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

Men's Rights and Southern Poverty Law Center, (SPLC). Content in lede and a devoted section.

Page: Men's rights movement

Dispute: Southern Poverty Law Center,(SPLC), content in lede and a devoted section.

Question: Are the Southern Poverty Law Center's views on the Men's rights movement any more notable than other any commentators, to the extent they should be cited in the lede and have a de facto section to themselves? It can be argued that since they have taken a partisan stance they are no more notable than any other commentators.

Argument: For a source to be used in the lede or have a section devoted to it alone, it should be significantly notable and the comments significantly satisfy WP:UNDUE. The SPLC may be respected on many matters, but they also have received criticism. The SPLC's reputation has come from dealing with issues no reasonable people could disagree on, eg KKK or Skinheads. The Men's rights movement is a subject reasonable people can disagree on, and the SPLC has taken a strong partisan stance. There is nothing wrong in being partisan, diversity of views are crucial in debate. However, I would argue their reputation does not extend to disputes of this nature. They are no more notable than any other commentators. The sources in question are [1] [2] [3].

As such I feel the SPLC material in the lede and the Criticism Section [4] should be removed. They are no more notable than any other critics. Additional argument includes:-

(1) Notability

The following quotes from the sources and point illustrate highly partisan language and ignorance of the topic,

• "The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement, is made up of a number of disparate, often overlapping, types of groups and individuals." (The Fathers rights movement and Men's rights movement are not the same.)

• " Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women. Others, who have internalized Christian “headship” doctrine, are desperately seeking the “submissive” women such doctrine celebrates"

• "The men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists..."

• "The aggressively hostile misogynist strategies of so-called Men's Rights and Fathers' Rights Activists are serious enough that the [SPLC] has included these groups in their expose on American hate groups." (Factually incorrect)

• The term "Manosphere" is a pejorative for the Men's rights movement. It is used in the text and also in the URL of one of the sources.

(2) Undue Weight

There are number of violations of WP:UNDUE including

• The commentary refers to the N. America alone.

• Their views are not notability on the subject. (see above)

• A further clarifying article, claims only fringe elements are being addressed, ie see "aimed at the hardline fringe" [5]

• They have not defined or demonstrated Misogyny. Claiming Misogyny is a significant claim. Many would say it is being used a pejorative.

Concluding Remarks: The Men's rights movement page is a very contentious, and at times we need help. This issue is a particular thorn in the side atm and outside commentary would be really appreciated. There have been very extensive attempts at resolving this. CSDarrow (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Move to close this thread per WP:FORUMSHOP. CSDarrow has duplicated the same exact discussion on no less than three pages now, including WP:RSN[6] and Talk:Men's rights movement.[7] At this point, a nice block for CSDarrow would be appreciated from the community whose energy he has wasted. I suggest that CSDarrow step down off of his WP:SOAPBOX and find something more constructive to do with his time. Wikipedia isn't part of the manosphere and I ain't no mangina. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The RSN case was with respect to a different matter. ie whose voice is speaking, the named author or the SPLC? Since you where by far the most prolific contributor I am having difficulty in seeing how you could forget that. The issue was an important and entirely different matter. The content in Men's rights movement is clearly going to be similar to this submission. CSDarrow (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Move to close this thread per WP:DEADHORSE. Matter has been discussed to death already. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Talked to death indeed and not resolved. You and Viriditas being very strident opponents of my case. If I recall correctly. CSDarrow (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC is a very good source because they make a study of groups and movements such as "Men's rights." Contrary to what you say, the criticism of SPLC comes from the groups they study, which is understandable. The descriptions by the SPLC are essentially the same as one would find in any reliable source, but the advantage of using the SPLC is that they provide greater coverage of these groups. In fact much of the information about them found in newspapers and academic writing will be sourced to the SPLC. TFD (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since this is the first time the SPLC has written about the Men's Rights Movement, I am having difficulty in seeing how your last point can be the case. In fact I'd go further and say essentially everything you have written is untrue. CSDarrow (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Close Forum shopping is never helpful. Enthusiasm is great, but Wikipedia should not be used to promote a movement. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Including the SPLC? CSDarrow (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that highlighting the SPLC's criticism of the MRM in the lead strikes me as giving the SPLC's view point UNDUE weight.
Given the amount of controversy the MRM article has engendered here on WP, I would expect to find that the MRM itself has engendered lots and lots of controversy outside of WP. Surely there are other organizations and advocacy groups who have criticized the MRM (criticisms that sould be mentioned in the criticisms section). The lede should be more generic... simply saying that "the MRM has engendered criticism and controversy". The specifics of those criticisms should be left to the "Criticism" section (which would mention the SPLC's criticisms along with those of other groups.) In other words, I agree that we should take the SPLC out of the lede and suggest expanding the criticisms section to include the criticisms of multiple groups. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I support having at least a paragraph dedicated to the SPLC in the article body and a summary of that paragraph in the lead section. The SPLC is known for research, and their recent research on the MRM has revealed that some (but by no means all) MRM groups are involved in hate speech. The specific groups should be named in the article, attributed to SPLC. Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, perhaps you could clarify. So you would support the inclusion of some of the quotations I listed? You feel these are the result of 'research'? If they have 'researchers' it would seem they need to get new ones, they can't distinguish the difference between the Men's rights movement and Fathers rights movement. My sense is anyone involved with research would be left with the impression it had little to do with these articles; other than that of a cursory journalistic nature.

