Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Young Conservatives of Texas

In the article, Young Conservatives of Texas, there are multiple instances of seemingly biased analysis of its achievements and seems to have been written by a supporter. Please help this article by re-writing it to be a more neutral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseus1776 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories - deletion of referenced, neutral material

This material, in various forms, has been repeatedly removed from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article:

"More than 1,000 architects and engineers have reportedly signed a petition calling for a new investigation."

This line is supported by four references:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/12598/2/ http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Here is a diff of the latest deletion:

Here is a link to the latest discussion on the article talk page:

The previous extensive discussion from the talk page archive is here:

Here is the recent discussion from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which was apparently archived without resolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_23#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories

It is not neutral point of view to omit this highly relevant material from the "World Trade Center collapse" section of the article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

that depends on what they are asking it for.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My recollection is that this was resolved previously, including on this board. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We discussed it for 4 months on the article talk page,[1] again starting last month,[2] again on the Fringe theories noticeboard[3] and now here. At some point, Ghostofnemo, you should probably let it go. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that the conclusion of many of those was that the material was to be kept and mentioned, the last round was regarding the lead, where it may not have a place, but it has been considered mentionable in the article proper. At some point it would be nice if the people insisting on removing it would 'let it go'. un☯mi 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, every discussion so far has failed to gain consensus. Misstating these results is not helpful A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The arguments against have been of the order of "It is undue weight to include one petition and not others", they are generally low quality stonewalling. un☯mi 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That argument sounds legitimate. What's special about this alleged petition that it's deserving of special attention? Keep in mind that posting stuff like that is an effort to confer artificial notability, counting on wikipedia's high visibility to help spread fringe theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing that it's not notable that 1,000 architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation into the building collapses, in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories? Ghostofnemo (talk)

No, but the source of that number, 1,000, is a conspiracy theorist (a Truther) not an objective source. If you dig into the sources, you will see that they are reporting a Truther claiming that 1,000 have signed a petition. This is not at all verified that 1,000 have signed; it is a claim emanating from a very unreliable source. The veracity of the source's statement is exceedingly dubious. Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Presentation is indeed important, how about:

"In 2010 The Washington Times reported that a petition by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has been signed by more than 1,000 architects and engineers requesting a formal inquiry by United States Congress to investigate the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center." un☯mi 14:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make it notable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Information in articles does not need to be 'notable', it merely needs to be relevant to the article and supported by references. un☯mi 16:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Fringe theories are not to be given undue weight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite sure where to start, with the notion that people having signed it is unlikely to be a fringe theory or that the article where this is considered for inclusion is 9/11_conspiracy_theories. un☯mi 16:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

BB, how is a newspaper reporting that a petition has been signed by so many people a "fringe theory"? SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Uomi, that is not what the source says. 9/11 truther group claims that 1,000 engineers and architects has signed its petition. (cite Washington post). Now, we apply WP:INDISCRIMINATE: who cares if a fringe group claims that 1,000 imaginary architects and engineers have signed their petition? (Flat Earth Society claims that 1,000 physicists have signed their petition. Yeah right.) This fact is only relevant to an article about the truther group, or possibly in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, to demonstrate the delusional nature of the claims. Nobody has verified that 1,000 engineers and architects have signed the petition. Quite likely this is pure posturing by a fringe group. Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you'll click on the fourth reference, it lists all of the signatories, with their titles and license numbers. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Times source refers to the signatories in two instances:

1. "How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds? A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center."

2. "Mr. Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects, managed to persuade more than 1,000 of his peers to sign a new petition requesting a formal inquiry."

The article under discussion is 9/11_conspiracy_theories. un☯mi 15:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned, it is relevant and a brief mention would be giving it due weight. Several reliable sources report it. It should be attributed, i.e. "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth say that 1000 engineers and architects have signed their petition" etc. I can't find any criticism of the petition in reliable sources. The reasons for keeping it out are really people's own opinions of the petition - but we don't use our own opinions of things when editing articles. Fences&Windows 22:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a WP:NPOV issue. There are hundreds upon hundreds of articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories. We should look upon all these articles in totality. The fact that someone can find a few articles about something is rather unimpressive considering we have hundreds to choose from. Thus far, no one has presented any evidence to indicate why this petition is important. The only evidence that anyone's presented is that it can be sourced. Just because something can be sourced, doesn't mean it belongs in an article. BTW, it is mentioned in the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth which I think is more appropriate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's notable because the signatories are architects and engineers. It's not your average "in front of the supermarket" petition. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How many members does American Institute of Architects have?Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How is the view of a Landscape Architect notable for a building collapse? The organization is mentioned in the article (see the proponents section). This is about the various theories, without getting into the various petitions, lawsuits, etc from the various groups. Ravensfire (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you get 1,000 accredited astronomers to sign a petition suggesting more research is needed to determine if the earth is really round? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ghost has a valid point in my view, and it is also my view that this is a notable petition and the information should should be included in the article. I must add that although I have the article watchlisted, I have failed to see this noticeboard listing or I would have commented here. I submit that more eyes would be helpful, and that it appears that this information is being censored by those with an agenda. This is an article about theories, and this is a quite notable theory. The references prove that, yet there is an ongoing attempt to wikilawyer the information out of the article. I'd call that flat wrong. Jusdafax 08:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Time Magazine calls the 9/11 Truth Movement a "mainstream political reality" giving their views notability. A press conference to announce the petition was held in major cities in countries around the world. The petition itself as far as I know is not promoting any conspiracy theory but is simply a call for an independent investigation, an action that is supported by the majority of the public not to mention some of the members of the 911 commission which makes it undue not to mention it. The petition is signed by notable people speaking in their area of expertise which is notable. Despite the large number of engineers and architects, the vast majority have not taken a position on 911 and it is quite possible that the signers of the petition form the majority of engineers and architects who have have commented on 911. I have not read the petition but if it does not promote any specific conspiracy then I cant see any legitimate reason not to mention it.Wayne (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep WP:UNDUE in mind. We can't possibly cover every obscure group with one or more notable person(s) in it.--Terrillja _talk 02:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the petition with the signatures of 1000 architects and engineers that is notable, not the group. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

1000 isn't a notable number any more than 500 or 50 is. Therefore, the group and thus its petition has to be considered for notability and undue weight.--Terrillja _talk 19:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet, the news sources cited thought the petition was notable enough to give space to. In my view, this argument is an example of WP:WIKILAWYER with the goal of excluding information. This is not what Wikipedia is all about. In this case it is my observation that the use of WP:UNDUE is incorrect. The information is notable, well-referenced, and being censored out of this article. This does not improve an article on conspiracy theories. Something is very wrong here, in my view. Jusdafax 08:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

None of these sources are even about the petition. Most only mention it in passing. Again, you have to look at the big picture. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Cherry picking a couple sentences here and there is a classic example of WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the sources are about the petition. I have to agree with Jusdafax that this information seems very relevant and notable for this article, and that the repeated deletions seem to be attempts to keep this neutrally worded, reliably sourced information out of the article. Considering the expertise of the signatories, I don't think it is undue weight to mention the petition. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Or just attempts to keep the article neutral and not give preferential treatment to one of thousands of petitions. Ms. Cleo is notable and considered to have expertise in her field, but that doesn't mean everything she says is notable. --Terrillja _talk 20:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And here again is this tired "thousands of petitions" argument that in my view is wikilawyering. This is a highly notable petition, and the sources reflect that. Again, this is an article about conspiracy theories. Censorship does not improve the article, as I see it. Jusdafax 10:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, despite your continued assertions of notability, consensus is against including it. That isn't censorship or wikilawyering, it's following policy. The problem with conspiracy theories is that people think everything everyone else does is some conspiracy. There is no conspiracy here.--Terrillja _talk 16:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your take on what policy is and your belief that consensus is against inclusion. I see a number of differing viewpoints. Jusdafax 18:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How many of these "thousands of petitions" have recieved worldwide mainstream press coverage? Thousands? hundreds? one? So far no one has presented a cogent argument for exclusion. The thousands claim and questioning the number of people who signed and their qualifications, the only arguments given so far with any merit, can be rejected as both are documented. No one can claim POV pushing because the petition is not promoting any conspiracy theories. What's left? Wayne (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:ICANTHEARYOU isn't helping. I note that you have not even bothered to address my concerns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Stargate Project

I hope I'm on the right noticeboard here; responding to a note at WP:EAR recently, I tagged this article as being POV (to such an extent that it's essentially in-universe and reads like a work of fiction). It appears to be a fringe conspiracy theory, but the article quotes fringe sources and tries to pass the content off as fact. It's going to take a hefty amount of work to clean up so volunteers to help out would be useful; I'm having trouble just figuring out how to start clearing up this mess... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion as Hoax probably, or completly redirect to Joseph McMoneagle as all sources lead back to him. I think this could be the same group as the The Men Who Stare at Goats (film) I cant find relaible sources any where for this Military Project. Which there ought to be. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewd further its at AFD as I compared with Project MKULTRA, If this was a real program by the US military then there ought to be some fully independent government or Third party source to confirm its existence. All I can find are fringe sources that all trail back to this guy all sources trace back to him. I can not find any indication this is anything more than what he cooked up smoking something. Nor can I find any indication that this even a notable conspiracy theory like Moon landing conspiracy theories The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality on Gibraltar

Which of these texts, would editors consider treats a crucial event in Gibraltar's history in a neutral manner. The intention is to provide a very brief overview for the Gibraltar article. I believe the texts should stand on their own supported by inline citations. There is a more detailed history of Gibraltar article, a brief overview giving a few significant details is required.

1.

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. ”

2.

“ During the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar on 4 August 1704. Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder that followed. The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack led most of the townspeople to leave. ”

3.

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. Following a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, marines launched a pincer attack on the town. Gibraltar's defenders although well stocked with food and ammunition were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The position was clearly untenable and in the morning the Spanish governor surrendered. Rooke remembered the looting at Cádiz but could not prevent a repetition at Gibraltar. Senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline but lost control in the days following the capture, sailors and marines ran amok. This aroused anger in Spain against the 'heretics, and the chance of winning over Andalusians to the Imperial cause was lost. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances (Article V promised freedom of religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar), the perpetrators of crimes against the population were severely punished and order restored but by 7 August the majority of the population felt staying was too dangerous and opted to leave. Anticipating a Spanish counter attack and that they would shortly return, they initially settled around the hermitage of San Roque later dispersing into nearby areas of Spain. The temporary resting place around the hermitage ultimately became the modern town of San Roque founded in 1706.

Several counter attacks by sea and land followed but all were repelled by the English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles.

”

Significant facts

1. Intention of the invading forces was to seize Gibraltar as a toehold, leading to gaining support from the local Spanish population for their Spanish allies in the War of the Spanish succession. The subsequent exodus of the population frustrated those aims.

2. Clear orders were given to protect the local population, the commanders sought to avoid a repeat of what had happened previously at Cadiz but the soldiers and sailors ignored those orders and some ran amok. There were instances of rape, pillage and Catholic churches were ransacked. The disorder was again counter productive to the aims of the allies.

3. Perpetrators of those crimes were caught and punished as examples, the terms of surrender provided assurances of religious freedom and order had been restored at the time the local populace chose to leave.

4. The local population did not believe those assurances and expecting a Spanish counter attack chose to leave settling first around the nearby hermitage of San Roque. They then dispersed into other nearby areas, the fishermen founding the nearby town of Algeciras and in 1706 the remaining refugees founded the modern town of San Roque.

Factors related to Nationalism

In the modern context, Spain claims the population were deliberately forced out so the population could be replaced by an implanted population. On this basis Spain argues that the current population do not enjoy the right to Self-determination.

Also, San Roque, is claimed as the real Gibraltar and that only the people of the San Roque have the right to decide the future of modern Gibraltar. It is claimed that the referendums rejecting integration with Spain are flawed because the real Gibraltarians didn't get to vote.

Summary

I believe that to be a neutral summary of relevant facts and the only comment I intend to make. I would welcome outside opinion on the text that treats the subject according to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Other helpful essays include WP:CHERRY and WP:COATRACK Wee Curry Monster talk 21:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to complete the summary: the atrocities and the exodus after the capture of Gibraltar are overwhelmingly covered by reputed secondary sources (as has been mentioned uncountable times in the months long discussion at the article talk page). It has been argued that just the level of overwhelming coverage should give an idea of the noteworthiness of these issues. On top of that, many sources consider these episodes as very relevant from a historical point of view and many others -as Wee mentions- as an argument for the Spanish claim in the Gibraltar sovereignty dispute. For a quick review of sources (most of them British), you can check here a sample of: 5 sources mentioning the atrocities during the capture and 9 sources mentioning the exodus to San Roque (all of them sources focused on Gibraltar, authored by reputed historians or political scientists).

A couple of quotes from these sources about the noteworthiness of these events: "The sack of Gibraltar was memorable through Andalusia for the peculiar fury of the invaders (...)" and "The defilement attracted comments and attention in an age when widespread raping and looting was taken for granted as part of the spoils of war."

(BTW -as a very secondary note- no reputed source cited in this year+ long discussion seems to say that Spain claims that the population were forced out in order "to be replaced"(?) or that the local population left for fear of a Spanish counter attack). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is where WP:CHERRY becomes instructive, because if you select only those passages that deal with the atrocities (btw see WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL) and selectively select quotes about the atrocities and embellish those quotes to make sure you emphasise the atrocities, you get a completely skewed picture. If on the other hand you look at overviews, see [4],[5],[6] for example a different picture emerges. Here we have a favoured text that is so focused on atrocities that it completely forgets to discuss the geo-political aspects of the conquest and thats why I brought it here. I'd like to see objective outside opinion on which text best achieves NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 02:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum, Imalbornoz claims no sources say and I quote "the local population left for fear of a Spanish counter attack", I made no such claim you'll note my exact words were "expecting a Spanish counter attack" - each and every text I've produced states this and to criticise Imalbornoz has to distort what is written. This is actually cited above See: Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives. Unfortunately the {{reflist}} did not work. Wee Curry Monster talk 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The argument that the individual details of the disorder are very relevant and that the Spanish claim hinges on them is illogical for two reasons. First, it rather implies that, had there been pillaging and desecration but no rape (for example), there would be no dispute. That doesn't make sense and there's no evidence to back it up: Spain's arguments do not hinge on the details of the disorder. Second, the article we're discussing is the article on Gibraltar, not one of the articles on the Gibraltar dispute. Even if something is very relevant to the dispute, that does not necessarily make it very relevant to the history of Gibraltar as a whole. That argument is an argument for putting it on a completely different article to the one we are discussing.

That said, I suggest that we three all shut up at this point and allow for discussion by outsiders - without the walls of text that we otherwise inevitably end up with. Pfainuk talk 11:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, I hope you will get input from more than one uninvolved editor. Where I would begin is by deciding which are the best sources on the topic. You need to decide on the basis of how thorough the coverage is, how recently they were published, the qualifications of the authors and, if possible, how well they were reviewed. After you've agreed which sources to use, you can identify the information they all have in common, i.e. that there was a siege, an occupation, a movement of people. If the good sources disagree, then you need to include both sides of the story, attributed to the relevant authors. I'm not sure why the reflist didn't display. I looked at the code and there seemed to be quite a few texts referred to, some of which might not be fully scholarly. Remember that we prefer English language sources for verification but if there are major works in Spanish that haven't been translated, they are also likely to be relevant. I can read enough Spanish to be able to comment on the quality of the source and on the content of short passages; we have excellent translators around if we need to call on them. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not practicable

"Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being the name of something. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint "for" or "against" something, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticism of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing."

This policy has been very difficult to put into practice as seen here. Marcus Qwertyus 22:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Abu Ratib

Praise-laden bio or autobio of obscure Arabic musician that's had some court trouble in the U.S. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not stub it? --FormerIP (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

AS noted on the Talk Page, the text is ripped off this blog here and anyone of a number of places. It appears to be a straight forward copyright violation or advocacy using a standardised text. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Issues regarding Shakespeare Authorship Question

The overall neutrality of the article Shakespeare Authorship Question is in considerable dispute on the article talk page [7] and [8], although there are more comments spread out both here and at the Peer Review [9] , including specific instances where WP:WORDS, WP:ORIGINAL SYN and questionable claims of academic "consensus", "scholastic consensus" and views of "the academy" or "scholars" have come into play, the latter of which seem to be violations of this policy [10]. Unfortunately, much of the discussion has been archived due to the archiving both being inexplicably changed from 30 days to 5 days by one of the involved editors [11].

The article desperately needs attention from uninvolved editors as WP:OWN may also be present.[12] and [13].

I should say that I am a new editor who would like to edit with information that represents a minority/alternative viewpoint, which I admit is problematic as there is a clear bias on the talk page against any editor who wants to add minority view information. As a result, I have been berated, attacked and warned off, along with other minority view editors who have made similar attempts. What few edits I have attempted in order to achieve neutrality, such as [14] and [15] have been reverted.[16] In addition, the NPOV tag I placed on the article has been removed without any resolution of the many disputes.[17], [18]

I feel the opening line of the Neutrality Pillar is being seriously violated: “We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

In addition to the numerous specifics listed on the talk page, please examine the following:

1) The article contains over 2 dozen footnotes that have been extended and filled with ad hominem attacks, deprecating comments and POV quotes, all from one point of view.[19]

2) The article uses references that only represent one point of view. Actual views, quotes, or data from the minority viewpoint have been edited out of the article, leaving only incomplete or incorrect characterizations of the minority view coming from the pens of partisan sources. [20]

I would like to hear comments from editors with this particular expertise (Neutrality issues). There appears to be no neutrality among the regular contributors on the Stradfordian Shakespeare side of the question. The usual pattern seems to be to ignore the work I have put in , with the most minor exceptions, maintain a silence for some time, and then consider the points dormant on grounds that there was no relevant issue raised. Happy New Year! Zweigenbaum (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, especially WP:DUE, states that the article should be weighted to reflect the relative support for the various POVs in reliable sources. As you yourself admit that the "minority views" are "minority views", the article needs to reflect that the majority view among academics is that Shakespeare did write his own plays and that a substantial number of the academic adherents of the majority view regard the adherents of contrary views as cranks and have written in reliable sources to that effect.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum, I don't want to do too much to dishearten a newbie but, as Peter indicates, Wikipedia strives to be non-cranky (even if it doesn't always succeed). If you seriously want to represent an alternative point of view here, then I would suggest that making (IMO) inadequately explained changes to the wording of an article and adding POV tags is not the right way to go about it. This article seems to me to be a perfect playground for adding properly researched information about disputes as to the authorship of Shakespearian works, so get your Google out and fill your boots. Personally, I don't see why it matters whether what we are dealing with here is an "argument" or, synonymously, a "proposition". --FormerIP (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There's something afoot (again, pardon the pun) with those Leviathan (which definitely wasn't by Shakespeare) references, though, and that should be dealt with. --FormerIP (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

When I say "again, pardon the pun", I previously wrote that alternative views on Shakespeare authorship were not "barred"(!), but I must have re-written. Oh well, please yourself. --FormerIP (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

About the voluminous quotations: those were added because when this page was a battleground a lot of the statements and sources were challenged by some editors who didn't have access to the references cited, and the exact quotations were demanded for statements that happened to be the most controversial for anti-Stratfordians. After a while I and other editors began including the quotations from the sources for any statement that could conceivably be challenged to save having to go back and forth defending them, and so we ended up with a boat load of what anti-Stratfordians consider to be radical quotes. I would have no problem removing them except that new editors come along and make the exact same arguments against the statements as the old editors did, which in fact has happened and is happening.

I would also like to add that although I personally believe Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him and that no evidence indicates otherwise, I have striven to make this article neutral and balanced, and have invited criticism from the opposite POV and tried to give their suggestions the benefit of the doubt whenever they didn't violate WP:NPOV. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not knowing who you are [Cohen and Former IP] and what you think you know, I do not understand the use of the term "Leviathan references"--what is this supposed to be about? Are you trying to say "Neanderthal", which also means nothing? My changes simply sought some neutral terminology and a disinterested attitude. There is ample reference material to back what I and others have said; however, these have been improperly discounted because they are not considered majority-approved reference material, a perfect example of circular reasoning being used to serve the self-interest of the majority approach. This along with punitive threats. Don't try to dismiss my objections with stupid labels. You do not have to be an "oldie" to recognize bias contrary to rule. I want a fair hearing of competing views and sources. The response is willful ignorance of my efforts and references. Stonewalling is not exchange. Neutrality has nothing to do with "cranky" or "non-cranky" thinking, which is just another example of biased projection, i.e., the proverbial reasonable 'us' and wacky 'you'.

If these responses represent experienced neutrality editing, they are useless, a travesty, like Tom Reedy's ideological tract. His claim, presented above, to be neutral is demonstrably absurd when in effect each and every competing suggestion is run through his belief system and disapproved as though he owned the Wikipedia site and there were one and only one acceptable view. There has been a good deal of personal invective along with it, directed toward Nina Green, who has more than enough sources to represent her minority view.Zweigenbaum (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum, Leviathan just means big. I wasn't trying to be snarky, but agreeing with you (I thought) that there is too much text in the footnotes. It's also a book, hence my poor attempt at humour (and, looking up the page again now, I admit it was pretty poor).

Looking at the talkpage, I think the nub of the problem might be shown by your statement: "If your authorities have been getting it warped and wrong for generations you will obviously have a plentiful corpus of statements on the wrong side of the analysis". Wikipedia is not an investigative project, so there is no analysis to be undertaken and no wrong side to be identified. we are just meant to reflect what the experts think. They appear to think that doubt over Shakepeare's authorship of his works is WP:FRINGE, so it is not for us to examine that question further and/or give credence to any such theory. If you don't agree that experts do consider those theories to be fringe theories, there is a noticeboard where you can ask for a discussion about it: WP:FTN. --FormerIP (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the article is about the debate. It's not about, say, Anti-Stratfordian authorship argument. If it were, then properly it would be mostly about that argument, and would only give a thorough mention to the mainstream POV. It wouldn't go into more detail than necessary to outline that POV. But what you have here is Shakespeare Authorship Question, which would naturally explore the question from the standpoint of the entire field, and thus give most WP:WEIGHT to mainstream sources. So do you see how the focus of the article has influenced the way it's written, and how it must be written on WP? "Leviathan references" means, "huge." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A noticeboard like this needs succinct examples of the claimed NPOV problem. The walls of text (above, and at the given links) do not help. Would anyone claiming there is an NPOV problem please provide two examples of text in the article which breach NPOV, and then briefly explain why that is the case. This noticeboard is not the place to talk about other editors, or indeed to talk about anything unrelated to NPOV. I have participated in discussions at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question so am not an uninvolved editor, but I think the request for precise examples of the claimed problem are reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum In answer to your request for specifics, there are so many listed in the (suddenly archived) talk page, that I had hoped the links I provided would have been sufficient. But I can certainly bring them here one or two at a time if that is the preferred method. To begin:

1) In the lead paragraph, it states "Although the idea has attracted much public interest, all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims.[3]"

The references cited in ref #3 amount to a series of personal anecdotes such as

a)"I do not know of a single professor ...", "Among editors of Shakespeare in the major publishing houses, none that I know questions the authorship of the Shakespeare canon ... ",

b)"I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him. "

c)"any Shakespearean who reads a hundred pages on the authorship question inevitably realizes that nothing he can say will prevail with those persuaded to be persuaded otherwise."

d) and one statement of opinion from a non-academic: "...in fact, antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings."

