While those expert views are to a lower standard than peer reviewed work, they are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Furthermore, before you start crying out about "weight" remember that I only want to add a counter view to the article. As such it does not require that I show that these sources have more weight, only that they have enough weight to be included as a counter view. So I will leave with this question for you, why did you randomly pick this topic to be all concerned about after I contributed to it? Seems odd does it not?Getoverpops (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
My claims weren't "wrong" it was directly supported by the very same sources you tried to cherry pick from and I provided direct quotes to substantiate my claims. You didn't refute my claims before and you failed to do it again just now. Instead, all you continued to repeat was "that's certainly an opinion you have" which is not constructive and, like I've said before, you've yet to provide anything new to this discussion. Adding a "counter view" to the article requires it to be represented by equally reliable sources. Unfortunately for you, your peer reviewed sources don't support a "counter view" that the Southern Strategy wasn't racist and actually confirm that it was an appeal to racism. On top of that, minority opinions, even if they are represented in an equally strong source, have to merit enough weight before they can be included in the article. Also, when you go onto a noticeboard looking for input from uninvolved parties, then it should be expected that uninvolved parties will give you input. This shouldn't be too hard to figure out and it's perplexing that you keep referring to seeking outside assistance and receiving said assistance as "odd". It's not odd, it's exactly what you sought. I've also given feedback on other topics in this board which is what many editors do. Also, I never said that I was ok with the quality of sources on the article and think they should be changed to reference the strongest sources. I feel if the article was written from peer reviewed sources from the beginning, then we could avoid POV pushers trying to force their incorrect narrative based on op-eds, and it would save time for editors who actually do care about quality sources and making sure WP reflects those sources. Cheers.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually they were wrong. The sources I have added are split between experts in the field and peer reviewed sources. That makes them sufficient for inclusion as a POV in the article. You of course are welcome to beef up the sections that support the other views. As for the rest of your complaint... well if you had ever edited the article before you started trolling my account via the neutrality request board perhaps I would give your opinion some more weight. I have taken the feed back I received in both this discussion and the previous one and made chances to the article. If you don't like the changes we can take it to the talk section. If you revert without taking them to talk section it will be clear that you are trying to start an edit war and I will report it as such. If you think my references are of insufficient weight then I would suggest we move that to the appropriate board. Your appeal to the edit war notice is all the proof one needs to see that you have no intention to carry out an open and unbiased discussion of the topic. Getoverpops (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Getoverpops: Your sources consist of four opinion pieces and a book published by a biased source, the Claremont Institute. There is a case to be made for including a sentence stating that conservative writers have questioned whether Southern voters' shift to the Republican party was primarily motivated by racism, and attributing this idea to them. However, because of issues of weight, that's about all that should be included. I appreciate your efforts and I would have liked to have given you more, but without peer-reviewed journals or the like to cite, Wikipedia's voice cannot be used to express these points of view. I hope this won't discourage you from editing on other topics, where the kind of energy you've obviously put into this discussion could be very fruitful. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McLaughlin, Dan. "The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority". 
  2. ^ Alexander, Gerard (Sept 12, 2010). "Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does?". Washington Post. Retrieved March 25, 2015.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Trende, Sean (Sept 9, 2010). "Misunderstanding the Southern Realignment". Real Clear Politics. Retrieved March 25, 2015.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Williamson, Kevin (May 28, 2012). [The Party of Civil Rights Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson "The Party of Civil Rights"]. National Review. Retrieved March 25, 2015. 
  5. ^ Alexander, Gerard (March 20, 2004). "The Myth of the Racist Republicans". The Claremont Review of Books 4 (2). Retrieved March 25, 2015. 

Abiogenesis - lack of neutral point of view

The Abiogenesis article lacks completely a neutral point of view and looking at what the NPOV policy means, some of its clauses are clearly broken by the current editors. Concretely, the abiogenesis is presented as fact and that is obvious starting with the leading definition: ...is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds Actually abiogenesis is a very controversial hypothesis, qualified by Encyclopedia Britannica as no more than an "idea" and along the time, many scientists questioned it. In no way it can be considered "a fact". In addition, the many critics in relation to this hypothesis are completely missing from the article.

In an attempt to fix this issue, I opened two sections on the article's Talk page, one called False definition of abiogenesis and the other, Need for presenting the abiogenesis in an objective manner.

