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

Help Required With Source

Hello. I am a new editor and I'm not all that familiar with practices yet. I've previously posted a request here but if you read it you can see that I'm not happy with the logic which is being displayed.

The issue is this: the article [Ulster Defence Regiment] contains a substantial number of references to Major John Potter, the author of "A Testament To Courage (The Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment)". Although these references are attributed there is nothing in the article to suggest to a reader why this author has the authority to comment or state facts about the regiment. I wish to change this by reducing the number of comments attributed as opinion to the man and placing an informative paragraph to tell readers of the article why he (Potter) is qualified to make factual statements on the grounds that:

1. He compiled the official history of the regiment which is now held at the British Ministry of Defence under a time dependent release policy. 2. His book was vetted by and approved (although not endorsed - as is common) by the British Ministry of Defence. 3. His invitation by the Colonels Commandant to compile the official history entitles him to be referred to as "Official Historian". 4. His own extensive experience with the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment (22 years with the latter) and his rank of Major make him a qualified person to comment on aspects of the regiment's history as an informed and reliable source.

I am aware that in his own preface he informs readers that some of his opinions are his own and are unsupported elsewhere, although his text does contain many third party references. I believe I am sensible enough to avoid using his personal opinion as more than just that and properly attributing the opinion to him.

I need to advise anyone who wishes to assist that there is a long, detailed and at times very daunting, archive of previous discussion where the same names keep occuring over several years. This appears to have resulted in some people being banned from Wikipedia and others leaving. The article has been the result of at least one arbitration and is currently on editing restriction. I personally do not want to get drawn into the horrible and counterproductive bickering which seems to be associated with this (and other) articles on the Irish Troubles but I do think that sensible editing could improve the (already excellent) article.

I am also posting this request at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_Required_With_Source to try and get as many neutral opinions as possible and avoid doing anything which is going to look as if I am trying to ram a point home and cause upset. All sensible comments appreciated. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Something to consider... we do not require that our sources be neutral... we require that we maintain a neutral point of view in reporting what they say. So... there is nothing wrong with using Major Potter to present a particular view on the regiment and the Troubles... but if there are contrary views (and given the subject I would expect there are) we should present them as well. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

John Potter is not a historian, official or otherwise. The book he wrote is a completely separate project to the work he did on behalf of the Colonels Commandant. This is simply forum shopping because the first answer was not acceptable. What was that answer? Generally it was reliable for uncontested points, but not usually for anything self-serving, disputed or contentious. O Fenian (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

While the book was not published by an academic publishing company, and therefore does not meet the highest standards for historical sources, it is nonetheless a reliable source for this article and there is no need to attribute facts in the text, rather than in footnotes. For example, the sentence: "According to John Potter, 25% of the new recruits in 1970 had no previous military or Special Constabulary experience." That is a fact, not an opinion and if it is wrong or in dispute then other sources are required to show that. TFD (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe some of the "according to Potter"s in the article are merited at present. But that seems to be a separate issue to what is currently being argued. Things like that do not need attributing, but anything sourced to Potter would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket "no attribution needed". O Fenian (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel this is getting somewhere. Some of my own points are highlighted here, particulary the over attribution of Potter when he quotes facts. What I would like to do is remove those attributions where relevant and to include wording which attributes the compilation of the official history to Potter but which points out that the book is a NOT that official history. To me the sensible thing is to call Potter the "Official Historian" or "compiler of the official history". Am I on the right track? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

When we use a source we make a judgment on its reliability and should not have a separate section questioning this. If you think his facts are wrong then find a source that proves this. If you think any of his opinions have been given undue weight, then correct this. TFD (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Google scholar results as a measure of the most common term used by scholars.

During the dispute on the Communist terrorism talk page many editors argued that in actuality the article tells mostly about Left wing terrorist groups, therefore, the article name should be changed to the more general Leftist terrorism (which currently is just a redirect page). Their opponents argued that the term "Communist terrorism" is frequently used by various authors. To check what term is more frequently applied to the terrorist groups described in the article I made a systematic google scholar search for each article's topic. I found that the words "left wing terrorism" are applied much more frequently to these groups than the words "Communist terrorism" (for details, see [1]: I demonstrated that much more articles use the words "Left wing terrorism" and do not use the words "Communist terrorism" to describe leftist terrorist groups, whereas the amount of the articles that use the words "Communist terrorism" and do not use the words "Left wing terrorism" in the same context is much smaller)). Obviously, this my activity cannot constitute original research because I do not propose to create a new content, just to find out what terminology is the most common among the scholars.
Obviously, the search result demonstrate that the article's name does not reflect the opinion of majority scholars, and therefore is not neutral. The neutrality issue can be easily fixed by switching redirects (instead of Leftist terrorism -> Communist terrorism to do vice versa). In connection to that, do I need to wait for consensus to rename the article, or, per WP:NEUTRAL the consensus cannot take precedence over neutrality requirements?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact reliable sources say that "Left-wing terrorism" is the term most commonly used for "Marxist-Leninist terrorism", while few academic sources use the term "Communist/communist terrorism", and even those that do primarily use the term "Left-wing terrorism". TFD (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP does not use google to decide on article titles. Collect (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No but Wikipedia does use WP:UCN, and google scholar is one of the useful tools at our disposal to help understand what the most common name of something is.Griswaldo (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse this non-controversial statement. --Tenmei (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The policy states: "When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." Using google scholar I have demonstrated that a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources use the name Left wing terrorism for terrorist groups discussed in this article, and noone has demonstrated so far that that the search was done incorrectly, or that this name is not common according to other neutral criteria. In connection to that, I do not think we need consensus for renaming of the article, because the policy takes precedence over consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this bland restatement helpful?

WP:Five Pillars takes precedence over a straw poll ≠ Consensus? --Tenmei (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Polyandry among Nairs in Nair article

Issue: discussion about the practice of polyandry by Nairs in Nair article. The issue is no coverage versus moderate coverage.
My argument: Not discussing the ancient practice of polyandry adequately and/or providing a link to Polyandry among Nairs at the appropriate place in the article is a violation of NPOV.
Evidence: abundant. please see here for some articles i have listed from JSTOR. google books, Nair polyandry in Google scholar, Nayar polyandry in Google scholar
Previous outside discussions: I have sought ouside opinion at ANI. User:DGG, User:EdJohnston, User:TFOWR and User:Silver seren have already commented before. I have listed their comments here for convenience. User:DGG, User:TFOWR and User:Silver seren support a moderate coverage. User:EdJohnston recommended WP:RFC.
Other side: Shannon1488 (talk · contribs · count), Thankappan Pillai (talk · contribs · count), Vekramaditya (talk · contribs · count), Pulayan Punchapadam (talk · contribs · count) and Suresh.Varma.123 (talk · contribs · count). All of them have no edits outside Nair and larger section Kshatriya related articles. Some socks have been blocked. --CarTick (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To Admins: This issue is already discussed 4-5 times in the past month in the ANI and other places. Users like Cartick are wasting everyone else's time due to his own personal ego. Last week, a compromise was reached in ANI and everything seemed fine. But just after a week, Cartick is again trying to push his propaganda / hatred. Despite what he says, the admins who reviewed it stated that the issue is complex and needs expert opinion. Only one of the admins agreed with Cartick (Take a look at ANI archive). If you want to allow Cartick to use the wikipedia as a tool for spreading propaganda and anti-Nair fanaticism, then ban all of the other users and allow only CarTick to edit these articles. Atleast a dozen users have voiced their opposition to disruptive edits by Cartick and their voices are not heard. Whatever I had to say about this, I have written in the ANI. I am not going to waste any of my time on this.Shannon1488 (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Shannon, could you please explain, why saying that Nairs practiced polyandry is hate speech? Would it be worse if I said Nairs were homosexuals? What exactly are the sexual practices you find so objectionable? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether you want to portray all Nairs as homosexuals or not. But wikipedia should not be used as a propaganda tool. CarTick had an argument with a Nair editor one month ago in the Nadar article. Right after he went for a wiki break, this guy started vandalizing Nair articles. Almost all the Nadar related articles in Wikipedia are full of POV and loaded with anti-Nair hatred. And here is the reason why Polyandry is not relevant to the Nair article:

• Primary practitioners of polyandry were not Nairs, but Kammalars and other artisan castes.
• Polyandry, although very rare was last practiced among Nairs during the 19th century.
• Most of the reliable research done on Nairs, including the works by CJ Fuller and Thurston contains no mention to polyandry, which means they disagreed on whether the practice is polyandry or not.
• Even some of the research works Cartick quoted, states the inaccuracy like "Although I have never met a Nayar woman whom I have definitely known to be polyandrous, I heard, from Nayar, of several cases of non-fraternal polyandry in recent times both from Walluvanad and from the Trichur taluk of Cochin".
• Cartick's edit's like "Under Nair polyandry, the only conceivable blood-relationship could be ascertained through females." smells of hatred.

We have voiced our concerns. If you want to side with Cartick, do it. Unfortunately there is not much I could do about jealousy and inferiority complex. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

BC/AD and BCE/CE and bias/neutrality

BC and AD have been accepted abbreviations to refer to periods of time before and after the birth of Christ for hundreds of years. Proponents of the absurd BCE/CE, which supposedly stands for 'before the common era' (common to whom we may ask) and 'of the common era' may claim that they are being 'neutral'. However, the decision to introduce these abbreviations is in itself biased as it makes a huge departure from accepted convention.

Where now does the argument of 'neutrality' lie?

Incidentally, these abbreviations can equally mean 'before the Christian era' and 'of the Christian era', hardly an escape into political correctness. If we wanted to be culturally neutral, we would have to introduce a new term with unambiguous abbreviations, such as OTR (older time reference) and MTR (modern time reference). See how that catches on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the very extensive recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 130#BCE/CE vs BC/AD. This can be argued, but it's not to my mind a question of Neutral Point of View, since BCE and CE (Common Era) are now very common in scholarly literature, although little known outside academic and religious contexts. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me also point out that the structure of the argument is peculiar. Compare However, the decision to abolish slavery is in itself biased as it makes a huge departure from accepted convention. At you leisure, substitute "introduce female suffrage", "abolish child labour", "introduce a written constitution"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

He's posted to my talk page - I'm not sure what this means: "This is tosh. You can't for a start 'revert' an edit. You can 'reverse' it though. Is it not, then, a pre-qualification of the Wikipedia police that they are educated and can write correct English? T A Francis(talk) 9:58 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" Somehow I don't think we are going to replace 'revert' with 'reverse' however. My only contact with him was last March when I left a notice on his talk page about using article talk pages as a forum. I guess it could be a response to something at the top of my talk page that says "Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit?" Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Academic bias

[We should not] unreasonably make mainstream academic opinion the highest authority and set it above all other criteria such as moral and ethical considerations.... (1) mainstream scholarly opinion in the 19th century allowed itself to be dominated by racist theories, and (2) in the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories just as previously it had allowed itself to be dominated by racist ones. This demonstrates that the objectivity of mainstream scholarly opinion cannot always be assumed.

Could editors please comment whether the above statement, which is part of the discussion at Talk:Communist terrorism, fairly represents the policy of neutrality. TFD (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I would add that in the early and mid 20thC mainstream accademia often allowed itself to be dominated by racist theories. So yes I think itsd a fair statment.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP policy says: "While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections." In other words, if in "the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories", then the only neutral way to write an article is to follow this "bias". The situation may change in future, however, noone can predict the direction of this change. One way or the another, it is not our goal to predict this change. The only thing we can do is to follow the opinion of scholars' community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the argument is about the idea that scholerly spooures have some special level of authority that make them superior to all other sources. O)ften justified by the arguent that none accademic sources refect bias, which is no different to many scholerly sources themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The question is not in the bias of academic sources but in the superiority of "moral and ethical considerations". The scholarly sources are superior to all other sources simply per WP policy, and if they are biased, than WP should follow this bias. Re moral considerations, let me point out that XIX century moral was also dominated by racist views...--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The scientific community is not equivalent to the scholarly community. There is also something called editorial judgment. The Milgram experiment might be something to remember. Yes there is a good side to WP:IAR. Lambanog (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The scientific community is not equivalent to the scholarly community" Yes, because "scientific" refers mostly to exact and natural sciences. Re editorial judgement, please, can you be more specific? Why concretely IAR can be applied here (by contrast to overwhelming majority cases) and how concretely will it lead to improvement of Wikipedia? Why moral consideration of some WP editors should dominate over the opinion of scholarly community in this particular case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Commenting in general Paul should it be necessary. In this specific case brought up regarding Communist terrorism? Don't know. Probably not, but the social sciences cast a wide net and journalists and politicians with less academic experience may be suitable sources as well. Lambanog (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that an RfC was instituted and almost immediately removed (due to answers obtained there?) by the person asking here. See also [2], [3] etc., [4] is particularly apt. The number of edits on the article talk page is getting absurd at this point as well, with only two editors accounting for over 420 edits to the talk page, it is time to simply say "basta". There is really a limit as to the number of forums used for essentially the same issues. Collect (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? Do you support the idea that the opinion of a scholarly community (which theoretically can be biased) should not be set above moral considerations (which also change with time, and, sometimes also justify quite weird things like slavery)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Posing such questions is non-utile as the issue is the use of this board catenated with multiple other forums regarding the existence of an article, and a section therein. I specifically suggest that it is not up to editors to "know the truth" about anything, but rather to simply report what is in reliable sources (using the WP definition thereof). Collect (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you support the idea that if majority reliable sources seem to be pro-Marxist biased, that cannot be a reason for rejecting what they say?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you're asking (basically) if most scholarly sources present a view that you consider to be pro-Marxist (obviously they just consider it to be the established norm), you want to reject the established norm as pro-Marxist, and (assumedly) use something else? On what grounds would we do that, and how does that benefit the encyclopedia? --Ludwigs2 19:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I am stating that if most scholarly sources present a view that someone considers to be pro-Marxist one has to accept that fact, and not to claim that, since scholarly may be biased, its opinion should not be taken into account in this particular case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, this sounds suspiciously like you are claiming that a mainstream viewpoint has to be labeled or contextualized in a way that it does not label or contextualize itself, in order to satisfy your personal understanding of the issue. obviously, if there is a notable source that labels the mainstream view in this way, then it should be included with proper attribution (assuming it passes wp:undue), but we do not present mainstream views as anything other than mainstream views.

Since this is a historical issue, of course, you may find modern sources that express the viewpoint you're expressing as a historical fact. If those modern sources are the modern mainstream view, then obviously we want to include that. But we need to include them as a historical perspective, not as a fact about the material itself.