How do these anecdotal references support "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider..." All but a few consider...?? Where is the representation of All in 'All but a few'? How on earth would that be citable, short of a major survey? The only survey we do have does not even support it.[21] and [22] Note that this survey would support "most Shakespeare professors say there is no good reason to question the traditional attribution" or "most Shakespeare professors consider the topic a "theory without convincing evidence", both of which are neutral statements. But to write that "all but a few" consider it a "fringe belief"? I would not call that a neutral assessment of the information.

So can we examine this one line and its supporting references and determine if the current phrasing is NPOV? Zweigenbaum (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum, when specifics are asked for it is customary to provide links or diffs, that way they can also get an idea of their reliability of the sources they came from. Here's the link to the sources you partially quoted: [23] Tom Reedy (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

@Zweigenbaum: Is there any simple statement in the article that violates NPOV? Something which at least in principle could be examined and resolved at this noticeboard? The problem with your example is that it encompasses the whole issue and can only be resolved after verifying everything else in the article (that is, after deciding whether relevant academic consensus is that the issue involves "a fringe belief with no hard evidence").

Re the points you make: You describe the statements as "personal anecdotes", but these are the considered views of relevant authorities (see the supporting footnote). Is anyone named there not an authority on the subject? Are any of the statements quoted out of context? Also, the statements are entirely in accord with what an authority would say regarding whether something was a fringe belief.

Re the survey you linked to: That survey asked professors who teach undergraduate English classes to choose a preselected answer for various questions. Those surveyed were not specialists who research and publish in the field, and the author of the survey is known as a promoter of "it wasn't Shakespeare" views. Given the questions, the author, the preselected answers, and those sampled, the survey results do not conflict with the cited footnote. The 6% "yes" for whether there is good reason to doubt Shakespeare's authorship needs to be read alongside the stated sampling error of ±5% (and it is not 6% of those who research the field). The questions about teaching the SAQ in class give no useful results because someone may choose to use the SAQ as a teaching hook or a stepping stone, with no endorsement. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

I see my specifics were just not specific. Try looking at this, from the original statement:

"1) The article contains over 2 dozen footnotes that have been extended and filled with ad hominem attacks, deprecating comments and POV quotes, all from one point of view.[24]"

Choose any of these and we'll discuss it.

As far as my characterizing the Stradfordian put-downs as personal anecdotes--are these scientific analyses backed by data or aren't they, if they are where is the data, or are they spouting off the top of their heads a bunch of self-serving polemic statements, no doubt vaguely fearing how damaging the Oxfordian theses would be to their lesson plans, articles list, and class bibliographies, not to mention how out of date they would look at conferences and guild gatherings? I rather think the latter is closer to the reality behind your "authorities" and their statements. Call them "considered views of relevant authorities" by "authorities on the subject" or whatever you wish. Where's the evidence? One paradigm is quite inadequate judging its potential replacement. Already the point-counterpoint approach has been sabotaged, so there appears to be no hope of a side by side summary of the "question". Nevertheless, if you are sincere about examining POV problems, look at this reference and we will start there. Zweigenbaum (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been explained that the SAQ topic has been subject to extended POV battles, and new editors keep arriving at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question and demanding that some text in the article be justified. A solution was to provide footnotes with extracts from the cited pages so editors could see the source. The evidence is that these are statements by reliable sources who have researched and published in the field. Is there a significant contrary view missing from the article – a view supported by academics acknowledged to be published researchers in the field? Wikipedia is not like a forum where the for and against views are listed by their enthusiastic supporters; see WP:FRINGE. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum I see that a query that asked of me for specific examples of objectionable language and approach, which I have answered above with reference to two dozen footnotes characterized by bias, which reference has now been responded to by the statement that this is not a for or against forum, but these referenced statements are representative of a view "supported by academics acknowledged to be published researchers in the field." Yet I do not see representation of Hugh Trevor-Roper's highly critical analysis of the field's bias on this very question of the Stratfordian model. (Realites, Nov. 1962,reprinted in 'Brief Chronicles II', 2010) He was a respected member of the academic establishment. Thus, it appears there has been a selective bias in portraying the academic establishment's position on the issue. To hide behind a doctrinal consensus in a field where there is fundamental uncertainty even on basic historiography, and which supports legend in lieu of documentation, is to avoid inquiry and repeat error. It is like pulling teeth for the Stratfordian contingent in this discussion to even admit there is scholarship contrary to their bias. So don't lecture me that this is not a for or against forum. It is plain what you are for. Circular reasoning [academic reference required; if demonstrably wrong, academic reference still required; it is academic] won't help solve the main issue, a neutral approach to competing theories of inquiry in an uncertain field. Next pretext please.Zweigenbaum (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have written too much on this topic (here and on the article talk page). May I suggest that you take half an hour to write a summary of one issue in the article which you think violates WP:NPOV (check the NPOV policy first). Then take another half hour to delete all text from the summary which is not directly addressing the point. Then post the result. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Interesting. I had humorously asked for a further pretextual argument, and damn if you don't provide one, i.e., the charge that I have written too much on the subject but nothing specific. The charge is manifestly incorrect. When I went through the entire article and suggested numerous specific changes of language to approach a more neutral tone, that effort was systematically ignored, ("Man, I hate that you went to all this work...") except for the more concise formulation of the Prince Tudor theory. Tom Reedy landed on that like a fly on jam. It had discrediting value from his perspective. Now you prate that I write on a single subject for a half hour and take another half-hour to eliminate that same half-hour's waste--from your a priori point of view of course. The comment is not good faith discussion but a further indication of stonewalling the topic at hand, perhaps without even realizing it. I call. You choose a paragraph. I will show you its bias and re-write it so that bias is gone. Zweigenbaum (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No-one's going to do that. In your original post you made two specific objections. The first one was about footnotes. I shall look at them to see if there may be a problem and post back here soon. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion there are too many, and too long, quotations within the footnotes. You should discuss this amicably with other editors on the article talk page. If you think that there is a WP:BLP violation within a footnote you must take this up, although no such violations were apparent in my view. The relevant policy is at WP:IBID (quotes in footnotes should be brief). Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained above, the quotations were added in accordance with policy because editors questioned whether the cited sources supported the statements. If removing them could be done without new editors demanding that some text in the article be justified, I'd love to delete them on aesthetic grounds, but Zweigenbaum's complaint is just the latest in a long string from Oxfordians, and I doubt it will be the last. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Normally of course you would be correct: the long quotes in the footnotes are very unusual. However, as Tom Reedy has mentioned, interest in the topic is also very unusual, and full explanations of many of the references are required. It may be possible to move the expanded footnotes to a FAQ subpage (Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/FAQ; see for example, Talk:Evolution/FAQ). However, there are many interested semi-educated people such as myself who read this article, and I know that I greatly value the detail in the footnotes. Nevertheless, all that is not relevant on this NPOV noticeboard as I do not see any suggestion that the extracts (which are from scholarly and highly reliable sources) violate NPOV. No one has specified a footnote and suggested that it is out of context, or cherry picking, or an WP:UNDUE or red flag problem. No one has specified an opposing footnote that meets similar sourcing standards and which has been removed from the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum]] Good; we have established by default that no one wishes to subject even one paragraph of this article to examination for possible bias. And we have established that the article's major if not single writer Tom Reedy would not mind cutting down the footnotes on condition of no contrary scholarship in the process. This fits the description of Catch-22, stonewalling, or denial. No problem. Then we will take a not extensive footnote (I personally am not offended by extensive footnotes if they are factual) and see if there is bias involved, as opposed to a scholarly explanation that the Oxford challenge to the authorship of the Shakespeare canon is a "fringe belief", i.e., not a fact-based proposal at all. That is the box into which Reedy and company seek to confine the Shakespeare question, 'us' with knowledge, versus them Oxfords with their quirky belief. Quoting below from early in the footnotes in support of the claim that Oxfordian scholarship is a fringe belief:

Nicholl 2010, p. 4 quotes Gail Kern Paster, director of the Folger Shakespeare Library: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record."

If we dignify this statement as rising from any scholarship at all, the best we can say is that it is an argument from analogy. The paleontologist has the training and methods of inquiry to arrive at verifiable Knowledge. The creationist has a presumption of truth based on belief (in Bible language). The analogy compares the knowing versus the lowly uninformed.

How comes it that Hugh Trevor-Roper, a distinguished historian and scholar with impeccable academic credentials, cannot be accessed regarding this dismissal of non-experts studying the traditional 'Shakespeare', so succinctly expressed by Ms Paster? Perhaps the following remarks for example:

"As far as the records go,[Stratford Will] was uneducated, had no literary friends, possessed at his death no books, and could not write. It is true, six of his signatures have been found, all spelt differently; but they are so ill-formed that some graphologists suppose the hand to have been guided. Except for these signatures, no syllable of writing by Shakespeare has been identified. Seven years after his death, when his works were collected and published, and other poets for the first time claimed to have known him, a portrait of him was printed. The unskilful artist has presented the blank face of a country oaf. Such is the best the historians can do." (Trevor-Roper, Realites, Nov. 1962, reprinted in Brief Chronicles II 2010)

The self-congratulatory high knowledge claimed by Ms Paster turns out to be in the studies of Trevor-Roper no more than conjecture, conclusions derived from a pre-ordained premise. Shakspere of Stratford could not have been the author; only his name is similar. Which leaves all interested historians and literary detectives to search both inductively and deductively among the available facts and parallels for evidence of the true author, and for the involvement of Shakspere in his concealment.

Mr. Reedy and company will not allow Trevor-Roper into the matter except as a fringe believer, and they would employ revertive means to forestall it, claiming only scholars and/or experts in the field are reliable sources, {which is the general standard in uncontroversial fields).

Thus, through selective use of the Wikipedia "experts" provision, Trevor-Roper will never be quoted in this article's documentation toward the identity of the Shakespearean author. Yet he admirably qualifies as a scholar and an expert in the field of historiography. Such is bias both in this article and in the distinguished Ms Paster's arrogant quip. 'Neutral point of view' under such exclusionary terms won't happen.

Mr. Reedy's comment, that I am not the first to object to his terms of 'inquiry' and I won't be the last, is of course a badge of shame placed on his/their methods and biases. Maybe he will die before changing the terms, denial being a formidable defense mechanism. But as Oxford wrote in one of his last letters, "...Truth is truth though never so old, and time cannot make that false which was once true." If that sentence sounds close to Isabella's words in Measure for Measure, "For truth is truth to the end of reckoning", there's a reason.

Next pretext please. Zweigenbaum (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going to continue commenting on this as an uninvolved editor, but reading the above post I'm no longer minded to do so. This is just trolling. @johnuniq, sounds like putting some of the detail currently in footnote into an FAQ could be the way forward, because we don't need to use mainspace to demonstrate that sources are represented fairly. As you say, it's not an NPOV issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Call it trolling and prove it. The point does not change. No neutral point of view (NPOV) is forthcoming from entrenched interests, and tidying up the structure, footnotes shortened, et al, will not achieve it. Johnuniq made a challenge for specificity and got it. Towit,"No one has specified an opposing footnote that meets similar sourcing standards and which has been removed from the article. Johnuniq" Challenge taken. My response is right there above and stands ignored, except for being characterized by Itsmejudith as baiting. So labelling constitutes further avoidance of the central issue, selective use of sources to support one and only one academic viewpoint. Any other challenge or pretext? If not the point remains, neutral point of view absent from the article.Zweigenbaum (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Essence–Energies distinction

It appears that the article Essence–Energies distinction is being taken over by POV editors whom in numbers are distorting the article to not reflect the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox church (its dogma to the EO).

1. None of these editor are members of the Eastern Orthodox community. The article and several other Eastern Orthodox theology articles (including, theoria, Palamism, theosis) are being dominated by a group of editors whom admit that they have not actually read any of the subjects from Eastern Orthodox sources. They continue to engage in disruptive behavior bickering over details that they have speculated about from ignorance of the subjects. Speculations which are blatantly rejected by Eastern Orthodox sources. #They are also treating outside sources hostile and or not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox as equal in opinion and want to argue that the outside source are to be treated as equal even when those sources contradict Eastern Orthodox sources.
2. It would not be acceptable for the Eastern Orthodox to got Buddhist articles and claim that our priest speak for the Buddhists and that even though we have much in common that our priests and monks know the doctrines and teachings of the Buddhist better then the Buddhist and that their objections should be ignored. As none of the editors can validate their Eastern Orthodox sources nor will they validate what they have read Eastern Orthodox wise that is motivating their behavior.

Here's an example. Under the article heading Essence–Energies_distinction#The_Distinctions_of_God

1. As one side of the issue is cherry picked while the majority side is almost completely neglected. The Ecumenism of the editors as a POV is coloring the article to make assumptions that can not be backed up by official sources from either the Roman Catholic church nor the Eastern Orthodox church. And some of these theologians are not accepted as voices for either community and their opinions are being put into a Wikipedia article as if they where "facts". LoveMonkey (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Although the article is about an Orthodox theological doctrine, there is also a scholarly theological debate over the question of whether this doctrine is acceptable within the scope of Catholic dogma, thus the claim that certain editors are "distorting" the doctrine with "ecumenical" re-interpretations of the doctrine. As I have commented here, the question is whether these re-interpretations are the opinions of the editors (which would be unacceptable original research) or the scholarly opinions of reliable sources who may or may not be Orthodox theologians. I think it is reasonable to document the scholarly opinions of non-Orthodox theologians regarding the compatibility of Orthodox doctrine with Catholic dogma. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"whether this doctrine is acceptable within the scope of Catholic dogma" Would at best be the subject for someplace else other than the article under discussion. As that excuse is being used to justified other things in the article that are object-able. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the article is not about an Eastern Orthodox teaching. The title says it is about the distinction between essence and energies, and the first lines (and perhaps the capitalization of "Essence" and "Energies" in the title) indicate that the article is not about the distinction in general, but only about that distinction in God. That is what the article is about. So, in the case of God is this a distinction between two different realities? Or, in the case of God, is the distinction only like, for instance, the distinction between a three-angled geometrical figure and a three-sided geometrical figure, which, though distinguishable in thought, are in reality the same thing? Or is it some other kind of distinction not amounting to one between two separate realities? Esoglou (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC) In view of the reaction immediately below, I see that I should have indicated that my comment was in response to the statement by Pseudo-Richard above that "the article is about an Orthodox theological doctrine". My comment was not at all a "primary response to LoveMonkey". I agree of course that the dispute over the matter concerns a doctrine propounded in the Eastern Orthodox Church (and the subsequent opposition, initially in the East, but later in the West, on the grounds that by introducing a real actual division in God the doctrine taught what amounted to a form of polytheism). All I mean is that the title of the article is not "Essence-Energies distinction in God as taught in the Eastern Orthodox Church" (a title indicating the dispute and practically equivalent perhaps to Palamism), but "Essence-Energies distinction", a matter that can be treated under more aspects than one. For fear that, not only this comment, but anything else I write here might be seen as an interpersonal reaction, I think it best for me to withdraw from this discussion, with apologies for having misled about my intention and adding in conclusion that, apart from what he says of my comment, I agree with what Phatius states below. Esoglou (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree, Esoglou. I think that LM is being a bit silly by posting this complaint here, as if this were primarily a NPOV issue. (On the contrary, it is primarily an organizational and, increasingly, an interpersonal issue.) However, I can't believe that your primary response to his complaint is to claim that this article is not about Eastern Orthodoxy in particular. Let's face it: there would be no Essence-Energies distinction article on Wikipedia were it not for the concept's use in Eastern Orthodoxy. Until now, no one has seriously questioned that the article is about the Eastern Orthodox doctrine and various perspectives on it.

The real issue regarding this article is a disagreement about its structure and the criteria for editing and including material in it. As far as I can tell, LM has made 3 basic complaints about this article on its talk page, only one of which (#2 below) is really a NPOV issue:

1. LM has occasionally claimed that editors who aren't Orthodox and who, until now, weren't very familiar with Palamism and the Essence-Energies distinction (henceforth "EE distinction") aren't qualified to edit the article.
2. LM has complained that the article currently gives undue weight to non-Orthodox (specifically Roman Catholic) approaches to the EE distinction, particularly ones with an ecumenical agenda.
3. Most recently, Esoglou and I have questioned whether certain sections of the article (such as the section titled "the existences of God") should be there at all. In response, LM has argued that all concepts that are relevant to the EE distinction deserve to be included and even to have their own sections in the article.

Here are my responses to these concerns:

1. This claim directly violates the basic Wikipedian principle that anyone can edit Wikipedia as long as they are willing to follow policy and back up their claims with sources.
2. This complaint is partly valid. The article may give undue weight, in terms of space, to such views. On the article's talk page, Richard is currently trying to work out a way of reorganizing the article to address this concern. In the article's defense, it does clearly attribute non-Orthodox views to their sources, instead of stating them as fact. (In contrast, consider some of the parts of the article that discuss Orthodox views, which not only state these views as facts but also fail to cite sources at all.)
3. I agree with LM that all concepts relevant to the EE distinction deserve to be included. Unfortunately, the article doesn't currently explain how some of these concepts (I'm thinking especially of synergy and the existences of God) are related to the EE distinction. In response to Esoglou's and my concerns, LM has repeatedly insisted that we don't understand Palamas and that, if we would just study Palamas, we would understand the relevance of those concepts. The problem is that we shouldn't have to do that. The article should clearly explain how those concepts are related to the EE distinction, in a way that anyone (even someone who hasn't read Palamas) can understand. Moreover, it isn't Esoglou's or my job to read Palamas and then edit the sections to explain their relevance to the EE distinction. If LM wants those sections to stay in the article, then he should edit them to show their relevance; otherwise, they are fair game for deletion. Moreover, any information in those sections that is not directly related to the EE distinction should be removed. We don't need a whole section explaining the doctrine of the divine hypostases; that's what a separate article, namely Trinity (Christianity), is for.

By the way, LM's claim that "some of these theologians are not accepted as voices for either community and their opinions are being put into a Wikipedia article as if they where 'facts'" is simply inaccurate. I assume that LM is referring to the opinions described in the section on Roman Catholic perspectives. None of the opinions in that section are put forward as facts; they are all clearly attributed to the individuals making them ("According to X, blah blah blah"). The same can't be said for many of the opinions in, say, the section on Byzantine and Russian philosophy, which doesn't even cite sources. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And yet none of these editors responding here will validate that they have read the actual theology they are writing about which is the subject of the article. They are spending lots and lots of time pointing at me. Also note I have provided plenty of sourcing and these editors are ignoring the sourcing I provide in good faith and then asking for the same thing over an over again. This appears and attempt to frustrate to ignore my answers I provide in good faith. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Joell Ortiz, biography, American rapper

I'm new at this and it is late so I will be terse. The article once read, some time ago, like a snippet. It was lacking, but unbiased. It stated the subject's devastatingly bad record sales for a specific album, glaringly. Currently, throughout the section where albums are now discussed, there is an obvious bias towards omission of negative details about the artist's career. It lacks that same statistic above. So, I question the author's impartiality. He or she may likely derive material gain from Ortiz's success, or at least promoting it. Talented rapper Ortiz is, successful he is not, in terms of pecuniary benefit from music. Apologies for not strictly adhering to this place's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.71.30 (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Mount Longdon

I wonder if the people appointed to keep an eye on vandalism can help. I've been accused of willfully engaging in war editing by adding information of "no relevance" regarding the Argentine experience in Falklands. All I did was re-insert valuable information about the actual food dished daily to conscripts in the lead-up to the battle for Mount Longdon during the Falklands War and the few luxuries often overlooked, using the testimony of ex conscript Jorge Altieri, who is well known in Argentina and British historians in the form of Martin Middlebrook, Nicholas van der Bijl, etcetera.--Malvinero (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Malvinero is edit warring on Battle of Mount Longdon and currently stands at 3 reverts. Apparently in an article on the battle, he feels the need to add details of the alleged diet of the conscripts and remove any information on the maltreatment of Argentine conscripts. Based on edit summaries this appears to be on a crusade to prove the officers and professional NCO of the Argentine army did not maltreat conscripts during the Falklands War. I have issued a 3RR warning and suggested he self-revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Changi Beach Memorial

Changi Beach was the site of the first of the Sook Ching massacres. Here, Chinese civilians were machine gunned by Japanese troops and then buried in mass graves by Allied POWs. Amongst these Allied prisoners were men from the 155th (Lanarkshire Yeomanry) Field Regiment R.A., some of whom spoke in later years of their horror at being forced to throw into the burial pits people who were still alive. A plaque denoting the massacres can be seen alongside the beach pathway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.156.84 (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This sounds really awful. Are you saying there is something wrong with a Wikipedia article, though? --FormerIP (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Andre Geim

I am currently in a dispute [25] with user Betsythedevine regarding the addition of an exchange between Nobel Laureates Andre Geim and Mario Llosa during the Nobel Prize symposium (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00c8zb7/The_BBC_Debate_Nobel_Minds/ - the dispute starts at 19:00 and ends at around 21:00) hosted by the BBC. During the exchange, Geim praises the Chinese government and political system and criticizes the Nobel Peace Prize Committee as elitst although he does qualify his statements by asking for the unconditional release of the imprisoned Chinese political dissident, but prompting a critical response from Llosa in which he argues that the peace prize not only acknowledges China's extraordinary economic progress, but also it's brutality in the political field. Both of us agree that the statement by Geim deserve mention because it was picked up by a major news outlet (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/liu-xiaobo-wrong-man-for-nobel-peace-prize-say-laureates/story-e6frg6so-1225969772275) and that the exchange deserves only fleeting mention in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, but Betsy wishes to include the remarks only Geim but delete the remarks by Llosa on the grounds that "the remarks are not about Geim or about any major part of Geim's career." [26] and further justifies his/her position by drawing to the parallel examples of Bush and Guinta and how because their views don't have any counterposing viewpoints, the remarks by Llosa should stay delete. I post a lengthy rebuttal [27] telling her that just because counterposing viewpoints of Bush and Guinta's viewpoints on the axis of evil and social security respectively aren't written on their Wikipedia page "doesn't mean that criticisms about those views cannot be posted (as is the case of what you are trying to do by having Llosa's remarks about Geim's Nobel Peace Prize Committee removed)" [28] and how there is no "Wikipedia guideline that says statements of criticisms about the comments by the person who is the subject of the Wikipedia entry shall not be made if statements of other people do not have the viewpoints of their opponents." [29] Still, she is adamant that the remarks stay removed, while I find her to be stonewalling, and this is where things stand at this point. It would be much appreciated if someone could give us an NPOV on this issue. Fellytone (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NPOV is a pillar of our policies but disagree with the way Fellytone contends it should be applied in WP:BLP. I used the example of some other Wikipedia biographies to try to show that we often report in Mr X's bio what Mr X said on some topic, but we did not go on to balance or refute him with views of Mr X's critics in (for example) George W Bush, Lubos Motl, or Steven Weinberg. Geim's views on China are not very relevant to his notability or to his interests, and they generated little news coverage -- exactly one news story from Australia, written up in a way that distorted Geim's meaning, in my opinion. Llosa's remarks in response did not appear in that news story; Fellytone has transcribed them from the BBC interview online. Even including Geim's own remarks in the bio is a borderline issue w WP:UNDUE; editor JeremyMiller has suggested removing them entirely. After Fellytone added the Llosa remarks, editor Absolutef removed them, twice, and explained why on the talk page. As Fellytone continued to re-add them, I also removed them and urged him to seek consensus on the talk page before edit-warring them back in. Not one editor there has been convinced by Fellytone's arguments, so I suggested he seek further input from a wider circle, as he has done here. This is not a case of Betsythedevine stonewalling Fellytone, this is several different editors opposing his action, and I wish he would WP:AGF instead of accusing me of censorship and trying to shield China from criticism. My contribution history is long and varied but I have not worked on any articles about China; I have worked on a lot of WP:BLP where issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK frequently arise. betsythedevine (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The validity of two tests that you stipulate in judging whether an edit of a living person's Wikipedia entry violates WP:BLP is undermined by the existence of its practises on other Wikipedia biographical entries: the first one is the content-test where you argue that edits on Wikipedia biographies that report the criticisms of what Mr. X says on some topic on Mr. X's biography constitutes violation (or if not, then borderline violation) of WP:BLP, while the second one is the relevancy test where remarks the person makes which are not related to his interests or picked up by a lot of media outlets are irrelevant. The first one is untrue as there are plenty of examples where the criticism of X's views on some situation is reported on Wikipedia (examples: Bush's opinion of the existence of there being an axis of evil being critisized as "weaken the unprecedented levels of international and domestic support for Bush and United States action against al Qaeda following the September 11 attacks" War on Terrorism section Another is the criticisms about Ann Coulter's opinion on a multitude of issues under her Controversies and sections page [30] The same goes for the second point: if that is true, then why are Weinberg's opinion about Israel on his home page? After-all, it is irrelevant to his notability and only reported by one media outlet.