Here I pointed the following aspects:

  • why it is not correct to consider abiogenesis a fact; basically I showed that there is much controversy in the scientific world about this hypothesis and an hypothesis which is based only on some other hypothesis (that being obvious even from the article's content) cannot be considered a fact; I also pointed that by contrast, a theory like Theory of relativity, which is much more supported by measurements, tests and experimentation, is very clearly presented (even from the title) as a theory; finally I showed that even the citations provided by the editors for the current definition don't support the abiogenesis as a fact;
  • citations of reliable sources and scientific personalities, expressing serious doubts in relation to abiogenesis;
  • concrete proposals for improvements (e.g. changing the definition so that to reflect the fact that abiogenesis is a theory or just an hypothesis, adding a section with critics to this hypothesis)

Surprisingly I faced an open hostility and aggressiveness from some of the editors. None of them was willing to address any of my points, on the contrary they falsely claimed that my points were addressed in the FAQ section of the Talk page. Actually the FAQ section contains some false statements by its own (e.g. claiming that abiogenesis is proven because of an illogical and unscientific reason, namely No chemical, biological or physical law has been discovered that would prevent life from emerging).

After several comments, my section False definition of abiogenesis, in the Talk page, was closed, for false reasons (as can be seen in the content of my section) like no specific change to the article proposed, no attempt at actual discussion. The only justification that I got was that the consensus view of editors supports the notion that the abiogenesis article considers abiogenesis a fact, which in no case can be considered as a solid argument of why the abiogenesis is presented as a fact. My section Need for presenting the abiogenesis in an objective manner was closed very quickly after I got several comments related strictly to my supposed bad attitude (it seems that a second attempt to collaborative discussion was not something good, in the editors' opinion) but again not addressing any of my points. Actually, as can be seen in the history, the thread was initially marked as a hidden archive, then it "reappeared" as a closed thread.

Briefly, I consider that very clearly the clauses of NPOV are broken by the current editors, specifically:

  • Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
  • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
  • Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. 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. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

