Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page.

Guidance on how to make articles conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy can be found on pages listed in Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view, primarily the policy pages Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research noticeboard. For review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias whether these would be better venues for the issues you're trying to address.

Click here to post a new topic or discussion. NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise. Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation. Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

There's been much back and forth over the NPOV validity of including a referenced statement in the lead section stating "The title is widely considered to be among the greatest games ever." There's been much discussion on the talk page under heading #20: "More info on reception in head paragraph: the Greatest Game Ever Made?" Some review of whether such a statement conflicts NPOV would be very much appreciated. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick link to the talk page discussion. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Tamara Millay

User:Skarl_the_Drummer continues to remove a relevant category listing for this minority politician, who should be properly listed both as an American politican and as a Missouri politician. Posts 3RR warnings while deleting the same warning given him for the same action. This may possible be a POV issue as well, given that the listing is about a minority political party activist. Request admin review. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated on my talk page, it is not usual to insist on a category and a subcategory without good reason. -- Skarl 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The entry legitimately belongs in both categories. Deleting it from either degrades the article by removing relevant information. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way could a Missouri politician be mistaken for not being a US politician? -- Skarl 19:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If separate categories weren't needed, they wouldn't have been created, nor would they still exist. If she belongs in both, she should be in both. It's as simple as that.

I realize you're getting a great laugh out of "screwing with the American", but that isn't why Wikipedia exists, and you should get your jollies in some other way.

Would an admin please step in? -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Trust me on this one point: being accused of vandalism for no valid reason is not something I can find any "fun" in. -- Skarl 20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

By people of the USA, maybe not. Don't forget the world-wide use of the English Wikipedia and that some users may not know the names of all the states. (I usually forget Wisconsin - keep thinking it's in Canada for some reason.) Can you recite all the UK counties? I would say leave it in both categories. Won't do any harm. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW I'm not the requested admin, and I'm referring back to the 'In what way' comment. As a UK resident, I an totally neutral in this matter. Peridon (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but when one category is a subcategory of another, the potential for confusion is not there -- because the info is there in the categorisation system. The argument "does no harm" needs to be backed up by something vital in the bio that begs both category and subcategory (see Wikipedia:Categorisation#In_general). -- Skarl 20:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest you both take it to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests ? Start a thread there and someone will sort it out. There's no point in going on arguing - you're not going to convince each other. Leave the disputed article as it is while this is done. It can be set to the 'officially approved' version later if necessary. If a 'revert war' starts, someone might get banned. Peridon (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If Davidkevin wishes to take this to Wikipedia:Third opinion, I undertake to abide by the opinion offered, even if I disagree with it. -- Skarl 20:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Let's do it. -- Davidkevin (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Heckler & Koch MP5

German terrorist group, the Red Army Faction, depicted a Heckler & Koch MP5 in their insignia.

• Donahue, Patrick (February 12, 2007). "German Red Army Faction Member Wins Early Release". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2007-12-08.
• Landler, Mark (February 7, 2007). "Germany Relives 1970s Terror as 2 Seek Release From Jail". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-12-08.

The addition of this simple, referenced statement has been summarily reverted repeatedly by User:Koalorka without appropriate explanation and he and several members of WP:GUN opposed the addition at the article talk page first as "violating WP:GUN#Criminal use", then later as being "trivia" and as violating WP:UNDUE. It was then proposed to hide (for all practical purposes) this "[promotion of] a criminal Marxist terror organization and their actions in an article free of politics"^[1] in the article's section on Users. But the RAF never did actually use the gun, and imho the "compromise" to put it there was suggested out of the same underlying POV motivation. Barring a reorganisation of the article to create a better place for this sentence, I believe the end of the article's lead is the only place and perfectly appropriate for this statement, especially considering the fact that the RAF logo is easily the most notable depiction of the MP5 ever. Yes or no? Everyme 02:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this fact belongs in the article about Red Army Faction, but not in the article about the firearm. It does seem like trivia, and placing it in the lead would probably be undue weight in my opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 03:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll defer to your judgement. Everyme 05:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• OTOH, it already is mentioned in the RAF article. And why exactly is it so out of place to concisely mention it in the MP5 article? I mean, seriously, "trivia"? The RAF is quite notable and the logo is the most widely circulated depiction of the gun ever. Everyme 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My take on this: most communist organizations that used a firearm on their emblems used the AK-47, so it's worth mentioning that RAF used something else (and what that something else was) in the article on RAF. Mentioning RAF in the article on MP5 seems very marginal; are there any references association with RAF significantly affected the gun's visibility/notoriety? If so, then mention it, otherwise don't. By analogy, MP5 is mentioned in the article on Half-Life_(video_game) as plot device, but Half-life is not mentioned in the article about the gun. What I'm trying to say here is that "X is worth mentioning in the article on Y" is not a symmetric relation. VG ☎ 09:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: to younger generations Half-life is/was way, way more notable than RAF, so it's reasonable to presume that for them Half-life was "easily the most notable depiction of the MP5 ever". In the absence of sources to support the claim, I wouldn't add it to the article on MP5 because it's WP:OR. VG ☎ 09:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that I didn't and don't propose to add that into the article literally. But consider e.g. this NYTimes article from 2007: "Ransom pictures of Mr. Schleyer posed in front of the Red Army Faction’s crude symbol, a star bisected by a Heckler & Koch MP5 machine gun, came to symbolize the scourge of 1970s terrorism." It's fair to say that —all recentism and other systemic bias aside— it is indeed the far more notable depiction. I mean, come on. Half-Life? Everyme 20:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just "Half-life 2" has two orders of magnitude more ghits than "red army faction", so come on. VG ☎ 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Everyme that the use of the MP5 in the RAF logo is notable, for the reasons summarized in the NY Times quote. The RAF, together with other terrorist organizations, violently influenced the lives of many in Western Europe and the Middle East throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and to some extent 1990s. Furthermore I feel it is a notable use of the MP5, since the MP5 was mostly used by police forces and armies that the RAF vehmently opposed as "imperialist". Nevertheless they used the gun in their logo, which became a symbol of terrorism. The gun in the logo is also often mistakenly identified as a Kalashnikov. — I would say Half Life is not such an influential symbol, but since I'm not that familiar with Half Life 2 I'm not qualified to judge whether it's worth mentioning. Stevo2001 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not in most of Western Europe. Danny Morrison's statement "with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other," (to which he could of added 'and semtex in the car') was more symbolic in those parts of western Europe where a much larger war took place. --PBS (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservative Christianity

I'm not really certain if I am posting this in the right place, but the article Conservative Christianity is being used by user N0nr3s to put forth his opinion of Catholic Teaching (on Biblical inerrancy) rather than the Catholic Church's stated position. The page has been subject to repeated edits and undos.Catholic monarchist (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The term is ambiguous and there is no evidence that it clearly identifies any group of people or set of beliefs, it overlaps with other identified groups, and there are no references to prove otherwise. Compare this with the article on Conservative Judaism, which is well-understood and refers to a specific group of people. This article should be deleted. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Any interest in actually addressing my concern? Catholic monarchist (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Six-Day War Article

see Talk:Six-Day War#Section Break This Dispute is over Censorship and Talk:Six-Day War#"Disputed", Israel's refusal to host UNEF

A dispute has arisen over a series of deletions of material from scholarly WP:V secondary sources, i.e. The Making of Resolution 242, by Sydney Dawson Bailey; International History of the Twentieth Century, by Anthony Best; Peacekeeping Fiascoes, by Frederick H. Fleitz; The Evolution of UN Peacekeeping, By William Durch; and The UN Yearbook (a reference work published by the United Nations Information Service. Those secondary sources also happen to be supported by a published primary source document -UN Secretary General U Thant's report on the situation in the Middle East. One of the editors has selectively picked WP:V sources which support his master narrative, and is acting as a gatekeeper to exclude any other published views. I appears to be a violation WP:NPOV policy.

