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

Biased safety claims in Cannabis (drug)

Recent edits to Cannabis (drug) have added a section on Safety which is strongly biased toward cannabis being a risk-free drug. Emphasis is on a claim that no marijuana related deaths have ever occurred. Yes, there are some sources where the author states no cannabis deaths to report, but using these claims selectively is misleading. Several reliable sources have reported infrequent deaths and also list cannabis smoke as a carcinogen (links to these articles or to abstracts are provided in the deleted history or on the Talk page). Summary:

• Forensic Science International

“Acute Cardiovascular Fatalities Following Cannabis Use”

• Journal of Pediatrics

“Cerebellar Infarction in Adolescent Males Associated with Acute Marijuana Use”

• Cancer Research, UK

“Does smoking cannabis cause cancer?”

• Revue Neurologique (French)

“Cannabis-induced cerebral and myocardial infarction in a young woman”

• Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases

“Cannabis-Related Myocardial Infarction and Cardioembolic Stroke”

• UCLA School of Medicine

“Effects of marijuana on the lung and its immune defenses”

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, DAWN

“Area Profiles of Drug-Related Mortality” (this is a government tertiary source)

• State of California

“Chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity” (This is a government tertiary source)

• Center for Effective Drug Abuse Research & Statistics, Drugwatch

“Marijuana-only drug abuse deaths” (This is a tertiary source)

Efforts have been made to resolve this on the article Talk page. A marijuana supporter will not accept published medical journals and government reports that raise any safety concerns about cannabis usage. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view and an unbiased handling of divergent sources. Certainly, cannabis is not as dangerous as several other hard drugs, but that does not result in absolute safety. Wikipedia should include both sources that discuss safety and sources that indicate problems. A balanced and neutral view is required.

Additional input and comments are welcome on the Talk page. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide links and clarify which ones are peer-reviewed studies/reports, peer-reviewed literature reviewes, or else? --Cyclopia^talk 16:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I reworded the phrase on the risk of death. There's a difference between "research failed to prove" and that there's insufficient studies to have conclusive data. The latter is what the source shows. I removed claims about no attributable death. None of the cited references appear to meet WP:MEDRS standard. One source does, but that source does not talk about cannabis. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We could improve the NPOV by talking about levels of "risk", rather than whether it is "safe" or "dangerous". That would allow the audience to draw their own conclusions, with reference to their thresholds. Credibility gap (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's important to note that because marijuana is generally illegal in most of the places from which we would accept sources as being of suitable quality, it's unlikely that we will find much in the way of such sources. It's hard to run a double blind test on an illegal drug. While what I've just written is obviously OR, I hope that others see that it makes sense and that maybe we can come up with some qualifying statement about the lack of decent research. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Some sources some might find useful: PMID 20565525, PMID 22019199, PMID 16832000 and PMID 16054989. These should be WP:MEDRS compliant. Yobol (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, good point. I found a few sources referencing this fact

Stanford: insight into difficulties of marijuana research

Oxford: Challenges of marijuana research

David Nutt on the difficulty of researching illegal drugs

Federal Marijuana Monopoly Challenged

Scientists cite challenge of studying an illegal drug petrarchan47tc 02:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like anything that don't go his/her way, Petrarchan47 reverts it.. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Try to quote the actual sources being used. To enter your version of "summary of PubMed" sources without adding supportive references is not acceptable. petrarchan47tc 03:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The argument that primary sources are not suitable, but reviews of primary sources are acceptable, makes sense to me. Are there any reviews of the literature that summarise and evaluate the risk factor articles?Markewilliams (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

article needing viewing Mail Online

Mail Online is about an online publication. It has a section called "Inaccuracies" (now renamed "Criticism"). I had thought that "criticism" sections were not favoured as a matter of NPOV, and would like eyes on any such section there. The "criticism" edit removed actual information about one of the sources used, and again this is only a matter of seeking eyes about possibly contentious claims having a POV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on this article too, and I agree that it could use some more editors to help determine appropriate weight for various kinds of negative material (and figure out how to phrase them fairly). One of the items (the main subject of the long discussion at Talk:Mail Online#Controversy Section) is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Mail Online, so that's probably taken care of, but the talk page from Talk:Mail Online#Zombies on down has some active discussions that aren't as unwieldy but could use more opinions. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Ortiz

There is a potential for an edit conflict between people who wish to include material about Ortiz's involvement wrt Swartz on an article about her (a biography of a living person), and User:Viriditas who chooses to remove that content wielding BLP and recentism as reasons (there has been at least one previous such action before by another editor, also based on a recentism claim) and Viriditas calling the section "attack content", which I believe is unjustified.

I strongly disagree with Viriditas' removal action and assessment (recentism being the most dubious), but Viriditas has also sent me a template warning for alleged edit-warring after one small (if, perhaps, unfounded) edit, after which I restored the part that I removed, and later it was removed anyway by a much more seasoned editor.

I do not want to revert because of the edit war warning template that I have, but if I did revert, Viriditas would perhaps revert that revert, or use my action as reason to complain about me (given the edit war warning template on my talk page he put there). I consider Viriditas' sending me an edit war warning template aggressive action, because s/he could have chosen not to use a template and engage with me using his/her own letter-writing abilities in my user talk.

Now, I belive there is still very little consensus over whether the removal is proper and the NPOV status regarding the removed content. I think Viriditas is pushing his POV by having removed information about Ortiz' involvement in the case, despite the fact that people are entitled to know what Carmen Ortiz is about, and removing the section removes the necessary elements of notability regarding the article. The Ortiz article already has a section at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Carmen_Ortiz, and there's so far at least one person who agrees with user Viriditas.

I do not know what to do further, because the issue has become rather contentious, since Carmen Ortiz is/was involved in the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, but user Viriditas and a few others think this should not be in her article (as seen on BLPN linked above). (Admittedly, Swartz's lawyer has named an assistant attorney who did much of the legwork working and negotiating the case against Swartz.) So there. -Mardus (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add that I placed a Request for Comment tag on the Talk:Carmen Ortiz#Request_for_Comment, which I why I wrote all this here. -Mardus (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Describing the public actions of a public figure does not violate BLP policy

The description does need to be neutral but quoting her public statements about her decision to prosecute Swartz is completely fair game. Elinruby (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos

The neutrality of the article is being called into question on the article's talk page. One user mentioned that it may not have been written in good faith. Can someone look over the article and try to address the negativity this article presents? --BigBabyChips (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• There might be an issue with original synthesis here. I haven't checked the references, but just skimmed the article. If a person murders someone, and some blog claims they're a Juggalo, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You need reliable sources directly connecting the crime with the Juggaloism. If reliable sources have written about Juggalo crime as a "thing," then it's maybe okay in principle. But...
• It would probably be better if this content is summarized in the main article on Juggalos. It's a long article, but is there a way to condense it to get rid of the questionable material? TheBlueCanoe 01:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

most of these sources don't approch reliability, and captioning a image "see y'all in hell" is not a neutral point of view, no. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A more neutral version was condensed into Juggalo, but another user who seems to be aimed at slandering Juggalos has been rewriting multiple articles to claim that Juggalo is a gang, which goes against NPOV rules. BigBabyChips (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland

Need help in making the lead section for this article neutral like before (see the difference). User:Music&Co has been treating this article like a personal blog/fansite (rewriting the lead to make the singer look extremely successful and inflating her sales with unreliable sources). — Oz 07:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Oz doesn't converse in constructive way, despite has twice looked for in pacific way to talk to him in the personal talk. Contrarily he doesn't answer, and it acts before a comparison inserting with some tags for disputes. Oz does you take the right to attribute words as "of success" or "of not success" (of thing? of charts? of sales? of criticism? in US? in Uk? In other countries of Europe?) sending forth therefore a judgment I don't objectify; He discredits reliable datas (all verifiable ones with sources inserted in the center of the page and in discography page) concerned sales of albums and peak of chart, that I have replaced his personals and arbitrary adjectives concerning success or failures. He defines style from "blog / fansite" all edit that differs from his style of writes and that doesn't meet his personal point of view. It also results "closed in dialogs" in the edit of other user (as you can be seen in Rowland's "view history" for example)