But alas we shouldn't get too caught up in the subjective criteria that a person constructs in judging the legitimacy of editions onto another person's Wikipedia entry. What I want to know is whether any one of the two tests are institutionalized as an editing principles under WP:BLP, i.e. (or something to the effect of) Statements of criticisms about the comments by the person who is the subject of the Wikipedia entry shall not be made if statements of other people do not have the viewpoints of their opponents; Or the views about a person shall be reported insofar as: 1) they are views for which the person is notable or 2) the amount of news coverage they generate Fellytone (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to include Vargas Llosas's comments. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please be a little more specific than a one-liner?Fellytone (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about leaving out Geim's comments as well? His Peace Prize comments were not very notable, as shown by general lack of media interest. It is true I had advocated for keeping them in the article, but I see that now Absolutef as well as JeremyMillier suggests removing the whole paragraph. Unless people here suggest otherwise, I think I will go along with their idea too.betsythedevine (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have expected his opinions on anything Nobel related to be notable, but if they really didn't get media attention then absolutely fine to leave out. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks so much for your help. I have reported your suggestions back to the article talk page, and will not continue to oppose it if one of the people there wants to remove the material entirely. Of course, if Geim were to start talking about China a lot, or if this incident got more press attention, the situation wrt the notability of this material would change. betsythedevine (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Deganga riots

I marked this version of the article 9 containing statements like "The Islamist mob desecrated and vandalized Hindu temples, a characteristic feature of Islamism") with the POV tag. Some of the sources cited are not neutral or reliable and much of the content is OR. The references cited at many places do not verify the text. One user reverted me with "persistent POV pushing by IP" edit summary and also slapped me with a warning. He did not responded to my messages showing the obvious POV in the article and continue to revert this article to the POV version along with another editor. Someone please look this article and also the user conduct. 14.139.128.14 (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Titles of articles & NPOV

Hy there, I don't know if this the right place to make this request for help. I'm currently involved in the discussion of two move-requests, namely Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) towards Kosher tax and Allegations of Jewish control of the media towards Jewish control of the media (antisemitic canard). I think, but I'm not absolutely sure not being a native English-speaker, that the (antisemitic canard)-names are against NPOV and more specifically against WP:NDESC. IMHO 'Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)' and 'Jewish control of the media (antisemitic canard)' pass an extremely explicit judgement on the subject. I'm right, aren't I? Are there other policies concerning this matter? Flamarande (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC) If this post was placed in the wrong noticeboard I would appreciate if someone showed me the proper one. Thanks.

Not wanting to hide anything (especially the arguments for and against these titles) I'm hereby providing links to the relevant sections: Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#Move back to "Kosher Tax" and Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media#Requested move. Flamarande (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We have an article at Anthrax hoaxes, and it is not called 'Controversy over anthrax outbreaks'. I don't consider 'Anthrax hoaxes' to be an excessively POV title. To use a strongly-worded title like this requires meeting a burden of proof using reliable sources. Possibly the wording at WP:NDESC should be clarified to admit that genuine hoaxes can occur, which can be frankly described as such. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about NPOV or NDESC, but these titles do appear to be bringing a brand new innovation to Wikipedia of including an unnecessary two-word article summary in brackets after the title. We don't have Russia (big country) or Voltaire (dead Frenchman). I'm not sure what specific rule prevents this, but maybe it is the requirement to be concise in WP:AT.

From looking at the article, Kosher Tax does appear to be an antisemitic canard, and so we should clearly say so in the beginning of the lead, but that's sufficient to bring it to the reader's attention. I'm sure the editor who did it meant well, but anyone vaguely inclined to believe in Jewish control of the media (antisemitic canard) is not going to be dissuaded by that article title - they're perhaps more likely to think that Wikipedia is part of the phenomenon being described.

Lastly, maybe the word canard it is in common usage somewhere in the world, but in England it generally denotes "duck" when English won't do for some reason. It seems an incredibly obscure and over-specific word to choose and it doesn't give a great indication that we are dealing with a quality article. People may just assume that Frasier Crane has been editing Wikipedia again. --FormerIP (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, so in your opinion I was right all along. Can you please give me any advice that I can use? Flamarande (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you've added links above to ongoing discussions. My best advice would be join those discussions if you haven't already, and if you have then just wait for the outcome. --FormerIP (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad, a page documenting insults not criticism.

The Criticism of Muhammad page is written as a "history of" insults, slander and defamatory statements, not a page of criticisms regarding merits and faults of the work or actions of an individual. most of these statements don't specifically mention any incidents they simply are profane statements which do not enrich or add to peoples knowledge just that simply these people made these derogatory statements throughout history.

here are a list of some of these remarks,

• "the madman" or "possessed"
• "a devil and first-born child of Satan"
• a "wicked impostor", a "dastardly liar" and a "willful deceiver"
• "a terrorist,"
• "tyrant" a "pervert"
• a "demon-possessed pedophile"
• a "mass murderer and a pedophile"
• a misogynist, a rapist, a pedophile, a narcissist, a lecher, a torturer, a mass murderer, a cult leader, an assassin, a terrorist, a madman and a looter

[how can you offer an apposing point of view when dealing with these individually would require a page on its own, its little more than name calling]

This page is also in violation of the content spin out and forking policy which states "If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article [[XYZ]], then it is also inadmissible at a spinout [Criticism of XYZ]]" Therefore, any content that wouldn't be allowed in the Muhammad article shouldn't be allowed there. As None of these remarks present an argument they are simply labels and this is the foundation of what a criticism is, It is difficult to find an apposing point of view since they contain no context and you don't know what they are referring to so you are left making assumptions. The POV:forks states "if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead)".

Compare the Criticism of Muhammad page with the Criticism of Noam Chomsky page and its obvious this page is sub par and not up to the standard of normal wiki content which often occurs when a page is primarily dedicated to documenting profane and defamatory statements as apposed to presenting a criticism which appeals to an individuals intellect.

I also don't think it meats the criteria of the "Wikipedia:Criticism" page. i have posted on this notice board and was advised to come here. Ibn kathir (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this article, although it has the trappings of respectability in terms of images, citations etc, is a model of a bad Wikipedia article. It's wholly unbalanced and basically just a laundry-list. Wikipedia is not censored, but there is also no reason for it to be so mind-numbingly stupid. --FormerIP (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My argument against its profane language is not interns of censorship, I've seen wiki policy regarding use of profane language and the way that it's worded is that it is allowed where it adds value to an article, it isn't referring to an article whose entire purpose is to list every profane statement in history and label them as criticism because they are passing judgment, which is pretty much what current editors have reduced the argument to on the talk page.Ibn kathir (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with FormerIP that this article is highly problematic. There seems to be an encyclopedic Christian views of Muhammad trying to get out of the earlier sections. After that is just miscellaneous "anything bad anyone has ever said about Muhammad", i.e. the article is based on the WP:SYNTH notion that there is a continuity from medieval Christian views of Muhammad through to recent writers opposed to Islamism. I have yet to see a good "Criticism of..." article and wonder whether we should ask WikiProject Religion to comment on whether any of the Criticism of religion articles are worth having. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The article seems basically okay to me. I don't think we need multiple articles for different sources of criticism like Itsmejudith seems to be asking for. The sources for the criticisms are given and it is split into sections reasonably. There seems in the discussion to be a number of people saying the criticism isn't factual, that isn't the point. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide what is factual or not. What is 'factual' is whether the criticism was made, what was said, who said it and in what circumstances. We should check if the criticism is described in a reliable sources and attribute it to the sources. Probably the one thing that is really missing is more sources in the article refuting some of the criticism as per NPOV. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with DMCQ. Like it or not, there is a lot of people saying bad stuff about Islam and Muhammad, and anti-islamic sentiments exists and are surely notable and deserve mention in the encyclopedia. I wonder if perhaps one could split antiislamism (now a redirect) from Criticism of Islam, since there is probably a case to divide anti-islamic sentiment and its vitriolic manifestations from what is more or less reasoned criticism, but I'm not familiar enough with Islam or the way these issues are usually dealt with. --Cyclopia^talk 12:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) "Criticism of X" articles are for discussing serious criticism (positive and negative, see WP:Criticism), not for listing bits of polemical rhetoric that were never meant seriously. E.g. Luther did say that Muhammad was a son of the devil, and that's of course noteworthy and can be discussed in an article. But such an article may not be called "Criticism of Muhammad" because it's defamation (in the context of a Turkish military threat to Christian Europe), rather than honest criticism. By mislabelling the defamation as criticism we pretend to take it seriously. That's extremely biased, and very openly so, thus undermining our credibility in general. Hans Adler 12:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You're saying Luther didn't mean that seriously and didn't believe what he was saying? And you say Luther wasn't honest? I think I'll have to disagree with you on that. Perhaps what you're asking for is more details on the reasons for what people said and then readers can judge whether they have any basis or not? Why did Luther think Muhammad was a son of Satan for instance and what does that mean? Or was he saying it purely as a pejorative with little meaning? Anyway as you can see in the article that bit is branded as polemical but is included as an introduction to the section on Evangelical Lutherism to give context for the historical bit that follows. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does need work, many sections need expanding.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I see we already do have Medieval Christian views of Muhammad. I shall migrate some of the material there, if it isn't already covered, and summarise it in the Criticism of Muhammad. I would rather, though, that we had Christian views of Muhammad, so that we could follow through into Luther without having to create an unnecessary Early modern Christian views of Muhammad, and follow on from that to recent times when Christians have expressed more positive views of Muhammad. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry, this is already done. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

i think we need to define what is or isnt critisism, how broadly will we accept remarks as purely critisism and not something else if thier intent was to defame or spread propoganda [some sections already establish this]. I also think if we keep reducing these terms we will end up writting the critisism for the indavidual while i would have thought they needed to state the argument or critisism specifically. Many of these remarks i think would belong in a different article, maybe societies views on muhammad as one editor suggested and not strictly a page called Critisism of Muhammad. Ißñ Ķãŧḣĩr (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out that you may be right and Luther did mean this seriously. I just learned from this article (in German) that he got his information about Islam exclusively from Italian sources, and that under the threat of Turkish invasions into the heart of Europe he apparently did think of him as the Antichrist. However, if that's true, then it is absolutely necessary to explain this context along with the quotation. A mere collection of negative statements without any explanations is ridiculous. And, by the way, in that case it's not so much criticism as fear. You can't "criticise" someone who is fulfilling a biblical prophecy. Hans Adler 12:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing i was reflecting on regarding this is where he was getting his information from since most of the medieval historians drastically distorted the translations specifically because of the Turkish threat so you cant say his point of view was objective or that he even had access to reliable information to form an unbiased opinion. How does it deal with the fact that his Antichrist was dead some few hundred years earlier or did he suppose he was living in the aftermath? Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Imbalance in 'Further reading'

I've just noticed that the 'Further Reading' section in Political correctness is divided into 'For' (5 entries), 'Against' (14 entries after I removed an article link) and 'Skeptical' (2). I would have thought this doesn't comply with NPOV but I can't find anything specific on this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that WP:NPOV applies to the entire article, including the further reading section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I seem to recall some guidance on links although I can't find it now, but not on sections like this. But without that I presume that the sections should be balanced (and in this case pretty equally). Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly "doesn't comply with NPOV"? Are you thinking that pro and con material must be balanced, with an equal number on each side? Sorry, no, please see WP:WEIGHT. But that is more for controversies, and I don't see that there is a controversy here. If you feel that there are some important references that have been omitted, then you could add them. But shouldn't you really be raising any questions like this on the Talk page? I see that you mentioned coming this noticeboard way back in August; if there is a problem how come you guys are not discussing it there? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Because I was trying to find out if there was actually any specific guidance on this, that's all. If there isn't then at the moment I'm finished here and will give the issue more consideration before deciding what to do if anything. Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  But guidance on what, specifically? You did mention "balance", which is somewhat covered in WP:WEIGHT. But NPOV is pretty broad, and you haven't really stated, specifically, just what your complaint is. It seems that all you have is a vague feeling of "NPOV", and you are searching for some basis to substantiate that. Which is backwards. I suggest you discuss this on the Talk page, and see if you all can find any specific possible problems. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of the inane classification scheme, and removed all of the books that are not about political correctness. The selection of sources there is garbage though, and higher-quality sources should be found. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this acceptably resolved? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Warnborough College - libellous lead?

I seem to have protected this page indefinitely last year - which seems odd as I know that it is only in exceptional circumstances that a page will be protected indefinitely and this wasn't one of those. I can only assume either my mind or my mouse slipped. Anyway, an official of the college has complained on the talk page that the introduction is libellous and that the sources are no longer verifiable. This doesn't seem to be the case and there are more sources including recent sources calling this college a diiploma or degree mill. What I would like is help from uninvolved editors making sure that the article is npov. I've unprotected the article of course. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem libellous to me. I'll post on WikiProject Universities for more attention, and whether article needs to come into the project. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue certainly is not "libel." However given the overall history and impact of the college, it would seem to me that the lead currently does not meet WP:LEAD in providing a balanced overview of the subject as a whole. I see the issue as WP:UNDUE weight being given to one critic in the lead. The solution is to provide a more thorough and comprehensive lead which presents content in a WP:NPOV. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Need a second look

We have a bunch of edits that have completely changed the page Recent African origin of modern humans, Was going to mass revert as its clear that the edits were done to support multiregional origin of modern humans. The whole page has been converted to this theory. Statements after statement have been added to dismiss this pages concept. Ref added for this purpose are old or misunderstood. Before i revert would like a second opinion as we have blanking of refs etc... Moxy (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What seems really clear from your diff is that this is premature. Things in paleontology don't change that fast, and there hasn't been sufficient time elapsed to state a new scientific consensus. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

Marcus Qwertyus and I have stated on the article's talk page that, per NPOV, the article's title is not neutral and should be changed. I also pointed out that the article content needs to change to include both positive and negative views of Wikipedia. IanMacM opposes these changes, apparently wanting the article to be considered an acceptable exception to NPOV. I would appreciate any feedback you could give. Thanks, -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We have a pretty bright line violation here. I would be glad to assist in making it neutral. Marcus Qwertyus 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad pages suffer from much the same issues and according to Wikipedia criticism their shouldn't be any page on wiki with the words criticism in it. I think more explicit guidelines should be established for how to write "criticism of" pages. Iβи Ķᾱτhiɍ (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is all a bit puzzling. I did not choose the name of this article and there have never been any complaints before. The NPOV tag was removed by another user in this diff.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to what was said above, the little known essay WP:Criticism (about 30 page views per day) does not say that there should be no articles with titles of the form "Criticism of X" but merely discourages them and stresses that such articles should be about positive and negative reception. Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad have the same problem that Criticism of Wikipedia has and must also be fixed, not taken as examples. The fact that articles of such relative prominence can have this POV problem for such a long time (I couldn't even find corresponding articles on positive criticism), suggests that perhaps we should make "Criticism of" titles illegal just to be clear. While combined articles of positive and negative reception might become too big, there are usually other, better, ways of splitting them. Hans Adler 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please, please, please, let's have a clearout of Criticism articles. In this case, what's the logic for the article? Say it were renamed Responses to Wikipedia, a bit ugly but in line with renaming Criticism sections in articles Responses. Well then, responses to Wikipedia represent virtually everything we know about Wikipedia, except for a little bit of primary-sourced description of what WP says about itself. Therefore, article length notwithstanding, we should consider merging Criticisms of Wikipedia back into Wikipedia parent article, allowing of course for non-POV forks, which already exist. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Critiques could be used instead of criticism in a lot of cases and sounds more highfalutin. Dmcq (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Critique is a great concept, but I don't recall seeing a single "criticism of" article that actually was full of critique. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the central issue. These articles are only ever good for anything if you actually like audacious POV forks. They tend to escape AfD on the grounds that it is possible to improve them, but it never is and it never happens.

For this article to conform to NPOV, it would need to cover all noteworthy criticism of Wikipedia, both positive and negative, and then all significant commentaries and objections to those criticisms. In other words, all encyclopaedic opinion in one article and, presumably, stripped from the other articles where it is meant to be per WP:SS. By which point the article would be so huge it would be well overdue splitting and merging. Why not cut to the chase and just split and merge it now? --FormerIP (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think many of the Criticism articles have been split off from the main article because of size concerns, not POV fork. If you have a controversial topic, having a large amount of valid, notable criticism goes hand-in-hand. When the article gets too large, that's a section that commonly gets split off. Ravensfire (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

But it shouldn't, because it is not possible for such a standalone article to conform to NPOV. --FormerIP (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure it is. Difficult yes, but impossible? Nope. Ravensfire (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Show me an example of a "criticism of..." article that has grown to be balanced and uncontentious... --FormerIP (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

When an article gets too long the quick and easy solution is to turn whole sections into sub-articles. When one of those sections is "Criticism", then we end up with a new "Criticism of" article. Take Criticism of Noam Chomsky, a particularly pointless article because Chomsky is known for two distinct sets of writings, 1) on linguistics, 2) on politics. There is plenty of proper academic "critique" of both. We could work up NPOV articles Responses to Chomskyan linguistics, Responses to Chomsky's political theories or some such. But actually that critique ought to be in the main article(s) on Chomsky. Yes, critique can be, should be, balanced, but also critique ought to be in the main articles, not in separate articles. Itsmejudith (talk)

I beg to differ from FormerIP in regard of any need (NPOV or otherwise) "to cover all noteworthy criticism ... all significant commentaries and objections to those criticisms", etc. For sure, to do such an article an editor should, properly, examine all that, and then weigh it in order to determine the proper balance. But the extent to which that should be covered in the article itself depends on the scope of the article. A short article would not go very deep, but as long as what it includes is reasonably balanced (in accord with WP:WEIGHT) I wouldn't see it as NPOV. A longer article would be expected to go deeper.

But possibly this comes back to the point FormerIP subsequently makes: Should criticism of a topic (and assuming proper weight/balance) have greater length and scope than coverage of the topic itself? I suspect this really comes down to whether "criticism of" topics are properly topics in and of themselves. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a new title for this article which would lead to consensus? Incidentally, I don't support splitting it up into separate articles, it is fine as it is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Until a decision is made on a new title, Template:Criticism title should be re-added. Marcus Qwertyus 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Judith: FWIW I don't actually think that is the process by which most of these articles come about. Perhaps editors at Talk:Muhammad saw one day that the article was a bit long and decided the most sensible and least contentious thing to would be to create Criticism of Muhammad. On the other hand, perhaps someone wanted there to be a Criticism if Muhammad article so they created one. Criticism of Israel was created by a user who had failed to get consensus for a section under that title in Israel. It's under AfD, which it will probably survive because predictable ITEXISTS and IMPROVE arguments have been made.

The impossibility of NPOV isn't the only problem, although its a big one. NPOV applies to all articles and it is one policy, so it won't do to say, as JJ suggests, "well, this articles a little different because we've restricted its scope". Negative criticism always needs balancing with positive criticism, per NPOV. What if the subject of the article is a genius and has led an exemplary life, but have five points of noteworthy criticism on which he bang-to-rights. To the extent that any attempted defence would be WP:FRINGE? Would it then be okay to create an article which was a pure character assassination? Negative criticism should be balanced by positive criticism. Trying to balance it with defence against the negative criticism doesn't give neutrality, because the defence may be genuinely weak. Particularly a problem where BLP is concerned. The other problem is with divorcing criticism from context by putting into an article which does not give an overall picture of the subject.