After a lengthy discussion on the talk page these well-sourced quotations from WP:V secondary sources were added, but they were immediately deleted by the same editor:

After the war Yitzhak Rabin, who had served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." Menachem Begin stated that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." [61] both men quoted in One Land, Two Peoples: The Conflict Over Palestine, By Deborah J. Gerner PhD, Westview Press, 1994, ISBN 0813321808, Page 112

Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) had stated: "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli." Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, claimed the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war... ..."When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war —what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today." [62] both men were quoted in "Was the War Necessary?", Time Magazine. Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal (Israeli military)[63] quoted from 'The Terrorist Conjunction: The United States, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, by Alfred G. Gerteiny, and Jean Ziegler, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007, ISBN 0275996433, page 142 harlan (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If Harlan were really interested in neutrality, rather than just finding secondary sources that included the specific quotes he was so keen on inserting into the article, he would instead have actually reproduced the thrust of the arguments the sources were using. Deborah J. Gerner, for example, suggests that it is unlikely that Nasser was actually going to attack Israel. However, she also points out that Nasser was engaged in brinkmanship in an "attempt to improve its standing in the Arab world and to humiliate Israel by forcing it to accept what it said it would not accept—the renewed closure of the Strait of Tiran". Someone interested in NPOV would have edited to include that view. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stefan Uroš II Milutin of Serbia

A new account, Humormekill (talk · contribs), has been adding some "See Also" stuff, in bad English, that is surely intended to push some sort of point: a couple of sentences like "North Kosovo 1420km2 with Stprce area and Titova Mitrovica, its 13% of Kosovo under Serbian Beograd control!" I reverted once but he put it back. Since I'm not really up on Balkans issues, I should probably let somebody else take charge of this. looie496 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV at Grossmont Union High School District article.

The Grossmont Union High School District article had edits made after the recent election [[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]] may contain possible problems. Some of them I reverted, but they were placed back. After a brief discussion, I decided to allow him to keep the information for now, as long as he cleaned it up a bit, but I made it clear that I was still not in favor of the information and would seek an outside opinion. Could someone take a look and explain it to the other editor or if I am wrong, explain it to me. The more editors that we get in on this the better. The page has been changing so much in the past two weeks, I can't even keep up.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Kings College

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King%27s_College

Most of this article was clearly written from the perspective of a student or employee trying to further this school's agenda. I attended this school, so I clearly do not have an "objective" opinion. However, the article is not at all written in an objective way, particularly in the sections entitled, "Degree Programs", "Student Housing and Activities", "Houses" and "Criticism and Response".

I find the article entirely misleading, particularly concerning the fact that the school is only made up of several hundred students and the programs are small and limited. This article makes the programs sound enticing and full of opportunity. I suppose all I have to say is that I experienced the exact opposite in my year at this college. Perhaps I am not able to express myself very well due to my bias, however, I feel the article is rather biased and misleading if you look over it carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgill lass (talk • contribs) 07:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe that the article is missing important facts about the school? If so, give us the general idea. It is hard to respond to such a general complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

I would appreciate wider community input on the above article, notably the sections on (1) the Jason Scott case and (2) the Branch Davidians.

The article subject, Mr Ross, as well as editors Cirt (talk · contribs) and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs), feel that these sections are too unkind to Mr Ross:

1. in the first case, for reporting too many details relating to the Jason Scott case, and
2. in the second case, i.e. the Branch Davidians section, for reporting scholarly criticism of Mr Ross's involvement in the Waco siege.

The article shouldn't be a hatchet job, but on the other hand, such notable criticism as there has been should be fairly represented. The Jason Scott case was a landmark case that set an important legal precedent (it ended the North American practice of forcibly abducting adult "cult" members in order to change their beliefs).

Also, I feel unduly pressurised by the subject, Mr Ross, on the talk page; for example to portray events in a light flattering to him, based solely on his own assertions made on the talk page, when this flattering interpretation of events is flatly contradicted by a statement reported in a reliable source – which Mr Ross says is "of little value here".

As I see it, the article has for many years suffered from the inclusion of many statements that were either unsourced, or sourced to Mr Ross's writings on his website, thus failing to reflect significant published views on this subject in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Here, for reference, is an old version of the article, which Mr Ross prefers – it has multiple clear violations of Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. I was also concerned to find that around a quarter of all edits that the article had received over the past five years were made by single-purpose IP accounts that seem reasonably attributable to Mr Ross himself, as they are all consistent with a New Jersey location, use the same diction and lines of argument as Mr Ross's (recently-established) account on the talk page, do not cite published sources but personal knowledge, seek to attach a "cult apologist" label to any academic that has been critical of Mr Ross, etc.

I'd appreciate uninvolved editors' input on how to find the right balance. Jayen466 11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Both my bio and the article about the Jason Scott case have become dominated by single editor Jayen466, who seems to be either a volunteer or staffer working for a guru group often called a "cult" founded by Osho/Shree Rajneesh, now deceased. Anyone interested should also see the article about Osho/Rajneesh, which Jayen466 has sought to turn into promotional advertising for the guru.

However, Osho/Rajneesh was most well-known historically as a notorious "cult leader" that was deported from the United States after being jailed by authorities.

I am pointing this out because Jayen466 seems to be an editor at Wikipedia because of such personal interests and his participation at my bio and the Jason Scott article reflect his unhappiness that the Ross Institute Internet Archives contains a subsection with critical information about Osho/Rajneesh.

See http://www.rickross.com/groups/rajneesh.html

Jayen466 bias is reflected by his work here at Wikipedia and there are specific problems with his editing of my bio and the Jason Scott article, which I have noted specifically at the talk/discussion pages attached to those articles.

Jayen466 has used various quotes from unreliable and biased sources, edited/parsed language and inserted opinions in an effort to mislead readers and generally promote his POV. For example, he has relied heavily upon the writings of Anson Shupe, who was paid by Scientology lawyers to become their "expert." Shupe worked very closely with Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon.

If Wikipedia is to be a credible and reliable source for objective information editors like Jayen466, who wish to use this site as a platform for propaganda, need to reigned in and held accountable.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr Ross, as has been pointed out to you before by others, these are personal attacks. Please cease them forthwith – you have made essentially the same attack ten times now, on multiple talk pages: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. As for Anson Shupe, he is widely considered a leading scholar in his field, your unpublished opinion of him notwithstanding. Cheers, Jayen466 13:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The point remains the same, which is your conflict of interest as an Osho/Rajneesh devotee with an ax to grind. This is something you have notably never denied per the ten examples you offer and it is the motivation for your editing work at Wikipedia. Attempting to portray this conflict of interest as a "personal attack" doesn't change the facts. Are you a full-time staffer or volunteer for the Osho community? It is also a matter of record historically and evident to anyone that does serious research regarding Anson Shupe, that he has worked professionally closely with Scientology and Scientologist lawyer Kendrick Moxon specifically. The writings you have quoted are evidence of that.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So, Obama supporters cannot edit articles about Mccain's or vice-versa? What about Islamists editing State of Israel? Or Israelis and Palestinians editing Israeli–Palestinian conflict? Each and every WP editor have their biases, but in this project we have the help of three content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and additional constrains when we write about living people. So, rather than use argumenta ad hominem or poisoning the well in these dicussions, contributors are asked to collaborate with each other within the framework provided by these policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If employees of the McCain campaign were editing the Obama article, and were not being scrupulously neutral, that would indeed be a problem. There's a difference between folks who simply have sympathies with a subject, and those that are paid by the subject. That's why we have a WP:COI guideline, which is largely self-enforced on the honor system. Unfortunately, self-enforcement doesn't always work well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of Jayen not being scrupulously neutral in this case, quite the contrary. I wish other editors would be as conscious as he/she is in this regard. If you or anyone has concerns about Jayen's edits in this regard, the forum for that is WP:COI/N and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The section on the subject's criminal trial has grown substantially since Jayen has been working on it. Are you of the opinion that adding material on a negative incident like that is a neutral activity? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the criminal trial an important trial? According to Jayen, it is. Maybe you could help in researching if this is as significant trial as Jayen reports it to be, and if it is not, you may have a case. Good luck with your research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the question is, "Is the criminal trial an important part of his notability?" If it is, then the article needs to acknowledge and reflect that. Rumiton (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As I recall Jossi has the same conflict of interest as Jayen466. He is connected to a guru group led by Prem Rewat/Guru Mahariji of "Divine Light Mission"/Elan Vital. Like Jayen466, Jossi seems to be a staffer or volunteer working for his guru by editing at Wikipedia. This is similar to Scientologists, who apparently have done the same. Like Jayen466, Jossi has also edited my bio, it seems because he is unhappy with the Ross Institute subsection about his guru. See http://www.rickross.com/groups/vital.html This is a serious problem for Wikipedia. Editors that use Wikipedia in this way should be reigned in.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr Ross, please rest assured that I am not a "full-time staffer or volunteer for the Osho community" and do not have a conflict of interest in relation to either your article or any other that I work on in Wikipedia. FWIW, I have in the past also been accused of being a Rawat follower in these pages. My actual work has no relation to Wikipedia whatever (except that it serves me as a reference source on a daily basis), or to the WP topics I usually work in.