The aggressive editors, behaving incredibly abusive, like they have the ownership of Abiogensis article, are the following: User:Apokryltaros User:Drbogdan User:BatteryIncluded User:Sarr Cat Epetre (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros, BatteryIncluded, Mann jess, Sarr Cat, and Sunrise: AFAIK - all concerns presented have been appropriately considered on the "Talk:Abiogenesis" page - more than once it would seem: ie, considering the Abiogenesis "FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS" page, related "Talk:Abiogenesis" discussions, as well as relevant archival discussions and the main "Abiogenesis" article itself - also - all concerns have been considered consistent with Wikipedia policy (including that "All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively", according to "WP:OWN") - a careful reading of the relevant Talk-Sections may present this as well (please see "Talk-1" and "Talk-2") - seems the "WP:SPA" may be using Wikipedia as a "WP:FORUM" and/or "WP:SOAPBOX" - perhaps, "WP:1AM" and "WP:WALLOFTEXT" may also apply - in any case - hope the above helps in some way - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Briefly looking at the talk page discussion about the definition of of Abiogensis, it's clear that you're here to argue your own point of view instead of demonstrating what reliable sources say. Sorry, but Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source and is not to be considered over peer reviewed reliable secondary sources. The definition in the lead is supported by at least two peer reviewed secondary sources, so the Britannica definition is irrelevant. Thus far, I have not noticed you provide any sources of equal quality to support your position. Wikipedia is not a place to assert your own arguments into articles substantiated by nothing more than your own original research. Wikipedia represents what the strongest sources in the respective field have to say about a subject, not the logical conclusions, claims, and opinions of WP editors. If you want to be successful in changing the article, then you need to actually provide peer reviewed, scholarly, secondary sources that substantiate your claims. Then those sources will be considered along with the rest of the sources that are already presented to create a more comprehensive article. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Epetre:, not bending over backwards to slavishly and mindlessly agree with your point of view is not abusive behavior, as well as trying to repeatedly point out to you that talkpages are not forum threads, nor soapboxes from which to repeatedly disseminate your own homemade synthesis of information is not abusive behavior, as well as pointing out that all of your concerns are already addressed in the Frequently Asked Questions is not abusive behavior, as well as trying to point out to you that Encyclopedia Britannica or any other deliberately cherrypicked tertiary source that you've put on your pedestal does not trump the consensus of the scientific community is not abusive behavior. Refusing to listen to anything anyone says because it's not what you want to hear, on the other hand, is abusive behavior.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Scoobydunk: Sorry, first-hand reliable sources are presented by me in the Talk page, I don't consider it is necessary to repeat them here, I only mentioned here Encyclopedia Britannica, because for any decent people it is enough to understand that there is a severe issue with the neutrality of Wikipedia's article. Besides, Encyclopedia Britannica has its own reliable sources behind and what is the most hilarious is that the Wikipedia's article itself doesn't present any reliable source for supporting abiogenesis as a fact. And reliability shouldn't be falsely understood. It might be a decent scientist, generally a reliable person, but any of his scientific theories must be demonstrated. A fact is observable and confirmed through measurements, repeatable tests etc and we are not in face of such situation in what concerns the abiogenesis. If I am mistaken, prove that! Overall, the aforementioned clauses of NPOV are very clear and the same it is very clear they are not followed in the abiogenesis article. Epetre (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: This statement of Dover provided by me in the Talk page is enough to prove false your claim:
Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for ‘biologists in general’ that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences (Dover, 1999, p. 218). Epetre (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to debate creationism with you, and you have zero chance of getting your creationist POV into any Wikipedia article. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Epetre: What exactly about that statement proves false Guy Macon's claim? That doesn't prove anything to me. Given that the only thing you have ever done on Wikipedia (at least, the last time I checked your edit logs) is start discussion threads on the abiogenesis talk page with long rambling walls of text to argue about the supposed bias in the article, combined with your use of creationist sources in an attempt to back up your arguments in said walls of text, I am suspicious of your motives here. The whole thing reeks of creationist POV-pushing SarrCat ∑;3 16:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Just more of your typical creationist nonsense. He is attempting to turn the fact that Gabriel Dover prefers Molecular drive to RNA world and pretending that this somehow supports his position, which is clearly Intelligent Design. Ignore him. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This case is rather explicitly covered in WP:NECESSARY, which makes clear that articles about biology do not need to make mention of creationist ideas. In determining NPOV, publications by scientists are rightly weighed much more heavily than those by pseudoscientists, and to represent creationist ideas in this article would be WP:UNDUE. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Macon and Sammy1339: Your problem is that this is not my view and is not creationist, Dover for instance is a reputed geneticist. The big question for you is: what does recommend abiogenesis as a fact? The definition given in the article is inspired from one book of Oparin, but if we go to the article Alexander_Oparin we find out that this biochemist is well-known for his untested theories about the origin of life. And further, on the same article, we find the section Theory of the origin of life. So far, it is clear that we are dealing with theories and not with facts. There is a clear inconsistency between two articles of Wikipedia. They cannot be both true in the same time. Actually, there is NOTHING to support abiogenesis as a fact. Epetre (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to debate creationism with you, and you have zero chance of getting your creationist POV into any Wikipedia article. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be more accurate for the lede to read "is the confidently conjectured natural process of life arising from non-living matter ..." (italic phrase added.) I would be against including criticism of the idea as this is a fringe view which is necessarily based on creationism. If life didn't naturally emerge from nonliving matter, aren't we to infer that it emerged supernaturally? This type of speculation does not belong in the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and Sammy1339: Please provide the EVIDENCE that abiogenesis is a fact, this is what you claim and what the article claims. For a fact, evidence is mandatory. Evidence, please Epetre (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to debate creationism with you, and you have zero chance of getting your creationist POV into any Wikipedia article. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: What is the relationship between a creationist view and the fact that you don't have evidence for your non-scientific approach?Please provide the EVIDENCE that abiogenesis is a fact, this is what you claim and what the article claims. For a fact, evidence is mandatory. Show me in the article the evidence that abiogenesis is a fact Epetre (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Epetre: The way science works is that scientific theories, themselves supported by evidence, predict phenomena for which there is no direct evidence (yet). That's what distinguishes science from just looking at things. I do support using the phrase confidently conjectured to avoid giving a naive person the misimpression that abiogenesis has been observed in nature, which of course it has not, as it probably last occurred over a billion years ago. On the other hand I don't support representing fringe views on creationism in this article, as this is an issue of undue weight. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sammy1339: I don't have any problem with presenting the abiogenesis as a theory with its pros and cons. If we have to be rigorous (ant THIS is the way the science works), a scientific theory is confirmed through observations, repeatable tests and experimentation. The fact that abiogenesis is supposed to happen long time ago, shouldn't be a problem, that's why the scientists use simulations, models etc. and that's why we had the Miller-Urey experiment. Finally I wouldn't have an issue in presenting abiogenesis as a theory, just that from a theory to fact there is quite a distance, that requires EVIDENCE. Epetre (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Epetre: The problem with that idea is that there are not adequate reliable sources for the idea that abiogenesis did not occur. Moreover I think you misunderstand what "theory" means. The Theory of relativity, for example, is fact. So is evolution. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sammy1339: The theory of relativity is a fact because it was demonstrated through experiments, measurements, shortly *there is evidence for it*. An unproven theory cannot be considered a fact, since in time many theories were proven false and logically a fact cannot be proven false. Still, the theory of relativity is mentioned in Wikipedia as a theory, while abiogenesis is presented as a fact, with NO EVIDENCE for that. Epetre (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Epetre: I do agree the lede should be reworded to make clear that abiogenesis has not been observed and is not an ongoing process. That's as far as we can go, however. Reliable scientific sources treat the reality of abiogenesis as a given, and therefore, without adequate sources disputing this, the article should treat it the same way. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: User Epetre's campaign is focused in introducing the creationist propaganda technique known as "Teach the Controversy", that pretends that there is a scientific controversy where there is none. Epetre is a WP:Single-purpose account engaged in a chronic and disruptive campaign. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: How can your claim about any kind of fictional propaganda justify the fact that you don't have any support for your view introduced in a supposedly scientific article?!!!Please provide the EVIDENCE that abiogenesis is a fact, this is what you claim and what the article claims. For a fact, evidence is mandatory. Show me in the article the evidence that abiogenesis is a fact Epetre (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Query @Epetre:, rather than begin again with your incessant, impossible demands that the other editors kowtow to your opinion while using Shifting the burden of proof, could you, perhaps, explain exactly why all of the sources already sited in the article are not valid? I mean, not valid in addition to not saying what you want them to say?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Epetre - Our job as writers and editors of an encyclopedia is not to prove (or disprove) whether abiogenesis is fact (that is the job of scientists)... our job is to report what reliable sources (scientists) say about it ... and they say it is fact. OK, a few may say otherwise... but the nay-sayers are so few and far between that they are considered fringe. Now... Let me take a moment to explain what having a Neutral point of view actually means: It does not mean we treat all viewpoints equally... It means we present viewpoints with DUE WEIGHT (ie in proportion to how common each viewpoint is). When it comes to fringe views, our policy is to avoid giving them UNDUE WEIGHT... to avoid giving the impression that they are more accepted than they are... and for very fringe views, this can mean not giving the view any weight at all. That WEIGHT may seem like we are not being "neutral" towards those who advocate the fringe view... but in fact it is very neutral, because it presents the reader with the reality of the situation. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: You will have to prove what makes you claim that I have a "creationist" POV. In the Talk:Abiogenesis I asked to have a neutral point of view (that is why I opened a NPOV, I never asked to state in the article that Abiogenesis is false and a creationist view is true. Epetre (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: We deviate from the purpose of this thread, it is an issue signaled by me in relation with a breach of NPOV policy. The debate should have been taken place in the appropriate Talk page. I have several questions and I expect logical, rational answer to them:
  1. If there is no evidence for abiogenesis as a fact, why should it be present as a fact?
  2. If the sources supposed to support abiogenesis as a fact are clearly labeled untested theories in connected Wikipedia articles, why should the abiogenesis be presented as a fact?
  3. If the theory of relativity, demonstrated, supported through observations and repeatable tests is called "theory", why should the abiogenesis be presented as a fact, knowing that it is not proven by anything?
  4. If I didn't suggest for a moment to state that abiogenesis is false, while am I accused for trying to push my point of view? There is no evidence specified in the article for abiogenesis as a fact, still some editors claim it is a fact, why should be acceptable their personal view in an article supposed to be neutral? They are the ones pushing their point of view, misinforming the reader.
  5. If there is so much controversy around this topic, why don't they mention a thing about that? Reputed scientists, geneticists expressed their doubt concerning the abiogenesis or even the experiments described in the article (some relevant references were provided by me), why shouldn't they be mentioned briefly in the article? Epetre (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The problems with this are many: among other things, to state that "abiogenesis is not a fact" would be to directly imply the opposite of abiogenesis, i.e., that life arose due to supernatural forces beyond the view and purview of science. Not that you'd care since it's not grovelling agreement.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Epetre has been blocked, so we can close this as a W.O.M.B.A.T. (Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time). --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sur Baher