In Criticism of Noam Chomsky, nearly all the criticism is divorced from the relevant contextual information which is contained in other articles, so that all we can ascertain is that this laundry list of people have had a pop at Chomsky at some point, but we don't know why. Various people have had trouble with "Chomskyan linguistics", but what is this? What aspect of it did they object to? Because the "Criticism" article is obliged not to spend any time on these details, we're not left any wiser about very much for having read it. In 1969, Chomsky wrote a book it seems and someone suggested that he misquoted someone and maybe he did but it may not have been very important anyway. But what was the book about? How did it fit with his other work? What was the particular issue and why might it have mattered? Again, the article requires economy as far as details go, so it is not very enlightening. Steven Pinker is presented here amongst Chomsky's critics. The reader won't appreciate from this that Pinker is one of Chomsky's foremost acolytes and they have one really significant point of disagreement. Again, because the context is stripped away. These articles seem to me to focus on laundry-listing POV. They're just not good for encyplopedic writing. --FormerIP (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is no longer a debate about Criticism of Wikipedia, but about "Criticism of" article titles in general. The best way to resolve the issue at Criticism of Wikipedia would be to suggest a new title, tagging it would achieve very little.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did use it as an opportunity to raise the question of "Criticism of" articles in general, which discussion ought to be migrated to the talk page of NPOV policy. As far as a better title for Criticism of Wikipedia: Responses to Wikipedia, Views of Wikipedia, but also see whether there further opportunities for forking. Reputation of Wikipedia? Wikipedia as a resource for students? Also see how much of the material currently in the article should be migrated back into Wikipedia. Also look for well-sourced positive comments about Wikipedia to include. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC):

In the case of conspiracy theory articles (JFK assassination conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories) the controversial stuff has generally been deleted from the main article and segregated to the "conspiracy" article, but then the "mainstream" position is AGAIN given in the conspiracy article, to "balance" it, while the main article is unbalanced by any criticism (or perhaps a minimal amount is allowed in passing). Ideally all the material on a topic, both "pro" and "con", would be in one article, but if that's REALLY physically impossible, the "conspiracy" or "criticism" article SHOULD NOT have to be balanced if all or most of the criticism as been removed from the main article (IMHO). Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In their efforts to sweep conspiracy under the rug, the truthers (no relation to the 9/11 truthers) have created a mess. This does not mean that we have to break the rules of NPOV. Marcus Qwertyus 12:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 1 Thanks for the feedback so far! Here is one proposal for how to name the article, how to scope it and how to deal with the overlap between this article and three related ones: Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia in Culture. (There's also an Academic studies about Wikipedia article with overlap that needs to be dealt with.)

Title: Assessments of Wikipedia

(Similar titles include Critiques of Wikipedia and Evaluations of Wikipedia. I chose assessments because that word is already used by the Reliability of Wikipedia article.)

Content: The article would include topic-by-topic analysis of the characteristics of Wikipedia, so the structure would be somewhat similar to the current article. Additional positive views of Wikipedia would be added for balance.

Related articles: The "Satire of Wikipedia" section would be merged into Wikipedia in Culture. Any content related to Reliability of Wikipedia would be moved to that article. The Assessments of Wikipedia article would have a brief summary of and a main article link to the reliability article.

Within the Wikipedia article, four "Nature of Wikipedia" subsections (Coverage of topics, Quality, Reliability and Community) would be moved to the Assessments of Wikipedia article and then replaced by an Assessments of Wikipedia subsection with a brief summary and main article link.

I might also develop a second proposal which would involve additional splitting up of the Criticism of Wikipedia content. Let me know what you think. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The recommendation that I made was Reliability of Wikipedia. This would not require major article rewrites or splits, which would be controversial and set off separate debates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This renaming looks like an attempt by an organization to dilute or divert criticism of its actions and policies in order to protect its image, instead of accepting the criticism as feedback and making appropriate changes. "Assessments" can be positive or negative. "Criticism" is negative. "Satire" is criticism that is supposed to be humorous. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

i:JTSchreiber's suggestions are in the right direction. I suggest go ahead with them but remain open to other ideas as the work progresses. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

IanMacM, it's not possible to rename Criticism of Wikipedia to Reliability of Wikipedia because there already is a Reliability of Wikipedia article. Are you suggesting that Criticism of Wikipedia be deleted and the contents merged into Reliability of Wikipedia? If so, I would point out that the delete/merge process requires a separate debate and is more likely to be controversial than what I have proposed. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• FormerIP: let's say I'm reading a book (let's even say it is a scholarly book), and I come across a particularly significant criticism of a particular subject - therefore I mention it in the relevant article, but actually add it to a subarticle titled "Criticism of...". Let's say, however, that there are responses to this criticism which I was unaware of. Am I therefore unable to add this information to the article? No. I am not required to do a full-scale literature review to edit Wikipedia. So I disagree that these articles must conform to NPOV. Ideally, yes they should. But that's a long-term goal. When someone brings the other side, we add it. It's a work in progress, like everything. We could, I suppose, change "Criticism of ..." titles to something which seems more balanced like "Reception of ...", but I don't think that makes a real difference and could be a slightly confusing/misleading. I think these articles can important and cover encyclopedic information which don't fit neatly in other articles. II | (t - c) 19:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

II, if you think that Criticism of Wikipedia can "cover encyclopedic information which don't fit neatly in other articles", could you please provide a couple of examples from Criticism of Wikipedia that would not fit neatly in the article structure in Proposal 1? Also, please explain why you think the examples would not fit well. Thanks, -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. One could put that Wikipedia has fringe or inaccurate information under "Reliability..." - however, criticisms about Wikipedia's governance, user culture, effects on society, financial stewardship, technical capabilities and complexity (or lack thereof), etc could fit neatly in the articles you listed (Wikipedia, Reliablity of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia in Culture). The information could be balkanized into several different articles - and perhaps in the long-run that is the solution - but I'm not convinced that this is absolutely necessary. The information could also be summarized in summary style, at the expense of leaving out possibly important information. The fact is: titles don't always fit neatly into how we conceive them. The title conveys a certain topic, and criticism of a topic is in some people's minds (including myself) a legitimately encyclopedic and useful grouping of information. After looking at the article Criticism of Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia, I think the Criticism article should be consolidated into the "Reliability article with the balance into the regular Wikipedia article and its assorted subarticles. I might boldly work on that here... II | (t - c) 00:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

II, thanks for looking into that. It sounds like your suggestion includes the deletion of the Criticsm of Wikipedia article, right? I realize that the content would be saved by moving it to other articles, but I just want to be clear about the article deletion. Thanks, -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Go ahead, be bold! :) II | (t - c) 21:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I had been hoping to avoid article deletion, since that will set off a whole new round of controversy, and FormerIP talked about the trend of Criticism articles usually escaping deletion. However, if you wanted to submit the AfD request, I would support it. If it's up to me, I'm now thinking about a rename/rescope to "Wikipedia community", since that section is large to be merging up to the Wikipedia article. The non-community content of the criticism article would move to Reliability of Wikipedia, Wikipedia in Culture and Wikipedia. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The article should certainly not be deleted, but should be merged and redirected. Existing large articles like these always needs to be redirected. Technically an AfD is not required - redirecting is sometimes used as a sneaky way to avoid the hassle of AfD, but it doesn't seem like this one would be controversial. II | (t - c) 07:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll think about going ahead with the merge/redirect myself. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Qwertyus and I have completed the merge and redirect, except that I decided to use a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. Since the Criticism of Wikipedia content was split up among four articles, it seemed that a disambiguation page should be used to guide the readers. Although Reliability of Wikipedia would probably be the most common choice, I don't know that it would be more popular than all the others combined. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily have a problem with the disambiguation, I do have a process problem with the fact that there seems to be only the briefest mention of a discontent with the article in an archived note, and no link to this discussion for editors of the original article to come to. Please be more careful in the future. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a link to the discussion on the Criticism of Wikipedia talk page. The link is in this section, which is not currently archived. At least one article editor did follow the link to this discussion. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pradip Baijal

Seems this subject (and some related pages) is subject to contentious edit-warring between his fans and his detractors. I had created what I felt was a neutral version, by cutting out both flowery praise and unsourced criticism of the subject, but the edit-warring resumed as soon as protection was lifted, so it was re-instated. I could use a few more eyes here to help keep this BLP in line. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

CounterPunch

User Bali Ultimate and Administrator RD232 have been deleting (Bali ULtimate's deletions:[31]; [32]; [33]; [34]) (RD232's deletions: [35]; [36]) additions of criticisms of CounterPunch on it's Wikipedia entry on the grounds that either the sources are "biased" or that there is a talk-page consensus (it is not said what consensus is established on the talk-page, and even if a consensus about X topic was said to exist it is unlikely that it actually would have existed given my objection to it even though) even though:

1. 1) I have disproven the unreliability of the sources based simply on their tendenciousness [37] for which I have yet to receive from either the user or administrator;
2. 2) There is no existence of a consensus about anything that can be found anywhere on the talkpage of CounterPunch except the websites from legitimate sources posted by administrator Fences&Windows [38] that gives a balanced reception (both praise and criticism) of CounterPunch that they are legitimate.

Of course, Bali ultimate and RD232 will defend their actions as legitimate because (apparently) any criticism of CounterPunch is "biased" although anybody with common sense would call the removal of edits on CounterPunch cited from legitimate sources for no reason as nothing more than censorship. Fellytone (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I would note that, from the looks of it, Fellytone is severely misrepresenting what is happening at Talk:CounterPunch. It seems that Fellytone is making personal attacks and accusations of bad faith (e.g. "Again, the usual typical left-wing crap: you lost the argument so you have to resort to character assassinations. ... Riiiiiight and asking me to read a Wikipedia guideline as if that supposed to help your argument takes a lot of effort too. Whatever helps you sleep at night." and "Cockburn and its followers (like you) simply because you et al. are left-wing Marxists and openly propagate left-wing viewpoints..") against the editors there (who are acting reasonably IMO), and has not "disproven the unreliability of the sources" as he/she claims. It seems like Fellytone is promoting the idea of writing an extensive "Criticism" section built from snippets culled from uninformative, unsubstantiated, name-calling op-eds, and several editors have pointed out that this is not how encyclopedia articles are written. The key is to use reliable sources, and non-notable op-eds that do nothing but name-calling, and provide no sources or specific criticisms, are not reliable. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

An absolute one-sided sleezy hit-job comment from Jrtayloriv. Aside from correctly identifying my "personal attacks" (which the user failed to mention was written as a matter of self-defense against the ad hominems by Bali Ultimate in which he says, "Your assertions have little value." and "Some asshole calls someone an antisemite and gets it published doesn't mean you get to toss the smear into an encyclopedia article."[39]), everything else the user writes are unsubstantiated falsehoods. Calling someone else an asshole is not a sign of a reasonable and rational-thinking editor, but going to length to explain how comments about CounterPunch from legitimate sources comply with Wikipedia guidelines are [40]. Also, the websites listed by Fences&Windows [41] are taken from reputable sources like The Los Angeles times, the national review and the new republic, written by reputable writers and sourced according to Wikipedia's citation guidelines [42]. Fellytone (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the sections deleted was an opinion piece in the Washington Times quoting an unnamed soldier's opinion of Counterpunch.[43] In no way does this opinion piece represent informed or notable opinion. Neutrality requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Instead, these sources represent an extremist view, which may only be included, if at all, once proportionate coverage has been provided to mainstream views. The approach editors should take is not, "I hate CounterPunch, now how much dirt can I find", but "How is the magazine perceived by mainstream sources". TFD (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrally describing the capital status of Jerusalem

Copied from the talk page of the Jerusalem article:

"How should Jerusalem be described? The whole of Jerusalem is under Israeli control and, under Israeli law, Jerusalem has been annexed to Israel and is its capital city. Many Israeli government organisations have been moved to the city. Under international law, Jerusalem is not part of the sovereign territory of any state and Israeli laws concerning it are invalid.

"There has been extensive discussion, running over a number of sections of the article's talk page, about whether it should be stated positively that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (the current description in the article's Lead) or whether this should be qualified and defined as the Israeli point of view."

Despite extensive discussion, no very clear consensus has been reached over what wording to use. I've raised RfCs on this issue at the Politics, Government and Law and History and Geography RfC noticeboards in the hope of raising more participation. Since the issue concerns how to word the article neutrally, I've also brought it here.

    ←   ZScarpia   01:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Weston Price and Focal infection theory

We are having another dispute on the Weston Price article. The current version has a very misleading statement using the publisher PMPH-USA (whose quality in this field has NOT been proven) while I want to put in the following more accurate version:

The dental part of focal infection fell out of favor in the late 1930s (Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association.) with a special 1951 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stating "Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders."("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951) though the idea never disappeared from the dental community.(Editorial. JAMA 1952; 150: 490.) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136) While, recent discoveries have caused a cautious reevaluation of focal infection in dentistry ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) and there are studies on the quality of diet regarding oral health in adults (Bailey, RL (2004) "Persistent oral health problems associated with comorbidity and impaired diet quality in older adults". J Am Diet . Assnc. 104:1273.) these are independent of Weston Price's work.

I have Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc that show the PMPH-USA is wrong but we are getting NPOV tags thrown up as well as used as an excuse to remove reliable sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

1. If we're having a discussion here at WP:NPOVN, then the NPOV tag is warranted, right?
2. Is there agreement that the material does not belong in the lede of Weston Price?
3. Seems like a simple application of WP:MEDRS would solve the non-historical issues about focal infection theory, right?
4. Shouldn't the non-historical information unrelated to Price be left to Focal infection theory, which then should be linked and summarized as it applies within Weston Price? --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, you have dodged the real issue--the biography on Weston Price is being used to make a medical claim not supported by articles from the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc. To date nothing to show that PMPH-USA is a reliable source has been presented while the reliable of Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, JAMA, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc source are known.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, I noticed that, hence my questions #2, #3, and #4. --Ronz (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll wade back into this again. Hopefully we'll have a more reasoned discussion this time. --Ludwigs2 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, I'm going to put this out here bluntly: I have not forgotten your 'fake retirement' gambit, and if you start in me again, we'll be right back in ANI and that trick will not work twice. Understood? --Ludwigs2 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Note on proper use of talk pages
Please focus on content, per WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:DR, and WP:NPA; and when you still find it necessary to comment on others, be sure to follow WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:DR, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:HARASS, and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop collapsing content you don't agree with, Ronz.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Another note on proper use of talk pages

Please learn to respect and follow our behavioral policies. The issue isn't of simple disagreement, but of proper use of talk pages. Please review the policies/guidelines. Failure to follow them can make comments appear to be attacks aimed at disrupting consensus-building. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I suggest letting this go Ronz. Ludwigs is not the only one who hasn't forgotten. That you have decided to involve yourself again with the very topic that lead to all the drama and your fake out retirement makes me virtually speechless. Again, I really suggest letting this go Ronz. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Please review and follow the policies/guidelines mentioned. Repeated failure to do so could result in a block. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again Stop tying to use Wikipedia policy to hid what you don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 07:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1) As noted before, none of the sources you want to add speaks at all about Weston Price, which is the article you want to put it in. It is clear WP:SYNTH.

2) The source you say is not reliable, Ingle's Endodontics 6th ed, is currently published by PMPH-USA which is, by all accounts, a reliable publisher of medical textbooks (see their website). Also note that this title came to be published by PMPH-USA because they bought the entire book list from the original publisher, BC Decker, which is clearly a reliable publisher as they publish material in conjunction with the American College of Physicians, the leading internal medicine professional organization. Note also that Ingle's Endodontics 6th ed. is also published by McGraw Hill, as noted here, for sale in Canada and Europe. It is clearly reliable, so stop saying it isn't just because you don't like their conclusions.

3) The Weston Price article is not the place to get into a discussion about the relative merits of where focal infection theory stands now. The version that Price advocated for fell out of favor; discussion about any other forms of focal infection theory that may or may not remain valid belongs in the article about focal infection theory, not the Weston Price article. Yobol (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Several things

1. The Ingle's Endodontics at McGraw Hill states Only for sale in EMEA, Canada, Tailand If this was such a good quality textbook way isn't allowed to be sold in the US?
2. The referenced edition is 2007 while the McGraw Hill clearly states on the link you provided "Pub Date: MAY-08".
3. The referenced statement of "Price was outspoken on the relationship between endodontic therapy and pulpless teeth and broader systemic disease, ideas derived from focal infection theory, and held that dental health - and consequently physical health - were heavily influenced by nutritional factors. These theories fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities" is not supported by other known reliable source--including one by the same original publisher:

"It is now realized that oral bacteria and their products and their products, particularly ipopoysccharides and proinflamunary cytokine, induced local in response in oral infections, enter the blood stream and may subsequently activate systemic response in certain susceptible individuals" (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich (2009) Textbook of Endodontology Wiley; page 136)

"Manila et al utilized sound scientific methods to reintroduce the association between systemic disease and oral infection." (Fowler, Edward B (2001) "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001))

"The dark age (1876 to 1926): In spite of introduction of X-rays and general anesthesia, extractions was the choice of treatment than endodontics in most of the cases of damaged teeth because theory of the focal infection was main concern" (Garg, Nisha; Amit Garg (2007) Textbook of endodontics Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 2)

"The resurgence of the focal infection theory of disease has been greeted with great enthusiasm in some quarters;..." abstract (Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS, MS; Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal" Journal of the California Dental Association)

"It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." (Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)

"The oral focal infection theory, a concept generally neglected for several decades, is controversial yet has gained renewed interest with progress in classification and identification of oral microorganism. Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159)

Furthermore take a look at these old contemporary to Price definitions and compare them to a 2009 definition and explain just what blasted difference there is:

"All focal infection is not of dental origin, but a sufficiently large percentage is to demand a careful study of the mouth and teeth in all cases of the mouth and teeth in all cases of systemic infection, for in these cases all foci should be removed." (1918) Dental summary: Volume 38; Page 437)

"One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection, ie, infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body. One has but to call to mind the metastases that occur in such infections as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps. I cannot support the statement in the "critically appraised" report on dental foci of infection that "later laboratory workers were unable to confirm the bacteriologic findings of Rosenow on which the concept of 'elective localization'" ((1952) Southern California State Dental Association journal)

"Focal infection-it refers to metastasis form the focus of infection, of organisms or their products that are capable of injuring tissue" (Ghom (2009) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 459)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can't even concede that McGraw Hill and BC decker are reliable publishers, there is nothing more that needs to be said to show your tendentious need to insert POV into this page if you're going to ignore the blatantly obvious. Everything else you wrote is your confusion about what Price advocated (and was, and still is, roundly rejected by the medical/dental community) and what current advocates of focal infection theory are saying now, which are quite different. Yobol (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, this noticeboard really isn't the appropriate place to discuss whether or not Ingle's Endodontics is a WP:RS; if you feel the need to continue your assertion that McGraw Hill and BC Decker are not reliable publishers, we should probably take that discussion to WP:RSN.Yobol (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc and even an earlier People's Medical Publishing House publication all say the Ingle's Endodontics statement is wrong. You can do all the hand waving you want but the fact of the end of the day is you have ONE source supporting your view while I have FIVE.

I should point out McGraw Hill also puts out little gems like Easy Homeopathy, Homeopathic Remedies for 100 Children's Common Ailments, and Homeopathic Remedies for Children’s Common Ailments. It is hard to take a publisher of medical material as reliable when they also print stuff that claims Homeopathic medicine is a viable treatment option.

"Homeopathy works best with chronic health problems and some acute health problems" Repetitive strain injuries McGraw Hill pg 179.

"Homeopathy works by treating the whole body, including body, mind, and spirit" ("Without ritalin: a natural approach to ADD" McGraw Hill pg 115).

"We have no idea if this is technically true, we still don't understand how Homeopathy works. There has been no good basic research into the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicine..." (Vogel, John H. K.; Mitchell Krucoff (2007) Integrative cardiology McGraw-Hill Medical pg 347)

Homeopathy works?!? SAY WHAT?!? Yobol, if this is your idea of reliable I hate to see what you consider unreliable. Oh wait a minute you have basically said that McGraw Hill must take a back seat to Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and the J Am Diet . Assnc ergo those publishers are unreliable. Does this make a lick of sense?--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, the fact that they publish fringey medical texts does not mean that they do not also publish mainstream ones. That said, since they do publish fringe medicine one cannot take them as de facto mainstream in medical textbook publications. Drop McGraw Hill. There is no need to keep on tugging at either end of that rope. There is plenty else to discuss about this matter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one pushing McGraw Hill; Yobol is the one pushing it despite the fact that FIVE other sources (Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and Journal of the American Dietetic Association) as well an earlier work by the same original publisher show the Ingle's Endodontics statement to be flat out WRONG.

As I said before on the Weston Price talk page you can't claim focal infection theory has been resurrected in 2002, have a 2009 source by Wiley saying the theory is being cautiously being looked at, another Wiley source stating the theory never really died in dentistry, and a 2007 source saying the theory has been dead as a dodo since the 1930s. There is simply no way to reconcile those claims.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And as I said in the talk page, Price's contribution to focal infection theory was to research and advocate for the extraction of teeth rather than using root canals. That was his sole contribution to focal infection theory (frankly, that was focal infection theory in the 1930s), and that was completely abandoned. The modern "revival" of focal infection doesn't speak, at all, about tooth extraction or root canals and is therefore different than the theory Price advocated. You are conflating two things that share the same name and very basic principles but by all accounts are two totally different scientific theories. Not a single one of the sources you have provided have tied Price to this newer focal infection theory. Yobol (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As administrator Will Beback pointed out back in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Modern_focal_infection_theory_passage "WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere." You cannot ignore the many sources that show the Ingle's Endodontics statement is WRONG. While we are on it here are two more:

"Today the concept of focal infection has been integrated into the practice of medicine. One speaks no longer of the theory of focal infection; one recognizes focal infection as a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." (1947 Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 133:2 page 111). This statement was repeated word for word in Review of gastroenterology Volume 18 pg 71 of the National Gastroenterological Association in 1951.

You can't claim a theory "fell out of favor in the 1930s" when papers in 1947 and 1951 say it is "a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." On every point the Ingle's Endodontics is WRONG and no handwaving is going to change that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself without addressing the point. What your sources are describing and what Price advocated for are two different theories. Yobol (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No it is you where are avoiding the fact that all these other sources say the medical claim being made by Ingle's Endodontics either doesn't say what you think it says or it is flat out wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You only think Ingle's is wrong because you can't see the difference between what Price advocated and what the sources you are presenting here are saying. And round and round we go. Yobol (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That is largely because you keep claiming this with no evidence that there is a fundamental difference in the basic theory Price's work was used to support.

"A focus of infection may be defined as a circumscribed area of tissue infected with pathogenic microorganims. Foci of infection may be primary and secondary. (...) Primary foci of infection may be located anywhere in the body." (Billings, Frank ScD. (Harvard) MD (1916) Focal infection, Lane Medical Lectures (Delivered Sept 20-24, 1915 Stanford University Medical School); D Appleton and company, pg 3)

Articles of the same time period (1919 Minnesota medicine: Volume 2 Minnesota Medical Association Page 20; (1915) The Laryngoscope: Volume 25 American Otological Society, Page 786; (1916) Pacific medical journal: Volume 59, Page 177; (1913) Interstate medical journal: Volume 20, Page 849; (1914) Section on Laryngology, Otology, and Rhinology American Medical Association, Page 23) all define Focal infection in essentially the same way and nearly all of these were written when Price was chair of the Research Section of the American Dental Association (1914-1928)

"Similarly, in patients in whom brain abscess or meningitis originates from a focal infection in the vicinity of the brain (sinusitis, otitis media, dental abscess), contiguous spread rather than bacteremia represents the likely route by route by which the pathogen gains access to the CNS" (Scheld, W. Michael; Richard J. Whitley, Christina M. Marra (2004) "Infections of the central nervous system" Wolters Kluwer Health pg 331)

"Each dental caries, dental abscess, gingival and alveolar inflammation and necrosis, has been interpreted as essentially infective processes, and hence their extent is essentially a measure of the infection." (Price, Weston (1923) Dental infections, oral and systemic)

Here we see Price himself talking about dental abscess in the very book used as reference to FIT and a 2004 book by Wolters Kluwer Health that talks about dental abscess being one of the potential focal infections for brain abscessed or meningitis and yet we are being told by Yobol that they are somehow two different theories? SAY WHAT?!?