You have been advised by an admin on your talk page as to the proper way to bring up any further concerns you may have, so please let the matter go.

You yourself do have a conflict of interest here, and have wisely stopped editing your own article. That being so, can we please return to discussing content rather than editors. Cheers, Jayen466 14:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words of wisdom, may be useful... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

No one has any way of verifying anything Jayen466 claims about his background and purpose here at Wikipedia. He/she remains an anonymous editor. The way Wikiepdia is set up anyone can come in and edit anonymously. It is very hard to believe that Jayen466 has no vested interest or agenda given (1) the narrow scope of his/her editing at Wikipedia (2) the time required to pursue the editing. Jayen466 seems to be deeply, if not obsessively concerned with Osho/Rajaneesh, a notorious cult leader once jailed and then deported from the US. Jossi turned out to be a Rawat associate. There is a problem with cult members coming to Wikipedia to work for their group, rather than simply due to some general and genuine interest in open source editing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

17:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, do you think that people with acknowledged conflicts of interest should avoiding editing the article related to their conflicts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got a problem with Jossi's editing, Will. Jossi sticks to sources. I don't perceive him as any more POV-driven than other editors on the pages where all of us have met. If anything rather less so, in fact. Jayen466 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So you wouldn't have a problem with Rick Alan Ross editing the article where he has a conflict so long as he sticks to sources? One issue I've often seen is where an editor will seek to declare that some sources aren't reliable, and it's always the sources that are contrary to their apparent POV. Jayen, is Ross out of line for questioning the reliability of cult-related writers? Or is any source that meets the standards of WP:V sufficient? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. But at the moment, Ross is very, very far away from that. He has no knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and in fact appears to treat them with utter contempt. He seems to feel they don't apply to him or his article. When asked to provide sources, he has usually failed to do so, and instead argued that his personal opinion, especially his opinion of his critics, is the only one that matters and should inform the editorial voice in his article. And that it does not need any other authority than his stating it on the talk page. Where is WP:V or WP:NPOV, let alone WP:ENEMY in that? Where he does provide sources, these are usually links to his own website, which is just not good enough on anything remotely contentious. It's simply not how Wikipedia articles are built. I'd be delighted if he got the point, but I shall be very greatly (and pleasantly) surprised if he does. Cheers, Jayen466 14:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) WP:V does not stand alone. You need to avoid cherry picking from sources, and avoid other forms of original research. You also need to be sure you treat significant viewpoints correctly. And finally, in biographies of living people you need to be very selective with your sources: use only sources of utmost quality. As all these are editorial judgments, you need to work in collaboration with other editors to find common ground in making these judgments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayen: WP:SPS allows for using self-published sources to assert the author's opinion within some caveats. This of course, alongside other significant opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that the present use of WP:SPS in the article is okay. But the caveats in Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source do apply, and are very specific. For example, an SPS characterising an academic who's been critical of the subject as a "cult apologist" would by any reading of this WP:BLP section fall foul of it. It is contentious, unduly self-serving, makes claims about a third party, as well as claims about events not directly related to the subject. Or do you read WP:BLP differently? Jayen466 16:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There was one more point I did not address. Will asked, "is Ross out of line for questioning the reliability of cult-related writers?" Even the question is wrong. The writers whose reliability Ross questions are university-related (and government-related) writers. Eugene V. Gallagher is on the board of the American Academy of Religion, the most prestigious such academic body in the world. Ammerman, another academic, was commissioned by the government to write a report on what went wrong at Waco. Anson Shupe is, together with David Bromley, widely recognised as the leading social science authority on the anti-cult movement. Ross would like to present such writers as "cult-related writers". But that is not their standing in the real world, where they are widely respected and influential academics, writing for the world's top university presses, their works required reading in university syllabuses, etc. Jayen466 16:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayen466 certainly prefers academics that reflect his POV, which he then cites as his chosen authorities. However, as brought out in other discussion, Ammerman actually represents a minority point of view concerning Waco. The other experts commissioned to report to the Justice Department didn't even mention me by name, my supposedly highly negative role or influence. They simply didn't concur with Ammerman in any opinion she expressed specifically about me. Ammerman, Shupe, Bromley, Melton and a few other academics have historically associated themselves closely with groups called "cults," e.g. Scientology. Shupe and Melton have been paid by cults for their time and "expert" opinions, which ultimately have been used to defend or apologize for groups called "cults." It is this specific behavior that categorizes them then as cult apologists. For example, Anson Shupe worked for Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon and was paid to testify as an "authority on the anti-cult movement" in the Scott case. But academics like Shupe and Bromley actually don't represent the mainstream, as evidenced by their failed effort to substitute the label "new religious movements" for "cults." Instead, other academics such as Stephen Kent, Benjamin Zablocki, Philip Zimbardo, Margaret Singer, Louis Jolly West, Robert Jay Lifton represent a more widely held consensus of opinion regarding cults, which opposes these apologists. And regarding Waco historically, Ammerman and the other academics Jayen466 has quoted such as Tabor, Wright, Lewis, are relatively obscure and virtually incoherent, when compared to the historical record, which was well-established through numerous investigations, court records and eyewitness testimony.21:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The traditional smokescreen produced by anti-cult activists, who are not interested in the academic discourse. Of all the above authors Ross cites in his favor, only Stephen Kent and Zablocki contribute significantly to the current academic discourse. They usuaully voice the minority opinion. Who "pays" Bromley, Shupe, Zablocki, etc. is of no interest here, as long this is not an issue raised w/i academic discourse as well w/ regards to the credibility of the empirical research results. It could be satan himself with Melton on his payroll, as long as Melton publishes in peer-reviewed journals, and manages to get his pro-devil view behind the editors of scientific journals, that's it. It's up to Rick Ross to publish his criticism in academich journals, but I guess, he doesn't even manage to publish his bogus research on Wikipedia. Fossa_?! 00:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

J. Gordon Melton was paid $10,000 by a front organization for the notorious "Children of God" cult to study that group. He has also been paid by J.Z. Knight to research her claim that she speaks for the spirit of a 35,000 dead general from Atlantis named "Ramtha." Subsequently, Melton apologized for both. Melton and James Lewis received an all expenses paid trip to Japan courtesy of Aum, after that cult gassed the Tokyo Subway murdering 12 people. Melton and Lewis proclaimed the cult "innocent." Needless to say they were wrong and this discredited their standing as supposedly objective researchers and academics. Melton was also eventually put in charge of the Cult Awareness Network files, after that organization went bankrupt. He was given the files after Scientology's paid expert Anson Shupe and his counterpart Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon went through them. What Stephen Kent, Zablocki and others have pointed out is that such paid arrangements between cults and supposed "scholars" represents a conflict of interest. As one cult tragedy after another is reported in the mainstream news, cult apologists like Melton and Shupe have failed to convince the general public that their apologies hold water. And presently, the mainstream media is covering the prosecutions of purported cult leaders and cultists across the US such as Tony Alamo in Arkansas, Phil Aguilar in California, the House of Yahweh in Texas, Strong City/Wayne Bent in New Mexico, Followers of Christ in Oregon, 1 Mind Ministries in Maryland, Polygamists in Utah, Arizona and Texas and Rama Behera/SIST and Alan Bushey in Wisconsin. This is why the apologists are not heard from often in mainstream news reports, because their spin falls flat in the face of hard facts regarding criminal prosecutions. So cult apologists publish books through whatever university or college press they can, which are usually very small book runs. Meanwhile books about cults written by former members such as "Not Without My Sister" about Children of God and "Stolen Innocence" about polygamists become best-sellers. Mental health professionals and academics in psychology and psychiatry that have studied cults specifically, have long-standing disagreements concerning the positions taken by cult apologists within the fields of religious studies and sociology.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"This is why the apologists are not heard from often in mainstream news reports, because their spin falls flat in the face of hard facts ..."