--Music&Co (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't reply back at your talk page because I've started a discussion at Talk:Kelly Rowland#Lead. And please don't make me look like the bad guy. I'm not the one changing her sales with unreliable sources and treating her articles like fansites. We're not here to promote artists and make their articles look successful. — Oz 20:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We result for what we are for and for ours behaviors. You have had the opportunity to talk for 2 times, but you have preferred to open 3 discussions in 3 different places and to insert 2 tags. The unreliable sources of which you refer already concern peak on charts and sales of 2 albums approved in wikipedia from years, and with more reliable sources in lead page and discography. Do you insert opinions about to the success without defining its concept (sale? classification? criticism? countries?) what they result a great deal subjective. Then not to speak of fansite (also this is one opinion of yours) style, and triy to be constructive, without only attaching when something doesn't mirror your personal taste. Music&Co (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but for a minor matter, I think the addition of Mr. Music is just as neutral as the version of Mr. Oz. But it is more informative. The Banner talk 21:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact I haven't expressed judgments, I have insert more information: the sales of the two first albums, her singles worthy of to be mentioned (3singles from the first album, 2 in the second+ "when love takes over" and 3singles from the third album) and her four principal collaborations (* "Here We Go" top 20 in US, UK, NZ and Gold in US; * "Breathe Gentle" in Italy #1 on Airplay and #2 on Sales, #7 in Netherland, #28 in Europe and #53 in Belgium; * "Invincible" top-5 in UKr&b and NZ, #11 UK mainstream, #13 Ireland, #14 Australia urban, top40 in other 3 international charts, eligible3 for silver in Uk and certied gold in NZ; * "What to Feeling" top ten in 6 international charts and and top-30 in others 5 countrieses). It seems me that can be mentioned as her 4 principal collaborations. Don't seem me to have expressed judgments like "Phenomenal success", "Hit of worldwide fame", or other of similar (this would have been an impartial style like a blog or fansite). I have confined to insert 4 collaborations that I have appraised remarkable to the purpose of her general presentation. Music&Co (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-invasive ultrasonic removal

This article since its beginning has always been written like an advertisement. I don't know enough in the area to fix it myself but if anyone has an interest in a possibly quack form of fat removal, they can improve the article. Gizza^{Talk ©} 08:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Company of St. Ursula

I am engaged in a dispute over the wording of the newly-created Company of St. Ursula. You'll find the fruitless discussion here. I have unintentionally broken the three-revert rule. Block at your discretion. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bloody Christmas

This is about: Bloody Christmas (1963). This article is a POV FORK of the Cypriot intercommunal violence article. It solely implies that one side is to be blamed for the 1963 events and repeats information currently in the Cypriot intercommunal violence just to impose a POV. The event described in Bloody Christmas (1963) is part of the Cypriot intercommunal violence where it is also described. Furthermore, the article takes a single event of the Cypriot intercommunal violence and with phrases such as "is the beginning of a military campaign initiated by Greek Cypriots against minority Turkish Cypriots" and "This is the headpoint of the tension between the Greek Cypriot majority and Turkish Cypriot minority." it arbitrarily implies that one side is to be blamed. A merge into the Cypriot intercommunal violence article would be most suitable move in IMO as it is just an event of the Cypriot intercommunal violence.

Thank you 200.93.208.84 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Court transcripts as sources

In Australian head of state dispute, LJ Holden wishes to use court transcripts which are not referenced by any secondary commentary. Comments by judges during proceedings are being presented as findings of fact, for example an off-hand remark during discussion as to the litigant's ability to pay costs is being used as if it were a considered opinion on the identity of Australia's head of state. Clearly WP:WEIGHT applies here; if no other agency has seen fit to publish commentary, then the remarks are not viewed as important. My approach has been to retain the very one-sided references to the transcripts without comment. The reader may check them for herself - they do not need "interpretation" by Wikipedia. There is some discussion here. --Pete (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Court transcriptions can not be used as sources in articles about living persons per Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Misuse_of_primary_sources. Especially not if they have not been commented on in secondary sources. I guess that this issue is not BLP related but rather a technical legal issue - in which case it is certainly not any wikipedia editors role to interpret statements by lawyers or judges in ways that have not already been presented in secondary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here:

1. The above statement is incorrect as to the nature of the references. There is only one court transcript referred to in the article - Thorpe v The Commonwealth. The other citations are for court decisions.

2. There is a secondary source for the decisions and the transcript: a book published by a legal scholar, Steven Spadijer. It was removed by the editor above, however, as it was from a self-published source (Lulu), but the text itself is an academic paper. (The author of this paper has been published elsewhere in law journals.) While this point is moot (I accept Wikipedia can't have self-published sources) it is not correct to claim there are no secondary sources. There are, they just cannot be cited. As pointed out in the page's discussion, had Spadijer published his academic paper on JSTOR or similar then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

3. None of the references referred to are "interpreted" in anyway. In terms of the court decisions, the main reference that is interpreted (that is presented along with one side of the debate's views) is R v Governor. This decision is cited as there is a secondary source that is able to be used (a book published by Sir David Smith). Naturally, more weight is given to this decision as per WP:WEIGHT. It is extensively used multiple times in the article and referred to both in its primary source (i.e. the normal court decision citation) and the secondary source. In contrast, the references that have been taken issue with are only mentioned once, with only the pertinent statements and individuals making them referred to. The editor above has simply removed these statements and left the case citations. Surely if their is a breach of NPOV rules, then the whole reference should go.

4. As for the court transcript in Thorpe v The Commonwealth, despite what is said by the editor above the cited conversation does directly relate to the article - i.e. who Australia's head of State is. Moreover, it is a statement made by one of Australia's most prominent jurists, Justice Michael Kirby. It is made clear to the reader that this is a transcript and not a court decision, which is further balanced by referencing an essay Justice Kirby wrote before being appointed to the High Court. --LJ Holden 22:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Court decisions are also primary sources. The question of whether a selfpublished source is sufficiently reliable to support inclusion is an editorial content decision to be made at the talkpage. Quoting from a text always includes an amount of interpretation as one statement is interpreted as being of a particular importance, relative to other statements in a text. It seems to me that it should be entirely possible to write an article about this imoportant topic without relying on primary or low quality sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The entire article is essentially a collection of "X said this, Y said that" comments lifted out of the corresponding sources. So, LJ's use of the court documents is not at all out of place on that page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, if someone said something important it will have been reported in secondary sources. If its not reported in secodnary sources that is a hint its probably not important. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, with respect, you're disagreeing with what I didn't say. I said much of the article is simple reports on who a source says Australia's head of state is; a CIA website said it's the Queen, a journalist said it's the governor-general, a government website said it's the governor-general, a prime minister once said it's the Queen, etc., etc. So, if we want to stick to the "there must be a secondary source" criteria, that article is going to be pretty well gutted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would you source any of that to court transcripts? If those claims are being reported in e.g. news media or other secondary sources then there is an a basis for the article. If the article is based on observations that different institutions disagree, and this observaiton has not been previously published then the article is original research.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

None of what I mentioned is sourced to court transcripts. None of it is reported on elsewhere. Perhaps much, maybe all, of the article is OR. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to add into this discussion these primary sources, Mies? Kevin Rudd issued a press release saying that the Governor-General was the head of state, and yes, that is a primary source, but we also have a media report (one of many) commenting on that. We shouldn't go suspending a fundamental wikipolicy for just one article. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In the transcript a lawyer mentions that his client had written letters to various officials and then says he did not know whether the Queen or the Governor General was head of state and the judge replied it was the Queen. Who was head of state was completely irrelevant to the case, is not mentioned in the judgment or in any source that reported the case. It has no weight. TFD (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Then nor does the CIA website, or the Australian government website, or the prime minister's statement, etc. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Suppose you wanted to know who was PM for Australia. Would you look at the Australia government or CIA website or would you search Australian court cases to find an example where a judge replied to a lawyer who did not know who was the PM? This is the type of thing that conspiracy theorists do, except that typically they search for statements that are well outside mainstream views. TFD (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd consider them all valid sources from which to draw the answer to the question. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• As has already been stated - Court transcripts as sources easily and clearly fail Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Misuse_of_primary_sources. - My advice for a wiki policy compliant position - Look to report secondary high quality reliable reports - easy really - attempting to use less than that is promotion, bias and opinion - It's not complicated, we are here to report what other reliable secondary sources WP:RS have reported , thats it, we are not here to report and promote primary statements and publications - .Youreallycan 15:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I note the appearance in the article of an IP editor, who is not only expanding the interpretation of primary sources, but adding in the self-published book he mentioned above and a private blog for good measure. As Mies has demonstrated an aptitude for edit-warring, I may have to seek admin attention to get things straightened out. --Pete (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me Pete. You should check where the IP address is registered and where I live before making unfounded accusations. I accept a blog cannot be used in a reference and have never linked to my blog posts on the issue on Wikipedia.