Moreover, you feel 'research' on a subject they have taken a strong partisan stance on is going to be reasonable? The term research to me includes a strong element of objectively. The SPLC has no special reputation or expertise in subjects they have a partisan interest in. Which is the whole point of my submission here. A fact that seems to have elluded you. CSDarrow (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC has a well-deserved reputation for research; their research is cited many times by scholars. I extend this reputation forward to their interest in the MRM until proven otherwise, that is, until some equivalent, respected source contradicts the SPLC's conclusions about hate speech from particular MRM groups. Wikipedia (and the scholarly community) does not require a non-partisan stance from the SPLC. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC does not have a reputation for research on legitimately controversial issues, or been cited widely on them. Which considering they conflate the FRM and MRM I am not surprised. It's very nice of you to extend their reputation to other issues, but without supporting logic you are merely using Argument from authority. I doubt "something is true until proven otherwise" even has a Latin name.CSDarrow (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, could you please take a moment to backup your comments with supporting citations? Because at this point, all of the points cited to Goldwag (who does not work for the SPLC but published in their magazine) are supported by multiple sources. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you are just making stuff up when you say they don't have a reputation for research and they have not been cited widely. Clearly they have. Viriditas (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, I am assuming the Goldwag you speak of is the one who doesn't know the difference between the Men's rights movement and Father's rights movement. Or is there another I am unaware of? Could you please clarify. Here is your source [8]. CSDarrow (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I already addressed this point the first time you brought it up in another discussion, so it seems like you have put in your earplugs and you have taken this tendentious forum shopping to the IDHT level of 11. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, you have been doing Wikipedia too much, take a rest. Sources can't be edited and have words that aren't there added to them CSDarrow (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Which to me seems fair, if it was not for the fact others wish to incorporate criticism into the text as well. Gathering criticism, of which there is much, into one section to me seems the way to go. This is the way it is done for most politically charged subjects on Wikipedia, eg Facism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Feminism, Marxism, Radical_feminism, Putinism, Anarchism, Neoconservatism, Libertarianism, Anti-globalization movement all have separate criticism sections. Strangely Conservatism seems above scrutiny. CSDarrow (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You've repeated this comment several times in multiple discussions. Are any of those articles of GA or FA class? Or are they poorly constructed articles representing sparring POV pushers jockeying for their pet topic? Could you at least find a good or featured article to compare it to here? Criticism sections are not recommended, no matter what Blueboar says, and we try to merge criticism into the body to avoid forking content. Viriditas (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If people are concerned that an expanded "Criticism" section would itself be UNDUE... I would also suggest a "Response to Criticism" section. We would have to be careful to avoid editorial OR (ie keep it to published responses), but it would be appropriate. This has been done in other articles on controversial topics, and if done correctly it can help to bring neutrality to the article. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Which on the face of it seems fair and reasonable. However the sources that are the subject of the criticism, by our are revered Academy, are not considered reliable sources for Wikpedia. Go figure. CSDarrow (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Blueboar's suggestion goes against our best practices, and criticism, whenever possible, should not be set apart in separate sections but merged within the body of articles inline, as part of the major sections. I would be very interested in reviewing a GA or FA article that follows your advice. In general, poorly written articles are characterized by criticism sections, and a response to criticism selection is representative of POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Lots to read above: Where an article is about a sufficiently large group, and negative information about a subgroup thereof is placed in the article, we run the risk of tarring the superset with claimed attributes of a subset. If we had an article on Gnarphism (hypothetically - I do not think it exists as an article) and we had a group asserting that "10% of Gnarphists were 'mass-murderers'", we would be likely associating "mass-murder" with Gnarphism in the eyes of the reader were we to insert that claim. Doing such a thing on any topic is surely one falling under the NPOV rules. "Some" is way too insufficient for inserting a claim ... "Most" or "almost all" would be more sustainable. Are there articles on Wikipedia already doing this sort of paint-brushing of groups or people? Yes. But OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for more to exist. As for "listing groups named by another group" -- that seems "right out" unless balancing material is provided both about the groups listed and the group doing the listing with its criteria explicitly stated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be very easy to find "hate speech" in the writings of some feminists (Valerie Solanas and Andrea Dworkin come to mind). I do not think that would justify having a lede statement that "Aspects of the American feminist movement have been criticized for exhibiting misandrous tendencies". This article is full of this stuff. The lede also has "the MRM is considered a backlash to the feminist movement". Yes, I know the word "backlash" is used within feminism, but it creates an impression of brutality and unthinking violence; phrases such as "reaction against" or "critical response to" would make the same point more neutrally. It also presents this position as unquestioned fact ("is considered"). Then lower down we have "Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom [77], the United States [60] and India[78] have opposed legislation criminalizing marital rape." Again, the phrasing seems to imply that the whole "men's rights" movement has opposed this. This is like saying "feminists have advocated castrating men" because some of the more far-out ones have made such suggestions. Paul B (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Which of the men's rights groups in the article are known for their pro-feminist, pro-woman positions, where they focus solely on issues facing men without engaging in attacks on women? Can anyone respond to this other than the crickets chirping? The MRM defines itself as against feminism and against women. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this comment supposed to mean something? It's virtually impossible to define a "pro-woman" or, for that matter, an "anti-woman" position (short of arguing that women shouldn't exist). It's next-to nonsensical to argue that men's rights movements are "against women". One wouldn't expect them to be "pro-feminist", but, of course, there is no single "feminism". As I'm sure you are aware, the rhetoric of 'men's rights' mimics feminist language on woman's rights, so it really depends what one understands by feminism. This is a non-question. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul, I hope you are kidding. History is full of women fighting against anti-woman positions, look at Makers: Women Who Make America as only a brief example. Could you point me to the same battle men in the MRM are fighting? No, of course you can't, because the only "battle" these men are fighting are other women. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's nice that you answer your own question to tell yourself you are right. Of course you are wrong. MRM is is a broad term to cover a wide range of movements,. The concept of "anti-woman positions" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Your last sentence does not seem to be even coherent. They are fighting for what they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be their rights, claiming that in some instances women have adavantages over men. We have to rwspect the particularity of thdse argumentsd andlook at the details. It does not help to make asweeping statements. That's the kind of airy dismissal that produces the very frustration of which mwembers of these groups so frequently speak. Paul B (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is now becoming forum shopping, an RSN thread[9] and a talk page thread[10] are all ready open on this, and neither have found in CSDarrow's favour. CSDarrow has asserted that the SPLC is unreliable at the talk page. There is already consensus that the SPLC should not be included in lede. However CSDarrow has attempted to use that as a means to declare the source unreliable (see the talk page thread for all this here). That has backfired and this thread being opened here is of no use to what CS Darrow is ostensibly asking here (i.e should the SPLC be in the lede) that has already been answered. However his attempts to declare the SPLC unreliable have not succeeded and this looks like a case of asking the other parent. A WP:AN thread is open about this. And as such this should be closed--Cailil ^talk 21:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A consenus reached Cailil? Well you better tell Viriditas that, when I removed the content from the lede it was rapidly reverted, with the comment:- "No consensus for this edit". I did not see you raise any objections, your silence was in fact deafening. I am gathering addressing the points I have raised here is beneath you. You did not address them in the talk page and you are avoiding them here. I have expressed them in clear and simple language, give it a go Cailil. It would be way more productive than procedural intrigue. Go on Cailil address them, give it a go. I'll be kind I promise you.

The page WP:GOODFAITH also makes good reading. CSDarrow (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow: you have quoted this guideline several times in the last few days. FYI, you might want to read the 4th paragraph of the lede yourself as well as WP:AAGF.Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Slp1 you are right. I have no idea how I could think Cailil was suggesting bad faith on my part. Shame on me. CSDarrow (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Cailil, you obviously are a busy man. Let me help you and we'll do them one at a time

• Does a source that does not know the difference between the Men's rights movement and Father's rights movement deserve special status over other commentators?

Whilst we are at it we might as well do another

• Does a source that concludes " Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women. Others, who have internalized Christian “headship” doctrine, are desperately seeking the “submissive” women such doctrine celebrates" deserve special status over other commentators?