• 479 topical google news mentions for J Gordon Melton
• 392 topical google news mentions for Rick Ross. Jayen466 16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen466. What can be seen from the links you have posted is that Melton isn't consulted much by the mainstream media and rarely appears on network news programs. Melton's most notable appearance lately (this century) is on background regarding vampires. In fact, he has largely disappeared from the mainstream public scene during this century. IMO--This is because Melton's views are no longer considered credible by hard news in the area of cults and cult-like groups. And anyone that does just a little bit of digging can easily see why, i.e. he has been paid off by groups called "cults" and thus compromised his academic integrity as an objective scholar/researcher.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Melton was quoted in the Wall Street Journal just a couple of weeks ago. There are 292 google news hits from the seventies through to 1999, and 186 hits from 2000 onwards, including LA Times, NY Times, SF Chronicle, National Public Radio, USA Today, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, etc.. It does not really matter, we are not citing Melton anyway. Jayen466 21:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Now Melton doesn't matter? The links you posted demonstrate two things (1) Even though Melton is probably the most quoted cult apologist in North America, he is nevertheless a shrinking presence in the mainstream media, and most notably within network television news reports. (2) Anyone that takes the time to read the links gathered of Melton press quotes over the years can easily see that he is a cult apologist.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• WP:ENEMY? Boy, I know some editors who should read that! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the point about editors like Jayen466. It is probable that he/she is either a staffer for Osho or doing specific volunteer work for the group, i.e. to advance a propaganda effort through Wikipedia (e.g. as Jossi has done for Prem Rawat/guru Maharaji). Look at the time expended and the pattern of behavior regarding the control of certain articles. It's a shame to see Wikipedia used this way. The relatively tight knit and small group of academics Jayen466 has selectively chosen to quote are a notably biased group with a POV, which as no surprise coincides with Jayen466 POV. There is no meaningful balance to reflect this or the historical facts that dispute their conclusions. It's a choice, does Wikipedia want to be a place for fringe conspiracy theories, cranks and propaganda, or reflect the facts in a more mainstream and objective manner, in order to be considered a reliable source for research?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, if you read WP:NPOV you will find wikipedia reflects all major viewpoints without prejudice, so that readers have the facts to make up their own minds. They are not spoonfed in the way you seem to be suggesting. Wikipedia represents the POV of the different significant sources and does not make a judgement on them. Therefore your approach is violating policies and you should amend it forthwith, if you want to continue to edit. You are accusing others of controlling articles, but what comes across is that that is exactly what you are trying to do. It would also be extremely helpful if you would stop conjecturing as to the RL (real life) activities of other editors. It is their on-wiki behaviour that matters here. Argumentum ad hominem is no argument. You might like to look at WP:NPA. Jossi's behaviour in relationship to Prem Rawat articles has been examined by ArbCom. They found no fault with it. They noted that he had voluntarily restricted himself to talk pages, rather than editing the article directly, but they observed there was no requirement for him to have that restriction. Ty 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there isn't much hope of Wikipedia becoming an objective resource for reliable research information then, but rather quite often a place where various editors expressing their group or personal views come to propagandize. And whichever group or person has the most time, staffers or volunteers wins. Kind of Orwellian. I have no "control" over the article. I can only come here and discuss whatever objections I have regarding its accuracy. What you have now is an extremely biased and often almost nonsensical propaganda piece largely dominated by a single editor. Jossi and Jayen466 illustrate what's wrong with Wikipedia and how it can be manipulated by anonymous editors with an agenda.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[17] Jayen466 19:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION ALL: Map of India

I wrote a similar message to Ssolbergj (in Wikimedia Common) who created these retarded maps. I hope you guys here can back me. It's a clear bias and I don't think that being bias is a policy of Wikipedia. It is high time things are straightened out.

(Reference: [18] vs [19])

Dear Ssolbergj, your map of China colors Arunachal Pradesh in light green which implies it is somehow rather a part of China although under Indian administration and claimed as an integral part of India. I agree this is a disputed region by both countries. In that case why doesn't the India map have Aksai Chin (a Chinese administered region claimed by India) be colored light green on the India map? Why double standards apply for Aksai and Arunachal although they are both disputed?

Same goes with Pakistan occupied kashmir. Shouldn't those areas be indicated in light green too? Please maintain neutrality as prescribed under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I look forward to you recoloring those maps with a NPOV in mind and not China slanted views. Thank you.

If they don't want to change it, I suggest we change the map of India to its old form (2d one) as it is more accurate.

I look forward to all your replies / opinions / assistance as I am not an established user on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.245.138 (talk)

Please consider the possibility that there was no intent on the part of the user creating these maps to falsify such information. This may sound facile, but drawing maps isn't easy, especially where territories are disputed. I am sure if you approach the user in a friendly manner, and point out relevant sources clarifying the status of the affected territories according to international law, they'll be quite happy to colour these areas in the appropriate manner. Cheers, Jayen466 18:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I already did so but the user is not responding!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.245.15 (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Nichalp (talk · contribs) has already picked up on the same problem as you: see here. Nichalp is a very capable WP:Bureaucrat, and he is from India; I'm sure he'll be able to sort this out. Suggest you leave a message on his talk page if there's a lack of progress. Cheers, Jayen466 17:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

But there looks like no progress!! And Ssolbergj has read my message surely but doesn't reply!! Anyway you are also an Indian so can u please ask NICHAP what is going on? whats the progress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.35.137 (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message for him. Seems he was unwell but is back now. Cheers, Jayen466 15:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Are yaar Jayan Sir, that was the message I left for him! (left a message for him). OK? And he has not replied although he has made other contributions after I left that message. So are you saying he is unwell to reply my message but fine to make all the other edits in the world? I even left a message on his WIKIPEDIA talk page. I don't want to spam his talk pages with messages. He surely isn't an Indian so he doesn't know what he is doing. Either that or he doesn't know his geography well or he is a China sympathiser. Either way, Wikipedia should not nominate such a person to draw maps. So what should I do now? 60.49.35.137 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I was an idiot. I meant to link this post of mine on Nichalp's talk page above rather than Ssolbergj's talk page ... don't know what happened there. (And it was Nichalp who was unwell, not Ssolbergj.) At any rate, the updated version Nichalp linked to below now has Kashmir and Aksai Chin in light green, just as Arunachal Pradesh is light green on the China map. If I click on the link that you gave above in the post that started off this thread, I get the same image. Please have a look if that is better now. Are there any other images that are wrong? Cheers, Jayen466 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not fully NPOV. Arunachal Pradesh & Jammu and Kashmir should also be marked correctly on the India locator map. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I did contact Ssolbergj earlier, for another issue on the Wikipedia logo. His responses unfortunately are usually delayed, or he does not respond at all. When drawing up my NPOV map of India (Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg – now a featured picture), I thought about the best possible method of depicting disputed areas would be to have varying levels of transparency. In addition we also have dotted borders where the disputed territory exists. See the map page for a description. This set up should be replicated across all such maps. When I met Jimbo, I raised the issue about maps of India and he agreed that NPOV maps are necessary on Wikipedia. So I then went ahead and created the {{POV-map}} template to tag all such maps. Now, unfortunately for us, wikimedia commons allows POV maps (See Commons:Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, so editors there place less of an emphasis on producing NPOV works. The best way to go about it by petitioning the author to modify the image. If 10 people keep pinging him, sooner or later he will have to yield (Note: it's not necessarily directed to Ssolbergj)

Note that an update locator map is now available: Image:India (orthographic projection).svg. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind Jayan sir, you don't need to call yourself a idiot. everyone makes mistakes. but million thanks for letting Nichap bhai know; now he has fixed things in a NPOV manner. Somebody said that Common allows POV maps so this is our POV and it should be allowed too just like how the Chinese POV is allowed. Thanks again to the both of you!!! 218.111.30.197 (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Unfortunately, another user has reverted it, claiming the edit was not drawn correctly to scale. (It looked alright to me, but hey ...) Let's try this again. Cheers, Jayen466 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left Shibo77, who'd done the correction yesterday, a message to please have another go at it. Jayen466 12:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nichalp, Jayen466, Deepak! Dark green for land territories administered by India (Ro India-administered Siachen Glacier; PR China-claimed Southern Tibet Region, Demchok, Kaurik, Nelang, Topidunga), light green for land territories claimed but not administered by India (IR Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir, Northern Areas, Siachen Glacier; PR China-administered Aksai Chin, Shaksgam Valley). --User:Shibo77 (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK now this current one looks fine ([20]). At least SHIBO is a better person than Ssolbergj who is actually reading this message but pretending deaf. Good job SHIBO. I have to praise her, although she is a Chinese she is fair and square and acting in the interest of everyone not acting bias.