Moreover various medical journals of Price's time talk more about dental abscesses in regards to FIT then they talk about endodontic treated or pulpless teeth. These include (but are not means limited to) (1918) "DENTAL ABSCESS OR INFECTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES" The American journal of clinical medicine: Volume 25, Page 145; (1922) Transactions of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia College of Physicians of Philadelphia, Page 276; George W. Goler (1922) "Discussion" Transactions of the Dental Society of the State of New York, Volumes 50-54 Dental Society of the State of New York pg 126; (1916) Contributions from the Department of Pathology, Bacteriology, and Public Health: Volumes 1-2, University of Minnesota. Dept. of Pathology, Bacteriology, and Public Health, Page 192; (1915) Journal of the Iowa State Medical Society: Volume 5, Iowa State Medical Society, Page 60; Bethel, L. P. (1917) Dental summary: Volume 37, Page 917; (1916) Martin, Franklin Henry Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics: Volume 22, Page 24; Keyes, Frederick Anthony (1918) Army dentistry: Forsyth lectures for the Army Dental Reserve Corps, Page 107)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment My only concern here is that Price's application of focal infection theory (e.g. the one shared by the dental mainstream for a number of years leading to unnecessary extractions, etc.) is not confused with the focal infection theory, which is a much more general theory. I'm saying this because I agree mostly with Yobol at this point, but with a caveat that I think relates to Bruce's concerns. The sources that do in fact discuss Price and focal infection theory appear not to be doing a very good job differentiating between the two themselves. I think we do need to stick to these sources when discussing Price's connection to the theory, but we should also make sure our readers are not confused in the sense of thinking that the focal infection theory was completely rejected. As far as that is handled with the necessary subtlety I'm happy.Griswaldo (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)'=

As I pointed out in the talk page when this originally came up is Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) "Essentials of oral medicine" PMPH usa; Page 159 stated "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." Guest who now publishes Silverman's book; you got it McGraw hill!

Now I'll ask the question that I asked back on the talk page and never really got an answer to--how can People's Medical Publishing House and now McGraw Hill state the focal infection theory is being revived in 2002 and yet in 2007 (or 2008) say that it died in the 1930s period end of sentence. They can't both be true.

Here is quote regarding the book Root Canal Cover-up Exposed that addresses Price as well: "The focal infection theory, supported by many including Dr. Price, has been attacked, debated, accepted, criticized, agreed upon, etc. but it has not been covered up." ((1994) Annals of dentistry: Volumes 53-54 New York Academy of Dentistry pg 42) Why is the word "rejected" not part of that list? The author of this piece states that Root Canal Cover-up Exposed "contains unsubstantiated statements, misunderstandings, and it would definitely have benefited from a better proofreading. Infected tissues/organs, such as teeth, can serve as a source of infection which can be transported, in the form of microorganisms..."

Hold the phone there isn't the idea that tissues/organs such as teeth being a source of infection which can be transported to other parts of the body the very definition of FIT as it was in Price's time? Given the numerous quotes of the period I have been citing in the talk page looks like it to me.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it has been nearly a month an no real reasons for putting one source over what is now seven has been presented nor how doing so meets WP:NPOV with regards to WP:MEDRS. Administrator USER:Will Beback pointed out back in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Modern_focal_infection_theory_passage "WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere." So far nothing to show why Ingle's Endodontics should be used to overrule what is stated by two other textbooks, an earlier book published by the same publisher, article by the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Military Medicine, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, the New York Academy of Dentistry, and several books put out by Wiley and Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers simply under the grounds that they don't directly mention Weston Price. Per WP:MEDRS it doesn't matter if Weston Price is mentioned but if the medical claim being made in relation to him is correct and as the WP:RS show Ingle's Endodontics is wrong in this regard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple reasons have been given, you just haven't chosen to accept them. You are free to disagree with everyone else; you are not, however, free to continue to disrupt the article by ignoring consensus and implementing changes that have been rejected multiple times. Yobol (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of smoke and mirror reasons have been presented that do not address the core issue--Ingle's Endodontics is making a medical claim not supported by any of the above sources and since it is a minority view that is apparent violation of the WP:NPOV part of WP:MEDRS--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV at Death panel ?

The death panel article has a section on allegations that the Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence or NICE is a death panel which rations care by denying access to treatments. I felt that the original text repeated the allegation more than once and used the same reference in two different places to make the same point. I also felt that the section was unbalanced because it did not state the true consequences of NICE decisions. So I deleted the repetition and inserted a balancing counter argument with the following text, supporting it with reliable sources.

Strictly speaking, a negative NICE decision on a new cancer drug does not deny access to that drug and are not necessarily a death knell for the patient. Patients will have two main choices. They can go outside the NHS for treatment, (paying the full cost themselves or their insurer's co-pays and deductibles if they have private medical insurance). Alternatively they can choose stay in the NHS and co-fund the cost of their treatment, again either out of pocket or through top-up insurance. Private insurance for coverage against having to pay for cancer drugs costs about £50 a year for a 50 year old man (about US$80, or double this for a smoker). The NHS actually funds 100% of the cost of most cancer drugs and the effect of NICE decisions is that this sometimes causes the coverage rate to fall below 100%. Not covering 100% of drug costs is what almost all insurance companies in Palin's America do all the time, although they do not call it rationing.

Another editor has undone my edit claiming that my own edit was "highly POV".

In my opinion, HIS (or HER) repeating the duplicated text and its reference and in particular the REMOVAL of the counter position defending the organization IS ITSELF a highly POV edit.

Clearly we cannot both be right. What is the right way forward? The edit has been inserted and removed several times and the article is covered by an article probation in an effort to contain edit warring. Therefore I seek guidance here from uninvolved parties. Hauskalainen2 (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I took out the repetition and the word "noted" which is a classic WP:WTA. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but that was just a small part of the POV problem. Did you read the counterview that the other editor deleted? The NHS in most cases provides total insurance coverage because most cancer sufferers in the UK pay nothing for their tests, surgery or drugs. No medical fees at all. Only when a NICE decision comes into play does funding fall below 100% and that just brings the NHS down to the level of the commercial insurers in America. Will you reinsert that text to provide the counterweight to the allegation that NICE is somehow a "death panel"? Hauskalainen2 (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the text on that so I don't have to go through the history? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the text again

Strictly speaking, a negative NICE decision on a new cancer drug does not deny access to that drug and are not necessarily a death knell for the patient. Patients will have two main choices. They can go outside the NHS for treatment, (paying the full cost themselves or their insurer's co-pays and deductibles if they have private medical insurance). Alternatively they can choose stay in the NHS and co-fund the cost of their treatment, again either out of pocket or through top-up insurance.[44] Private insurance for coverage against having to pay for cancer drugs costs about £50 a year for a 50 year old man (about US$80, or double this for a smoker).[45] The NHS actually funds 100% of the cost of most cancer drugs[46] and the effect of NICE decisions is that this sometimes causes the coverage rate to fall below 100%. Not covering 100% of drug costs is what almost all insurance companies in Palin's America do all the time, although they do not call it rationing.[47]

The text adds balance to a section which, without it, merely repeats POV position often expressed in America that NICE is a rationing body which denies care to patients for example with advanced liver or breast cancer for example, leaving people with no choice but to wait to die. That is the death panel argument of course. That POV allegation is implicit in the text but it is explicit in the links which the reader is invited to follow as evidence. Its not just POV, its simply not true. The added text shows that this is not true. NICE does not deny care to people with cancer. All it does is to determine whether or not it will push some costs on to the patient. Which is what all American insurers do. My understanding is that copays and deductibles are the norm in all medical insurance in America, and not just for cancer. Co-pays and deductibles for cancer patients simply do not exist for cancer patients in England except in very unusual circumstances where the cost/benefit limit is exceeded. Top-up insurance for those wanting to cover that risk is quite modest. In the interest of balance, this text needs to be in. I am severely restrained by the Article Probation (see banners at TALK:Death panel from inserting the text now that someone has deleted it. Hauskalainen2 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks like pretty good text were it to be formatted right for the references, and assuming that the references fully support the text and the text doesn't go beyond what the sources say. I would suggest that unless you've already edit warred over this, that you simply insert it and start a discussion about it on the talk page. Alternately, wait till I have more time to look at the sources and maybe I can do it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand Hauskalainen's concerns. However, I have been trying to stick to WP:NEO, which states "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Unfortunately, I am not sure the sources above even use the term. That material, though, seems great for the NICE article. I made this edit, incorporating a NICE statistician's reply to the charge. I think Campbell and Nyhan offer balancing POV. My impression is that Hauskalainen is trying to fix misperceptions in ways that don't appear to be standard around here, namely, by adding content to death panel that belongs at NICE. Jesanj (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:NEO is there to ensure that WP does not promote neologisms. In this case the article is OK because it has been widely commented on in the press and its use was widely criticized. You certainly cannot use text in policy (which is intended to require references from reliable sources to justify the use of neologisms) to justify NOT including references which do NOT support the tenets of the term just because those references don't use that term.
2. This is more to do with presenting a NPOV and WP:RGW has nothing much to do with it, though I do see why why you think it might.
3. POV comes in because the interpretation of medical rationing depends on which side of the Atlantic you live. Brits and Americans think about this differently. Brits seem to think that not getting all your costs paid for by the government health insurer, the NHS is "rationing"; Americans who regularly have to contribute to their health care costs through co-pays and deductibles do not regard this as rationing.
4. Because of this, Americans are therefore quite likely to misinterpret British sources and assume that "rationing" means an arbitrary "some get it and some do not". NHS choice of spending is anything but arbitrary. It falls over backwards to be fair to everyone and uses scientific knowledge and statistical analysis to make the get the best health return for government spending. Everyone is free to spend extra on private services to get more than the NHS provides. As with most things in life, there are more choices the more money you have.
5. Some references seem to mix up "denying funding" and "denying care". Some claim that the NHS denies access to cancer drugs or that denying to fund a pap smear for under 25s is a denial of care. This is just inaccurate. Declining to fund 100% of something is not a denial of care. People can pay a copay for their cancer drugs and can even insure themselves against being in that position. Young women have the choice to pay for a private pap smear test until they reach the age of 25.
6. Showing the alternative view is all that the NPOV policy asks us to do. Without my text the article gives a one-sided and misleading impression. Hauskalainen2 (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Gosh - the wording is fully argumentative and makes statements which are not clearly correct to boot. How much is "cancer insurance" for a person with a history of cancer in his family and other risk factors? I would wager it is well over 50 pounds a year! And a person who has had cancer in the past? Likely uninsurable even in the UK. Nor are "cancer drugs" the sole thing which NICE can deny coverage for - making all of this a bit like an ad for NICE, rather than an accurate review of facts avoiding SYNTH and OR (which abound in it). What might work is:

Patients denied coverage under NICE can use private medical insurance, or co-pay for the cost of treatment under NHS [at what rate? not stated]

which, if sourced, is properly neutral. The rest is simple argumentation, and states "facts" which are OR or possibly not even applicable to actual patients. Collect (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

@User:Collect I am not so sure your opinion is as independent as it seems. I see that your fourth ever edit on Wikipedia under this user ID was to agree with User:Kelly at Talk:Sarah Palin. User:Kelly is one of the people who has been the most aggressive in defending changes to articles relating to Sarah Palin and it seems to me in ways which seem to defend Ms Palin. She (or he?) threatened me with sanctions for editing forthrightly at Death panel which I have done only in defence of NPOV or RS and she goes around acting like an Admin when in fact she is nothing of the sort. And you yourself seem to edit with a certain bias such as here and here. I came to this page to get the views of people who do not normally edit Sarah Palin related pages to get a view as to whether it was NPOV to remove text which I thought was providing another POV to that implicit in the original edit. The views of people who are clearly pro Sarah Palin are worth listening to but I don't think they should carry as much weight as other non-interested editors. Hauskalainen (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The rate of £50-£100 came from the article but I know for a fact that UK private insurers do exactly what their American counterparts do and discriminate against those with poor medical histories (personal or familial). Yes the text does makes the argument (quite properly) about cancer drugs. If it sounds like an advert for NICE that is because there is an alternative way of looking at the problem. That is what NPOV is all about. Putting the other POV. There are of course medicines which are in more common use that are also 100% NHS funded (for example levothyroxine for chronic thyroid problems and insulin for diabetes for example. ts not just cancer medicines that get full funding. As a general rule, if a drug is short term or long term but not life threatening you have the £8 co-pay; but if the drug is needed because it keeps you alive you get it without a copay. Yes, there are treatments that are not available through the NHS (not very many) which, if you want them, you may have to get them privately. These you pay for yourself or get a private insurer to pay for you. About 10% of people do have private insurance of some sort. Overall then the same general rule still applies. People in the UK do not face ANY health care rationing IF their health insurer is the government AND it pays all their health care costs. But if a NICE decision causes SOME costs on to the patient then this IS CALLED RATIONING. This is of course totally different to when Americans have to pay something towards their health care costs because their insurance company does not pay. This of course is NOT CALLED RATIONING. That is so clear an explanation that I think it deserves to be in the article. What do you think?Hauskalainen2 (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of asking a silly question, why is the Death Panel article anywhere near as long as it is? The term itself is one of pure political rhetoric. Whether one views the term as legitimately descriptive or not, I honestly can't see the value of expanding this article to a state where it merely serves to throw gasoline on the fire of Wikipedia's factional infighting. I would advise leaving the article at little more than the intro. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually would go along with that myself. The problem has been that some editors for reasons best known to themselves seem to have been expanding the article into areas completely unconnected with Palin's concept of a Death Panel (an imaginary Panel that she thought Obama might have to invent because to turn people away from getting help because with his new law there would suddenly be a lot more insured people seeking medical help and she assumed for some reason that Obama would start turning away the elderly and the mentally ill). They have turned to the IPAB (a body that does not even exist yet) and to NICE (a body which operates in the UK under UK law to ensure that public money spent on health actually delivers the best health benefits with the available money). Neither as far as I can see have ANYTHING to do with Palin's catchy phrase, but the slightest mention of them has triggered a justification in the minds of some for their inclusion. I can only assume that this is because the original idea was so ridiculous an effort has to be made to somehow bury the original idea and replace it with a new one which they think has more credibility. The article has to either counter those views (which are ridiculous and have to be countered if they are presented in order give the article a NPOV) OR, as you say, they really should not be in there because it is a stretch too far. I'd go along with you if you can persuade the team of Palinista's at work on this article to give up the fight. I wish you well!80.223.188.55 (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a rather rough example of what I'm talking about. Yes, it has a cite error and I accidentally left behind a picture... the example is meant to display a more NPOV-manageable length and scope. This is just an example, and to that end I reverted it. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it started as pure political rhetoric. But the term/controversy it inspired has been described as almost taking down health care reform. Physicians wrote letters to JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine. Brendan Nyhan published a paper in The Forum. The term/controversy it represented has been commented on by academics such as George Annas and Jill Lepore. PolitiFact named it "Lie of the Year". The term has moved from pure political rhetoric and has now been covered by serious sources, which is why we have an article. Jesanj (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with a chopping block approach. I think that approach tosses out the baby with the bathwater. There are plenty of sections that haven't been subject to all of this "infighting". I am sympathetic, though, to the idea that the article is unwieldy due to non-notable associations with NICE and IPAB. Jesanj (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

@Jesanj. It is very clear that some people are using Wikipedia for nefarious political purposes. I have just gone through the Independent Payment Advisory Board article and have had to sweep it clear of politiking, filling Wikipedia with opinion and damning by association. I see that you have objected to my strong use of the edit summary to highlight how unacceptable those edits were. I have not checked it out but I suspect that you may have been behind at least some of it. Should I check this out? Your behavior in editing is not the same as your behaviour on the talk page where you try to exude reasonableness. Your claims that the term "death panel" has become more than what it started out to be is simply not borne out by the facts. As far as I can tell there is very little to justify what you are saying.Hauskalainen (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I took a stab at removing the content that appears to be problematic. Jesanj (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is a POV being pushed by one editor, to the effect that references to "death panels" in published sources are presented as references to some sort of mythological creature like a gryphon or unicorn, and have no real-world reference point. This is clearly incorrect. Reliable sources link the term to NICE and IPAB. You may argue that they are incorrect in making the connection, but the fact remains that they did make it, so it belongs in the article under NPOV. Angel's flight (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1. NICE is British and IPAB is American. Not even in the same country.
2. NICE advises doctors on clinical protocols. IPAB does not.
3. NICE does not control doctors reimbursement. IPAB does.
4. NICE has no responsibility for the NHS budget. IPAB's primary function is control of the Medicare budget.
5. NICE has been running 12 years with broad political support. IPAB has not yet been appointed and is (perhaps) contentious

They are about as different from each other as it possible to be with the one exception that they are in the health care sector. If there is to be a comparison then NICE is much more like the bodies that exist in the private insurance companies that decide whether or not a particular treatment in a particular setting should be funded from the insurance pool. Similar because they both are concerned with clinical effectiveness for the patient, but dissimilar in that the insurer can choke off funding whereas NICE guidelines are only advisory to NHS trusts. There is only one area where NICE guidelines are not advisory. As the NHS Constitution for England makes clear, a treatment regime approved by NICE must be made available by all NHS trusts in England.

Does User:Angel's flight dispute any of this? If so what? And on what grounds does his reliable sources have for connecting these two bodies? I think we should be told.Hauskalainen (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your personal essays on how the health care system works continue to be unhelpful. The article is about a political term and its usage. Whether usages of the term are justified is not for you to decide, nor is it relevant to the article. Numerous reliable sources have clearly said that the term "death panel" has been applied to both NICE and IPAB, and for the purposes of the article, that is the one thing that counts. Angel's flight (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Numerous reliable sources" is your opinion, in my opinion. In the way of hard evidence, I've only seen the Sunday Times say it was applied to NICE. Sure, others (fringe/minority?) have tried to associate it with the IPAB, but this is also a weighting (WP:UNDUE) issue. I've made some edits to the page though. I surely don't think IPAB belongs under a header of "rationing". Reliable sources say it can't ration so I'm afraid you're on shaky ground there. Jesanj (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this reasonable?

Is this edit using a source from Fox News to say that Richard Falk is a "9/11 Truther" valid? The source doesn't even say this (it just says he wrote the Foreword for a book on alternative theories related to 9/11). Also, I don't think that this Fox News opinion article is really a useful source anyway, even if it wasn't being misrepresented. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, 207.118.98.18 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. To quote Falk, "To call for an investigation along these lines does not make one "a 9/11 truther" or an endorser of a conspiracy theory." That is from the Salon source in the Richard_A._Falk#9.2F11_and_the_Bush_administration section. Also, the lead should just summarize the article content per WP:LEAD. It shouldn't introduce new statements and sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Interesting to note that if you look at the user's history, it seems that he had done something similar to the article Michael Walzer just prior to the abovementioned edit. 207.118.98.18 (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Completely unreasonable, I was in the process of opening a BLPN thread when I came across the link to this thread. Not a single one of the cited sources calls Falk a truther. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/users

Someone created this as a "proposed" noticeboard, however it can be used in very negative ways against users as the generally bad reviews on the talk page show. Feel free to comment there. (Or even MfD it.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a very bad idea, on the face of it. But SlimVirgin must have had her reasons, and I'd like to hear them as she's a very storied and capable editor. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there's a discussion about it at WT:ADVN. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Now with 4 for and 4 against, it's been "Consensed" to call it the Advocacy/Noticeboard. SlimVirgin's failed 2009 proposal to do something just on the Israel-Palestine issue is at Wikipedia:Neutrality_enforcement. This time it was done with no community input up front and largely negative feed back afterwards. (The name change being the only thing with any kind of support.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice it is up for deletion

The article is now up at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard . CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Bunga bunga"

Somewhat hesitantly, I created the article "Bunga bunga". (I comment on my hesitation here.) An inexperienced user slapped a "Neutrality" tag on it and commented in its talk page, but didn't mention the matter here. Unsurprisingly, nothing much has happened since. So perhaps one or two people reading this could come along to the article and take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth. I see no issues of neutrality in the article. The mention of Berlusconi, which, I think, is what the placer of the tag objected too, is unavoidable as that is simply how the term has (re)gained notability. The article in no way unduly casts Berlusconi in a negative light or uses WP:OR. All claims are backed by their references. Ravendrop 08:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Radical Right

Radical Right

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should this article be tagged for neutrality, original research and synthesis? (Posted to both neutrality and OR noticeboards.)

The concept was developed in the book Radical Right, with contributors Daniel Bell, Richard Hofstadter, Seymour Martin Lipset, Peter Viereck, Daniel Bell, Talcott Parsons and others.[48] Lipset wrote a history of the Radical Right.[49] More recently books have been written about the Radical Right by Sara Diamond,[50], Chip Berlet,[51] and others.

User:Collect says that "The references used are not checkable on line - zero...."