As for the issue at hand, the above statement by Youreallycan misses the issue: we're only dealing with one court transcript, which directly deals with the issue the article is about. The others are actual statements from decisions. While I understand the reasons behind the wikipolicy - specifically for preventing conspiracy theories and the like from gaining too much weight - the citations are not at all taken out of context, nor misinterpreted. --LJ Holden 22:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Let me just say that I was not surprised to find that the IP address resolved to Sydney, and that the content had a strong legal bent and a certain spectrum attitude. Remind you of anybody, YouReallyCan?[1][2] As for whether a court record is a transcript or a ruling, it's still a primary source. I'm not seeing a lot of contrary arguments referencing wikipolicy, just some hand-waving. --Pete (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• - I have been looking at the article content and it is so poor as to be less than worthless to the reader - opinionated shite - absolute worthless to a neutral reader - Youreallycan 17:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be pruned. Toss out anything that is not covered by wikipolicy. Nevertheless, the dispute is a real and notable one, occupying much public attention during the 1998 Constitutional Convention and subsequent Constitutional referendum in 1999. Presumably the issue will rise to prominence again when the next push for a republican change occurs. The Queen, bless her heart, is not immortal, and the republican movement has indicated that they will act as soon as she demonstrates this. Could be tomorrow, could be another thirty years. --Pete (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually YRC, the article should be considered for deletion, as it's making a mountain out of a molehill. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Derby sex gang

I'd appreciate it if somebody would take a look at the new Derby sex gang article, from the perspective of WP:NPOV - it looks far too tabloid and sensationalist to me, and seems overly-concerned with the ethnic background of the offenders. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've started a new talk section Talk:Derby sex gang#Origin and religion of gang members on this issue. I think AndyTheGrump is being too Politically Correct and seeking to downplay the origin and religion of the gang members in this article - which actually ends up being non PC towards the victims. But I've left it as his revert whilst it is discussed. Aarghdvaark (talk)

How the case was covered in the tabloid press should be mentioned because that is what makes the case notable. However, despite having a section called "Analysis", the article merely repeats the tabloid analysis. TFD (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

By "tabloid", are you referring to the BBC, the Telegraph or the Independent? Ankh.Morpork 11:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I am referring to your usual sensationalist muckrakeing, clearly engaged in as part of your relentless efforts to portray Muslims in the worst possible light. Any more questions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The mainstream media did not provide an undue emphasis on the ethnicity and religion of the accused, although they did mention the controversy caused by those who did, for example Jack Straw. The article otoh reads more like a tabloid story. The Telegraph for example mentions that one member of the gang was not Asian, yet that is not mentioned in the article. The story is not that they were Asian but that the case has become a cause for hate mongers. TFD (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The BBC produced a documentary that investigated "the controversial subject of on-street grooming of young girls for sex by Pakistani men in the UK." which featured footage of the Derby gang grooming girls, Channel 4 commissioned a similar documentary, the former home secretary spoke of a "specific problem" within the British Pakistani community, the Children's minister spoke of "Asian communities hampering child sex inquiries", the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre conducted a report into child grooming; this was not simply about far-right exploitation. Ankh.Morpork 18:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

All of that is quite some distance from simply sticking a label into an article that amplifies the anti-immigration lobby's message about the dangers of "Pakistani Muslims". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• @User:The Four Deuces - it is not as you claim the case has become a cause for hate mongers, but that the sexual grooming of young underage girls by Muslim men is a repeat problem in the UK - Muslim sex grooming - Pakistanis - that was what was reported, they were/are a group of Muslims grooming young white girls - a repeat pattern recently in the UK - Youreallycan 17:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Its funny how your otherwise admirable ethical editing principles stop short of working when it comes to painting entire ethnic groups as criminal sex offenders. Standards are good - double standars twice as good.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you a Muslim Pakistani? - I know users are and I understand how its upsetting but it is a repeat pattern - and widely reported in te UK - Youreallycan 18:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you a catholic priest? There are lots of repeat patterns, such as old white men abusing small children. Somehow it is easier to see patterns when they conform to one's prejudices.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course I am not a catholic anything - I am not even white, lol - soz if you are upset that Muslim men have been abusing young girls. Youreallycan 18:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am upset about all abuse against children and adults. But unlike you I realize that no ethnic or religious groups have a patent on such despicable behavior.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You are simply being defensive because you are a Pakistani Muslim - Youreallycan 18:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

and you are simply being offensive.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I need to add this , Maunus removed his comment - but its important to the thread so I leave a diff here - Youreallycan 18:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that it was a mistake to stoop to your level. I wonder when you will realize it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Note. I have had to remove individuals not convicted of sexual offences from the table in the article, per WP:BLP policy - and in talk page discussions it is clear that some are arguing that these individuals are part of the 'sex gang', even though the sources cited do not state this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Note Can I just remind folks in general to be especially careful on such an inflammatory subject to stay polite and on-topic. --John (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that giving unwarranted significance to the religious background of some of the Derby sex gang and writing in such a way to give the impression this applies to all of the gang members (when it doesn't) is an NPOV infringement and should be rectified.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Pov edits on Aafia Siddiqui

I would appreciate another set of eyes on the Aafia Siddiqui page. Codetruth is constantly inserting material that she is innocent, and messes around with refs (removing text without removing accompanying refs, making them point to other things [3]), as well as changing uses of her last name to "Dr. Aafia’s" (first edit). I rolled back their edits twice [4] [5], and added warnings about POV to their talk page, but I can't be sure any more.--Auric talk 19:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: Codetruth recently overwrote my earlier comment [6], using another account(?), CodeTruth.--Auric talk 15:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Auric,

I did not mean to offend you but since i am new to wikipedia i did not know how to respond to your allegation against me that i was the one being biased. So i saw the edit button located near that and so i responded. But, when i just saw the video on how to respond to a user's message, i am hence sending you this message in good faith.

The fact of the matter is that i work in the same region as Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was from and hence, i know for a fact that the United States Government and the Pakistani Intelligence know full well that she is innocent of any terrorism related links and that she was not a source of any threat yet they lock her up so as to cover their own faults.

The one thing i liked about wikipedia was its presumed unbiased-ness however after reading the article on Dr. Aafia i have realized that is not always the case.

And, so i made an account and have become a wikipedia user just like you.

But, what seperates you and me is the fact that you believe anything that the media claims without actually having talked to the ones whose opinions are the most honest with regards to her.

You see, Dr. Aafia is a mother of three and she was KIDNAPPED along with her children, one of whom was only 6 months old, in 2003 and that is well known in Pakistan and to the Pakistani Intelligence and the US Army. She was assaulted, physically abused (which is a terrible thing to do to a lady and that too an MIT graduate who did NOT terrorize anyone or cause harm to even a butterfly) and atleast one her children, who is only 6 months old was brutally killed! And, now she is serving in jail?? For 86 years?? Even though the members of the jury knew she was innocent but had to call her a threat since most of the world's media was closely following the case and so had the ruled in favor of her their 7 years of illegal and wrongful detention of her would be clear to everyone and so the white house pressurized for the decision against her!

Tell me, you are from canada, if this was the allegation made to a canadian mother of three and a PhD holder in neuroscience who was kidnapped along with her children and then SHE is the one sent to jail over CLEARLY false allegations (and that too false allegations of self defense) wouldnt the entire population of Canada rise up in favour of the lady??? And, that is precisely what happened in pakistan, parts of USA and many other countries who then protested against this obvious injustice done to her and her family.

So please, dont confuse everyone and dont take the side of falsehood, by saying she is a terrorist when infact she cannot even hurt a fly! She did not kill anyone or even attempt to kill anyone, but SHE was the one who was raped and kidnapped.

Let the article be unbiased and LET IT STICK TO THE TRUTH.