I'll help you out. I will posit not only does such a source not deserve special status, I'd say it deserves no status at all. Quit the procedural intrigue, answer my questions. CSDarrow (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, did you win the Olympic medal for missing the point? Extremists in the men's rights and father's rights movements are indistinguishable, and that's the focus of Goldwag's expertise. Treating them as one and the same when their response is the same is acceptable. For example, in 2007, sociologist Robert Menzies of Simon Fraser University[11] wrote:

Men's and fathers' groups allege that a prejudicial feminist state has deprived them of the rights to liberty, choice, expressive freedom, a just quality of life, participation in the private sphere, due process, and equal treatment before the law. The administrators and spokesmen for these forums conceive themselves as being collectively embroiled in a common quest to attain justice for men, fathers, and families.[12]

Goldwag's treatment of men's and fathers' groups is accurate and supported by sources like Menzies ("Virtual backlash: Representations of men's 'rights' and feminist 'wrongs' in cyberspace") Your understanding is not. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, you never fail to amaze me. CSDarrow (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that spreading essentially the same conversation to yet another forum is at best tedious and at worst an attempt to get a different answer from others. But let's summarize:

• Notwithstanding CSDarrow's repeated attempts to paint them as unreliable, the Southern Poverty Law Centre has been repeatedly found to be a reliable at RSN discussions in the past and on this very subject.
• Similarly, the SPLC has been extensively quoted by the media and scholarly sources, [13][14][15][16][17][18] including these very articles being discussed.[19][20][21][22]. It is clear that the SPLC's publications are considered notable by other secondary sources.
• In my view there was a fairly strong consensus at the talkpage that criticism sections are deprecated (see Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" sectionWP:STRUCTURE etc) and that the SPLC material should be integrated into another section (I suggest the "Relation to feminism" section). An additional reasoning for this from my perpective - and here I agree with CSDarrow and others - that having a separate section gives undue weight to this specific criticism.
• There was also, in my view a fairly strong consensus at the talkpage that the material belongs in the article but not necessarily in the lede, and this seems supported here by some editors. The lede could be expanded: it needs to contain a longer summary of the movement's ideals and activities, but a longer and more detailed summary of the various critiques which are sprinkled through the article.

As a bold way forward, I am going to collapse the criticism section and integrate that material elsewhere. CSDarrow, how about you suggest a couple of sentences that in your view fairly summarize all the material critiquing of the MRM currently in the article? Reading writing for the opponent might help. Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So in short move the criticism section into the lede and load it up, and have criticism in the text as well. Presumable due to the SPLC's reliability we'll include that "...some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women." If the SPLC is so reliable then the questions I have asked Cailil, which I have no doubt he won't address, should be easily countered.

This is NPOV not the talk page and the question I have brought here needs to answered before we can restructure. I see you are a member of the elites who can edit the page, how nice. The SPLC commentary in lede still remains despite an apparent consensus for its removal. CSDarrow (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Question to Uninvolved Editors

Should the SPLC material presently in the lede of Men's rights movement be there?

(It would be appreciated and constructive if involved editors stay out of this)

Binkersnet, Concerning refusing my request. You have the right to do as you wish, whether it's right to do it is a different matter.

CSDarrow (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, it should not be in the lede... as I stated above, the lede should be generalized. While it is fine for the lede to say that the Men's rights movement has engendered criticism, it is inappropriate to highlight specific criticisms in the lede. Save the specifics for somewhere later in the article. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, the SPLC should be in the lead section because it is a prominent and respected research group. The article body should be expanded to name specific men's rights groups that have been identified by the SPLC as ones using hate speech. That way the whole MRM is not tainted with the accusations against parts of the MRM.
  (Just so you know, CSDarrow, all discussions on Wikipedia are open; they are not restricted to involved or uninvolved editors.) Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• not really, but At least the version I'm seeing now doesn't have a coherent "reaction to/outside analysis" section, and one sentence featuring the SPLC as the sole reaction seems out of place and weirdly undue in both directions. I have to suspect that the liberal establishment of which the SPLC is part has to have more of a reaction than this. It would make more sense to say something more general and comprehensive in the lede and to have a section expanding on this later in the article, in which the SPLC's opinions could be given as examples. Mangoe (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes We need to establish the mainstream view of the movement which happens to be negative. TFD (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We certainly do need a mainstream view, but the SPLC is not a good choice for the sole embodiment of that. They are a party to conflict with these groups, so their neutrality would at least need some endorsement from less plainly involved observers. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd actually disagree with your analysis here, Mangoe, though not necessarily your conclusion. The SPLC is not an involved party: they are a specialist organization that examines category-based hatred in the US, and one month they chose to put the spotlight on the MRM. Critics are by definition non-neutral: the medical establishment being non-neutral about homeopathy doesn't mean we minimize their views about the matter or state that they are non-mainstream. Having said that, there is a likely a big difference between the medics and the SPLC in terms of whether their views are sufficiently significant enough to need such emphasis in the lead in a global encyclopedia. In this case, and as you recommend, there are other significant critics of the movement, and these should be integrated into a more balanced lead. Slp1 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This Pulitzer Prize and the George Polk Award winner disagrees [23] as does the Christian Science Monitor [24] the most trivial of searches gives massive criticism. The SPLC has no more authority, legal or moral, to designate "hate groups" than does the SPCA, or you, or me. Not even the FBI attempts to designate "hate groups." The SPLC uses the label "hate group"for the sole purpose of agitating its donor base. "Hate group" is a marketing ploy, not a legal category. The web is awash with criticism of the SPLC from solid sources. It's dogged use by some as a respected source is a insulting to the to Wikipedia concept. It is the National Enquirer of the Radical Left and Champagne Socialists with big pockets.

CSDarrow (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

They don't need "authority", legal or moral, to be able to gather together scholarly appreciation and kudos, and to be cited over and over again for their research and conclusions. The SPLC has no more authority than Rolling Stone magazine has to name the 100 best record albums (or 100 greatest guitarists, or 100 best singers, etc.) yet people pay attention and comment on the lists. The SPLC is frequently cited for performing valuable research and analysis, and this makes their list of MRM misogynist groups a valid list for our purposes. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, another one of your shallow appeals to authority dripping with puffery. They have no expertise, or any business commenting, on issues that people can legitimately disagree on. This includes the Men Rights Movement. Misogyny is a Weasel word, define it for me Binkersnet. It is no more than a pejorative and their commentary is shallow partisanship. The SPLC is not a legitimate citation for a respectable peer reviewed academic journal, especially the articles used here. The fact you suggest they are is mind boggling; the fact you expect people to explain to you why, is even more mind boggling. CSDarrow (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The FBI does not designate hate groups because hatred and hate speech are not illegal in the U.S. The FBI does use the SPLC's research however because it is responsible for prosecuting hate crimes. TFD (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