TFD (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL. "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." Ravensfire (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is nice except that the claims made are not in the sources claimed! The idea about RS sources is that once a source is miscited, it ceases to be a valid source for any claim - and that is true in spades here. Collect (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a different problem than what I was responding to - saying that sources have to be on-line is not correct, which was the point of my post. Misrepresenting sources is a bad thing, I totally agree with that. Ravensfire (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect, could you please provide an example of a source that you believe has been miscited. TFD (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lipset entirely. The material on the pages listed barely, if at all, corresponds to the actual claims made. Collect (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I do have partial access to some of these sources and indeed this article does draw conclusions that are not presented in this source. In fact some sections grossly misrepresent this source, the article POVishly claims Republicanism is radical right, where as the source clearly shows that Republicanism is significantly to the left of the Radical Right. --Martin (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does not in fact say that Republicanism is Radical Right. TFD (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It lests Republicansism and Federalism, as well as a slew of other groups. Meanwhile - the discussion is already on the article talk page - adding it to two noticeboards simultaneously seems a bit like forum shopping at best. The other discussion includes my statements on this mishmash of a coatrack OR POV SYNTH article. Collect (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You tagged the article both for neutrality and OR, hence the need to post to both boards, which is disclosed in both discussion threads. The article does not list Republicanism and federalism as Radical Right. By the way, the U.S. is a republic. Small "r" republicanism supports the Republic. Big "R" Republicanism supports the Republican Party. When you comment on these boards could you please ensure that your statements are accurate and not misleading to other editors. TFD (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mainly because both problems are apparent to any xcasual reader. That is not the same as making multiple noticeboard posts. When one lists "Republicanism" in an article on "Radical Right" it is either rational to suppose there is a direct connection, or that the section ought to be removed. And kindly deal with my posts instead of making comments about me. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that an article about the Radical Right should not mention influences upon them? TFD (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) You need properly sourced claims making the linkage. It is OR and SYNTH to make the linkage on your own without a proper secondary source doing so explicitly. And claims must be accurately reflected by the cite used, else the entire project collapses. At this point, so such source has been furnished for that article. Collect (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact all the groups identified as radical right in the book are identified as such in Seymour Martin Lipset's 1970 history of the radical right, and this has been confirmed by numerous subsequent writers, including Diamond, Berlet, Mulloy, Norris, etc., etc. Don't like it? Get over it. TFD (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for neutral party to submit article

Hal Blackwell “Secrets of the Skim” on Amazon

My name is Hal Blackwell and I use Wikipedia frequently. I have a somewhat embarrassing question/dilemma. After registering and reading the rules I understand it is not appropriate for me to do an autobiographical entry. I have written a book, “Secrets of the Skim”, which is a Hub City Writer’s project #5 selection for 2010 (even though the book was only available since the publishing date, June 5, 2010). The book is an expose’ of the US wealth management industry and recounts my employment at Merrill Lynch during the financial crisis. I have appeared on the Fox Business News as an financial industry expert and been interviewed by several other national media outlets. Business Insider has done a story about my work. I have lectured at the University of South Carolina Upstate and speak frequently about my experiences at Merrill Lynch. I am the president of HE Blackwell Advisors. I would appreciate very much an unbiased Wikipedia article regarding my work. Any takers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halblackwell (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide some RS to establish notability please?Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is against the rules to edit your own article, and editors are not likely to bother writing an article about something they aren't interested in(most only editing within one small niche). While a conflict of interest is certainly present, if you write it neutrally and no editors raise a complaint then there should not be a problem. I will see if I can get one going which you can add to, but I'm not interested in financial analysts so don't be expecting anything to amazing.

Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have. AerobicFox (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to my Fox Appearance- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvuqcIaiXg8, This is the link to my Business Insider story- http://www.businessinsider.com/what-does-wiki-leaks-have-on-bank-of-america-2010-12, Here is the link to my Amazon- http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Skim-financial-institutional-management/dp/1449946933/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276223734&sr=1-1.

I would discourage you. Right now when I google your name the first hit is your website, followed by sites you control or are sympathetic to you. If you create an article about yourself, then that will probably be the first hit and mirror sites, such as Wapedia, may take up many of the other top hits. Anyone, including people you mention in your book, can anonymously put anything in it. Although false information may be corrected, there is no one assigned to ensure that happens and even when corrections are made, earlier versions of the article and the discussion page will still be available (although you may request that libelous content be hidden). If anyone complains about your editing of your own article, a permanent record will be kept, along with any comments anyone has made. Once an article is created it may not be possible to have it deleted. I can provide you with many examples of people who regret creating articles about themselves or using their real names for posting. TFD (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above. You would have absolutely no control over the content of the article, and would invite the addition of criticism, along with the positive aspects of your life and work. Maybe you don't have any skeletons in the closet to worry about, but I know that I would never want a wiki-article written about me (even if I were notable, which, thankfully, I am not.) David Able 18:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a clarification on my above point: You would, of course, have some measure of control by editing the article (as well as asking for libelous material to be removed as mentioned by TFD) BUT WP editors are notoriously unsympathetic to article subjects who push to have negative content removed (especially when the critical info is backed up by good sources), and you may find that it backfires. See WP:BOOMERANG and Streisand Effect. David Able 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

FN_Five-seven "controversy" section has a pro-gun stance

FN_Five-seven#Controversy:

The Controversy section of this article reads like a pure one-sided rebuttal of the weapon's critics. Particularly glaring is the scolds within the quotebox and the text, the catty emphasis on how the legislation failed ("Once again, the bill failed to proceed to a vote."), and the general tone that portrays the weapon's critics as fools.

I intend to fix these problems in the days to come but I'd like to hear other people's views first.--Father Goose (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That section seems to use some primary sources, which require special care to work with in order to portray their content neutrally and avoid OR. For example the "once again" phrase isn't in the (primary) source mentioned. --Dailycare (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You're reading too far into the text. There is nothing "catty" about the bill statement. The bill did fail to proceed to a vote, just like the previous bills. The statement is factual and there is no better way to have said it. It's a bare statement. The "once again" part of the sentence isn't original research, because the previous cases cite sources. The bill first failed in 2005 (so says the source), so it is true that it once again failed in 2007 and 2009.

As for the "scolds within the quotebox," that is a direct quote from the NRA. You shouldn't expect a quote from the NRA to seem neutral on a gun control topic. That quote in specific was chosen because it's very effective in demonstrating that the subject is controversial. I would have preferred to include one quote each for both viewpoints, but there is only room for one quotebox in the Controversy section. Before you suggest a neutral quote from neither of the viewpoints, note that there are few, if any, such sources; let alone suitable quotes from said sources. For the most part there is only rhetoric from one side or the other. Regardless, if you just look at the article's reference list you will notice there are far more citation links pointing readers to anti-gun websites (e.g. Brady) than political pro-gun websites (e.g. NRA). So to be honest, it could be just as easily argued that the article leans in the other direction. ROG5728 (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Giving special prominence to a POV quote from one side is a violation of our neutrality policies, so I've removed the big blue box. The quote may still be referenced in the text itself. *** Crotalus *** 17:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've now studied the article in depth. I'd like to preface my comments by saying that I have no stake in the "controversy" one way or the other. The Five-seven seems like a pretty good gun, and the article is also pretty good, neutrality issues notwithstanding.

I'd say the most notable thing bout the gun is that it is the only widely available pistol that fires PDW rounds. This type of cartridge (small and fast) has inherent armor-piercing properties; it isn't just a question of special AP ammo being available. And while the article does mention these traits of PDW rounds, it also does what it can to play down the armor-piercing ability of the non-AP rounds. There is a plausible claim that even the civilian rounds have AP qualities. This claim should be presented neutrally, not denied at every turn.

Here are the problems in greater detail:

• "Sporting ammunition" is used to describe both the sporting rounds and the jacketed hollow-points. Hollow-points are a common police round; calling them a "sporting round" is a euphemism.
• "The National Rifle Association shortly countered the Brady Campaign's claim by pointing out that the gun control group may not have adhered to standard testing procedures, and that FN only offers armor-piercing varieties of the 5.7x28mm cartridge to military and law enforcement customers."

• I have no problem with the counterargument regarding testing procedures. But the Brady assertion was that SS192, a non-AP round available to civilians, pierced a vest[52]; the NRA's assertion about AP rounds (SS190)[53] doesn't address the actual Brady claim, so it shouldn't be presented as a counterargument.

• "it was claimed that the SS192 and SS196 cartridge variations were unable to penetrate various types of Kevlar vests in tests conducted by FNH USA."

• The source given[54] says that the SS192 does not penetrate level IIIA vests: this does not contradict the Brady assertion that a thinner level IIA vest was penetrated. It does contradict a separate Brady claim that a level IIIA vest was penetrated in a local Fox News report. But this sentence is lumping in penetration tests for a round (ss196) other than the one Brady singles out (SS192), conflating which round was tested against which type of vest.

• The ATF & NRA claims regarding armor penetration both derive from manufacturer tests. The following manufacturer statement that lends some credence to the Brady assertions should also be included:

  "Company officials said that while the commercially available ammunition can in rare cases penetrate some body armor used by law enforcement, these bullets cannot pierce other models of bulletproof vests."[55]

• Second paragraph: "Both bills failed to proceed to a vote by either the House or the Senate."

• 'Failed' is a loaded word; you could just say "neither bill proceeded to a vote".

• "However, sales of the Five-seven pistol increased dramatically."

• The way this is framed implies that sales increased in response to the legislation. The source that lists "increased sales" predates the introduction of the legislation by several months.

• Third paragraph: "Some news reports stated that the weapon was used in various incidents to murder police officers or civilians."

• We don't normally use such indirect language ("some... stated") for reliable sources unless the report is contested in other sources.

• "In the United States, however, the Five-seven has never been used to kill a police officer."

• It's not clear why this sentence is included; it is possibly a counter to the "cop killer" rhetoric, which isn't mentioned in the article in the first place. Regardless, it strikes me as an overly narrow superlative; it's been used to kill Mexican cops and has been fired against American cops (in the Fort Hood shooting). I'd say it's not significant in the way that the 9mm round has been used to kill perhaps hundreds of American cops; it just reflects how common the round is.

• "In March 2007, legislation was again introduced"

• Coming at the end of the paragraph implies that the legislation was introduced in response to the news reports earlier in the paragraph, yet this legislation predates the reports.

--Father Goose (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Transportation Security Administration images

Several images have recently been added to this article in the Transportation Security Administration#2010 screening procedures section. Two of the images I've got no problem with - they illustrate what the TSA agent will see on their screen. One of the others I don't think should be in the article. One of the images [56] is from 2007 and shows the backscatter technology, but it's not what the TSA uses. There is no blurring algorithm. I don't think that image is an accurate portrayal of what the TSA uses and pushes a POV. For the main Backscatter X-ray article it's absolutely helpful, but on the TSA article, it's misrepresenting what a TSA agent can see. The other editor and I have gotten in a WP:LAME slow edit-war on this. We've had one other editor comment on the talk page that the image should not be included, but I'd like more comments on this issue. Ravensfire (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland#Criticism - Undue weight?

This section may have NPOV issues. Someone is out to make a point; I removed numerous instances of bold syntax that were inserted to put emphasis on negative coverage, as well as unrelated images with undue weight captions, some potentially libelous, others obviously provocative. If someone who knows the subject a bit more can check it out... diff. [CharlieEchoTango] 18:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Same issue here : Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority#Controversy... diff [CharlieEchoTango] 18:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the very serious economic difficulties that Ireland is suffering (with knock on effect for all of Europe) it is envitable that the Irish banking sector and the serious regulatory failings this organisation is guilty of, will generate adverse comment. The facts are not in dispute and are accepted by the new management, all politicians in the country, the media, the European Commission and its ultimate parent the European Central Bank. The article is well referenced and while damning is unfortunately true and accurate. Great things are expected from the new management and in time they should be able to generate positive content to balance the article.

Glic16 (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Analytical engine - WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV

The lead sentence of Analytical engine is "The analytical engine, an important step in the history of computers, was the design of a mechanical general-purpose computer by English mathematician Charles Babbage." (Emphasis added.) There are two problems, as I see it, with the unattributed subjective statement in the middle. (Actually three, the third being that it's just non-substantive filler that keeps the reader from getting to the important stuff, but that's not an issue for this forum.) The first problem is that it's not in line with the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV guideline. (We would never permit an article to begin "George Washington, an important U.S. president..." or "Tom Hanks, an important American actor...") The second problem is that it's not true, or in any case could give a false impression in that it could lead a reader to think that the analytical engine was diligently pursued and led eventually to the creation of modern computers, or in some way inspired the inventors of modern electronic computers, when the reality is that the machine was never built and was more or less forgotten until rediscovered by historians looking for anticipating work in the wake of the success of modern electronic computers. My suggestion is simple--excise the offending phrase from the lead and describe any controversy fuller and with proper attribution later in the article. This proposal has been met with resistance. The relevant talk section is here. Thanks, Robert K S (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can rewrite it. I don't think your objections are quite right, but the existing phrasing is not ideal. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an 'influence' section in the article that explains about its influence and the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Also the lead is supposed to establish notability. I'm sure there's citations enough to justify it and since there has been a complaint I guess one should be stuck in, however I get the feeling the OP is sort of saying for some reason one should not say something is important in the lead even when it evidently is. Dmcq (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a contextual thing. 1978 Burke's Connections didn't even mention Babbage in the "Faith in Numbers" and it wasn't until The Machine that Changed the World (1992) that Babbage was even mentioned and the focus was on the concepts of his engine. In fact according to that series Babbage's concept really d0dn't get looked at until after 1935.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Death Panel (again)

I am sorry to report that Death panel is again giving problems.

Some editors have been rather selective as to which alleged real life "death panels" the article can mention. An editor (not me) added text sourced from this article] from the journal Foreign Policy. As with my previous complain about POV pushing at this article, this time again the editors have again tried to edit IN reference to Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence as "death panel" identified by the authors (which they scored as only 15 out of 100 for meeting the criteria of being a "death panel"). They also included several others that were rated. But missing from the WP article was reference to Foreign Policy magazine's TOP death panel, which they identified as government ordered executions in cases of murder and treason (which only 2 out of the OECD's 34 countries still endorse). So I added it to the article. Now two editors have deleted this on the grounds that FP magazine's definition of "death panel" does not meet their own preferred definition. The argument about this can be read [here].

Palin was not exactly trying to get us to think about the complexities of medical ethics when she conjured up an image of her elderly parents and her disabled son having to beg for their very existence before "Obama's death panel". She wanted the emotional recoil of a death squad to be associated with the new law. Now I am NOT arguing that THAT argument be inserted into the article. That would not be right unless there is a proper source for that. BUT including SOME alleged death panels from the FP article with a LOW rating but excluding the TOP rated death panel with the highest rating does seem to me to be a little bit like POV pushing. I think we have to include FPs top death panel.

There is a good deal of POV pushing and something of an editing cabal at work at this article. I am therefore asking, VERY KINDLY for comments ONLY from experienced editors who HAVE NOT previously edited Death Panel or Sarah Palin, excepting of course the two editors who deleted my insertion into the article. Others who HAVE edited these two articles can by all means leave your comments in the appropriate section of the TALK page. I am sure NPOVN reviewers will wish to see your comments there. If anyone breeches this request I will simply flag up their comments so that independent reviewers are aware of which comments may potentially be from Palin followers or opponents. Hauskalainen (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As the article points out, "Death panel" is a term coined by Sarah Palin. The article should be about that and should not be a coatrack for what is wrong with government run health insurance and/or health care.

Agreed. Unless reliable sources explicitly use the term "death panel" in reference to a specific incident, including that incident in the article would be original research by synthesis, and thus prohibited. *** Crotalus *** 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Julissa Ferreras article, NPOV?

This article definitely needs to be tagged for NPOV, but I don't know how to do it, and I don't know enough about the subject to fix the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.239.157 (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

{pov} but with {{ }} is the general tag. Before tagging an article, you should take your issue to the discussion page or editors responsible for most of the article's content. See WP:TAGGING for clarity. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Non Neutral point of view

The article as written is non neutral giving the reader the assumption that Thomas Jefferson agrees with a modern interpretation of “Separation of Church and state” attempts to give a balanced version of Jefferson’s view has been censored, and I am told the Library of Congress is not a valid source to quote from.

Also no one wants to discuss the obvious slanted “Father of a university” statement “specifically one free of church influences” which shows a non neutral point of view that is opposed to historical documents. -Markglad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - From amazon.com product page on a book, Thomas Jefferson And The University Of Virginia by Herbert Baxter Adams, we find

• Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia. As an architect, he designed the campus. He created the university to be free of church influence. Usually, the church would be situated at the center of the Academic Village, but Jefferson placed the library at the center to reflect his highest-regard for learning. Religious structures were excluded.

I'm sure there are other sources, it is clear Jefferson intended to found the University of Virginia to be free of church influences. _WikiMan^One 21:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Prior to the University of Virginia many institutions had a Professor of Divinity who taught a specific Christian sect. Jefferson wanted all Christian sects on a equal footing.

If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why would he then establish the duty of the Professor of Ethics to teach Christian values in a way that does not hold one Christian sect above another.

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefRock.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1

“In conformity with the principles of our Constitution, which places all sects of religion on an equal footing, with the jealousies of the different sects in guarding that equality from encroachment and surprise, and with the sentiments of the Legislature in favor of freedom of religion, manifested on former occasions, we have proposed no professor of divinity; and the rather as the proofs of the being of a God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all the relations of morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer, will be within the province of the professor of ethics; to which adding the developments of these moral obligations, of those in which all sects agree, with a knowledge of the languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, a basis will be formed common to all sects. Proceeding thus far without offence to the Constitution, we have thought it proper -442-“ _________________________________________________________

Further prove religious study was taught…

It was not, however, to be understood that instruction in religious opinions and duties was meant to be precluded by the public authorities as indifferent to the interests of society. On the contrary, the relations which exist between man and his Maker – and the duties resulting from those relations – are the most interesting and important to every human being and the most incumbent on his study and investigation.

Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XIX, p. 414, Board of Visitors, Minutes, October 7, 1822. http://books.google.com/books?id=MMEgAlSQ4GgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false ___________________________________________________________

If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why didn’t he object to this prayer being said at the laying of the cornerstone for the University of Virginia?

“May allmighty God, without invocation to whom, no work of importance should be begun, bless this undertaking and enable us to carry it on with success -- protect this College, the object of which institution, is to instill into the minds of Youth principles of sound knowledge. To inspire them with the love of religion & virtue, and prepare them for filling the various situations in society with credit to themselves and benefit to their country”

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Jef1Gri.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=47&division=div1 ___________________________________________________________

If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why did he order the University Rotunda be used for several things including religious worship and why was it “expected” that students attend religious worship services of their respective sects?

Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XIX, pp. 449-450, “A Meeting of the Visitors of the University of Virginia on Monday the 4th of October, 1824.” http://books.google.com/books?id=MMEgAlSQ4GgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC) ____________________________________________________ -MarkGlad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Would you please summarize that in neat little paragraph or two so I can read through it? Thanks. Looks to me like you're adding primary sources and creating original research though. Maybe publish a book on it and it can be added to controversies? _WikiMan^One 23:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

   So since I proved your wrong your argument is I didn’t write it right? Still claim to be non bias? 

Citing someone who’s cites others with the same bias and not historical documents related to the point in question is a self fulfilling prophecy, which is probably just what you wanted.--Markglad (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Some attention seems to be needed. The idea that Jefferson supported separation of church and state is in the introduction and is supported only by an original document. I'm sure that very many political scientists and historians have discussed exactly how Jefferson's views relate to the principle of separation of church and state in the USA. Our article should cite those academics. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox?

A user recently put the neutrality dispute template on Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia article beacuse of the infobox, [57]. Can a infobox violate the neutrality rules on wikipedia? Spongie555 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It can, if the infobox contains sufficiently misleading information. what is the specific complaint that s/he made? --Ludwigs2 17:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

He contests that a proposed state that never actually came into existence does not deserve an infobox, and has subsequently gone to other articles of proposed states and removed their infoboxes. Yes, that is his argument.AerobicFox (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please realise I edited in the the other article since long time. I'm also the main author of this article in German Wikipedia (de:Vereinigtes Baltisches Herzogtum - There were also some guys who failed to establish there a state info box). The Infobox Former Country makes no sense in both articles, because is suggests there have been some kind of state, which is wrong. Do you realy want to create hoaxes in en-WP? --Otberg (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see a neutrality issue here, so long as the infobox makes it clear that this is a failed state from its inception. There's no hoax involved, so far as I know - the people in question did in fact try to establish a kingdom in this place under this name, they just didn't succeed. it's not like we're using the infobox to assert that an imaginary thing (Narnia, or even Camelot) is a real world state. --Ludwigs2 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It never have been a Sovereign state in reality. There were just some guys who made courios proposals. But the infobox Former Country suggests is was a former country: named Reino de la Araucanía y la Patagonia - Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia, with a flag, Coat of arms, with a capital, a "Capital-in-exile" in France (LOL). With this infobox, in spite of the text is telling an other story, the article looks like a hoax. --Otberg (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a user who has a reliable book source that calls the kingdom an Unregonized state, Talk:Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia#Infobox. Spongie555 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The book which is not mentioned so far proves nothing ... It just tells the story which is already written in the article. --Otberg (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the problem here essentially that the infobox for a former country implies a prior existence, when in fact such never was? I think that is a problem. (Perhaps not as POV, but as fact.) Could that be remedied with an infobox for proposed countries? Or could the issue be resolved with the country infobox by adding "Proposed" (as was done with Cascadia (independence movement))? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's the point. I think your suggestion can be a solution of the problem. --Otberg (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on things, but we are all remembering that readers do not see the names of infoboxes or other templates, right? Rreaders just see the box itself; only editors see the name of the template. we could just as well call the template template:xdFe23y!!r3_3_3. Neutrality is for information that appears in article space, meaning things that will be interpreted by readers as article information; it's not for things that are never seen by the reader. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! The information contained in the infobox is backed up by many reliable sources, that's the point! Diego Grez (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the infobox-text as suggested to a proposed state. That's what is backed up by many reliable sources. So neutrality problem is solved already. Regards --Otberg (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

National Democratic Party (Egypt)

This article reads more like a lecture or rant against Egypt's political system in general than a neutral, encyclopedic article about a political party. While this page abounds in notes about how corrupt Egypt's system is, it fails to even have a section on the party's ideology - something even authoritarian parties like the Communist Party of China include. Toa Nidhiki05 23:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article and the section called "Electoral system in Egypt" has a strong POV and a tone that is not encyclopedic. It should be tagged, discussed and re-written including the section title. Much of the current content may need to be moved to a more appropriate article topic as it appears to be info not directly related to the current topic. Also agree with your point that the a description of the party's platform, mission etc should be front and center in both the lead and the first section.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Double standards by the admin Horologium

He deletes information from one certain article, but when is reminded that this information is also in another article - he does nothing about it, he only doesn't like it when it's in certain article as if he's guarding this article from "unfavored" information. Later on, here (the case was closed before I could reply to the latter posts), I proved that the link, on which this information is based, is reliable (comment signed at 17:07, 28 January 2011). A blame can't be laid on a simple user for not following the neutral policy (aka not applying double standards), but when an admin, who while acquiring admin rights also acquires the responsibility before wikipedia, violates this policy - he (an admin) should be hold accountable, but if you're ok with a hypocrite admin, ok then.

tl;dr the admin deleted one info from Palin's article, and when was told that the same information is in another article and that he should first delete it from there, as it first appeared there, he did nothing, nor he did anything after 7 days lasted since he was reminded about it and the info is still in that, another article. I told it already, it's not a problem for myself to delete it from there, but I didn't do it so that it will prove what I said, the admin Horologium is hypocrite. He didn't like this info to be in Palin's article but he's ok with being it in another article. Userpd (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother to try and fathom other editors' motives. Life's too short. You fixed the problem yourself, now you can move on, lots more still to do before the encyclopedia's perfect. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

But he's an admin, not just some usual user. Userpd (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As noted in the OP, this was considered at ANI and should not be rehashed unless new evidence is forthcoming, and this noticeboard is not the place to discuss editor behavior.

The first diff given above shows that Category:Anti-Islam sentiment was removed from Sarah Palin with edit summary: "This is an exceptional claim, and needs exceptional proof". Removing a silly category like that is exactly what NPOV requires, and the edit summary encapsulates the situation perfectly. That was just over a week ago and I see that the category is still not in the article. The category should not be applied to anything, but particularly not to people, unless there are really good secondary sources with an analysis of exactly what is involved, and which unequivocally support the category.