Best Regards,

Code Truth Codetruth (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Codetruth, I glanced over the edits yesterday when I saw Auric's post and has some concerns with your edits. Your post here confirmed some of those concerns. First, please ease back on the tone. You should generally assume that everyone is here to improve Wikipedia, the same as Auric should assume of you. Second, please take a few moments to read through the reliable source article. You made a comment about Auric seeming to trust the media over the people involved and I think that's causing some of the problem here. Ultimately, Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources, with a strong preference for secondary sources. For articles involving living people (often abbreviated WP:BLP), that's even more true. Primary sources are generally not acceptable in those cases. Our NPOV policy says that articles should reflect what secondary sources say. If most secondary sources say the moon is made of green cheese, that's what the moon article must say. Many of the changes you made reflect your personal view on things which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they didn't have any sources to back them up. That's not acceptable. You must have solid, reliable sources to back your edits. Blogs and advocacy websites are generally not reliable sources. If most media sources are saying one thing, that's what our article must reflect absent other reliable secondary sources. It doesn't matter what we believe or know, it matters what those sources say. Ravensfire (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Codetruth has continued to edit the article since this discussion was initiated. I would recommend that this user to refrain from further edits to the article until the matter can be resolved here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I will be taking a look at the primary sources link that you sent. It wont be just to say that secondary sources are more reliable in the sense that primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources, since they can be and have proven to be edited/changed/modified when put in comparison to primary sources.

Also, blogs of those who are the direct relatives of the victim and the ones who have had direct connection to the case are more authentic than lets say what the journalists report since most of the time the journalists write what the department of defense wants them to write especially of such a case where the victim is confused to be the assailant. If wikipedia was to work like a secondary arm of the pentagon then all we would see on wikipedia are loads of biased articles (as if there were not enough already)

I do not intend to doubt the intention of either of you but the fact remains that the articles biased towards hatred need to be modified and i would be glad to help in that. Codetruth (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Others involved in the discussion have edited the article and that too towards a much more unbiased approach. I have tried my best to remain unbiased because this is not just another ordinary article, its an article about a mother of three who was kidnapped along with her children to begin with. Hence, its important not to undermine that part since the truth, as most human rights organizations like amnesty international continue to claim is that she was indeed innocent but framed. So it seems only justified that i be allowed to refine the article since i am the one who is not just in that particular part of the globe where this incident happened but also have credible sources to back all the claims that i make and i shall be providing adequate references for that (God Willing)

I am in full support of resolving this matter quickly yet efficiently. Codetruth (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Codetruth, I understand where your coming from, but Wikipedia articles must follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. NPOV is absolutely a core policy but so is making sure that information is sourced to reliable secondary sources. Blogs are rarely considered good sources, especially when dealing with BLP articles (articles about living people). There is some information in the article about concerns and questions that have been raised - see the reaction section. You need to be looking for good secondary sources with additional information that can be added to the article. Parts of the article are a mess (see the background section - it's both background and a second lead!) and some cleanup is needed but that's more to cut down the article some. If the prevaling view in secondary sources is reflected accurately, that's the view that will stay. If the prevailing view isn't accurately reflected, then we need to get that information, correctly sourced, in the article. You're best bet is to work on finding those good, strong secondary sources. Articles and/or books from top publishing houses and magazines that cover the entire situation would be helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes that seems to be the right strategy to make the article truly unbiased. Very well. I will try my best to quote authentic sources from now onwards. Please do forgive if i make some mistakes, because, i am new to Wikipedia but i do have a strong passion to support justice. Thankyou for the kind advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codetruth (talk • contribs) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Violence against men

Hey.

Reading through some Wikipedia articles, as you do, I came across a set of articles in which I believe there may be POV and weight issues; i.e. I think articles related to violence against men may have a slight MRA bias. Specifically:

• Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy is nearly wholly on the side of Sacks and co. This may reflect the debate at the time; I wouldn't know.
• Gendercide has some synthesis issues; for example, "The Bible", not even chapter or verse, is cited several times, and I think the article conflates the indiscriminate killing of men with other massacres in which men were killed.
• I'm concerned that Srebrenica massacre is included in {{Violence against men}}, especially as it was more of an ethnic-based massacre than a gender-based massacre.
• {{Violence against men}} may have irrelevant links.

These are issues I've found from a five-minute look; there may be deeper issues at play (I do remember the article Female privilege at AfD a year or so ago, where an equivalence was argued that didn't exist in sources). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

From a quick look at Template:Violence against men, "may have irrelevant links" is an understatement - more than half of the links are irrelevant. The only articles I see linked on there that can be argued to be relevant are Androcide, Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy, Gendercide (in the case where it's males being eliminated), and Masculism which has a section on violence against men. Arguably Stop Abuse For Everyone deserves inclusion since they support abused men in particular, although they also support several other groups. The other links are to articles which either more commonly affect women than men (e.g. domestic violence, rape, sexual violence, sexual slavery, outline of domestic violence) or affect both indiscriminately without targeting at any particular gender (human trafficking, prison rape). As the Srebrenica massacre demonstrates, the mere fact that men are more frequently victims in a particular conflict or type of violence does not imply that violence is targeted at men on the basis of gender. You could argue that some types of violence like prison rape or the Srebrenica massacre predominantly affect men, but this would need to be backed up with third-party reliable sources that specifically discuss the gender imbalance of the violence (as opposed to mere statistics). Surely we're not going to link every single article that involves some kind of violence on the principle that "men could be a target of it." I agree that the Srebrenica massacre is an ethnic genocide, and quite contrary to the men's rights POV, the fact that more men than women were killed in it can be attributed to that culture's patriarchal notions that woman can't fight and must be protected by men. I also find it quite absurd that the link to "Outline of domestic violence" is labelled "Outline of related topics" as though domestic violence were all about violence against men. Dcoetzee 20:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Could anyone expand "MRA bias" for those of us not quite so up-to-date on this area of controversy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

MRAs are men's rights advocates. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36

User:Niteshift36 is repeatedly adding "Juggalos" as a "gang affiliation" on Crips, even though Juggalo is a music fanbase, not a gang. He has repeatedly attacked me for removing this allegation, despite the fact that it very obviously violates WP:NPOV and there is no evidence of any "Juggalo gangs". --BigBabyChips (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

At issue are these sources: [7][8][9]. BigBabyChips believes these sources are biased, due to the FBI's refusal to disclose their sources under a FOIA request (lawsuit by the band is apparently pending). Niteshift and I agree these are reliable sources for stating that the FBI, NGIC and several states have called Juggalos a "gang" and have connected the fan group and/or members of the fan group to criminal activity. Please see BigBabyChips edit history for a list of articles this is an issue in. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• The issue, repeatedly ignored, is that there is an NPOV issue regarding description of a music fanbase as a "gang" despite the majority of reputable evidence indicating that it is a music fanbase and not a gang. It is NOT good faith to repeatedly categorize a music fanbase as a gang in spite of evidence. BigBabyChips (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• In this edit summary, Niteshift36 refers to me as a "troll" for asking for factually verifiable information and NPOV writing. BigBabyChips (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The first two links provided by SummerPhD are primary sources, and should probably not be used - though even if they were, the first certainly doesn't support a claim that Juggelos are all involved in criminal activity: "This identity has evolved into a subculture and a life-style for many fans. While the majority of fans exercise their lifestyles in a peaceful manner, a small portion of this group have added a criminal element that has slowly been taking hold in certain states." The second source likewise states only that "many Juggalos subsets exhibit gang-like behavior and engage in criminal activity and violence" - 'many' doesn't mean 'all'. The third one may well be WP:RS - but only for what it says, i.e. that 'a police officer has claimed that "certain members of the Juggalos -- a group of followers of the rap duo Insane Clown Posse" have been involved in illegal gang activity. The source doesn't say that 'the Juggelos' are a gang as such, as far as I can see. On this basis, there are no NPOV issues here at all - the sources simply cannot be cited as asserting that 'Juggelo' is always a 'gang affiliation', and attempting to do so isn't an NPOV issue, it is a misrepresentation of sources.