Please comment at Talk:Sur_Baher#Occupied.. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Dru yoga

Resolved

Hi all. On Dru yoga there's a whole bunch of new editors making edits that are in my opinion "activist" in nature. The sources added are all cult awareness websites. I re-wrote the Dutch article, after checking on anonymous changes, and then the English one. An extra pair of eyes is always welcome. Honestly, it may just be a cult, though I'm not certain the reliable sources support that enough to put it in the article. Our new colleagues are becoming a bit of a nuisance, since they don't participate on the talk page. Being accused of acting for the Life Foundation I can live with/laugh at. Thanks, Sander1453 (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm approaching 3RR, not much I can do now. Will someone help? Thanks, Sander1453 (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, my name is Hayrettin and I am helping Sander1453 on this Dru Yoga page at the moment. We are clearly facing some issues with lots of multiple editors reverting our work over and over again. I am quite sure all of these accounts are managed by the same person. The guy is adding plenty of unreliable sources to justify negative content and constantly deleting neutral content to make the organisation look really awful. Even though I might agree on objectivity for some of the facts, this clearly seems like an attack. Waiting for an answer. Best, Hayrettin Van Aken (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm suspecting sockpuppetry too. As for spamming of activist sites and POV pushing: is it? Or are Hayrettin and I stubborn and unreasonable?Face-smile.svg Multiple issues and we really need the extra pair of eyes. Thanks, Sander1453 (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Contentwise resolved by Sammy1339, nice and short. Disruptive editing (imho) continues, by some of the same users, over here and on Dutch Wikipedia, where a CU found a positive match between four of them. Will file an SPI later today, depending: my fellow Dutch admin Natuur12 thinks it's for the stewards. Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See nl:Overleg gebruiker:Greetjematsesas/blockmsg. I blocked a couple of those accounts over there after a CU confirmed that they are sockpuppets. Natuur12 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Once the edit-warring is under control, the article needs reworking, maybe a complete rewrite. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. With any luck an editor who's actually into yoga. I think Hayrettin might just be that. With the socks blocked, can I call this one resolved? Sander1453 (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Giuliano Mignini

A Wikipedia administrator inserted a fly-by POV tag into an article. I thought that the POV tag cast doubt on the factual accuracy of the article and so I objected to it. Another editor removed it. The administrator reinstated it, and so on, resulting in an edit war. I took the question of biased use of a POV tag to dispute resolution but that got nowhere because all concerned where attacking each other's POV (not surprisingly in my POV). My straightforward question is, can a POV tag be placed in an article without subtstantiation and, if disputed, for how long and under what circumstances may it remain there?

My question is a general one but should you want background information in this specific case then please see the Giuliano Mignini article, its recent history, and its associated talk page.

Thank you. I want to know. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ford Pinto

The Ford Pinto article has been the subject of a long-simmering dispute over the amount of weight to give a paper by an attorney who says that the Pinto's dangerous reputation is overblown (and how to interpret that paper, since there's some dispute over what it says and what that means.) There haven't been very many users involved (and most of them only edit the article sporadically), which has, I think, made it somewhat harder to reach a resolution, but you can see a lot of the older discussions on the talk page. Describing the whole controversy is complex, but mostly the issue is that the paper has not been mentioned in many reliable sources (and those that do often seem to refer to it in a way that I feel implies that it's a WP:FRINGE view.) Regardless, it has at times had an entire section of the article devoted to it, been given equal weight in the lead with all alternative views, and so on. The Pinto is a very famous case and has had a huge amount written about it from various perspectives, so I feel that all of this is giving WP:UNDUE weight to the opinions and interpretations of a single attorney. --Aquillion (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the listed sources I would say you have three that are really strong. Those are the academic articles/books that deal specifically with the car. Some articles seem to mention the car out of hand but Birsch, Schwartz and Lee are really the strongest sources you have. These are the peer reviewed sources I see on the list. If you feel the editor is misusing the information in the article then I would go for that angle. I don't think you could call any of those sources or their views fringe. I would be more inclined to question Mother Jones as a source of reliable information since it appears they got a number of facts wrong. However, since they were an early source on the subject and framed much of the debate it makes sense to quote them. I see a number of parallels between what you are looking at and the article I've been reviewing. Getoverpops (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Butcher_of_Gujarat dispute

There is a Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_21#Butcher_of_Gujarat discussion going on here there has been alleged canvassing ,edit warring and claims of WP:BLP violation as it redirects to Narendra Modi which in turn is rebutted by claims of WP:RNEUTRAL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)