Everyone please note I am not demanding in any way for Pakistan occupied kashmir and China occupied kashmir to be colored in light green, all i am asking for is consistancy, because Arunachal and Taiwan is marked in light green in China's map. Now it is consistant, thanks to SHIBO. Again well done to her. The new map on the India page looks good. And to Jayan, thanks for your coorperation and bringing this to her attention.218.208.204.181 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I had earmarked a strategy to resolve disputed territory by using varying levels of transparency, and stroke styles. Please see: Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg#Legend. This needs to be replicated across the maps of all three countries, and the stroke style (ie borders) implemented for all maps that show the Kashmir/Arunachal region. This got community approval on FPC, so the issues seem to be resolved. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK sounds good. Thank you for resolving the issue! 11:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.29.171 (talk)

India

Please check this page and the talk page. It's about the infobox, where user:fowler&fowler regularly reverts the WP:NPOV version. --Kalarimaster (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ETA page

ETA is a group that advocates violence, kidnapping and murder by their own publications of the group (zutabes) they have acknowledge killing 821 people so far. A group of editors continuously edit the first paragraph, if the word violence, or similar is used. ETA printed zutabes are illegal and it is difficult to find the full versions in the web to reference as the police decides what or not to release, but many had posted enough references from mayor newspapers quoting them. It has been thoroughly discussed and I find important that the description includes what characterize this group from any other separatist group= they advocate and execute kidnappings, murders, and bombings to promote the independence of a part in the north of spain. thanks in advance lolailando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolailando (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you say something more specific about what you would like to see added? At the moment the introduction describes them as "armed" and in the body of the article many different violent attacks are mentioned. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama - President Elect

Resolved

There has been an ongoing dispute on this discussion page and in archive about Obama as President-elect.

There seems to be a serious neutrality issue here. Obama is certainly referred to, incorrectly, as "President-Elect" by verifiable sources. The problem is that said sources are incorrect, so continuing to refer to him in this way undermines the constitutional process and perpetuates ignorance about the way the President of the United States is elected to the office.

I quite from the dispute resolution guide:

"In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias."

Referring to Obama as the President-Elect prior to the electoral college meeting and voting, which is not bound by the popular vote in most states, is both factually incorrect and lacking in neutrality. It is irrelevant that the counterexample to this has never occurred because it is still theoretically and legally possible for it to happen.

This case would be different if the electoral college had voted, but the votes not yet ratified by the Congress, but most legal scholars agree that once the votes are cast, Obama would become the President-elect.

Perpetuating truth rather than biased opinion is much more important than verifiability in this case. I would like to open this dispute for further discussion. Downzero (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The user is arguing for defying wikipedia rules about verifiable sources and consensus. Also, the subject has already been discussed at great length in the article since election night. All the facts of the electoral college are explained. There is no neutrality issue. There is no issue at all, except in the user's mind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. What I am arguing for is that neutrality is both required by the policies of wikipedia and just as important as variability. We are not in the business of perpetuating ignorance, making subjective value judgments on semantics, or democratically silencing the truth through bias. This discussion is as valid now as it was when it was first had on that talk page. Barack Obama is not the President-Elect and will not be so until the electors meet and vote him into that position. This is empirical and constitutional.

The only counterexample is a 1963 law that refers to the person who has been projected to win the necessary electoral votes ONLY for the purpose of acquiring federal funding for his or her office and adds nothing to the pragmatic or legal debates surrounding the use of this term. Downzero (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The arguing style and phraseology of this user sound a lot like what I ran into with the similarly-named User:Zsero, on the subject of whether Senator Obama "had to" resign before noon on January 20th. [21] He made the same type of argument, i.e. that the constitution says thus-and-so, the media have it wrong, and therefore the sources (and consensus) are to be disregarded, because he's "right". Zsero also personalized it the same way as Downzero has done on the Obama talk page, by saying that "I" had failed to prove "my" case. That argument was an endless loop, just as this one is turning out to be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The constitution of the United States IS a verifiable source, as well as relevant case law on the subject. The purpose of arbitrating this issue is that "consensus" is a dynamic and evolving issue, and absent the necessarily legal reasoning, the pragmatic use of the term in the media is irrelevant. This must be considered in arbitrating this on the basis of a neutral point of view, which would find relevant case law binding as to how the term is used in an encyclopedia. That is why this dispute must be resolved. Downzero (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the exact argument that Zsero used in the Senator resignation endless-loop. There is, in fact, no dispute at all. It's trolling behavior on the part of the user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the user violated the 1RR situation, the Obama page being on probation. He made a change and it got reverted. He did it twice more and it got reverted twice more. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Rahm Emanuel has not resigned from the House of Representatives, despite being the proposed Chief of Staff nominee for future-President Barack Obama. If Zsero had no leg to stand on, Congressman Emanuel would be out of a job. You have trolled this page and the talk page for Obama continually, claiming that no neutrality exists despite evidence to the contrary. Downzero (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He only has to resign by noon on January 20th, not right now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That is meaningless to this dispute, and the point you expressed is not entirely factual but not worthy of discussion when there are more pressing issues here.Downzero (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no neutrality issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course there's no neutrality issue, as long as your viewpoint is represented. That's all you really care about, anyway, not the legal reasoning of scholars surrounding the issue. Downzero (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What "legal scholars", besides yourself? The term "President-elect" is not defined in the constitution. The wikipedia articles explain the facts fully, and are compatible with the sources and with consensus. There is no issue except in your mind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The electoral college has defied the popular vote before. Downzero's correct, as far as the facts go. That Obama IS the president-elect, though, is a lock, unless Clarence Thomas can convince 3 of his fellows that make the citizenship case a part of their docket, then to hear it immediately, then to vote his way. That chance is minuscule, but tangible. As such, I'm with Downzero. The factuality trumps a consensus based on media presentations. Let's be accurate and factual, if not as gung=ho as the media. Remember, we don't have to sell commercials here. ThuranX (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time the electoral college subverted the popular vote was 1876, although the issue there was who the proper electors were in certain states. There is no such issue anymore. And there's a fundamental flaw in Zero's argument. The constitution does not define the term "President-elect". That term has evolved into a meaning that includes the "apparent" winner, both in terms of the 1963 law and in terms of consensus of the media itself. "President-elect", as defined by common usage, is perfectly valid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution defines the office of the President and how he or she must be "elected." Obama has NOT been elected and thus there is a serious flaw in your use of the term "President-elect" to refer to him. It is undisputed that he WILL be elected. The factual question is whether is HAS been elected, and the constitutional answer is NO.

The electoral college has overridden the popular vote at least five times, the most recent in the 2000 election. The popular vote is a meaningless statistic because it has nothing to do with who gains the necessary electoral votes to be elected to the office. That is the entire point of this discussion--the United States is not a direct democracy.

An encyclopedia is not a dictionary of "common usage." An incorrectly used and defined term in common speech has no place in an encyclopedia, which should be defined by fact and reason. If you want to put a footnote in the article to explain to the user why and how the President-elect comes about, I don't think anyone would argue with you, but to continue to assert that a man who has not been elected to the office is the "President-elect" of the United States is factually and legally incorrect. On December 15, 2008, this will change, and Obama WILL become the President-elect, but there are few laws binding electors and any presumption that Obama will aquire those votes is speculation. I can't understand why any encyclopedia would contradict its own President-elect article and engage in speculation to make a point which adds nothing to the man's page and only serves to perpetuate ignorance about the electoral process and push the individual agendas, however incorrect, of people who do not respect the policy of neutral point of view.. Downzero (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources say Obama is President-elect, and hence that's what he is, as per wikipedia policy. And there are not facts missing nor any "bias" in the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Per wikipedia policy, articles must express a neutral point of view. You are expressing an opinion that is contradicted by other articles on the encyclopedia and the Constitution of the United States. The media cannot and never will be the final arbiter of issues which need a legal resolution. Relevant case law and documentation counters your point.