(BTW, an aside for BigBabyChips - contrary to your statement on Niteshift36's talk page, there is no exception to WP:3RR on NPOV grounds - I suggest you read the policy) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit, I hadn't considered that we were using a primary source. How about stating that the FBI, NGIC and several states have called them a gang based on cbsnews.com, rollingstone.com, huffingtonpost.com, cnn.com, etc.? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see them as primary sources. The NGIC etc uses reports from media and law enforcement, then compiles them and reports the data. They're usually not the source of the data. If you look at the NGIC report, pages 8 and 9 show all the reliable sources they used to compile the report. The National Gang Threat assessment also shows all of the source material as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How about stating what the sources cited actually say - that the FBI etc are being sued for allegedly labelling (some) ICP fans as a gang. Being sued for something doesn't make it true. Unless you could cite sources that unequivocally state that Juggalos in general are 'a gang' you could not state this as a fact - and given that you have already found a source that states that they aren't[10], you cannot now state it as a fact anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

To be clear: I am NOT saying that we should say they are a gang. Yes, we should say they are suing the FBI for not releasing information (they are not suing for libel, they are suing under FOIA). As part of that, we should be reporting the nature of the report that precipitated the suit: the FBI and several states calling them a gang. We cannot say Juggalos are not a gang any more than we can say they are: There is no factual test, it is a matter of opinion in both cases. All we can say it that the FBI says X, Capital City police say Y, Insane Clown Posse says Z. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I guess the complaining "contributor" failed to see the instructions that require him to notify an editor if they're involved in a discussion. Here it is, hours and hours later and I hadn't been notified, despite the fact that the title of the section is my name, rather than the actual issue. I bring this up for a reason: to illustrate how Big Baby tends to see what he wants to see, disregard directions and pretty much make it up as he goes along.

1) Although BigBaby wants to lay this all on my feet, the facts show otherwise. The Baby has been on a campaign to remove any reference of the Juggalos as a gang from numerous articles, such as theres: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Despite his efforts to say this is all me, even the most causal observer will note that I'm not the only one restoring the info. That's another point to mention: I didn't add it, I've simply reverted his improper removal of sourced information.

2) Big Baby has continually screams that this is a BLP issue (though I note he didn't go to the BLPN). Using an impeccable, reliable source and reporting what it says about group isn't a BLP issue. As I tried to explain, if I called an individual a Juggalo, that could be a BLP issue since they are, according to the Dept of Justice, a criminal organization.

3) As a NPOV issue, the policy is being misappied. The claim is well source and there is no doubt about the source of the claim. In most cases, this is being mentioned only in the infobox. A mere (sourced) mention in the infobox is hardly going to be an WP:UNDUE issue. FWIW, in the article about Juggalo crime, I've actually removed references and assertions about the national group that were based solely on the actions of a local group. (Such as a local group engaging in a crime, then trying to say that Juggalos as a whole do it)

4) BigBaby, has engaged in edit warring over this, even after I've warned him about it. Most observers, even liberally construing the 3RR and edit warring policies would call his actions edit-warring.

5) The BigBaby has been instructed not to post on my userpage, but did so after warning.

6) BigBaby has not even attempted to improve the article by providing a well sourced counter-claim. Instead, he's simply removed over and over.

7) Most of this boils down to the fact that there are two very solid sources from the DoJ, as well as a couple of states, that state this group is a gang. On the other side, so far it has been BigBaby saying "no it's not" and a lot of WP:IDHT.

I'm going to watch this thread, but I'm very tempted to file at ANI and seek a block over the edit warring and a topic ban. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Niteshift36, as I have repeatedly explained to you, no, I have not been edit warring, YOU have been edit warring. YOU have asserted that a music fanbase is a gang. YOU have insulted other editors for not accepting your viewpoint. You have repeatedly violated WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. You cannot claim a MUSIC FANBASE as an ALLY of a GANG because you do not like the music fanbase. The fact that you do not understand or comprehend how WRONG you are or how much TROUBLE you have is frightening, and quite frankly, I'm willing to categorize Nickelback fans such as yourself as being A GANG sooner than I'd categorize Juggalos as being a gang because CLEARLY Juggalos are not as contentious, angry, and biased as you have been. There is VERY OBVIOUSLY a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP problem in listing A MUSIC FANBASE as an ALLY of a gang, and for you to claim that is not the case is blatantly patronizing. DO NOT TRY TO SHIFT BLAME TOWARDS ME. I have done NOTHING wrong. No, I will not be blocked, because YOU are calling REAL LIVING PEOPLE a GANG because YOU DO NOT LIKE THEIR TASTE IN MUSIC. You are being a fanatical bigot (read the definition, this is YOU), YOU are edit warring to PUSH YOUR VIEW POINT that a MUSIC FANBASE is somehow a GANG because YOU SAY IT IS, despite majority of sources saying that it is a MUSIC FANBASE. WHY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS? Has NOTHING I said gotten through to you? BigBabyChips (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'm about done with you. Note that an uninvolved editor (Andy) also echoed my warning about edit warring. I think we'll see about that block. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• FYI: Here is some forum shopping by Big Baby [16] and ANI thread about BigBaby's conduct [17]. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You seriously can't see how your bigotry is blinding you to the rules of Wikipedia and how your fanaticism is disruptive? The rules have been explained to you repeatedly. The fact that you ignore them shows your clear bias on this matter. It's ironic that you are stalking me, but claim that you need "protection" from stalkers on your talk page. Good grief. BigBabyChips (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• First off, I haven't asked for protection from stalkers. I said I detest ones who can't get their facts straight (something you've demonstrated a serious problem with). Nor have I "stalked" you my friend. With the exception of the article in AfD, I had edits on all the rest of those articles long before you came along with your single-minded campaign to whitewash the articles. Third, you haven't "explained" a single thing correctly. Lastly, you've bitchedwhinedshrieked like a girlcomplained about my "hatred" and "bigotry" (go look up hyperbole, I'll wait) just because I said Juggalos have horrible taste in music. I hope you didn't hurt yourself making that ridiculous leap, but it has been one of the best illustrations of how you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. This would all be entertaining if I thought it was an act, but when I think how serious you are, it just gets sad. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• No, I have explained it to you correctly, you just have failed to understand what I am saying. I've pointed out that calling a music fanbase a gang is not NPOV, and you've insisted that I am "whitewashing" articles because they fall out of neutral language. Third, you've directly stated your opposition to ICP and their fandom, so there is a clear NPOV issue in regards to your end. I'm not pushing that the articles should be written to promote ICP or Juggalos, I am pointing out that you can't write articles BASHING ICP and their fandom. BigBabyChips (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're not corrdct in your explainations, as numerous experienced editors and an admin or two have already told you. Yes, you've pointed out that calling them a gang isn't NPOV. The problem is, your wrong. Further, I'm not even the first one to say you were whitewashing these articles, but once again, you put everything on me. As for your third "point", wrong again. I never said I opposed them. I said they have horrible taste in music and fashion. Stating that I don't like their music doesn't make me an opponent. I'm not a fan of brocolli either, but feel free to eat as much of it as you want. Not liking it doesn't make me an opponent. The funny part here is that while you complain about what I said, you ignore the context in which I said it. In the statement I made, I readily stated that many Juggalos are not gang members. Of course you only saw that I think the music sucks and your reading ceased there. In any case, you've not shown any consensus for your interpretation. An odd editor here or there has agreed, but many more experienced editors have not. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has always been a contentious article. The main background is that as the top of the article says, "This article is about the "history of the controversy" about the race of the ancient Egyptians. For discussion of the scientific evidence relating to the race of the ancient Egyptians, see Population history of Egypt." but editors ignore this and use it as a vehicle to push their pov.

One problem is the use of block quotes to highlight an editor's favorite ideas (they were all removed from the article some time ago for this reason0. One new editor, already blocked once for edit-warring, insists on using block quotes for quotations he views as important. One of the quotes, from an encyclopedia on Ancient Egypt, is only 25 words long, so wouldn't qualify for block quotes even if it was appropriate to use them. It's also sourced as though it was written by Donald Redford although everyone now agrees that isn't the case. The other is much longer and is clearly being used to push a pov.

Another perennial problem is the attempt by editors from all povs to have the article state what the position of a group of scholars, that something is agreed broadly, etc - which is never easy to do and here often based on faulty sources. The introduction to the section Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Black African hypothesis has been removed and replaced and so far as I can see is not backed by the sources and is the site of the large block quote. The first sentence reads "It is now recognized by mainstream academia that anti-black racism played a key role in the development of the understanding of ancient Egypt in the Westernized world". The one source I can clearly read is a New York Times article[18] and the editor replacing this says it is backed by the archaeologist Emberling. Emberling is quoted as having written "“We now recognize that populations of Nubia and Egypt form a continuum rather than clearly distinct groups,” Mr. Emberling writes, “and that it is impossible to draw a line between Egypt and Nubia that would indicate where ‘black’ begins.” Even if 3 sources were enough to establish what is recognised by mainstream academia, what Emberling says doesn't back the sentence. The edit summary reinstating this also notes it is backed by Jennifer Chi in the same article, although the only mention of Chi is in the sentence "In one of his catalog essays the archaeologist Geoff Emberling, who conceived the show along with Jennifer Chi of the institute, examines some of these historical errors." The Keita paper (copyvio link to a pdf) says "Earlier studies interested in ascertaining population relationships usually examined the data from a "racial" perspective." and I'd be happy to have that used if attributed. I don't know what the Oxford Encyclopedia actually says.