How do the SPLC define hate speech? CSDarrow (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if the SPLC defines "hate speech". In a recent case the Canadian Supreme Court provides one, "the term “hatred” contained in a legislative hate speech prohibition should be applied objectively to determine whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."[25] More recently, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled the same way, as did the European Human Rights Commission last year.[26] TFD (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, which different is from:- 'You are on the Right and have views that we really really disagree with'. Which is the case with SPLC on a number of their declarations. They have been criticized for exactly this by a number of respectable sources, and is self evidently the case to an objective reader. The KKK is one thing, but they have gone way beyond their brief in recent years. CSDarrow (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The categorization of hate groups in the U.S. coincides with the description of hate speech in other Western democracies's courts. Right-wing groups have also complained about this and the Family Research Council supported the defendant in the Canadian case. TFD (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia does not try to determine whether the SPLC is correct, only whether their identification of certain MRM groups is worthy of including in the encyclopedia. Is is undue weight? Has anybody else noticed the SPLC listing? I think we have to conclude that yes, the SPLC listing is worthy of inclusion because of the storm of commentary it produced in reaction. Especially noteworthy is the fact that Paul Elam, a famous MRM activist, commented on the issue. Below is a selection of responses that have appeared online. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Intelligence Report Article Provokes Fury Among Men’s Rights Activists", Arthur Goldwag, SPLC
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center Names Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) as Hate Group ", Radfem News Service
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center considers men's rights groups as hate groups?", question posted on Yahoo! Answers
  • "Clarification: SPLC and AVFM (Not a hate group)", forum thread on Atheism+
  • ""SPLC on "men's rights" hate groups", forum thread on Democratic Underground
  • "Why Reddit's r/MensRights is not a hate group", The Daily Dot
  • "The Southern Poverty Law Center Names Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) as Hate Group", Community video uploaded by "Dr. Rivers" to Archive.org
  • "The Southern Poverty Law Center takes on the violent misogyny so pervasive in the Men’s Rights Movement", post on Man Boobz
  • "SPLC linked to anti men’s rights subreddit", A Voice for Men
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center linked to hate activity", A Voice for Men
  • "Are MRA really a hate group?", discussion thread on Skeptics Guide
  • "SPLC names men’s rights activists as hate group", post on MensActivism.org
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center Takes Aim at Men’s Rights Websites", Disinformation
  • "Men's Rights Groups named SPLC Hate Group", discussion thread on Google Groups soc.men
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center Names Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) as Hate Group", Radical Resolution blog
  • "Idiot hunting with the Southern Poverty Law Center", Young Hip and Conservative blog
  • "The Southern Poverty Law Center notices the Men’s Rights Movement", Pharyngula blog
  • "SPLC continues to label org targeted for violence as ‘hate’ group", The Washington Free Beacon
  • "The Good and Evil Sides of Reddit", Jezebel.com
  • "The misogynists’ rights movement: Men’s Rights Activists have no interest in equality", Portland State Vanguard
  • "The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Creepy Mission", The Good Men Project
  • "MRA London delivers, and the shocking implications for the SPLC!", This Is Why MGTOW blog
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center Addresses Men's Rights", A Candle in the Dark blog
  • "Poverty Law Center Names Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) as Hate Group", MamaLiberty's weblog
  • "Paul Elam weighs in", Arthur Goldwag's blog
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center, mission creep, men’s rights, feminism…", For the Sake of Science blog
  • "Men’s rights activists named as hate group", Women's Views on News
  • "SPLC: A poverty of integrity", A Voice for Men
  • "r/MensRights Hate Group Tro-lo-lo-lo-lled", Skepchick blog
  • "More on the SPLC", Men's Rights Blog
  • "SPLC Linked To Anti Men’s Rights Subreddit", I Am Against Feminism blog
  • "Southern Poverty Law Center Names Men's Rights Activist Movement as Hate Group", Princess Paradox blog
  • "We Are Not A Hate Group", Genderratic blog
  • "Weaselly hypocrisy", Toy Soldiers blog
  • "The Men’s Rights Movement, CAFE & the University of Toronto", Feminist Current
  • "The Southern Poverty Law Center notices the Men’s Rights Movement", discussion forum at James Randi Educational Foundation
  • "SPLC Promotes Eugenics and Hate by Associating with RadFem Hub..", What Men Think of Women blog

Which highlights how effective their disingenuous Hegemonic ploy was. It also further highlights their unreliability as a source on matters of fact or opinion, and their unsuitability for inclusion in the lede. Just as Rush Limbaugh's views should not be in the lede of Feminism, he generates far more reaction than the SPLC. Something along the lines of this might be closer to the mark:-

• The SPLC published articles on the Men's Rights Movement in their edition of "Intelligence Report" entitled "Year in Hate and Extremism 2011". Some of these articles used pejorative references for the Men's Rights Movement, one included references to murderers and pedophiles unrelated to the movement. This led to the wide spread impression that the SPLC had labelled the Men's Rights Movement a Hate Group, including amongst some scholars. This was clarified, months later, as not being the case in part of another article. By now the rumor had acquired traction.

Thanks for the idea, I will add it now. There are few wonderful quotes from one of those articles. If any comments about the Men's Rights Movement by the SPLC are to be included then suitable context has to be added.

CSDarrow (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm really torn on this. On the one hand, I respect the SPLC as a general source, and would generally use it. But on the other hand, I'm really concerned that one of the sources given, a SPLC blog post talking about the reaction to the Intelligence Report, is well known within feminist circles for being an awful transphobic internet troll. Whilst this doesn't degrade the quality of SPLC as a general source, or even as a source on this matter, I would caution editors about systemic biases with the SPLC and using them a sole arbiter of what is a hate group. That said, I don't really believe a man who says that he likes, and I quote, "to look at women that are little fuckmuffins" when he says he isn't a raging misogynist. I'd be opposed to equating these people's criticisms of the SPLC on glorified blogs and forums (several on the spam blacklist) with the research work of the SPLC. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There is also a question of WP:undue. In the article you referred to the SPLC stated they were talking of the 'hardline fringe'. CSDarrow (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

SPLC did not call them a hate group. There is no difference between what the SPLC means by "hate speech" and how it is understood by the European Human Rights Commission and the supreme courts of Canada and Mexico to name a few. And groups like the Family Research Council make the same criticisms about the courts of other countries as they do about the SPLC. And this type of blog is acceptable per WP:NEWSSBLOG. TFD (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Please tell me you did not just call a living person 'an awful transphobic internet troll' and use Rationalwiki as a reference! Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Removal

The SPLC itself has not formally endorsed the label of "hate group." That is misleading. The SPLC published an opinion piece by a blogger. Big difference.

Further, there may be a few members of any political group, including mainstream groups like Democrats or Republicians, who engage in what might be called "hate speech." Cheery-picking a few such quotes to label an entire group, especially without empirical evidence that a majority or even a significant minority engages in "hate speech" (the very definition itself is open to debate) is entirely unjustified and inappropriate. Memills (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Covering opinions of journalists

At User_talk:Bayshorebabydoll#Houston_Press a Wikipedia editor explained her belief that information from a Houston Press article on Bacliff should be excluded from Bacliff, Texas. She argued that "None of the other nearby cities Wikipedia articles contain reporter's opinions, not even the Wikipedia article on Houston, so then why should Bacliff? Why is it so difficult to stick to the facts?" and "There's a big difference between the Houston Chronicle article on that event and the Houston Press article. The Houston Chronicle artcle reports about it without any of the author's bias that runs throughout the Houston Press article. I have no problem with factual information being included in the Wikipedia entry. It was based mostly on opinion and non factual information before which is not what something that strives to emulate an encyclopedia should be." I argued that Wikipedia should include opinions as long as they are attributed and dated. She also expressed concern that content could be "out of date" (the article was written in 2008) but I stated it would be okay if it is made clear that it was in 2008.

• These diffs: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3 shows the material from the Houston Press which I attributed and cited.
• The relevant Houston Press article is "Gangsters in Bacliff" - The publication is an alternative weekly owned by Voice Media Group

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You quote Lomax as saying, among other things, "much of [the town] is a white ghetto almost as hardcore as the roughest parts of Houston's South Park or Fifth Ward...." NPOV requires that we provide appropriate weight to opinions. The problem here is that we do not know whether Lomax view is what any reasonable observer would hold or he has an axe to grind. The only way to determine that is to find a source that explains the perceptions that reasonable observers hold. A second problem is that Lomax' article is a primary source for his opinions, but articles should be based primarily on secondary sources. So I think it is correct to exclude his opinions. TFD (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

John Nova Lomax does not own the publication Houston Press; he merely writes articles for it. Because it was published, then that means his own opinions would be "secondary source" as they are published by a third party. Wikipedia:Primary_source#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources also says "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

In regards to not knowing whether or not he has an axe to grind, I see no evidence that Lomax holds ill will towards the community. I have not found any sources that explicitly state things to the contrary. Bacliff is a town of about 8,000 people within a metropolitan area, so literature about it is more scant than literature about a larger city. I believe that if Lomax writes "And while there are plenty of nice houses and good people in Bacliff, especially along the waterfront, the overall impression of the town is that much of it is a white ghetto almost as hardcore as the roughest parts of Houston's South Park or Fifth Ward." -- and there is no evidence of him being biased against the town, and there is nothing explicitly written to the contrary, then it should be appropriately weighted to put that in. He also says "Stats bear this out" to qualify this viewpoint with statistics.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The question of who publishes a work does not affect whether the work is primary or secondary. If Lomax is observing the town himself, and then making that statement on the basis of those observations, then those statements are a primary source. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That statement comes from both knowledge of statistics (remember he says "Stats bear this out" and cites two statistics related to Bacliff: unemployment rate and the median house price) and personal observations (referring to page 1). And if one tries to make observations by journalists who do not control the publishing of their statements as inadmissible primary source, how are we to use investigative journalism pieces as sources? How are we to record how published sources perceive of a place, person, or event? (I have seen editors add Wikipedia:Original research on how a thing or person or place should be perceived) For that matter, in relation to BLP issues, Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_self-published_sources says to avoid self-published sources, so in general on Wikipedia to my knowledge self-published sources are treated differently than self-published ones.

The statements removed from the article did not just include statements from the journalist, but also some factual statements (for instance the water was less polluted and there was less shore erosion in the 1950s then there is today, and that the shrimping industry declined in the 1980s) of those statistics (unemployment rate) and statements from interview subjects quoted in the newspaper: "Gator" Miller (a local newspaper publisher), Pam Matranga (a county sheriff), and Jack Nelson (a resident).

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A source may be considered primary for some purposes, while secondary for others. See for example WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." This article however combines analysis and straight reporting, and therefore has attributes of both. You ask, "How are we to record how published sources perceive of a place, person, or event?" We get a source that says something like, "the consensus among sociologists is that Bacliff is a white ghetto." Or we look at a textbook called "White Ghettoes" that lists the town. As for investigative journalism, in some cases the mainstream media picks up on them, people comment and the significance is established. That certainly happened with Woodward and Bernstein. In other cases, they are ignored. AFAIK, no one has commented on Lomax's article. TFD (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When I found commentary from the article author I always attributed it to him (see the diffs) - I will check Google Books to see if I can find books talking about Bacliff. In regards to "prominence" of authors, that is a good argument with "larger" subjects (say Barack Obama) where you have to only include the most prominent views. With "smaller" subjects I try to include whatever published material I can find because there just isn't that much material about the subject, or about certain aspects of the subject. Wikipedia has many articles on more obscure topics and from my understanding there is less discrimination/exclusion against material when writing about these topics. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I did a search for books about Bacliff. I haven't found any so far. I searched about White ghettoes and perhaps the closest thing is a book that is talking about decline in middle class America. The closest thing to a White ghetto that is possibly there is articles talking about rural towns. I'll check for journal articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have much luck with journal articles either. Bayshore said she could look at archives in the Galveston County newspaper, which may help WhisperToMe (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerns on WP:Undue regarding AIDS Denial and LewRockwell.com

I object to the passage from the wikipedia entry on LewRockwell.com quoted in the paragraph below, mostly created by carolmooredc (she and Srich32977 disagreed with my views on the LewRockwell.com talk page and are invited to comment on this discussion), because it uncritically presents the views of the director of the AIDS Denialist film House of Numbers, and presents Peter Duesberg only as being called a denialist by two persons (as opposed to being widely regarded as such by the scientific community). These statements constitute WP: UNDUE, according to which "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." In other words, when discussing LewRockwell.com's repeatedly publishing AIDS Denialist (as well as evolution-denying) pseudoscience, it should be mentioned that these are "fringe" and pseudo-scientific views that LewRockwell.com has promoted. One solution to this problem that has been proposed is deleting LewRockwell.com's connection to AIDS denialism/fringe science altogether; I reject this since it's significant to the site's content and is detailed pretty extensively in an RS, namely, Seth Kalichman's book Denying AIDS.

The website hosted a 2010 podcast called "Dissent on HIV/AIDS" interviewing Brent Leung, director of the 2009 film House of Numbers regarding the "shaky statistics that drive vast HIV/AIDS funding, and the amazing differences of opinion among top scientists about what it is, and how to treat it." The website has featured articles on the subject by Peter Duesberg, a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass label an "HIV/AIDS denialist. Steeletrap (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A compromise has been proposed at Talk:LewRockwell.com#Fringe topics .E2.80.93 proposed resolution. One of the terms of the compromise is to limit the LRC links to the one official link. Acceptance of this compromise would entail removal of the particular paragraph which OP objects to because it is sourced by a particular LRC article. Also, it would allow use of Kalichman's book to show that one particular person had been a contributor to the LRC website. It would not allow a debate in the LRC article about the merits of Kalichman's book or the topic. – S. Rich (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering the original poster already has a long discussion of this at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Uncritical_presentation_of_AIDS_Denialists_on_LewRockwell.com_page. One has to close one noticeboard discussion out before one opens another one, and usually if there is no reply at all. Also, it remains a WP:OR issue, as I've said a number of times.

People interested in helping out might come over there or to the proposal Srich32977 made above, so we don't have to rewrite our arguments all over again. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The other debate got crowded out by personal and otherwise off-topic comments (hence the fact that the page you link to is like 3 pages long). The few comments made by editors other than us three (the original disputers) agreed with my position. Let's let debate happen rather than focus on peripheral issues. Steeletrap (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've archived the discussion at WP:FTN as that was an inappropriate venue for the discussion. I suggest that the participants already involved restrict themselves from further comments here, so that we can hear from uninvolved editors on this issue. LK (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Considering the topic was not moved here only after a long discussion there, and not immediately identified as off topic, we do not want to promote WP:FORUMSHOP. (LATER NOTE: Did see LK mentioned that to the editor on the talk page. Thanks.] Also, I think the real complaint is the WP:OR that the user is trying to insert and the only noticeboard warranted was WP:ORN. Others should not hear only one side of the debate by one individual involved, so below I propose my solution to the problem which is compliant with Wikipedia policies. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I see this as undue weight. The source, Denying Aids, mentions that an author published views well outside the mainstream on the Lew Rockwell website but otherwise says nothing about the site. It could be that the site is reprehensible in publishing these views. Or it could be commended for allowing a wide range of views from outside the mainstream in the hope that it will provide greater scrutiny of orthodoxy. By focusing on AIDS denialism, we are arguing for the first interpretation. If we want to address this issue then we need sources that do so. TFD (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Observation from the FT/N peanut gallery: A quick review of LRC, starting from the Denying AIDS links, shows that at least one of LRC's regulars promulgated a goodly number of quack medical claims, including some of the AIDS denialism articles there; he also posted some JFK assassination conspiracy nonsense. He is not the only author of this kind of material on LRC. My personal opinion is therefore that LRC's editorial policy is at best credulous about publishing fringe medical and political material, if not actually endorsing said claims. Now, obviously we cannot state that conclusion on my say-so; but it seems to me that the struggle over the narrow issue of this one source is being used as a substitute all around for research into similar and perhaps broader criticism from other sources which might confirm that my assessment is widely held. For instance, another critic who has been cited in the article writes for the Cato Institute. It's entirely possible that Cato and LRC, both being exponents of libertarian ideas, may well consider each other as rivals within the ideology. This needs to be researched as well. As I said over in the FT/N discussion, I have to think that mainstream public policy and investigative reporting journals and institutions have critical viewpoints to express about LRC, and that these need to see expression in the article. I also feel that if this is addressed, the AIDS denialism issue will sort itself out. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

To make a long story short, here's what is acceptable to say in the Criticism section per WP:RS, WP:BLP, and even WP:NPOV etc with current refs and without engaging in WP:OR:

PROPOSED: Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass, authors of Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy, [added late: write that LewRockwell.com] has featured articles on the subject of AIDS/HIV by Peter Duesberg, [and two other individuals the authors mention] which they label as "HIV/AIDS denialist.

Then it would be permissible to mention the title of and link to an article by each of those mentioned individuals (i.e., it is not cherry picked, because it is introduced by relevant WP:RS material.) CarolMooreDC🗽 18:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I still favor the "has sometimes provided a forum" for fringe science and/or AIDS Denial description, but a compromise would indicate that the Kalichman book had accused LRC of publishing several articles (by the three authors mentioned in the book) which (on LRC) advocated AIDS Denial, which is what the book said (as opposed to simply publishing AIDS Denialists who wrote on other matters). If that clarification is made I would be less adamant on the "forum" thing. Steeletrap (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I know you prefer throwing in some WP:OR, but at least we are finally talking about what the sources say (i.e., "which (on LRC) advocated AIDS Denial"), though I would have to double check them. Can we continue this at the talk page? Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I will not work with you on this on the talk page. Look at the comment you just wrote, alleging that I "prefer throwing in some WP:OR." You are saying that my desire is to violate Wikipedia rules; how earth can we have a civil editing conversation? Steeletrap (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in play here

It has come to my attention that one of the editors involved in this conflict has written a book on a controversial subject, and that this book has received some favorable notice on LRC, and that this editor therefore has an interest in seeing that LRC is not discredited by publicity over the fringe viewpoints which are espoused from time to time on that website. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest which reads: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, incidents may be reported on the conflict of interest noticeboard (WP:COIN), and users may be warned with the {{uw-coi}} user warning template. Vague accusations on noticeboards aren't one of the ways to handle possible COI. Also please note the last sentence of the section: COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to "trump" anything; the information is for others to use as they see fit. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just quoting the policy. It does seem like a bit of an antagonistic phrase. Feel free to discuss it at WP:COI. And my response to you is on my talk page. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe, you did more than that, the title of this section (as of this moment, "Conflict of interest in play here" it should be changed) is two unsubstantiated claims that a COI exists and that it is in play here. North8000 (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Nautrality at Narendra Modi

Asking about whether the article on the prominent and controversial Indian Hindu nationalist politican Narendra is currently neutral.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Motijheel shootings

I made some attempt to clean up what I perceived as a NPOV issue at 2013 Motijheel shootings, but I feel that more eyes would be helpful, as a check on myself as much as anything. I will also notify the author who created the article of this discussion. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, author of the original Motijheel Massacre article here. Thankyou for including it in the wikipedia. Hovever I do contend that this was a massacre and how when convinced, or when magical wiki criterion are satisfied with that, the deceased will be represented fairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugstar (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific regarding the NPOV issue you are referring to? I cannot tell whether you are referring to a particular section or the entire article. I did notice that while the author has found a good amount of RS, certain statements in the article appear unsourced, and one or more may be sourced by a blog. I think a review of sources is warranted. I aso noticed that the article seems to be expressing a very strong POV that may or may not be reflected in the sources. This is something that should be attended to, and may be accomplished perhaps by simply rephrasing some of the statements. I'd like to know more about your specific concerns before I comment any further. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Further possible sources for this article :[27] [28][29][30] [31]--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of the Syrian civil war - A Rebel Newsfeed?