You are attempting to push your opinion as mainstream consensus when there are clear and verifiable sources to the contrary. You have made your facts fit your position rather than interpret relevant information and draw a reasonable conclusion. You have also trolled every page that I have posted this on an parroted your scare tactics because you are an experienced editor. Downzero (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The articles are totally neutral, totally within policy, and all the facts are there. The constitution is not a source for the term "President-elect" because it does not define it. The reliable sources and common usage all agree that "President-elect" includes both the true electoral college winner and the "apparent" winner from November 4th. And you have yet to cite any such "case law". So you are attempting to create an issue where there is no issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a POV question. There is no "pro" or "anti", no attempt to promote or disparage Obama, no real debate over the Constitution or the electoral college. This whole thing is a semantic technicality over whether we should go with all the reliable secondary sources that call Obama "president elect", or balk on following the sources because (some argue) it is not a technically correct term to use. Where's the POV in that? This is the wrong forum for this kind of discussion. It belongs on the talk page, where it is occurring (but really needs to be shut down there - it's a perennial rejected question where a clear consensus has already been reached). Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a cold thing's chance in a very warm place that this will go anywhere productive. This should be archived with prejudice. --GoodDamon 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This certainly is a POV question, giving a status that is not warranted or deserving to a political figure for the purpose of perpetuating ignorance instead of reality. As long as this continues, where you deny the facts regarding our electoral process and continue to assert that you have met the standard of verifiability, but yet continue to assert a false point unsupported by legal sources.

Obama's presidency is equally uninteresting to me as it is to the Brit or Canadian to continues to contest my point. Dismissing my neutrality concern jeopardizes the integrity of the encyclopedia for the purpose of making a political point unsupported by empirical evidence.

Until Obama is "elected," asserting that he is the President-Elect serves no purpose and is factually incorrect. The Constitution of the United States is the legally binding document which explains the election process in Article III.

This is not orignal research, but citation from a primary source, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

and, "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Obama has not been constitutionally elected. Recognizing this, he is NOT the "President-elect" until that happens. If the votes had been cast and not counted, we'd be having a different discussion and I wouldn't waste time with that one. But, clearly, Obama has not YET met the constitutional requirement for election to the office of President of the United States, and the continued referral to him as President elect is logically and factually wrong. Downzero (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A few things, and then I propose this be closed. There is no point in dragging this out further.

• You have been shown a law that specifically defines the term "President-elect." Barack Obama matches that legal definition of President-elect. You have ignored it.
• You have been shown Wikipedia policies and guidelines that stipulate what content Wikipedia incorporates. You have ignored them.
• You have been informed that the Constitution does not define the term "President-elect" in any way. You have ignored this.

You need to stop right now. This is becoming disruptive. You seem to think that the article will not reflect the truth until it reflects what you say is the truth. That is unacceptable. Please yield to Wikipedia policies and to consensus. If you do not, you risk being blocked. --GoodDamon 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Gooddamon's attitude toward fellow wikipedians is abominable. That said, the law he links to above DOES say after the general election, not the electoral college, when defining the term. As such, I withdraw my support for downzero's proposal. And Gooddamon's lack of AGF can be kept off my user talk from now on. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No, GoodDamon is just fine. This is a not-so-civil editor doggedly pursuing a fringe position with little understanding of policies and guidelines. Taking the complaint here on theory that vanquishing ignorance falls under NPOV is blatant forum shopping. Considering someone makes this exact same proposal at least twice per day on the Obama page we have been more than patient in humoring it thus far. This really ought to be closed down as a failed proposal with no reasonable prospect of gaining consensus, here, on the talk page, and wherever else it may be taking place. Wikidemon (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The quoted law defines the individual for a particular and limited purpose. It obviously does not and cannot define an election differently than that of the U.S. Constitution, which trumps any public law on the matter. 2. You and others have continued to stipulate this nonsense regarding consensus. Consensus is dynamic and evolving in light of new evidence, and your position is supported only by the news media. 3. Article III clearly identifies what it takes to become elected, anyone with a lick of common sense can deduce that you cannot be the "President-Elect" without first being elected. This is scheduled to happen on the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December, aka, December 15, 2008. Debate exists among legal scholars as to whether or not Obama will become the President-Elect at that point because Congress has not yet certified the results, but I would concede that once he is "elected" by the votes, he is and will be the "President-Elect."

Instead of having a discussion on the legal findings of fact, you keep parroting the same information repeatedly. Lacking any evidience to support the position that Obama has been "elected" at all, you continue to make accusations about myself personally because you cannot deny the findings of fact.

The only disruption is the perpetuation of ignorance by a bunch of parrots who will publish whatever the news media tells them to publish, destroying any accuracy and validity that this encyclopedia once had, all to make a political stance that in the end is still false. You have violated wikipedia policies, refused to discuss this despite the concerns of several users, and now you're trying to make me into the scapegoat of your political banter.

The original debate had on this topic on the forums' talk page, now back several dozen pages in archive, was to add a footnote explaining this to the users. Even this was overruled by this nonsensical banter of democracy regarding verifiable sources publishing this information.

I will not stand for it. Everyone has a voice in this medium. Yours happens to be wrong. I respect your right to hold an incorrect opinion based on deductive reasoning. Downzero (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your stance reminds me of the story of the guy driving home who gets a cell call from his wife. She says, "Be careful on the expressway - some clown is driving the wrong way!" He answers back, "It's not just one, it's hundreds of them!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yours reminds me of a man arguing about abortion. You are not an American and yet you're arguing about something that you cannot change or affect, because the outcome is outside of the scope of your life. Downzero (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

With that I propose we close this discussion as disruptive, pointless, and uncivil. I would myself, but I'm not a regular contributor here. Perhaps one of the regulars can do it. Wikidemon (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, close it. And did he just say I'm not an American? That's it, we're done here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointless indeed: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/25/despite-bells-whistles-office-president-elect-holds-authority/ Downzero (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Even that opinion piece refers to Obama as "President-elect" before going on to describe the same technicalities you have been referring to. Heck, we could cite referring to him as the President-elect to that article. But all of this is moot; in the end, you have to accept that WP:CONCENSUS is an official policy of Wikipedia. If you have a problem with that policy, change it. But don't argue against it here. --GoodDamon 03:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Shamblin

This article, about a preacher notable mainly for having written a bestselling Christian Diet book, has gone wildly astray, chiefly as a result of editing by Derekwikipedian (talk · contribs) (currently editing as D wikipedian (talk · contribs), but it isn't socking because the older account has not edited recently). The section Josef Smith Case and Shamblin on Child Discipline is particularly bad. I can tell from the history that trying to fix this would simply cause an edit war, so I bring it here. looie496 (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The English Qabalah

A small fringe group seems to have taken over the English Qabalah page. They want only their literature or books mentioned and are removing any additions by other contributors. They have also hijacked the page so that it is redirected to the "English Qaballa" versus "English Qabalah" in further attempts to monopolize the subject--English Qaballa being admittedly a book by one of their "gurus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.206.226 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

QSR International

I'm concerned that this article reads like a piece of sales literature. On checking the history section a number of the editors names appear to be that of the company or its products. I beleive this article chould be removed as it is not from a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.17.141 (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Company is notable; their NVivo software is very widely used in academic research. Agreed that it reads like a company prospectus. I'll have a quick go through it. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Long-term_effects_of_alcohol focus on moderation

The article Long-term_effects_of_alcohol and some related articles have many sections (eg: cardiovascular effects) which focus solely on the effects of moderate consumption, which are often positive, whereas discussion of heavy consumption on those same metrics would highlight deleterious effects. Within discussion of moderate consumption, the articles are reasonably neutral, however, the selective attention to moderate consumption is itself biasing.