Note that I think that the statement is probably accurate, but that we should be attributing statements to authors and not using a huge block quote to drive home a point.

This should apply no matter what the pov. The editor adding the above removed some material that said something was believed broadly -- see the discussion at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Mokhtar and Snowden where I checked the sources and agreed they didn't support the statement.

There are I'm sure other NPOV issues in the article, but I think the main ones have revolved around the use of images and block quotes and attempts to show general positions without adequate sourcing. This article really needs help (I won't even start with the spin-off articles from this one, life's too short). Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The citation which supports the opening sentence in my contributions from the NYtimes article reads:

More recently, our own Western prejudices — namely the idea that geographic Egypt was not a part of “black” Africa — have contributed to the dearth of knowledge about Nubia. The early-20th-century archaeologist George Reisner, for instance, identified large burial mounds at the site of Kerma as the remains of high Egyptian officials instead of those of Nubian kings. (Several of Reisner’s finds are in the show, reattributed to the Nubians.)

In one of his catalog essays the archaeologist Geoff Emberling, who conceived the show along with Jennifer Chi of the institute, examines some of these historical errors.

“We now recognize that populations of Nubia and Egypt form a continuum rather than clearly distinct groups,” Mr. Emberling writes, “and that it is impossible to draw a line between Egypt and Nubia that would indicate where ‘black’ begins.”

KAREN ROSENBERG, Partnerships and Power Shifts Between Two Mighty Lands,.

[19]

The source above is clearly attributing the denial of the black racial grouping of the ancient Egyptians to "western prejudice", which is something that Doug must have forgot to include in his description (along with the link to the article).

The next source which supports my opening sentence in my contributions is from leading bio-anthropologist/geneticist S.O.Y. Keita:

There has long been a discussion about the origins of the inhabitants of the ancient northem Nile valley. Probably for many reasons the discussion has focused on the “Africanity” of the ancient “Egyptian” populations. “Africanity” has been frequently inappropriately defined. Specifically, there has been a question about the degree or presence of “Negro” influence (e.g., Diop 1974; Robertson 1978; Robertson and Bradley 1979; Bemal 1987). “Negro” has been used to mean different things. Frequently earlier writers displayed a bias against “Negroes,” “Blacks,” and “Africans,” although the terms have been used in many ways—consistency has not been a strong point. Many would deny that prejudice had any role in the extreme concem about the “origins” of the Egyptians, but Morton’s comments at least are clear: “...civilization...could not spring from Negroes, or from Berbers and never did. . .” (quoted in Nott and Gliddon 1854). “Berbers” in this instance probably means Nubian. On the other hand Gilman (1982) reports the strong esthetic bias of Winckelmann, an eighteenth-century scholar, against Egyptians be- cause of their phenotypic “blackness.” Thomson and Randall-Maclver (1905:110) noted the prejudice in the early twentieth century.

S.O.Y. Keita, S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa .

[20]

Keita clearly demonstrates through words of 20th century scholars (throughout the entire study), that anti-black racism was the root of this entire "controversy". This source from a person who is considered an "authority" on the bio-culture origins of ancient Egypt backs my contribution.

The last source presented which supports the opening sentence in my contributions in the section in question is from the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt 2001 (Donald Redford)

"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....."

Donald Redford, The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3, p. 27-28 .

[21]

These sources have been presented to Doug throughout the talk page. For some reason this moderator has a major problem with the clear fact that one theory on this page of theories has more scholarly support than others. In this case how can you "balance" out the support for theories which are clearly debunked with the one which clearly has the support of mainstream academia? It has been brought up by several other people throughout this talk page that the moderator Doug has an emotional attachment to certain notions and blatant prejudice towards others, and he attempts to reflect this in the article. This is not helpful towards the article as it is not truthfully informing visitors to this page of the contemporary viewpoints of mainstream academia, which is based on sold evidence from multiple scientific disciplines. Asante90 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Stemming from his prejudice against the "black African" theory for ancient Egypt's origin, Doug objects to almost any new contribution to that section the article. One famous quote from 18th century French scholar Constantin-François Chassebœuf which directly deals with the relevance of this section of the article has been put in a block quote. Doug objects to this, because according to him block quotes are "bad". Two days ago I contributed to this section the views (which are consistent with reviews from scholars on the Amazon page for the book) expressed from the recent publication "Black Genesis" written by best selling author Robert Bauval. Bauval's book is basically stating that the Egyptian civilization derived from earlier advanced black ancient Saharan communities. Bauval bases this on conclusive anthropological and archaeological evidence. Doug objects to the inclusion of these statements because he considers it "fringe", but he himself could not point out on the talk page what exactly was fringe about those very statements. He then removed the statements. Asante90 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that my link didn't work - but please don't accuse me of not including it, somehow I simply didn't copy it correctly. In your edit summary you mentioned Emberling, Chi and Keita as I recall. But the statement "More recently, our own Western prejudices — namely the idea that geographic Egypt was not a part of “black” Africa — have contributed to the dearth of knowledge about Nubia." is by a New York Times art critic, Karen Rosenberg and can't be used as a source for the opening sentence. As I said, Keita can be used but only if attributed. Bauval is not an expert on archaeology and anthropology and is clearly fringe. I wasn't unable to point this out, the book is a fringe book claiming that "an advanced black African civilization inhabited the Sahara long before Pharaonic Egypt" - something that Keita for instance, and the writers of the Oxford Encyclopedia, would clearly deny.

Thank you for showing the 'Redford' quote - I was thinking of doing that but didn't get around to it. I doubt that any reader would come away from reading that without assuming that Redford actually wrote it. In fact it's by Stuart Tyson Smith and should be cited correctly and attributed to him. It's a useful quote and I don't object to it, but I do object to the use of block quotes anywhere in this article as my experience is that they are almost always used to show a pov, and I also believe that quotes should be attributed to their author. How could anyone object to that? Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the following sentence- currently the opening sentence of the Black Theory section- epitomizes the current problems the page has:

“ It is now recognized by mainstream academia that anti-black racism played a key role in the development of the understanding of ancient Egypt in the Westernized world. ”

Even though personally I acknowledge that racism could've played a role in historical Egypt studies (i.e. the lack of major earlier study on the Nubians), I think the placement and wording of the statement are done specifically to give the implication that opposition to the black theory stems primarily from racism. Along these lines, the editor who added this (and various other contentious material) is pushing upon the page a stance that the Black Theory is the undeniable truth and, worse, that anyone who doesn't completely agree is probably a racist. Not only does it favor of the argument, it also unfairly demonizes the other.

Other general issues include questionable use of sources to make arguments which the sources don't necessarily support, which I think Dougweller already hit on at least somewhat.

Not only does this sort of editing severely violate NPOV, but the fact that the (quite zealous) editor has applies the same uncompromising viewpoint to other wikipedia editors who disagree with him prevents meaningful dialogue, at least as long as talk page rants like these ([[22]], [[23]] ) continue to occur.

All of this ugliness is totally unnecessary. If that editor would take a different attitude, it wouldn't be nearly as ... unpleasant... as it is right now, even though this neutrality issue might still be contentious (though probably less so). Hopefully it's possible to work out a balanced version of the page that satisfies everyone, though, seeing its current state, that's a ways off.--Yalens (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Emberling and Chi confirm the notions of the Rosenburg (the editor) in Emberling's own direct quote when he states that mainstream academia no longer tries to separate Egypt and Nubia racially as both form a black continuum. At this point Doug you cannot logically be disputing the opening statement that I've added to the Black African hypothesis. Even if you take issue with exactly "who" acknowledged racism in the NYtimes article, you don't dispute the acknowledgement of racism from the S.O.Y. Keita study or from the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt? Those two sources alone are validation enough of my contributing statement.

Doug no one is preventing you or anyone else from block quoting pivotal statement from other theories. The problem that you seem to have is that you don't have any contemporary pivotal statements supporting other theories, and due to your own emotional attachment to this subject you simply don't want it to be acknowledged that one theory has more mainstream support then the others. If block quotes were a problem then block quotes would not be an editing option in wikipedia. The block quoting page does not caution anyone from using this feature, so you have no reason to either. [24]

As far as Robert Bauval goes, I have came to agree with your statements that my additional contributions about his book are a bit much. I say this mostly because his notions of an "advanced" civilization in the Sahara can not be validated by contemporary researchers. His analysis on the archaeology and anthropological evidence however is consistent with mainstream academia.