I'll add, the term 'Pro-Marxist' is polemical and ambiguous. Scholars are rarely 'Pro-' anything. There was certainly a lot of Marxist ideation in US academic circles from the turn of the century, but that would be Marxist theory (not Marxist ideology or Marxist politics, which are very different birds), and there was a lot of that theory floating around because it was (and is) a very effective and fruitful theory for explanations of certain kinds of social phenomena. One doesn't say that a physicist is 'Pro-Newtonian'; physicists simply use Newton's theories. likewise... --Ludwigs2 20:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem not to understand my point. The initial issue was with the position of another user, who claimed that scholarly sources "whitewash Marxism" and therefore are "apologists of terrorism". He further argued that, since, as "mainstream scholarly opinion in the 19th century allowed itself to be dominated by racist theories", it may equally be wrong now regarding Marxism, which implied that the scholarly opinion could be rejected in this particular case. Obviously, I myself do not share this POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know what the original problem was (that wasn't discussed here). I'll I was working with was your description of the abstract problem. Are you still having difficulty with that particular silliness, because I can put that to rest in short order, if you like (that's just obvious OR). --Ludwigs2 21:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Some editors insist on interpreting writings by Marx concerning his views of terrorism - all the terrorist groups in the article are post WW2 - rather than rely on secondary sources. Also, while all the academic sources classify these groups as "Left-wing", they insist on calling them "Communist/communist". The implication in Justus Maximus's view is that we cannot rely on modern scholars of terrorism, because they are all pro-Marxist, and must therefore compensate for that by making our own analyses. TFD (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

well, that sounds ludicrous to me, but there's no point discussing it here if it's article specific. let me look over the conversation there. --Ludwigs2 22:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me to point out that the reason that we give scholarly sources a higher level of credibility is not because scholarly sources are right, but because scholarly sources (unlike most of the rest of the world) are self-reflective, reasonable, and cautious. Yes, scholarly sources in the early twentieth century had some decided racist qualities - but they learned better. yes scholarly sources in the mid twentieth century had socialist leanings - but they have progressively eliminated the radical, unsupported elements of marxist theory and refined the useful elements of it into better theories. Scholarship is marked by the willingness to advance an opinion while retaining an open mind. I don't know what the conflict here is, but with anything in the 'socialism' topic area, one needs to very, very carefully distinguish between scholarly theory and the problematical uses that scholarly theories get put to by others. the classic example of this, of course, is the fact that Marx never advocated for revolution. He merely stated that he thought revolution would be an inevitable outcome of the capitalist system (as it was practiced in his time). other people read that and decided that if revolution were inevitable they might as well go and start one. People are inane. If you present the theory for what it is and separate out the politics of it, things should be less confusing. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Please assist cleanup of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yishayahu_Yosef_Pinto Propoganda and other useless materials - Whitewash many negative truths. His role in the death of Obstfeld not mentioned despite countless media references Lebron paid $1 Million for meeting - Whitewashed Users are solely joining WIki for this purpose and should be banned

American Academy of Financial Management

This dispute concerns an article in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago that discusses the American Academy of Financial Management.[5] It accused the AAFM of being a credentials mills. Some editors think that if this article is included, then all articles from the WSJ that mention the article should be included.[6] They also insist that a number of statement that I have removed were well-sourced; they did have citations, but the citations say nothing to the point (e.g., having the address listed in government directory to support that only the US version AAFM can grant certain credentials). The two different versions of the article this and this.

Some background. This article has a long history of COI, NPOV, ARTSPAM, and SOCK problems. The article was originally an advertisement that survived an AfD. I trimmed the advertising puffery and removed the advert template. Then there was a dispute within the AAFM that got fought out on this page (some members thought it had become a credentials mill and formed the International Academy of Financial Management, both sides claiming to be the "real" voice of the organization and thus lay claim to ownership of the page). In the meantime, the puffery that I had removed crept back in. The person who initially added the WSJ criticism of the AAFM was almost certainly part of the splinter IAFM, happy to embarrass his former colleagues, but the source was reliable and the criticism notable. This article needs regular policing, and I would appreciate some help. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The WSJ article appears easily WP:RS so the views it contains should as far as I can see be presented in the article to comply with neutrality. The views should be presented with accurate paraphrasing, naturally. --Dailycare (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am dealing with a tendentious editor who wishes to push a POV. He is not going to say that he thinks he is presenting the article in violation of Wikipedia policy. Reverting tendentious or spam edits is still considered edit warring, so I really do need help here; otherwise it is just the two of us going back and forth. I was hoping to get an opinion on what the application of the policy in this case is. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg Hicks

If any of you have the time and the inclination would you please take a quick look at this article. It has been tagged as having POV issues and, for the life of me, I can find no POV on the entire page. Per the conversation on the talk page Talk:Greg Hicks a claim is being made that the article is purely promotional, but, to me it looks like most actor articles that are stubs. I think a fresh set of eyes might clear things up. My thanks ahead of time to any editor who can assist in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 22:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing about the article that violates NPOV. Your interlocutor is making WikiDrama. I don't know if it is disruption to make a point or just social awkwardness, but anyone whose first reaction to your remarks is to direct you to WP:WQA (not for your remarks, but for their behavior) knows enough about Wikipedia to ought to know better. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check into this RJC. The POV tag was replaced with an Advert tag but another editor has removed that also. Again I appreciate your efforts and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Heartlight Ministries

Hi. A question about "Philosophy" sections in school and org. articles. Are these sections appropriate, especially when unsourced (as in above article)? Just wanted some other opinions before making an attempt to edit. Thanks, The Interior(Talk) 19:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My opinion would be not appropriate. But frankly I think a larger issue is that the entire article is in pretty blatant contravention of WP:NOTADVERTISING. NickCT (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Following this comment, I wanted to clarify. Re "Are these sections appropriate, especially when unsourced (as in above article)?" - My opinion is that those sections are not appropriate. Thank you. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. "Would not be", "Would be not" = me reading too fast for my own good. Thanks for the clarification. The Interior(Talk) 20:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

microdermabrasion

Article in question: Microdermabrasion

Problem: The article is (and has been in all previous edits), no more than an ad for microdermabrasion, a cosmetic procedure. There is no information on potential risks or drawbacks of the procedure. Title headings are things like "How microdermabrasion renews the skin" - that is, non-facts stated as facts. This type of language is not tolerated on other sites e.g. plastic surgery, body cleansing, etc, and should not be tolerated here.

Discussion: Talk:Microdermabrasion Other users have pointed out this problem, and a few of the more egrigious claims (acne removal, scar reduction, etc) have been removed. However, the main issue of Neutral PoV remains in the article proper. One user defended the article saying:

Utter rubbish, yes there are quacks doing this but true professionals get good and even excellent results. It is one of the most popular treatments of the last few years so I doubt it would be that popular if it did not get the results!

Which again fails several tests of bias (it's hearsay, and something being popular doesn't mean it effective, see body cleansing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozieg (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a recommendation what to do about the issue? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin

Thanos5150 (talk · contribs) insists on removing any criticism of Zecharia Sitchin from the lead section, and burying it farther down in the article. I see this as a violation of both WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD. Additional experienced opinions welcome, probably better on Talk:Zecharia Sitchin than here. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin request for POV check

There is an article that is having POV issues and I have to admit that it is a little on the WP:FRINGE side, but there is WP:UNDUE weight towards debunking instead of being neutral. There is an article Here in regards to Zecharia Sitchin and it was right away squashed as not WP:RS. There are a number of editors and Admins who verge on the WP:OWN regulations and police it without consensuses. Opinion? - Pmedema (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A little while ago, on the talk page an IP suggested that this be used as a source, and one other editor said it shouldn't be used. The IP was 216.191.219.194 (talk · contribs), apparently Pmedema logged out from what I can tell at [7]. I sympathise with the editor who said it shouldn't be used. The reporter describes his/her article as " a very condensed form of Sitchin’s writings and researches" and we can use Sitchin himself. As for WP:UNDUE and the article not being 'neutral', I think Pmedema misunderstands what NPOV requires here. Dougweller (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, by accident I was logged out when I posted the suggestion and no, I don't "misunderstand" NPOV. By all means, there is plenty of debunking of Zecharia Stichin articles and some that are cited with questionable sources, but there is an WP:UNDUE weight to the debunking. Yes Zecharia Sitchin, in my opinion, is a crack pot, but articles should be balanced. The WP:POV is not what is written into the article but in the way that it is policed (sometimes rudly) when attempts to repair the WP:UNDUE are conducted. - Pmedema (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversial Edits at Conservatism in the United States

I'm having a bit of a disagreement with a couple of editors on the Conservatism in the United States article. Rjensen originated and The Four Deuces has perpetuated these changes. I'll copy a portion of my objections from the talk page:

I object to this language on two counts:

1) It is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV to label the Tea Party as "angry conservatives". Certainly we don't see this sort of language at the Tea Party movement article or references to "angry liberals" at Opposition to the Iraq War. While anger is perhaps a socially appropriate emotion in certain contexts, labeling a political movement as "angry" is biased and demeaning.

2) The sources do not support the notion that the Tea Party is universally angry, nor do they support the notion that the Tea Party has "paid little attention to foreign policy". Being split on something and ignoring something are two entirely different concepts. The Tea Party has not ignored foreign policy and the sources do not indicate that they have.

Can I get a POV check on these edits? My primary concern is the lack of multiple, reliable sources to support broad and sweeping assertions. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A term like "angry conservatives" is not an objective characterization. POV declarations like that should be attributed to a noteworthy source, something like "X has described the groups as 'angry conservatives'." As for the other issue, in general we focus on what a person or group has focused on rather than what they have not. Rather than saying they've ignored foreign policy, it might be better to say that they've focused on domestic issues.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Dick neglected mention that the foreign policy assertion is based on a New York Times citation that "a review of the Web sites of many Tea Party candidates suggests that they have not spent much time exploring foreign policy specifics. Many do little more than offer blanket promises to keep America safe." It seems reasonably sourced to me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

While some Tea Party candidates have been coy about their foreign policy views, others (like Ron Paul and Marc Rubio) have been outspoken. I don't think there is enough evidence in either direction to make the sweeping generalization that the Tea Party has "paid little attention to foreign policy". Some candidates have and some haven't. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's what you believe, then you should find some sources the describe the Tea Party as having a viable foreign policy outlook or a non-angry viewpoint and include them in the article for balance. Otherwise you're just doing original research. Keep in mind, however, that the Tea Party movement is (at best) only a couple of years old. Political movements often (I'm tempted to say 'always') begin as relatively thoughtless expressions of outrage over some failed policy or another. It will probably take the Tea Party another five to ten years before it begins to have an explicit, consistent, and properly theorized set of platforms, assuming it survives that long. And even then, the question is whether it's going to survive as a major party or dwindle into 3rd-party purgatory. It's base (so it seems to me) lies in midwestern 'home-town' conservatism, which is more concerned with values - morality, fiscal responsibility, protection of individual rights - than with nation. That's been the uneasy alliance in the Republican party for the last few decades: capitalist-nationalists (big-business advocates with foreign economic and military concerns) working with right-of center moralists (small-business advocates and religious conservatives who are largely isolationist). That's one of the problems with two-party systems: you actually have three major interest blocks in this country - capitalist-nationalists, moral conservatives, and democratic-progressives (along with a couple of major minor perspectives such as the libertarians). it's all going to boil down to whether the TP can (a) organize successfully, and (b) draw off moderate conservatives from the DP and CN groups in sufficient numbers to supplant one of the other parties (most likely the Republicans). --Ludwigs2 16:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

SAQ RfC-NPOV issues

An RfC is in process here, the purpose of which is to decide which version best fulfills this directive in terms of Wikipedia policies and standards. Version 1 Version 2

Comments are solicited from participants of this noticeboard.. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

MPIR wiki link in the GMP page

On the GNU_Multi-Precision_Library article there is one anonymous user from Stockholm ( 90.132.75.8, 81.225.14.148, 130.237.222.220, 81.225.10.223 , 83.185.6.75, 130.237.222.220 ) that is repeatedly removing, without giving sound justifications, a wiki link to MPIR, a fork of GMP.

The line that is repeatedly removed is the following one:

• MPIR - a LGPL fork of GNU MP with fully compatible interface which (among other goals) aims to provide MSVC-based compilation system for Windows platforms.

Main argument for keeping it as given by a couple of users (ALoopingIcon and MTarini):

MPIR it is a legitimate LGPL fork of GMP. Fork of open source projects are usually included in the main page (see for example the Forks section of Mindmapper)

Main argument for not having MPIR cited in the GMP article:

A link moves away the from the focus of the article

Given the fact that MPIR is a legitimate fork, and that the knowledge of this fork can be useful to a variety of user of the library (e.g. the ones that require compiling GMP using microsoft compilers, something that the GMP community actively does not support) I would ask to keep the link. I have stopped reverting the removal of the anonymous user to not incur in the WP:3RR. I could be wrong, but googling around it seems that the MPIR fork was not a smooth one, so there could be some NPOV issues in the anonymous user's steady will of continuously removing MPIR references. ALoopingIcon (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Alan Wolk

This article reads like a press release. If you google Arthur Wolk, the top links are about his unsuccessful libel lawsuits; he has sued over thirty different people or organizations for libel, and has never won a libel case in court. I looked up the Wolk article after reading about his threat to sue Reason for writing about his libel lawsuits, and found that the article was nothing but advertising. Two editors (one of whom who has said he is drafting this article on Wolk's behalf) keep deleting my attempt to add well-sourced discussion of his libel lawsuits, which are notable and have received press coverage in multiple sources. They argue that I cite to primary sources (though I cite to secondary sources, too), but the article is full of primary sources and mentions of cases that don't have any secondary sources. I have classes and work and my edits get deleted as soon as I make them by editors who have all day to spend on Wikipedia, so I will drop the issue, but it seems unfair that someone can use Wikipedia to advertise like that. (Note: Boo is a single-purpose account because I don't want Arthur Wolk to sue me for my regular account and Wolk threatens to sue anyone who writes about him.[8] I got accused of a conflict of interest, but the other editor who has done nothing but write about Wolk on Wolk's behalf hasn't. I'll stop using this account.) Boo the puppy (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Help in reviewing this advertisement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of web browsers with U.S. bias

A summary of this issue is available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Vote_again_-_about_removing_regional_stats_in_summary .   Again in summary editors agree there is bias. One group of editors wish to remove sources that have obvious bias for browser usage share statistics, summary, and intro reporting. Another group claims that all sources have bias and prefer to add more sources as to mitigate the bias. Would appreciate your thoughts and comments on this issue. Because of the controversy I deleted the summary statistics in the summary table. But there remains an issue of which source(s) to use in the wp:lead.   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Questioning Neutrality of Article it appears to be Scandal Mongering and POV I think the sources are being misrepresented

DavidR2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ott jeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
72.39.98.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Article in question is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie

After reading the source articles I think that this could possibly be an attack attempt on the company. Could we have it checked for misrepresenting sources,fact finding and Neutrality please?

Some notes to consider:

The issue is not at all about whether the sources are reliable or not.

The website that the FDA Warned was www.acai-berry.com which is not created or run by the company of MonaVie.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html Is a review of Orrin Woodwards Organization called TEAM and not a review of the Company of MonaVie.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/10/nbty.shtm I am unsure what connection this source article is to the company of MonaVie.

I cant find any proof in the sources of the CEO being involved in any false health claims other than he had a senior post and quit a year before the FDA shut that company down. Possible Scandal Mongering?

Monavie Talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MonaVie

Thanks DavidR2010 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Jonathon A H explained much of this and your statement looks like a WP:IDHT of about every point he raised. Point 89 and 93 of the "Quixtar Inc. Plaintiff, vs. MonaVie, Inc., MonaVie LLC, John Brigham and Lita Hart, Jason and Carrie Lyons, Lou Niles, Farid Zarif, John Does 1-10," document pretty much spell out the CEO has issues with the FDA.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand now so you are saying that it is mainly this PDF this is the main source of what is written in the wikipedia article about MonaVie? DavidR2010 (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is the final conclusion then leave no reply and I will take these findings back to the talk page in order to attempt to achieve consensus. DavidR2010 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that Jonathon A H addressed the points you are raising and there is nothing here that shows anything counter to what he or 65.95.238.137 pointed out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced something fishy is going on here there is quite a bit of slander of that company in that article with little proof to back it up. This source here http://www.amquix.info/pdfs/monavie/2-08-cv-00209-db-02.pdf is merely a complaint made by attorneys of a competing company how can that even be a reliable source. Yeah those guys didn't raise any good points either are you friends with them? I think you are a WP:IDHT Thank you. DavidR2010 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of fishy things, the ANI discussion[9] alleges that the SPA David is a sock of another user who is known for being a MonaView cheerleader. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson and related articles

A single editor is responsible for adding considerable content to Paul Robeson and creating related articles, including Paul Robeson and the labor movement, Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson, and Paul Robeson and communism. Together with considerable positive content, she has left an incredible amount of POV in those articles, and attempts to discuss the issue with her at Talk:Paul Robeson have been fruitless.

Can some fresh eyes take a look at the articles and chime in. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The sub-articles don't seem to be the right way to deal with the length of the bio. There's an enormous amount of bad faith on the talk page, with people going into the rights and wrongs of the bio subject's beliefs. Everyone needs to be more disciplined, perhaps collapsing talk page posts when they go right off topic. In a quick trawl around for parallels, I saw that Malcolm X is a featured article. There's no reason in principle why Paul Robeson shouldn't also be taken to that standard, since there are plenty of reliable sources already cited. Would the editor who is adding all this material be interested in taking the article forward on those lines? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"attempts to discuss the issue with her at Talk:Paul Robeson have been fruitless."

I appreciate this forum and the time you are giving the article but that above assessment is a tad biased and I feel you know this Malik. I have not only gone into articles and removed as much POV as possible (please see the changes made in the past few weeks) I am not responsible for all of it! I was faced with a very short article about a very complex and hugely world famous 20th century figure mired in pov and editing conflicts and who's life spanned the era when black children's parents had been former slaves up until 1976. I did the best I could and still really want to improve what is there and make it much, much better than it is while working with others.

There are numerous urban myths and conflicting accounts surrounding key parts of his life. Much of what I see as an issue is stemming from the fact that this was a once an immensely famous international figure who has been mostly written out of history so therefore one has to explain: 1.Why he was one of the most famous Americans of his time 2.Why he was is unknown now 3.Why he was once considered a threat to the power structure on two continents 4.Why he was considered a Communist sympathizer

all without any povs and taking into consideration that Robeson's opinions/writings should ideally be quoted as often as possible. Robeson stayed silent on many of his views towards the end of the red scare but in tandem maintained his opinions in his autobiography had never changed. Regarding the CP/USSR which seems to be the flash point for everyone, I think there DOES need to be a separate article. It is a huge source of controversy with lies propagated by both sides of the spectrum. I have added to both articles, cited sections that feature many of his views and actions regarding the USSR/CP that the Left wants sanitized but many conservatives are still very upset. My solution is that we offer the reader a very well cited section of the article with abbreviated theories about his Communist views by the far right, right, liberal, left, far left historians and all of his major biographers. This can edited in a similar fashion to this article (much more brief of course): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories

As stated before, if someone of minute historical stature like Jessica Simpson warrants a portal and numerous sub articles, it is ludicrous to not have an in-depth availability of Robeson study in a similar fashion for his massive work with Labour unions in the US and abroad and the incident with Jackie Robinson. It is also saddening that he is invisible on all the Civil Rights portals and articles and has no portal and project of his own, he was active in Civil Rights his entire life. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, it is great that you want to develop a good biography of Robeson, who was, as you say, a very well known figure in his day. You will find it useful to look at some biographies that are featured articles for comparison. Harvey Milk might be of interest. It isn't necessary to quote biography subjects frequently, by the way. You need to work closely with the best published biographies. This is only an encyclopedia article, at the end of the day. People will use it as a first stage for further research. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I am one of the editors who clashed with Catherine. My one attempt to remove POV pushing from the very long intro - I hadn't looked at the further text - was immediately reverted by Catherine, who apparently thinks herself the owner of the article. After that, I have began to overhauling the entire article elsewhere but due to real life commitments this only proceeds slowly. But I think I will be able to present the result soon.

Her POV pushing consists not so much of hiding facts but of an overly laudatory language towards everything Mr Robeson ever did, an equally condemning language towards his opponents, who are constantly imputed the most vile motivations (such as racism, being anti-civil rights etc.) never any reasonable concerns, such as a concern about Communist activities. (And that's not to say that Robeson had trouble with racist bigots or discrimination - only it is not the whole story). The recent changes Catherine has made have been minute compared to the problem.

Oh, and the way she treats Robeson's opponents, she treats her "opponents" as well, repeatedly imputing either racism or ignorance of the - indeed horrible - plight of blacks in American history. Repeatedly does she insist that the U.S. 1950s (or even today's America) was/is no better than Stalin's Soviet Union. That is what has dominated the talk page discussions. No one has attempted, as she claimed, to turn the article into a hit piece on Robeson (and I have even expressed understanding for how he got to his more problematic opinions). It is not WP's role to either laud or condemn Robeson's actions - but we must truthfully report them and the reactions.

Another issue is her insistence that Robeson is such a great man (and a great man he was indeed) that he deserves not just one article but several. She has repeatedly compared this to more recent celebrities such as Madonna or, as I see now, Jessica Simpson. No matter what anyone thinks of these women's importance, they are (for some reason) notable and thus have their articles. However, nowhere - and Catherine has provided a supposed list of how Madonna has many more extra articles (these actually were different people, groups, places, events somehow linked to the singer) - have I thus far found a string of articles that merely cover the subject's relation to this and that, there is Paul Robeson and the labor movement (which is basically a list of activities over a long period of time) but nowhere, let's say, Madonna and sex. The various extra article's topic can easily be covered in the main article, if concise language is employed and endless repition is avoided. Most of these articles through their topic only concern a short span of events (so far as really notable activities are concerned), so that they can be subsumed under this or that period of his life. The worst in that regard is Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson, which concerns only a single event in both man's life and which doesn't even have a proper title to subsume what it's about. (For instance, no one would think of a Madonna and Sean Penn article.)

One exception among the extra articles is Paul Robeson and communism, which is a valid topic since it is the main controversy of his life and a topic that stretches across many time periods. I'm in favour of keeping it, though it suffers from the aforementioned POV problems.

The four questions asked by Catherine above are all valid ones and must be explained (though not necessarily in a "He is now unknown because ..." format) - however even in her questions she gives evidence of her POV pushing - though she talks about "without any povs and", making Robeson merely the victim of being "considered a threat to the power structure on two continents" - what about the power structure he supported?

I also disagree with her view that "Robeson's opinions/writings should ideally be quoted as often as possible" - his views should be given comprehensively and, if that best serves that purpose, he should be quoted. But we need not include a quote on everything, certainly not repetitive quotes or mere attacks.

Among editors, there never was a dispute whether Robeson changed. That he didn't should be noted. But just as much as I wouldn't have the article condemn him for "obstinately sticking to his support of a totalitarian regime", neither should the article laud him for his "unwavering" position. However, that is what Catherine's version is doing.

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, without going over what has happened in the past, do you want to work with other editors on improving the article in a way that's consistent with policy - NPOV, avoiding WP:QUOTEFARM, quality rather than quantity, working from sources? If you do, could you please enter into discussion on the talk page. Working together to draw up a to-do list for the article could be really effective, as could asking for the article to be reviewed in relation to Good Article criteria. In relation to subarticles, some of them will need to be merged back. I'm not at all sure about Paul Robeson and communism, even, because his political views were such an intrinsic part of his life events. Robeson and the House Committe on Un-American Activities, perhaps, if that constitutes a series of events with a beginning and some kind of end. Again, keep looking at how other biographies are treated and when subarticles are used. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope such a cooperation is possible.

My point about the communism article is: the overhaul I am working on and which I have in mind more rigorously follows a more chronological approach and thus mentions many items relating to PR and Communism in different places a) because this improves an understanding of the context of this or that development, and b) because they were relevant to others things too - as opposed to the current version which basically puts everything into one section (with subsections). But I thought maybe the extra article could then present these items in a more thematic way (it already does this, but then the PR main article would not).

That doesn't mean that I would object to the disappearence of the communism article. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

itsmeudith, Hi thanks for your feedback. I will take your advice.

Str1977: Anyone can go read what I wrote for themselves and see you are false. "The Belgian Congo does not approach the scope of Stalin"s horror" you say? Had their never been western European conservative right wing Christian/Catholic lust for slavery and imperialism and a ruthless monarchy (which was buttressed by the former) there never would have been a Stalin or a Marx. Do realize that when I moved material to the PR and CP sub-article that much of that NOT mine. I moved it, cited it and tried to flesh it out. Once again, so much is unproven conjecture. Even I wrote, with no sound scholarly proof other than his son's claim (which could be easily called bias and thrown out) that he was "aware of state sponsored murder by the USSR" I put that in so bias can I be? You just seem to want him put in the "convenient idiot box" and it can't be done.

As for the power structure Robeson supported that would first and foremost always be the United States. Post war II when that same power structure failed to end the systematic apartheid and wholesale genocide of blacks and even merrily lauded it (John Rankin added: "After all, the KKK is an old American institution.") Even then he still supported pro-American domestic causes like civil rights and trade unions. He also WAS a threat to the USSR in speaking out about Feffer in Tchaikovsky Hall. I said TWO continents. First and foremost , Robeson wanted PEACE with the USSR and globally. He did not want the USA to be telling other countries how to govern themselves. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that the advice may have been helpful. If I may add one further one point, please resist the temptation to discuss the substantive points of the article with people on the talk page. People can write really good biographies about people whose views they agree with, disagree with, or are undecided about. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, I absolutely agree. It is not one's opinion of the subject that counts (mine regarding Robeson is mixed, with a note of sadness) but one goes about writing the article. For Catherine, it seems, there (UNFORTUNATELY AND THUS FAR) is only praise of Robeson and condemnation for his opponents possible - this also shows in her postings here, which a) totally misrepresents my points (e.g. re: the Congo), b) thinks anecodotal evidence makes her case, c) actually distorts Robeson's views (who clearly said, he wanted peace with Stalin and Mao because their regimes were decent).

But, as you, Judith, said this is not the place to discuss the article's issues aside from the POV factor. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Weston Price and "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition"

I have been trying to put in a piece correcting a very common misconception that Weston Price was called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition". However I have hit a snag with two editors. One doesn't seem to understand that is to correct an already existing problem (Talk:Weston_Price) and the other is hung up on the quality of the second source ignoring the fact it is basically parroting the higher quality first source

Here is the latest version of the piece:

However, an article in the 1950 edition of American Otological Society's journal The Laryngoscope stated the opinion that "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" and this was repeated nearly word for word in Modern nutrition the publication of American Academy of Nutrition who Price had had given his complete nutrition library to shortly before his death.((1950) The Laryngoscope, Volume 60; American Otological Society)((1951) Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7; American Academy of Nutrition; pg 32). This statement of opinion would be presented as fact many decades later.

Given:

• Laryngoscope is published these days by Wiley and is the "Official Journal of The American Laryngological Association"
• Modern nutrition was (and is) published by the somewhat questionable American Academy of Nutrition
• The "Dr. Price was a Cleveland dentist, who has been called the Charles Darwin of Nutrition" mistake is everywhere even on amazon

My questions to my fellow editors are:

1. Does this in any reasonable form violate WP:PEACOCK?
2. How can something clearly labeled as an opinion be read as as statement of fact?
3. Given the circumstances wouldn't leaving this out be problematic?--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As the "Editor who does not understand...", I have been trying to explain to Bruce that placing this passage in the article in this form (or one of the numerous other incarnations that he's tried) actually tends to imply that Price is considered the Charles Darwin of Nutrition - a fairly drastic misrepresentation of Price's place in history - and would tend to confuse relatively uninformed readers, who would have a hard time understanding why someone on Charles Darwin's level of significance is actually only a minor theorist who advocated a now-refuted theory of dental medicine. The passage is not used with proper historical context. It's fairly clear to me that the original context of the phrase has more to do with the fact that Price did cross-regional research (comparing western/'civilized' nutritional intake with tribal/'natural' nutritional intake, similar to Darwin's work) than with any belief that Price's research was groundbreaking or extra-significant, but that nuance is not brought out in the way Bruce keeps using this phrase.

I'm not averse to the phrase, mind you, if it could be properly contextualized. But Bruce just keeps pumping in variations of the same material without really engaging any of our discussions or critiques. anyone else want to give it a shot? --Ludwigs2 03:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I'm the other editor mentioned by Bruce.) I'm not sure we should give any significant weight to an opinion in an article published in 1950 in a specialty journal for otolaryngology (ENT) about how this man is viewed in the field of nutrition (which is way outside their usual purview). The article itself spends more time talking about Price's theory about nutrition and pregnancy than it does anything remotely related to the field of otolaryngology.

As a context, we have contemporaneous book reviews that give rather tepid positive reviews of Price's book as rather pedestrian in its nutritional advice - hardly a Darwin-like achievement in the field as far as prominence goes. Unless we give proper context, the comparison with Darwin would certainly be misleading to any reader. (I'll leave aside Bruce's biased peacocked wording of naming the journal's associated society, implying the opinion made by authors of one if its articles is somehow the official position of the society itself.) The second source used probably isn't a reliable source (see discussion here) so using it as a way to prop up the other citation seems disingenuous at best. Yobol (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"The passage is not used with proper historical context." SAY WHAT?!? It says right there it is from 1950, shows who made it, states it was their opinion, states it was reprinted the next year by a group Price gave his collection to and this opinion is being presented as fact many decades later. Just what more "proper historical context" do we need?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The context which shows that this was a momentary linguistic fad that didn't last into the 1960's, maybe? Or maybe the part which explains in what way he was like Charles Darwin, and what ways he was not? or maybe the part that shows what the general opinion about him actually was (i.e. a well-regarded but not particularly exceptional academic researcher)? either he was literally being compared to Darwin (in which case we should explain what about his work drew that kind of high praise), or he was rhetorically compared to Darwin for some reason (in which case the phrase is excessive and misleading). even you don't think he was 'literally' being compared to Darwin, so why are you so determined to point this phrase out in the article? --Ludwigs2 06:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This theorizing of yours is nothing more than WP:OR at the end of the day. Let me be blunt here; is there anything factually wrong with what I have posted?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I see if I've got this straight? The argument is over whether the article should include the statement that "Weston Price has been called the Charles Darwin of nutrition", (compare Lizst as "the Paganini of the piano"), and sourced primarily to the academic journal Laryngoscope. Is that right?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument is actually this:

1. Price shortly before his death make a sizable donation to the somewhat questionable American Academy of Nutrition
2. academic journal Laryngoscope makes the opinionated statement "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition."" in 1950
3. Modern nutrition (published by said American Academy of Nutrition) prints a near copy of the Laryngoscope statement
4. Decades later the opinion turns into the statement "Dr. Price was a Cleveland dentist, who has been called the Charles Darwin of Nutrition."

Effort is to show where this idea came form, what the idea actually was, and how (without going into WP:OR) that statement is being used (or rather in this case misuse would be a better term) today.

Original: "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition."

Current: "Weston Price has been called the Charles Darwin of nutrition"

See the key difference between what Laryngoscope actually said and the way it is being mistated today?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to appear slow about this - does that contradict the basic formulation I put above? (Do you mean there is a promise of more modern sourcing to show contemporary usage?). To make a judgement, I need to know what the editor wants to do, separately from the arguments about whether it's a good idea. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps my explainination on the Talk:Weston_Price was crappy.

1. There is 5,300 plus hit parade on google effectively proclaiming "Weston Price has been called the Charles Darwin of nutrition". This is duplicated in several books including the 6th edition of Price's own work.
2. Laryngoscope actually said he might be called that not that he was called that.
3. I am trying to correct the mammoth amount of misinformation out there by showing just what was actually said, who said it, when it was said, and hint (can't do WP:OR remember) as to why it likely has changed.

Does this help?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, if I understand what you said above, you are trying to correct "misinformation" that's present in sources by quoting a somewhat more mild statement of the same assertion. However, you are doing this without any mention of the fact that there is any "misinformation" to be corrected. This does nothing to correct the misinformation, and simply informs people who know nothing about Price that he might have been considered a Darwinesque figure. It's a bit like trying to counter Tea Party arguments that 'Obama was born in Kenya' by saying instead that 'Obama may have been born in Kenya'. would you consider that an effective approach?

Honestly, the more I listen to your arguments, the more difficulty I have with AGF. I cannot imagine that anyone would seriously suggest that one can counter a perceived misinformation by restating the misinformation without further explanation. How is that supposed to work, exactly? If I say "the moon might be made of green cheese", do you consider that a resounding refutation of the idea that the moon is actually made of green cheese? is that what you're trying to suggest? --Ludwigs2 09:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, it would be really helpful if one of you could provide a concise description of the editing action that is in dispute. That is, the text and the sourcing, without a commentary attached telling outside editors what you think of it. It's very difficult to give input when it's not clear what the specific edit action proposed is. To be honest, my immediate impression is that you don't agree on what that edit action is, so let's work on that first. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment. I haven't read this full discussion, but in response to the original question I have two comments. 1) The existence of an opinion an be a fact. "According to Smith, the peasants were angry". "Jones called the painting 'inspired'". "Thorndike has been called the 'father of plate tectonics'". Those are all opinions which are presented factually. 2) The posted text seems to over-analyze the situation, and appears to contain on original research. One middle-length sentence would seem like sufficient weight. "He has been called the 'Darwin of Nutrition' by several writers". If readers want to see the details they can look at the footnotes.   Will Beback  talk  11:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it does over-analyze the situation but that is just because I am trying to avoid WP:SYN and be as accurate to the sources as possible.

On your point 1 perhaps I'm being a little dense here but I don't see any real difference between your examples and "an article in the 1950 edition of American Otological Society's journal The Laryngoscope stated the opinion that "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition""

On the "He has been called the 'Darwin of Nutrition' by several writers" idea there are two major problems with that version: 1) that is NOT what The Laryngoscope article says and more importantly 2) the sources that do say that do not seem to qualify under WP:RS I mean look as what a google books search of "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" with the quotes produces: three Yoga Journal articles, five nutrition books of unknown value, Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7, and The Laryngoscope: Volume 60. The Laryngoscope is clearly the most WP:RS of the bunch so why not go with it being the main source instead of what the first five say especially as their WP:RS is really shaky at the moment?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I have to say that I'm leaning more in Ludwigs' direction on this now, namely because I was under the impression that you wanted these opinions factually attributed for historical context--to show that Price was called the C.D. of N. But now that you're explaining you merely want to counteract a misconception, I think that you should consider if this accomplishes that; and if it does, place the information in the modern section related to Fringe proponents of Price rather than the historical one about his critical reception.

Putting a refutation of modern (false) beliefs in the historical section makes it seem as if there was a rational basis for the modern beliefs when in fact you are [trying to show that the however false modern beliefs were rationally based on a false basis?] I'm just not sure what the purpose of that is. If you want to go back to regular old critical reception, plainly stated as such, I'll look through it again. Ocaasi (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good points and the wording is likely problematic but I would ask you to really look at the Nutrition section again because it has an entire paragraph based on a 1981 article challenging Price's views and research methods. In terms of chronology I think we can all agree that 1950 (when the original "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" claim was made) and 1976 (when Yoga Journal stated in two separate issues "Noted researchers such as Dr. Weston Price, known in nutrition circles as "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition," and ""Dr. Weston Price, a dentist and anthropologist known as "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition", in his extensive studies of native dietary patterns in every part of the world...") both come before 1981. As I pointed out in the Talk:Weston Price page there are at least four possible articles written in Price's lifetime (1935-1939) that challenged his concept of a healthy savage so why resort to a 1981 article in the historical section?

If what I am trying to do belongs in a legacy section then the 1981 article stuff does as well especially as the might had been turned into a was some five years previously. The logical of your position just doesn't hold given the way the article's historical position is currently written.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

@VsevolodKrolikov: See this diff for the most recent iteration of Bruce's proposed change. Yobol (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, that helps tremendously. OK, here's how I see it:

• It's not the job of Wikipedia explicitly to correct "misinformation" in this manner; we need notable, reliable sources that directly address the misinformation. (The formulation "this statement of opinion was treated as fact many years later" doesn't actually make sense without more explanation.) Instead, we simply say what is notable and with due weight, and let the reader decide.
• That the Laryngoscope made the comment is notable enough. Even though it's not quite the right specialism, someone writing in a scientific journal would have been aware of what it meant to compare someone to Darwin.
• Later reference to Weston Price as "He has been called the Charles Darwin of nutrition" etc. do not seem to pass RS, and should simply be ignored, unless there is RS that talks about it.
• Bruce's insertion into the criticism section was in the wrong place, disrupting the good review - bad review structure. Any insertion should be after the Hooton foreword reference.
• I did a date limited search on google scholar and found this review from the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which praises the book (and as near as dammit calls him the Ivan Pavlov of nutrition).

In short, I think a reference to what the Laryngoscope says should be inserted, along with CMAJ, in something like this (I've tried to balance it with a fuller quote from JAMA):

Anthropologist Earnest A. Hooton's 1939 foreword lauded Price's contribution to research on dental caries and the aetiology of their lower prevalence in "savages" compared to Westerners. In 1940, a review in the Canadian Medical Association Journal called the book "a masterpiece of research", comparing Price's impact on nutrition to that of Ivan Pavlov in digestion. In 1950, the American Otological Society journalThe Laryngoscope went as far as to say that "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition". However, other reviews at the time, such as in Scientific Monthly and the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1940, were less sympathetic, criticizing Price's controversial conclusions about morality as "not justified by the evidence presented", "evangelistic rather than scientific", and downplaying the significance of the dietary findings.

This makes the providence of the quotations clear, and doesn't get into the OR business of what modern publicists and fringey nutritionists might claim. In terms of details or quotes, I think we should also beef up what JAMA and Scientific Monthly say more, in respect of their rather more weighty authority than Laryngoscope and the foreword to a book. Anyone searching for Price and Darwin on the internet will likely find this page near the top of the search, where the criticism is also there. It also highlights the need for a page on the AOS. Can we all agree on something like this? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I like it as it's wording is a lot better than what I was using. I have reworded the section to pretty much match this. The problem regarding WP:RS with the "Dr. Price was a Cleveland dentist, who has been called the Charles Darwin of Nutrition." claim is that amazon has this annoying habit of mixing different editions. They have this claim with the 6th edition (2003) of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration which was put out by Keats Publishing which is part of McGraw-Hill but says it refers to the 8th edition printed by Price Pottenger Nutrition. Ugh. This give the impression (if you don't pay close attention like I didn't the first time) that McGraw-Hill was making this claim rather than Price Pottenger Nutrition. I really hate when Amazon does that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My view of the Amazon citation is that (a) Amazon is not RS for those kinds of comments (it's PR) and (b) if there are good reasons to believe that a source is dodgy, even if it in principle passes RS, the simple solution is - don't use it. RS is a quality threshold, not an obligation to include.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

True though Amazon is good for telling you who publisher the particular version you are looking at. I should mention the 1939 (aka 1st edition) of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration was printed by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers making it a WP:RS for 1939 in its own right. Sadly the 1945 version (4th) was self published by Price himself so the extra material it contains doesn't have the same level of WP:RS as the 1st edition.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter in this case who published Price's book; it's only important that secondary sources treat it as notable. I think you're mixing up secondary and primary sources. For this article, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration isn't RS, it's a WP:PRIMARY text. That is, it's only useful on Wikipedia as a source for what Price literally said, not on the correctness or implication of what he said. For an article on nutrition as science, it's not RS, as it's too old, regardless of the publisher. We don't cite Darwin on the modern evolutionary synthesis, except by way of illustrating the history of the idea. As for Amazon - yes, it's fine for technical information such as page count and ISBN (it's their job to get that right), although I personally would prefer a publisher's website. We actually don't usually give sources for that kind of information anyway.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is rather marvelous progress. VsevolodKrolikov, thank you greatly for your input here. I think this is a positive solution to the problem being discussed.Griswaldo (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree though I should correct VsevolodKrolikov two misconceptions here.

WP:PRIMARY vs WP:SECONDARY: it does matter who originally published Price's book in 1939. Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers like Wiley-Blackwell today had a reputation to uphold so they were not going to just publish anything. Harper & Brothers were going to check to the best of their ability that what they were putting out met the criteria of the Medical Book Department as it was in 1939.

Besides Price references an insane amount of other papers in his book: chapter 2 has 21 references that are NOT to Price, 6 and 8 have 1 a piece, 9 has 3, 12 and 13 have 2 a piece, 15 and 16 have 6 a piece, 17 has 5, 18 has 19, 19 has 19, 20 has 5, and chapter 21 has 5. So Price's book is a MIXTURE of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY depending on what you want to use it for.

Second, WP:RS and WP:RSMED are not always the same thing. The insane amount of information I dumped regarding views of nutrition of Price's time (Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_1) are all reliable sources for examples of the pattern of thought of that time but they are no way are reliable sources in term of medical knowledge today. Edward Mellanby's BMJ article is still a reliable secondary source for ideas of 1930 but not for modern medical ideas--it is as he says too old.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of Luke

An editor named Leadwind is deleting a lot of cited material off of Gospel of Luke and with it pushing a heavily skewed POV. He is deleting material because he says the publishers are "sectarian" even though they are some of the largest and most recognzied publishers in the world. Unfortunately I am outnumbered and cannot do a whole lot, but his reasons for deleting "sectarian" material certainly go against wikipedia policy. Will some editors go over there and look at some of his edits as well as the talk page?RomanHistorian (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored some of Leadwind's POV pushing here. I am sure he will restore it, but just look at his methodology. He completely discounts the legitimacy of non-skeptical schoalars, even when they comment on the views of scholarship at large.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems to be "one non-skeptical scholar" who wrote the source 20 years ago (actually, more like 30 - the 1990 is revised edition, not a new book), at a time when he was already retired 8 years. Guthrie probably was a notable voice in his time, but using him to make claims on current opinion is problematic, at best. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources being used by the other editor are older. Sources originally published within the last 10 years have also been deleted by him. The issue has nothing to do with age but with what the editor labels as "apologetic". Besides, in biblical scholarship 20 or 30 years is a short span of time. Very little new information is discovered, so opinions don't change much over time.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar

Ceuta and Melilla are two Spanish enclaves in North Africa, they are both claimed by Morocco but remain Spanish territory. The situation is very much analogous with that of Gibraltar, British territory claimed by Spain. As Ceuta and Melilla are only 15km from Gibraltar many commentators draw attention to the dichotomy whereby Spain claims Gibraltar whilst also maintaining its own enclaves. It might have been naturally expected that might be mentioned in the Gibraltar article but it is not.

I have prepared a brief mention, cited and giving due coverage appropriate to an overview article on Gibraltar, with more details at Foreign relations of Spain#Disputes - international. See [10]. I first proposed this edit in talk over the weekend, repeating the same suggestion without a response. Immediately I add it to the article it is reverted claiming there is no consensus to add it and a somewhat strange talk page post claiming this edit violates WP:NPOV.

I would like outside opinion as to whether the edit I have proposed meets WP:NPOV and gives appropriate coverage per WP:DUE. Thank you. Justin talk 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The main reason for saying that this edit is non NPOV has been that it gives voice to critics of the consistency of the position of one of the sides of the dispute (Spain, supported by the UN) but it does not mention equally noteworthy criticism of the other sides (Gibraltar and the UK) or the position of Spain about the lack of parallelism between these situations:

• If the Gibraltar article explains parallels between its situation and other similar disputes, it should also mention -for example- what notable sources say about the dichotomy (for the UK) of Hong Kong being returned to mainland China while Gibraltar is being kept, or about the parallelism with the original inhabitants of Western Sahara (who were displaced when Morocco invaded it -like Spanish Gibraltarians after the capture- and were replaced by a new population of Moroccans whom Morocco now says should vote in an eventual self-determination referendum -against the criteria of the UN), or...
• Also, for NPOV, the article would have to explain the POV of Spain about the different situation of Gibraltar and Ceuta and Melilla, the POV of the UK regarding why Gibraltar is different from Hong Kong...

Besides, a majority of editors (Spanish and British) have said that Ceuta and Melilla are not relevant to a Gibraltar article. They have said that the only common thread between Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla is Spain -not Gibraltar. Therefore, Ceuta and Melilla are relevant -indeed- to the territorial disputes section in the article about foreign relations of Spain (in fact, it is mentioned in that article) but not to the article about Gibraltar (even more if you take into account all the different implications that should be mentioned in order to reach NPOV). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the posting to this board was to elicit outside opinion but to correct an obvious untruth, a majority of editors did not say this at all. 2 support it, 1 is weakly opposed and the above editor opposed it. Justin talk 21:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I did not want to go into this (boring) detail, but you can count at least three editors saying Ceuta and Melilla are not relevant to the Gib article: The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick[11], Richard Keatinge, and yours truly. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

No you're being misleading again. RHoPF commented on a completely different and more detailed edit. That criticism was taken on board and acted upon. Richard's comments were to weakly oppose the edit as I have correctly reported already. What you have just stated is misleading. Let people comment please and stop adding misleading comments. Justin talk 23:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, including information about Cueta and Melilla in the Gibraltar article is inappropriate, specifically when it seems the sole purpose of doing so is to discredit Spain's position toward Gibraltar, which is where the NPOV problem arises. Grsz¹¹ 21:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC) (neither Spanish nor British)

It has nothing to do with discrediting Spain's position whatsoever, it reports what has been said in a neutral manner. If Spain is criticised for its position we report that, that is not a NPOV problem. Avoiding such coverage is a NPOV problem as it implies there is no criticism of the Spanish position and skews the POV of the article. Justin talk 22:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument for including some comment is that such remarks have indeed been made; to many people including the PM of Gib and the government of Morocco the plazas de soberania etc seem relevant to Gibraltar. The argument against is that, in fact, Spanish claims to Gib would not be affected if Ceuta and Melilla etc. had never existed. They are different places and most of the arguments are different. I suppose there's the point about integrity of national territory, which the Moroccans at least feel applies to all these claims, but then the Spanish position disagrees about that too... Altogether a complicated argument of minimal actual relevance to Gibraltar, on balance well worth leaving out of an overview article, though a link to Spanish foreign policy could certainly be engineered. And I'd suggest that this debate would be better in the Gibraltar talk article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "of minimal actual relevance to Gibraltar" and "sole purpose of doing so is to discredit Spain's position toward Gibraltar"

Agree and agree. Bottem line is, mentioning Cueta and Melilla is basically a debating point rather than a fact that will actually give a reader some useful information about Gibraltar. For the record, I happen to think this is good debating point, but frankly, WP is not a battle ground and an article on Gibraltar shouldn't contain this kind of stuff. NickCT (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"sole purpose of doing so is to discredit Spain's position toward Gibraltar" Seeing as that as been highlighted as a reason for not including it, could you all please note that is not my reason for doing so. I perceive such a comment as a bad faith presumption as to my motive for including it, even if that isn't the intention. I was drawn to the compelling analogue of the situation with Gibraltar that was all, it seemed to my mind an omission to not comment on it. I still think it is to be honest.

I wanted outside comment for adding it, I got it, so I won't be including it. I happen to disagree with your comment and would have been a lot happier if outside comment had been allowed before the well was poisoned so to speak. There are a lot of issues on that page right now that I would really welcome outside comment on. Regards. Justin talk 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Re '"please note that is not my reason for doing so. I perceive such a comment as a bad faith presumption" - For the record, I was not trying to suggest nor do I believe that Justin's contribution was in bad faith. Additionally, I agree re the "compelling analogue" comment. NickCT (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate you clarifying that. Regards, Justin talk 23:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto

Help in reviewing said page. Single unit users add biased information and simply dont read the sources. They want positives and not facts. Pls assist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Layng Martine, Jr.

He is determined to write the article about himself... badly. No response to any attempt to discuss. I have to rush off to choir practice; anyone else want to have a try? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've placed a formal COI notice on his talkpage and reverted. He'll be over 3RR if he reverts again. A short block clearly and patiently explaining the reason might be salutary in making him understand how to contribute. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Women's rights and the Koran

An article I nominated for GA status, Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, failed due to NPOV concerns. The discussion is here [12]. I'd like broader input on the NPOV issue, as I didn't think the GA discussion was clear or thorough. The objection centers on quoting of the Koran in the green sideboxes. The quotes pertain to women's rights. The objection is that this implies that the Koran is anti-woman. If you find the quoteboxes in violation of NPOV, constructive suggestions would be helpful. Should they be deleted? Can the Koran can be quoted in any way?

• My thoughts are: 1) The quotes aren't interpreted, just given as what the Koran says, 2) The quotes aren't selected to paint an unbalanced picture; they were chosen because they are about the rights of women, 3) The fact is that the Koran is not exactly a feminist document: it states that husbands have a right to beat their wives, brothers generally inherit more, and so on. 4) It is relevant because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state; the Koran (along with tribal custom) is the basis for women's legal rights there. Noloop (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd remove the quotes. This isn't about women's rights in Islam but in Saudi Arabia; while religion plays a big part in female repression there I'm more interested in quotes that relate directly to the nation's perspectives. Abrahamic religious texts are chock full of misogynist passages downplaying the value and rights of women but it's only Saudi Arabia that won't let women drive. Sol (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Saudi law to give a definitive answer. My advice: Quote the Koran where the relevant passages underlie current Saudi law as proved by reliable sources. Footnote the connection. If the Koran is an overall source for Saudi law on these issues, relevant quotes for protection of, and limitations on women's rights should be cited. Put something about the role of the Koran in these areas of law early in the text.

Also, minor design suggestion: whiten the non-Koran quote boxes so as not to imply they are all agreeing with each other, and to diminish the sense that this is a point-counterpoint debate among the quotes. Also, put all the quotes on the right: it's extremely irritating to come to a new section and wonder if you should read the box quote or the section first.--Carwil (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd definitely not have quotes like this, as per Sol above. At the moment, the quotes give the implication that the Saudi system is the one true representation/interpretation of the Koran, which is clearly POV. It also seems to implicate "Islam" in the poor human rights record of Saudi Arabia, which is also POV. It's been the Saudi choice to legitimate their regime using the Koran, but thus was slavery, persecution of Jews, war and misogyny legitimated by the bible previously (and still now by some). We don't present the history of women's rights in Europe using prominent scriptural quotes. Koranic quotes should be presented only in the context of how Saudis have used them, preferably with an indication that the Saudi version is not the only version. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I missed part of this discussion. Regarding this comment: " This isn't about women's rights in Islam but in Saudi Arabia; while religion plays a big part in female repression there I'm more interested in quotes that relate directly to the nation's perspectives." The Qu'ran relates directly to the nation's perspectives. The nation's perspective is that Saudi Arabia is the world's foremost Islamic nation (because it is the birthplace of Muhummad). A number of people have asserted what is implied by the quoting. These alleged implications seem like POV to me. Who says quoting the Qu'ran implies that Saudi Arabia is the "one true representation/interpretation of the Qu'ran"? How? Why? Where? It is just POV to say that's implied. The only implication of quoting the Qu'ran in this article is that the Qu'ran is a significant part of women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Which it is. Noloop (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System and WP:COATRACK

Withdraw until after the AfD is over
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System is currently undergoing an AfD. I commented at the AfD that there is no inherent BLP issue with this entry and that it is notable enough to be kept, but that the current entry appears to be a WP:COATRACK. As a result I have posted a detailed discussion on the talk page of the COTRACK/NPOV issues - Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System#WP:COATRACK. This discussion quickly digressed into a verbal ping pong match with the main contributer to the article, which is just cluttering the talk page without any productive movement on the issues. I'm hoping some uninvolved eyes could take a look at this so that I can step back from the unproductive back and forth with the afore mentioned editor. I do not think the entry should be deleted or whitewashed. Not at all. Just think it needs some serious trimming. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I agree re COATRACK. Also WP:SYN violations. There are WP:OWN problems, also (the editor makes the argument that the coatrack is needed because the main articles are biased -- as blatant of evidence of POVFORK as possible). Once all the coatrack is removed, all that's left is a stub about a non-notable lawsuit that never went anywhere. The article should be merged into Werner Erhard to avoid the coatrack, and I would support such a WP:BOLD move. THF (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC) The comment above starting this discussion in this noticeboard is most certainly NOT a neutral or matter of fact presentation of the issue. The majority of comments at the AFD have posted positively about the quality of the article, have stated it is not pov, not a "coatrack", see ([13] [14] [15]). -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I have not looked into the details of the AfD, but this looks very much like an attempt to canvas at the AfD. This is not the purpose of this noticeboard. I would respectfully ask Griswaldo to withdraw this entry.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Agree with this comment by VsevolodKrolikov (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC) So I'm trying to canvass to get other to vote like myself, to keep the entry? Can you please tell me how to get a third opinion at the entry talk page about issues in the entry? Should I wait until the AfD is over? Once again, I'm not voting delete, and fully expect the entry to be kept. I'm simply trying to get eyes on it to improve it. Please tell me a better way to go about this. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, it would be helpful to wait to address these other matters until after the AFD is over. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) (in agreement with cirt, but with detail) I said it's canvassing because you've appealed to a group of editors with a non-neutral presentation of the issue of something currently at AfD. It's clear that you are interested in getting people to agree it's a coatrack as it stands. AfDs often result not only in a keep or delete decision, but also a clear indication on how to move forward, which can be invoked in future discussions (this may or may not be official policy, but it's a common occurrence). I would suggest that the most proper thing to do in this case is wait until the AfD is over, and then discuss on the talkpage about how to improve the article. In terms of an approach, arguments such as "it's a coatrack but rescuable" (see also "it's basically OR, but it doesn't have to be") are usually not going to gain majority support in any AfD. It's probably better not to confront the issue (and have it ruled out after minimal discussion because editors will tend not to nuance as much at an AfD) and focus on the basic keep/delete for now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Fair enough. Does this hatting deal with your concern?Griswaldo (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Totally. The short version of my babble above is : leave it for now (a) for propriety's sake and (b) you'll get a better hearing after the AfD. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Above discussion hatted, due to ongoing AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hellfire

Hi. An IP has made a series of revert edits for which he has now been blocked, the last being the following: here.

I would revert him myself, as his reference is as other editors have indicated as well POV, off-topic, soap-boxing, and not supported from what I can see by the ref he initially claimed supported it. However, I don't wish to brush up against 3RR myself. The sysop who blocked the IP suggested that I therefore post the matter here, suggesting "f the edits in question are obviously that bad, you can certainly get another editor to remove them.". Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Clearly a coatrack soapbox editor. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath of World War II - Operation Dropshot

In the article, Aftermath of World War II, Communicat has inserted a paragraph in the Post-war tensions section of the article on Operation Dropshot. Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan devised in the United States for the atomic/high-explosive bombing and invasion of the Soviet Union. It is my opinion that the detailed nature of the information provided in the Aftermath article gives an inaccurate impression that the United States was actually preparing to conduct the operation. Communicat's favored text was modified in this edit. I really don't think it belongs in the article at all.

We have attempted to resolve our differences on the talk page, though now he is talking of adding me [16] to expanding list of users he wishes to include in his quest for arbitration without seeking any intermediate steps. [17][18]

So, I'm hoping to find some neutral parties who can review the section in question, at least. Thanks in advance. --Habap (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Habap, but that is is far from the only section of the article with NPOV problems, as I recently pointed out on the article's talk page. Review of the entire article by neutral parties would be greatly appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My edit in question was not intended to lead anyone to believe or disbelieve that Operation Dropshot would or would not actually have been carried out. I have cited a reliable source that says clearly it was a "plan" and a date was put on the plan, the date being the anticipated date of war breaking out with the Soviet Union. If the filing party or his accomplice have any problem with that, they should either take it up with the author of the cited work Dropshot: The US plan for war on the Soviet Union in 1957, or they should contribute text and reliable ref indicating the plan would not actually have been carried out. The filing party's personal opinion is quite irrelevant as to whether or not the plan would actually have been carried out. A further and accompanying reliable source that I cited, asserts that the plan was abandoned after the Soviet Union developed its own A-bomb, which would have resulted in unacceptable American casualites had the Dropshot plan been executed.

The filing party and his accomplice have over a long period time not contributed any text or ref whatsoever to the article in question. It is worth noting that certain editors at the military history project, including especially the two above, habitually raise the evocation of "pro-Soviet POV" each and every time historical fact presents them with something they find patriotically embarassing. It's regretable and unacceptable that anything not overtly pro-American should automaticaly and misguidedly be construed by them as anti-American and/or "pro-Soviet". They appear to support Bush's phrase: "If you're not with us, you're against us." Which is a load of crap, and it has no rightful place in any NPOV article. Communicat (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me but I think we have evidence that the plan would not have been carried out, we are still here. The date was the date the Americans expected the Soviets to try and take over Western Europe (and other areas). It was a contingency plan to respond to such an attack.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, if I've habitually cried out against "pro-Soviet POV", it should be easy for you to find dozens of diffs showing it. Please do so. Please also check out contingency plan, since you appear not to understand the concept. --Habap (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, before anything else, please strike the accusation of "accomplice", as it is an accusation of WP:meatpuppetry and does you no favours in the eyes of other editors. To the matter in hand, the book you cite (Dropshot: The US plan for war on the Soviet Union in 1957) appears to be a primary, not a secondary source, being authored by the US military rather than an independent analyst. As such, you cannot draw too strong a conclusion from it - in terms of how seriously it was taken, or how it should be interpreted. On the overall matter, I have to agree that implying dropshot was a distinct possibility seems unfounded. A quick look at the university imprint secondary literature on google suggests to me it was a contingency plan based upon a strong belief in the possibility of conflict with the Soviet Union, rather than a plan that would have been carried out had the Soviets not developed nuclear weapons of their own. For example, This text (U of Missouri) says it was never adopted as policy. It doesn't get that much coverage in books on post war tensions; to suggest or hint that it was a central part of US policy (rather than an interesting manifestation of US thinking) seems UNDUE. Sources generally say that the plan itself became unfeasible when the Soviets developed their own nuclear weaponry, but that is not the same as saying or implying that were it not for Soviet nuclear weaponry, the US would have come close to invading.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

According to my dictionary (The New Penguin English Dictionary, 2000) the word "accomplice" is defined as "someone who collaborates with another".

The book that I've cited is a secondary source, not a primary source, and the name of the author as stated is one Anthony Cave Brown. If it was a primary source it would be attributed to Department of Defense or similar. My text states clearly that it was a contingency plan. Mention of it in the article section "Post-war tensions" was done to convey the ethos of the Aftermath of WW2, in which the plan was formulated. Given the above comments emphasising the apparently harmless "contingency" nature of the plan, and the unlikelihood of it ever being implemented, it seemd odd that the plan was subsequently classified secret for the next 30 years. The plan was later adopted in modified form as offcial policy by Pres Eisenhower, viz., when it became known as the strategy of "Massive retaliation", as attributed to two reliable sources provided by me in the article. The Dropshot plan was abandoned when the Soviets produced their own nuclear weapon, and that is also attributed to a reliable source. I am not saying or implying anything. I am citing reliable referenced works, and if there are reliable referenced works stating the opposite, then you are free to include them for parity of sources.

I guarantee that if this article was openly anti-Soviet it would be tolerated, encouraged even, in compliance with the prevailing double-standards at milhist project. I can provide many examples, but for sake of brevity at this time, just take a look at existing wiki Soviet propaganda article which has been in existence for a long time without hinder, even though it breaks all NPOV and sourcing rules. It relies on a self-published source (disallowed by the rules), it wrongly describes CIA-defector Phillip Agee as "a historian", and it is otherwise riddled with inaccuracies and absence of reliable sourcing. But that's evidently quite acceptable by certain editors, just so long as it's anti-Soviet.

Or consider the "Social effects" section of the Effects of World War II article, (now reworked and merged into Aftermath of World War II)which had existed in a anti-Soviet biased condition for a long time before anyone (i.e. myself) did anything about it. It claims: According to historian Antony Beevor, amongst others, in his book Berlin - The Downfall 1945 the advancing Red Army had left a massive trail of raped women and girls of all ages behind them. Between several tens of thousands to more than 2,000,000 were victims of rape, often repeatedly. This is not properly referenced with name of publisher, publication date, or page number etc. The words "among others" have no sources whatsoever. But, the moment reliable figures are cited by me to the effect that 14,000 rapes were also committed by American GI's, the relevant section is suddenly objected to by Edward321 as "inappropriate". The bias and hypocrisy is clear and present, and it speaks for itself. Communicat (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I never used the term "inappropriate" when discussing the problem of undue weight in the article.[19] I did try to address the concerns about Operation Dropshot a few weeks ago.[20] In response, Communicat blind reverted me and filed a RfAr against me.[21] Edward321 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, could you please directly quote from Ambrose stating that "The Dropshot plan was abandoned when the Soviets produced their own nuclear weapon." My recollection of the source is that Ambrose states that at no point after 1950 could the Americans have used nuclear weapons against the Soviets without unacceptable risk. The key point here is whether he states that Dropshot itself was abandoned or just that the risk of action was too great, as you're hanging your hat on Ambrose identifying the cancellation of Dropshot being directly caused by [[RDS-1]. I don't Ambrose ever mentions Dropshot, so you may be performing WP:OR. --Habap (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Edward321 above comment about rapes: the verbatim words you used were "I am not at all sure this is the correct article to address the topic." In other words you mean the topic is "inappropriate", which it is not, nor was it "inappropriate" in your view when it referred only to rapes allegedly committed by Red Army soldiers. I repeat, your bias is palpable. The RfAr was filed against you because of your persistent stalking and hounding of me from one project to another, projects upon which you'd never previously not worked on at all, and then engaging in edit warring by reverting my edits without discussion other than brief remarks in the edit summaries, which is disallowed.

Re Habap above: If my text re Ambrose crosses the line into original research, then I shall be happy to rework the relevant text accordingly. Other than that, I retract nothing that I've stated above, and I await your responses to the key issues at hand. Namely, your alleged pro-American/anti-communist bias, as also the same bias exhibited by Edward321 and a few other milhist editors, which is what this dispute is really about. Communicat (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

PS to Edward321 re Rapes/social effects which you objected to as allegedly not being in the "correct article to address the topic": You raised no objections to that previously, when the Effects of World War II merge discussion was underway, and the topic was merged by consensus, along with other topics. Only after reliable reference to GI rapes was added by me did you suddenly (but predictably) find it's "not the correct article to address the topic." Communicat (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You state that I am "pro-American/anti-communist bias". If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be hard for you to show an obvious pattern. I am innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until I clear my name.

You seemed very certain that Ambrose was a reliable source that supported your assertion that Dropshot was abandoned because the Soviets got the bomb. Are you saying you haven't read Ambrose either? It seems that very often, when one of your sources is questioned, it turns out that you haven't read it. This makes taking your word on what any source has to say a risky endeavor. --Habap (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have had the grace to concede above: If my text re Ambrose crosses the line into original research, then I shall be happy to rework the relevant text accordingly. The text does conceivably cross the line. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I shall be happy to rework that very brief text accordingly. It's not the end of the world. The article is a Start Class article, which automatically implies that it is a work in progress. Regretably, "progress" has been continuously disrupted by you, You fail to provide concrete text and reliable refs in favour of promoting your own personal views and opinions. I am tempted to seek an interaction ban against you. Consider this a warning.

As regards the alleged pro-American/anti-Soviet bias, see: your recent posting together with posting of 18 Aug 2010 at WW2 discussion re link to truth-hertz.net, in which, after disruptively reviving a WP:DEADHORSE issue, you attempted simplisticly to discredit me on the basis that the subject of an (by then already deleted) external link earlier provided by me had been favourably reviewed by a mass-circulation British communist newspaper. Your implied meaning was that the link was therefore "pro-Soviet" and hence not allowed by rules of NPOV. Your remark was negated by another, more objective editor. Communicat (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Two posts indicate a bias? Seriously, you must be able to find more, or at least something more damning than me noting that the Morning Star is published by, and using the editorial stance of, the Communist Party of Britain. I leave the interpretation of whether the statement of fact indicates bias to our readers here.

The review in the Morning Star is far more accurately portrayed by the quotation provided "If this unnervingly convincing analysis is correct, beware hydra-headed fascism." That paper was originally the product of the Communist Party of Great Britain and now says that the programme of the Communist Party of Britain underlies the paper's editorial stance. --Habap (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Or is it that disagreeing with you indicates bias? --Habap (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Examples of bias through omission on the part of filing party Habap: He will recall that I initiated a long discussion at World War II talk page concerning dubiously sourced text referring “brutal dictatorship” in N. Korea. I pointed out that the attributed “brutal dictatorship” source was disallowed by wiki's sourcing rules, and with the assistance of reliable citations I also pointed out that brutality was common also in US-backed S. Korea which, of course, was studiously not mentioned in the POV-biased article. It was then agreed by consensus that the “brutal N. Korea” text and reference should be deleted, which Habap undertook to do. Naturally, he failed to do so. I eventually did so on his behalf.

Other long-winded discussion that I initiated was in relation to the fact that the WW2 article relies on nearly 400 references derived solely from orthodox Western sources, to the exclusion of any non-Western or significant-minority Western-position sources. This is a clear infringement of WP:NPOV. Habap undertook to provide reliable non-Western sources, in order for referencing to be brought into compliance with the rules. He failed to honour his undertaking. The article remains heavily biased through omission.

I shall be pleased to provide diffs substantiating the above, should Habap challenge these examples of POV bias through omission on his part. The question of POV bias at milhist project, at mentioned above, was the subject of a request by me to the mediation committee. Mediation was rejected by the committee because Nick-D, a main party involved, refused to consent to mediation. The dispute remains unresolved. It is ironic, to put it mildly, that Habap should now be alleging POV bias on my part. Communicat (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Habap's abovementioned reference to the Morning Star was specifically in the context of discrediting me for providing a source that had been favourably reviewed by that newspaper. In other words, he implied that the source was unreliable simply because a communist newspaper had reviewed it favourably. (Various non-communist publications had also reviewed it favourably). Communicat (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm not going to further dignify your provocative remarks with a thoughtful response. The only reason I'm here in the first place is because Arbcom specifically instructed me to participate in Rfc before considering any re-submission of my request for arbitration. Communicat (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you forget that on the 22nd of August, you'd already admonished me for editing without allowing the arbitration process to complete[22]. Odd that I am fault when I make changes and also at fault when I favor a change, but await consensus before making it. "Bias through omission" has to be one of the more inventive arguments I've read in a while.

Interesting to see that you're only going through the motions here in order to get back to arbitration instead of discussing the actual issue, which is not whether I am biased, but whether detailed information on the contingency plan, Operation Dropshot, belongs in an article covering the the Aftermath of World War II. --Habap (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated to this discussion, I have blocked Communicat for 1 week for a personal attack on another user on that article talk page. This is the third personal attack block for Communicat in the last 10 weeks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that Communicat resorts to personal attacks too frequently. I hope the one week break will allow the passions to settle. Let me point out, however, that, although Communicat's behaviour and his edits are far from perfect, the discussions he initiates eventually lead to improvement of the articles he works with. Going back to the initial issue, the only my objection to the Dropshot story is that it is not true that the idea of massive atomic pre-emptive strike against the USSR was abandoned in 1947. For instance, in his article "American Atomic Strategy and the Hydrogen Bomb Decision" (The Journal of American History, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jun., 1979), pp. 62-87) David Alan Rosenberg writes:

"...Truman himself initiated a process that would finalize American dependence on the atomic air offensive. Concerned about spiraling inflation, he announced on May 13, 1948, that he was placing a $14.4 billion ceiling on the Fiscal Year 1950 defense budget. During the next eight months, despite military protests, he refused to raise the limit he had imposed. The JCS estimated that a budget of $21-23 billion, or even a compromise of $16.9 billion, would allow the United States to maintain adequate conventional forces to retain some foothold in Europe as well as to carry out naval operations in all or part of the Mediterranean in the event of war. They feared that the $14.4 billion budget would result in the total loss of Western Europe; conventional forces would have to be cut back so far, the JCS argued, that the only offensive operation the United States could undertake to meet an emergency would be an atomic air offensive from the British Isles and the Cairo-Suez area. The president's continuing refusal to budget adequate conventional alternatives thus made the United States virtually dependent on the atomic bomb.

By fall 1948 many air force planners had come to believe that the atomic air offensive would be adequate to achieve victory. LeMay, who assumed command of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) in October 1948, immediately set to work preparing a feasible strategic plan for atomic operations against the Soviet Union. His plan, SAC Emergency War Plan 1-49, called for SAC "to increase its capability to such an extent that it would be possible to deliver the entire stockpile of atomic bombs, if made available, in a single massive attack." When combined with JCS targeting requirements, as spelled out in war plan "Trojan," the SAC plan entailed strikes on seventy Soviet urban target areas with 133 atomic bombs within thirty days.34"

(the ref 34 in this article is: 34 Thomas S. Power to chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, April 1, 1950, OPD 381 SAC (23 March 1949), TS, section 2, Papers of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. For bomb numbers and targets, see JCS 1952/11, Feb. 10, 1950, Weapons Systems Evaluation Group Report 1, CCS 373 (10-23-48), section 6, Bulky Package, and JCS 1823/14, May 27, 1949, CCS 471.6 (8-15-45), section 15, Papers of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. See also Anthony Cave Brown, ed., Dropshot: The United States Plan for War with the Soviet Union in 1957 (New York, 1978), 6.)

In other words, the decision to build the grand strategy based on the atomic weapon was a long term strategic decision, which was dictated by the fact that as a result of WWII the USA could not compete with Soviet land forces in Europe. Therefore, both Dropshot and the story about the US turn to the atomic weapon as a primary tool of its military strategy has a direct relation to this article.
Consequently, we have to concede the Communicat's point (although not necessarily his behaviour) was generally correct. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The immediate post-war US paradigm shift from an emphasis on conventional warfare to nuclear strategy should be included in any serious article on the World War II aftermath. The Joint Chiefs of Staff plan known as Dropshot was based on flawed assumptions and false predictions of Soviet aggression in Europe. That it was never carried out does not in any way detract from the historical fact of its existence. As such, it merits inclusion in the article.

Communicat appears to have been blocked for a very minor and possibly unintentional infringement, the effect of which has been to prevent Communicat from defending his position here. This is unfortunate, because the blocking conveys an impression of authoritarianism and rank buffoonery. 196.210.181.54 (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And another SPA IP comes out of nowhere to defend Communicat.[23] Paul Siebert, clearly acting in good faith, has missed the point. Operation Dropshot was not a planned a pre-emptive strike, it was a theoretical retaliatory strike, as references clearly show. Attempt to correct this error made by Communicat was met with blind reversion and filing of an RfAr against me for attempting the correction. The quote that Paul lists does not establish whether later plans were for pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes. Edward321 (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

While I would now agree to discussion of the shift from conventional defense of continental Europe to a nuclear deterrent and a mention of Dropshot, I don't think that a detailed discussion of one contingency plan does anything to explain that shift. Communicat's leads the reader to believe that the US planned on using nukes and invading Russia on a specific date that was only thwarted when the Soviets developed their own nuke. Nice to see other South Africans springing to Communicat's defense, even if it has to be anonymously. --Habap (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I missed the point. I never stated that I fully support the Communicat wording. However, this, as well as other sources clearly states that the US strategic doctrine shifter to the use of pre-emptive nuclear strike (in particular as a response to the Soviet attack in Europe by conventional forces). Therefore this fact does belong to this article. I can provide other quotes if it is needed.

Let me re-iterate my earlier thesis. Communicat is not the most convenient editor do deal with, however, he gave a start to a useful discussion (as he already did before). Although his point about planned American invasion of the USSR was an exaggeration, the idea that the US built their military doctrine on the use of pre-emptive nuclear strike can hardly be disputed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI - another administrator reviewing the IP above's contribution determined Communicat was evading his block, and re-blocked him for block evasion.

Communicat, I assume you're watching this. Paul is making a good point, and one I have been attempting to work with you on with the RFC - you are introducing useful new perspectives. These are not being rejected out of hand, though some other editors seem to be in a mode of mutual confrontation now. But your behavioral problems - attacking people inappropriately, and now the rather blatantly obvious sockpuppetry - are on the edge of making it impossible for you to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Those need to stop. Please work within our community values and social and behavioral expectations here, so that you can continue contributing. I will work with you in good faith on the RFC when your block ends to help with this. But you need to be willing to participate fairly as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe Georgewilliamherbert and Paul are engaging in wishful thinking. While Communicat is providing a new perspective,[24] it is a perspective that the Guardian describes as "the extreme edge of revisionism" and the "sort of thing that gives conspiracy theory a bad name".[25]

Professional sports league organization

While the title suggests something broader, the gist of the article entitled Professional sports league organization is essentially a comparison between professional sports in North America and Europe. However, the choice of terminology, in particular, the use of the word "league", represents a North American perspective, being applied to European sport. A comparison of two subject areas, from the perspective of one of the two subject areas can hardly be said to be neutral.

The focus of the article appears to be even narrow - an attempt to explain the Premier League, and the various other competitions that clubs playing in that league participate in, to a North American audience unfamiliar with English football.

The North American perspective, together with the narrow focus, results in several inaccuracies in the section on European sport. I have raised these in the talk page. Rainjar (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Afshin (Caliphate General)

I am seeking assistance or involvement of neutral experts or administrators who can look into the Afshin (Caliphate General). I added over 7 references yesterday referring to both Turkic and Iranian background of this historical personality. Yet I am faced with opposition from User:Khodabandeh14 who seems to diminish or get rid of references to Turkic/Turkish in favor of Persian/Iranian throughout this and other articles [26], and seems unwilling to come up with a compromise, instead removing dispute tags and using restrictions to intimidate into accepting his WP:POV . I am not sure if this is more relevant to content noticeboard or here, I feel it is more about neutral point of view in judging references. The fact that User:Khodabandeh14 rejects multitude of other historical references using just one author C.E. Bosworth in both Afshin (Caliphate General) and Atabegs of Azerbaijan article raises concerns of excessive WP:UNDUE. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I urge everyone to look at the talkpage discussion. A) If ethnicity of something is disputed, it should not be in the introduction. B) The above user has simply used sources from 1848, 1910 (outdated) and three authors with no university/academic affiliations. I have brought authors from published academic journals and scholars such as Bernard Lewis, Peter Benjamin Golden and C.E. Bosworth [27] (Oxford University Professor and well known scholar), as well as Cambridge History of Iran. [28]. The above user is simply not reading the talkpage and claiming that I have only one source! He simply refuses to read the talkpage, and still repeats his own statement that I am using one source. C) I also urge a neutral expert admin to come to the discussion and I have called two admins already. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to get into this conflict, but according to mainstream academics, Khodabandeh14's version is the correct one. See for example Encyclopaedia Iranica:

• "... At the time of the Arab incursions into Transoxania, Osrušana had its own line of Iranian princes, the Afšins (Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh, p. 40), of whom the most famous was the general of the caliph Moʿtaṣem (q.v. 833-42), the Afšin Ḵayḏar or Ḥaydar b. Kāvus (d. 841; see AFŠIN). ..." - OSRUŠANA

It is also important to note that al-Afshin was later imprisoned and executed because he was an Iranian and because he was accused of anti-Arabic/anti-Islamic heresy in favor of ancient Iranian practices. In this regard, Iranica writes:

• "... [...] Afšīn’s position [...] became increasingly difficult. He was accused by his enemies of hostility towards Islam and of sympathy for ancient Iranian practices and beliefs [...] The contemporary Arabic sources thus regard Afšīn’s rebellious acts as those of a protagonist of Iranian religious and imperial feeling, and as the expression of anti-Arab resentment for the loss of ancient Iranian political domination, feelings which were at this time finding a more harmless outlet on the literary level in the Šoʿūbīya movement. That this view subsequently became the stereotype is seen clearly from the anecdote about Afšīn in Abu’l-Fażl Bayhaqī’s Tārīḵ-eMasʿūdī written over two centuries later (pp. 173-78), in which anti-Arab sentiments are specifically placed in his mouth. ..." - AFŠĪN

Please keep in mind that the Encyclopaedia Iranica represents the current academic mainstream view. In this case, Atabəy's argumentation is not convincing. He is disputing something that, very obviously, is totally undisputed among experts and scholars. Tajik (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Transportation Security Administration allegations

This section - Transportation Security Administration#TSA Sexual Assault - states as fact allegations of widespread assault and abuse by a U.S. government agency. The article neither states any rebuttal nor cites any official TSA or DHS sources, and openly advocates for activist websites which are cited as sources. This subject is a hot button media issue, and these claims are inflammatory at best, as well as self-promoting. Tad (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles Sumner

The article Charles Sumner is mostly great, but the lead (specifically the last two or three paragraphs) strikes me as overly long and lending undue weight to a particular set of opinions. Is this me? The editor(s) of the article don't seem to think so; see Talk:Charles_Sumner#NPOV_issues.3F. The lead is less than half a dozen paragraphs, shouldn't take long to skim them and chip in and let me know if I'm being unreasonable. Johnleemk | Talk 05:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Welner

Talk:Michael Welner

• Does this BLP violate WP:PEACOCK?

It appears to me that for the past 3 years this BLP has been controlled by a series of single article editors and used as a promotional article for the Subject. Recently the Subject became more internationally notable and somewhat controversial for his testimony in GITMO. Presently there are 3 single article editors working in tandem [29][30][31] to keep the BLP 100% free of any but the most complimentary content. 1 of the 3,Stewaj7 is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. I have been very involved in the article since I first noticed it on Nov.1,2010. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• As one of the editors of Welner's BLP it is important to note that Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) is lying in the above. I have attempted to the extreme to work with Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) to bring the BLP to a place where all editors would be comfortable with its neutrality and would be happy to copy for you here the complimentary notes I receive from him when he enjoys my edits. That being said - it is the position of all editors except for Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) that certain sections that do not belong on a BLP not be added in and I have consistently removed those sections and tried to reach consensus with Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) on the talk page regarding these issues. However, on talk pages, Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) attempts to appear neutral and complimentary, to prevent himself from being blocked from editing the page, while then reverting edits, violating the 3RR rule and doing what he chooses, regardless of talk page discussions. Edits that are made without factual knowledge of Welner or his contributions and merely utizilize their advocacy positions under a guise of neutrality cannot be expected to have their edits remain on any page, particularly a BLP and this editor can only hope that all nuetral editors agree with this objective position. Empirical9 (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I encourage Mr.grantevans2 to watch his false accusations. Particularly, as the he/she was introduced to the page to which he is referring in November 2010. Before then very few edits have been made to the page and never has there been a dispute regarding its neurtality. Following the close of a very sensitive case, in which the subject of the BLP was involved, the editor who raises this claim became obsessed with inserting factually inaccurate, unrelated, controversial information into the page. This attempt to introduce defamatory content and malign Dr. Welner, has been cloaked with false assertions of adding neurtality and reducing pufferey. Clearly the editor is wiki rules savvy. I can appreciate reaching a consensus; however, Mr.Grantevans2 has not adhered when consensus is reached. Rather he accuses those who have reached a consensus as working in tandem - a risk one takes for disagreeing with him. Before offering an opinion to the matter, please take a moment to review the issues raised with the content that Mr.grantevans2 is trying to include. Despite having brought the inaccuracies and concerns to his attention, his efforts to include defamatory content continuesStewaj7 (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think these are the sections Stewaj7 attempted to provide links for:[32][33] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Please see Talk:Naturopathy there have been multiple NPOV issue raised here. I have suggested several new sources but am a new editor. Input from more experienced editors is requested. Mcmarturano (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Political propaganda by JACla

Can someone please go through this (sections Afghanistan#Foreign Intrusion and Civil War, Afghanistan#Taliban Emirate and United Front and Afghanistan#Recent history (2001-present)) and neutralize the edits made by the POV-pusher, it reads like someone's blog page. I believe that everything JCAla is adding to Wikipedia is political propaganda in which he's specifically bashing Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and all Afghan groups that he doesn't like, but at the same time he is praising and glorifying the Northern Alliance, a group which is often described as Afghan warlords. JCAla even added Pakistan as one of the Taliban's main allies when really Pakistan is engaged in a major war with them and is allied with US-NATO forces. Everytime I tag the page JCAla removes the tags.--Jrkso (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't just JCA1a who removed them. I also removed them (except for the unencyclopaediac tone one but that has also improved a bit), as did also another editor. You haven't substantiated your claims it is biased and good citations have been provided for everything there. The diff you provided was to another article and I don't think Pakistan should be counted as a current ally of the Taliban but that isn't what was said in the Afghanistan article. About the one thing I would say about it all is that much of what is said there should be moved to the history of Afghanistan article instead. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, I like to ask you not to remove the tags until neutral editors fix the problem and allow them to remove the tags, so please be patient. I don't think you're neutral because you have opposed me before. JCala's edits are trying to mislead readers by telling them that the Northern Alliance (Afghan warlords) [34], [35] were victims and that the reason why Afghanistan is destroyed and poor is the result of foreign interference by nations such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan, USSR, USA, etc. But we all know this isn't the case, the reason why Afghanistan is destroyed and poor is the result of Afghans fighting Afghans, which began in 1978 with the Saur Revolution. The foreign nations were trying and are still trying to help end this war. JCAla is defending warlords in Wikipedia while media reports say these warlords are more dangerous than the Taliban. [36], [37]--Jrkso (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything has been discussed here and here. All sources have been provided. They are considered as reliable and as coming from distinguished institutions and academic sources by the editors. Jrkso does not like the realities of history. Dmcq (except for the tone tag) and two other long-time editors have all agreed to remove the tags. We have further agreed that the content of the sections is valid, well-sourced and should stay. There was an agreement that the wording of the sections was not of encyclopaedic quality. That has been changed. Jrkso should stop his politically motivated, ridiculous accusations. He has disputes with many editors because he falsifies sources [38][39][40] for his own political agenda. His agenda becomes evident considering his statements:

• "... the reason why Afghanistan is destroyed and poor is the result of Afghans fighting Afghans, which began in 1978 with the Saur Revolution. The foreign nations were trying and are still trying to help end this war." -Jrkso

• "... warlords are more dangerous than the Taliban." - Jrkso

• "... There is no unity among its people [...] Each group is used as a proxy by neighboring countries and the Afghans always blame one another. This is an example of what happens to a country when it lacks unity." - Jrkso

• " ... he's specifically bashing Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and all Afghan groups that he doesn't like, but at the same time heis praising and glorifying the Northern Alliance, a group which is often described as Afghan warlords." - Jrkso

Some days ago he was claiming the oppposite:

• "You are defending the neigboring country of Iran ..."[41] - Jrkso

• "Both of these users share similar biased views on the history of Afghanistan, trying to make Afghanistan somehow a province of Iran."[42] - Jrkso

It is getting ridiculous. By the way, it was me who added "According to Human Rights Watch in 1997 Taliban soldiers were summarily executed in and around Mazar-i Sharif by Dostum's Junbish forces." to this section. JCAla (talk) 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso - I have not touched the tags since you put them in saying you were raising the issue here, so exactly why have you addressed me in particular about that? I have left them there so anyone here can look and judge for themselves.

Yes the warlords were the bigger threat in 2004 after the Taliban were nearly destroyed, and your point is? Plus I'm sure there's lots of Afghans who'd prefer the sort of stability the Taliban brought despite what they did, and what's your point with that? Are you really alleging the Saur Revolution had nothing to do with Russia and America didn't exploit it, never mind their various neighbours sticking their fingers in the pot and stirring it? I'm sure America would like nothing so much nowadays as a way to escape the whole business with a shred of dignity and leave the place halfway reasonable and stable - but that wasn't always so. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, I have nothing to discuss with you, and you popping up everywhere is very annyoying, plus I have trouble understanding your English. So, don't ask me these questions please.--Jrkso (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

JCAla, whatever I wrote in talk pages in other places or how I personally feel about Afghanistan is totally irrelevant to what is being discussed here. Your edits JCAla need a review by neutral minded editors and I'm waiting to hear what they feel about this so just wait instead of accusing me of nonsense. You are clearly trying to only glorify the Tajik Nothern Alliance (Category:Afghan warlords) and bash all the other groups. This is wrong and Wikipedia is not suppose to have such biased information. Your edits are also very long, explaining unnessary details in an article which suppose to be about a country. As for the sources you cited, you have searched online and cherry picked unverifiable/poor sources (i.e. [43]) to help you send your politically motivated point across Wikipedia. Your sources are unverifiable books written by Afghans, who belong to different factions or political parties, and they're known for political rivalries.[44] Amnesty International states "Amnesty International is not in a position to confirm that the Taleban were responsible for this latest bombardment" but you still cited it. Try citing Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica, Library of Congress Country Studies, or others which are neutral academic sources but you're avoiding these because they don't mention what you want to explain. I don't want to hear anymore from you, leave the tags until neutral people fix the problem.--Jrkso (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You are starting to adopt a wrong tone, Jrkso. And, as always, you are falsifying sources. I wrote in the article: "The Taliban started shelling Kabul in early 1995 but were defeated by forces of the Islamic State government under Ahmad Shah Massoud.[107] Amnesty International, referring to the Taliban offensive, wrote in a 1995 report: "This is the first time in several months that Kabul civilians have become the targets of rocket attacks and shelling aimed at residential areas in the city ..."[45] This is what has been mentioned in the article. Not more, not less. It is correct.

The full report by Amnesty International states: "According to reports, between 11 and 13 November 1995 at least 57 unarmed civilians were killed and over 150 injured when rockets and artillery barrages fired from Taleban positions south of Kabul pounded the civilian areas of the city."

What your quote (taken out of context) is referring to is the following, a specific bombardment of Nov. 11: "On 11 November, 36 civilians were killed when over 170 rockets as well as shells hit civilians areas. A salvo crashed into Foruzga Market forcing the shoppers and traders to run for cover. ... residential areas hit by artillery and rocket attacks were the Bagh Bala district in the northwest of Kabul and Wazir Akbar Khan..." The Taliban (positioned to the south of Kabul) were fighting against Islamic State forces positioned in the north of Kabul. Wazir Akbar Khan is the "diplomatic" area, also controlled by Islamic State forces. You, deliberately, did not cite the following sentence (referring to that specific bombardment) in a complete manner: "Amnesty International is not in a position to confirm that the Taleban were responsible for this latest bombardment, but the reports that the barrages have come from the Taleban-controlled positions appear to be credible".

Let's see your other claims. Human Rights Watch is a "cherry-picked unverifiable/poor source"? If you want to be taken seriously stop your bizarre accusations, your frequent references to rawa and your random usage of the term "warlord". JCAla (talk) 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not removed the tags, but I think that they are not needed. JCAla has provided good and acceptable sources. The only thing I am not happy with is the wording. In my opinion, it needs to be written in a more encyclopedic way. But the message is well sourced. I have offered JCAla my help in order to improve the section's wording, but my English is not that good, so I would appreciate support from native speakers. As for Jrkso: I do not understand his constant opposition and fight in Afghanistan-related articles. Basically, he is opposed to everyone else. Tajik (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's 3 Tajik editors from Kabul, Afghanistan who are constantly opposing me. Your English is very good don't play games. Most of the sources are links to books written by Afghans and the books cannot be verified plus the content in the sections are purposly selected to make a point by a POV-warrior. According to reports, upto 2 million Afghans died in the 1979-2001 wars but the POV-warrior JCAla is only explaining about a dozen Afghans that were killed by the Taliban. This is a very stupid way to explain the Afghan civil wars knowing that 600,000 to 2 million Afghans died.--Jrkso (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You must have supernatural abilities "knowing" where everyone is coming from without anybody ever telling you. Plus, your sentence, "the POV-warrior JCAla is only explaining about a dozen Afghans that were killed by the Taliban", (besides being a false statement since I also wrote about the execution of Taliban soldiers and atrocities committed by different militias in Kabul) proves where you are coming from (considering I was writing about the mass killings in Mazar-i-Sharif in which 2,000 - 8,000 civilians were executed by the Taliban). For the record, the most frequently used sources in the article are the following ones:

• Human Rights Watch - Blood Stained Hands (2005)

• Afghanistan Justice Project - Casting Shadows: War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity: 1978-2001

• Neamat Nojumi - The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mass Mobilization, Civil War, and the Future of the Region (Review)

Nojumi - U.S. citizen with Afghan origins - has studied at the University of Hartford, Yale University and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Nojumi worked for Tufts University, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Harvard Law School and the American Military University. Currently he works at George Mason University for the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution.

• Prof. Amin Saikal - Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006) (Chosen by The Wall Street Journal as One of the "Five Best" Books on Afghanistan)

Prof. Amin Saikal is a specialist in the politics, history, political economy and international relations of the Middle East and Central Asia/Afghanistan. He has been a Visiting Fellow at Princeton University, Cambridge University and the Institute of Development Studies (University of Sussex), as well as a Rockefeller Foundation Fellow in International Relations. He is an appointed Member of the Order of Australia (AM) for service to the international community and to education, and as an author and adviser. He is also a member of many national and international academic organisations, and the author of numerous works on the Middle East, Central Asia, and Russia. He is currently working as Professor of Political Science and Director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies (The Middle East and Central Asia) at the Australian National University.

• Roy Gutman with the United States Institute of Peace - How We Missed the Story. Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and the Hijacking of Afghanistan [46] [47]

Roy Gutman was director of American University's Crimes of War Project and a senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace. He won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the 1993 war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where he provided the first documented reports of concentration camps. Gutman's honors include the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting, the George Polk Award for foreign reporting, the Selden Ring Award for investigative reporting, and a special Human Rights in Media Award from the International League for Human Rights. He holds an M.A. in international relations from the London School of Economics.

• George Washington University - The National Security Archive 1 and The National Security Archive 2

JCAla (talk) 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Vidim pushing for ancient origin of Waldensians

In the Waldensians article, in the section "Ancient origins asserted and disputed", User:Vidim has been attempting to give equal weight to the claim that the Waldensian church is older than Peter Waldo, a claim that even the Waldensian church does not support, that is not supported by contemporary sources, and that secular scholarship does not even bother with. He has been fighting my attempts to add neutrality to his additions (instead of removing them wholesale). We have not been discussing it in the article's talk page, but on his talk page instead.

His actions include:

• Downplaying mainstream scholarship
• Continuing to downplay mainstream scholarship, pointing out a potential bias in Roman Catholic sources while bringing in a source that has a Protestant and Anti-Catholic bias (the Dr Wylie quoted also wrote a book accusing the Papacy of being the Antichrist)
• Attempting to place more legitimacy on a pre-Waldo scholar by eliminating the similarity between the two scholars. He also states on his talk page that the edit was meant to show that "there isn't consensus within the Waldensians regarding their origins," which smacks of WP:OR.
• Here and here he attempts to cover up Wylie's academic misdoings (quoting a later source, but naming an earlier one before getting to the actual quote), at one point marking it as minor.
• Continues to read his own interpretation into Reynerius's words, puts the word "Waldensian" into the mouths of a Council that did not utter the name.

I have tried to explain repeatedly that information in the articles should be proportionate to reliable sources, and that neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to non-mainstream claims. I have tried to point out that he is reading his own POV into Reynerius's words "a long time." I have tried to point out that the sources he's been using are biased. He still wants the article to treat the pre-Waldo origin claim as equal, when the sources are:

• Pro-Waldo Waldensian scholarship - Their consensus is that they started with Waldo. It would be to the Waldensians' ecumenical-political advantage to be older than Waldo, but they by-and-large still go with Waldo as their origin. That alone speaks strongly.
• Pre-Waldo Waldensian scholarship - So far, a single reformation-influenced Waldensian whose view is cancelled out by his father.
• RC scholarship - Vidim thinks they have an agenda, fine. However, their sources are still contemporary, and they don't mention the Waldensians until after Peter Waldo.
• Pre-Waldo Protestant scholarship - The ones that push for a Pre-Waldo date have their own agenda, and they do not have contemporary sources. Also, this only represents a select portion of protestantism.
• Secular scholarship - No agenda regarding who has apostolic succession or not, they say the Waldensians started with Waldo.

I think part of the problem is that there are no other editors involved, so he is OK with dismissing just me as having some sort of "lack of neutrality in any argument about Waldensian antiquity," even though he initially admits that his edits may have been biased. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Christian mysticism

It seems that one or several evangelical Christians have been busily rewriting this article to conform with their own religious beliefs, as well as creating articles like Pauline mysticism and Evangelical mysticism, that also are meant, not to give objective information, but to ensure that Wikipedia confirms the beliefs of their particular church. There's a lot of stuff there, and some of it goes beyond my own knowledge... anyone interested in theology and in taking a look at this? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of the burrito

The article Timeline of the burrito has many WP issues from my perspective. Dispite initial cooporation offered by another editor Talk:Timeline of the burrito, that editor has since engaged in protectionism of all content within the article. Plenty of time was offered between conversation and the resulting good-faith edits to remove unencyclopedic material. Dispite this, the editor is now engaged a reverting edit war. WP:3RR does not directly apply because this article gets so little activity that reverts occur over a week rather than a day. I am hoping for fresh eyes to review Timeline of the burrito, especially since there is an attempt to merge this with the main burrito article. I fear the edit war will move over to that more significant article if this is not addressed now. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Many of the article entries look like burrito-related trivia rather than encyclopedic content, violating WP:IINFO . I think it would help to have well-defined inclusion criteria for the list indicating what type of events are worth including and what type of sourcing is necessary. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need a "Timeline of the burrito" article that is completely separate from Burrito? Isn't the history a food usually included in the article on that food? I think that the very idea of a separate timeline article is flawed. --Habap (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ronz and Habap: User:Fcsuper has completely ignored the discussion on the talk page, and I would encourage you both to review it. The user has in three separate instances, asked a question about a particular aspect of the timeline, received an answer, and then ignored the answers, claiming that his questions are being ignored. The user has also continued to unilaterally edit the article while disruptively tagging after the points in dispute have already been discussed. The merge discussion has been proceeding in harmony while Fcsuper has been engaging in reverts and tagging. This noticeboard report is good, but it is essentially ignoring the discussion that is already on the talk page. The user has obsessively and repeatedly tried to remove sourced data while at the same time refusing to look at the actual sources or do the slightest amount of research on the topic. I agree with Ronz that some aspects of this timeline have become trivial over the years, which is why I have recommended the merge into history section of Burrito so that the most important aspects of the food history of the burrito can be represented in prose form. In other words, we don't need the list as much as we need a well written history of the burrito section in the burrito article, which this list supplements in part. This is why I initiated the merge discussion, a discussion that Fcsuper has tried to disrupt. In what can only be described as obsessive and disruptive, Fcsuper has again ignored the answers given to him about the content on the talk page, and has again started an entirely new discussion by copying and pasting the questions he has already asked and received answers into another new talk page thread.[48] Fcsuper is engaging in tendentious editing on the talk page, asking the same question over and again and ignoring the answers because he doesn't like them. At least two other users, User:Dohn joe and User:Archolman have agreed with the merge. Dohn Joe has agreed to do some research and add academic sources, while User:Archolman has commented about the merge, "Who could object to something as obviously sensible as this?" The problem, therefore, is not other editors or the content, but Fcsuper. As a result, this thread should probably be elevated/duplicated on ANI. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: Since Fcsuper is unable to contribute to a calm discussion about the topic on the talk page or to the merge discussion, I'm currently in the process merging the content into the burrito article. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there are clear content problems. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledged the specific problem you raised with trivia here on this page, in my above response. I've also acknowledged it on the talk page, where I agree that currently, at least four trivial items should be removed. You are welcome to look at the talk page discussion, where Fcsuper refuses to acknowledge answers to questions about the content, and continues to ask the same question over and again about items we've already discussed. You are also welcome to look at my recent merges of selected content into the burrito article.[49] However, I fail to see how this is a topic for the NPOV noticeboard. If you feel that there are NPOV issues that need to be addressed, please raise them. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the content problems fall into issues of WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to review the article and discussion and point out specific examples. When Fcsuper has raised those issues on the talk page in the past, he has failed to respond, instead opting to repeat the same questions over and over again. I am open and willing to leave out any egregious examples from either the timeline or the proposed merge (which I am implementing over the next few days). It would be refreshing to discuss this with someone who is willing to look at it. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I did look at the article and my immediate reaction was that it was a bunch of worthless information that doesn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia and, while fcsuper is behaving badly, part of the problem will go away after you merge the few useful parts of the article into Burrito itself. I agree that it is not a NPOV issue. It belongs on ANI or some other aspect of dispute resolution.

In my very short experience in looking at this NPOV page, any input from outside parties is unusual, so better that you not try to bite the heads off those who do happen to take a look and provide some kind of comment. --Habap (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it belongs on ANI, and I'm in the process of drafting a report. Looking at the article, we see that the topic has been covered by at least four different scholars, (Daniel D. Arreola, Emory Dean Keoke & Kay Marie Porterfield, and notable food historian Andrew F. Smith) and many additional reliable sources. We also see that this topic covers a lot of ground, from the food history of the intersection between Aztec cuisine and Mexican cuisine, to the culture of the Southern United States and the culture of San Francisco, to the history of food companies and restaurants, menu engineering and even competitive eating. While we are all entitled to our opinions, I admit I was surprised to find your strongly worded comment about the article being "a bunch of worthless information that doesn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia". I don't believe I've ever encountered that strong of an opinion about a related topic before, and I'm curious where it could possibly come from. I am also curious how this kind of information could in any way be considered "worthless" given its unique importance and contribution to the interdisciplinary nature of food studies. It is one thing to edit from ignorance, but quite another to promote it. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me point out the information I would find as "worth merging". The 16th and 19th century sections, though they ought to be rewritten, provide valuable information. The entry for 1961, on the first retail burrito, should be kept. Maybe the 1982 note on the different sauces, though it might better be merged into a new section of the Burrito article on sauces. Finally, the 2002 entry on Arreola's book is interesting. Most of the rest of the article is trivia or already included in the main article. As such, most of this article is not encyclopedic. Do you really think the trivia supplied in the 21st century section contributes "to the interdisciplinary nature of food studies"? It is one thing to provide quality information and yet another to simply provide quantity. --Habap (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the article, is in fact, encyclopedic, with trivial additions making up a very small part. The information about restaurants and dishes, manufacturing and popularity, is important, and covered by reliable sources on the topic of burritos and their history. Feel free to look at the references in the burrito and San Francisco burrito article if you have questions. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Givati Brigade

Editors are claiming undue weight over inclusion of convictions for abuse by two members of this military unit. There is world-wide coverage in reliable sources (Ynet, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, BBC, Vancouver Sun, Bloomberg) and several previous acquittals of members are noted in the article. Convictions for such abuse are rare enough that it seems worth including. Is this removal appropriate?--Misarxist 12:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag at Mass killings under Communist regimes

I'd like to get the NPOV tag at MKUCR removed as it seems to be used there as a "badge of shame." Some editors do not like the article's contents, but really don't have anything to add to the article. Rather they want to remove certain points of view, e.g. that the mass killings of something like 100 million people were related to the Communism of the regimes that killed them. As I understand WP:NPOV it is about making sure that all non-fringe documented points of view on a topic are included, NOT that points of view should be removed if some editors don't like them.

I've asked for well over a month for folks to come forward with POVs that they think have been excluded, and only 1 editor has done so. That POV is essentially that comparisons of Nazi and Communist mass killings are essentially anti-Semitic. It seems a bit off-point and fringe, but I've invited him to include it in the article.

The main point of contention is that sources such as the Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard University Press, and many other scholarly works do make a connection between Communism and the mass killings, as well as many more popular and/or political sources such as the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Several editors do not like the views expressed by these sources and thus insist that the NPOV tag be kept - this is a complete inversion of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Note that several editors have made a point of trying to get this article deleted; there have been about 6 requests for deletion over the last 18 months, and they have failed every time. The NPOV tag should not be used as a substitute for deletion or a mark of "I don't like this article"! Smallbones (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tags are generally "IDONTLIKEIT" tags - but the drama in forcing removal is generally not worth it. And the AfDers are likely about ready to nom it once more <g>. Alas. Collect (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't tag this, and have never read it before, but the sections from Controversies on down seem to have POV issues. That section in particular is a collection of POV forks only vaguely rebutted by the "famines as mass killings" section. For example, Great Leap Forward addresses several alternate readings of the mass death in the period other than Dikotter's. A systematic attempt at NPOV could fix this section.

For some summary material on Western colonialism's deaths see Mike Davis' Late Colonial Holocausts. The "capitalism/colonialism deaths are nowhere near the Red Holocaust" claim seems to fly in the face of that source and other several tallies of colonial deaths (and is difficult to understand because no attempt to tabulate the deaths described on this page, or deaths due to communist regimes is made). Ditto the Shoah to Red Holocaust comparison, which should be replaced by a Nazi/Soviet comparison (apples to apples, please). For general comparative genocide statistics, you might also consider The History and Sociology of Genocide by Chalk and Jonassohn.

Also, I don't understand this self limitation in the theory section: "Theories, such as those of R. J. Rummel, that propose communism as a significant causative factor in mass killings have attracted scholarly dispute; this article does not discuss academic acceptance of such theories."

Overall, an noteworthy subject that should have an article. However, that is not a reason to cut the tag until its POV issues are addressed.--Carwil (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, a list of things to work on! As I read this, you're saying there are not major problems in the top half of the article and in the bottom half things should be integrated better so that different sections are not in effect saying different things. The self-limitation "this article does not discuss academic acceptance of such theories," seems to come from the deletionist group who seems to want every source to be proved to be part of the "academic consensus." I think that's a hurdle not intended by WP:RS or WP:NPOV and is simply too high for any reasonable article to be written on any subject. The capitalist/colonialist comparison has been a very minor part of the article, and the nazi vs. communist comparison has been a source of conflict, but if you think there are good sources for these comparison we can include it easily (but I hope briefly).

I'll ask anybody who has experience in editing controversial articles like this, and who enjoys a challenge, to step up to the plate and help put this article in order. Smallbones (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Nobel Peace Prize

I'm admittedly forum shopping here, as we are not getting a very satisfactory level of response through the usual channels: There being little other talk page activity, I solicited a response from WP:3O in the hopes that it could be resolved that way. However, the editor I am having a disagreement with seems to still dispute the change even after the 3O intervention. I think it is because xhe genuinely believes it warrants inclusion, and that 2:1 does not constitute a very strong consensus, so I'm bringing it here.

The issue at stake is whether the 'Cyber warfare attacks' section which I have restored to the current version belongs in the article. My view is that the connection between this incident and this year's prize is too tenuous, and was only reported in the article in this way because of its topicality and for no other reason. There are no news articles I am aware of which are making a connection between the cyber attacks and the nomination of Liu Xiaobo. Inclusion of this section would tend to suggest that the attacks and the recipient of the prize were related. The other party believes that "[t]he presumed connection to the Nobel Peace Prize for this year is clearly made in all the articles used to reference the 'cyber warfare' section," and thus should remain in its entirety. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Overview of the territorial dispute in Gibraltar

We are discussing about the most neutral wording for a summary of the territorial dispute around Gibraltar (mainly around the isthmus and the territorial waters) in the overview article about Gibraltar. Which of the following two texts do you thing is more neutral?

Spain further interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain does. For example, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.

or

Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cesion outside those limits. The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also considers that the UN Convention on the Law and the Sea supports British control of the territorial waters around Gibraltar.

Thanks! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see WP:NPOV issues with either of these versions. Is there a specific complaint about something that one of these versions says? NickCT (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)