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

The List of oldest universities in continuous operation (again)

• List of oldest universities in continuous operation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

After a previous discussion about this subject (see the extensible box below), a consensus was reached about the fact that excludinf non-European universities is a POV, and nobody opposed the proposed draft text.

However, some users think that this doesn't represent a consensus and that the previous version of the list is still appropriated. I wonder if the discussion should be re-started or continued, or if we can take a decision based on the previous discussion?

Link to the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 29#The University of Al-Karaouine and the List of oldest universities in continuous operation

Omar-Toons (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The previous discussion - Click on "Show"

University of Al-Karaouine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) List of oldest universities in continuous operation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Hello, On the articles University of Al-Karaouine and List of oldest universities in continuous operation, I found 4 academic sources, plus the UNESCO and the Guinness Book, stating that the University of Al-Karaouine is the oldest university in the world, but a "freelance historian", Kevin Shillington, edit: and many other historians contests that fact by stating that the University of Al-Karaouine became a university only in 1947 edit: non-European institutions can not be considered as universities. This case was discussed before but I see, according to the archives of the Talk Page [1][2], that no consensus was found and that the removal of non-European/Christian universities is still contested [3][4], and that some comments were deleted by one of the participants [5] (the two first highlighted comments were deleted for "personal attacks" while only the last one [6] was an attack). After that, the user Yopie continued to revert any add of a non-European/American university [7], while the NPOV policy is stating that "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" must be proportionately represented. Isn't that an infringement to the proportional representation of the NPOV policy? proposed alternative paragraph: The Al Karaouine institution is considered by the Guinness book(reference), the UNESCO(reference), and many historians(references) as the oldest continuously operating academic degree-granting university in the world. However, this claim is contested by other historians who consider that medieval universities in the Islamic world and medieval European universities followed very different historical trajectories until the former were expanded to the later in modern times(reference), and the certificate delivered in non-European universities deviated in concept and procedure from the medieval doctorate out of which modern university degrees evolved(reference). I hope that we can find a solution to this problem. Regards. Omar-Toons (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Omar-Toons doesn't seem to understand what qualifies as a reliable source considering they think that includes juvenile literature. The issue was pointed out at WP:AN, yet they still see fit to call it an "academic" source here. I would like to see Omar-Toons offering a detailed justification for why these sources ought to be considered reliable in this instance. Nev1 (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC) So, the UNESCO's World Heritage Center page isn't a reliable source? Btw, the NPOV policy states that all views should be shown, that means the ones supporting the face that Al-Karaouine is the oldest university in the world and the ones stating that it isn't. I will wait for some external opinions, since, as the TP archive shows, no consensus was found basing on the same arguments[8]. Omar-Toons (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I've already had issues with a group of users at University of Al-Karaouine (as have others) when I tried to include the actual foundation date of that institution supported by numerous reliable sources. They claimed that 1947 is the foundation date while it is absolutely undisputed that it has been founded sometimes in the 9th-century. It seems that a group of users decided that university is a solely Christian-European concept, in the lead of List of oldest universities in continuous operation you'd read that institutions from elsewhere "...were culturally dissimilar from the European universities where the concept of the modern university came from." which is a bit silly considering that e.g. Al-Karaouine was a degree granting multidisciplinary learning center at a time when e.g. Oxford was a group of monks taking students with, comparatively, much less manuscripts to read from and rather poor scholarship both in scope and quality but whatever if that's what WP:Consensus means. --Tachfin (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC) There does seem to be an NPOV issue with this article, and also with University. It isn't difficult to find reliable sources that refer to Karaouine as the earliest university: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. It may be something that is debatable, but WP should reflect the different aspects of that debate.--FormerIP (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Well I definitely consider the UNESCO source as total crap but the Guinness Book of records definitely does pay to ttry and get the best advice and check what it puts in. I think it really is a matter of opinion between the sources so we should include this as 'considered by some as' the first university. Dmcq (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC) If there is a matter of opinion it should be written that 'is the oldest... but considered by some as...', since most sources affirm that it is the oldest one. Btw, I wonder if you can explain why do you consider the UNESCO as 'total crap'? --Omar-Toons (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC) They seem to be driven by political considerations rather than scholarship and I've seen a number of their gaudy but badly researched documents which are obviously designed more to please and ease the egos of those paying for them. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC) First, I'm very disappointed that some of the previous discussion, much of it quite voluminous and containing many references, has not been adequately addressed. Second, it seems incredibly dishonest to accuse Wikipedia editors of ignoring or slighting thins ancient institution when many professional historians have - rightly or wrongly - omitted it and other non-Western institutions from the history of modern universities. For example, the first book I grabbed off my shelves, Haskins's "The Rise of Universities," unequivocally states that "universities, like cathedrals, are a product of the Middle Ages" (p. 3). I am very wary of allowing amateurs to use Wikipedia to second guess professional historians. In that vein, I believe that each individual reference needs to be listed and scrutinized and other editors given time to add their comments, opinions, and reliable sources. This is a historiographical content dispute and this notice board is ill equipped to solve it. This discussion should be moved back into article Talk space where it belongs. ElKevbo (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC) The NPOV policy can NOT be "bypassed" through a discussion, especially since no consensus has been reached. Two contradictory facts are reported by reliable sources, the NPOV policy imposes that both have to be cited. Omar-Toons (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC) "I am very wary of allowing amateurs to use Wikipedia to second guess professional historians" what an unnecessary comment...On the main page it reads "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" If you're uncomfortable with that there are other venues restricted to "professionals". --Tachfin (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Please read WP:OR; we don't allow Wikipedia editors to make their own decisions about issues such as this. ElKevbo (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC) ElKevbo, it's clear just from a quick Google that professional historians do recognise the claim of Karaouine as the oldest university. And a book entitled "The University as a European Institution" is obviously not a good source to use in order to exclude non-European universities from consideration in a list article.--FormerIP (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC) First, please re-read my comment as you misunderstand the source I quoted (hint: Haskins was speaking about all universities, not just European ones). Second, I again ask that you provide citations of professional historians, especially those who study higher education, who recognize this institution as the first university. I specifically ask for professional historians who specialize in higher education because the crux of this matter is whether this institution was a "university." ElKevbo (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC) "...we don't allow Wikipedia editors to make their own decisions about issues such as this" nobody wants to make their own decision on issues such this, except maybe the ones who reject reliable sources unambiguously calling the place a university. You flashing that OR link to me does not change the nature of this dispute. In the talk page archive you linked above, I see one user, not only asking for a reliable source calling the place "the first university" but also that these sources discuss why they did say that, which is above any requirement of WP:Verifiability; as if what's in reliable sources is up to the judgement of particular editors here (WP: GREATWRONGS?). It's funny how he replies by quoting a book called "Taliban: The Unknown Enemy" and a freelance historian (Kevin Shillington). Excerpt from Encyclopædia Britannica: "The Qarawīyīn Mosque is the centre of a university that was founded in ad 859; several of its schools (madrasahs) are grouped around it. The university has been renowned since the European Middle Ages as a centre of Islāmic culture. When the Muslims were expelled from Spain beginning in the 13th century, many came to Fès and to Qarawīyīn, bringing knowledge of European and Moorish arts and sciences. By the 14th century there were said to be 8,000 students at the university " [14]. So, Britannica is crap, UNESCO world heritage website is crap, Guiness book is crap, other books are crap, just how much evidence do you intend on rejecting? This issue is clearly appropriate for this board, as attempts to discuss it on the talk page have been largely rebuffed or arguments not taken into consideration. Any time a user tries to discuss this, he simply receives the response see the archives of this page, this has been discussed before or just gets thrown a collection of poor quality sources like "Taliban: The Unknown Enemy" or Kevin Shillington, the freelance historian. Frankly I don't mind if you want to keep that page restricted to European-Christian medieval institutions. The reader however, should be made aware of this; for example by stating that the page is only about learning institutions that received papal bulls, taught in Latin or were founded by a charter from a European King...etc --Tachfin (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC) When an unknown person tells me that they know history better than the published, respected historians with which I am familiar and claims a fact that contradicts what those historians have published then I have every right to demand sources that match the quality of the sources that I have (and note that I don't have a large number of history sources at hand so it's quite telling that I am so easily able to verify my assertion). Other encyclopedias and popular press books like Guinness do not have the same status as peer-reviewed academic publications although it saddens me that some editors believe that they do that doesn't change the fact that they don't. Maybe for others this is an issue of neutral point of view. For me, it's purely about the quality of the available sources. And so far the quality of the sources used to support the idea that there is widespread agreement that this institution is the first university instead of Bologna or even Paris is lacking. ElKevbo (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC) I'm having a little trouble determining who's a historian specializing in higher education, but I am not sure I should have to do that in the first place. I see numerous mentions of this university being founded in the 9th century. What is the rationale for saying that this is wrong? Something in the definition of university perhaps? Right offhand this does seem to be a problem of neutrality, unless there is a truly fantastic reason for making the distinction. I mean, nobody is saying American high schools don't get to be called secondary education, after all. Elinruby (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC) There is a problem with the definition of the university, i.e. there is none. To reiterate an argument, yes, al-Qaraouine was not a "university" in the Medieval European sense, but that is because the Medieval European definition was very narrow and dependent on specific features that are unique to a Christian clergy (e.g. privilege of jus ubique docendi, exemption from canon law on benefices). So its hardly elucidating point of comparison. The logic here is slippery as classifying apples and oranges". Yes, apples are fruit (i.e. Medieval Studium generale are "universities"). Yes, oranges aren't apples (al-Qaraouine is not a Studium generale). But it doesn't follow that therefore oranges aren't "fruit". Is this supposed to be a list of fruit or a list of apples? If the latter, than the article title should be changed to something less ambiguous. Walrasiad (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Can you deal with it in the way of Third oldest university in England debate, i.e. reporting all sides of the issue? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Sure. So far the case is pretty weak with only a few references from non-specialized sources but it's worth including them since they are very high profile. ElKevbo (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Exactly: It all depends on how one defines "university." In my experience and education as a scholar of U.S. higher education, historians of education believe that Bologna and Paris were the first institutions we can legitimately classify as universities. So when someone tells me something that contradicts my education and the excellent references I have at hand, it's perfectly reasonable for me to request high-quality sources confirming the position that is being asserted. In a situation like this that depends very much on nuance, we must turn to professional historians who specialize in this area; popular press sources like Guinness and other encyclopedias that don't even cite references are not useful at all. ElKevbo (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Calling ths a matter for scholarship is rather stretching it I think. It is more a matter of opinion. The Guinness book is a very good source for highest biggest oldest etc etc. That really degrades the idea of scholarship I think to how many angels could stand on the point of a pin. It might be good for an exercise in argument but really otherwise it is like arguing which dog is best in dog show. Dmcq (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC) And we wonder why many experts avoid and denigrate Wikipedia... ElKevbo (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC) So as I understand it no one is contesting the continual operation of Al Karaouine, but the sticking point is rather the term "University"? I think Itsmejudith definitely has the right idea then. Another option would be to also have a List of oldest institutes of higher learning in higher learning in continuous operation and cross-link between the two pages, but since the concept of a university has evolved so much since its original use, I think it would make more sense to explain both versions on the same page. A13ean (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC) That means the exclusion of non-European institutes from the list, which doesn't cure the NPOV problem. The NPOV policy implies that all opinions have to be shown and, as demonstrated by the cited references above, many claim that these institutes were Universities, the NPOV imposes that they mush be added to the list, in addition to an explicative notice about the fact that it is a contested position, as i proposed above. --Omar-Toons (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Britannica was cited as reference for "Islamic University". But EB say otherwise [15]:"The modern university evolved from the medieval schools known as studia generalia; they were generally recognized places of study open to students from all parts of Europe. The earliest studia arose out of efforts to educate clerks and monks beyond the level of the cathedral and monastic schools." and "The first true university was founded at Bologna late in the 11th century." --Yopie (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) No sorry it doesn't say otherwise, you're just quoting it out of context. EB actually says "The earliest Western institution that can be called a university was.." then continuing in the same context of "Western institutions" it says "The first true university was founded at Bologna". The whole paragraph is about how the "modern university" evolved from medieval "studia generalia". That does not mean that any institution that wasn't originally "studia generalia" cannot be called a university, that would be just WP:SYNTH (see the apples & oranges example above). Quotes I've provided above are clear: Does EB call it a university? Yes. Does it say that it was founded in the 9th century? Yes. Are there many other WP:RS that state the same? Yes. Some are just ignoring to address the NPOV issue in accordance with other Wikipedia policies i.e Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia isn't the place for setting the record straight because it follows WP:Verifiability what's been largely published in the mainstream reliable sources always merits inclusion no matter how wrong you think it is. --Tachfin (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC) For that matter, I saw references to institutions of higher education in India, Cairo and China, but did not want to examine the pedigree of each claim. I suspect we aren't talking about those schools here because they are no longer in operation. If in fact we're using a definition of university that requires that the institution have an exemption from or place in the canon law of the papal church, then it is not surprising that only Christian institutions seem to qualify. Seems like a fine example of the the problems with the history most English speakers are taught in school. This is not a trivial issue, say I, thinking back to the number of people who refused to believe, a few years ago, that Iraq had a civilization. I feel strongly enough about this to enlist some reference librarians if need be to find sources dry enough and musty enough and on-paper enough to satisfy anyone. Elinruby (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC) I agree with Elinruby's assessment. I think the main problem we have to resolve here is what is what is this list about? There is already a List of medieval universities in chronological order which adheres strictly to the "Western" definition. The only difference between that list and this one, is that defunct universities are excluded here. Otherwise, this list does not seem to be supplying any additional information. It seems to me there is room for flexibility in the latter, so that we can have two lists - a list of old Western universities (apples only) and a list of old universities generally speaking (fruits as a whole). Trying to restrict the latter to the Western Medieval criteria seems superfluous replication. Walrasiad (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Actually, I think this is better than what I suggested as an alternative above -- the more inclusive list should be at the "oldest university" page. A13ean (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Can someone please provide some reliable sources other than Guinness and UNESCO supporting this claim? So far I haven't seen anything in the mainstream education history literature. There may be something buried above so please feel free to call our attention to it. ElKevbo (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Additionally, I caution my colleagues that Wikipedia is not the place for editors to push agendas or correct perceived (or actual) wrongs. It may be that the mainstream education history defines "university" in such a way as to exclude institutions outside of Europe and northern Africa. But it's not up to us to correct that; the historians must do that and then we can cite them. That's the crux of WP:OR. ElKevbo (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Those seem to be inappropriately narrow goalposts you're trying to erect there, El Kevbo. Maybe someone will do your work for you in terms of "mainstream education history literature", but I can see cites above from educationalists and historians, which really ought to be good enough. --FormerIP (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Considering there are journals such as History of Education, perhaps asking the sources should be "mainstream education history literature" isn't narrowing the goalpoats too much. Nev1 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC) No, it's just unnecessary hoop-raising. Enough sources which are reliable for the information have been provided to show that this is a topic on which opinions vary. --FormerIP (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC) What sources??? ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Well, the sources I posted above, just for example. Niall Ferguson is a professor of history [16]. Nick Foskett is a professor of education [17]. And sources that are not professors, such as UNESCO, Britannica, Frommers should not be disregarded. They are extremely good evidence that there are widely-held opinions which are at variance with the POV currently represented by Wikipedia. --FormerIP (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC) There's also this Thomson Reuters report. I think we have enough good sources to mention this university, although we have to make it clear that it does depend on definition. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Farid, Alatas Syed [2006]: "From Jami ah to University: Multiculturalism and Christian-Muslim Dialogue," Current Sociology, 54: 112–132. Not history, but looks scholarly. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=p3NGjbEoW5MC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=karaouine&ots=gtG-dqWwtX&sig=BA3mh5vuLZ0a38Mb2zf503gh1sY#v=onepage&q=karaouine&f=false; interestingly that one also distinguishes Karaouine from European universities, but on the basis that it was regional in nature, not national. http://umkn-dsp01.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/3951 <-- appears to be a thesis, which counts as a reliable source afaik... http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eTslPpwSWgoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA17&dq=karaouine&ots=ZRF6md0RV0&sig=hLgL1CL_Ts3gloFjNOKDTDmrpA0#v=onepage&q=karaouine&f=false on p 24. I excluded references in passing, references to Guinness, and references to Wikipedia, as well as everything that didn't pass the giggle test as a reliable source, anything where I could not find the name of the university within 1-2 minutes and so on. Still took me about 15 minutes only to find these, and I have not yet heard back from the reference librarian. It also occurred to me that the Encyclopedia Britannica article probably has references, but the library I was at had a different encyclopedia. Elinruby (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC) The last article is about the philosophy of education, but I have seen multiple references to the Najjar 1958 article it cites as an authority on the point of this university's founding -- though I eliminated many of the others as only peripherally on-topic (thoughts on teaching biophysics or whatever). While clicking around I did see a book by someone named, I think, Perkin, that said that the first true universities were in Europe because those were independent of religious and other authorities, which earlier institutions in other places were not. I feel the need to have a public belly-laugh on this point. Go tell Galileo how independent science was of the Church, even centuries later. Nor do I think this point is completely germane. I agree that science and religion are separate subjects, but Catholic University in Washington D.C. and Santa Clara University in California are both well-respected universities that have religious ties. Shrug. Elinruby (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I support the proposal made above to have two lists: 1. Medieval universities in continuous operation (Christian European sens) 2. List of oldest universities in continuous operation (generic sens). --Tachfin (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC) personally I would be confused by the opposition of medieval and oldest. If the parties go this route, I'd suggest oldest in Europe in continuous operation vs oldest in the world in continuous operation. That would be a problem if the ones in Europe were older, but I think we've decided they are not. But any solution that is less Eurocentric than the present situation and is acceptable to others would be ok with me. Elinruby (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I haven't been involved in this discussion recently, but was involved in a similar one some years ago. At that time, there was a distinction made between universities and institutions of higher learning. A crucial element of that distinction concerned the nature of European universities, which were autonomous self-governing corporate entities. This autonomy contributed to the development of the concept of academic freedom which is central to the medieval university and its modern descendants. The widely accepted emphasis on Universities' corporate autonomy is not intended to discriminate against non-Western European institutions, for it excludes such Western institutions as the Platonic Academy, and European cathedral and monastic schools. The point is that all institutions of higher learning are not necessarily universities and that the first higher learning institutions having that corporate autonomy emerged in Western Europe in the Twelfth Century. A useful step forward would be to supplement the List of oldest universities in continuous operation (in the Western corporate sense) with a list of specific higher educational institutions that did not have its autonomous corporate structure. This second list could draw on the outline of Ancient higher-learning institutions, and draw specific institutions from the List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation, the List of the oldest schools in the world, and other similar articles. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Be careful not to exaggerate the degree of autonomy. Many were put strictly under the imperial and/or episcopal leash and frequently interfered with. Popes dictated curriculums, the imperial chancellary dictated appointments. The autonomous aspect is really only with respect to the local town authorities. Their existence as "corporations" simply meant they were on par with any other guild or livery company. In many respects, madrassahs were much more independent academically, there being no central authority to dictate what could and could not be taught, or to deny diplomas because of a particular opinion (in many ways, madrassahs were closer to Bologna, than Bologna was to Paris). I do agree with your assertion that other higher learning institutions should be paid attention to. Some cathedral schools, e.g. Chartres, Laon, Rheims, Liege and Utrecht come to mind, surpassed many "universities" in terms of higher learning and student catchment, at least for a spell. Only three of them - Salamanca, Toulouse and Orleans - were elevated to universities, and are already on the list. Walrasiad (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Steve, I too agree that a list of ancient centres of higher education with the main article based on Ancient higher-learning institutions would be no bad idea. And, as you say, universities have to be separated not only from the Muslim mosque schools, but even more from the much more related Christian cathedral and monastic schools. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Draft text? Thanks for the sources. Can someone please propose a draft of how this will be described in the various articles that this will affect? ElKevbo (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC) My proposals: on the article University of Al-Karaouine: The Al Karaouine institution is considered by the Guinness book(reference), the UNESCO(reference), and many historians(references) as the oldest continuously operating academic degree-granting university in the world. However, this claim is contested by many other historians who consider that medieval universities in the Islamic world and medieval European universities followed very different historical trajectories until the former were expanded to the later in modern times(reference), and the certificate delivered in non-European universities deviated in concept and procedure from the medieval doctorate out of which modern university degrees evolved(reference). on the article University of Bologna: The university received a charter from Frederick I Barbarossa in 1158, but in the 19th century, a committee of historians led by Giosuè Carducci traced the founding of the University back to 1088, making it the oldest university in the world(references). This claim is, however, contested by other historians who consider that the oldest continuously operating university in the world is the University of Al-Karaouine in Fez, Morocco(references). on the lists of universities: Adding non-European universities to the List of oldest universities in continuous operation and copying the two paragraphs above for both universities as a note ; Creating a second list: the List of oldest European universities in continuous operation, with a note about the fact that European universities are considered by some historians as the oldest of the world, not only in Europe ; Renaming the article List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation (that was created in order to eliminate non-European universities from the previous list, which is clearly POV) as List of oldest universities in continuous operation in the Muslim world, with a note about the fact that the list is contested by the ones who consider that non-European high-degree learning institutions weren't universities. Omar-Toons (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Sounds good to me. ElKevbo (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Also support failing article rename. --Tachfin (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC) I would consider condensing the text for the University of Bologna to The university received a charter from Frederick I Barbarossa in 1158, but in the 19th century, a committee of historians led by Giosuè Carducci traced the founding of the University back to 1088, which would make it the oldest university in the world(references). This claim is disputed by historians who consider that the oldest continuously operating university in the world is the University of Al-Karaouine in Fez, Morocco(references). Somehow the way its worded just seemed a bit long.--Factchk (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah geez. Are they still saying it's not a university because the pope didn't something or other? I just had to check to see if it was even clear who the pope *was* that year, but apparently there was only one in that particular year. Before that and after that - not so clear ;) The idea that this even matters is making me lose my temper ;) The Church may have been the defining factor in such matters in the Dark Ages, but there's been a Renaissance and an Industrial Revolution and like a thousand years since then, thank God. We are allowed to use university to mean a place of higher learning, in general. Yes we are. I don't remember what the draft text was, but anything that doesn't make the Vatican the authority in the matter is fine with me. Elinruby (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the topic of this thread of course, but the term "Dark Ages" is generally frowned upon and has been old fashioned for at least half a century. If you used the term in a university you'd make lecturers cry. Nev1 (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

But appropriate in this instance :P I'll make sure to leave out of the next article I edit about barbarian invasions, ok? I'm fundamentally offended by the notion that nobody was learned in the tenth century but Christians. I mean -- I am sure the *Christians* thought so... but... And you're worried about what to *call* an age like that? How about nasty short and brutish? You've done it now. I'll have to go review a Song of Roland concordance, and make really sure to use the term <g> Yes I am kidding. And yes, you're off-topic :P I agree with you. Elinruby (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a cocktail of arrogance and ignorance in the term the "Dark Ages", but why worry about that. Academic sources seem to be quite clear that universities and madrasahs are separate entities. The sources Omar Toons has been peddling have been often poor and usually tangentially related to the subject; the speciailist sources seem quite clear on the issue. Nev1 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue as I recall was *very* ethnocentric criteria. Sources for the date are a separate problem and as noted above, this is not the reliable sources noticeboard. I don't think Wikipedia should resort to elaborate constructions like "List of institutions of higher education" over ancient definitions that denigrate learning in other cultures. In fact, Wikipedia should abolish lists altogether as they are magnets for this type of silly discussion about what is a "real" country and what is a "real" university. PS - As a small bit of advice, if you are going to throw around words like "arrogance" and "ignorance" it's best to be oneself humble enough to run spellcheck. I will be quiet now and let other people talk. Elinruby (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So you're making barbed remarks for a typo? Forgive me for being fallible. So far you have contributed little of worth to the conversation regarding universities, it is perhaps a good call on your part to be quiet. Nev1 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask your opinion. Merely pointed out that calling anyone "ignorant" raises the bar when it comes to one's own posts. Spell-check is good in such cases. Keeps you from looking silly. As for not contributing anything of value, perhaps you mean little that supports your point of view. Look under the hat-note. I was very much involved when this came up before and posted a number of references that are absolutely RS. I thought perhaps you were not involved last time and thus had overlooked them...but I see you did post and therefore knew of the discussion. Why did you not participate then, is my question. In other words, is this same issue back again in hopes of another consensus this time? I don't get it. Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, academic sources don't agree on this, as you may see by the several sources cited recently at the University of Al-Karaouine talk page. Remember most of our thinking on this is influenced by a tradition of Western exceptionalism. Seen in the round, as what universities do, there were great overarching similarities between what medieval Western institutions, called universities at the time, did, and what took place in Sung China, and the Islamic world. If your definition of 'university' summarizes what these became in modern Western tradition, then it excludes all other institutional forms of higher learning, but risks being ethnocentric nominalism. 'Nationalism' and 'feudalism' have suffered from the same problem: are we referring to nationalism-qua-Western modernization, or feudalism-qua-medieval Western societies, or do the words have analytic value for non-European historical societies. The academic world has no consensus on these issues, and yes/no varies according to scholars.

Therefore, if several reputable sources describe non-western schools as 'universities', we should leave the conceptual border determination to scholarship, and simply refer what those sources say, case by case. Wiki can't decide these issues, since the academic world itself is conflicted in their regard.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. WP:NPOV requires us to present the scholarly viewpoints that Al-Karaouine was a university founded in the ninth century. NPOV also requires us to present the opposite viewpoint. Completely deleting one viewpoint is a violation of the policy.VR _talk 21:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And this is what was previously proposed and on which nobody was opposed. --Omar-Toons (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, the "inclusionsit" camp has only provided sources that are either not reliable (children's books), not academic (UNESCO, Guiness Book), or generalist in nature. The "exclusionist" camp has provided much higher caliber sources, sources that are scholarly investigations into the history and origin of the modern university. These are presented and discussed in detail at the article talkpage, yet for whatever reason Omar-Toons is avoiding that discussion, instead insisting on coming here. Athenean (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall posting a list of sources the last time this was up on this board that were not only reliable but scholarly. They included a published doctoral thesis, a couple of academic articles in French and hmm maybe a conference paper... I excluded mentions in passing and anything that mentioned Guinness, and only listed texts that used the word "university." This is well beyond the bar for a reliable source on Wikipedia. I suspect that a search on Arabic texts would find many more. Insisting on English-language articles in journals devoted to the history of European educational institutions naturally will skew the results, can you not see that? Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to recall? Well, where are they? Anyway, conference papers and doctoral theses are not on the same level as the sources presented at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation. It's a question of undue weight. The editors agitating for the inclusion of madrasahs in the list of oldest universities want to do so even though the weight of the sources is against that. There is only one table. Either we include the madrasahs or we exclude them. The weight of the evidence indicates that we shouldn't. I will also note that those editors are only interested in adding Karaouine and Al-Azhar, not any of the other many old madrasahs. Why? Because those two are the only two whose date of foundation predates that of the University of Bologna. In other words, they are not interested in the subject per se, or in truly improving the article, but rather only to push the POV that "Muslims invented the University!". Fairly transparent. Athenean (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Click the link that says "show" on the green bar where it says "Extended content". Elinruby (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Athenian has been provided with numerous scholarly and academic sources, but has chosen to ignore them because he insists that they do not specialize in the subject of "history of the university".[18] In Athenian's view sources that deal with "higher education" are irrelevant (even though some are authored by professors). Athenian has also been presented with a scholarly work entitled "The Oldest University in the World" (published in the British Medical Journal, vol. 1, no.1745, p.1269). Athenian's criteria of what a reliable source must be seems to have no basis in WP:RS.VR _talk 02:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It is frankly worrying that it's not obvious to you that the British Medical Journal isn't relevant to the article. Nev1 (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What about Nick Foskett, professor of education, writing a book on higher education and making the exact same claim?[19]VR _talk 02:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but considering the source is about marketing higher education rather than the origin of universities it should still take second place to sources actually focussed on the issue. The sooner you realise that the better. Nev1 (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's becoming disruptive how you are repeating the same things over and over. It was explained to you in the article talkpage why a source on the "marketization" of the university is problematic. What do you tihnk you will accomplish by posting it again here? It is also disruptive the way you are pretending that source that refute your POV don't exist. These were provided in the article talkpage, yet you are ignoring them as if they didn't exist. And they are of much higher quality than any of the sources you have provided. Athenean (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The situation is the exact opposite. I realize that that there is disagreement amongst historians on the oldest university. I have even quoted those sources. I want this disagreement to be reflected in the article. I want the article to acknowledge that the oldest university could be at Fez, Cairo, or Bologna.

You on the other hand want only Bologna to be recognized as the oldest. You want to exclude reliable and scholarly sources. You want to pretend that reliable sources on the university at Fez don't exist. I want to include all the reliable sources and their viewpoints. That is both the spirit and letter of NPOV.VR _talk 02:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That can be done by means of a footnote in the article. But since the visual impact of the table is greater than that of a footnote, preference for the table should be given to side with the weightier evidence, and that side is clearly the University of Bologna. Would not excluding Karaouine and Al-Azhar from the table, but mentioning them in a footnote be acceptable to you? Athenean (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that the evidence for Bologna looks weightier to you because you dismiss so much of the evidence against it? I'd like to see a list of the references pro and con, myself, without having to go hunt them through multiple arguments on two discussion pages. Look at the Taliban post above - whatever the merits of the OP's case, that's an organized presentation. BTW, there also seem to be transliteration issues -- I get about 500 more hits on Google Scholar using "al qarawiyyin". Not all of them will meet the criteria I mentioned above, but they don't have to. If the contention is that the sources need to be not only reliable but also scholarly and beyond that only come from journals devoted to the history of education, then I am sorry; you are simply wrong. Elinruby (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I think lists of sources for Bologna, Fez and Cairo should be collected and presented. If anyone feel that a source violates WP:RS, then that source will be ignored. This will give us an idea where the scholarly consensus stands.VR _talk 03:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a few configurations that we can have, but I'm glad that you've decided to at least include reliably sourced viewpoints.

1) put them in the table with the European table, with the notes mentioning that many scholars dispute their status as universities (and many don't). 2) Putting non-European institutions in a separate table and section entitled as such (below the European table, for lesser "visual impact"), with a paragraph detailing the views of historians on this matter.

Regarding footnote: I don't think, given the number and details of viewpoints, that it would be wise to discuss this there.

I would like to hear what sort of creative solutions other users can come up with.VR _talk 03:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Note the header saying that (for example) definitions of "university" vary; see sidebar for further details. I don't know what the conventions are on lists but I think that the reader, who may be surprised to find or not find something on a list, deserves to know if appropriate that the terminology is, uh...not agreed upon. I also think that the term "madrassah" is to US ears at least associated with the Taliban at the moment. However unfortunate this may be, it's a fact. So care should be used in using it. I saw a comment saying that a madrassah is more like a lycée than a university; not sure if that's true but if those are its associations in Arabic, that's another reason to use the word cautiously if at all. Elinruby (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) The weight of the scholarly (a word used by VR above) evidence is clearly that the University of Bologna is the oldest continuously operating university in the world. None of the sources in favor of Karaouine are scholarly. Rather, numerous specialized, scholarly sources have been provided in the article talkpage that clearly state that Bologna is the oldest functioning university. As such, I propose that Karaouine and Al-Azhar be kept out of the table, but a footnote explaining that some non-scholarly sources consider Karaouine to be the oldest functioning university be added to the article. Athenean (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose - Many peer-reviewed journal articles have in fact been provided to support Al-Karaouine. If you wish to prove that Bologna is older, then please meet the same standard in your arguments. Possibly "university" is a term of art in the history of education; but mere mortals consider it a synonym for "institution of higher learning", and easier to pronounce as well. There is more than enough RS to support the 9th-century founding in my opinion; the only question in my mind is what criteria should be used for weight? But I guarantee that the answer is not going to be "we ignore everything that hasn't been published in an English-language journal about the history of higher education," no matter who else chimes in. That position is simply bizarre. Elinruby (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What "many peer-reviewed journal articles"? I only see one, a passing mention in a medical journal, not an education or history of science journal. As for evidence in favor of Bologna, it is presented at the article talkpage. And I've never said that only an "English-language journal about the history of higher education" is an acceptable source, so spare me the straw man argument. Athenean (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

long discussion of sources for purposes of weight - Click on "Show"

have you clicked the link on the green bar yet? I listed about four journal articles myself in the previous discussion here. None of them cite Guinness. All of them say "university". Pretty sure they are all peer-reviewed. Other editors on this board provided links to numerous reliable sources which look very solid. (Factchk and ItsmeJudith come to mind (sorry if I got someone's camelcase wrong..)) To be clear, I am playing the "scholarly" game with you because I can, but it's a hoop which is not required. A well-written general history text published by a publisher with a reputation for caring about the facts is RS for most historical statements. The more specific and scholarly the reference, naturally, the better. But this is a matter of weight and (imho) only really matters in terms of how and where to discuss the matter in the article. I seem to be the only uninvolved editor here, so what I am saying is subject to review by others. But there is no doubt at all in my mind that it should be discussed. And I will see your "straw man" -- I really wish you would refrain from insulting me btw -- and call you on it: please define an acceptable source then, if I am mis-stating your position. A list of references for Bologna would also be appreciated, if it is your position that it's the oldest university. Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I have compiled a list of sources List of Reliable Sources that I believe pass the criteria in WP:RS. If any source fails WP:RS correct me and I'll take it off. Athenean is wrong when he says "a passing mention in a medical journal". The entire entry is dedicated to the "oldest university in the world" (which the publication claims is at Fez).VR talk 05:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC) K. I need to go do other stuff just now, but thanks for this. I will look at it and meanwhile hopefully someone else will come along as well. Elinruby (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I did click on the green bar, unfortunately I do not see "many peer-reviewed journal articles" (as you put it) anywhere. I do see stuff like Frommer's Morocco though. By the way, that British Medical Journal article is from 1894, which VR seems to have omitted to mention. On the other hand, I can easily find reliable sources that Bologna is the oldest university in the world [20] [21] [22]. And many more such sources are presented in the article talkpage (which for whatever reason you guys simply refuse to look at). These are not generalist, they are not from 1894, and they are not travel guidebooks. So yes, if we are to mention Karaouine and Al-Azhar, we should do so in a footnote and not in the table. Oh and by the way, falsely claiming that I said I would only accept "English-language journal publications" is indeed a straw man (or something very close to it), so I'm not really sure why you "feel insulted". Anyway, it seems the rest of the community has lost interest in this endless debate, so I leave you two to your own devices unless that changes. Athenean (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Strange, because they are there, just a little past the Frommer's you're sneering at. Frommer's is an acceptable source by the way, if not a terribly strong one. It may not be the most authoritative source when someone is challenging a point of medievalism, I grant you, but it at least supports the contention it is provided for. Some of the references you provide above do not, you know. See below. I have been looking at the talk pages, both of them, although really, I am not supposed to need to. I've noticed a tendency to misuse other terms from logic there as well. You call something a fallacy when you mean it's an inappropriate analogy (and I disagree btw...); similarly the way you use "straw man" here implies that I lack good faith and possibly am lying. How is this not an insult? But when I ask you to explain how I am mistaken, you refuse. I can only assume that you cannot. Please do not insult me. Thank you. Yes, I saw that 1894 date. Doesn't matter, if it says what he says it does. This is history, not technology or science. Paradigms may be revised but in general history does not have a sell-by date. But let's start with the list you can't seem to find: Farid, Alatas Syed [2006]: "From Jami ah to University: Multiculturalism and Christian-Muslim Dialogue," Current Sociology, 54: 112–132. [23];interestingly that one also distinguishes Karaouine from European universities, but on the basis that it was regional in nature, not national: "à la différence des pays européens, il n'éxiste pas d'université qui soit au Mahgred l'ancêtre de l'université nationale; les ancêstres des universités au Mahgreb sont pan-Maghrébines," p6 quote added above; here's the bibliographic specifics: Foued Laroussi, Plurilinguisme et identités au Maghreb; Publication Univ Rouen Havre [24] <-- appears to be a thesis, which counts as a reliable source afaik... [25] on p 24. Or are we quibbling over "journal"? If so, my bad, one is an anthology and one is a thesis. Itsmejudith posted a report, omg! I had found some others but then peace appeared to break out. But...sources are not hard to find: Hilgendorf E (2003), Islamic Education: History and Tendency, Peabody Journal of Education 78(2), 63-75 (quote "the Muslim university (madrasa) was the archetype for the European University (studium general)") Y. G.-M. Lulat, A history of African higher education from antiquity to the present: a critical synthesis, Greenwood_Publishing_Group 2005 624 pp, [26], (quote="the growtb of the medieval European universities was, in part, a direct response to the Greco-Islamic science that arrived in Europe after the fall of Toledo") Guy Beaujouan, The transformation of the Quadrivium, Harvard University press, 1982 Edward Grant, The foundations of modern science in the Middle Ages: their religious, institutional, and intellectual contexts, Cambridge University Press, 1996 Mehdi Khan Nakosteen; History of Islamic origins of Western education, A.D. 800-1350: with an introduction to medieval Muslim education, University of Colorado Press, 1964 Post is getting long; will come back with another for your sources and VR's Elinruby (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Sources provided for "Bologna is the oldest university in the world" Hunt Janin, The university in medieval life, 1179-1499 [27] McFarland, 2008 - 218 pages Scope in time excludes Al-Karaouine; preface discusses "medieval universities of Western Europe" - Not RS for this purpose as its scope is too narrow for the question it's intended to support. Not evaluated beyond this assessment but offland looks solid to support statements about Europe. Kemal Gürüz, Nancy L. (FRW) Zimpher, Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge Economy, SUNY Press, May 1, 2011 result 1: p 153 - discusses medieval universities in Europe, does used word "first" with respect to Bologna, follows extensive discussion on pp 151-152 of how these universities began. Apparently -- wait for it -- "when Europe was living in the Dark Ages...the Greco-Roman intellectual heritage was preserved and transmitted...where the Sassanian and Byzantine empires interfaced... and permeated the Islamic intellectual life." Only later does Europe get permeated apparently, leading to "the basis of all academic activity for centuries to come." result 2: deals with the Bologona Process (2009) source is RS for academic history in Mediterranean, but does not support the claim of European exceptionalism. Hilde De Ridder-Symoens, Walter Rüegg, A history of the university in Europe volume 4, Cambridge University Press, Jan 31, 2011 not RS to support a claim of "oldest in world" - scope is too narrow Elinruby (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Sources provided for "the oldest university in the world is not Bologna": This list is quite long and the quality of the sources varies, so I will rearrange them a bit. About B Niall Ferguson, Civilization: The West and the Rest, Penguin, Nov 1, 2011 - Serious non-academic discussion of culture and history. Authoritative author. RS for date, also several-page discussion of Islam's role as custodian of knowledge, quotes Bacon on the subject. Good source if not specific. Thomas F Banchoff (Associate Professor at Georgetown University)Religious pluralism, globalization, and world politics, Oxford University Press, p.60 very solid academic background, mention is in reference to a source he cites; author likely to have excellent reasons for his opinion Hossein Nasr (professor at George Washington University) Traditional Islam in the modern world, Taylor & Francis, p.125 unable to verify citation -- so-so support for date based on poster's description. Author is notable enough for his own wiki page, qualifies as expert, value of this depends on what it says but is at least ok. Mentions in passing with citation Derrick M. Nault, Development in Asia: Interdisciplinary, Post-Neoliberal, and Transnational Perspectives, Universal-Publishers, Dec 30, 2008 Shana Cohen, Searching for a different future: the rise of a global middle class in Morocco, Duke University Press, Jul 21, 2004 info is in explanatory footnote. So-so. Does say "oldest university in the world." Author specializes in Morocco and works for a Cambridge institute; appears to be an expert. University press publisher. A little weak Mike Molesworth, Richard Scullion, The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer, Taylor & Francis, Nov 15, 2010, Mention in passing, meh Developing cultural capability in international higher education: a narrative inquiry, Sheila Trahar, Taylor & Francis, Jan 20, 2011 mention in passing; does say oldest university in world, does not provide a reference. Author has decent academic credentials but in education. Weak support. Encyclopædia Britannica was hoping this had a bibliography, but no. Ok as far as it goes (weak support). Article exists, unable to find referenced text in time allotted Note though, that there is no requirement that a reference be *easily* verifiable. I could go somewhere with JSTOR but am not fanatic enough to do so. These get a maybe, is what I am saying... Ali Kettani, "Engineering Education in the Arab World", Middle East Journal, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Autumn, 1974), pp. 441-45 can only see page 1 on JSTOR, value depends on content, but is acceptable as a source and looks peer-reviewed "The Oldest University In The World", British Medical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1745 (Jun. 9, 1894), p. 1269 unable to verify this citation - value depends on what it says. "Some Institutional Aspects of Muslim Higher Education and Their Relation to Islam", Numen (journal), Vol. 12, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1965), pp. 96-138 verified article exists via JSTOR. Don't have access to check citation, but publication is notable enough for its own wiki article (even if via machine translation...) The Middle East and North Africa 2003,Taylor and Francis, Nov 22, 2002 unable to verify cite; does appear to be a serious publication, probably ok for date

summary of the above discussion, which is not closed, but contains some very long posts:

• Athenean has not made his case that a preponderance of scholarly sources support the statement that the university is a European institution and therefore the University of Bologna is the oldest university. Of his three sources, two dealt with medieval Europe only and unsurprisingly do not mention the school at Fez. The third actually discusses the Islamic roots of European universities.
• VR provided a long list of sources ranging from good down to a bit weak. There is enough RS several times over to support the 9th-century founding, and several mentions of al-Karaouine's age and status as oldest university by people with very strong academic credentials.
• I added some references, which I think are RS, scholarly and specific, but someone else should review them.

I agree that "university" seems to have a specific meaning among medievalists, but universities are important topics in many other fields, such as the broader field of history, education, sociology, area studies (ie foreign service topics), communication theory, philosophy and religion, to name a few. Nor do all medieval scholars appear to subscribe to this paradigm. Based on the literature review above, if anything should be consigned to a footnote it is an exclusionist and demonstrably offensive (see discussion pages for Islamic reaction) view of some scholars in a single field. This is a question of history, but not only of the medieval history of the European university. Athenean said this is not his position, but declined to explain what his position might otherwise be. Caveat: since I went looking for sources, I conceivably am no longer uninvolved. I am not sure of the policy on this. Someone should at least read over the above discussion, as it is also not inconceivable that the name-calling on one side of this question has colored my thinking. But this is my best good-faith attempt to objectively assess the matter. Thanks. Elinruby (talk)

I think there's enough sources to believe that multiple universities (Fez, Bologna, Cairo) have claims to being the oldest in the world. Good sources have been provided for all of these. We should include all these claims in the article.VR _talk 04:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So, we got the same conclusion than the previous discussion. Great! I hope that nobody will come in 2 weeks a pretends that this is not a NPOV issue. --Omar-Toons (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your attemps at pretending a consensus which supports your view when there is absolutely none have become a bit tiresome by now. This is no POV but a contents issue which is mainly about historical understanding and semantic differentiation. The issue is chiefly discussed at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation and the participants arguing for a identity of (Muslim) mosque schools with (Christian) universities are invited to bring forward pertinent sources, which they have not done so yet. It is clear that the use of the word "university" as such counts for very little, even (or, rather, particularly) when it comes with the bold claim of priority, because , due to its sweeping historical success, the Western "university" has become today all over the world a generic term synonymous with "centre of higher education" (much like Cola is today a generic term due to the global success of one particular brand, Coca Cola). So what we need are scholarly, preferably specialist sources on the university and its history which make a comprehensive, argumentative case for madrasah = university, none of which, however, has been presented so far. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gun Powder Ma on his characterisation of the situation. I would also note that if we are going to extend the definition of university to include madrasahs then we would also have to consider the inclusion of cathedral schools. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The question here isn not if Medersas were universities or not, but if Al-Karaouine was a university or not, and there are many RS stating that it was a university, while many other RS, stating that it wasn't, exist.

The fact that these two viewpoints are both relied by RS makes it a NPOV issue, and since only a single viewpoint is shown on these WP articles, that the NPOVN discussion prevails over any other discussion (especially the one on the Talk Page).

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As been said, the real discussion takes place here, but just to outline the issue for non-involved and non-informed users: The issue is the very strong claim forwarded by user Omar that certain Muslim mosque schools which were founded in the Muslim world before the first Christian universities were founded in the West were 1. universities and 2. the oldest universities. This is a true logical fallacy (namely a category mistake): The fact that the Christian university and Muslim madrasah were both centres of higher education does not make the madrasah any more a university than the fact that both mosques and churches are places of worship makes a mosque a church: although belong to the same category 'centres of higher education', they are different members of this category just as mosques and churches are different members of the category 'places of worship'.

The historical reality is rather this: the university was the system of higher education peculiar to the Christin medieval West. Nowhere else did universities exist then. Other world regions also had centres of higher education but they were different from the university both in name and structure (just as the mosque is different from the church both in name and structure). The university later was exported from the West all over the world and has become the only system everywhere. But the fact that these early Muslim madrasahs have become today universities does not determine their status in the Middle Ages. Back then, they were a different form of higher education, one which is peculiar to the Islamic world, namely the madrasah. The claim that mosque schools were the same as universities is therefore truly grotesque and monstruous.

The fact that the university and the madrasah are the subject of separate articles demonstrates unassailably that WP consensus is that they are separate institutions. Consequently and logically, we also has two different lists, one referring to madrasahs and one referring to universities. Now what Omar actually argues for is that we should mix these list, namely that we should subsume madrasahs also under universities (although, mysteriously not the other way round). But why should we list mosque schools among universities? Who would think of listing mosques in a list of churches? All this makes absolutely no sense. The answer is clear: we should include madrasahs in a university when and only when they have been refounded and reorganized as universities and that is what we have been actually doing at the List of oldest universities in continuous operation for years now. So, Wikipedia treats them most clearly as two separate institutions and Omar edit-warring against this WP consensus is the real irritating POV here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gun Powder Ma's understanding of this issue, but would develop one more point. Not only were madrasah's not universities, but neither were medieval cathedral or monastic schools universities. Some of them developed into universities; the cathedral school of Paris and the monastic school of St. Victor both contributed to the later University of Paris, but we would not think of listing them as universities. Neither would we list the cathedral school of Chartres and the monastic school of St. Gallen, which did not become universities. None of these schools had the corporate autonomy that emerged in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and became the defining characteristic of a university. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like you, if you would, to expand on this idea of corporate autonomy, which none of its proponents have yet properly explained. Am I correct in understanding that the contention is that European schools were independent of the Church but Islamic universities were not independent of Islamic religious figures? And if the reason to for not listing the cathedral schools is that they did not become universities, then how is this relevant to the current discussion? This is a serious question, not sarcasm. Elinruby (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic : The question here is not if Medersas were universities or not, but if Al-Karaouine was a university or not, and there are many RS stating that it was a university, while many other RS, stating that it wasn't, exist. Both viewpoints are relied by RS, both have to be expressed. This is WP's NPOV policy, and it is non-negotiable. --Omar-Toons (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not off topic at all, since the issue is that, just as the Cathedral School of Paris led to the University of Paris, when and under what circumstances did the School of Al-Karaouine become a university. I'm not familiar with the detailed history of that school, but I notice that its Wikipedia page says it was organized as a modern university in 1947. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that you already know that a Wikipedia page isn't a RS ;) --Omar-Toons (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: There is nothing more to say than what's already been said. The title should be changed if the list is going to be restricted to Western Institutions. This should go to RFC, vote count and get done with it. Even if that's not the best option but at least it would give some legitimacy to the Euro-centric team claims. --Tachfin (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I proposed that Karaouine and Al-Azhar be mentioned in a footnote or somewhere other than the table, but I guess this concession was interpreted as a sign of weakness by the Islamo-centric team. Athenean (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose, contrary to the WP:NPOV policy.

By the way, the Islamo-centric position would be that Al-Karaouine is undoubtedly the oldest one ; this is the stric opposite of the Euro-centric one which is that Bologna is undoubtedly the oldest one. Each claim is contested by Reliable sources. The WP:NPOV implies that, since both positions are sourced by RS, both have to be mentioned.

Omar-Toons (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is essentially what I think; the only question is how and with what wording. Elinruby (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Readers might wish to note that VR _talk has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Could we also check Aaljuma. Looks like the Islamo-centrist faction is running here several fight nicks to bolster up its position. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cough - if you want to accuse other editors of being somehow bad, there are other noticeboards for that. Aaljuma, whoever he or she may be, has not participated in this discussion and so your sniggering suggestions about him or her are off-topic here and would in any event be inappropriate if he or she had done so. Do you wish to address the current paucity of reliable sources in this group of articles? If not, then why are you here? Oh and by the way, the Vice Regent account was unblocked yesterday. Not that he is a "fight nick" -- are you? I do not think the reference to "faction" was polite or constructive. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• • noted: The sources/links that he provided should be reviewed then. I will take a few minutes and repost the ones that might be reliable. --Omar-Toons (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • They all fall within the definition of reliable source -- with the possible exception of the 1894 journal article, whose existence I could not verify. (Ya, it's in a category that says I did, which is my mistake). But they are references to mainstream and academic publications with no connection to the author, and there is reason to give varying degrees of credibility to his authors. Some of them I'd throw out; if there is no citation for the statement, it is, for all we know, based on the Guinness Book of Records, and we still don't know what their basis is for the statement. On the other hand, some of the authors are very notable and very respectable academically. So sockpuppet or not (whose, by the way?) VR had a point. On the other hand, no single source of his matched Athenean's three for serious academics, but Athenean was trying to prove a global statement with sources whose scope was limited to Europe. Some of the sources *I* found were limited to Africa, but they are, I submit, at least equal academically to Athenean's. So, lacking a source that deals with the overall regional history, except for Athenean's one RS source, which does not support his position, it seems to me that weight is *not* on the side of Europe exceptionalism, even if you limit the sourcing to medieval history, and I see no reason to do so. I suggest a prominent mention somewhere of something along the lines of: "Early higher education had strong ties to religion and was quite different from what takes place in today's universities. Different authors in different fields have used different criteria to arrive at diverging opinions about which university was "first." These include subjects taught, degree granted, charter and (anything else that fits here). This list uses "university" as a synonym for "institution of higher education" and notes the disputes concerning early universities' founding in its footnotes." Or any version of the above that can be agreed upon. That said, the fundamental problem here is that the article is a list, which by definition loses many of reality's shades of grey. There was recently a similar dispute on List of national emblems about whether some places were "real" countries. Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Agree : I made a proposition on the previous discussion, maybe we could start from the previous draft text and edit it to fit the (few) newly introduced elements? --Omar-Toons (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I just went and looked at your previous proposal. I don't really have an issue with it, except that I don't know what "different historical trajectories" means and neither, I suspect, does anyone else. I am not particularly attached to the specific wording above, by the way; my primary point is that if there are RS for three different institutions then this needs to be said. But I do not think it is reasonable to expect Wikipedia to adopt a specialized definition which does not reflect a consensus in its own field. This can be avoided by using the definition in current use in modern English, and pointing out that some historians use another one, is what I am saying. Since I am philosophically opposed to lists (which create this sort of controversy) I do not want to engage on specific wordings. But the article should not say that *any* of these institutions is or is not a "real" university -- this is a matter of definition better left to footnotes imho. Elinruby (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It's so sad how quick some people are to judge you.VR _talk 03:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: List of oldest universities in continuous operation is in effect a subpage of University. If we are going to have such a list at all (and I can see the strength of the argument that such lists are intrinsically trouble generating) then we should follow the definition of university used there. That is what the current form does. If anybody wishes to change the definition of university used in the list article they should first establish that change at the top article. This procedure ensures that such a proposal receieves full and proper scrutiny from expert eyes. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point, although the parties and arguments there seem to be essentially the same. (And to cite the article in question here....) Maybe Omar, who has already participated on that comment page, should point out that the question has been re-opened here. Gunpowder Ma has not actually said anything above as far as I know...On the other hand, other exceptionalists seem to be refusing to participate, which imho should bar them from complaining of a lack of consensus here.Elinruby (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There are certainly some common themes in recent edits, though the definition of university found particularly in University#Medieval_universities seems stable and well referenced. But my principal point here is that we should avoid List of oldest universities in continuous operation (or, for that matter, the recently renamed List of oldest universities in continuous operation in the Muslim world) becoming WP:POVFORKs from university. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see the concern for consistency but am not sure, without going into this more than I already have, that I see how to resolve this except by expanding the scope of the discussion. The article definition may be stable but it has the same POV problem as the list; one way to resolve this may be to say "earliest european universities" vs "earliest universities" in the medieval section. This would however still leave the article with many of the problems that have been highlighted on the list, particularly the definition. But the article does benefit from a format where we can perhaps better explain the shades of grey. I have not looked at its references, but as noted above, there seems to be plentiful evidence that this definition is not universally accepted, even by specialists in the history of education. But yes, it would seem that this article should not contradict the list. I suggest waiting for comment from some of the involved editors? 21:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion on the nature of universities on the university page is both adequately nuanced and sufficiently referenced; the majority view is clearly explained and justified, and the minority view is covered adequately in my opinion, though there is always room for debate on niceties. The discussion in the sub-articles, by contrast, is far less satisfactory, and improving the clarity of the introductory sections there is the obvious next step. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary; I think you should take another look. There is no source provided at all for the definition used on that page, nor for the assertion that the institution was created in Europe and bestowed by it upon a previously benighted world. Almost all of the works cited have titles like "History of the European University," so it is unsurprising that its editors have not found indications of learning elsewhere. I'll say it again. A scholarly source does not mean a reliable source necessarily. A source is reliable, or not, for specific statements. You cannot prove that something did not happen outside Europe with texts that only deal with Europe. In the meantime other scholarly sources exist which do indeed use the word university for early institutions outside Europe. Elinruby (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The page University was written by the same people than the List. (Sorry to not participate to this discussion as I'm supposed to do (as the one who started it), unfortunately I don't have enough free time these days. I'll probably be back in some 2-3 days)

--Omar-Toons (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Omar, I opened a mediation cabal case just before you stopped editing about this. Either start that up when you return, or walk away. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

With a biased description? The question isn't if Medersas should be added, but if Al-Karaouine should be described as a University or not. The difference is that Al-Karaouine was a multidisciplinary high-learning institution frequented even by non-Muslims, which isn't the case of "Mosque-schools" (the "central" one of Fez being the Madrasa Al-Bouanania) where only religious teaching was provided. Unfortunately, I see a lack of good faith in this action, especially coming from a user who didn't participate to this discussion. --Omar-Toons (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So, it seems that nobody's interested in the Mediation Cabal case, and most perople find that there is an NPOV issue. Anyone to oppose that (again)? --Omar-Toons (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a very odd summary of the above discussion. And in any event the discussion has now moved to Talk:University which is where it belongs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, again: There seems to be a NPOV issue, and NPOV issues can only be solved on the NPOVN. You can not decide without reaching a consensus here to close the NPOV case and to move the discussion to an article talk page.

People opposed to mention non-European universities are free to boycott the NPOVN, but they can not impose by their act the closure of the NPOV case.

--Omar-Toons (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So, it seems that the Mediation Cabal wasn't appropriate. Is any one still opposed to the treatment of the article as a NPOV issue? --Omar-Toons (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been away from Wikipedia as a whole for about a month, as I had things to take care of irl and felt the need to devote my limited free time to speaking out about internet censorship. Just wanted to say that it was not lack of interest that kept me from participating in the mediation attempt. I still feel that both University and List of oldest universities suffer from a glaring Eurocentric bias, which I have not yet managed to get anyone on the other side of the issue to consider let alone acknowledge. My experience with this issue is that they go oh haha you people are so ignorant to think that universities existed outside of Europe, and then they link to some tome entitled A History of the University in Europe or something of the kind. Elinruby (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some users [28] who boycotted this board seem no not be ready to accept the fact that their opinion is clearly POV [29] and we still have a Euro-centric(*) biased list on the main article [30]
Explanation: Euro-centric = European universities are undoubtedly the oldest ones / Islamo-centric = Islamic universities are undoubtedly the oldest ones / since both opinions are referenced by reliable sources, both have to be shown
Is it too hard to accept that other parts of the world than Europe were civilized?
--Omar-Toons (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Omar, would you be interested in mediation? We really need to resolve this issue and that will happen only through careful discussion. (If any other user is interested, please message me).VR _talk 05:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation cannot trump the need for scholarly sources that specialize in the topic. Editors cannot resolve the question of whether certain institutions were forerunners of universities. TLDR comments are not required: just provide some scholarly sources that specialize in the history of educational institutions and report what the sources say: Did the claimed forerunners influence modern universities in some way? How? Would modern universities be any different if the claimed forerunners had not existed? Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Alkaline diet

This article requires review in detail. Please note how more than one editor have, not only reverted every attempted edit for the last few years, but also baised the "Discussion" page for this same article! All discussion attempts have been biased by editing to support the reverting done by the same editors. Reverts, to the article, are backed up by nonsense arguments such as "no conscensus" while any concensus in the discussion page, that attempt to correct article bias, have been removed. Several editors have been warned (some seems like nonsense) and banned for attempts at editing this article and the discussion page. Attempts at discusion have met with the same fate and edited out off the page. This would appear to potential editors as wiki "ownership of an article".

As an example of editor bias one editor removed a dead link and received a warning and was subsequntly banned, later for this disruption. Several days later the same reverting editor (Ronz) performed the same edit, after affirming the comments from the "bad guy".

If the wiki concept is to survive some corrections of the processes need to be improved or editor quality must be reaffirmed or even investigated for sock puppetry. Other articles have been noticed with infractions by same editors but I only have so much time for this nonsense.

Yes. I have used other IP addresses (never simultaneously) but, to use this unrelated fact as an evaluation point to this complaint would only the indicate more of the same flavour being reported. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is to survive, it should preserve summaries of reliable sources, rather than allow lone editors to remove information they do not like to hear because it goes against their acceptance of fringe pseudoscientific diets. Unless you can provide some good diffs showing bias by other editors, a cursory glance of Alkaline diet article's history and talk page only make you come off as a POV-pushing advocate of the diet. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Observing the problem would take actual research of the history of these two pages. Please adhere to WP:NPOV and refrain from further ad hominem innuendos in this matter. I didn't express any bias for or against the article text, only the process used to protect it from outside editing. If there is a specific edit that you thought I had made with your prejudiced comment it can be discussed, civily. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the editing behavior at the article but from reading the text of the article I would say it is clearly biased against the topic. For example; the first sentence in the lead says: "The Alkaline diet, is a diet based on the scientifically unsupported theory".... To say it is a theory is enough. The words 'scientifically unsupported' are POV pushing because of its prominent placement in the lead and is Original Research because nowhere in the article is this stated or supported by reliable sources. Additionally the "Criticism" section takes up half of the article. What I would suggest to the IP, is to bring up specific issues (such as the one I've outline above) on the talk page and if you feel the discussion is biased or that ownership is present, then bring that, isolated, specific issue to this page for examination by the community and please notify me on my talk page when you do so, and I will also participate at this board, on that topic. In the meantime, bringing up broad behavioral issues on this noticeboard is not likely to create any progress I think. And a reminder to all editors on the topic to please remain neutral and civil in all discussions. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That was my point for this whine. Many points and good references were posted and met with reversion each time and WP policies theya re violating themselves, if you analyse the history of both these pages. Currently the titles of sections, text and any conscensus indications are being deleted to make editor discussion stand unsupported (no consensus) by certain editors involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.114.120 (talk • contribs)

Regarding "good" points being removed: Please provide diffs of those points being removed. Please explain which sources you were using, and please explain what information they were being used to support.

Regarding "scientifically unsupported": The Alkaline diet is currently a fringe topic. You need to provide an articles from peer-reviewed scientific journal publishing the results of experiments demonstrating the validity of the diet, or else "scientifically unsupported" is totally accurate and not POV pushing. Without any scientific journals (or even science textbooks) supporting the diet, it would be POV to not include the words "scientifically unsupported." The words are not exactly unsupported, one of the sources titled "Acid/Alkaline Theory of Disease Is Nonsense" says "Anyone who tells you that certain foods or supplements make your stomach or blood acidic does not understand nutrition." If the words are inaccurate, it should be simple enough to provide a peer-reviewed scientific source supporting it. Per WP:BURDEN, it's the job of those who want to say it's scientifically supported.

Regarding the criticism section: If all the scientific sources are doing is criticizing the diet, then we could have the article consist of nothing but criticism. Per WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL, we don't give opposing sides "equal" treatment, we give each side due weight accorded by reliable sources. If you can demonstrate that editors there are censoring truely reliable and scientific resources, I'll accept that they're the problematic editors in this. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Without any scientific journals (or even science textbooks) supporting the diet, it would be POV to not include the words 'scientifically unsupported.'"

Now, wait a minute, Ian. I think you're misinterpreting what NPOV means. It means that we report all the viewpoints that we can find documented in reliable sources, giving each its proper weight. It does not mean that we call a diet "scientifically unsupported" simply because we can't find sources that call the diet "scientifically supported". To do that would be a violation of WP:OR (as well as an argument from ignorance). Please note, I'm not saying that the phrase "scientifically unsupported" should be removed from the article. As you note, there actually appear to be sources (cited in the body of the article) supporting that phrase. I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page regarding NPOV. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's fair to say that any article titled "[such and such] is nonsense", similar to Gabe Mirkin's Quackwatch article, is probably not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and should be used very cautiously. It's also not surprising that Mirkin's article has zero citations (although it is surprising that he was a teaching fellow at John Hopkins). Quackwatch is off-base in a lot of areas and really should not be used very often (except when necessary due to WP:PARITY); acid-base homeostasis, even related to diet, an area where there is a lot of actual research going back for decades. See, for example, the Journal of Nutrition's (perhaps the top nutrition journal in the world) article "Dietary, Metabolic, Physiologic, and Disease-Related Aspects of Acid-Base Balance: Foreword to the Contributions of the Second International Acid-Base Symposium" (see also Acid-Base Homeostasis: Latent Acidosis as a Cause of Chronic Diseases for a more detailed argument) . That's not to say that the plausible (according to many researchers) hypotheses have necessarily turned out in practice - for example, see Causal assessment of dietary acid load and bone disease: a systematic review & meta-analysis applying Hill's epidemiologic criteria for causality. However, I think it is fair to say that the alkaline diet article totally misrepresents the perspective shown in the scientific literature. II | (t - c) 20:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The topic is fringe. From the sources we have, the claims made by the promoters of the diet seem to be pseudoscience when not complete nonsense. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Again responses confuse the stated complaint by subject shift. The diet being nonsense is not the issue. The real issue is the article and discussion has been biased by deletions of references and consensus arguments that do not support the negative flavour of the article in what appears to be an attempt to keep the article all negative to the subject matter. Even the titles of the discussion page have been edited to moderate the comments of supporting contributors. If one checks the editing revision history of the article he can see references to nutritionl studies showing how alkaline substances affect osteoporosis statistics. Another edit was made to remove a reference to a non-existent website and was given warning for it only to have the same edit reverted and then subsequently deleted again by the same warning editor. This indicates prejudice against an editor based on some previous history or emotional response and not responsible research. Many editors have commented onthe discussion pagethat the Quackwatch articleis nonsense and not a good reference. Somehave disapeared and retorts from have stated "it is a reliable source" without any explanation or factual information explaining why a medical doctor suddenly becomes an expert in an unrelated field. It would appear as article ownership from a personanalysing the edit history of either page. When discussions get moderated and protests quenched to support an article bias, we have a problem.

I would be sure that original research for technical articles has been discussed many times before but second hand resources for technical articles verges on the edge of hearsay. It appears some references were reverted based on primary sources given. I can understand primary sources not being desirable for many fields but technical articles appear to demand more primary material. Are we qualified to judge who is a valid "peer reviewer"? OTOH: Not the place for this deep subject. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"The diet being nonsense is not the issue." On that note, I think we can close this discussion as a waste of time and a disruption. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

POV comments used to provoke emotional responses from contributors do not help resolve issues, similiarly to the techniques WP:ownership used in the actual article and discussion pages politics under dispute. These types of comments are viewed as a cheap shot technique used to "win" arguments instead of a real attempt to resolve the problem. Readers may be starting to see a pattern develop here. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we can close this discussion as a waste of time, a disruption, and use of Wikipedia as a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ronz is correct: this discussion should be closed. However, I agree with the comments above that nonsense needs very reliable and independent sources before it can be peddled at Wikipedia (see WP:REDFLAG). Per WP:PARITY, it is entirely acceptable to use sources like Quackwatch to provide information to counter the waffle. That is standard for articles like this, as no serious scientific organization is going to waste time and resources on investigating quack diets. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

John: did you read my summary of the science on the diet above? I would say that Ronz is very incorrect. II | (t - c) 16:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What is incorrect? Nothing that I can see directly related to the article or the disruptive editing by 99.251.114.120. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's take your statement that "[t]he topic is fringe" and let's look at the most critical article I referred to above, "Causal assessment of dietary acid load and bone disease" by Fenton et al (while this article is not cited in alkaline diet article, similar ones, including an earlier Fenton et al article, are). In the background section Fenton et al notes that the diet has been marketed to the public but also notes the following: "the acid-ash hypothesis has been broadly stated as a major modifiable risk factor for bone loss in osteoporosis in well cited scientific papers [9,10], textbooks [11], reference work [12], a government-funded workshop summary [13], and lay literature" - the reference work, notably, is the Institute of Medicine's 2004 DRI work for Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate, generally recognized as authoritative in the field of nutrition. Meanwhile, the alkaline diet article says that the "diet based on the scientifically unsupported theory that certain foods, when consumed, leave an alkaline residue, or ash". To say that a heavily-researched and debated scientific theory is "unsupported" is as bad as misrepresentation as many of the major misrepresentations User:Jagged 85 was involved in. I notice that Ronz and Yobol are some of the major editors to the article; I'm not sure who exactly is responsible for the lead, but you should note that it is not a minor thing to significantly misrepresent facts and sources. II | (t - c) 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice catch. Fenton et al was published 30 April 2011. I'd guess that no one has tried to incorporate it since publication. --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Many could consider your editing as disruptive, also (POV), especially to this discussion. One of the complaints is the removing of key opinions from the discussion page. This can be considered as a technique to disguise the bias being exerted and fake consensus. Since this editing style is one of the offences being discussed perhaps bullying is also being attempted in this discussion. Ridicule of the editing (disguises personal attack) (provocation) is not productive for the good of wikipedia accomplishment. Would you care to comment on the editing of Alkaline Diet Discussion page section headings? I saw no offensive wording in them or obvious vilolations of WP policies. How about the deletion of opposing POV comments in the discussion page to support the article bias? As one example I offer this:

Here is a article format recommendation left by one of the editors in the Talk:Alkaline_diet page.

"How about keeping the negatives "muzzled" t least until the appropriate section?? This article is a disgrace to wikipedia and all it's rules and policies.99.251.112.162 (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)"

To which a response was seen with a threat that appears to attempt to sidetrack the context of the comment.

"Personal opinions matter little here. Personal attacks are disruptive and may lead to a block or ban. --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)"

Without any personal "attacks" and use of POV comment on a *talk page* this retort appears so overreactive and blinded by prejudice, that a policy based threat was launched, without enough forethought, as an emotional response. Does this demonstrate the revert editor thinking he "owns" the article or even wikipedia?

This would take many hours but I could copy many reverts and threats duplicating this style of WP:ownership, for years back. Persons studying the edit history can discover the same flavour by a handful of editors. It would appear that previous charges of this very nature, for one such editor, were never resolved. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive23 99.251.114.120 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a witch hunt. Such calls tend to boomerang. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears we have classic socking here.....99.251.114.120 referring to himself (99.251.112.162) as though he was another person! WP:DUCK certainly applies. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the Stephen Barrett shills are encouraged to participate their bias there is no further point in attempting to neutralize the extreme bias used in this article or, after some research, most other Alternative Health sciences articles. Ronz was correct with his innuendos and threats and obviously has enough puppets to bully all Alternative Medical Science article editors from revealing anything via so-called scientific methods the Quackwatch shills do not not want out in the public. Obviously I am slated for the same fate as my alledged sock puppet. Anyone interested further should have a look at the extreme prejudice and bias on this page User:BullRangifer. Thanks for demonstrating bias so visibly in wikipedia to exemplify this very point and discourage any further editors from wasting so many hours of their time. Now let's see how many ridicule labels you can muster for this paragraph. /HAND/ 99.251.114.120 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Swiftboating

The article Swiftboating currently contains the following content...

Since the political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry,...

This is a declaration of FACT, in '"Wikipedia's Voice"', that the Swiftvet campaign is/was a "political smear campaign". Per the guidance offered in WP:NPOV, I twice offered the following edit as an improved NPOV presentation of the related content for consideration...

Described by critics as a political smear campaign[3] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry,...

Those edits were twice reverted.

IMHO, the following guidance example from WP:NPOV...

...an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action', but it may state that 'genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.'

is clearly relevant and controlling here. Replacing the example text...

...an article should not state that 'swiftboating is a smear campaign', but it may state that 'swiftboating has been described by critics as a smear campaign.'

...should demonstrate, IMHO, that this is a WP:NPOV no-brainer.

I recently raised this issue as an NPOV objection (with the additional placement of an associated "POV Section Tag") elevated to a formal "Dispute" within the referenced article talk page. Comments/observations/opinions from those versed in NPOV presentation issues are solicited and would be appreciated, preferably within the designated talk section and related RfC, 14:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC) but here as well if anyone is so inclined. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And on multiple occasions you have been asked to provide some reliable sources to back up your position and to date you have failed to do so. All the reliable sources we have say that swift boating was a smear campaign, and the article reflects those sources. More experienced editors would be welcome --Snowded ^TALK 20:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? Are you sure that there are no reliable sources which don't describe swift boating was a smear campaign? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, last time I looked there were none. JakeInJoisey has asserted that he can provide them but has refused to do so. If he does then I am sure all will be happy to look at them. At the moment *(see below) he appears to be playing semantic games and/or attempting to wikilawyer his way out of not having any. --Snowded ^TALK 06:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

QFK: Are you sure that there are no reliable sources which don't describe swift boating was a smear campaign?

Snowded: I'm not sure, last time I looked there were none.

Simply untrue. One has been provided already (see the AP citation) to establish a predicate for my objection. Every examination of the Swiftvet allegations ever written that doesn't use the word "smear" or even suggest it as a characterization or any treatment of the subject identifying the source of the "smear" assertion as partisan could be offered in rebuttal to an assertion that characterizing the Swiftvet initiative as a "political smear campaign" is something more than "opinion". But the "source" issue is premature and irrelevant anyway, as the first "source" authority for consideration of this issue is the guidance offered within WP:NPOV itself. Please see my recently revamped submitted RfC. RfC comments would be gratefully appreciated. 19:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC) JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The AP quote simply reports a controversy as a news item. It does not say it was not a smear campaign. Also you really need to understand that WIkipedia has to represent the balance of what is in the reliable sources, not a balance of US political views. You have to supply sources to maintain a position. At the moment they basically are very very clear that it was a smear campaign --Snowded ^TALK 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

...you really need to understand that WIkipedia has to represent the balance of what is in the reliable sources,...

I understand that quite, quite well...but what YOU really need to understand (and are resisting mightily) is that an NPOV presentation of "what is in reliable sources" is predicated upon an editorial determination as to whether that content is a statement of "opinion" OR a statement of "fact". JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I suppose we could remove the word smear and replaced it with "deliberately lied" or similar. However the sources we have make a simple statement that it was a smear campaign. The sources we have are clear that these statements are not based on ambiguity but on what actually happened. Do you have any third party reliable sources which say the accusations were true or based on truth? Any source from the many you say you can provide would help here. --Snowded ^TALK 16:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any third party reliable sources which say the accusations were true or based on truth?

Would "up the kazoo" be an appropriate descriptive for a WP colloquy? And would you believe me if I told you that I relish the opportunity to present them? That being said (and somewhat to my surprise), we appear to be making progress towards a meeting of the minds on this subject of "sources" and just where and when they come into play in a consensus resolution of this WP:NPOV issue. Hopefully you've considered my proposed RfC 20:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC) RfC submission and might come to better understand that an issue far more basic than "dueling sources" is at issue here...and that is the postulate that this SVPT "smear" allegation can ever rise to a level of WP:V, WP:RS supportable, objective "fact" as opposed to an assertion of subjective "opinion". In fact, as the ultimate refuge for the defense of a POV-biased presentation of content has now been officially invoked (Academia), this current discussion will, IMHO, be relegated to rhetorical child's play by comparison...and I look forward to the ultimate debate on this issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources are at the heart of wikipedia so for their to be an NPOV issue there would have to be "duelling sources" If you have then, present them its all people have been asking you to do. The existing sources as several editors have pointed out to you are very clear in saying that the accusations were not true --Snowded ^TALK 17:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

...that the accusations were not true

Then I guess Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" fabrication must have escaped their collective memory. Here's Douglas Brinkley (Kerry's biographer) on that point...

"I'm under the impression that they were near the Cambodian border," said Brinkley, in the interview. So Kerry's statement about being in Cambodia at Christmas "is obviously wrong," he said. "It's a mongrel phrase he should never have uttered.[31]

From there you can move on to Michael Dobb's reporting in the Washington Post...but all that is irrelevant to the question at issue here anyway...is the characterization "smear" an assertion of "opinion" or an assertion of "fact"...a Wikipedia editor determination to be made for the NPOV presentation of content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Were there an infinite number of sources stating uncategorically that "The Swift Vet campaign was NOT a 'smear' campaign", those citations would be no more a statement of "fact" than is the obverse claim that it was. The editorial assessment that must first be made under a WP:NPOV consideration for appropriate NPOV presentation is whether or not a "smear" appellation represents an assertion of "opinion" or an assertion of "fact". If it is considered to be an expression of "opinion" (which is, IMHO, the only rational conclusion), then any subsequent consideration as to whether or not the asserted "opinion" is "uncontested and uncontroversial" is rendered moot as an "opinion" cannot, per WP:NPOV, be represented as a "fact" in "Wikipedia's voice". JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This was clearly a smear campaign since the people behind it knew or should have known that their stories were false and would be harmful to John Kerry. However, as with genocide, I agree that we should not say "smearing is an evil action". TFD (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edited claim expanded from the body and placed in toto plus in the lede. Also placed one "smear" in quotes - heck the word is iterated a lot in the article, and we need not use sledgehammers in edits. Collect (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That change blunts the word "smear", moving it from Wikipedia's voice to only the opinion of The New York Times. I don't think such a blunting of the meaning is suitable. If the NYT quote makes for too many instances of the word "smear", then it can be shifted to the article body. My stance is that the word "smear" must be stated in Wikipedia's voice. The scholarly book Campaign Finance Reform: The Political Shell Game says that the Swift Boat political attack was based on the veterans' anger regarding Kerry's anti-war protests following his service rather than based on any "truth" regarding his service record and Silver Star medal. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Placing the word "smear" twice in a single sentence seems rather like overkill. Heck, I suppose we could use "smear" fifty times in the article -- would that help any readers? I rather think not. And I would suggest that "smear" is, in fact, an "opinion" which ought not be asserted in Wikipedia's voice. So one occurence is sufficient IMO. NPOV does not say "neutrality is improved by iteration" that I can find. Collect (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that smear ought not appear in the same sentence twice but I hold that we should use Wikipedia's voice to say what all scholars agree on, that it is a fact that SBVT initiated a smear campaign. Which is why I put the NYT quote down lower and brought the smear campaign wikilink up higher. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

All of this discussion about whether reliable sources call it a smear campaign are completely irrelevant. WP:YESPOV clearly states that "an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action', but it may state that 'genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.' " Nowhere does it say that it is OK for an article to state that genocide is evil if reliable sources say it is (which they do). NPOV is not negotiable. It is a policy that we all must follow. Change it back to something that conforms to WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The article Swiftboating concerns what that term means, and its background: the analogy with genocide is false. We do not say "genocide is evil", however (where appropriate) an article must say what genocide is (the systematic killing of a group of people). The term swiftboating is a smear, so that's what the article has to say (with sources of course). It is not the case that "swiftboating" means to go for a fast ride, but some people use the term as a smear—the only meaning of "swiftboating" is an attack on an opponent based on false premises. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to argue that "smear" is neutral language? Perhaps we should go over to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard and ask them. Oh, wait... <smile> Seriously, though, are you sure you want to argue that "smear" is neutral language?. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The term swiftboating is a smear, so that's what the article has to say...

The definition of "swiftboating" is irrelevant to this POV objection and is not in contention. It is the presentation of an assertion of "opinion" as an assertion of "fact", in "Wikipedia's voice", as reflected in the unattributed and unqualified existing language "Since the political smear campaign conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth..." that clearly violates WP:NPOV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And is there any third party reliable source which says the SBVfT campaign was based on truth? All the sources that I can see use smear, or tissue of lies or similar. --Snowded ^TALK 07:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your question/observation is irrelevant to a WP:NPOV consideration of the existing text. Whether sourcing asserts that they were the antithesis of truth or the bastion of truth or something in between is irrelevant to a WP editorial determination as to whether a characterization of the campaign as a "smear campaign" is an assertion of "opinion" or an assertion of "fact". Amen. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, here is a list of all the places this is being / has been discussed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Swiftboating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swiftboating#RfC_-_NPOV_and_.22Smear.22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swiftboating#.22Smear.22_RfC

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

John Kerry military service controversy says:

"Several members of SBVT served in the same unit as Kerry and one, Stephen Gardner, served on the same boat. A number of Kerry's later SBVT critics claimed to have been present on accompanying Swift Boats, at some of the salient events of Kerry's enemy engagements in Vietnam. Other SBVT members included two of Kerry's former commanding officers, Grant Hibbard and George Elliott... Defenders of John Kerry's service record, including nearly all of his former crewmates, have stated that SBVT's accusations are false."

Note that the article did not say "SBVT's accusations are false." That, like the "smear" assertion, would have Wikipedia coming to a conclusion and taking sides in a dispute rather than reporting what is in the sources. A thousand sources that all are of the opinion that SBVT's accusations are false would not justify putting it in Wikipedia's voice. Nor should the opinion that swiftboating is a smear be put in Wikipedia's voice. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's voice still the initial allegations are "claimed" while those opposed are "stated." Does NPOV suhhest that "Claimed" for one side and "stated" for the other is "neutral"? Also is the "nearly all" based on any count of some sort of count of all those who would have had reasonable knowledge? Collect (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance through the sources on the Swiftboating side shows a near unanimity of third party commentary to the effect that the accusations were a deliberate and politically motivated smear. Wikipedia's voice is meant to reflect the balance of sources. We can of course note continuing controversies. However this is the same as the pseudo-science arguments and the same solutions apply. --Snowded ^TALK 09:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's voice is meant to reflect the balance of sources.

That is a blatant misrepresentation of the conceptualized "Wikipedia's voice" as presented in WP:YESPOV. "Wikipedia's voice" is specifically reserved for the presentation of "uncontested and uncontroversial" "facts", not contested and controversial "opinion". JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Its a more or less direct quote from policy. Please provide reliable third party sources which says there was any foundation in fact for the SBV's claims, if you can then there is a case to say it is opinion, but only then. All the ones we have to date say that it was a smear, did not stack up against the evidence etc. etc. --Snowded ^TALK 18:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Nor should the opinion that swiftboating is a smear be put in Wikipedia's voice.

Assuming you mean that "swiftboating" is "smearing" (verb), absolutely, 100% correct and, as you've noted, is also an assertion of "opinion" whose article presentation language is mandated by the provisions of WP:YESPOV...but it is critical to the resolution of THIS POV dispute that the substance of this specific dispute be both clearly understood and clearly stated so as not to impede its resolution with an introduction of related issues. This article is, IMHO, awash in POV problems...one of which you have also correctly identified, but let's take this one issue at a time. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources

OK, here is an example text from PBS. I use it as the PBS reference originally came from JakeInJoisey. It says "The record is clear. As a young man John Kerry did what the men in our Civil War story did, he went to war for his country, and in his case was awarded medals for his bravery. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was organized in advance of the 2004 election and funded by operatives with close ties to the political machine seeking the re-election of President George W. Bush. The media campaign by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which attacked Senator Kerry's military record was reported and judged to have been a successful political effort to undermine Kerry's deserved and honorable credentials as a decorated veteran. In this regard it can accurately and fairly be described as a smear. (At the time Senator John McCain judged the group's attacks "dishonest and dishonorable.")" (my bolding) Now there are other similar quotes also referenced on the article. I won't list them all. Would those who claim the use of smear represents and POV position please provide counter sources to the above. --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained to you before, you are on the wrong track with your repeated requests for sources. Elsewhere you claimed "The only way you can determine if something is a fact or an opinion is based on what the sources say." This is patent nonsense. If I say Laura Kaeppeler was born in 1988, I can say it in Wikipedia's voice, because it is a factual claim. And of course if someone disputes it, we would go to the sources. If I say Laura Kaeppeler is beautiful, that's an opinion and should not be put in Wikipedia's voice. I don't need any sources to establish that it is an opinion. If you tried to say that Laura Kaeppeler is beautiful in Wikipedia's voice, I would revert it no matter how many sources say she is beautiful - and there would no doubt be a lot of sources that say that, seeing as she recently won the Miss America pageant. Even if 100% of your sources said "she is beautiful and that's a fact" you still could not put it in Wikipedia's voice. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your obduracy on the point notwithstanding, ample sourcing has already been provided (see the RfC) to support an editorial determination (not that sourcing should even be required) that a "smear" assertion is an assertion of "opinion". Some indices (and by no means an exhaustive list) of that rather obvious reality are the sourcing which identifies the partisan genesis of the characterization, the predominantly partisan employment of the characterization and acknowledgement by a reputable source (who, in fact, agrees with the characterization) that it is far from universal in its acceptance as legitimate. Amen. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, neither of you have any sources which counter the multiple statements in reliable sources that it was a smear, or a set of deliberate lies etc. etc. You can establish (and this is not disputed) that the term is controversial and that there are people who want to believe the allegations were true, just as there are people who want to believe the Moon is made of green cheese or the earth is flat. Wether something was a deliberate lie or not can be established from the sources. Beauty is I agree an opinion. JakeinJoisey, if you think the sources currently in use are not reliable but partisan then raise that, don't hide in generalised accusations; keep to policy --Snowded ^TALK 06:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: "So in other words, neither of you have any sources": WRONG!!! What part of Sources are irrelevant are you having trouble understanding? Disagreeing with me is OK, paraphrasing me so as to twist my words is not. I never said I don't have sources. I said sources are irrelevant. You also lied michracaterized about what JakeInJoisey said. He didn't say he has no sources. he said (direct quote), "ample sourcing has already been provided."

Re: "Beauty is I agree an opinion": Then you are inconsistent in your definition of "fact" and "opinion." The sources say that Miss America is beautiful, but in the case of beauty you fully accept the reality that sources are irrelevant - that those sources, no matter how many or how reliable, do not turn turn beauty into a fact. Then you change your standards when deciding whether smear is an opinion. That's inconsistent. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WRONG!!! What part of There are no reliable sources with the required reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that state "she is beautiful" as an objective fact (yes, I checked) are you having trouble understanding? Disagreeing with me is OK, paraphrasing me so as to twist my words is not. I never said the sources were irrelevant. You are arguing that the "smear campaign" description is just an opinion, despite being sourced to multiple reliable sources, and despite your failure to produce a single reliably sourced refutation. Your "she is beautiful" analogy is false and non-applicable. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Parroting, (which in this case ends up with you accusing someone of improperly paraphrasing you when nobody paraphrased you at all, properly or improperly) is a technique best left on the schoolyard. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This whole argument ("Because I said so!" — "But can't you please explain why?" — "Because I said so!" — "How about just one bit of proof?" — "Because I said so; proofs are irrelevant!") has never left the schoolyard, so I don't understand your complaint. But hey, if you can not make a reasonable argument, then attack the arguer's "technique" ... whatever floats your swiftboat. We agreed that the "beautiful" description is a subjective description; one that can not be factually asserted — as opposed to the objective "smear campaign" description, which can be factually asserted. You twisted those words to imply that we "fully accept the reality that sources are irrelevant" -- say what? Improperly mischaracterize your opponent's argument again, and you'll find yourself parroted again (strawman much?) - don't make me tell the teacher on you. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

JakeInJosey has provided no sources that counter those already there. He has provided sources that say the term is controversial which is not disputed. He also consistently says, inconsistently to his actions, that "ample sources have been provided" or that they "could be". Unfortunately reality lacks somewhat against the claims. Sources are highly relevant in determining if something is a fact or not. Telling lies can be established as a fact or not and the meaning of smear is pretty clear in English; therefore sources count. Beauty on the other hand is subjective. --Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please try to understand the nature of your error. The sequence was:

1. Snowded: "You have no sources"

1. JakeInJosey: "Ample sourcing has already been provided."

1. Snowded: "So, in other words, you have no sources."

The phrase "in other words" introduces the following clause as a paraphrase. If the paraphrase does not match the words being paraphrased, you are stuffing words into someone else's mouth. That's wrong. Please don't do it again.

Please do not respond to this with a claim that he didn't provide sourcing or that his sourcing was somehow deficient. That's not relevant. Even if a statement is wrong, you still have an ethical duty to paraphrase it correctly. You didn't do that. What you are supposed to do is to disagree in a civil manner. What you actually did was to set up a straw man and attack your own creation rather than addressing what was actually said. When I see you resorting to this sort of cheap debating trick, it leads me to believe that you are seeking victory instead of consensus. I invite you to have a calm, rational discussion. In other words, more light, less heat. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your confusion, Guy Macon, appears to stem from your misreading of Snowded's question and Jake's response. Here, I'll try to paraphrase the discussion so that you can correct your misleading transcription above:

1) Snowded: "Please provide counter sources to the above policy-compliant, reliably sourced assertion of fact.

2) JakeInJoisey: "No, I'd rather not argue that point at this time. Instead, I can provide ample sourcing to show that others do (or might, depending on interpretation) hold a point of view similar to mine, and I would like to have an "editorial determination" that my view can be represented in the article about the "Swiftboating" phrase."

3) Snowded: "So, in other words, you have no sources to refute the factually sourced "campaign smear" description. So instead of providing reliably sourced refutation of the description, and instead of providing reliable sources showing the description to be mere opinion instead of fact, you would rather appeal to "editorial determination" to allow your POV to be inserted based on "ample sourcing" instead of reliable sourcing?

4) Guy Macon: What part of Sources are irrelevant are you having trouble understanding?

5) Me: Yeah, yeah, we heard you. Wikipedia policy disagrees with you. It sounds to me as if the argument is "Since we can't refute the findings of multiple, independent reliable sources that have determined the SBVT conducted a campaign of vilification - a "smear campaign" - then let's see if we can at least get our opposing opinion slipped in to cloud the issue sufficiently for the readers, on the grounds that our opinion "exists", even if supporting facts do not. Surely we can cite enough ditto-head commentary and maybe even get some like-minded Wikipedia editors to generate a favorable 'editorial determination'".

I'm sure you'll correct me if I have misunderstood any of you.

Macon: Could you please refrain from the condescending lectures on how to debate an issue? It's rather insulting, and frankly, a little beneath you. Your participation is appreciated, but without the offensive patronizing, please. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I believe that you are too involved with your political agenda to be able to treat this topic with a NPOV, and I am convinced that you are immune to being convinced by any argument, so I am withdrawing from further interaction with you and will leave your attempt to violate WP:NPOV for others to deal with. You can reply if you choose, but I will not read the reply. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You also believe the "smear campaign" description is inaccurate, and simply "opinion" -- which says all that needs to be said about your "beliefs". Please do return to the discussion if you ever acquire an interest in discussing facts and information, instead of pushing stale memes and hyperbolic talking points. Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Macon, you are the only one throwing around various insults and creating heat. I'm sorry if you disagree with me, but sources are very very relevant to this determination and the failure to provide them makes it impossible to make progress. I am not under any ethical duty to tolerate an editors statements that he can provide sources, but who then refused to do so, or provides one which say other things completely. --Snowded ^TALK 22:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, for the record, I do not believe that your description above has any basis in reality. What you described did not happen the way you said it did. I believe that you are too involved with your political agenda to be able to treat this topic with a NPOV, and I am convinced that you are immune to being convinced by any argument, so I am withdrawing from further interaction with you and will leave your attempt to violate WP:NPOV for others to deal with. You can reply if you choose, but I will not read the reply. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is this on the NPOV Noticeboard?

• WP:YESPOV clearly states that "an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action', but it may state that 'genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.' " --Guy Macon

No, that is not what it clearly states. I've seen that confusing snippet extracted several times now from the actual, clearer wording on the policy page. You are semi-quoting one of five interconnected stipulations that must be followed to "achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia." Here's what that one stipulation really says:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

See that part in bold print that everyone keeps leaving out when quoting this? This is instructing us to not state opinion — such as what does or does not qualify under the vague, subjective and still-debated definition of "evil" — as fact. It does not instruct us against stating a fact — such as what does or does not meet the clear, objective definition of a Smear campaign — as fact. Any statement about "evil" will be, because of its undefined nature, "opinion" — and therefore must be presented that way — and that's why it is used as an example here. Conversely, a statement about a "smear campaign" can be factually true or false only — stated clearly as meeting that definition or not. Please be careful to not misrepresent what this policy is advising.

• If I say Laura Kaeppeler was born in 1988, I can say it in Wikipedia's voice, because it is a factual claim. And of course if someone disputes it, we would go to the sources. --Guy Macon

Exactly. A Birthdate, like a Smear campaign is an objective, defined fact; something that can be definitively determined by going to reliable sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy (i.e., not opinion pieces).

• If I say Laura Kaeppeler is beautiful, that's an opinion and should not be put in Wikipedia's voice. I don't need any sources to establish that it is an opinion. If you tried to say that Laura Kaeppeler is beautiful in Wikipedia's voice, I would revert it no matter how many sources say she is beautiful - and there would no doubt be a lot of sources that say that, seeing as she recently won the Miss America pageant. --Guy Macon

Also true. "Beautiful", like "Evil", is a subjective opinion/description, and needs to be presented in our articles as attributed opinion.

• Even if 100% of your sources said "she is beautiful and that's a fact" you still could not put it in Wikipedia's voice. --Guy Macon

There are no reliable sources with the required reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that state "she is beautiful" as an objective fact (yes, I checked). Also, no one involved in this discussion is suggesting that we insert a subjective statement into a Wikipedia article in Wikipedia's voice. Your example adequately makes the case supporting the reliably sourced "smear campaign" description, and rejecting the "say it ain't so" opinions "no matter how many sources say" it.

• ample sourcing has already been provided (see the RfC) to support an editorial determination (not that sourcing should even be required) that a "smear" assertion is an assertion of "opinion" --JakeInJoisey

I checked that RfC again, just to see if any reliable sources have been added to support what you just said. I don't see any. Reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements for assertion of fact describe the SBVT attack campaign as a Smear campaign. Only Non-reliable sources and opinion pieces try to claim otherwise. A couple editors here, quoting their favorite blogosphere echo-chamber non-rs sources, does not make properly sourced assertions of fact suddenly "contested", nor does it renew a "controversy". There isn't an NPOV issue here to resolve; for that we would need two competing, reliably sourced assertions of fact, then we could decide how to present those facts. Instead, we have a sourced fact, and a request here (presented incorrectly as a NPOV concern) to qualify/muddy that sourced fact with the insertion of opinion and/or attribution. The campaign is properly described as a smear campaign. You have failed to show that assertion of fact to be contested, despite repeated requests to do so. And it hasn't been controversial for years; the election is over, guys.

Naval records and accounts from other sailors contradicted almost every claim they made, and some members of the group who had earlier praised Mr. Kerry's heroism contradicted themselves. Mr. Kerry's defenders have received help from unlikely sources, including some who were originally aligned with the Swift boat group but later objected to its accusations against Mr. Kerry. One of them, Steve Hayes, was an early member of the group. A former sailor, he was a longtime friend and employee of William Franke, one of the group's founders, and he supported the push to have Mr. Kerry release his military files. But Mr. Hayes came to believe that the group was twisting Mr. Kerry's record. "The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,' " Mr. Hayes said this month. "It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth."

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well said. Bravo. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And very, very wrong. He completely glossed over "Even if 100% of your sources said 'she is beautiful and that's a fact' you still could not put it in Wikipedia's voice" by ignoring the "if". That's his exact argument in favor of "smear campaign." He says in effect that if reliable sources say that swiftboating is a smear campaign, then Wikipedia should say that swiftboating is a smear campaign. That's exactly the same logic as saying that if reliable sources say that Laura Kaeppeler is beautiful, then Wikipedia should say that Laura Kaeppeler is beautiful. Putting your fingers in your ears and loudly singing "FactFactFactLaLaLaFactFactFactICan'tHearYouFactFactFactLaLaLaFactFact" does not change the basic logic that is being used to take what are clearly subjective opinions and pretend they are objective facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I never gloss over a point that is substantiated and germane to the issue, so you appear to have misunderstood "my exact argument". Or you are ignoring it. What part of "no one involved in this discussion is suggesting that we insert a subjective statement into a Wikipedia article in Wikipedia's voice" confused you? Wikipedia says in effect that if reliable sources say that swiftboating is a smear campaign, then Wikipedia should say that swiftboating is a smear campaign -- not me, so your beef is with the WP:Verifiability policy. Which makes me ask, "Why is this on the NPOV Noticeboard?" If you are challenging the veracity of the reliable sources that describe (not opine) the attack campaign as a "smear campaign", then raise your concerns about them at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Which makes me ask, "Why is this on the NPOV Noticeboard?" Repeating that the reliably sourced "smear campaign" description is "clearly subjective opinion", over and over and over again, will not make your wish come true. You actually have to climb down from the soapbox, drop the bullhorn, and provide the reliably sourced refutation of the present reliably sourced assertion of fact. Nothing in the sources below refute the "smear campaign" description. Nothing in the meme-pushing sources provided on the article talk page refute it. Pointing at commentary pieces (or upset letter-writers) and exclaiming, "See? They don't want to believe it, either!" is not a refutation of reliably sourced assertion of fact. Hopefully now you won't misunderstand "my exact point". Xenophrenic (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe I do...and its, IMHO, specious. But, hopefully, that will soon be confirmed.

You actually have to...provide the reliably sourced refutation of the present reliably sourced assertion of fact.

Nope. "...reliably sourced assertion of fact" presumes a determination (the one we're here to get) as to whether a "smear" assertion is one of "opinion" or one of "fact"...and adequate sources have been presented already reflecting some legitimate indices one might use in such a determination. We shall see. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is this on the NPOV Noticeboard?

To commence addressing a POV blight on the integrity of this project.

I checked that RfC again, just to see if any reliable sources have been added to support what you just said. I don't see any.

Perhaps you don't. Hopefully others, to include the RfC closer, will. Here's just a few you didn't see for the convenience of interested NPOV Noticeboard editors (emphasis mine)...

• “You can’t lead America by misleading the American people,” said Kerry, who has been struggling in recent days against charges — denounced by Democrats as smear tactics — that he lied about his actions in Vietnam that won five military medals.

Associated Press, In N.Y., Kerry asks GOP to halt 'fear and smear', MSNBC, August 24, 2004

• Swift-boating The name given by Democrats to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths.

The term refers to the series of anti-John Kerry adverts aired in the run-up to the 2004 presidential election by an ostensibly independent group of supporters of George W Bush called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

The adverts featured veterans who - like Mr Kerry - served on naval craft known as swift boats in Vietnam and who were critical of Mr Kerry's record in the war. The Kerry campaign said they unfairly distorted his war record.

BBC News, Glossary: US elections, December 13, 2011

• Critics had offered sometimes inconsistent and contradictory accounts, The Times found. But the paper also concluded that Kerry had left himself open to criticism by giving subtly varied accounts over the years of his Vietnam service.

Since the 2004 campaign, Kerry and other Democrats have come to label what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as "Swift boating."

Los Angeles Times, Kerry takes on $1-million 'Swift Boat' challenge, November 17, 2007

• There are undoubtedly large numbers of people who would agree with the characterization of the Swift Boat campaign as a smear on Kerry — who was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and Silver Star while serving in Vietnam — while many others see it differently.

Michael Getler, PBS Ombudsman, July 13, 2007

JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just checked through the last "Michael Getler, PBS Ombudsman" link provided above. The article supports the view that swiftboating is a smear. Sure, just as we have people here who want to believe that the SBVT were telling the truth, there were viewers who wrote letters saying they objected to being told that swiftboating is a smear. Also, Getler said various things, the strongest of which appears to be "in my view, this comment of Cowan's, and the way it was presented, seemed to me to come out of nowhere, be irrelevant to the segment viewers had just watched, and jumped out as sort of a gratuitous political shot". That is a comment on the way some material was presented on PBS, and is not any kind of comment on the issue under discussion (do reliable sources support that swiftboating is a smear as a fact?). Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The RS sources support saying "smear" as an opinion of many - but not that it is a "fact". Cheers - my reading appears to differ from yours on the PBS cite. First use of "smear" on that cite is credited as a quoted opinion of Wes Cowan, and not as a claim by PBS. The comments ("letters") made clear that a large number of correspondents disagreed with any opinion that the ads were a "smear." At no point does the author, Michael Gettler, aver that it is a "fact" about being a "smear." The person who made any claim of "fact" was Mr. Bryson whose missive follows the PBS article, and which states: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was organized in advance of the 2004 election and funded by operatives with close ties to the political machine seeking the re-election of President George W. Bush. as a substantive reason for his personally labelling it a "smear." In reading the letter, it is clear that he is also stating an opinion, and based in large part on the material being in some way funded by Bush backers. The clincher, however, is Bryson's conclusion: Having followed this over the years, I felt, personally, that the evidence supported Kerry's record, citations and performance in battle. But the issue here for me is the appropriateness, or rather the lack of it, of Cowan's commentary. (stress added to make clear that "commentary" is a key word) stating that all of this is his feelings about the issue. Cheers - but again I suggest Gettler's position as ombudsman for PBS accurately reflected his position that :smear" is an opinion" (or "feeling" of you prefer). Collect (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My comment was in reply to the post immediately above mine which said that large numbers see the issue as a smear while many others see it differently, with the Getler page used to support the bold text. My comment is to the effect that Getler makes no comment about whether swiftboating is a smear, and nothing on the linked page is relevant to the bold text. Of course a television program making the smear statement is going to get letters of complaint—just as editors here disagree with what NPOV means: comments from viewers are not reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• First use of "smear" on that cite is credited as a quoted opinion of Wes Cowan, and not as a claim by PBS.

Yeah ... about that:

The following letter is from Chris Bryson, executive producer, Lion TV:

Thank you for your attention to our interstitial on service veterans which aired following a History Detectives story relating to the Grand Army of the Republic veterans organization. We paid close attention to the viewers' letters we received and to your commentary.

Upon reflection we made a mistake. A great deal of reporting makes the case that in the 2004 presidential election Senator John F. Kerry was the victim of unsubstantiated allegations concerning his military service record made by the members of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But our interstitial left the impression that this reporting was Wes Cowan's opinion. We regret that. As one of the viewers who wrote to us noted, the four hosts are investigators, not commentators.

We will re-cut the interstitial for its eventual rebroadcast and substitute the following text: "ONE OF THE DEMONSTRATORS THAT DAY WAS SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY, WHOSE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT SAW THE CREATION OF 'SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH.' THE GROUP QUESTIONED KERRY'S MILITARY RECORD, AND ACCORDING TO SOME ACCOUNTS, HELPED CONTRIBUTE TO HIS DEFEAT IN 2004." [1] [2]

[1] On the trail of Kerry's failed dream - Pair of wars dominated strategy before election

[2] The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 - Chapter 1: The Way to Lose

Posted by Michael Getler on July 20, 2007 at 11:30 AM

I guess it's a reliable source now. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

...comments from viewers are not reliable sources.

Just nonsense. They are reliable sources for their own opinions...a long recognized WP:RS principle. Furthermore, they were incorporated into the commentary by the author as a demonstration of the nature and breadth of viewer "opinion" that the perceived gratuitous insult to the Swiftvets inspired among that viewership...and which, in turn, prompted the observation "while many others see it differently". Perhaps about as fine a "real world" demonstration on the strongly held differences of "opinion" this Swiftvet "smear" characterization can generate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re "The article supports the view that swiftboating is a smear": So? I can show you a boatlload of articles that say Miss America is pretty, yet we still are not allowed to say so in Wikipedia's voice. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Strawman, Guy Macon? No one but you is talking about a "boatload of articles". The rest of us are talking about a "boatload of articles that meet Wikipedia's requirements for assertion of fact". Show us a boatload of those about Miss America, and you'll quickly learn just how wrong you are about not being allowed to convey that content in Wikipedia's voice. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No one but you is talking about a "boatload of articles".

On the contrary, I've also mentioned a "boatload of articles" addressing the SVPT campaign, none of which characterize it as a "smear". Of course, "not a smear" would, of necessity, have to be inferred from most of those sources since it is rare (and simply disingenuous to suggest otherwise) that sources should even be expected or motivated to incorporate "not a smear" language in their article treatments. Be that as it may, purported "not a smear" sources are as irrelevant to this issue, is "smear" an assertion of "opinion" or an assertion of "fact", as are "smear" assertion sources. Any "sources" relevant to this issue are those that provide illumination as to indices (eg. partisan-inspired, partisan-employed, alternatively defined, alternatively employed) that could definitively distinguish an assertion of "opinion" from an assertion of "fact"...and the ones I have provided do exactly that, IMHO, quite adequately. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not "On the contrary...", Jake. That's "On a completely different matter..." The point above is that Guy Macon is trying to present his Google search results for the words "is beautiful" as somehow relevant to the argument that multiple "reliable sources for the assertion of fact" exist describing, even defining, the activities of the SBVT as a "smear campaign". Apples and oranges. He's citing a list of mentions of a word, while the argument here is about what actual reliable sources — you know, as defined and required by Wikipedia Policy — say about the SBVT campaign. When Macon starts citing quality reliable sources that factually assert, in compliance with Wikipedia policy, that "so-and-so is beautiful", then his strawman argument will become relevant. With that cleared up, let's move on to the different point you addressed:

"I've also mentioned a "boatload of articles" addressing the SVPT campaign ... that provide illumination as to indices (eg. partisan-inspired, partisan-employed, alternatively defined, alternatively employed) that could definitively distinguish an assertion of "opinion" from an assertion of "fact" --JakeInJoisey

Looking at the 4 sources you've provided on this page (that is a very small boat) I see:

• -- an AP source published before half the SBVT attack ads aired, before their attack-book hit the stands, and before investigations into the fabrications were performed. It says only that Democrats denounced the charges as smear tactics (no news there), which would be proper phrasing from a news agency reporting on a still-developing breaking story. That source "definitively distinguishes" what, again?
• -- a brief "BBC Glossary" entry that notes Democrats give the "swift-boating" name "to the tactic of unfairly attacking or smearing a candidate, often with half-truths" (they do indeed, it is true) and that the Kerry Campaign said they distorted his war record (yup, and that's putting it nicely). That source "definitively distinguishes" what, again?
• -- an LA Times article that notes that Kerry and other Democrats have come to label what they believe are unwarranted political attacks as "Swift boating." It's true. And not just Kerry and Democrats, either, as additional sources show. I don't believe there was ever any contention about this fact. That source "definitively distinguishes" what, again?
• -- then finally, a PBS Ombudsman statement that acknowledges the well-known, uncontested fact that "many others see it differently" -- just take a peek at FoxNation forums for proof. However, nowhere in that source is it ever asserted that the "smear" description is mere opinion or is not a factual description. So this source "definitively distinguishes" what, again?

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the 4 sources you've provided on this page (that is a very small boat)...

Rather large enough to dispatch a POV battleship I should imagine, but it's only a tender to the "not a smear" dreadnaught anyway. As to your comments, I will be delighted to entertain them further aboard the goodship S.S. RfC where their further discussion (at a length of your choosing) will likely be of more consequence. I'll await your cut and paste. ALL ABOARD! JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As it should hopefully be apparent to any interested reader, the "boatload of articles" I referenced were those that did NOT characterize the Swiftvet campaign as a "smear campaign", contrary to Xenophrenic's shameful ellipse redaction which fundamentally changes and misrepresents my prior comment. (No, I did not misrepresent your comment; please read again. --Xenophrenic) It should also be noted that Xenophrenic has yet to introduce his argument to the relevant RfC where a further examination of his position might be of some greater consequence. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that small boat can accommodate just one more for good measure...

• In a column earlier this year, I spotlighted "swiftboating" as a currently fashionable example of semantic infiltration used to deflect valid criticism of the likes of Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha and Al Gore. It's a loaded, critical term coined by leftists during the 2004 presidential campaign to counter Vietnam swift boat vets who challenged John Kerry's questionable claims of heroism in that war. I expect liberals to wield the term if they can get away with it. But I cautioned supposedly objective journalists to be wary of joining their cause in the use of that word. Apparently, to no avail.

Mike Rosen, Story is none too 'swift', Rocky Mountain News, October 27, 2006

JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you mean Rush Limbaugh's Mini-Me Mike Rosen? Heh, sure! Bring him along on the enevitable trip to WP:RSN (you do realize that is where this will need to end up if you seriously wish to say reliably sourced assertions of fact are merely "opinions", right?), the more, the merrier. When I said above that you guys kept citing dittohead commentary, I was not suggesting that you needed to cite even more dittohead commentary! What has the world come too when opinion commentators are cited in Wikipedia as proof that assertions of fact in sources deemed by Wikipedia as reliable are really stating mere opinion? Seriously? Even that source you just linked admits "objective journalists" ignore him. Thanks for the chuckle, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle.

You're quite welcome. Perhaps you may find the following to be equally amusing...

• There has been opposition to the use of this term to define a smear technique, both by media commentators and the Swift Boat Veterans.⁵⁷

Smith, Melissa M.; Williams, Glenda C.; Powell, Larry; Copeland, Gary A. (2010). Campaign Finance Reform: The Political Shell Game. Lexington Books. p. 105. ISBN 0739145665.

Oh dear. Isn't that the same "scholarly source" cited for?...

"Since the political smear campaign[3][4] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth..."

And the punchline?

57. M. Rosen, Story Is None Too Swift, Review of Reviewed Item. Rocky Mountain News (2006)

When I said above that you guys kept citing dittohead commentary, I was not suggesting that you needed to cite even more dittohead commentary! What has the world come too when opinion commentators are cited in Wikipedia as proof that assertions of fact in sources deemed by Wikipedia as reliable are really stating mere opinion? Seriously?

My deepest condolences. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you having trouble understanding the issue? We know that "There has been opposition to the use of this term to define a smear technique". The issue concerns whether any reliable source says that swiftboating is not a smear—no such source has been produced. Yes, some people say it is not a smear (just like some people say evolution is wrong)–however articles are based on reliable sources, not what some people say. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• This noticeboard inquiry is fast approaching TLDR status (if it hasn't exceeded it already) and it is my intent, unless there's some logical objection, to petition for an uninvolved administrator determination and closure. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support uninvolved administrator determination and closure. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• As stated above, I agree with closing this as misplaced -- it's actually an issue for WP:RSN. It has been revealed that your concern is not with how to neutrally present competing reliably sourced facts. Your concern is with the accuracy of reliable sources that have asserted a fact. As for your intent to "petition for a determination", I direct your attention to the banner at the top of this page: While we attempt to give another opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. How do you feel about broccoli? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring your musings as to what is my "concern"...

While we attempt to give another opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.

AFAIK (and you will no doubt educate me if I'm wrong), noticeboard discussions are often closed by a volunteer editor. Whatever the case, I'll petition for an uninvolved closure and will simply be satisfied with whatever might transpire from that pursuit...but this discussion has, IMHO, run its course and circular argument is a large waste of time. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Socialism

There is disagreement over which source to use for the lead to Socialism:

1. Introduction to The Historical Dictionary of Socialism, pp. 1-3, Rowman & Littlefield (2006): "...socialism eludes simple definition.... Then, as now, there was no single agreed-upon definition of what socialism actually was." [The source then outlines different approaches that have been taken by various scholars.][32]

2. Socialism: Today and Tomorrow,p. 33, South End Press (1981): All socialists, ourselves included, agree that the one precondition of socialism is the elimination of the distinction between capitalists and workers based upon private ownership of the means of production by capitalists. However, beyond “socialization of the means of production” which is simply the creation of public ownership, there is considerable disagreement about what constitutes a socialist economic system."[33]

My view is that (1) attempts to provide an objective summary of how the topic is defined, while (2) presents the views of its authors, who saw Marxism-Leninism as the only true socialism and provided the Soviet Union, China and Cuba as paradigms. TFD (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You aren't presenting this properly. I recommended we use a minimum of 5 sources to establish the definition in the lead. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Um -- last I looked one editor on other articles insisted on multiple RS sources within a field for any claims - meaning the tertiary source dictionary single non-definition fails ab initio. If the dictionary is used, then its range of definitions should be indicated in the lede. I agree that the definition is complex, and that therefore using multiple sources to show a range of meanings is logical. Is there any concrete reason not to reasonably show such a range in the lede? As opposed to begging the entire question until well into the article? Collect (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, could you please read the sources provided before commenting. The intro to the dictionary is a secondary source, which explains the range of definitions that have been used. Why would we conduct our own original research to synthesize a definition? And I think we can safely ignore your unnamed "one editor". TFD (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear me -- strange to see your two cents here. But I read the material pertinent to this discussion, and your attacks to the contrary make no cents at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) includes within it 3 scholarly studies of socialism as a whole by 3 important scholars - one of the scholars made a study of over 40 different definitions of socialism to come up with a general description of socialism, the other two of these scholars are highly reputable and have articles on themselves on Wikipedia. (1) accounts for many variations in socialism. (2) is a POV source, South End Press openly promotes a specific form of socialism based on Participatory economics, acceptance of the concept of class conflict, and advocacy of revolution to overthrow capitalism, and claims that certain forms of socialism that are claimed to be socialism by their adherants are stated by South End Press to be "in fact" "not socialist". These themes of South End Press of a radical participatory socialism, and support of the concept of class conflict and revolution to overthrow bourgeois capitalism are a far left conception of socialism, it ignores centre left conceptions of socialism that are not committed to class revolution such as social democracy, democratic socialism, forms of religious socialism, etc.--R-41 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Coming at this from the angle "what statements are being made?", #2 essentially says that anything that does not meet the condition of advocating "the elimination of the distinction between capitalists and workers based upon private ownership of the means of production by capitalists." is not socialism. It sounds like this is an overreaching controversial claim that should be stated as one of many opinions, not as fact, and doubly so not as a definition in the lead. North8000 (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User: TFD stated, "There is disagreement over which source to use for the lead to Socialism". As I stated earlier, this isn't accurate. I recommended using a minimum of 5 sources. This is what the current article states:

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.

Please have a look at the source currently being used here [34]. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding South End Press, this is from their website:

South End Press is an independent, nonprofit, collectively-run book publisher with more than 250 titles in print. Since our founding in 1977, we have met the needs of readers who are exploring, or are already committed to, the politics of radical social change. Our goal is to publish books that encourage critical thinking and constructive action on the key political, cultural, social, economic, and ecological issues shaping life in the United States and in the world. We hope to provide a forum for a wide variety of democratic social movements, and provide an alternative to the practices and products of corporate publishing.

From its inception, the Press has organized itself as an egalitarian collective with decision-making arranged to share as equally as possible the rewards and stresses of running the business. Each collective member is responsible for core editorial and administrative tasks, and all collective members earn the same base salary. The Press also has made a practice of inverting the pervasive racial and gender hierarchies in traditional publishing houses; our staff has been majority women since the mid-1980s, and has included at least 50 percent people of color since the mid-1990s. Our author list—which includes Arundhati Roy, Noam Chomsky, bell hooks, Winona LaDuke, Manning Marable, Ward Churchill, Cherríe Moraga, Andrea Smith, and Howard Zinn—reflects the Press’s commitment to publish on diverse issues from diverse perspectives.

To expand access to information and critical analysis, South End Press has been instrumental to the start of two on-going political media projects—Speak Out and Z Magazine. We have worked closely with a number of important media and research institutions including Alternative Radio, Political Research Associates, the Committee on Women, Population and the Environment, and INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

South End Press specifically advocates revolution - in particular its motto is "read, write, revolt", and it recognizes class conflict, and many of its contributors are anarchists - thus their interpretation is a far left conception of socialism - this does not represent socialists on the centre left that support reformism, or social democrats that support class collaboration. The first source in fact is a source containing 3 sources - 3 major studies by respected scholars (2 of which have their own Wikipedia articles) and one of the studies analyzed over 40 different definitions of socialism to determine socialism's common elements. The first source, that in fact is three sourced based upon major studies by respected scholars in political science is a superior source to the second source by South End Press - a political advocacy group with a clear POV and agenda - to promote a radical participatory economics socialism and support the overthrow of capitalism. Plus South End Press is associated with the controversial Z Media and particularly Z Magazine, Z Magazine produced material questioning the accounts of the Srebrenica massacre - claiming that the accounts were exaggerated by the West to make an excuse to attack Serb forces whom Z Magazine says the West unfairly villified the Serbs, claiming that the western perception of the Bosnian War is a "myth" - that the Bosniaks were the aggressors and the Serbs were the victims (a reverse of common interpretation) - this provoked outrage in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as by Bill Weinberg, a left-wing author who opposed US intervention the Balkans but denounced this Z Magazine story by one of its leading editors,Edward S. Herman, claiming Herman's article was genocide denial [35]. One of the authors Somedifferentstuff mentioned, Ward Churchill has claimed that the September 11, 2001 attacks were a natural and unavoidable consequence of what he views as unlawful US policy, and he referred to the "technocratic corps" working in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns".. Thus Ward Churchill was saying that the September 11th attacks were justified and legitimate and that he holds no sympathy for the people in the WTC who were killed. Z Media including South End Press and Z Magazine has made many callously biased, controversial, and hugely inaccurate articles and books that should not be considered RS.--R-41 (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

South End Press's qualities do not have to be evaluated here. The "Introduction" to The Historical Dictionary of Socialism (2006) comprises a field review of the academic discourse over what socialism is, and we should rely upon that discourse. The South End Press source is at least 20 years out of date (1989), comes from one perspective within the scholarly discourse (rather than describing the entire scholarly discourse), and offers a novel interpretation that has limited general reception in the field. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism is suitable for working on the entire weight and structure of the article. Socialism: Today and Tomorrow may be useful for talking about Western bolshevist interpretations of socialism from the 1980s, deep within the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• South End Press won't be decided here. You need to take the text and the source over to RSN. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Historical Dictionary of Socialism is one of many sources that should be used in the article. It may be very useful for the historical section seen here [36]. Regarding the definition in the lede, we should use a minimum of 5 sources for this contentious issue. Here is the Encyclopædia Britannica source that is currently being used in the lede [37]. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

From the Encyclopædia Britannica source:

socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

The second disagreement concerns the way in which society is to exercise its control of property and other resources. In this case the main camps consist of loosely defined groups of centralists and decentralists. On the centralist side are socialists who want to invest public control of property in some central authority, such as the state—or the state under the guidance of a political party, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Those in the decentralist camp believe that decisions about the use of public property and resources should be made at the local, or lowest-possible, level by the people who will be most directly affected by those decisions. This conflict has persisted throughout the history of socialism as a political movement. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• • EB is not reliable for sociology; or left wing theory: it is an unsigned tertiary aimed at the general public. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct. And on all issues. Yet folks continually think of it as "reliable" per WP:RS when they are confusing the WP policy with the fact that the EB does not intentionally goof on articles. Strangely enough, the early editions did use signed articles! Collect (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In the mid-20th century the EB took great pride in having eminent individual write signed articles. So Henry Ford wrote about automation, Ferdinand Foch wrote about armies, Edward Weston wrote about photography, Cecil B. DeMille wrote about motion pictures, etc. Many of those are still excellent articles. However in at least one case I know about the eminent individual had his assistant write the articles. But the volumes were the product of the times. There were great on some topics and lousy on others.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Moving on from Britannica, here's another source, Socialism (Political Systems of the World). 2007. See page 13 here [38] - "In pure Socialist theory..."
• Here's another one, Political Science: An Introduction. 1995. See page 27 here [39] - "Socialism, often contrasted with Capitalism..."

We need to focus on weight when defining socialism. What is socialism generally understood to mean? I think we should use a minimum of 5 sources, while being welcoming to more than 5, in order to formulate this contentious definition. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Pedagogical, ie First Year textbooks, ie Political Science: An Introduction. do not carry weight. They are barely reliable for fact. They are aimed at a general public and do not truthfully record the academic practice, but record what is useful for teaching. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The other text you suggest, Socialism in the series Political Systems of the World is a secondary textbook aimed at students in the ninth year of study, and "Fulfills needs of high school U.S. and world history, government, politics curricula"!!!! This is not a scholarly field review or a signed tertiary source aimed at the scholarly or professional-in-practice public Neither source you suggest can carry WEIGHT. Neither is infact reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

|} First, it appears to me that user: Fifelfoo is being somewhat disruptive and will need to back up his claims. Second, it clearly states at WP:RS that textbooks "may be used to give overviews or summaries" which is partly what is being done over at the lead of the socialism article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• RS/N has repeatedly rejected the use of secondary textbooks and first year textbooks. I suggest you retract your accusations—particularly your accusation of intentionality—or demonstrate them. My claims are backed up by RS/N consensus and by quotation from the publisher's websites. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Somedifferentstuff: Never refactor my comments. Never do what you just did to another user, ever. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that user Fifelfoo hasn't provided direct links to the claims he made above after I posted the 2 sources. Hopefully he will. And it clearly states at WP:RS that textbooks "may be used to give overviews or summaries" which is partly what is being done over at the lead of the socialism article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read 24 months of RS/N archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. The burden of proof lies on you. I'm not going to spend my time trying to locate references for claims that YOU MADE. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. If you're unaware of the community's consensus you need to educate yourself; I'm not your mother. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know on my talk page if you post the links. Any further discussion is a waste of my time. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if you ever use sources like this, because RS/N will reject them with an immediacy that will obviously puzzle someone so oblivious to consensus as you. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You can claim anything you want and not back it up, but only RSN has authority. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is that what User:Somedifferentstuff quoted from Encyclopedia Britannica on 09:08, 23 January 2012 needs additional sources, then by all mean let's hit the books (or at least exercise our search engines). But after reading descriptions of socialism for over three decades, I feel the quoted text was pertinent and comprehensive, especially the first three paragraphs.

Could the problem be that some socialism advocates don't want the aims and/or justifications described too clearly? In the sciences, a researcher will generally expose all his methods, evidence and reasoning; scientists have the common aim of comparing their ideas with reality, and the typically appreciated any feedback from their colleagues. This is less often true in fields touching on politics. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take your own advice regarding insulting conduct. You might also want to read some Feyerabend on the actuality of scientific conduct. Many socialists expose their methods, Marxism is fairly famous for this with some of the most vehement critiques of "actually-existing socialism" coming from within Marxism or even from within Soviet Union aligned parties. Similarly the anarchist socialists tend to expose their own methodology quite publicly. Part of the domain specification problem is the multiple uses of socialism, varying between capitalism with state ownership of as little as the banking sector, through generalised state ownership, and towards societies of workers councils. Another major part of the domain problem is the very loose use of socialism, and the failure to expose methodology, appearing in the labourite and social-democratic movements. Generally this problem has become worse over time. Finally, a third domain problem is the number of non-socialist analyses that vehemently claim that socialism has certain characteristics; often (though not always, points to the Austrians here) without clear analytical tools or methodologies being exposed. Sadly there is no Leszek Kołakowski or Colin Ward of socialism as a whole. In part this is because each of the major streams within socialist advocacy (Marxism, Social-Democracy, Labourism and Anarchism) is sufficiently deep and broad in itself to require a magisterial work each. Comparative evaluation of these on the basis of agreed magisterial analyses of the world-wide and total variety of conduct and theory is a long way off; at least on the basis of proper historical analysis. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's all sink back into reality here people, and stop the insult throwing (Fifelfoo and Somedifferentstuff in particular). First of all Somedifferentstuff wants five sources - the first "source" technically includes 3 sources - 3 major studies on socialism as a whole by reputable scholars on the subject - one of the studies based its description of socialism on analysis of 40 different definitions of socialism - that is very indepth research. So we already have 3 sources. The other two should at least be of the same calibre as the 3 major studies described in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism - which means that they should be studies of socialism as a whole by reputable academic scholars.--R-41 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If socialism is so vast a topic that it requires a Historical Dictionary, then we really need to roll up our sleeves and get to work. Portal:Socialism says: "Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community."

I submit that if there is a "broad array" then we are going to be dealing with numerous viewpoints, likely to be overlapping and even contradictory. I agree with R-41 about the cessation of insult-throwing, by the way. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Collapse per SOAP - material deemed SOAP removed by user who posted it
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Removed material by me that was considered to be a soapbox. I did not intend it to be.) "The legitimacy of socialism is in crisis". As opposed to the reality of capitalism? Please take your soapbox elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Andy, I was addressing issues arisen here. Nowhere in what I said was a soapbox - I was not advertising or selling anything, it was an addition to what I said above - your claim of me soapboxing is completely groundless. As you have repeatedly engaged in hostile, uncivil behaviour towards me and other users, that was reported by an administrator before for your abusive behaviour towards me, I am not going to waste my time taking more abusive behaviour from you. You automatically violated the first principle of Wikipedia:Etiquette - "assume good faith" that you have repeatedly refused to do. Thus I am reporting you now, I will not accept your order for me to cease - you have no right to order anyone around, I will not tolerate this abusive behaviour. Address your case here: [40].--R-41 (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC) You were soapboxing. If you don't want people to disagree with your opinions, don't tell us what they are... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Then you should have politely addressed it, explained to me what material in particular was soapboxing, and asked me to remove it, rather than assuming bad faith, condemning me, and nastily barking an order at me, as you have just done again by saying "don't tell us what they are". Please read Wikipedia:CIVIL#Identifying_incivility - it states to assume good faith and to not belittle other users - you have repeatedly violated this.--R-41 (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC) If I squint up my eyes and see a long spiel with bold text and italic text and capital letters and lots of blue links I do immediately think rant or soapboxing. Sorry but that's not the way to get through something to me. Also reading it I failed to find anything directed towards improving an article. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) I removed it. If I am verbose forgive me, I am a university student who is used to explaining points in detail in seminars. AndyTheGrump has repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL behaving aggressively and vitriolically to multiple users, AndyTheGrump was reported by the User:Kudpung for such violations - including WP:DISRUPT, User:Collect backed up this by saying that AndyTheGrump has done this repeatedly to multiple users, and blocking AndyTheGrump was considered, the discussion was never closed - no conclusion was made to it before it was pushed into the archives - unprecedented, since these discussions are supposed to be resolved (see here for the report: [41]). Kudpung addressed concern that I was going to far, and that both Andy and I should be under topic ban - that was a fair determination at the time, I was getting frustrated, perhaps then I should have been put under topic ban alongside Andy - but I left the discussion at Talk:East Germany where the dispute was. Bear in mind that AndyTheGrump himself admits that "I lost my temper, again" - he has explosions of temper against users repeatedly - it is immature and unacceptable. Needless to say, I removed the material - I will reorganize what I had to say in a way that is a more coherent response to a specific issue brought up here and in previous discussions backed up by more sources. But mark my word that unless things change AndyTheGrump will come back again here and post uncivil remarks condemning me and others he disagrees with. Unless AndyTheGrump learns to be polite and assume good faith, I will not be party to discussions with the user, I will listen to what points he has that are accurate but I will not respond directly to him - to be perfectly honest the guy hates me and is nasty and sarcastic towards me in arguments - it is a waste of my time to discuss with him, I will let others respond and then I will respond to their views, I am taking zero-tolerance towards his incivility, I am going to bring it up at the administrator's noticeboard each time he starts getting aggressive and nasty towards me, and Andy's behaviour will likely happen again and more aggressively until he explodes into a fit of temper unless action is taken to demand that Andy cease this behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC) You have just been told on WP:ANI that your complaint against me was entirely unwarranted [42]. If you persist in miss- characterising my behaviour in this way, I will be forced to ask (not 'demand') that you be made to cease. Now cut out the diva act, and get back on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC) I don't think the administrators understood the background of your edits. Kudpung's report on you was never put into place, User:Collect in that report stated that you have been repeatedly uncivil to multiple users. I am not a "diva" - I am not pretending to be superior to you. Just look at your behaviour, your aggression is increasing even now, you are calling me a diva. You have to learn WP:CIVIL, or you are going to go down this path again and again, until you will say again "I lost my temper, again". Your aggression is increasing with each edit, unless I am mistaken I imagine that your next edit will be more aggressive.--R-41 (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC) You are mistaken. Now will you please get back on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC) What is the topic even, I removed what you complained about. You should have assumed good faith with what I added, politely addressed that what I added was considered soapbox material, pointed out the specific material that was soapbox, and then I would have removed it with no trouble. Instead you automatically assumed bad faith in violation of WP:CIVIL and nastily barked an order at me to cease my contributions. Will you accept that - that you violated WP:CIVIL by automatically assuming bad faith and that you will henceforth be aware of its policy of assuming good faith and comply with WP:CIVIL?--R-41 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC) I do not accept that I violated WP:CIVIL - and neither did anyone else at ANI. The topic of this discussion is how socialism should be defined in the lede of our article on the subject. If you have anything to say regarding this, then please comment here. Otherwise, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, please take your complaints, opinions, and other irrelevant material elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC) The administrators at that page stated that you should behave more politely. They did not take further action. Watch your temper Andy, you know that you have been reported by Kudpung for WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT and your repeated violations of WP:CIVIL were acknowledged by User:Collect.--R-41 (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Could an uninvolved third party please collapse this repeated violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, so we can get back on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC) There I have shut it down. The issue is done, the unintended soapbox by me is removed. And just as you have said Andy, users have to accept criticism - you have violated WP:CIVIL before, and you could have addressed the soapbox issue in a polite, conciliatory manner - as other users after you did - in which you could have stated what specific portion of the text was a soapbox and I would have removed it without trouble - but NOT vindictively condemning me and barking an order for me to cease my contributions. There this sub-topic is done, let's move on.--R-41 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the OED is a useful and reliable guide. I'll not post its definition (copyright reasons) but it takes roughly the same line as the current article: common or state ownership/control, with an addendum to suggest liberal/social democratic governance. It also notes "The range of application of the term is broad."--Red Deathy (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Henri de Saint Simon - the first founder of the original socialism - utopian socialism supported private property, Charles Fourier - another prominent founder of utopian socialism also strongly supported private property. It was only after the influence of Robert Owen and Marx that socialism began to move towards anti-private property stances and pro-public property stances - in the last thirty years these anti-private property stances have been changing in the socialist political community. Saint-Simon and Fourier never supported the replacement of private property with public property even within the means of production - only the utopian socialist Robert Owen universally condemned private ownership of the means of production, of the three original socialist leading figures - Fourier was a staunch defender of the right to own private property.[43]. The following source on Saint-Simon states: "Saint-Simon had defended private property as the proper reward for achievement, but he by no means saw it as a sacred or natural right".[44]. In modern-day contemporary times, British anti-Third Way social democrat Robert Corfe has advocated a socialist form of private property as part of a "New Socialism" (though he technically objects to the term "private property" to collectively describe property that is not publicly owned as being vague) and rejecting state socialism as a failure.[45][46]. Please don't use Oxford English Dictionary (OED) - on complex political topics it is woefully inadequate and its definitions of ideologies are stereotypical - and not based on scholarly research of the ideologies.--R-41 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• User R-41 has been trying to redefine socialism for over a month now. He often talks about Saint Simon, not understanding that utopian socialism has its own article for a reason. Socialism today is most often understood as common ownership of the means of production, which is why you see this so often in its definition [47] [48] [49] [50]. This is a reflection of the large amount of weight carried by this view which will always need to be reflected in the article's lead. He'll probably respond with his theorizing but it won't change anything in regards to this. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You are being extremely uncivil Somedifferentstuff with the statement "He'll probably respond with his theorizing but it won't change anything in regards to this". Utopian socialism is a form of socialism and I demonstrated to you with sources that there are socialists today who advocate socialist private property. Plus why should we rely on a source like this: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp#axzz1mAiPGTpa? "Investopedia" is not a reliable source or a scholarly source. You have been the one insistent on using the controversial South End Press, on claiming that social democracy is a form of capitalism, and you have been trying to assert that socialism always requires public ownership of the means of production - this has been disproven by multiple examples shown by scholarly sources. You appear to have a POV dedicated to a very orthodox Marxian interpretation of socialism. You ignore Saint Simon and Fourier - they are founders of the original socialism - should we then ignore Edmund Burke as a founder of conservatism and his views? Or should we ignore Marx becuase far less people today accept Marxism? I and TFD supported the use of the three major studies of socialism by scholars in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism because they represent wide studies of socialism as a whole - analyzing multiple definitions. Why do you oppose the conclusions of these three scholars? After all that is what I added that you claim is evidence of me "redefining" socialism - assuming that socialism has been clearly defined - which it has not - it is not easily defined, scholars have done indepth studies to make definitions of socialism.--R-41 (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• R-41 is correct regarding the use of scholarly field reviews, or surveys taken from scholarly signed tertiary sources aimed at a scholarly public, to correctly weight article coverage. While other field reviews will exist, and I suggest that users attempt to search for such high quality field reviews, the quality of the three field reviews listed exceed by far a single time specific secondary-practitioner work like the South End Press volume. Moreover, the scopes differ. Field reviews investigate and weight the scope and coverage of entire fields. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you look at the current article you'll see that the South End Press resource is NOT being used, and whether or not it can be would need to be determined at RSN, not here. At the beginning of this thread I recommendeded we use a minimum of 5 sources to establish the definition in the lead. Socialism today is most often understood as common ownership of the means of production, which is why you see this so often in its definition [51] [52] [53] [54]. This is a reflection of the large amount of weight carried by this view which will always need to be reflected in the article's lead. I am not suggesting we use these definitions provided here as resources in the article, they are being used for the purpose of illumination. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weight also should depend on informed views of the topic. For example: many people believe that a tomato is a vegetable, when in reality - by scientists' analysis, it is a fruit. In a more related area - there is incredibly strong and widely popular misconception of the the political concept of corporatism - many associate it with being business corporation dominated politics - when in reality corporatism is a form of politics involving viewing society as a body "corpus" - the root of "corporat" - and seek the inclusion of employers, employees, and others in government processes. Common misconceptions can be contested by scientific or scholarly evidence.--R-41 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no need for a minimum of x sources; the sources used to structure and weight an article need to represent the scholarly (and here practicioner) field's variety of views. Investopedia, thefreedictionary dictionary.reference.com and merriam-webster are not appropriate sources to use—they are generalist tertiary works without any standing in the field. They can carry no weight here. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• We need to use multiple sources because there is not consensus to use only the historical dictionary, as is evidenced over at the article, and it's not just me who has objected. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Christian Concern

I just read Christian Concern, and there appear to be OR/bias issues in play.

It is an offshoot of The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, which contains the same source.

'It was incorporated as an independent body, CCFON Ltd (Christian Concern For Our Nation), on 24 June 2008,[4] after the Channel 4 documentary In God's Name'

This seems like OR, to link the two events?

The 'Controversy' section relates almost entirely two the 'In God's Name' documentary and Andrea Williams. Although I have not seen the documentary in question, reports: [55] [56] are quite clear that 'The most significant activist, however, was shown to be Andrea Williams, Public Policy Director of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship.' 'Williams is also keen to warn Christians about the dangers of Islam, and one LCF event gave a platform to Sam Solomon, a former Muslim who teaches that Muslims are brainwashed to hate, and that the situation in Nigeria shows that hospitable Muslim neighbours are likely to become killers.' Note that the Telegraph article is by the documentary's producer, and it does not mention CCFON at all. It seems like OR to me to present this as activity of Christian Concern, although perhaps a shorter sentence describing Williams' views might be apt.

The second sentence 'Barrister, Mark Mullins, who left LCF with Williams, and who is listed on the CCFON website as a 'Public Policy Adviser',[17] was reprimanded by the Bar Council in July 2006, after he refused to represent a gay client.[18]' is obviously both OR, in generating 'controversy' that is not cited outside the Wikipedia page, and secondly in misrepresenting the case, he did not it seems refuse to represent a gay client, as much as refuse to defend an immigrant 'who wanted to use his homosexual relationship as grounds to stay in this country.' In any case, Mullins no longer appears on the organisation's personnel list.[57]

I am not entirely clear also whether the unrelated groups Christian Institute and Christian Voice should be listed as 'See Also'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.31.250 (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be original research and synthesis issues here, compounded by missing sources. I've cut out some unsourced material. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that 'profiled the activities of the group (then part of LCF)' is supported by the sources. According to the sources, the actions were taken by The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship. As 'Christian Concern for our Nation' existed then[58], distinct from LCF, albeit as part of LCF, it seems like an unsupported claim to say that the actions were in fact taken by CCFON, and an unreasonable assumption to assume that a documentary maker claiming that he profile LCF actually was profiling only the CCFON aspect of LCF.

Saying for instance 'In particular, the programme highlighted the involvement of the LCF in lobbying the British Government on issues such as abortion, gay rights and the enforcing of laws relating to blasphemy' doesn't demonstrate relevance to the page 'Christian Concern', because as far as I can tell, while CCFON was a part, or offshoot of LCF, there are presumably some activities relating to the CCFON aspect, and some to the LCF aspect. If the source says 'LCF lobbied', that doesn't seem a great source for 'Christian Concern'. 81.141.31.250 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that without an independent reliable source identifying this organisation as having been specifically discussed in the film, discussion of a film about the LCF from a time before CCFON was formed is undue. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it was OR to make a causal link between the Dispatches programme and the separation of CCFON from LCF. The timing did amount to circumstantial evidence giving credibility to the alleged link, but I do not know of any direct evidence, so it was right to remove that.

I also agree that Mullins' reprimand was irrelevant to the article.

However, I do not see that there was any need to expunge Willams' and Mullins' names from the article as founding members of staff. The LCF notice about Williams and Mullins' original role was a valid source, even though it is no longer online. CCFON's website has many mentions of Mullins confirming that he formally represented CCFON and CLC, and still credits Williams explicitly as a co-founder. This edit recorded with the edit summary "rm per WP:BLP, source cited has gone 404" is therefore hard to understand. WP:BLP does not appear to require excision of cited material just because a link has gone dead.

Taking the 28 October edits together, they could be interpreted as a deliberately planned series of edits designed to remove every mention that connected Williams or Mullins to CCFON, along with some mentions of LCF, with the end goal of entirely removing the "Controversy" section of the article in the next edit. This would not appear to be editing according to WP:NPOV.

The matter has since been overtaken by subsequent edits, discussion on the talk page and additional citations. However, Cusop Dingle appears to have set himself up for a warning about POV editing. Also, 81.141.31.250 has made few other edits, so a WP:CHECKUSER might help to clear Cusop Dingle of the apparent coincidence of interests between the two accounts. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The only point of view that I have here is that material must be duly related to the subject of the article and supported by reliable sources, and I have edited the article accordingly. Do you have a problem with that? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest the balance of evidence is making it difficult for me to WP:AGF. It looks to me as if you made a series of edits claiming to be implementing policies but actually pursuing a POV agenda. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cusop Dingle should at least clear the air about the apparent consensus at the start of this section. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the criticism section was originally added as part of the move to provide citations in evidence of notability, to rescue the article at AfD, as well as to add balance in order to present a NPOV view of the organisation rather than citing only primary or supportive sources.

As for WP:DUE, since the LCF's public policy work seems to have been hived off to CCFON, it is arguable that the Dispatches programme only needs to be covered fully in the Christian Concern article, leaving just a brief mention of it in the LCF article. LCF's public policy page has said very little since late 2008. (archive) – Fayenatic (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And it looks to me as if FL has launched a series of unfounded allegations, culminating in a meritless SPI in a deliberate attempt to distract or silence an editor who has edited this article in a way they don't like. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The SPI is not a culmination, it's a spin-off following CD's request on my talk page to put up or shut up. That seems to be unfounded; good. Are the other allegations unfounded, though? It wasn't the edits that I didn't like, but the disingenuous edit summary linked above, citing WP:BLP but removing inoffensive, verified (in the past) and still-demonstrable facts, with no apparent aim in sight except to attempt to justify removing all criticism of the organisation. On the article's talk page, another editor has likewise taken issue with CD's claim to be relying on WP:BLP when removing verifiable NPOV information. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit that FL complains of [59] removes assertions about living people because there was no verifiable source for those assertions at the moment of the edit -- the citation was to an online press release which had gone 404. Our policy on BLP applies to all articles whether or not the subject is a living person and states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed" and further that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". This material is controversial: I followed BLP exactly: I gave an edit summary which precisely summarised my reasons: and removed no other material in the process. If other editors have found good sources for that material then that's fine. FL's description of my edit summary as "disingenuous" is unsupported, false, insulting and a personal attack on my integrity as an editor. FL's insinuation that there was "no apparent aim in sight except to attempt to justify removing all criticism of the organisation" is equally unsupported, equally false, equally insulting and equally a personal attack. FL's pattern of repeated indirect and direct attacks on me, including this meritless SPI, now seems like harassment. FL needs to consider very carefully indeed why they persist in making false assertions about my motivation rather than on the content of this article. Cusop Dingle (talk)

The material removed in that edit [60] was neither contentious nor likely to be challenged. Therefore it was spurious to justify it by reference to WP:BLP. Therefore I do not withdraw my use of the word "disingenuous".

I interpreted this set of CD's edits and edit summaries as indicating a clear motive, but he denies it. I was not the only one to see it that way; see User talk:Obscurasky#Christian Concern. In terms of the editing relationship, the personal slights are escalating with no sign of resolution. Nevertheless we have reached consensus on the article itself (CD referred at the SPI page to it looking better now), so we might as well wrap up this discussion. I hope that if we meet again that this spat will not prevent us co-operating effectively. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Dispatches material is obvious WP:synthesis. The content pertains to LCF--not CCFON. Nothing has been provided to prove otherwise. – Lionel ^(talk) 12:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're on your own in finding that "obvious", Lionel. Cusop Dingle seems to have agreed with Obscurasky and I that the Dispatches programme was critical of Andrea Williams' work leading the Public Policy division of LCF, which was hived off to CCFON around the same date that the documentary was made. There is now a current online citation in support of that separation. Williams is co-founder and CEO of Christian Concern.[61] Therefore the encyclopedic content about Williams' public policy work for the LCF now belongs mainly on the article about Christian Concern. If this section could conclude with a consensus to cover the documentary on the page Christian Concern and prune most of it away from Lawyers Christian Fellowship, in accordance with WP:DUE, it would be a useful outcome. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Cusop Dingle seems to have agreed" -- I have expressed no such opinion and do not agree with FL's conclusion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to CD's comment "Subsequent edits by other users have found better sources for some of those assertions and the article is looking better IMHO" on the SPI page. I thought that meant he was satisfied that the criticism should remain now that an additional citation had been provided. I give up; he doesn't listen; so let him now have the last word. – Fayenatic (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To deduce from a comment about an article looking better with improved sources that I am happy with a particular section is a form of logic I am unfamiliar with. I note with regret that FL chooses to use his Parthian shot to make yet another personal comment on me. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) It seems to me that this can be resolved by returing to first principles: verification by reliable sources. It is claimed that the section "Criticism" should discuss a film made about the activities of the LCF at a time before CCFON was founded. For this to be sustainable we need to find independent reliable sources that verify (1) that the film is criticism (2) that the film is substantially about an identifiable group X and (3) that X is substantially identical with CCFON. Ideally we would have a single source for all three assertions, since to source each spearately runs the risk of synthesis, expecially this there is scope for undistributed middle term between 2 and 3. Currently the section is sourced to two stories in reliable newspapers, each of which is a first-person article by the film-maker, David Modell, and each of which predates the formation of CCFON. It is therefore questionable whether they can be regarded as independent. Even if they are, each story states that the film is about LCF and in particular Andrea Williams, its public policy director; neither story claims that the film is "Criticism" of LCF; neither story identifies any group within LCF as the subject; and of course neither mentions CCFON. So currently we have nothing in independent reliable sources that sustains this section. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction: the section is "Controversy". Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The heading "Controversy" seems IMHO to be a fair summary of the drift of the articles, or snippets like "impose her narrow beliefs on the rest of society" or "so offensive they're barely printable." I've partly rewritten the section using the cited sources more closely, removing the word "critical".

The programme was about people that Modell saw as "Christian fundamentalists" seeking influence in public policy. A large part of it was taken up with Williams' public policy work. WP:SELFPUB says we can rely on the existing cited sources that describe this work being hived off from LCF to CCFON.

As this discussion is still going on, please would you finish explaining your view that the following is both contentious and likely to be challenged (those being your reasons for excising it under WP:BLP): [62] ... (text removed from the open record on this page by user:Fayenatic london on 14 February)

It still strikes me as entirely inoffensive. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"WP:SELFPUB says we can rely on the existing cited sources" Which existing sources can we rely on and for what? It is impossible to address or assess such an imprecise claim.

"contentious and likely to be challenged" It is unsourced (or at least, sourced to a non-existent URL). It is contentious because it refers to real-life people leaving their jobs and the reasons for that; and because Williams and Mullins are considered controversial figures by some; it was not only likely to be challenged, it was challenged, by me, implicitly, when I removed it. See also this. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Before this section gets archived, let me say for the record that I fully accept this explanation from Cusop Dingle, and apologise without reservation for questioning his integrity. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Albert E. Burke

Can someone help me to reword this article for neutrality? I believe the writer is acting in good faith, but that some of the wording is questionable "early environmental activist", "pioneer" (WP:PEACOCK). I would kindly request that people could edit the article for proper wording but not give it a drive-by "this article is written in an ugly fashion" tag or leave a templated message on the article creator's page, as both of these actions tend to upset the newcomers (WP:BITE). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Allameh Helli No.3 High School

I was editing this page (as it was flagged for grammar/spelling) when I noticed that the article had a clear bias in favor of the school. There are many instances in which it seems like the author is blatantly promoting the school itself. The author seems to mention the school's accomplishments at every chance he/she gets, and it also discusses how popular and elite the school is compared to other schools in the area. It is clear that someone without a bias (I imagine that either a student/teacher created the article) should take a look at this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycrotak (talk • contribs) 21:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Jaish-e-Mohammed

Jaish-e-Mohammed are a UN and US designated terrorist organization. They have also been designated a as terrorists by the United Kingdom, Australia, India and Canada with Pakistan outlawing them. Is it against NPOV to use terrorist in their description? The edit in question is this. Pakistani-based, Terrorist Islamic group Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Why not just say Pakistan-based, Islamic group designated as a terrorist organiztion by X, Y, Z. ? What is the source for "UN designated terrorist organization" by the way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the article Here. To write it as you suggest would be cumbersome indeed. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Where in that source does it say that they are a UN designated terrorist organization ? All I can see is the part "United Nations Security Council Resolution 1267 was vetoed by China on the grounds of lack of sufficient information to merit such action". Also, does that website qualify as an WP:RS or do statements sourced from there need attribution ? I couldn't see a case where this source had been checked at WP:RSN. The about page suggests to me that statements probably need to be attributed to the organization. Anyway, if it is the case that Jaish-e-Mohammed are a UN designated terrorist organization it should be easy to find the UN source that says so or a secondary source reporting that. Regarding "cumbersome", the Wikipedia article can't say Jaish-e-Mohammed are a terrorist organization using Wikipedia's neutral unattributed narrative voice, so, cumbersome or not, "Terrorist Islamic group" is not an option in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Dick Durbin

There's a dispute in Dick Durbin about how much attention--if any--should be paid to the support Durbin received from AIPAC, a pro-Israel group, during his primary election challenge to a sitting Rep. at the beginning of Durbin's career. I feel that as it currently stands, the weight given the subject violates WP:UNDUE. Would others mind chiming in? Meelar (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The article's assertion of thirty-one different pro-Israel PACs is subject to WP:NPOV. It is unreasonable to rely on "The Israel Lobby, pg 157, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt" as valid verification of the claim and further sourcing is necessary. Also, I'm inclined to agree that the correlation of AIPAC funding and success at election violates WP:UNDUEand is immaterial to the article. AIPAC President Robert Asher's beliefs, and the detailed funding of the AIPAC 1982 average funding is unnecessarily discursive and impertinent to a Dick Durbin article. "And the gates opened" should be removed and expressed more professionally.

AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the relevant page in The Israel Lobby. It does not really discuss the extent to which this one issue/constituency changed the outcome of the election. On the other hand, this NY Times book review states: "he was narrowly beaten in 1982 by a combination of an able opponent, the recession, redistricting and a heavy infusion of money from pro-Israel political action committees. (The money only enabled his challenger to match him, more or less, in campaign spending.)". The Dick Durbin article should not discuss the election solely from the perspective of this one issue, and it shouldn't use a quote from Asher. Given that Asher's job involved influencing politics, he has every reason to exaggerate his own influence. GabrielF (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section based on some NY Times articles from the period. GabrielF (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The amended form addresses these issues and is satisfactory. Thank you AnkhMorpork (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly condemn the rewrite by GabrielF which heads off on a totally unrelated direction to the contested insert I gave. Please read what he has written. Please read carefully the references he gives which does nothing to support what he has written. What is this, a Kangaroo Court? I agree with one of the commentors above, "Let's be professional here"--99.112.186.58 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, Please explain what you just agreed to? Are you the judge and executioner in this forum? --99.112.186.58 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Meeler, how is it that your "contested" warning could be removed by GabrielF? I don't see a concensus anywhere here to add what he added. Certainly my reasoning was not considered on this page and I was the one who inserted the AIPAC quote. Is this how Wikipedia decides cases. You present the evidence and there is no cross-examination allowed? Certainly, GabrielF's rambling unsupported insertion just muddies the water more than before, and he unilaterially starts editing before anyone agreed to his edits, as if the case was closed. --99.112.186.58 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion, it isn't a court. Nobody is making or has made a final ruling. I'm not even sure that, when it comes to content issues, there is such a thing as a final ruling on wikipedia. There is also no moratorium on an editor making a change while the discussion is underway. GabrielF (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of the BBC

Criticism of the BBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi all, just for clarification, does this look like NPOV?

Diffs: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]

Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole article looks like a violation of WP:NPOV to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The article itself is a mess of a coatrack that needs to be bulldozed and rewritten, with WEIGHT and structure derived from scholarly accounts. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any article on Wikipedia with a title that begins "Criticism of" or "Allegations of" that isn't a mess of a coatrack? GabrielF (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The adequate, but not systematic Criticism of Libertarianism, Criticisms of Marxism is fairly good. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised my are edits are being questioned for NPOV with absolutely no prior communication with me regarding them. I am somewhat aggrieved that Abhijay has brought this to the notice board' attention without informing me of this move at all and in contravention with "you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Give a link here to that discussion, and the final answer to your question will be posted there where other users can read the result." I am a new contributor and it is only by chance that I discovered his actions. Surely, a discussion on the article's talk page is more appropriate? AnkhMorpork (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right. People should notify on the talk page of an article when they bring it to a noticeboard. I've had trouble with another noticeboard where they hardly every inform people about the discussion and it has got very nasty and cliquey and they descend on articles and act as a unit. Dmcq (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Various Soviet Union related subjects

Hello, I recently noticed a new user by the name of Eratov make numerous contributions to pages that may be in violation of NPOV. The articles Lavrentiy Beria and Gulag, as well as Arnold Deutsch may have been edited to remove cited criticism of the Soviet Union. I ask for advice here because I am not familiar with the subject, and it's difficult for me to tell whether the rewritten content itself was appropriate or not. Thanks for your responses. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 03:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The content of these edits is not problematic. These edits occurring over references, and thus distorting the verifiability of the claims, without new references introduced are problematic. But not for all of them. In many cases unencyclopaedic political propaganda was inserted, or the unencyclopaedic language of far right wing cold warriors was accepted into the encyclopaedia. However, these edits, while correcting such problems introduce unencyclopaedic absences of citeable information, and similar biases. Writing material on historical accounts should be based on the highest quality scholarly sources available; not on the unsupported opinions of an editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted him, removal of vast tracts of sourced content[70] are not on. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should direct the new editor to scholarly reviews of the field (Fitzpatrick, a communist but no Stalinist, doi: 10.1177/0047244107074186). Sebag-Montefiore is sufficient for the content, there's no reason for its removal. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd reached the same conclusion as FileFoo, on balance. Sadly, some 'contributors' seemed to think that an article on Beria needs Cold War slogans and stereotyping in order for our readers to realise that he was a nasty piece of work, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. Likewise, the Arnold Deutsch article seems to have been used as an excuse to tell us that the USSR in the 1930s wasn't the paradise on earth it liked to portray itself - again unnecessary. As for describing Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago as a "largely fictional novel", I'd say this was an oversimplification - but to represent it is a factual account, as the previous version of the article seemed to imply, is also questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Our articles should portray the current scholarly consensus, and WEIGHT the appropriate views within that consensus. We do not editorialise bastardry, nor sign paens for "class" warriors. We are not here to praise or condemn, "It was in the reign of Fordism that the aforesaid personages lived and quarreled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now." Fifelfoo (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify - I was commenting on the edits indicated in the initial posting - the diff that Darkness Shines provides is another matter - that definitely is questionable, at best. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Salem Witch Trials Task Force

This thread is basically about what strikes me as the clearly prejudiced actionsand conduct of User:John5Russell3Finley, the self-appointed coordinator of the above group. He has previously been blocked here for seeming to insist that the above named group must remain listed as active, even though despite the project's talk page it has rather clearly not been, and, so far as I can tell, raising false accusations. His broader record regarding NPOV is, so far as I can tell, not appreciably better. There are also very clear reasons to believe that he may have a problem regarding POV, as per this comment on his user talk page and some of his other conduct. He seems to be basically, at least to my eyes, incapable of acting in a neutral or acceptable manner regarding this subject. I believe perhaps he may need some further outside input regarding this matter. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless you point to specific edits, there is little anyone can do. ClaretAsh 13:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Houghton College - negative additions, followed by positive ones

The first week of January, an employee of Houghton College left a message Talk:Houghton College#Disputing information on this page on the talk page asking us to remove negative information about the college's president (see this set of changes, in which the negative information was added). After some discussion, I agreed that the information added needed support from reliable sources and removed it. It was immediately restored. Other users added {{fact}} tags or re-removed the info; the user who added it tried adding some perfunctory sources, but they were hardly sufficient to support the negative claims.

The user who was re-adding this information stopped after my revert of January 23. A week later, however, a different user came in and added unsourced positive information about the college's president. Wanting to be fair, I removed it as well, since it was unsourced and we'd already removed negative information for the same reason. After the positive text was restored, I embargoed the text by commenting it out and placing a message on the talk page. My embargo was reversed but the user did not engage in discussion on the talk page.

I don't know what my next step should be. I would appreciate advice.

-- Powers ^T 15:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few edits and added the article to my watchlist. ElKevbo (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Crime section within an article not crime related

Current or last discussion DR Recent discussion

The Occupy Wall Street article appears to have a section being inserted, possibly against consensus. The section in question is "Crime" that rounds up all mentions of alleged illegal activity of any kind and places it within this section and is being defended as "Needed" and "Common" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states a couple of things in this regard.

• Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.''

• In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Jack the Ripper are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgement. The best name to use for something may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the thing in question is the main topic being discussed.

This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and other relevant guidelines such as geographical names). Article titles which combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, Derry/Londonderry, Aluminium/Aluminum or Flat Earth (Round Earth) should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate.

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

The article is controversial and has been difficult to deal with in terms of content, as much of what is there loses focus on the subject and kind of wanders off in many directions. The article is not about the movement, but the original and ongoing protests in New York City. There seems to be a dispute about the inclusion of this section and why we would use the information, whether it is notable enough and if so, how it should be used according to Wikipedia policy.

Should we segregate the information in this biased manner? Negative material about living persons may violate privacy policies or damage the person's reputation, therefore, strict rules are in place to govern such information. _{See Biographies of living persons for details.} Shouldn't we (if the information is notable) integrate the negative criticism/allegations/controversies into the article: negative information is woven throughout the article in the appropriate topical sections as suggested in the Wikipedia Essay Wikipedia:Criticism?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Security concerns at Occupy Wall Street are notable and received significant news coverage from reliable sources. A protester getting arrested for making comments about a molotov cocktail being thrown through the window at macys, and protesters booing police for arresting him is notable. Protesters stating that the most serious concerns are for women at night, thus requiring women only tents. This is exemplified by three protesters being arrested for groping women, one being a chef at the OWS kitchen. OWS organizers stated "We are redoubling our efforts to raise awareness about sexual violence." Also OWS felt the need to establish their own security personnel. Protesters even kicked people out of Zuccotti park for security issues. These are not my point of view, these are not rumors, these are facts that are backed by reliable sources. These are significants issues that protesters faced. It is negative, but because something is negative does not mean it does not belong in the article, if that's the case then everything that is positive should be taken out of the article as well. Other similar articles have sections that appear negative and those sections should remain as well, see:

• Million Man March
• Tea Party movement

Racingstripes (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying a negative can't be encyclopedic or that we shouldn't include all of the information and allow consensus to decide content......I'm saying it is not neutral to present the negatives tied up in a bow and presented with a tag in the form of a segregated section titled "Crime" or any other such sub sectioning. I feel this could be a good article, but it really doesn't seem neutral to direct the attention of the reader to random activity with a single thing in common...that they are alleged crimes. This isn't the subject as a whole in that context. The title's point of view is of crime in general, not crime that the group has committed....like storming a building in mass or some notable riot or act of civil disobedience. Due weight should be observed, in at least not grouping random acts to place a label on them in this context. Why not "Victim"? It's a point of view as well. Reading the information itself you see the victims of these crimes are being reported as being protesters as well. Theft within the protest group and sexual assault, assault etc. The one exception is the threat a man made about committing an act, but details show no proof he intended to carry out the threat. That piece is a crime a protester committed, but the crime was of making the threat. Why place this among the protester on protester "crimes"?

The examples you gave are of C class articles. Occupy Wall Street is a B class article and it’s a struggle to keep that rating if we accept the standard of articles with lesser quality. I hope we can keep the current standards of the article and hopefully improve them.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be enough to simply rename the section, "Security Concerns"? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I could live with that if we were to reassess the quality rating to C and leave a note on each project involved so they could decide if it was anything they object to. We might as well, someone already reduced the rating once but I objected at the time, so I could just agree to that now and make the change and see if it sticks.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, I know nothing of Wikipedia's rating policy - could you direct me to the article that gives this information? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Security Concerns" is fine with me.Racingstripes (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Samuel Dickstein (congressman)

For more than a decade has been known to have been paid by the NKVD, noted in Chicago Tribune, NYT, Boston Globe multiple books, etc. [71] Boston Globe, e.g. [72] (edit summary: Again: pathetic. I'm the 3rd editor you've reverted in as many days: do it again and you get to explain yourself at WP:3RR) is an example of edit warring to remove the simple fact that Dickstein was a spy from his biography. User:Calton since 2005 has periodically assailed the biography to remove well-sourced material to that effect. I deleted the Soviet spy accusation - there were NO direct citations, sources, or even details; just a bald statement as fact, and an acceptance of a single source as definitive. Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC) The only real problem ihe has is the multitude of sources making the "accusation".

I ask others to determine whether NPOV is violated by removal of "spy" as a category for this person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This would be Samuel Dickstein (congressman) rather than Samuel Dickstein (mathematician), I presume. The search link doesn't work for me. The description "known to have been paid by the NKVD" does in itself not justify saying or categorizing him as a "spy" -- he might, for example, been an "agent of influence". You can label him as a "spy" if there are reliable sources that state he was a "spy". Possible sources include [73], [74] or [75]. Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Will Beback asserts that we can not call a person not convicted of being a spy a spy. Forgetting that Dickstein was dead when the proof was found in the NKVD files, and is not contested <g>. My suggestion is that we should, using that argument, not call Booth an assassin of Lincoln. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentaion of what I said. Which sources specifically call the subject a "spy"? (Also, it's polite to mention on a talk page that you're starting a NB thread.)   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In case you missed it - I posted several explicitly using that term on the article talk page. Including Dickstein ran a lucrative trade in illegal visas for Soviet operatives before brashly offering to spy for the NKVD, the KGB's precursor, in return for cash and Not even Julius Rosenberg knew that Samuel Dickstein had been on the NKGB's payroll and he was, for many years, a 'devoted and reliable' Soviet agent whom his handlers nicknamed 'Crook' and the venal Soviet spy Congressman Samuel Dickstein spoke out publicly and mercenary spy, Congressman Samuel Dickstein, a New York .... I rather think you should get the idea from these how many sources describe a person who got money over a long period from the NKVD. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course I "missed" it - you posted those four hours after I replied here. Some of what you posted are book reivews of the same source. Multiple reviews of the same source don't equal multiple sources. As for the others:

The Brother: The Untold Story of the Rosenberg Case [76] does not call the subject a "spy", and it does not include any footnotes, but in the endnotes it cites the same source.

The Jews of Capitol Hill: A Compendium of Jewish Congressional Members [77] directly attributes the claim to the same source. So there's ultimately only one source for this claim: someone who says they saw something ins a secret file which is inaccessible to any other researcher. Do you think it's acceptable to brand a US congressman a Soviet spy long after his death based on a single source?   Will Beback  talk  04:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a matter of rs, not npov. Collect, please provide the sources then we can all go home. TFD (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources meet WP:RS and were posted on the article talk page. And there aare many more using the term "spy" in connection with the erstwhile HUAC founder. Collect (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence

Does the following comply with NPOV?

The ISI's aid to and creation of terrorist and religious extremist groups is well documented. The ISI have close ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008. Pakistan denies all such claims. The ISI have also given aid to Hizbul Mujahideen. The ISI has a long history of supporting terrorist groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests. Pakistan claims to give them moral support only.The ISI also helped with the founding of the terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed. The ISI also founded Al-Badr Mujahideen who were involved in the genocides in Bangladesh in the 1970s.

As it was removed Here under the pretext it violates NPOV. An RFC was started but nobody appears interested. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes

Has some fairly blatant POV issues to say the least. Any attempt to remove one clear section ("Goals") is reversed, and that is not even a big part of the problem. I am not in any way connected with the issue, and the POV was noted by me in a flash - so others who also seek NPOV are encouraged to have a look. Collect (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes

A couple of editors seem to regard this edit as being absolutely NPOV: [78]

I suggest the text in Wikipedia's voice seems to represent one particular point of view without any semblance of trying to be neutral. I have been reverted on its removal, and reverted on it being even tagged as POV, so ask that denizens here venture into those woods. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "goals" section is pertinent to the article, which is devoted to some conflict (which implies the existence of some opposing parties with conflicting goals). However, as soon this section has been added, the goals of each party should be described. In the version reverted by you, only a Serbian position has been described. I think, the solution may be in expansion of this section, not in this removal. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My attempted edit stating which side held the "goals" was, indeed, reverted. Might you see about making the side which is being represented is properly identified there? And the very name "goals" is POV as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, the subject is not a field of my interests, so I am not sure I can help. The only thing I can say that the "Goals" section is supposed to describe the goals of at least two parties. In that situation, I see two possible solutions: either to add a sourced description of the goals of the Kosovar Albanian administration (with subsequent re-wording in a more neutral manner), or (if no such sources can be found) to rename "Goals" to "Goals of North Kosovo Serbs".

Of course, I by no mean is an expert in this field, so I may overlook some important aspects of the issue, however, these two solutions may resolve the dispute, in my opinion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the Goals section in the article. The language and tone of the section does not sound neutral. North Kosovo is portrayed as good. The others are bad. Even if this is the case, the tone of the Wiki article should be neutral. It might be possible to re-write the section so that the tone does not sound biased. I found these relevant provisions of the Wiki neutrality policy, [[WP:NPOV}: "Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone...

Impartial tone: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." You might also review WP:Words to avoid to get an idea of words that are considered to create a biased tone.Coaster92 (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to have that vicious POV-fork article deleted and its relevant material put into the Kosovo article. The article's editing has been dominated by Serb editors or pro-Serb editors and being very denigrating and offensive to the Albanian side in the infobox, should Albanian editors start to arrive in significant numbers there will be an all-out edit war.--R-41 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight to ministerial salary

There has been a bit of a storm in a teapot over variants of the following sentences in Lee Hsien Loong, a biographical article about the present prime minister of Singapore. The current proposal reads:

As of 2012, Lee has a salary of S$2.2 million (US$1.7 million) a year.^[1] Despite a 28% pay cut, described by the Wall Street Journal as a post-election response to "public discontent over ministerial wages"^[2], Lee remains the highest-paid premier in the world.^[3]

^{[1] — http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/world/asia/singapore-slashes-officials-salaries.html
[2] — http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168620110589932.html
[3] — http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/uk-singapore-politics-idUSLNE81503N20120206}

One side is arguing that inclusion of this in any form anywhere in the article is WP:UNDUE, because "there is no place in the article for a view that is either out of context or insignificant in the longer scheme of things", "UNDUE because this incident does not pertain to LHL specifically", and -- my personal favorite -- "impertinent". (See the talk page for full context.) I, obviously, think this is poppycock, as this is thoroughly and reliably sourced, a majority view (in fact, pretty much the sole view, as I'm unable to find any other theories for why the salary was cut), and directly relevant to the person whose salary is being cut on his own instructions. But additional opinions would be very welcome, either here or on the talk page in question. Jpatokal (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Bump. Anybody? Jpatokal (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This issue did receive significant international attention, in part because the salaries are so much higher than typical ministerial salaries. Based on WP:WEIGHT, it certainly deserves at least some attention in the article.   Will Beback  talk  03:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the reduction in the salary does. But to include vague hand-waving such as "widely interpreted as a response to public anger" and "public discontent" is not appropriate in the context of LHL's biography article, it belongs to the article on the current administration. The controversy was not over LHL's salary, but ministerial pay in general. Please see Talk:Lee Hsien Loong for the discussion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The implication is that the PM is overpaid. While the salary should be mentioned, we need to include commentary about whether it is reasonable. TFD (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Including assertions based on "implication" constitutes original synthesis and is not acceptable in a biographical article. Would this also justify inserting similar commentary in the biographical articles of all the cabinet ministers in Singapore? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Non sequitur, my friend.

1) There is no original synthesis involved in paraphrasing, much less directly quoting, a reliable source directly discussing the matter at hand, namely Lee Hsien Loong's salary and the reason it was cut.

2) All the sources above explicitly cover Lee Hsien Loong's salary, and do not even mention that of any other ministers. Jpatokal (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Despite a 28% pay cut, described by the Wall Street Journal as a post-election response to "public discontent over ministerial wages", Lee remains the highest-paid premier in the world."

This is not original synthesis? While it may seem perfectly reasonable to you to see the situation the way you are viewing it right now, but on Wikipedia, we have a policy against original research for the same reason that people draw conclusions all the time, but that we should not empower Wikipedians to take those kind of decisions on an encyclopedia. All the sources above discuss salaries of government ministers, not Lee Hsien Loong alone. Please read your sources carefully. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I already made my stand very clear on the article's talk page, but just want to point out that there is already a dedicated article on the 2012 ministerial salary review so all detailed breakdown and analysis of it can go there, and link from the subject's article. Wikipedia would benefit so much more if as much effort had been made in buffing that up (where inclusion is more clearcut) rather than get stuck fighting for inclusion on Lee's article. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing politics

William F. Buckley Jr., in the first issue of the prominent magazine National Review, defined the beliefs of American conservatives this way, in 1955:

“ Among our convictions:

It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.

”

The mission statement of the National Review can only be a reliable source for itself or its author. We would need a third party to explain the significance of the passage to the Right. The passage does not say that it is defining American conservatism and even use the term right-wing. It appears to be OR - an editor wants to present his own view of what being right-wing means to him. TFD (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In itself, a statement of opinion can only verify the opinion of the one stating. To verify the opinions of others requires a separate statement, either directly from those others ("I agree with what so-n-so said"), or by investigative demonstration by a third party ("Her record indicates support for..."). Four Deuces is quite right in calling OR. ClaretAsh 08:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with TFD's assessment; the opinion of the National Review can only be used to cite the opinion of the National Review, not of "conservatism" in general, which appears to be OR. Yobol (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab

Hi,

I'd value a third opinion at the above article (or even a fourth and fifth oppinion too would be great). Among other unconstructive edits, a user persists in adding external links to blatantly biased sources. Normally, this would be a simple matter of reverting followed by escalated warnings. However, the user doesn't seem to understand the POV issues with their edits, to the extent that they suggest my reversion is biased. (I should point out here that the version to which I reverted was supported by consensus in a discussion last month). Nonetheless, as we can't both be right, others' thoughts on the article and the recent edits would be great. I've gone into more detail at Talk:Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab#POV again, so please reply there as I'd like to keep the discussion together.

Thanking you all. ClaretAsh

Commented. As a courtesy to other users participating on this page, it would be wonderful if you could help out with some sections with your neutral and unbiased opinion. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I admit, I'm not certain what you're requesting above. I assume it's diffs you were requesting, in which case:

• The version supported by consensus in last month's discussion
• Last month's discussion
• The version prior to Qadri fan's edits
• Qadri fan's initial edits. In eight subsequent edits, I dealt with each of Qadri's edits on a case by case basis but was reverted by that user.
• A talk page warning from Qadri fan for "not including edit summaries"
• In this edit, I incorporated a wikilink into the article to show Qadri how it's done. The subsequent edits were to remove redundant and inappropriate external links, again on a case by case basis to make it easy for Qadri to understand each edit.
• Another wholesale reversion
• Everything else is on the article's talk page. Hope this helps. ClaretAsh 06:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha, no. I am referring to the sections above this one. Help other people out with their disputes too. :-) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Blame it on me working late last night and again early this morning. Anyway, will do. ClaretAsh 06:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead at Circumcision

There is an RfC that about how to best neutrally summarize the position of various medical associations' position about circumcision in the lead of the article at Talk:Circumcision#RfC: how should the lead summarise positions of medical associations?. Any outside input would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing based on your own beliefs

Editing based on your own beliefs is against Wikipedia policy, in my opinion. But I've just been informed by an experienced editor "If editors believe something to be outright false, for example, they should not include it, regardless of whether it is WP-verifiable." [79] Please comment. B^e——C_ritical 23:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds redundant to me. If someone sincerely believes a statement to be false, I suspect they won't include it, making the question of whether they should or shouldn't redundant. Either that, or they'll add the statement in the voice of a third party as opposed to Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "Smith asserts that the sun rises in the west, despite being proven wrong each morning"). ClaretAsh 04:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Apply common sense. If a fact is obviously wrong then everyone will agree and the point will be omitted. If it is only one person's opinion that the point is wrong, then editors need to find consensus. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC (Indians in Afghanistan)

An RFC is taking place for the article Indians in Afghanistan which has some main disputes regarding India-Pakistan relations. Please comment there. WP:NPOV issues with the dispute make this a relevant noticeboard to inform. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)