Admins are supposed to be sufficiently thick skinned to not object to occasional misguided abuse such as is apparent in the OP. However, I object to an attack on an editor in good standing, particularly since the matter was considered at ANI. Userpd should strike out the negative comments about other editors above, and refrain from repeating them. We discuss content not editors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In the header of this page is written: "This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated". Userpd (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"silly category"? I backed up this category by providing an info which states that she supports the organization Stop Islamization of America - you can go and look up the people in the category anti-Islam sentiment, and you will find that most of them are opposed to Islam as a whole, such as this organization. And erm, let's not discuss whether this category should be added or not, what is to discuss - why the admin removes the content based on this information only from Palin's article? If he's to remove it from that article why he does nothing to it in another article? If these aren't double standards, then what? Userpd (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• (Thank you to Johnuniq for notifying me, since Userpd still thinks that the established norms on Wikipedia do not apply to him.) This is nothing more than forum shopping, and it borders on harassment. Userpd, I am under no obligation to edit any article in any way, shape, or form, despite what you think. Geert Wilders is not on my watchlist, and I have never edited it (and I don't plan to start now). Further, the RNL article cited there has a direct link to Wilders, but not to Sarah Palin. It can (arguably) be used to cite anti-Islamic sentiment on Wilders' part, but not for Sarah Palin (which is on my watchlist) or Newt Gingrich (the other politician cited by the newspaper). You have been told that I haven't done anything wrong (repeatedly) on AN/I, and now here on NPOVN. Get off my back, and don't ever question my motives without even bothering to attempt to discuss the issue with me (and no, the template you dropped on my page doesn't count as discussion). Once again, you failed to notify me about a discussion you initiated about me on one of the noticeboards; I would think that if you do it again, you will get blocked. You have violated several policies with this post (WP:NPA, WP:FORUM, and a failure to discuss the issue on either the article talk page or my user talk page before running straight to AN/I and now this noticeboard.) Further, your post casts aspersions upon every Wikipedia editor who does not edit articles in a manner which comports with your views, which is risible and tendentious. You need to step back and reassess your recent contributions, which overwhelmingly concern a single editor who reverted you once and who has never edited any other article you have. Horologium (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Norms" have nothing to do here, it's a clear case scenario which was closed. It wasn't intended for discussion. Just a notification how one admin treats the same subject differently in either articles. If you didn't understand, the link is about Wilders, but the information about Palin's support for the organization is cited in Wilder's article. To Wilders this category can be applied to, as he himself possesses himself so. This is irrelevant here. What relevant, is that the information about Palin's support for the organization isn't disputed by you in Wilders article (I'm okay as long it's not written in Palin's article, right?). Userpd (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything you specifically want as a result of this report? What? Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is as clear a case of edit warring as I have seen. Four long-time editors at the Sarah Palin article reverted this biased, prejudicial, completely unfounded and unverified slander with clear edit summaries in each case, Userpd never once thought to bring the matter to the talk page. Rather than do this silly dance, one of the admins should transfer the matter to ANI:Edit warring or wherever is appropriate. Why WE waste our precious time with this purposeless "hiugu" is beyond me. This is not the first time an explanation has been provided. Horolgium has better things to do than defend himself against hanky-panky when there was neither hanky nor panky. Further, the fact that the editor fails to strike out attacking language when requested to do so shows a true non-collegial point of view. I support a ban...or a block...or whatever it takes to send a clear message---->Change or move on! Buster Seven Talk 01:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To the first editor I provided the source, then he backed off. Then you along with the other guy (who you notified about me (who didn't bother to read the source carefully, as it's written in the beginning of the text that Palin supports the organization, and it's a evidence which backs up the category that I had added to her article) , reverted my edit using blurry arguments as "look up WP:cat" or claiming that my source is unreliable. Well I lated provided a proof that it can be passed as reliable per WP:Notability, I brought some reliable sources (such as BBC) in which Radio Netherlands not just mentioned but is given a special attention. Now, you're not obliged to be neutral and treat equally two different articles as much as the admin. No need to be parroting and be all emotion-like, well... I'm not expecting you to follow this advice, rather than basing your accusations on emotions why don't you base it on facts? Like me. Yes, he sure has "better things to do", but here I think I should be encouraged in being exacting to his action (or no action), in other words it's for good if someone whips up an admin so that he won't forget that he has more responsibility here than average user. And looking up at Palin's history page it's not hard to notice how you're often removing / reverting stuff there, and you do it explicitly in regards to this article, you're not monitoring no other article as much as this one, apparently you have special interest here. So speaking of neutral point of view, I don't think you're one in this case. Now, I'm trying to canvass for adding the category to Palin's article, even though it's based on a reliable source. Here I'm addressing an issue where an admin being aware of this important information being in another article - leaves it that way. What if I for some reason disappeared from wikipedia? This information about her support for the organization would be left in Wilders' article while it was so strongly opposed by the admin Horologium in Palin's article? I only see him being capricious, he's an admin, in questions about neutrality and equal treatment of two different articles he shouldn't conform with his personal temper. You should be interested in removing a controversial information based on unreliable source from all articles you know / aware of. You see it as unreliable, why are you removing it only from Palin's article? Why aren't you removing it from Wilders' article as well? That's unfair! Userpd (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am one of a number of editors who find categories that label people to be problematic. If Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is applied to an article about person X, what does that tell us about X? X once said something that someone interpreted as expressing anti-Islam sentiment? X frequently makes such statements? X has devoted a significant part of their life towards expressing anti-Islam sentiments? Once we settle that, what is an "anti-Islam sentiment"? Essentially, a category like that is meaningless (or has such a wide range of possible interpretations that the result is unhelpful–would the Pope qualify for this category?). Also, there is no useful technique to decide which people should get this label (because it is a category invented on Wikipedia and so cannot be verified by reliable sources, meaning that applying this category would always involve OR where an editor interprets what a reliable source says as meaning "anti-Islam sentiment").

If it's meaningless then it doesn't belong to wiki, however you're not bothering to list it for deletion. So your argument that it can't be applied to articles is irrelevant. I more believe in actions than to puffy words. Userpd (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching Geert Wilders for some time, but have ignored it for a couple of months. I see that it has some text mentioning Palin. The text looks like it needs a cleanup, but seems essentially ok (assuming it is sourced) because it simply describes facts: a certain organization is supported by certain people. If the information satisfied WP:DUE, it could be mentioned in Sarah Palin. However, adding this category would not be helpful.

How it's not satisfying it? A one sentence to describe such an important information (so what that it could be controversial?) would do the trick. Userpd (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are aware that the Palin article is under probation (I think that is mentioned at the top of the talk page). Further consideration of this issue should take place at that talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

FACT: I see no reason to respond to what comes from a horses ass. Should this matter move to another venue I will happily waste my time and provide diffs w/timestamps, etc. Also, once again, for the fourth time, userbs has NOT informed a fellow editor (in this case Editor:FcReid)and given him ther courtesy to be a discussant. But all this is re-hash and repetitive response to meaningless drivel. I'm moving on!Buster Seven Talk 12:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would I call FcReid in the first place? I have barely discussed him, if I give a link to something in which 10000 users involved, do I have to invite them all to a notifying information section in admin noticeboard's page? Besides, nothing of value would be lost as he isn't a key individual in subject. Just random user who you notified and reverted my edit. Userpd (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

On The Way Out The Door...you have it backwards. Fcreid reverted. Seeing that I let him know that I had left you a message. What I did was called ...courtesy. It is obvious that possibility eludes you. Buster Seven Talk 13:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't, you invited him especially to engage in my case (Wilders/SP), knowing he's opposing to me. Userpd (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to discuss the content issue with you on the Palin talk page. For the second time, I ask you to note the time stamp on my revert and retract the accusation that my revert of your silly, poorly sourced category insertion was in response to Buster7's or anyone else's beckoning. I think for myself. Fcreid (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, if you read what I posted you'd notice that I suggestively criticized his notifying you to engage in our ... I dunno debate? Userpd (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Would someone in charge use this teaching opportunity to inform a certain editor NOT to interject his reply WITHIN another editors comments. While those of us watching will know that editing eti1uette was NOT followed, future editors will be confused. They say that experience is the best teacher. Sometimes I'm not so sure. Buster Seven Talk 14:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Elaborate, who are you implying? Userpd (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

left wing UAF

A problem has again risen at the Unite Against Fascism article. This is over inclusion of the phrase “they have been represented as left wing or far left by certain elements of the press” [[58]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is at WP:RSN where the issue is how many reliable sources are needed to suggest that the UAF is "left wing" (including the AP, The Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, International Business Times etc.) Anyone - feel free to join in. Collect (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that there is no question of the sourcing (its been repeatedly said that the sources are RS), its the wieght and POV thats in doubt.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If this article [59] and quote "Officers formed cordons to separate about 2,000 supporters of the English Defence League from 1,000 members of left-wing group Unite Against Fascism" is the only source --than the sentence over states the source and may have POV issues. A more accurate and neutral rendering might be something like: "An article in the Canadian Press referred to the UAF as a 'left-wing group'".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources.

ABC (AU) News - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/05/3131007.htm?section=world

Atlanta Journal - http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/uk-police-on-alert-828713.html

Northern Echo (contentious) http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4426947.Left_wing_group_to_meet/

The Times - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6790067.ece

For a start.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This has long since been resolved in prior discussions at RSN; there is no serious question that there are multiple, reliable sources that describe UAF as "left wing". What NPOV requires is that the Wikipedia article accurately reflect what reliable sources say on the subject. It is appropriate that the article state, with attribution, that these reliable sources characterize UAF as left wing; it is also appropriate that, in counterpoint, and with sources, that UAF simply characterizes itself as anti-fascist, and claims support by politicians across the political spectrum (excepting fascists, I would guess). This should not be controversial in the least, and I confess to being utterly baffled as to why this debate should slog on month after month across multiple noticeboards. Fladrif (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on the sources provided the sentence seems fair (though awkwardly worded) except that I did not notice the term "far left" being used in the sources. Did I miss it? Based on what I have seen an appropriate and simpler wording might be: "some press reports have referred to the UAF as left wing".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible NPOV violations: Cambodian–Thai border dispute

Now, I am not saying that all the edits on this page are meant to tilt the POV one way or another, but in the last week or so (of the last 500 edits on the page dating back to Feb 2009, about 300 are from the last 7 or 8 days) there seems to be a lot of changing and removal of sources and changing/removal/rewriting of recent events (notably the casualty count, including something about '10 Thai military bases [being] destroyed' that keeps appearing and disappearing, and back-and-forth rewriting of a a part about Cambodian soldiers occupying contested ruins. I tried to revert what I felt were some suspicious edits by an IP user yesterday (the edits made seemed to inflate the Thai casualties, without sources), but this was reverted by another user who seems to have a contribution history consisting of focusing on this article and Cambodia-related items. I'm not going to stick my nose in the article again, but I felt that I should let someone know that this should probably be looked into, and possibly get stricter enforcement on this article (especially since its linked on the recent events on the main page).--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. The article now appears to have been placed into a 'semi-protected' status.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Undue section at Ishmael Khaldi?

Possible WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS issue at the above article... background: Last week subject (a notable Muslem Israeli politician) was scheduled to give a speech at Edinburgh University, but the speech was interrupted by protesters.

Discussion of this "incident" currently takes up over a third of the article, which I think is excessive given the context of a bio article. I removed the section as giving Undue weight to what I view as a relatively minor event ... and because it happened so recently that mentioning it amounts to a NOTNEWS violation. Unfortunately, I was reverted with the usual NOTNEWS rebuttal of "discussed by reliable sources" (ie a few newspapers). Second opinions are requested. 16:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Vang Vieng

I'm having some trouble with a dispute with User:143.188.101.65 (IP seems to be stable) at Vang Vieng. Over the past several weeks, he/she has repeatedly (six times I believe) tried to add this text to the article:

The main street is full of guest houses, bars, restaurants, internet cafes, tour agencies, and western tourists nursing their hangovers from both alcohol and opium.

Due to the recent influx of backpackers, the natives of Vang Vieng have seen a drastic change in their community. It was once a quiet and peaceful town, rarely visited by western tourism, except by the most adventurous of hiking and caving enthusiasts. However in recent years, Vang Vieng has become a milestone stop along the South East Asia backpacker tour and the main street is now littered with guest houses, bars, restaurants, internet cafes and tour agencies. Backpacker numbers have skyrocketed and the place has changed drastically - for the worse. Inconsiderate behaviour such as walking through the town without a shirt, or in a bikini (both are VERY disrespectful to the locals), drinking to excess, and smoking opium in public means Vang Vieng is no longer a magical place, and the senior locals, once so friendly and hopeful for the future, have now become distant and disillusioned. Crime has increased markedly as local youths attempt to imitate western culture and battle substance abuse. Compared to what it once was, Vang Vieng is now a rather depressing place, especially for travellers fortunate enough to have seen it previously as it once was.

All visitors to Vang Vieng should be respectful and observe local custom by dressing modestly in public and drinking only in moderation.

It is my opinion that, without reference to any sources of any kind, describing a town as "full of western tourists nursing their hangovers from both alcohol and opium," having "changed drastically - for the worse," "no longer a magical place," and "a rather depressing place" is a substantial violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Essentially none of this is encyclopedic. Portions could be included if they are backed by citations to reliable sources (e.g. news reports of increased crime statistics, published academic papers on the disillusionment of locals in the face of increased tourism, etc...), but without any sources, it's simply an opinion piece and a derogatory one to boot.

I made some efforts to discuss the issue with the user on my talk page at User talk:Zachlipton#Vang Vieng. I attempted to explain the basics of NPOV and encouraged the editor to look for reliable sources that address these issues, as they could then potentially be woven into the article. His response is that he has spent a lot of time there and the information is accurate based on his own experiences, and that (apparently referring to me) "But then you cant educate a fool, because they just dont listen."

Several other editors have also mentioned this issue at Talk:Vang Vieng and reverted this content, but this user continues to add it. I feel I've done all I reasonably can to educate, so I'm hoping other editors here have other ideas. Zachlipton (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How about a block warning from an admin? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'd support that. Zachlipton (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like this actually happened, though I did give notice of this discussion on the user's talk page. In any case, the user is back under a different IP: User talk:118.107.150.244. Given that this IP's only edits (minus one) have been to revert the removal of this NPOV content, and the fact that both IPs resolve to Southeastern Australia, they are most probably the same editor. I spent a lot of time assuming good faith here, but it's obvious this user has no intention of stopping or making the slightest effort toward neutrality. I have given a strong final warning and ask that the user be blocked if there are any more such edits. Zachlipton (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Standard for labeling organizations and individuals

Is there a policy or guideline that applies to labeling of organizations and individuals? For example, the American Enterprise Institute is labeled as "conservative." Should it be if multiple prominent reliable sources label it as such? Should it be if a majority of reliable sources label it as such (I know that is virtually impossible to determine, but one way to loosely gauge this is to consult Google News results)? Or should labeling in Wikipedia's voice be avoided entirely? Labeling is fairly common in WP, but not with any consistent standards. Drrll (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There's WP:LABEL but the examples listed are "cult", "racist", "perverted", "sect", "fundamentalist", "heretic", "extremist", etc. so I'm not sure if it applies to "conservative" or "liberal". Of course, if we had a rule barring the labeling of groups and individuals as "conservative" or "liberal", it would certainly end a lot of WP:LAME POV disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd certainly support WP:LABEL as having some applicability to the question, while not quite as implication-laden as, say, "cult" or "heretic", "conservative" and "liberal" are (like *many* adjectives, not just those we think of labels) somewhat imprecise and sometimes subject to contention. For the AEI, a quick glance at sources I see in sources that I tend to think of as liberal *and* conservative have labelled it that way, and I don't see suggestions in reliable sources that that's disputed, so if a deeper look into those sources left me with that same impression, I'd likely be comfortable using the term conservative in the article. Both "liberal" and "conservative" have a useful expositive value. In my view, the level of sourcing and consistency required depends a fair bit on the particular label and usage, too. If the label is stronger, nastier, more connotative (e.g., "cult"), I want greater sourcing as well as care in the wording, I'm more likely to use direct attribution to quotations. If we're dealing with a biography of a living person, I'll want a higher standard of sourcing as well. But for a basic label like "conservative" or "liberal", I'd usually find one or two reliable sources in an environment without significant sources-to-the-contrary would be enough, although the precise level would depend on other factors such as the frequency of usage and perhaps the breadth of sources using it. To the extent that those labels are contested in reliable sources, well, WP:LABEL's advice is pertinent as well, as well as WP:UNDUE, etc. I'd add that I suspect that either word is often best used not as a stand-alone description but at the beginning of, or summary of a description, with greater detail provided further in the article. The beginning or summary of a description, not as a whole description (e.g., what is meant by "liberal" when applied free-speech advocacy organization may be different in part than what is meant by the term when applied to a an organization focused on taxation), and it would be appropriate in most such articles to go into further detail about the positions that "liberal" (or "conservative") are being used to summarize. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Abortion in Canada

The section titled "Crisis Pregnancy Centres" is terribly biased, based on opinion, not fact. This is it in its entirety: "Crisis Pregnancy Centres and other offices provide counselling to pregnant women. They have been established by organizations such as Birthright. These organizations, as part of their "counselling", they often use fraudulent means to convince women not to have abortions, and neglect to tell women that they do not offer abortions[34]. Under government legislation, the counsellors are not permitted to directly advise an individual to not obtain an abortion, although many Crisis pregnancy centres will not train volunteers who believe that abortion is acceptable. They are known for giving women false information[35], using scare tactics[36], and making false promises[37] to convince them not to have abortions. After a woman has had her baby, she will often never hear from the crisis pregnancy centre again, despite any help they may have promised her. If a woman chooses to abort after visiting a crisis pregnancy centre, she will often be stalked or harassed by the staff"

The citations are all to sites that, again, are horribly biased and this article clearly has an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.162.110.34 (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Racism in Cuba

This article is in urgent need of improvement. It was proposed for deletion, which I declined, but despite definitely being notable (books, scholarly articles) it appears to be non-neutral and to have sourcing issues. Fences&Windows 02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible NPOV issue at Israeli_animal_spy_conspiracy_theories

The addition of the following is being contested: In The Wall Street Journal, columnist and deputy editorial page editor Bret Stephens commented that the Arab world's proclivity for believing in Zionist conspiracy theories like the Mossad shark to explain their problems points to "the debasement of the Arab mind."source.

To me, there appears to be a number of issues, "the debasement of the Arab mind." has been characterized as racist by at least 2 editors, the writer of the piece seems to have a strong predisposition which is not made clear, and the factual accuracy of his statement seems to be undermined by other sources; it is unclear if the "Mossad Shark" was ever seriously subscribed to. A small edit war (necessarily so as the article is under 1rr) is brewing involving a number of editors. Comments invited. un☯mi 18:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've come to this issue as an admin who's protected the page and blocked one editor (who removed the contested content twice) in reaction to the edit war. In my capacity as an editor, I think that it is an incredibly bad idea to add editorial comments of this sort to the article, and strongly recommend that it be removed. In every nationalist dispute of this sort, there is no shortage of commentators opining that one party to the conflict is a bunch of depraved idiots. Reporting such off-the-cuff political commentary does not help us write a neutral and informative article that helps the reader understand what this issue is about. Instead, any analysis of the topic should draw on reliable academic sources not associated with either side, not primarily news reports, and least of all op-eds. For this reason, I have doubts whether the entire "Reactions" section, which is mostly also merely journalists expressing their opinion, is helpful at all, and recommend that it be deleted.  Sandstein  18:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As one of the editors who re-added the information to the article, my reasoning for including it was to note the range of reactions that the media reports of these theories generated. I had previously added a comment by James Bamford, who reacted much differently than Bret Stephens. I guess Sandstein does make a good point that including the opinions of political journalists in an article about such a contentious issue might not be a good idea in general though. I wouldn't protest the removal of the reactions section since it seems destined to cause more trouble. I do think that the reaction of Bandar bin Sultan to the Vulture incident should remain in the article since he is a high profile figure in the Arab world. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe there's any NPOV issue at all (it is an opinion piece and clearly stated as such), and I do not believe the matter should have been brought to this board. It could have been dissuaded at the article's talk page as well. I also believe that opinions of notable journalists (the ones that have their BLP on Wikipedia) should be allowed in the articles. Having said so, I would not mind removing the whole section As Sandstein suggested leaving only opinion of Bandar bin Sultan as Qrsdogg suggested. After all the facts presented in the article speak for themselves. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is probably best to merge/add official reactions from the involved governments into the reports (where possible) and get rid of the section. There should probably be a generic "criticism has been raised that..." paragraph with some references grouped at the end. The only NPOV issue here, though, I must stress, is that some people are awfully sensitive and call the muqawama related cultural issues "racist" when they are not. Opinions about this culture vary and it is always strange to see editors do this when the issue is the Arab side of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the same editors have no qualms about promotion/insertion of "THE FACTS™" style writings by notably anti-Jewish commentators. On top of showing a lacking in understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict, this is poor editorial conduct and a POV-vio. Bret's article represents a notable opinion and such an opinion should be grouped to the people who write about it and presented in a proper manner -- I do agree with sadnstein that the current section where editorial comments are presented in a singular non encyclopaedic -- assortment-style -- manner is ... well, a bad idea. That said, I reiterate that there's no NPOV issue by presenting a notable perspective (there is an issue with trying to censor it on false grounds) and if someone wishes to present other notable views they are not prevented from doing so. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

There is a dispute at the Jerusalem article over whether Wikipedia can describe it as "the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such." It is stated in many RS that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, or not recognized as the capital (everyone agrees on that), and thus the question is whether Wikipedia can state that it is the capital even though these RS contradict that statement. An alternate text has been proposed, which says "Today Jerusalem is controlled by the state of Israel, which claims it as its capital. That status has been rejected by the international community, which considers East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation." Please comment. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In going through the articles related to this subject, I'm finding that the UN. org PDF links to appropriate UN resolutions are dead. My first reaction is that the "capital but not recognized" language seems to be factually correct. Logically a country has to have a capital, and that seems to be a question of bricks and mortar, not legality. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But that's not what the RS say consistently. It's not about our opinion or logic or original research. There are a lot of RS that say it's not the capital of Israel. "When Israel took steps to make a united Jerusalem its capital, the Security Council on 30 June 1980 adopted resolution 476 (1980) urgently calling on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem. After Israel’s non-compliance with the resolution, the Council, on 20 August, adopted resolution 478 (1980), in which it reiterated its position that all actions altering the status of the city were null and void, and called upon States that had established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to withdraw them."[60]. So in other words, RS contest that Jerusalem is capital. It's not just a matter of non-recognition. That's how I understand it anyway, I came to the article only to respond to an RfC, and I'm not an expert on the sources. But look at how Britannica deals with it: First, it gives historical context. Then, it says "Israel claimed the city as its capital after the Arab-Israeli War in 1948 and took the entire city during the Six-Day War of 1967. Its status as Israel’s capital has remained a point of contention: official recognition by the international community has largely been withheld pending final settlement of regional territorial rights." We are clearly doing this wrong by saying unequivocally it is Israel's capital [61][62]. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there are very few sources that say it is not the capital of Israel. There are many that say it is not recognized though. Neither source you provided says it's not the capital. That's just your interpretation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not reading those sources as saying that Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel, but that Israel's action is illegitimate. In fact, it's illogical to say otherwise. If Jerusalem wasn't the capital of Israel, there wouldn't be such a fuss. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"If Jerusalem wasn't the capital of Israel, there wouldn't be such a fuss." That's a great comment!--Mbz1 (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

LightSquared

LightSquared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) As mentioned by another editor on the talk page, this topic is contentious and vulnerable to POV edits from both those with an interest in GPS technology and those with an interest in the company. At this point probably just increasing the visibility of the article on uninvolved watchlists and getting additional editors involved may be enough, but it does appear to merit attention. VQuakr (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

is NPOV a factor when discussing sources?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_YouTube_personalities#Ted_Williams_but_not_RWJ.3F

Basically my question is whether a neutral point of view is a requirement for a source to be considered 'a go'? I thought that was a requirement for writing an article and not explicitly a concern for sources. I know the specific link likely doesn't qualify for other reasons, but this question I feel is something I should know. 72.209.160.88 (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the viewpoint of a source has to do with that discussion, but to answer your question, no the viewpoint of the source is not relevant. All sources have a bias. What matters is whether the source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. But looking at that discussion, the issue there is whether a source meets our definition of a reliable source. I didn't recognize most of the web sites discussed, but I'm guessing that many, if not all of those, do not qualify as a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. I suggest you take some time to familiarize yourself with our WP:RS guideline. If you have any questions about a specific source, feel free to ask on the reliable source notice board. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

CNN and the newyorktimes are acceptable sources, and I have looked into reliable source.72.209.160.88 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Acceptable" depends on the context. Editors should not simply parrot every "interesting" remark made about their subject: Wikipedia is not a gossip column. It is an encyclopedia, and tries to be a serious, credible encyclopedia. Which means that the material in article should be researched. The first requirement is that everything is "sourced" (traceable back to some source that presumably knows what they are talking about). Hopefully these sources are reliable, and even neutral. But even if Satan himself says 2+2=4, we do not despise the arithmetic "truth" of 2+2=4. In some contexts, sure, you might find good reason to quote or take material from a very non-neutral source. But editors still have a responsibility to produce neutral material ("balanced", see WP:WEIGHT). CNN might have some pertinent material about Ted Williams, but (esp. in this case) it might also be highly biased; an editor would be expected to check a range of sources, and evaluate the entire context. So strictly speaking the specific answer to your question is "no". But more fully the answer is: depends on how you use it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mind Sports world championship

Mind sports world championship has been flagged NPOV but without any comment left on the on the discussion page over an hour since it was tagged. I assume that this might be simply a problem with the wording of the opening sentence or naming, but I would like to know how to start a conversation to fix this issue?