Yalen you now go on to state that my contributing statement invokes that if you disagree with this that it is rooted in racism . A historical fact is a historical fact! As stated by the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (authoritative) the notions that the ancient Egyptians were migrating Europeans, Hamites (southwest Asian migrants), or a mixture of Hamites and black Africans is Eurocentric and rooted in racism against blacks, and I also have another direct statement from Keita which suggest just that. Now perhaps we use the term that Keita used which is "De-Africanization" rather than "anti-black" but the bases that it was RACISM should not change as it has been cited by authorities to be just that!

Yalen you too (along with Doug) have been irrational in displaying that you cannot accept even the most authoritative conclusions on the issue at hand. You have an issue with everyone of my edits and support even the most ludicrous opinions so long it contradicts the black African hypothesis. You sir are biased and along with Doug have attempted to censor any additional information added which supported the theory that you simply do not like, and that is also apparent and noted on the talk page by several posters. Asante90 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This thread merely indicates why discussions on the article are so very difficult. Long walls of text are produced, usually in relation to a dogmatic model of "black" identity entirely dependent on 20th century American cultural norms but projected back into ancient history. Claims of censorship and conspiracy abound. I think we may need to develop very clear guidelines to deal with this recurrent problem. The prurpose of the board is just negated by this thread, since no useful independent input is possible in these circumstances. Paul B (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue of using modern social labels on ancient peoples tends be brought up when we are dealing specifically with the ancient Egyptians, but never any other peoples. Case and point [25]. The National Geographic's heavily controversial 2008 edition of it's magazine entitled the "Black pharaohs" of the 25th Dynasty had no problem with labeling the ancient Nubians as black. Why then is their a problem with labeling other ancient peoples in a modern context based on widely available and consistent evidence? Censorship claim is what is in dispute now sir. For example in the opening paragraphs of the article the second mention of the black Egypt theory was equated with "black supremacy" and "Afrocentrism" while the true cause of this entire controversy (white supremacy and Eurocentrism) had absolutely no mention. Now why was that the case? Asante90 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Do the walls of text remind you of anyone we know Paul B? Someone with the initials B G? I hope not... Probably not... But Asante90's edits are as far off as that one, and practically impossible to deal with, as you said. There is no way to reason in the face of these edits. I will not bother to go to that disaster zone talk page, but will note here that his edits are far less than constructive, should a user discussion take place about them. History2007 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

For everyone of my major edits I've started a discussion for them, and presented my sources and reasoning for these contributions. No one disputed them on the talk page. I presented each source (s) for each contribution that I've added to the black African Hypothesis section.[26] I corrected the source distortions and blatant fallacies that sat in the modern scholarship section of the main article for who knows how long, and on the talk page I explained piece by piece what the issue was and what needed to be corrected to reflect what the sources actually state. No one has disputed those corrections on the talk page, so I have no clue what you mean by insinuating that I'm impossible to deal with. [27][28]Asante90 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to read the essay Wikipedia:Walls of text, then take a look just up here. Great wall of China that is... History2007 (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Asante90 reinstating material, claiming he's proven his case here & that I'm rallying Klan members

He (also editing logged out) has replaced the contested material I removed earlier today saying he's proven his case here so he can reinstate it. His edit summary reads "Your dropped your argument in the discussion over both the box quotes and you offered no contest to statements of De'Volney [29] Stop lying!" I had left the Oxford material in, removing the box quote as per our MOS for short quotations and attributing it to its author, Tyson. He's even changed it back to read as though it is by Donald Redford. Besides all the other problems, he has no consensus for this. He says no consensus is required for the block quote and other editors are welcome to add their own block quotes. This is exactly the problem we need to avoid. He says "the most authoritative contemporary source in relation to this article should be given extra attention above." - the problem is, who decides that? If anyone else thinks I've dropped my argument, please let me know so I can fix that. He more or less admits he doesn't have consensus, saying I am "rallying up a of your Klan members to say they don't like it." It doesn't look as though he's going to play nice. :-) Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, his edits are impossible to deal with. Favonian has been looking at his edits and I pointed out the rugby game to him just now. History2007 (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

This page is not in a NPOV. Efforts to give add any positive descriptions of the organization are often deleted and any efforts to disqualify the criticisms are ignored. Criticisms are fair but where is the praise. The organization in clearly non-partisan by its support from both parties. Its stance on some issues may be controversial but hardly worthy of the edits done to the page. Can anyone contribute to make this page positively? Liberty20036 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Judging from Talk:Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the page has had NPOV issues since at least 2007. It appears that historically (and presently) most of the POV issues arise from members or employees of this organization who consistently copy and paste text from its website into the Wikipedia article. Liberty20036 is correct that positive descriptions are often deleted, but as far as I can tell this has always been due to copyright infringement or COI issues. (What Liberty20036 does not mention is that the criticisms are also commonly challenged or deleted, apparently always by the same people who add the copyright-infringing or otherwise problematic praise. I am glad to hear, however, that this user at least considers the criticisms to be "fair".) If anyone would like to volunteer to add some reliably sourced material on the acclaim the organization has received, or to help Liberty20036 do so him- or herself, this would be much appreciated. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The way Wiki-policy is structured now, this type of article (and there are many like it) will be an ongoing, multiparty ping pong game for long. In this case, the insiders seem not to even bother to write new text, but eventually they will do that and copyvio will go away, and it will be a question of who spends more energy on the page. May as well accept that fact. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2010

1 editor (Vles1) has accused me of having writing an not neutral Wikipedia article called Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2010. But to the best of my abilities I can not see anything not neutral in it.... Could an not involved party please take a look at this article and point out to me what is wrong with the current article. I did try to write a good neutral article (although I am aware I am no Gogol). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Tishma

After several additions of original research (and removal of maintenance tags) by User:Checkin34z (contribs):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tishma&action=history

which were reverted by User:Md.altaf.rahman and later myself, and although discussion(s) have taken at User talk:Checkin34z, at User talk:Benzband#Tishma and at User talk:Md.altaf.rahman i don't think we're going to reach an agreement over the article. We would appreciate any input on the matter.

Also i have just drastically edited the article to remove unsourced/inappropriate content. Cheers, benzband (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Good move benzband, I appreciate your intervention in this issue. Altaf (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sri Vishnu Teertharu

Recently an article, Sri Vishnu Teertharu, was moved into the article space after almost a year of work. However, the tone of the article is worthy of concern. It includes wording such as "one of the greatest seers in Hindu religion" and "Jayateerthacharya was all wealthy by God’s grace. At the same time he was so kind in nature...". I would like some advice on how I should treat this article. Thank you. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what a marshmallow. Be bold and pare that thing down. If you get any pushback post back here and we'll see about handling it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

An editor as disputed the neutrality of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. I am coming here to simply ask for outside opinions on rather the article is written from a neutral point of view. Casprings (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC in Rape culture

I invite commentary on neutrality and undue weight issues in the article talk page [30]. Handyunits (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Establishing Weight and Due

One suggestion for establishing WP:WEIGHT at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute is that WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE should ideally be established by reference to neutral 3rd party sources to ensure coverage is commensurate with the weight of opinion and prominence is given in proportion to the coverage in the same. Another editor argues that anything that could be sourced should be included and that this could be modified by what he suggests to "add only what we can source with two different reliable sources". I am bringing this here for outside comment as to which of the two suggestions best follows WP:NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you go to the talk page and look at the discussion, what Wee proposes is to completely remove from Wikipedia an entire section of the article (the "International position" section). He bases his proposition in that since we can't find published books about the international position in sovereignty disputes to use as guides for weight, everything must go. My opposition to this "quality standard" can be summed up as follows:

1. Established newspaper are reliable sources (though not as good sources as published books).
2. The standard that every section in an article should be guided by extension found in books is not reasonable, virtually half of WP would absolutely not pass this test and hence would have to be removed.
3. Relevance in WP is measured by its mention in reliable sources, not only and exclusively in books.

As I've mentioned in the talk page, attempting to apply this standard to several sections in the main article Falklands Islands (to give just one example) would mean an immediate deletion of those sections. The same would happen with entire articles such as Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013 which would have to be completely removed from WP. This is not to mention virtually any article about the Israel-Palestine conflict (see for example Operation Pillar of Defense) which would end up being skimmed to the bones or removed entirely.