We need to have a couple of editors taking a close look at this: The Timeline of the Syrian civil war, namely the Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from May 2013) but also others, seem to have a major neutrality issue. Most of the information given is directly taken from the mouth of the Local Coordination Committees of Syria (LCC) and that of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). These two organizations, however, are aligned to the Syrian opposition, rendering this timeline to barely more than a rebel newsfeed turned to a Wikipedia article. Casuality figures, for example, are copied over from LCC which calls Syrian opposition combatants routinely "martyrs", then "martyrs" is changed to something more neutral like opposition fighters and voilà the information appears wikified, objectified. I am aware that independent, neutral information on the ground is hard to get by, but right now whole timelines seem to be relying largely on rebel propaganda outlets. IMO to the extent that they may be beyond repair and should be deleted and reworked from scratch. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an incorrect assessment. The info provided by those two organizations are only for daily death tolls. Sopher99 (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For one, much of the information in the various timelines consists of little more than daily death tolls. Then, do you seriously believe these rebel networks would report death tolls objectively when it comes to civilians being killed by the government forces? And that they would publish massacres on civilians committed by the opposition forces with the same zeal, if at all? Particularly the death toll is a means of propaganda with which all sides like to win public support by portraying the enemy as evil and a criminal against humanity. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I directly state in every single paragraph that the reports are coming from the Local Coordination Committees. Additionally, it is perfectly fine for SANA's daily death tolls to be reported on the timeline. Sopher99 (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying that you rely on a strongly partisan source does not make it more trustworthy. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am simply giving the daily death toll, and I additionally state where that death toll is coming from. As I said, if you want you could add SANA's or Al-dunia's daily death toll. Sopher99 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gun Powder Ma. In my personal opinion these timeline articles shouldn't include the daily LCC claims of the number of dead at all. Because it's not encyclopedic and Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia. The timeline articles should stick to major political and military events that happen in the conflict and mention a death toll when there is a massacre or a battle with a high number of deaths. We use numbers from the LCC or SOHR or whatever, but only when the toll is from a single notable event. Because, pages, which should be timeline pages for a conflict, that for the most part only list daily death tolls is not encyclopedic in any way. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I won't address this in any detail and instead will simply point out a simple fact that should (but I understand never will) guide content creation here: A "Timeline of the Syrian civil war" should be written after the war is over and capable people, with the benefit of hindsight, can begin constructing a meaningful history.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states that posting neutrally means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. It is a given that we have at the moment no reliable sources for a daily number of victims. However one may personally feel about these tallies, the sources are not reliable from a WP:RS point of view (no independent fact checking, etc). Therefore, if these daily tallies are important, the best thing would be to present them from two sources: a rebel source and a government source. This will likely provide completely different, and equally unreliable numbers, but at least we'll have presented them in a neutral fashion. We should also intersperse this with official cumulative figures obtained from reliable sources. It should also be stated in the article that reliable numbers cannot be obtained.It is likely that these timelines will be later on summarized and incorporated in a comprehensive article on the Syrian civil war. At any rate, this is what I would advise. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have already cleared these pages of words like "civilians killed by Syrian army", as the word "martyrs" from LCC had been translated there (an example here, followed by edit war). Still, however, the timeline pages remain completely unbalanced. LCC is clearly aligned with rebel forces, as well as SOHR is (however they seem to be less biased). Counterbalancing it with biased info from the other side of the conflict is not a good idea, as first it is not encyclopedic approach, and second the government doesn't publish death tolls.

My proposal is: Remove the LCC data, then assess if the pages are worth keeping at all. --Emesik (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A daily death toll is fine. It is perfectly acceptable to add the Syrian government's daily death toll too. Sopher99 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Dan Murphy and Emesik are right: most of the material in this collection of articles fails WP:NOT, and simply shouldn't be here. Having deleted everything which is just a collection of data from a primary source reassess whether the article should exist at all. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that there are no reliable sources for this information, my suggestion was based on what I consider a temporary compromise, if we assume this article is to exist at all, until such time that reliable information becomes available. As someone pointed out, it is extremely difficult to provide a timeline in a daily fashion of something that is in progress. If we removed the toll, as Jonathan A Jones said, it may be a case of seeing if this article should exist at all. If not enough reliable material is there, there is another article Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war that could possibly accommodate whatever reliable information exists in this one. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the latest part of the timeline, you will see sentences like "The LCC reported XX people killed by the Syrian army". However, the source does not say that these people were killed by the army. I have removed tons of such propaganda from previous pages, but the most active author, Sopher99, still keeps adding this bullshit. Anyone needs more evidence that the page serves propaganda purposes? --Emesik (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You suggest we submit the timeline to Afd? At least we could get this way a clearer picture on what the community view is with all this sourcing from rebel outlets. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I would rather see these pages cleaned of information from unreliable sources, but every time someone does it, an edit war occurs. I don't anticipate any action resulting from our discussion here, so we could use the shortcut and submit them for deletion. Anyway, once stripped of LCC/SOHR/SANA info, the pages would become almost empty. --Emesik (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"Erroneous" views on the Alternative Vote Referendum

A bit of deja vu here. There has been a reversion of the page for Stephen Mosley MP because of "erroneous" opposition to the Alternative Vote (well actually it's whether votes are cast for minor parties are counted once or twice). The debate was had over here. I think it's a violation of NPOV. Am i missing something? JASpencer (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeated POV soapboxing

Could someone please explain to User:Steeletrap that repeatedly using either unreliable sources or only primary sources to speculative negatively about the subjects of articles, while never bothering to do the research or add the material that might show that the speculations were anything more than "titutalting" discussion, is WP:POV and WP:Soapbox? S/he gives me an argument when I explain this and yells "personal attack". S/he has ignored other editor's reminders these are not personal attacks. (Can provide more diffs on request, but here's a recent one explaining that.)

Specifically see: Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Traditionalist_views_on_race and Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Retirement_from_UNLV; Talk:Conceived_in_Liberty#Rothbard_on_revisionism. If one finds such info (and research is easy enough), fine, put it in. But repeatedly speculating without doing so is just disruptive soapbox.

User:Steeletrap stated the following just recently on his/her user talk page. (With a number of similar discussions here.)

the "movement"/"Pure Rothbardian Anarchism"/"Ron Paul for President" strain is (as my research indicates) viewed as disreputable even by mainstream libertarians... "movement" libertarianism is little more than a dogmatic cult. "Movement" supporters in this regard are akin to Scientologists, insofar as they not only personally lack evidence for their beliefs, but are incapable of examining data which differ from their ideology and integrating it into their worldview.

On this basis Steeletrap has either tried to AfD articles about Austrian economists or add negative, often mis-stated material, besides the article and user talk page comments. Maybe s/he'll listen to someone else on this. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Request I implore everyone to read through the talk pages carefully before rendering judgment. Citations for all of my substantive claims are there (some are given by other users, and as a noob of one month I still struggle with diffs). Rather than making vague general charges, I would challenge Carol to point to a specific claim on the talk page that is "speculative" and I will show her the documentation, and where it is listed on the talk page; my opinions about the facts are mine, but I am not spreading speculation or falsehoods. (The one undocumented assertion I made was saying "Hoppe managed to win the hearts of the fratboys at UNLV"; this was obviously a joke and certainly not a damaging or defamatory one.)

As to my views on anarchist/Ron Paul libertarianism, I do think it's a cult akin to Scientology, so Carol's right on that. I can't help thinking that. I believe openly and publicly confessing my views is important to contextualizing and judging my article contributions. But I think I can still make good contributions to movement-related pages -- just as Scientology-skeptics can make good contributions to Scientology related pages. I wish this NPOV discussion focused on my actual edits to pages rather than on light and glib talk page remarks. Steeletrap (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note that because perhaps I am too insensitive to personal attacks that the last sentence following the quote above is: Their edits to "movement"-related Wikipedia entries should be viewed the same as Scientologists' edits to pages like L. Ron Hubbard and Lord Xenu.