I was using mind sports in its widely used sense such as for example the bridge (card game) official body who use it on their home page [63]. There is the problem there is no other conventient term that distinguishes sports from games of skill without controversy as it covers more than just card and board games. The reason for creating a longer list was as a result of the world championships page.

Tetron76 (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Do RS call them mind sports or is this just synthasis?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The term mind sports has existed since the 1990s. The major board games and card games governing bodies have used the term for lobbying purposes, therefore, there are many references in RS such as[64] in the independent chess column that uses it as a general term.

However, although, it is a widely understood term, it was originally a synthesis rather than an evolved term. Predominant current usage is by the World Mind Sports Games and so is applied mainly to the games of Go (game), chess, xiangqi, draughts and contract bridge. Their definition can be applied to a wider range of games and poker for example was in the news for lobbying to be treated as a mind sport.Tetron76 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

But to be called a mind sport championship RS wuild have to report the evnet as that, that is where the synthasis may be comming in. Asl oyou wuold need RS that call all exmaples mind sports, not a users view that they are. Also the articel is (it appears) mis-named, this is not about A championship but championships.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right that the article needs renaming. Perhaps I should have named it:

List of world championships in mind sports

which was the primary intent of the page to avoid inconsistancies prevalent on the world championship page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetron76 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Which world championship page and what inconsistancies?Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing politics definition issue

Two possible edits for the lede are afforded by one source. One possible choice is:

Stephen Fisher, defining "right(-wing)" for The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, states "The opposite of *left. As with the term left-wing, the label right-wing has many connotations which vary over time and are often only understood within the particular political context."[11]

The other using the exact same source has:

Stephen Fisher writes in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics that in liberal democracies the term has been defined as opposition to socialism or social democracy, and that right-wing parties have included the philosophies of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalism. He says "extreme right parties (have included) elements of racism and fascism" and "In surveys, self-placement on a left-right scale is associated with attitudes on economic policy, especially redistribution and privatization/nationalization and (particularly in Catholic countries) religiosity."[11]

The first was rejected by one editor as a That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of the source. I am 'absolutely certain' of your good faith, of course. I ask totally disinterested editors to examine the cite "^ McLean, Iain; McMilan, Alistair, eds (2009). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Stephen Fisher, contributor of entry for "right(–wing)." (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 465. ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5 (Paperback). http://books.google.com/books?id=KQXLgP6CZBkC&pg=PA465. Alternate ID for this edition: ISBN 978-0-19-920780-0 (Hardback). " and see if the first represents the entry fairly, if the first is a "ridiculous misrepresentation" of the entry, and similarly of the second presentation of the dictionary entry. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, one thing to remember is that you are not confined to making one single definition in the lede. You can have a separate section on "definitions". It's intrinsically difficult to define the subject because it stretches so far across time and space. And luckily it's not our job to make a single definition because we're not a dictionary. It sounds like you need to take sufficient space to summarise the various points made in this source. The first extract you give above, about the variation in meaning, seems to be essential in the lede paragraph, in the first sentence even. The longer explanation from the same source could go in later. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system. In recent years, there has been a marked decrease in such terrorism, which has been substantially credited to the end of the Cold War and the fall of the U.S.S.R. However, at its apogee, communism was argued by some to be the major source of international terrorism (whether inspired by the ideology or supported by its states).

Bibleograpy

• C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection. Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003. ISBN 978-0312211974
• David C. Wills. The First War on Terrorism: Counter-terrorism Policy During the Reagan Administration. Rowman & Littlefield 28 August 2003. ISBN 978-0742531291
• Brian Crozier. Political victory: the elusive prize of military wars. Transaction Publishers 31 May 2005. ISBN 978-0765802903

Comments

This has been suggested as a new lede for the Communist terrorism article as the current one has failed verification and citation needed tags on it. It has been suggested that this proposal is not neutral, so I would like the opinions of some uninvolved editors on it. Tentontunic (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Without even looking at the article (i.e., without being over-encumbered by data! :-) this topic itself seems to be an overrreach. E.g., "acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology", given the right's free and liberal application of "Marxist" to about everyone that might question free-market capitalism, is so broad and diverse as to include about all "terrorism" except that committed by right-wing groups. (So for "balance" we should expect to see an article on Capitalist terrorrism??) Even one of the reference titles ("The First War on Terrorism: Counter-terrorism Policy During the Reagan Administration") seem odd on its face, as I distinctly recall the Viet Cong (slightly prior to the Reagan administration) being referred to as "communist terrorists", and before that the British were having a similiar set-to in Malaysia. So even before getting to the lede paragraph, the very topic of this article is problematical.

  And upon looking at the talk page: wow. LOTS of talk, a dozen archives, and all this for an article that is little more than the lede paragraph. (And quite properly tagged for multiple issues.) Perhaps what the editors there need most is for someone to come in and take charge of the class. The usual response ("take it up on the talk page") seems rather futile, as that obviously is not working (except to the extent of preventing publication of material with multiple issues). It could be pointed out that the lede should summarize the article, but as yet there is (effectively) no article. The problem here is not the lede — it is the entire article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You are entirely correct with regards to Vietnam and Malaya. The term has been used to describe actions by many communist groups, even the Nazi`s used it, they blamed the Reichstag fire on communist terrorists. The reason I am proposing this as a lede is so the article will have a focus to work from. Currently the article is, as you rightly say is practically empty. I would like to expand the body of the article with an historiography section, from it`s first usage in Russia during the revolution, then the German usage and work through to the Fighting Communist Organizations of the 1980s. But to get any progress on this article is, shall we say, not an easy task. Tentontunic (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Question Could you please provide direct auotes from the sources used. Your suggest lead does not appear to correctly reflect what the sources say. TFD (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You may look at the sources yourself on Google books, [65] [66] [67] Tentontunic (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  It is not proper to just point at at book and essentially say "It's in there." You should provide the text you rely on, as well as the specific location where it is found.

  This "focus" you would like to provide: I take it this would be like the "thesis statement" our teachers repeatedly harped on. And that would seem to be a good idea. But the proper place to do that is back on the article's talk page. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Note. There may be confusion because Tentontunic's reflist is not showing properly. --FormerIP (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not know how to fix that. Are you able to? Tentontunic (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Tell me the page numbers and I shall link them. TFD (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

J. M. Drake page 19David C. Wills page 219 Brian Crozier page 203. Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. TFD (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(out) None of the sources can be used to support the first sentence of your claim, "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology". The rest of the sources read as follows:

"Communist terrorist groups aim at overthrowing the existing political and economic system through the use of terrorism in the hope that violence will politicise the masses and incite them to rise up and destroy the capitalist system." "However, there has been a decline in left-wing, communist terrorism, which can be attributed in large part to the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union." "At its height, communism was the major threat to world peace, and by far the major source of international terrorism: that is, communist-inspired and/or communist-supported terrorism."

It seems that this does not support a consistent definition - is it communist-inspired or communist-supported? Communists of course supported non-communist terrorism as well. Also, the third source, which was written by Brian Crozier, a military historian, for Transaction Publishers, may not be an ideal source.

TFD (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying the first source written does not support this line? "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology". I would have to disagree. The Brian Crozier needs to be discussed for reliability on the RSN board. Have you never used a book by transaction before as a source? They are a reputable publisher you know. Tentontunic (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Drake writes earlier in the section, "What is important is that ideology provides a motive - and possibly a formula - for action. His section on communism concerns terrorists whose motivation is to establish a communist state. He does not include Marxist-Leninists whose objective for terrorist actions is to create a separate state, e.g., the ETA or Irish terrorists, which he classifies under separatism. TFD (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Those actions are still terrorist actions committed by communists. And I would argue that creating a separate state would also be supported by the current citation which mentions overthrowing the existing political system, which is what separatism is after all. Tentontunic (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Once an accepted degree of independence is achieved, separatist terrorists will end their campaigns and enter democratically-elected legislatures. Their organizations tend to be more broadly-based and they do not enforce ideological conformity among their supporters. They are more likely to build mass organizations rather than cadre parties. They will work with like-minded groups across the political spectrum. They may even abandon Marxism-Leninism while continuing their terrorist campaigns. Two very different types of terrorism, one considered left-wing and the other separatist. The same issue exists with "Christian religious terrorism". It does not refer to Christians who practice terrorism, but merely to Christians who use terrorist actions for Christian motives. TFD (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  T: I wasn't aware that the ETA or the "Irish terrorists" (of either side) "subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology." That you consider them "still ... communists" suggests that you are using a definition other than the one stated above.

  TFD: that is a pretty subtle distinction between "Christians who practice terrorism" and "Christians who use terrorist actions for Christian motives". Before you get all wound up trying to explain that, consider that such fine distinctions are often a vanishingly small point on which to stand.

  At any rate, it seems to me that neither one of you is making much of a case regarding any definite NPOV problem in the article. It seems to me that this discussion should return to the article's talk page until you can agree on what the issue is. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

John W. Bryant

• John W. Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is currently stuck over a dispute on including how many wives Mr. Bryant allegedly has had (he is a member of a "fundamentalist" Mormon sect which may or may not practice polygamy). There is an IP with an alleged conflict of interest who is trying to remove the information; there is a question over the veracity of the source (which is provided by an admin BTW). I encourage everyone to take a look and post any comments directly related to the dispute there (comments not directly related to the dispute, I suppose you can post here). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Long running dispute on Senkaku Islands dispute

This article explains an ongoing dispute over ownership of a small group of islands between PRC, ROC, and Japan. While much about this article is in dispute, I need input on a single sentence that we've been arguing about for a long time. The sentence is:

"The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that Senkaku islands is the part of Japanese territory in 1953."

According to the best translations we have (which have been confirmed by native Chinese speakers and as far as I know not been disputed by any editors), what the People's Daily article explicitly states with respect to the Senkaku Islands is:

"The Ryukyu Islands are scattered in the sea northeast of Taiwan and southwest of the island of Kyushu (Japan), consisting of seven groups including the Senkaku Islands, the Sakishima Islands, the Daito Islands, the Okinawa islands, Oshima Islands, the Tokara islands abd the Osumi islands. Each group has many small islands, a total of more than a total of fifty four hundred names unnamed islands and islets, the total land area of four thousand six hundred and seventy square kilometers."

The seven references in the sentence in our article are from two divisions of the Japanese government, a Japanese newspaper, a Chinese book, and a two US researchers. All of these sources believe that the above quotation from People's Daily means that, in 1953, the Chinese government (its assumed that People's Daily prints only officially approved opinions) considered the Senkaku Islands to be a part of Japanese territory. Now, I will say, this is a pretty believable analysis. My concern for the article, though, comes from exactly how we treat and attribute the sentence with regards to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Specifically, as far as our translations show, the People's Daily article never explicitly states that Senkaku Islands are a part of Japanese territory. As such, it appears, to me (and some other editors, although not the majority), that the claim that PD said that is an opinion, and thus must be explicitly attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. As such, I have argued that what our article should state is something like the following (exact wording is flexible):

"In 1953, the People's Daily, a Chinese newspaper which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that the Senkaku Islands are a part of the Ryukyuan Islands (Okinawa).(+citation for original PD article) The Japanese government, along with some journalists and US researchers, have interpreted that article to mean that the Chinese government considered the Senkaku Islands to be a part of Japanese territory in 1953.(+all or most of the current citations)"

Opposing editors argue, essentially, that it is not nor has it ever been in dispute that China always considered Okinawa a part of Japanese territory (a claim I have no ability to evaluate, nor do I think is relevant), and thus it's not really an interpretation or opinion to make the transitive analysis that Senkaku Islands = Okinawa = Japanese territory. So, NPOV board, is this really, as I believe, an issue of the need to attribute NPOV, thus governed directly by policy? Or is this merely an editorial decision governed primarily by editorial consensus? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, I'd point out that it was mentioned several times that the PD article itself considered Ryukyu Islands to be an independent geographic entity. Also, the Okinawa Prefecture in Japan did not exist until 1970. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2, You said many times "Okinawa did not exist until 1970". I question your knowledge of Okinawa. The Ryukyu Islands became Okinawa Prefecture in 1879, a hundred years before your recognition. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

In the explicit context of Senkaku Islands dispute, Qwyrxian's arguably reasonable formulation is smoke and mirrors. The framing is misleading.

Our policy is plain, straightforward:

WP:V + WP:RS trumps zero citations from zero reliable sources.

Absent any discernible foundation, this is speculative -- unhelpful in our talk page threads, and unhelpful in this venue as well. In wiki-terms, this is "original research", is it not?

The underlying premises conflate fact and factoid, which is defined by the 2008 edition of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact". In other words,

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

These are not inconsequential issues. --Tenmei

(talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, of which WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is also a core policy, of equal standing with WP:V and WP:OR. I wish you would address this issue, instead of continuing to repeat complex formulations and strange links that don't directly bear on the subject being raised. The question being asked here is whether the formulation "People's Daily said Senkaku is a part of Japanese territory" is opinion or if it is fact. If it is opinion, it must be attributed. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you ignored a discussion whether such weird attribution is necessary in Japanese POV section "Arguments from Japan". Are you going to change the wording each time a new citation is added to the sentence? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot to mention that. Yes, the sentence is in the section titled "Arguments from Japan." However, that section contains specifically attributed statements, as well as factual statements. I feel that the attribution in the title of the section doesn't the issue clear; when I read this, the way I interpret the section is "Fact: PD said Senkaku belongs to Japan"; along with the title of the section, I then read "Implication: Senkaku really does belong to Japan." I don't think I've seen any other article where just adding a section title like this removes the need to distinguish at each point the difference between facts and opinions. However, if the consensus is that that attribution is sufficient, I will accept it. Personally, I think the whole article structure should be changed to solve this problem (going with a topical structure like is found in Sea of Japan naming dispute), but that is clearly going to have to wait for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Looking at the actual wording in the sources cited for the statement, it's difficult to understand how it has been transformed into a statement of fact in the Wiki article that takes the form "the People's Daily said the Senkaku islands are Japanese territory". That isn't what the sources say. The current statement does look like an unattributed interpretation of what the People's Daily published so I think Qwyrxian is making a fair point policy-wise. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This thread is putting the cart before the horse. This becomes a case of the wrong issues proposed in the wrong venue with the wrong background and with no seeming awareness of the potential adverse consequences.

The article published in The People's Daily was unnoticed until 1996. Today, it is an illustrative example in a counter-argument which Qwyrxian fails to mention. It is not proffered by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the express purpose of evoking the interesting quandry Qwyrxian describes.

Yes, the reasoning is alluring, but there is much more that Qwyrxian withholds -- the context of this one sentence and the consequences.

Especially the consequences.

This rhetorical exercise functions only to overwhelm, obscure and devalue. We turn our project upside down. This begs a question: What is the practical effect of insisting on this plausible non-question as if it were an a priori matter?

We do best when we are guided by these words:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

In this thread, Qwyrxian devalues this threshold concept, converting it into a kind of afterthought which can be marginalized at will. It is a bright line distinction. --Tenmei (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My view is that the current wording is unsatisfactory. However, I do think that the article - if only indirectly - was acknowledging Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands. As far as I know the Ryuku Islands have been considered Japanese territory for over a century. Accordingly if the People's Daily clearly stated that the islands were part of the Ryuku chain, that meant they were Japanese as well.

I suggested something along the lines of "An article in the P-D...organ of.... on DATE acknowledged Japanese control of the Senkaku Islands, when it said that QUOTE." Control is probably the wrong word, but I was trying to improve on the current situation by making it clear why the article was acknowledging that these islands were Japanese. John Smith's (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

@Tenmei: I want to point out the following quotation from our behavioral guidelines on gaming the system. One example of gaming is Cherry-picking policies: "Example of cherry picking policies: demanding support for an edit because it is verifiable [WP:VERIFIABILITY] and cited [WP:CITE], whilst marginalizing or evading the concerns of others that it is not based upon reliable sources [WP:RS] or fairly representing its purported view [WP:NPOV]." Now, please understand, I am not saying that you are doing this on purpose; i.e., I am not accusing you of gaming the system. However, I believe that you are unintentionally holding up only one policy (WP:V), and not also simultaneously applying WP:NPOV. The sentence must be appropriate with regards to all policies, not only with regards to one. The question being asked here is whether or not the policy violates WP:NPOV, which I think it does.

@John Smith: While I think that version is better, I don't think it fully solves the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Qwyrxian, I am surprised you said User:John Smith's version is better. As far as I know, it solved nothing. Somehow, he still thinks PD acknowledged the islands were Japanese. That's just the same idea as the original text that we found to be problematic. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, The purpose of an attribution is to prevent a reader from confusing a POV opinion with a generally accepted opinion. The implementation of such an attribution is not limited to a sentence-attribution like "X claimed Y" but a section-attribution placing the sentence inside "Argument from X" section. In the former method, a "sentence" is attributed to X, while the latter method, a "section" is attributed to X. Therefore there is no problem with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The People's Daily article sheds little light on what the position of the Chinese government was in 1953. Government control, especially in 1953, did not include intensive consultations with diplomats and international lawyers with respect to every statement. The quotation can be used, but used, exploited, is the operative word. Information about that use, if adequately sourced, can be included in the article, but not as evidence of the considered position of the People's Republic of China. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't use a reference to an article to support something the article doesn't say. That is basic, whatever the context. The onus is on those who want to use the PD to summarise correctly the content of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Fred Bauder -- Your comment is framed by the misleading context Qwyrxian which has contrived in this thread.

Our problem is not easy; and it is mis-parsed because of factors Qwyrxian failed to identify.

Consider this objectively:

Example: Fred Bauder's analysis does not consider the crucial relevance of a Latin maxim venire contra factum proprium which is explained in different words in corollary Wikipedia articles:

• de:Estoppel
• en:Estoppel
• es:Doctrina de los actos propios
• fr:Estoppel
• ko:금반언의 원칙
• it:Estoppel

• ja:禁反言の法理
• pl:Estoppel
• sv:Estoppel
• th:กฎหมายปิดปาก
• zh:禁止反言

Analysis: As we know, Wikipedia articles are not considered WP:RS, but the existence of this array of articles is itself a fact. This list is accepted as fact in the context of a counter-argument which rebuts a denial of existence of the list of articles.

In the same manner, the People's Daily article is part of a list which is significant in the context of counter-argument. In this NPOV thread, both (a) the existence of a Senkaku Islands counter-argument list and (b) the subject of the argument/counter-argument remain unacknowledged.

It is noteworthy that subject Qwyrxian does not acknowledge is venire contra factum proprium. This is non-trivial in the Senkaku Islands dispute.

Qwyrxian presents an arguable question which is plainly alluring; but it is a straw man which functions only to divert and distract. Also, this straw man has an additionally complicating context which Qwyrxian has explained succinctly: "... in other words, what I'm trying to say is that I believe Bobthefish2 that the Chinese was mistranslated, but I'm loathe to abandon WP:V just based on AGF-ing him. In fact, Qwyrxian has abandoned WP:V again and again.

This thread has a skewed perspective because we have not addressed the essential, irreducible threshold in which WP:V + WP:RS is more important than zero citations from zero reliable sources.

When threshold issues are glossed over, it produces unanticipated consequences. --Tenmei (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Qwyrxian -- QED. Your rhetorical question here is crafted in ways which marginalize any reply. The principal purpose of any answer is substantially frustrated. This is part of a persisting problem. Support per WP:V + WP:RS has not been provided, e.g.,

• Strike ONE: When Bobthefish2 alleged that the article was a "fraudulent translation"?
• Strike TWO: when Bobthefish2 claimed that it was "totally wrong"?
• Strike THREE: when Bobthefish2 argued

• Senkaku Islands ∈ Ryukyu Islands or SI ∈ RI ≠ RI ∉ Japan or SI ∉ Japan here and here

This is our third time around the mulberry bush. It bears repeating that we do well to applaud Qwyrxian. The WP:AGF-inspired strategy of credulity is arguably good, but enough is enough.--Tenmei (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Itsmejudith. Yes, of course, you're right. And no, there is a little more to this .... --Tenmei (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)