NcLean 114.76.96.115 (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

wouldn't long term effects of excessive consumption be better discussed under alcoholism?DGG (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Boycotts of Proposition 8 supporters

• Boycotts of Proposition 8 supporters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article is mainly "owned" by one editor. I (and others) have been discussing it on the talk page, but it is still primarily a one-man effort relying significantly on POV and cites to op/ed columns of newspapers. Certainly not NPOV. tedder (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: the article's text issues are being resolved via discussion, but there continues to be an edit war over its inclusion in Category:Religious persecution. AV3000 (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion concerning "terrorist" and related words at Wikipedia:Words to avoid

There is a discussion concerning WP:TERRORIST ongoing, and User:Dank55 suggested that I raise the topic over here, for resolution by people with more experience on POV issues. Specifically, the current discussion centers on whether words like "terrorist" should be banned from the narrative voice of the article. RayAYang (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the word "terrorist" pops up on this page, its archives, and the NPOV archives a lot. That suggests that, although we don't have a specific policy, how we want to handle this word is more a matter of policy than guidelines, and more a matter for NPOV experts than for style geeks (such as myself). You can see the arguments at Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Extremist, terrorist or freedom fighter?; if you'd like a summary here, I'm sure PBS, Ray and others will be happy to give it a shot. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be disappointed if we can't draw some discussion on this noticeboard; better to discuss policy matters here than to force them back into style guidelines talk or article talk pages. Would anyone like a summary of the arguments at WT:Words to avoid? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The problems with the use of the word terrorist in the unqualified narrative voice of the article is best described in the section "Pejorative use" in the article Terrorism.

The section has a quotation from Bruce Hoffman "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore." As Wikipedia has a built in bias (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias) inexperienced editors in good faith can and do use the word terrorist citing reliable sources without realising that they are presenting information with a non neutral point of view.

For example in the 1960s the British called the Mau Mau terrorists and if Wikipedia had been written in the 1960s most of the reliable sources of the day would have labelled the rebels as such. However more recent research, particularly as the President elect of the US had a grandfather who was tortured by British because of his suspected links to the Mau Mau (Beatings and abuse made Barack Obama’s grandfather loathe the British The Sunday Times, 3 December 2008), presents the same issues from another perspective. An article written in the 1960 would have been much less bias to the British point of view if the article stated "The Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, members of which are considered to be terrorists by the British colonial government (citations), ..." than if it said "The Mau Mau terrorist movement is attacking civilians in Kenya (same citations), ...".

Personally I think that the general sections in this Policy are enough to cover this concern — "A simple formulation" ("Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"); Let the facts speak for themselves"; and Attributing and substantiating biased statements — and that the details should remain in a guideline. --PBS (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with people making the arguments for how NPOV applies to the word "terrorist". On the other hand, logically, if we put this in WP:Words to avoid, then why are we not also defining "late-term abortion", "global warming", "intelligent design", "cold fusion", "independent candidate", etc? Why single out "terrorist" for this kind of discussion? It doesn't fit with 90% of the current content of WP:WORDS. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution may be to step back, consider this as a more general issue with WP:WTA, and change the emphasis of that guideline's lead section to more strongly refer the reader back to NPOV. I say this because, to me (as to PBS I think), all "words to avoid" are words that fail WP:ASF by presenting an opinion as fact, often implicitly. This approach may solve the problem by making the rest of the text of WTA more of a list of examples of the general principle - a how-to guide on the application of NPOV to word selection, if you will - and less of a proscriptive list of problem words. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two ongoing problems here. The one Dank55 points out, and to which I am sympathetic, is that WP:WTA is not meant to be an elaboration of WP:NPOV. Rather, it's meant to be a style guideline, along the lines of what I associate with Strunk and White. That is to say, ideally it would give advice on ways to avoid mushy and unclear prose in favor of concrete, definite, and punchy prose, thereby improving the clarity and presentation of our articles. It is my feeling that the current guideline has been somewhat hijacked from that noble purpose, and actually acts against it in some places. In the case under dispute, it suggests we lose words like "terrorist" in favor of the much vaguer and muddled "militant" or "partisan," actually contradicting principles of good English style.

The second, closely related, dispute, regards the characterization of terrorist by PBS and his quoted sources as a purely pejorative term, as opposed to a term with strong negative connotations which can nonetheless be descriptive and factually accurate, and thus wholly appropriate for the narrative voice. Words like assassination, murder, kidnap, killer, pirate, loser, poisoner, spy, dictator, secret policeman, all have negative (in some cases, strongly negative) connotations, but we cannot deny that their negative associations spring from their accuracy of description, rather than any intent to insult. However fuzzy the definition of terrorism gets around the edges, there is no other word in the English language for easily describing the deliberate targeting of undefended, or weakly defended, civilian targets with violence in order to instill fear and hopefully compliance in a target political entity. See how awkward that construction was? But if I said "terrorism in Mumbai," people would know that I didn't mean "militants" had staged a march with fiery rhetoric, nor that "partisans" of particular factions had taken part in some sort of unspecified political activity. Where the word terrorism, in its plain meaning, fits, we should not shy away from it. Wikipedia is about facts, not the avoidance of giving offense. RayAYang (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC

RayAYang, you have just made up your own definition of terrorism "English language for easily describing the deliberate targeting of undefended, or weakly defended, civilian targets with violence in order to instill fear and hopefully compliance in a target political entity". So those people who include the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 are mistaken and that was not a terrorist attack because it was against a military target? Does that mean an attack on congress is a terrorist attack because it is against a civilian target but an attack on the White House, the residence of the head of the American military, is not a terrorist attack (based on the US assertion that targeting Saddam, head of his military, was a legitimate US war target)? Does that mean one can not label United Airlines Flight 93 as a terrorist attack as the target was unknown and might have been a military one? The IRA never attacked Londoners to terrorise them (Having survived the Blitz without being terrified there was nothing that the IRA could do that would have come near that) instead their aims were to make the cost of maintaining the status quo ante bellum in Northern Ireland too high for HGM. So does this mean as the motive was not to terrify Londoners that these attacks were therefore not terrorists attacks? --PBS (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not define terrorism. I provided an example of a specific class of activities that are unambiguously considered terrorism, in the descriptive sense, by the overwhelming majority of English language users. This is a subset of the set of activities considered to be terrorism -- there are others that are considered terrorism as well, needless to say, with varying degrees of controversy, which is where the train wreck that is a full definition of the term currently resides. It was not necessary for me to opine on whether every single event that has ever been called terrorism actually is a case of terrorism, for me to point out that terrorism, unmistakably recognizable, does indeed exist. The existence of such a subset is a glaring counterexample to your insistence that terrorism is a purely pejorative term, as opposed to its being a term with a legitimate descriptive purpose in the English language. Ray (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So when a person uses the term terrorism do you not consider it to be a pejorative term? Have you ever known a state in the last 30 years to describe its actions as terrorism? As to your statement "However fuzzy the definition of terrorism gets around the edges, there is no other word in the English language for easily describing the deliberate targeting of undefended, or weakly defended, civilian targets with violence in order to instill fear and hopefully compliance in a target political entity." So in your opinion was Goebbels correct to call areas bombardment by the RAF and the USAAF in WII terror bombing, from which if follows if ture that that RAF and the USAAF were terrorist organisations? Does this mean that the IRA was not a terrorist organisation because although they targeted civilians as they did not do it to install fear? --PBS (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, PBS, what does my opinion of particular controversies matter? Do you deny that there have been self-described terrorist organizations? That the term terrorist brings to mind a specific subset of activities for which there are no other handy words? That the word is an accurate description of these events? There's nothing in your reply I couldn't, with just a bit of editing, apply to the word "murder" or "assassin." Does that mean you want to ban those words too? What about killer? Kidnapper? Is there a single word in the English language describing generally disapproved activities your logic wouldn't require us to ban? Ray (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Murder is a crime, as is terrorism. Wikipedia should describe convicted murders as such, and the same goes with convicted terrorists (and there are many). When a murderer is not convicted, he is often referred to have been "charged" with murder, often by the police or authorities. Similarly, those terrorists not convicted should be described as "considered" to be terrorist, by whoever is making the charge.VR _talk 01:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The terrorist section needs a home, if not in the style guideline then somewhere else. The issue comes up too often, and is too contentious, to let things develop ad-hoc. The problem is that the word is quite pejorative but also does have some meaning. It is inconsistently applied and in many cases not objective. It may be useful, for example, to describe the Red Brigades a terrorist group to quickly and conveniently place them in context and inform the reader what kind of organization they are, but calling Greenpeace terrorists probably does not help us understand who they are or what they do. There are political and some practical reasons for the expanding definition of terrorists to including anybody who unlawfully damages anything or anyone for a political purpose. Now we have eco-terrorists, domestic terrorists, and drug terrorists. It seems to be more a mater of name calling and political ideology than actually explaining anything. Are rioters terrorists? Saboteurs? Crazy people? If you call someone a terrorist you can turn opinion against it, and likely get more funding and law enforcement resources. We have to be careful with that word.Wikidemon (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I don't see that that's a problem. If we state accurately and precisely that Charles Manson committed murder, we may turn opinion against him. However, when opinion turning against somebody is a natural consequence of facts objectively and fairly represented through precise use of the English language, that's not a problem. As far as the home question is concerned, I'm wondering whether it'd be wiser to break WP:WTA up into two sections, one on NPOV issues and one on style issues. Ray (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting up a company page