Obviously she's talking about a number of editors who have edited a bunch of the economists and political thinkers involved in this particular branch. I believe it would be POV Soapbox for me to have to defend myself against such allegations and explain where I agree and disagree with each of these individuals on every issue that comes up or for me to criticize or lambast them for stupid things they've said or written that become part of the article. Perhaps someone also could explain that in policy terms to User:Steeletrap. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, all I was saying is that their biases/loyalties, like those of Scientologists, should be taken account of. I was not saying individual editors should be personally attacked or that their contributions should be dismissed out of hand. The community does that with Scientologists and there is no problem. You (appropriately) do that with me and there is no problem. As to lacking evidence for their beliefs and having an inability to integrate evidence that conflicts with their belief, again, the same is said of Scientologists and religious fundamentalists without people being accused of personal attacks. Also note that the comment was vague and general and not directed to any specific individual. (!)I am being held to a double standard here, simply for honestly expressing my beliefs. Steeletrap (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Charges rejected at previous ANI The charge that I am making speculative or defamatory comments about Hoppe was already made by Carol on an ANI, in which she cited the same talk page material on Hoppe. It was soundly rejected here. She is making basically the same charges and calling them "NPOV" rather than "BLP." (Isn't there a rule against this? I'm a noob but I can't imagine it's OK to just repeatedly make charges.) Steeletrap (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was closed as a content dispute over the first five article edits I mentioned and no one really addressed what to do about NPOV issues. Obviously I didn't format it well and should have just brought this one here sooner. Plus the quote and the "Concieved in Liberty" newer examples and show ongoing problem. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:FORUMSHOP is what you are looking for Steeletrap. No comment as to if it applies. I will say that I agree with ANI that it is a content dispute that can be solved on the talk page. I also agree that while Carolmooredc's comments do not rise to the level of a 'personal attack', I do feel they are commenting on the editor, and not the edit. Carol, if you have diffs of content that Steeletrap has inserted into the article that show he is not editing in an NPOV manner, or that you think are not abiding by NPOV, please share them. This is not the place to hash out your opinion of Steeletrap. (EC) Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction I have not accused Carol of personal attacks "constantly" throughout the pages she cites. In fact, I never did. I did not accuse her of any more than incivility on the Rothbard page she cites. (On the sections of the Hoppe pages she cites, I don't make any comment at all about her behavior.) Steeletrap (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss article talk page issues regarding NPOV, i.e., if editors can repeatedly discuss material with primary or unreliable sources that probably can NOT be reliably sourced to get in a rumor/guilt by association/opinion/POV that they will not find WP:RS to support in the article, thereby making both the subject of the article and anyone who edits in a way the editor disagrees with look bad. Should I have brought this up without using the example that is the problem?? My apologies if I misunderstood. A general opinion that I could refer another editor to is all I really want and mad at self didn't realize that phrasing it that way would have been good enough. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If steeltrap is personally making Scientology or other comparisons in an article talk page, as an argument in a content dispute, that risks WP:FORUM but is probably not a POV/RS/OR issue. Generally, wide latitude is given in talk discussions as long as there can be a reasonable connection to actually improving or editing the article, or discussing what is/is not appropriate for inclusion. If he is making article edits suggesting similar, and those edits are not backed up by reliable and notable sources making the same claim (and in sufficient quality to make a blanket statement rather than one critic saying so etc), then that would be an issue, but you would need to provide diffs to give people specific examples to be able to form an opinion.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Scientology and other discussions have been in user talk space pages. Article edit issues have been dealt with fairly well.

Being more drawn into editing on Israel-Palestine issue where there is 1RR and the feeling of the constant threat of an arbitration sanction over minor indiscretions, perhaps I'm not as familiar with the more "freewheeling" ways on other articles!

And, of course, if one feels that others are using talk pages to Soapbox on negative stuff for passerbys or to make one's friends and associates happy, one can always a) trash the sources if they deserve it and b) include lots of sections/diffs/quotes/discussion on more positive issues one would like to see but doesn't have energy to enter at that exact moment either.

Or even better, make it clear over and over that constructive editing means just finding sources and entering material first and foremost. (Though dropping by pages you don't have time for and dropping a few good suggestions and refs to improve an article is always good .) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It seems clear from the links OP cites that Steeletrap is using the talk page -- appropriately -- to engage discussion of prospective content and reliable sources for content before anything is added to the article. This seems to be the opposite of a problem. Rather than being WP:FORUM, Steeletrap is using talk to moot various items of content and solicit comment. Steeletrap states the necessity of properly citing WP:RS sources for such content that may ultimately be added.
  

That having been said, it also appears that OP is raising its concern about an issue regarding the behavior of Steeletrap rather than regarding the sourcing of content either added or proposed to be added to the article. Unless I am mistaken, that is not the purpose of the NPOV board and to the extent OP wishes to raise that issue, another forum such as ANI would be the place. I'm assuming this is not the same issue concerning Steeletrap that OP already brought to ANI?

As to any NPOV questions, it will be helpful OP if you would provide the diffs and specific statements for each diff, of the NPOV issues on which you are asking for comment here. Thanks . SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Per User:SPECIFICO's request: Since I don’t want to pick on User:Steeletrap, I'll provide specific diffs as examples of SPECIFICO's hostile POV carrying over to disruptive editing on the same article talk pages as Steeletrap.

"Negative comment excerpts off article talk page":

• April 21 diff I am an "Austrian School" economist trained before the Mises Institute launched its attempt to hijack of this important intellectual tradition. The Mises gang have gone steadily down hill and, aside from providing a useful online archive of reprints, are currently devoted almost exclusively to expanding their own franchise through various means. They are no different in this respect than the vitamin supplement schemes...
• April 20 diff: Who says Mises Institute is an institute of and for economists? Almost nobody unaffiliated would say that. In fact it was formed out of a schism within the legitimate Austrian-oriented Cato Institute.
• May 28 diff At least the Scientologists make some great movies. Did you see Pulp Fiction? I don't think the Miseans can dance. Unless you count the Bunny Hoppe.

"Negative comment excerpts on article talk page":

• May 20 For example, and for whatever reason, Hoppe appears to be despised by many mainstream libertarians.
• May 19: We could start by getting all the Mises Institute stuff thinned out, especially the interviews which do not present scholarly discourse. (Regarding using Hoppe interviews)
• May 24: Here is a blog by a highly respected Libertarian and Fellow of the Cato Institute, Tom Palmer. Palmer discusses some of Hoppe's recent thought as he has stated it in various venues. (Despite Palmer's self-published blog rants earlier being dismissed as not WP:RS here.)
• May 24: Recommending VDARE as a reliable source on Hoppe Reflections upon the Fifth Anniversary of PFS here: 11
• May 24: Starts whole new section to investigate: Retirement from UNLV... premature departure from the academic setting
• May 24: Srich, don't forget: The von Mises Institute is pretty small potatoes. The University of Nevada Las Vegas School of Business Administration is small potatoes, etc.
• User:SPECIFICO also contributed to the new Hoppe article talk page sections listed above which focus on “digging for dirt” while making little attempt to improve the article in more constructive areas. Only a great deal of work by a couple of us has saved the article from being an attack article. It now has a couple WP:Undue sections on minor controversial issues, only one of which made the papers.

I feel that at the very least when they start new attacks on Austrian economists (or economics-related) articles and continue this behavior that this POV should be pointed out to other editors per Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought and Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. It's just hard to assume good faith with this sort of thing going on over multiple articles. (Will link to upon request.) This is just frustrating, time wasting and disruptive. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)