I mentioned in the talk page that a compromise to weight the inclusion or not of a country's position regarding the Falkland's issue (what actually initiated the discussion) would be to adhere to a strict "two reliable sources" rule so as to no add everything indiscriminately. As I've pointed out, the standard that everything needs to be present in a published book to merit being added/mentioned in WP is absurd. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should concentrate on the issues that this section raises Gaba. I think it is the responsibilty of other editors working on articles you mention to have a similar debate to this, and leave I/P, Kashmir, etc to resolve themselves. Irondome (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not about concentrating on the article or not. It's about a general guideline being proposed to asses the complete removal of content from a WP article that is being discussed. The mention of other articles is pertinent to put the guideline into context. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's about a general guideline being applied in the same way that is absolutely standard across the rest of Wikipedia, such as to ensure that appropriate WP:WEIGHT is given to each part of the articles. If similar issues exist elsewhere, they are separate from this discussion. Kahastok talk 20:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba does not accurately describe the argument made against his viewpoint. The key point made is that reliable and scholarly sources on the subject of this particular dispute do not give any significant weight to the views of third parties. Whereas appropriate sources (in the form of reliable history books) have been provided that demonstrate this lack of weight, no source has been provided either on the subject of this dispute or on the subject of disputes in general that would suggest that the weight currently given to the point on the article is appropriate.

It is further argued that the existence of news reports describing the statements that result from Latin American regional summits are not sources on the subject of the dispute - but rather on the subject of the statements and summits - and thus that while they may be used to demonstrate specific points of fact, they cannot be used to determine how much weight should be given to any particular point. Kahastok talk 20:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Try this: take everything Kahastok just said above (ie: the "quality standard" being proposed) and try to apply it to articles like Falkland Islands, Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013, Gibraltar, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Gaza War, etc.. (or sections within them) and see how those articles or most of the sections inside those articles would do. History books (or books in general) are not by any means the only form of reliable source in WP. The ideal case we would be to have many reliable published books for any topic at hand to choose from, but this is not the case for a large large number of articles en WP. This does not mean that we should remove all that content from the encyclopedia.

Applying this guideline as is would imply that if I can raise the point that a section in a given article (or even the whole article) in WP can not be made to comply with the length present in books, then it has to be completely removed. This is just absurd.

My compromise/middle ground is to find at least two reliable secondary sources for every country being mentioned in that section as a form to asses weight. If the issue is the length of such mention, nobody is asking for more than a line or two as far as I can tell, which I believe to be much more reasonable than asking for the whole section to be completely removed from WP based on that ad-hoc standard. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that I do not agree with the points above: not that it would have the effect described on other articles discussed, not that it would make a difference in this case if other articles have similar issues, not that removing sections from articles is necessarily a problem where they currently give undue weight. I have never argued that reliable sources have to be books, though I would argue that books are preferable to media reports and would remind everyone that in this particular case history books have actually been cited.

But both of us, and others, have made these points often enough now and I don't think it helpful to belabour them when the point of coming here is to get input from outside editors. As such I will not be responding to any response from an insider to this message and would encourage other insiders not to respond either to this message or to any insider response to this message.

So, outside editors. Should we be basing the weight given to this section on the weight given to the point by outside reliable sources on the subject of the article, such as the history books that have been cited? Or should we instead apply a condition such that we consider anything that can be sourced to two news reports to meet WP:WEIGHT? Kahastok talk 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Kahastok but your final questions I believe do not sum up the issue quite properly. I'd say: should we be basing the removal or not of a section (or article) or its extension based exclusively on published books or article journals? Or should we also take into consideration the existence of reliable secondary sources (such as newspapers) to make that assessment? My opposition to the "quality standard" attempting to be applied to that section (with the aims of removing it) it's because it would have a devastating effect over a large number of articles in WP if applied as is, and thus it is just not sensible. Reliable secondary sources exist for a reason, not every article can be based (or have the weight of its sections based) on books or journal articles. One only needs to go to some of the articles I've mentioned in the comment above (among many other) to see this. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've collapsed a lot of tendentious argument from those involved, in the vain hope that they will allow outside editors to comment on the issues germane to this noticeboard. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You know better than doing this Wee. Please do not start an edit war here, the views of other editors have as much value as yours. Do not hide comments again please (also the accusations of "tendentious" are definitely not helpful). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole purpose of coming here was to get an outside view on your assertion we judge WP:WEIGHT by requiring that two different sources, primarily newspaper reports, be supplied. I gave a very neutral summary, you deterred outside comment by attempting to reprise the argument on here. Please allow outside comment and cease the disruption. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for outside comment

I apologise in advance for repeating myself, the purpose of this section was to get outside comment that WP:WEIGHT can be judged on the basis of requiring that two different sources, primarily newspaper reports, rather than the current community standard in WP:NPOV. Please could I have outside comment, thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee your "neutral" summary of the issue leaves a lot to be desired and your attempts at being the only one with a voice in this discussion are quite disruptive. The question is not "should we do this rather than follow established guidelines?", you are purposely presenting a loaded question. Nobody is talking about violating WP:NPOV. The question is: can we base a section of an article on reliable secondary sources (such as established newspapers)? Or should every section in an article that can't be made to match with the length of the same topic present exclusively in published books/journals be removed from WP?

I would request editors to please head on to the Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute to get more background on what is being discussed. I quote editor Scjessey who I believe summarizes my point rather well:

"If a country's position on the matter receives significant coverage in high-quality secondary sourcing (mainstream media and scholarly works), it is worth inclusion". Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is no different from my interpretation of WP:WEIGHT but its not what you propose. The reason removal is proposed is that high-quality secondary sourcing doesn't attach much weight and newspapers are not high-quality sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

While two reliable sources are certainly desirable, I think one is sufficient; newspaper accounts are acceptable-quality sources. All the best, Miniapolis 03:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

For a couple months User_talk:68.6.227.26 has kept adding information about Israeli suffering and about Palestinian ill-doing (including children as terrorists) to the article. He has been civil about adopting to corrective edits (though I haven't even tried to remove some of the WP:Undue on some topics). He just seems insensitive to criticism from another editor earlier on and myself and just keeps adding such material. If someone could just take a quick look and comment on the NPOV issue that might help wake him up more to the issue. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 19:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, thank you for notifying me about the Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion. I was uncertain where to respond and tried to at your talk page, but it doesn't seem to be allowing edits right now. I looked through my old edits for this article, and they include the following:

1. Expanded the section on Israeli child casualties, mostly to make it less random.

2. Added Sderot statistics to the section on Post Traumatic Stress, as it seems to have the highest concentration of PTSD in Israel

3. Expanded the section on Palestinian child casualties to include examples of individual incidents

4. Added a section on peace projects

5. Added a few photos (three of Palestinians, two involving Israelis, and two for the section on peace projects). None of these had a negative connotation.

6. Added statistics on malnutrition in Gaza

7. Added information on schooling disruptions in Israel as a result of the conflict. It was intended to balance out the section, which previously only discussed schooling disruptions in the West Bank and Gaza. However, the text on those disruptions was removed shortly after by another editor as the link was dead.

8. Rephrased some text from the section on Treatment of Palestinian Children by the IDF in order to make it more neutral

9. Added a section on media manipulation

10. Added some information on Israeli medical aid to Palestinians and cases of organ donation between opposite sides of the conflict.

11. Gave statistics regarding the age and gender trends for Palestinian child deaths

12. Added information about miscarriage and the deaths of pregnant women on both sides during the conflict

13. Gave the age of the youngest victim of violence during the conflict

14. Added some information on child suicide bombers and child indoctrination

15. Added a section on foreign children killed as a result of the conflict

I have also added a few counter-arguments in sections which only included one perspective in order to make it more neutral. As a whole, I don't believe my edits have been particularly NPOV, though I am more than willing to discuss specific issues you have. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Moncton High School

• Moncton High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pastaforeveryone (talk · contribs)

Is it me, or has this become a long editorial on behalf of not moving a school from one site to another? 99.12.243.171 (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm attempting a WP:NPOV clean-up on it. Qworty (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • My congratulations to you for taking on what appeared to me an absolutely byzantine task. One account had put a lot of time into it, and may have a sense of possession, so it would be wise for several editors to watchlist this--there's likely a strong sentiment about this from the local community. Thank you and cheers, Qworty. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)