I'm trying to put up a Wikipedia page about a company that does a lot of pro bono marketing for charities, but it keeps getting flagged. I followed all the rules listed by Wikipedia and made sure it was straight facts and completely unbiased but for some reason still can't put it up. Any thoughts on how to keep this page from being erased every time we create it? Are there other wikipedia rules that we don't know about or certain subjects that aren't allowed to have pages? Thanks for your help in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.14.226 (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Notability", for one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Chile" Article

Resolved

Hello. I have a small, really small, question that I wish for a neutral editor to answer concerning a possible NON neutral statement.

This is what User:Likeminas keeps favoring as a sentence (which sounds highly PoV) in the Chile article:

"According to one theory the Incas of Peru, who had failed to conquer the Araucanians, called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest."

As you can see, he uses the weasel word "who had failed to conquer the Araucanians." It's a fact, but there is really little to no necessity to mention it in that particular way.

This is what I, User:MarshalN20 favor as a better "Non-POV" sentence:

"According to one theory, the Incas of Peru called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a Picunche tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest."

What is your opinion on this matter? Do you agree that my proposition is more Non-PoV and less "Weasely"?--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is much of a "weasel" problem. If it's a fact that the Inca failed to conquer the Araucanians... Grsz¹¹ 02:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the first version, because it asks us to believe that the Incas wanted to conquer the Araucanians, or that they had tried to, or perhaps that they ought to have conquered the Araucanians. It does not explain what actually happened. Your version does not have those problems. However, your main concern must be to follow what your sources say. Can you find a wording that is closer to a description in a good history text? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Araucanians in a broad sense are classified into three major cultural subdivisions; the Huilliche, the Picunche, and the Mapuche, the last being the largest group.

The known history of the Araucanians began with the Inca invasion under Tupac Yupanqui. So yes, The Incas attempted to conquer them, and indeed, failed trying.

That's why I don’t understand how this historical fact can be considered weasel.

In any case, and looking at the article from an objetive perspective I do agree that it plays no significant role in that particular sentence.

I think your new revised version is much better than the one you previously tried to add.

Having no further objections all I can say is go ahead and edit the article if you wish.

Likeminas (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Without seeking to make an argument out of this, I do need to comment that what you claim is a "New revised version" is actually the same sentence that you kept reverting my edits upon prior to me coming here. In addition, like I mentioned, it is indeed a fact that the Incas failed to conquer the Araucanians. Yet, as you have explained: The Incas conquered the Picunche, therefore the Incas did conquer part of the Araucanians. In other words, the "more correct" way to refer to the Incas in terms of the Araucanians would be: "The Incas who failed to completely conquer the Araucanians."

You might ask what sort of difference a few little words make, but the truth is that in an encyclopedia (which is what Wikipedia claims to be) every single word matters. For instance, take note of this:

-According to one theory, Mike Robinson, who did not eat his pancakes, called his mom "Jackie."

This sentence follows the same structure as the one in the Chile article. The question thus stands, doesn't the "Who did not eat his pancakes" sound weasely? Why does the reader need to know that the person did not eat his pancakes other than to "downgrade" on the guy? Quite obviously, if the reader wants to know more about "Mike Robinson," they should go to the article of this person.

Thank you for your comprehension.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I’m not so sure, that’s the actual sentence you wanted to add, but anyway, I have no intention either of making a debate out of that.

I notice, you attempted to change the article but someone else reverted it. And while I see why the phrase doesn’t quite fit into that particular sentence, I think it does have a place on the history section of the article.

Araucanian, as you probably already know, was the name given to the natives by the Spanish Conquistadors. However, none of these people, until this day consider themselves to be Araucaninias, but instead Huilliche, Picunche & Mapuche.

Having that in mind, if we now specifically state; “the Incas who had failed to (completely or partially) conquer the Mapuches” would not be weasel at all, since that’s just a historical fact.

I included your sentence on the etymology section and also included a rephrased mention of the sentence above.

Hopefully, this minor issue has now been settled.

Likeminas (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chile&diff=249410495&oldid=249167741

The "someone else" who reverted the article is User:Selecciones de la Vida. I would not be surprised if he reverted the etymology section again. He does not want anything that I have posted to apparently stay in Wikipedia.

Your new edit is, without a doubt, a productive improvement.

The sentence “the Incas who had failed to (completely or partially) conquer the Mapuches” could be weasely depending on the context of the sentence or section. If the sentence and/or section deals with the Inca conquest of Chile, then that sentence would not be a weasel. Yet, if it is added in something as irrelevant to the point of that as the etymology section, then it does sound weasel.

By that standard, any word can be a "weasel word," but it all depends on the overall context of the sentence in order to determine whether it truly is weasel or not.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over addition of POV tag

User SMP0328 and myself cannot agree[22] whether it is appropriate to add a POV warning tag to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. I really want to avoid starting an edit war, putting the tag in, taking the tag out, over and over. The question seems simple to me: Is there presently a neutrality dispute? If yes, then add the POV tag, resolve the dispute, then remove the tag. I would appreciate outside opinion about whether there is presently a neutrality dispute, and if appropriate could another editor add the POV tag so I may avoid edit warring? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is a crass example of POV, and now it has been protected on a version without the POV tag. Please, someone tell me it is not necessary to get a consensus with the owners of the article before an obviously appropriate tag can be inserted. WP:PROTECTION is silent about this kind of situation. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a crass example of of POV. On the contrary, SaltyBoatr has a long history of POV bombing this very article. See: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution for more history on his egregious behavior. There was also an ArbCom activity after the failed MedCom addressing this very behavior by SaltyBoatr. The point of the POV tagline dispute at present is apparently a disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling on Heller by SaltyBoatr, not on the article itself. The article has been reviewed and is presently a Good Article, having been found to have no neutrality problems. Looks like a case of "deja vu" all over again with SaltyBoatr. (SaltyBoatr also edited this same article under an earlier "handle", as was addressed in ArbCom.) Yaf (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

neutrality issue.Osho.

hello I am quite new here .. less than a week old so excuse my unenlightened ways. the article that I am interested to tidy up has been nominated for its neutrality. the name of the article is Osho. the article is stagnating with two editors glaring at each other from opposite sides of the fence. I am attempting to bring them together to help create a good article. Is there anybody available to help resolve the issue? I would greatly appreciate it. thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

First, welcome to you as a newbie editor. My advice is always to concentrate on the future of the article rather than on editors' conduct. You might also consider editing a variety of articles rather than just this one. At least you will find it helpful to look at some featured articles, particularly some biographies, to see what qualities they have. In relation to this particular article, why not look back at the application for good article and why it failed. Agreeing a list of things to do can be a spur to collaborative editing. (It goes at the top of the talk page, someone can help you with the technicalities.) If the article gets bogged down on one point, put in a Request for comment. My final advice is to look through the sources used. Are they the right ones? Have they been properly reflected in the article? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that judith I appreciate the advice... the future.. yes looking at why the article failed requires improving is cool. request for comment like that too.. i'll look more tomorrow. thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC))